Psychological disturbance vs freedom without disorder

 "Death - if we wish so to name that unreality - is the most terrible thing there is and to uphold the work of death is the task which demands the greatest strength. Impotent beauty hates this awareness, because understanding makes this demand of beauty, a requirement which beauty cannot fulfil. Now, the life of Spirit is not that life which is frightened of death, and spares itself destruction, but that life which assumes death and lives with it. Spirit attains its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment. It is not that (prodigious) power by being the Positive that turns away from the Negative, as when we say of something: this is nothing or (this is) false and, having (thus) disposed of it, pass from there to something else; no, Spirit is that power only to the degree in which it contemplates the Negative face to face (and) dwells with it. This prolonged sojourn is the magical force which transposes the negative into given-Being."

George Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, (1770-1831), German Philosopher and Idealist

°●●°●°▪︎°○°▪︎

Hegel sounds as if we deviate into a negative state, unless our approach to death is seen as the internalization of struggle for it. Thus, the story of death is one of a life lived acknowledging it. Therefore, beauty is itself a thing unto 'death'. It requires the acknowledgement or at the very least awareness is born from momento mori. I think of this internal struggle that Hegel is commenting on - is purely satirical warfare extending throughout living life. (We must access it.)

- Marco ©️ 2026

•●°●°●

Marco Almeida Define "satirical warfare"

○°○°▪︎°▪︎

 you know. The kind of cross between two people that have differing views. Both one or the other. Both think they possess the right answer to something. Characteristically speaking, it is a process of critique vs correction over the object. Thanks.

- Marco

°●°●°○°○°

And to clarify 'critique vs correction' I am talking about what internal process we all have living within each of us. The ultimate question to find meaning between life vs death.

- Marco

an accurate depiction I've heard. . .

February 28th 2010 

Your reference to most golds ever is irrelevant as there are now more events than ever before. Norway won 10 golds in 1972 when there were half as many events. Canada's gold medal haul at this Olympics includes more than half their golds coming from events that didn't even exist back then (short track, snowboarding, moguls, curling). Any comparisons between this Olympics and those of yester years are silly.

The only two markers that matter for this Olympics are:
1 - The Canadian Olympic Committee publicly professed that the goal of 'Own the Podium' was to finish the 2010 Games with the most total medals. They themselves acknowledged that this was the goal of the program as recently as DURING THE OLYMPICS. Canada ended up not in first, not in second, but rather in third. And out of first by a fair margin. As clear as ice, Canada did not achieve its goal.

2 - In the last Olympics in 2006, Canada finished with 24 medals - only two less than they won this year after the millions of the 'Own the Podium' program!! And the two extra medals come from the new snowboarding event that wasn't part of the last Olympics! In other words, the 'Own the Podium' program resulted in NO NET MEDAL GAINS FOR CANADA!

It is indisputable that athletically Canada did not meet expectations at these Games. And when you add that to the botched lighting of the cauldron (supposed to be the signature moment of any Olympics) and the unprecedented horror of one of the facilities being directly responsible for an athlete's death, you have a failed Games. In fact, with the uncharacteristic blow-hard US-style TV coverage, these Games have made me ashamed to be Canadian.

-------------------------

So what makes this guy come off like an asshole^ is less adverse than when Ben Johnson became a model for steroids . When everyone comes out a winner; we forget that. Therefore, Ben Johnson was a winner. Vancouver was a failure. No one remembers that. No sap, just joy. What a blast.

the supernatural progress

 "To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." -- The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

What is authentic by design is :: what is Fantasy-made

 

Absolute Zero

Why people fail most is because they get in the unconscious habit, set up their traps, with no real understanding of self concept.

- Marco 

Truthful creativeness

 McConaughey

All bullshit. You don’t need hollywood to be an independently creative soul. McConaughey is genius. I believe his story. But he is not telliing us what he really knows. Which again, takes genius.

What is it about unbranding. What does it mean. Truthfully seeking what is. What is in you. Living INSIDE you?

- Marco

Truth and authenticity

What is the safest distance between things.

I love pictures, still.

Looking at them.

Seeing what is the words that draw you in - imagining it, there is nothing but nothing to alienate you from unknowing.

Nothing other than its perfect silence.

A moment in time.

It demanded so much more than you thought,

that this place specifically chose you.

Serving what you once thought was true of you

The picture happened for a reason, which was what brought you there.

I never chased the moment.

I learned.

I learned how not to.

Not be in pictures.

Because I never want to care.

Care about what is it other people will.

Will 

Will see.

- Marco 

What is the what is

 Fear is the mind killer that tests your patience 

Marco 

●°•●●°○°●°

You cannot fear the unknown because it is not known, in actuality, you only fear what you think you know.

°●○°○°○°○°○°○°

Test:  I can fear my executioner who is unknown to me, I can also accept fear.  I can accept the unknown.  Therefore, I can accept fear I have in my executioner. 

