For the love of Socrates

February 2nd 2010

 There are a few thing's that come to my mind, from which - I have found no meaning. This is a rather odd predicament to be in, since - trying to uncover what those thing's are - based on nothing but myth. In order to move across this threshold, let's say into reason, come from such belief system's otherwise known as dogmatic in relief. I see such thing's in searching for answer's, which I myself haven't arrived to conclude. One that truly is stuck in such muddy water, is that of - do what you love. (Not to eb confused with as -so what you love in -life. Simply, do what you -love. Then, that operative term, seems so irrational, perhaps even radical to lie about. . . because in factuality, I don't believe there is a person in the universe that could truthfully say that is the case from which they offer.

Really? I never thought about love, in such a context of doing, it just doesn't seem nor does it sound reverent enough. (Though I believed.) Let alone love, if there were such a thing, someliken commodity - we call Valentine's Day - I prefer to call it by it's instructive name, maybe even narcissistic. But never have I thought about love, in any genuine way.

So that got me to answering this quest for unknown love spelt ( l - o - v - e doesn't help either,) reaching my wit's end.

I finally figured it out - that what you do, is not what you do for a certain attainable cause, which it's end result is naturally the 'l' word. It is that no matter what you do, you are permitted unless otherwise chosen, to add the 'l' word in place of that thing (which can be replaced with anything else.)

This isn't so much about antiquity, the chicken/egg who first?

But - that age old question, doesn't even truly exist, which means in reality the lie is in place of the myth, or myth in place of the lie -whichever works. Then, after revisiting the truth, how I asked myself what I felt about it wasn't so simple. I actually think - it's nothing personal - it's okay - l word - I forgive.
So apology is met with authority, 1 word, has always taken the position of myth in place of it that it lie's so prudently yet so often, which the imagination provides itself.

Imagination - I demand the next apology from you immediately or else. (There is no response.) I want a reply! (There is no response.)

February 2nd 2011

What is my true spiritual meaning brought about, attributed, to my own sacred devotion, if at all - not subjective inasmuch defiance or my dedication to it.

Can I not connote or infer a double meaning there^ or at the least very desirable state (e.g. Reminded "least desirable"). How must I thereby infer such (a) state over satire without (b) improving myself first - before (c) internalized suffering of a (d) dogmatic nature.

Therefore, the same can be said is dogmatic.

In sacrosanct terms: including the use of language in all variability, - Cannot also then (of religion or any for that matter) be true.

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

Revised^

I am not advocating, I am promoting my own experience of depression through channels associative of myself. These channels are not of choices, but of thoughts independent of myself.

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

This journey I have taken my heart to, required of me great amounts of suffering, of decisions contradicting to my sense of self. I might say excruciatingly difficult.

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

To have found myself in this turmoil, might in effect be lost.

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

you people have absolutely no idea - zero. Do-es you?

 "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself."

-- from The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

 February 2nd 2014

Hate to me is a sign of success, not because it is contempt against me being made - but because it takes a certain impartiality meant only to be hurtful with NO amount of respect given. It tells me of what imaginary beliefs people have. I see the same type of individuals look hating you against your will. That is empowering to prove it wrong, even if it is in my own mind.

- Marco

Mr. Mister - Kyrie (Official Video)

From the farthest point of empathy

 Not everything has to be a work of art, but that shouldn't ever stop someone for being an artist

- Marco 

Universal Sacrament

 Unless you act as a slave to god then you must answer as a slave to no one else.

Marco

Guitar 🎸

guitar 🎸    

I began by picking up a  guitar for the first time about just over a year now. I consider myself to be still in the beginner phase which is something I think isn't a bad thing. On the onset I believe forging a real relationship with someone who is genuinely attracted to music and wants to share their knowledge is infinite in this progress I've made. To interact with the instrument has changed my life and my outlook in general. A new found love. It's been inspirational and motivational for me.

I have hit about 100 hours of practice in over a year, but that is just stating I am progressing at a stretched out pace. It takes measure of your skill development and I have a long way to do things to get where I want. I figured about 500hrs of practice will benefit the cost of taking lessons.

