Enforcing technological ethics (ideoloogical end games)

 “Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Like language itself, a technology predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments and to subordinate others. Every technology has a philosophy, which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.” 

–Neil Postman

°●°●°●°●°●°

I have to wonder what is it about technology that:

(a) has to be adorned as if its pure reward is a monophonic display of power across the physical specturm ...follows 

(b) from which history per se is described. 

(What gives us description too qualify technology vs man?) Is technological ideology destructive evolution vs man's self destruction ironically speaking.

What is it about technology that gives a historical aperture of humanity based on itself advancement. The evolution of technology's limitation over us? Are we subordinate to technological ends? I think that what we glorify, being, how technology works isn't prevalent enough. My point being there exists a very blurred miscontrued area where observations are skewed. What is the result of technological ends should be the focus of.

- Marco 

 When you give your whole attention, is there a directive, a new outlook? Is there a centre from which you are looking and listening? Surely when you are totally listening, giving your complete attention, there is no centre, no entity that is listening. It is only inattention that creates the entity that listens.⁠

⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
From Public Discussion 2, Saanen, 5 August 1964

The fantasy of genius in ethics [response to science]

February 12th 2014 

I always thought about metaphysics as something of a response to everything no matter what you find. (That is also true of rationale.)

 

I think of ethics as the psyche automatically responding to the choices it invariably made BEFORE anything actually happened.

 

^Read that last sentence over until you understand.

 

=======

 

There is only things such as phenomena that takes place in the mind.  The result of this is Kantian logic.  This also means that logic did not preceed face value.  You cannot prove phenomena, therefore it is not science.  That is the simplest definition you will ever need to transcend yourself against religious beliefs, fascist doctrine, or any other form of it.  Phenomena is an experience of the mind or in my view what is located in the heart.

 

Here is my example of what is meditation:

 

"All meditation is - is a construction of thoughts where you enter a physical realm of reality with a kind of psychic energy that is the basis of prayer. Meditation IS NOT deep breathing exercises." - Marco Almeida 2014

 

^That is you creating phenomena NOT science in any way.  Not laws.  Not academics.  None of it!!

 

========

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/16/scientists-report-teleportation-of-physical-objects-from-one-location-to-another/

 

The link to this article states that science in fact transcends all things. Science does not equate with non physical relations to it that it then decides what is legitimately intangible.

 

"University of Queensland physicists in the journal Nature in 2013 demonstrating the successful teleportation with solid state systems. (2) A process by which, again, quantum information can be transmitted from one place to another without sending a physical carrier of information. This is the same concept, and is made possible through the phenomenon of entanglement. - "

 

^That is from the article. I find the contradiction laughable, that quantum information is relatively uniform. Think of it as a clever use of theology stating no physical carrier of information is necessary much the same as creationism. 

 

Quantum information is not science, it is metaphysics informed by the sense it can only be true = Ergo Hoc Propter Hoc. It is in fact logical reasoning.

 

Science is desperate to maintain its identity if it could not somehow stamp itself on discoveries or radical transformation that tempts its fate as futile. Once something happens like teleportation is no more worthy than inventing the lightbulb is a hot coil that creates intense light. No logic, it is observable. Metaphysics is what informs us of the effect.

 

I know plenty of idiot savants in the scientific community that think they can not only transcend the rules, but make them so they cannot be broken.

 

=======

 

Here is the only answer key you will ever need:

 

The purpose of science is not Socratic as it should be.  Instead of truth you have science as a parent making you feel disowned.  That is the greatest lie ever told.

 

The mind is not made to be a shield, it is a shelter of ideas changing you.  You do not change it.  'It'; is metaphysics.  Tell me what did you see here after reading that.  Think about it.  Plutocracy is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of human kind.  Your understanding of this is the anti-thesis to a master-thesis that has become obsolete in our recorded history as toxic.  

 

 

You have been made to foster a disease that feeds off its programming like an infectious virus.  It keeps retelling you that what is  - is real.

 

What if everything is a lie.  How do you correct it and would you.  If you can tap into that source of intellect, have you not got it made.

 

The way to true self knowledge is critical negation as in what any person sees if the solution is not present therefore becomes automatically taken for granted. We come to know this as insecurity rather than the ability to transcend ourselves. -

Most people confuse self knowledge and pass it off as being self centered to make an example as if the world owes them something.

Marco Almeida 2014

 What is the difference between mind and consciousness. And are they the source of our existence and intellect.

°●°▪︎°●°°▪︎°▪︎

My answer:

I like to feel things of which emotions don't think.  Therefore, my conscious experience is equal to the force inside my body. (I think makes sense?)