Debunk this.  

- Marco

°○●●•••••

You don’t fear your unrevealed executioner, you fear the known coming to an end by the executioner.

°●○°°▪︎○°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

False.  Entirely false.  Only a hypocrite would say that I fear my end according to an external variable that is unknown to me.  Think about that.  My entire argument is that what is unknown I give unconditional moral agency to.  If that moral agency is breeched, (my motive is fear based.)  Then, I ask are you qualified as a psychic.   

Answer: Marco is Socratic a philosopher.  

No one knows that.  

Not even you.

Hence, my argument.  Fear is not my own hindrance to the executioner.  If the executioner has an end in mind, I accept what is my fear as well as the unknown.

The unknown = I would argue is Socratic an end, that Socrates himself was poisoned due to his own courage.

End.

°●•●•●$▪︎

I can accept the unknown together with fear.  Therefore, your point is moot.  

Your claim says that I cannot.

- Marco

°▪︎▪︎○☆-

Acceptance is not fear.

°○○°°○#○#

 You don't know that.

- Marco

●°●°##○#

To accept the fact you only know what is known removes the thought of needing to know everything which is what creates that fear. In fact every emotion is created by thought and the attention of that thought. When you accept something you no longer give that thought attention thus the emotion of fear never arises pertaining that.

°▪︎°●°●°●°●°

In theory someone can state my refutation to what your proofs are: (is that my argument ontologically possesses a philosophical end point.) I stated this using your proofs act's as fallacy.  

Your fallacy pertaining to what is unoriginal in philosophy and that - that it's wrong.

I can eliminate your argument by simply adding that fear is not an emotion based on a thought process. It's that simple. It's a fallacy in its entirety.  

I did this by simply using a noun.

What is fear is as real as what is acceptance. (To that fear). Your entire premise persists. That fear is not an emotion I can feel only because I know it. Totally moot argument. Totally. Then, you use the same noun to negate my argument? Clever.

My argument is ontological. (As I stated.) Because only I fear is what I fear. Only god tells me what is fear. Unless you want me to spoon feed you.

If you can't understand my line of reasoning, god help us all.

- Marco

°○°○○°☆•

You’re right, fear of x presumes knowledge that x is bad.

°○▪︎○•@!!!!!!

But if x is bad I have already accepted the norm in that I accepted 'x' that I act only as a condition of my moral agency. What specifically are you saying is presuming I am fabricating my assessment.

- Marco

○°○°○°○°○°

And off the record against what you fail to understand. I said x = norm.  

1- That a thing in itself requires moral agency being the norm.  

2- There is no way I can ever know (because I would never presume an unfounded fear for 'x' being a material emotion).  

3- Therefore, why would I predict x = bad. Unless we all are confined to x's actions at all times. How do we exhibit or attempt anything acting on something unknown to us. 

My point is we cannot predict behavior based on fear.

- Marco

°•○○•••••

Conclusion: if fear what is equal to 'x'.  And fear presume that 'x' is bad.  Do we still not have the nature to act.  To possess moral courage is a test.  Fear in itself qualifies it place to register things in our thoughts.  As we register.  Therefore, fear is not trial and error, over a series of questions you ask a priori to you acting.  We arrive on this earth as we were born and then wondering what went wrong.  It does not claim diligence came before fear left your body.  The thinking mind registers feelings of fear that are put there in place of your mind.  My minds eye must be equal to goal (psychologically) based behavior.  What is negative can also seem unuseful.  If I hate what is unjustifiably implied from one end, then what is result based - also are found into theoretical proposition, which can be evil, although prove nothing that moves a cat from up the tree.

-Marco

Acting in blind faith

You don't lead in blind faith.  Blind faith doesn't matter.  It is your material quest for the root cause.  Root is the truth in philosophy. Which means you direct where your cause lies.  Fear over acceptance.  Respect over approval 💯.  

- Marco

Malfunctioning of the dreamliife

"a universal fact the the rich and endowed have resorted to deceit in order to conceal their various methods of control." - Jose Saramago

Misconceptional peace of a psychic mind

 I often wonder to myself. Can I make a difference. How do I make a difference and if so have I made any difference in the world.  That is my purpose. I just want to make a difference in this world no matter how misinterpreted or misunderstood my intent. I want to live my life with a purpose and that sense of purpose is recognized or at the very least carried to what my effort was.

I've been on this journey for some time now... my life has been better for it.

I feel gassed but not sure I have emptied or exhausted my tank. I am talking about my inner being. Purpose in life can mean anything but not purpose itself. Living life with purpose is a conscious thing. I turn on this endeavor as holding out some kind of hope in doing so. This is who I am.

Someone that wants to make a difference because I live life with purpose.  This is how I identify myself. It is not an abstract version of reality. But something you feel in the heart. 