Practice is key. But unless you take an approach that initially both (my) intent and focus on guitar is to learn how to practice (as opposed to conceptually 'immediately' learning how to play the instrument properly). This takes on imagination together as your journey to strengthen the ability you aim for. edit: progress is in my belief by design. I started playing guitar at 47yrs old. I plan on achieving my goals. It will change you, who you are and life in general.

That's all I got. . .

- Marco Almeida

Krishnamurti :: Go beyond yourself

Go beyond yourself :: Krishnamurti  

vulnerability of a Sat.nite Valedictorian

 January 31st 2010

Secretively, I've come across some thing's. . . hidden from view, long after I found them. Not that this is something - you would come across before. It's that when you find that thing, it's traced back to a heartening disquiet.

I can see many different thing's - which throughout the course of a day, hardly seem reasonable to have a real look into. I suppose it's a variation between extreme's. On the one end, there may seem to be what appears as though your entire existence depends. Although in reality, there is no use for the mention of it. That is a cause for polarity, or a case making it impossible to consider human condition, or quality of life as rare.

Some other thing's are haphazardly unaware of their true significance, such as those of a doctor, or a lawyer, a law maker, or a deal breaker, all of these are thinking synonymous with detail. With the same virtue of a detective is to Sherlock Holmes, as a space cadet is to NASA, these item's which relay message's of deliverance take great will, perhaps even power (less-than-scale) to achieve them. None of those thing's require that I know, requires a great deal of commitment, even before the knowledge, is applicable (acquired then certifiable).

However, while all these are thing's which point to a loss of word's, come's the reality of inopportune moment's, which may also contaminate my thinking.

I am not a doctor - nor ever will be - I will never be a lawyer - I will never board a space shuttle - I will never finger point. But there has to be something which I may have missed along the way. (Which this perhap's cannot willingly condone as my personal space being held against me.)

I believe to speak of this place, not so much a dream life is to a world of fantasy, but what I can attribute to myself similar to the air inhaled, then lungs, filled, to the relaxing muscles, a breath, then exhaled. I guess - I am thinking of meditation perhaps. In a world of my where action meet's it's ultimate fate, is that what knowledge of the after-life may preside itself?

I think, in my most desired state of mind, be it my non-choice for 'professional' occupation, I would resist to calculate as some form of miracle. In fact, I could equate this belief, as an also - reminder of - ultimate fate. (Some would call this divine intervention. . .) I digress to nothing in that context.

What I am willing to formulate, is my vision, of what or if rather, would I want such an ultimate fate to be. The answer is simple: I would want to be a boy, not a man, but return as a boy. It is this single undying wish, that so much gave emphasis to the nocturnal events before day breaks, that captivates my mind for measure.

It seems awfully rude awakening such an advanced idea, to make-believe, I've waited for this revelation of truth, to supersede all other commitment's within action, people provide toward career choice. Almost bizarre -would -be -the- word. (But, something in me, has told me - that this is not the case.)

Maybe - I've demoted myself to a defeatist attitude, whereas the true meaning of life can only be found if I accept defeat - if where - possible. What other choice do I have. Is this a form of final appeal, to divine intervention, I say not. Yet, as so much of the world passes by, without a thing to show for it, I am leading myself to believe, that perfect image of making myself into a man, as I grow oldest - my undying wish is to transform back into a boy. Not some simple-minded retort, of the kind lost in touch within reality. To be a boy, is in this thought, quite more powerful a metaphor to consider, for everything I have found after, before it was even discovered.

If this lacks example, I do not claim that I am fit to be a role model, I couldn't fake that much better. A role model who lacks the fortune of man, but fit's the description of a returning to the state of a boyhood dream - can in fact - equate to a revolutionary construct of conception. Some would dear say, an absurd formulated misconception of the truth; how dare he.

I would hardly dismiss this as the factoid of that which it surrender's to. Just being the boy, again. Only stranger than in fiction.

End Game (the Government of Canada sweepstakes as explained by Marco Almeida)

End Game 

I want to gather attention to this in particular subject matter as it follows theoretically:

The federal reserve (government) is not federal. It has stockholders private corporations with stockholders.