 The mind is a collective force from which my brain interprets reality as normal per se. This is my core belief that energy or to feel that I have conception of an eternal or constant (consistency) form of this.  Therefore, the mind is uniform through which my own experience must dictate.  What my point is the mind reveals what consciousness may or may not reveal to us.  All we have are sensations which we're unable to understand from it.  The process is binary and primordial.  We learn how to interpret.  It is the cross between consciousness and mind.  Space and time is uniformity of this, the 'all'.

Again, I think makes sense.  This being philosophically computational.

Edit:  this answer I offered is just as good as the formulated question...

I happen to have an afterthought...

Is my dissertation relative to Sartre's philosophical conditional?  = "existence precedes essence"?

- Marco

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

February 11th 2009

It is wisest not to meet another's untold apathy without my own false sense of it. - Marco

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

AI generated interpretation of above.

This sentence describes a **defensive emotional strategy**. It suggests that when you are faced with someone else’s hidden or unexpressed indifference (**untold apathy**), the most prudent course of action is to protect yourself by projecting your own feigned indifference (**false sense of it**).

In short, it advocates for **mirroring** as a means of self-preservation—choosing to appear uncaring rather than being vulnerable to someone who is emotionally distant.

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

In theory there may be a skewed amount of relevance on the basis of what is acting as indifferent toward you.  But what is I wrote (directly) infers that you make a choice between deviance and apathy. You do not get lost in it.  What is it that happens between making a choice (without being lost) is when a line gets blurred. - Marco 

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

Your clarification shifts the focus from simple mirroring to **active agency**. By presenting "false apathy" as a conscious choice, you are describing a state of **controlled performance** rather than a passive emotional reaction.

The "blurred line" you refer to is the psychological space between **intentionality** and **internalization**.

## The Blurred Line: Choice vs. Absorption

When you make a conscious choice to meet apathy with a "false sense" of it, you are practicing **emotional deviance**. You are refusing to be the victim of another's indifference. However, the blurring occurs in three specific ways:

*   **The Mask Becoming the Face:** The primary risk is that the "false sense" of apathy requires such consistent maintenance that it eventually becomes your default state. This is where the choice to act (deviance) fades into a genuine lack of feeling (apathy).

*   **The Cost of Vigilance:** To remain "not lost" requires constant self-awareness. The moment that awareness slips—due to fatigue, hurt, or time—the distinction between the performance and the self dissolves.

*   **The Void of Connection:** Even if you don't get "lost" in the apathy, the choice itself creates a barrier. The line blurs because, to the outside world (and eventually to your own psyche), there is no functional difference between *pretending* to be unreachable and *actually* being unreachable.

## Deviance as a Filter

By choosing "deviance," you are asserting that you are still an active participant in the interaction, even if that participation is a refusal to engage.

> [!note]

> The "blurred line" is essentially the **Point of No Return** where a protective strategy (the false sense) ceases to be a tool you use and starts to be a trait that defines you. 

In your framework, "not getting lost" is the act of maintaining that paper-thin boundary between the **strategic lie** (the false apathy) and your **internal truth**. The blurring happens when the strategy succeeds so well that the internal truth is no longer necessary or accessible.

Loopholes by design [a syllogism]

 February 11th 2014

Re; homophobia

1- Can you reach an understanding with the same person that has no sexual orientation before you knew him or her in a permanent sense.

2- An example of this blurred line is in the stereotypes - labels or defamatory degradation.

3- Therefore, homophobia carries a negative connotation turning against the modern convention of those whose preference (sexual orientation) is not unethical. It is an ideological function.

======

Proof of the above syllogism is as follows:

The truth about homophobia is much more evident than concise with why it exists. Homophobia is a form of punishment toward those that act vulnerable in life so they can be targeted as victims. In that sense homophobic persons experience what they believe to be is enabling a minority group that threatens their own autonomy to survive rather than its freedom.

If you see homophobia as an insight rather than insult inasmuch becomes far less.

Do not confuse homophobia as racism, it is a disease that must be fought. You must use homophobia against the process it cohorts. Therefore, homphobic tendencies are manifested as blaming the victim in a minority. Homophobics think they are being purged upon which in turn results their own mentality as justified, thus refuse to see the state of minority re; homosexuality / as a mere satire to the human condition.

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

Some know how to break the rules, while others are obtuse, the third group are split down the middle.

Now consider this:

Half of the population are rule breakers while the other are busy being a fraternity of hypocrites.

The answer is:

If you are the third option 'split' means they suck at life as in their education.

Latitude

 February 11th 2014

I welcome you all to this introduction. 