Where is this heart of mine leading me. 

I suppose being my age the one true question I have is what makes true love possible.  

I say this because it can only be truth that you live life with intentions. And those intentions are to be lead with purpose to make the difference I speak of feel real.

- MARCO 

Last line of defense

 Picking a fight over something you know tou can't win.

Acting for performance art

 Perfect antithesis for method acting

°●°▪︎°○•▪︎°▪︎°○°

What acts as discrimination, prejudice vs what is being vs blood, faith and the light

 “The need of the immaterial is the most deeply rooted of all needs. One must have bread; but before bread, one must have the ideal.”

— Victor Hugo

In the name of cause vs guilt (i.e. nature)

 If something is not able to be known it does not exist.

==================

Bwhahahahah - lol. This seriously cracked me up on either on the basis of its simplicity or my own personal fault.

================

That is known.

================

Seriously. How is that? You are confusing what your premise stated. That, "if something is not able to be known it does not exist" = equates that you knew my response apriori to the fact I was in fact going to state something (unknown to you), although not that what we are saying is "unknowable" per se.

You are negating what is unknowable. Then, you are guilty of debunking it. Though it is a fallacy.

Come on man.

- Marco

================

Let's test this.

Let's trace that OJ Simpson did not murder his wife with the hypothetical - lets say - because there is an absence of evidence to determine Simpson was in fact guilty of murder. However, (as the hypothesis stated) for lack of evidence we can only say we don't know 'guilt', therefore, because x or y is unknowable. Therefore, we can only determine (that we cannot determine) guilt. Conclusion: since there is no evidence that OJ committed murder all it is / is psychologically independent if we believe that he IS guilty of a crime. Is this fair or is it a loaded response to a loaded question.

Debunk this.

- Marco

°●●°●°●°▪︎°

What is the gift of material implication (logical contradictory) to a loaded question.

Answer: how do we know that we do not know.

 “An integral part of totalitarian control is the attack on critical and independent thought. The appeal to facts is substituted for the appeal to reason. No reason can sanction a regime that uses the greatest productive apparatus man has ever created in the interest of an increasing restriction on human satisfactions—no reason except the fact that the economic system can be retained in no other way.” 

–Herbert Marcuse

•○○•••••••○○○••

What is appeal to intuition can apply. That it can effectually relate x or y vs what both reason or fact cannot.

- Marco

Marlon Brando

Marlon Brando  

The purpose of truth

 Can science ever determine what is morally right?

°●●•○°°▪︎°▪︎

You may predict your own behavior but predicting the behavior of people on a sociological level takes group theory and scientific appraoch in hypothesis or to that effect.

-Marco

°●°○°▪︎°▪︎°°▪︎°☆

No, not real science, the scientific method is a process of hypothesis, testing, measurement, and repeating till you come to a conclusion. 

Morality has nothing to do w this.

•●●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

Scott Winn I'm not so sure.  We can trace observational hypotheses through understanding how people behave.  I am not an expert in it but psychologically there is contagion to be had which we see on an empirical level.  For example: if we see that ICE is - can take immigrants (a group of ethnic minority) and establish that it's morally corruptible. But, another group (MAGA/elitism = government agency) allows for it (whatvis wrong).   Such behavior becomes a model for it.

I could be mistaken...

This is debatable, however. (i.e. for the purpose of philosophy)

- Marco

Material immaterialness'

 If my impulses were described as one whole of consciousness, this would be the factoring of fraction in the universe. > "Over the paper and canvas the hand traces out the same invisible network of movements, but the moment it settles on the material the movement is transformed into material, the sign reproduces a different time image, as if the nerves coming from the eye were about to join up with some new region of the brain, immediately contiguous, it is true, but the archive of some other experience and therefore the source of new information." - Jose Saramago

What defines what is freedom (style)

 

The cynic the test

If I learn.

Tempting is the sin.

God is our salvation.

May rein in its glory.

To release the pressures 

of all personal indiscretion.

- Marco

My kingdom for a horse

 Acting notes:

Feedback is made in what choices are through the act of listening.

Happiness (universal end) is Intelligence leaving the body (through action).

What is grace

 "Not simply beauty, rare as it is, but ugliness, too, which is much more common among us humans because we are not by nature beautiful but accept our ugliness with a peculiar grace which perhaps stems from the soul.  We go on molding our face from within, but this fleeting existence of ours never allows us enough time to complete the task: that explains why the ugly remain ugly, or even grow uglier when they abandon this meticulous task of inner molding or make a complete mess of things." - Jose Saramago

 @bigcanadiano: Good prose is the settlement between vices and virtues that once they collide becomes literature.

Marco

Respect if it ever lacked a core definition

 I have figured out that the minute someone passes you over for their own inadequacy is the moment all their self respect has been lost.

Marco