All you need to know is addressed in the next series of qualifiers:

1- Government creates IOU's
IOU's are bonds
Bonds create national debt

2- IOU's are "swapped" to create currency.
Treasury (Canada Revenue Agency) sells bonds to the banks (Bank of Canada).
Banks sells national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve. (Government of Canada)
Federal Reserve owns the banks.
Federal reserve writes cheques with $0 Balance (Infinite Account)
Cheques go to banks creating currency.
Bonds are issued to the Federal Reserve vs. Currency that the Treasury adopt as a matrix of all its monetary gains.

3- Banks deposit the cheques then lend out money and redeposit it and lend it out again. This magnifies CURRENCY supplied exponentially as a product.

4- considering these variable's we work for are TAXED.
We pay tax to the Canada Revenue Agency which informs our variable earnings to the Bank of Canada who then pay principle x interest on Bonds that are issued to the Government purchased by the Government in a balance of $0.
EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT OWNS IS PREDICATED ON THE FACT IT HAS NO MONEY BUT YOURS TO PURCHASE POWER OF BONDS = CURRENCY due to its inflation.

5- INFLATION = is a debt ceiling delusion.
Inflation is designed to increase level of debt so that it collapses on its own weight. This is to ensure the process of spending recycles itself through bonds, the purchase of bonds, the distribution of bonds and their return. No matter the collapse, the bonds will be issued to restore the loss incurred on debt. Essentially Bonds create debt to create currency then redistribute bonds purchased by the government than issued to its primary targets - the consumer.

6- the Bank of Canada that own the government make a profit selling debt to the government based on bonds it bought with an account of $0. The government just keeps buying bonds to erase the cost of debt so that currency is kept afloat.

7- Banks make a profit when the government pays them interest from a phantom chequing account that has $0.00.
The government pay 6% interest on the OWNERSHIP of the government SECRET OWNERS that funnel money to the Banking sector.

In conclusion:

Disparity of wealth between rich/working class only possible because we do not use real money we use currency. This is a form of enslavement. The Government issues bonds. The bonds is a promise to pay tax in the future. The government causes debt so it can pay back a premium to the banks from an account that has a balance of $0.

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money Ep 4

Disambiguity

 Sydney Sweeney says she's not here to talk politics after being labeled 'MAGA Barbie': "I’m in the arts."

“I’ve never been here to talk about politics.”

“I’ve always been here to make art, so this is just not a conversation I want to be at the forefront of. And I think because of that, people want to take it even further and use me as their own pawn. But it’s somebody else assigning something to me, and I can’t control that.”

“I’m not a political person. I’m in the arts. I’m not here to speak on politics. That’s not an area I’ve ever even imagined getting into. It’s not why I became who I am.”

“I became an actor because I like to tell stories, but I don’t believe in hate in any form. I believe we should all love each other and have respect and understanding for one another.”

via Cosmopolitan.

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

Take a hike, sister. What is the point of being an artist in this day and age by taking the easy way out. Both superficially and typically cowardice (much less her talent put into question) are an apathetic aversion inflicted onto the masses. She has in her way the mentality a five year old would have no reasonable expectation. This is real life. Sweeny pretends for the camera [and it translates] as if she's lost the plot. This keeps the score of how Sweeny acts in film. However, the reality Sweeny makes what is less than obvious. Sweeny answers shallowly as an alibi without the guise into what it takes being a capable artist.

Let's not cower. This period in history demands our attention.

- Marco 

“In reality, freedom is aristocratic, not democratic. With sorrow we must recognize the fact that freedom is dear only to those men who think creatively. It is not very necessary to those who do not value thinking.”

–Nikolai Berdyaev

Authored by: Jimmy Bimmy Jensen

A Metaphysical Argument for Intellectual Design (Non-Theological Form)

This argument is not about morality, psychology, existential fulfillment, or religious preference. It does not begin with meaning, value, or spiritual intuition. It begins at a more fundamental level: metaphysics. Specifically, it asks whether a worldview can coherently account for the preconditions required for rational inquiry itself. Any worldview that employs reason must be able to explain what reason is, why it has authority, and how it relates to reality. If it cannot, then it may function pragmatically, but it fails as an explanation of the world it presumes to describe.