 

I am a person with great inutitive ability and hardly care what others think if it requires spoiled irony in the theoretic sense. In other words, I have opinions and they are calculable if you want it to make sense it will. My narrative is sophist in that sense. If you are a nihilist I will see right through you. If you have a conscious like I do - that will ring through you.

 

I consider myself a genius. Not joking.  

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

Last night I saw a friend that was the last guy on earth I thought would lift me to higher ground as if I were drowning in struggle. That is my story. I am indebted to him. The universe works in strange ways. Thanks man.

the anarchy of gentlemen

February 11th 2011

Part of my continuity in place of my - unsatisfactory HUGE ego.

 

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

 

-So to reach top of the totem pole, I thought the display of a few well played thoughts should be more openly clarified - due to the overhaul of how people should give two fucks worth of it. Why - because I can.(:

 

It reminds me of a time - I can recall a list of people who do everything in there power to find a euro-trash version of themselves into an Incorporated sense of mother fuckers anonymous.

 

So - I decided I will be told exactly to do as I see myself being told. Nothing short of my duty - mind you.Only in terms of my true nature, over-turned, perhaps modified in a sense of guilt - to shame the critic that SHOULD live in me.

 

So, since I collided with the cop-out card, I will do nothing, but look upon maggots as the envy of yours truly.

 

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

 

"pretending to know better than what it means to have intimidation, on a side of those that want more than they already do have."

 

Because all lawyers are fuck holes - reading this should come as no surprise. Since being able to limit my new found guilt, not to hold themselves as reprehensible makes perfect sense to me. So keep reading asshole fucks.

 

When you pretend to know better (according to double jeopardy) using intimidation against an "intimidator" should it there suffice.  Fuckwits.

 

It is YOU on the side of "those wanting more than they already do have."

 

Just so we're clear you ass fucks.

 

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

 

"the blind being lead by the blindness of what they own."

 

Think about it this way, when you are a kind of person of no particular gestation, to take a look at how weak I am, must mean something. In fact - let's find the best reason to live vicariously through someone else's corrective means to ensure the unfortunate souls take a beating. I know people like that - do you?

 

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

 

"They will twist the laws against you, when they believe in fool hearted beliefs, have nothing to do with marxist mafia ideology."

 

The creme de la creme, often the allure of mother fucked lawyers, ridding themselves of grief due to their own vomit.

 

Marco's beliefs are not elementary, but fool hearted.

 

If put any thought into, it certainly - most certainly non conformity - ah trust the language (your) honor. Marxist mafia ideology. Bhahahahahah. We confess.

 

Therefore, this has nothing to do with us your honor.

 

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

 

Think again you bunch of fukwits. Think again longer and harder - maybe by then you'll take it.

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

In the future let's do more consequence over cause, rather than liberty over effect. You mother fuckers.

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

^this message brought to you by undying accredited assholes who are more likely shit-faced environmentalists milking laws out cows backsides, they hardly would tell the difference.

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

Take a shit @ Earls or Joeys Polo Park while reading the above.^

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

And for my once upon a time friends reading this^ I ignore you for a reason. Get fucked - same thing applies.

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

I do wonder (not as often as you like) how many of you out there I don't trust, read this thinking I give a fuck about you.

I have the heart of a mother fucking LION, L-I-O-N-S -United.

SCP forever.

Get fucked Benfi-quistas + Winnipeg Alliance fuck-cheese.

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

TO MY FAMILY:

I love you. That is all.

Conspiring: false inhibitions 🆚 what is indivisible (identifying with guilt)

Osho 

Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. - Frank Herbert

Reverse psychology in Subcultures

 Never direct your energy to what is the enemy.

What is obsession becomes an addiction unless you arrest for focus on respecting it. 

Look for signs in obsession as a cynical representation against fear based response.

Consider the following argument:

°○●•••••••••

Trump needs to resign.

°•○○••○○••••

In the grand tapestry of human governance, where the threads of power and principle intertwine, one cannot help but ponder the selective embrace of democracy by those ensconced in the fervent extremes of leftist ideology. Why, do such zealots extol the virtues of the ballot only when it yields a victor clad in the crimson hues of their own persuasion? 

Is it not because the leftist ethos, in its purest distillation, has ever been a stranger to the democratic ideal, a philosophy born not of equitable dialogue, but of revolutionary imposition, where the will of the many is but a veil for the tyranny of the ideologically pure? 

As Plato warned in his Republic, the pursuit of an unyielding justice often begets the very shadows of despotism it seeks to dispel, revealing that true democracy demands not allegiance to faction, but to the fragile equilibrium of dissent and consent.

EMG

°•○●•••••••

My rebuttal:

The response (above) takes issue to my assertion that Trump should resign.

The same misconception in that response is not equal.