Atheism does not fail because it is emotionally thin or insufficiently poetic. It fails because, at the level of ontology, it lacks the resources to ground the very tools it uses to argue. Logic, truth, normativity, evidence, explanation, and rational obligation are not optional accessories to thought; they are the conditions under which thought counts as thought at all. A worldview that must presuppose these features in practice while denying them in theory is not merely incomplete. It is structurally unstable.

The moment one engages in argument, several commitments are already in place. One assumes that truth is objective — that beliefs can be correct or incorrect independently of preference, culture, or utility. One assumes that logical norms are binding — that contradictions ought not be affirmed and that valid inference compels assent regardless of desire. One assumes that reasons have normative force — that evidence does not merely cause belief, but justifies it. One assumes that cognitive faculties are at least generally oriented toward truth rather than systematically detached from it. These are not discoveries reached through argument. They are what make argument possible in the first place.

This point is crucial. These commitments are not optional hypotheses within rational discourse. They are its preconditions. To deny them while arguing is performative incoherence. To rely on them while refusing to ground them is metaphysical debt. Any worldview that participates in rational explanation is already ontologically committed to these features, whether it explicitly acknowledges that commitment or not.

Under strict materialism or naturalism, however, reality is exhausted by contingent physical states and their causal interactions. Everything that exists is ultimately describable in terms of matter, energy, space, time, and lawlike regularities. Yet none of the foundational features of rationality fit comfortably within this inventory. Logical validity is not a physical property. Truth is not identical to a brain state. Normativity — what one ought to believe — cannot be reduced to descriptions of what neurons do. Correctness is not measurable. Rational obligation has no mass, location, or causal profile.

This creates a category mismatch. Rational norms are indispensable to inquiry, yet absent from the ontology permitted by naturalism. The worldview requires them to function, but lacks the metaphysical space to contain them.

Naturalistic explanations can describe how humans reason, which cognitive patterns evolved, and why certain beliefs are adaptive. What they cannot explain is why one ought to believe what is true rather than what is merely useful. They cannot explain why invalid reasoning is wrong rather than merely inefficient. They cannot explain why logical necessity holds universally rather than locally or conventionally. Descriptive facts about behavior do not generate prescriptive authority. Physics can tell us what happens; it cannot tell us what ought to be believed. This is not a semantic confusion. It is an ontological gap.

The problem deepens when evolution is invoked as the foundation of cognition. If cognitive faculties arise solely through selection for survival efficiency, then truth-tracking is incidental rather than essential. Evolution selects for behaviors that promote reproduction, not for accurate metaphysical beliefs. False beliefs can be adaptive. Illusions can confer advantage. There is no guarantee that cognitive systems shaped exclusively by survival pressure will reliably track truth beyond what immediate utility requires.

Yet rational inquiry presupposes precisely that reliability. When one argues, one assumes that one’s reasoning is not merely useful, but truth-conducive. This assumption cannot be derived from evolutionary theory without circularity, because one must already trust reason to trust the theory explaining reason. Without an independent grounding for the alignment between mind and reality, confidence in rational inference collapses — including confidence in atheism itself. This is not a psychological objection. It is a self-referential one.

Logic intensifies the difficulty further. Logical laws possess properties that physical entities do not. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, necessary, and prescriptive. They do not describe how people in fact think; they govern how one ought to think. A contradiction is not merely uncommon. It is incorrect. This normativity cannot be explained by appeal to neural behavior, social convention, or evolutionary habit without losing its authority. If logic were merely emergent, then its violations would be deviations, not errors. But rational practice treats them as errors. The authority of logic transcends physical causation.