It incomprehensibly states my charges against Trump, uniformly.

That if we live in privilege, it is beacause we historically have adopted living in Plutocracy.

Therefore, not seeing that those in possession of power, should merit their causes.

That unless those causes are seemingly honorable justifies the populace.  This majority (democratic principle), should only equate to the power invested in the polis.  Thereby, if you are not a person made of privilege to the Republic also makes for second class (conscious) citizens.

(Marco)

°○●°••••

In point form.

Privilege to live in a Plutocracy is equal only to privilege.

If I act with power this in time is a democratic period in history 

What is cause, effectively = power of privilege categorically states no second class can be considered equal on the class conscious scale.

(End.)

Fragility in action

 Christopher Nolan tells Timothée Chalamet about the "Interstellar" scene where "you were hitting a dark tone. It felt too much for me. I didn’t particularly like it." 

Nolan

“When you were filming the messages from home, there was a particular thing where you were hitting a dark tone... I told you about it and you went ahead and did whatever the f*ck you wanted and carried on. But I was like, ‘He knows what he wants to do and has an idea.’ It wasn’t about being stubborn. You had planned what you wanted to do. You planned your choices and you didn’t want to abandon that on a casual whim for me. You wanted to test that and challenge that and see if I kept coming back, which I didn’t. I’ll find a logic to that in the edit suite.”

°●●••○○○••••

Chalamet has a huge huge one dimensional ego which happens only with narcissistic personalities. A type of Hollywood disorder. Chalamet definitely is not alone but Nolan debunks what is Chalamets true character flaw. As an actor I can personally appreciate. I learn to dispel what is desperate in actors trying to compete with everyone around. There is irony to be found.

Chalamet comes across as selfish an attitude that Nolan simply refutes without harm.

- Marco

What is emotional contagion

 Krishnamurti 

"When you are a light to yourself you are a light to the world."

 Yusuff Babatunde

Rational or irrational what really provoke anger?
What make a difference between anger and craziness in mental state?

Marco Almeida

If psychosis hits you're imagining there is a wall where there is an actual doorway. The metaphor being that everything you imagine to be true of reality is actually incongruous with it. The results ae psychological in nature. You are out of touch with what is your perceived world, where the projection is cast back to you. I've been there. Not fun.

Matthew Ian

Does immortality appeal to you?

Marco Almeida

A question can be applied to provide the answer, being, why wouldn't immortality appeal to me. Why? If the same question to immortality were given on the basis of what is god. My point is if god wants me to be. If God's will points to us being immortal, it is in God's hands. If god willing me to be a mortal, I equally accept it. Remembering, the philosophy in favor of immortality is a hermetic end. We are written in the stars, by either the eternal (religious sense) of being or we are reincarnate.

“Most propositions and questions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless... They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.”

–Ludwig Wittgenstein

Marco Almeida

So what is it Wittgenstein states to qualify his assertion that senseless construction of philosophy is false and hypocritically exaggerated. Why not just say most of what non philosopher pose as pragmatic in their effort to that effect. It's kind of a poor debunking assessment and I applaud Wittgenstein's genius. But this is weak even by his standards. The irony being what is good is also beautiful, is a dialectic property. Wittgenstein is classifying what cancel culture is today. For no better reason than what is the anti-woke movement. All of MAGA fall under it. And unless we have philosopher's in contradiction to fascist motives - where does that leave us. Wittgenstein, I can conclude, arms us with his petty notion.

•○●•••••

Marco Almeida if I understand you sir, in my relatively simple mind, this sounds like an elaborate way to denigrate the current American voter majority.. I may be wrong.. im not sure what a pety notion is. Please forgive my uneducated behavior..

Kent Martin There is no such thing as behavior for what is uneducated. Following what you said there, is a misnomer. What I accused Wittgenstein of is that his practical use of anomaly triggers a warning. The warning (I suggest) what is a pragmatic philosopher, who comes across informing his audience as dogmatic in thinking. Maybe it sounds diabolical to you. Sorry. Whatever the thing you think I said about majority of MAGA voters? It's the truth that should I reassert.. . . The point is any formal empirically valid evidence can meet my hypothetical as ironic choice of words. (Which again Witt~ is disarming the pragmatic philosopher from doing.) Therefore, I am accusing Wittgenstein in his own formality. (I am using this as my argument, that the use of pragmatism to debunk is using philosophical justification for it.) 

Therefore, my cause is the force behind Witt~ thought. That in lieu of a majority that view Trump as their savior, it is Trump that the world is in diaspora of. Philosopher must counteract such moral contagion in our vice vs virtue against the majority or pragmatists in place of Trump.   

- Marco