Mathematics sharpens the puzzle even more. Mathematical structures are abstract and non-spatiotemporal, yet they map the structure of physical reality with astonishing precision. These structures are not discovered by microscopes, yet they govern phenomena across scales — from quantum behavior to cosmological dynamics. There is no necessity, under materialism, that reality be mathematically intelligible at all. The universe could have been chaotic, opaque, or only locally regular. Instead, it exhibits deep, stable, and elegant mathematical order.

The correspondence between abstract rational structures and the fabric of physical reality demands explanation. To call it coincidence is not an explanation. To call it brute fact is an admission of explanatory termination precisely where understanding reaches its greatest depth.

Scientific practice itself rests on metaphysical assumptions it cannot justify. Science presupposes the uniformity of nature, the stability of causal relations, and the legitimacy of induction. These principles cannot be empirically proven without circularity, because every empirical justification already assumes them. Science functions because these metaphysical conditions hold, not because science establishes them. A worldview that denies metaphysical grounding while depending on metaphysical stability inherits a debt it cannot repay.

Information introduces the same pattern again. Information is not identical to matter or energy. The same physical substrate can encode radically different content depending on formal organization. Meaning does not reside in atoms; it arises from structured relationships. DNA is powerful not because it is chemical, but because it is algorithmic. Formal organization — an abstract feature — determines function. Abstract structure therefore exerts real causal relevance when instantiated in matter. A purely physical ontology struggles to explain why abstract order should govern physical outcomes at all.

At this point, atheism typically appeals to brute fact. The laws are brute. Rationality is brute. Logic is brute. Intelligibility is brute. Normativity is brute. But brute facts do not explain. They mark the boundary where explanation is refused. When that refusal occurs precisely at the point where mind-like features appear — reason, structure, meaning, normativity — the worldview is no longer neutral. It has drawn a metaphysical border and declared it off-limits.

This is not methodological humility. It is metaphysical stipulation.

Intellectual design, understood metaphysically, does not appeal to gaps in scientific knowledge. It does not insert agency where mechanisms are unknown. Instead, it addresses a different question entirely: what kind of reality could generate the conditions that make science, logic, mathematics, and rational explanation possible in the first place? When reality exhibits features characteristically associated with intellect — rational order, abstract structure, normativity, intelligibility — it is metaphysically coherent to consider intellect as fundamental rather than accidental.

This is not inference from ignorance. It is inference from structure. It is not “we don’t know how, therefore mind.” It is “the deepest features of reality behave like products of rational organization, and explanations that deny rational foundations fail to account for that behavior.”

The true divide, then, is not between belief and unbelief. It is between two explanatory ultimates. Either the foundational features of reality are contingent, unexplained, and brute — or they are grounded in rational structure. Atheism is free to choose brute fact, but brute fact is not an explanation. It is the point at which explanation is abandoned.

A worldview that relies on reason while denying its grounding may function operationally. It may calculate, predict, and manipulate. But it remains metaphysically incomplete. A universe intelligible to this depth does not resemble an accident awaiting description. It resembles a structure whose intelligibility is not incidental, but intrinsic.

That is the metaphysical case for intellectual design.

I am born a slave and I will die a slave

 “Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language.”

–Ludwig Wittgenstein

If law is to a slave what is mutability on the omission of guilt . . .

 Where there is attention there is silence. But that silence is like a flame. You understand - alive, burning - not burning anything away, not - it's like - you understand? - it's like the sun, etc. So attention means complete cessation of the self. You try it: when you are attending you have forgotten yourself, there is no self. The self exists only when there is inattention, when there is no attention. Love is attention. I don't know... Not sex, not pleasure, not desire, which Americans have reduced to sex and pleasure, all that. So attention means silence and that silence is love. Without love there is nothing.⁠

⁠
⁠
⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
Scientists Question & Answer Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA - 21 March 1984⁠
⁠
⁠

Ignatieff sounds off amidst NDP smearing

 January 29th 2009

Well, it sounds too good to be true - truly. The Liberals are scrubbing the deck, while Jack Layton walked the plank to form a desperate plea bargain which some thought maybe seal a coalition government. How things never change. If we do what everybody else is doing, it's all going to be okay - . This is unbelievable, to conceive that only 2 months ago, the mock coalition government was ready to take full swing. Instead, the political climate has swayed in favor of full metal jackets. What this means is simple with the kind of deficit which were it to become unavoidable into the billions of dollars in excess. The meaning involved is to sustain the economy in a way, which will help overcome any loss of jobs. The cost is in creating a budget which would increase it's spending directly into the working class, less - into the corporate or private sector post ergo monetary inclusion. It used to be that enough money were it spent on corporate or tax relief, would help gain in the private sector, that in turn would limit government spending. Therefore, the idea is not to decrease our rate of inflation, but a balanced budget will in effect not increase the rate of inflation due to spending a surplus of cost.

In my analysis I've discovered 2 things, that the government is no longer 'forced' to actually pay itself out into the same monopoly (i.e. Canada) it regulates its spending. The capital means to which a control of assets (e.g. revenue) comes from the hands of an ad hoc hypocrisy.

Thanks for the memories. The blind are now free at last. Well, at least the igloo's have thawed. Oh wait, that's due to climate change. The next thing you know, our brilliant government will inform it's head of state to announce, igloo's across the globe are melting into a vast rate of unprecedented proportion, this is surely a sign of the times to warrant our suspicions all along, that - climate change is upon us. In a pure moment of clarity, the rest of us can consume the satisfaction of just how inaction delivers a mighty message.

Yes, we live here. Yes, you can buy that hybrid now. Yes, we screwed up.

It's not the trend, it's the fashion. Did I forget to mention that the blind have been freed at last?

If sincerity were a holiday. . .

 January 29th 2009

Some, where I proceed to place, others, as I proceed to gather, but, most of all in the right frame of mind - everything seems to be almost surreal. Yet, there is nothing worth the thought. To me, this is the least endearing part of my life. It is an abstract kind of journey, a retentive - or - holistic relapse of the sort, where the things that you see before you are not really there. However, everything is connected in some peculiar measure of total fascination. That is to say, this is a brain, which in every direction it turns toward the opposite reference it came. There, by which focused upon the mind could only be asking one question, in relation to being, what should I be asking myself. There is no reply. Says-who-says the mind, that moment, all is present in a clarity that a perfect peace offers, a kind of wherewithal which without one would not decipher its whereabouts the relic of one's personal wealth in serenity.

Why Marco Almeida will be the next Fernando Pessoa

January 29th 2011

To be a king = is to laugh

 

Vulnerability = is to respect another persons boundaries both, of morality and spirituality.

 

Perfection = immortality is unattainable

 

To cross boundaries = attempted suicide is not a human condition, it is a state of satirical warfare or a bracing of human psyche on emotive levels (cognition). The similar approach is taken, if 'trapped' is fear based emotion, or if patterned recognition allows your dream state into its opposite effect. (I.e. A state of readiness) This may as well appear to be of readiness in action - reveal, consequences, unknown "alien" variables which act on truth.

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

This will probably (most likely) be the most important thing you will ever read. Functional truth is ones most endearing quality, only my friends wear it.

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

Have you ever seen the movie Matrix Revolution? The ending: where Neo, completely detonates the matrix. Why is that? More importantly, why has the movie ended that way; if Neo's only intention was to fight for himself? Was he really recognizable, or even partially relevant to know nothing of himself? This is a valid question: because the entire spectrum of that which requires your own sense of comfort, what does that mean "sense of comfort". Where does it end, can you stop it, if you could, would it mean anything if you were liberated enough to recognize the other sense of discomfort? That "discomfort" means lying to yourself over living life pure as a mortal. (i.e. can you see

'mortal enemies' which are falsely accused)

Mortal enemies are not a science. Can you recognize it yourself?? That is a paramount question. A question of ethical proportions but of incredible weakness. Can you suffer those types of consequences, at the expense of linear activity, (e.g. recreational lifestyle) whilst going through time and space just actively roaming around freely, with love in your back pocket but fear in your hearts. Would life be worth living a lie; if it suffocated your truth of living to be free or happy to be living?

Can you reach that critical turning point, without lying to yourself about it, but it alienated everyone around you.

The critical part is, you are the only one who notices it.

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