Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Personal secrets in nature's artillery

I have to admit that being in acting for as long as I have studied. What I have come across here is a revelation. I have found myself in the making of a part, apart from creating a character, being that character, and living that role. I have retreated in relapse. Where I don't feel as connected. As connected as I should rather than just be in the moment. There is a difference involved which is a line you have to recognize if it is there. It's a subconscious thing.


- Marco


Stella Adler :: maturity as actor


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


May 26th 2026

The word that comes to my mind is respect. What is respect. Respect in that I am recognized. Recognized for my contribution to doing something. I find disrespect from the impartial observer, is a sign I am moving in the right direction. This is my sixth sense. The idea that defines truth on a measure of my self conduct I experience not inward, but outward for the world around me, This is in its function cognitive dissonance on a larger scale, This is what I think of when creating anything worthy of respect. I become smaller than the idea I have. Much like being aware that the sun doesn't revolve around me, but that the self is always aware of this - is a crucial element in how I examine everything critically. If I get belittled, it is out of my control. And I move on. This is how I learn and remain curious. And if that speaks to anyone? It means I have an objectivity in mind. Nothing will change that. And if you have this type of awareness of yourself, you should share it because it benefits everyone around you. It has taken me from point a to z.

- Marco from Winnipeg ๐Ÿ


respect


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


True statement.: After pursuing philosophy, I came to know that I can become a philosopher whether I get anything in the world or not. >
I didn't venture into philosophy. It's a calling. It's about filing your curiosity under god and eliminating the causes of a world which cowards make up the asylum. I wrote that last sentence at this time. Because of what I know. IF you can't stay curious for the same reason the imagination works - what you don't know is how bad philosophy gets without first valuing yourself only. I have been blind sided in my work throughout my 20 years of doing philosophy. That is where you must go. But it means you forfeit everything in your mind to perform it. Philosophy - good philosophy - are thoughts made to inspire on a simplistic level. I may be in kindergarten from that place of origin (which is the point here.) What I mean is: I can honestly say I am more interesting than most people that disagree with me.
Good talk.

The ultimate premonition

 If a simple trace of my conscious product were true, then made available on an assembly line, there would be no purpose to that.


- Marco (May 26th 2010)

May 26th 2013

 It is never too late to be what you might have been. - George Eliot

May 26th 2014

 Reciting that same phrase quietly to myself and it begs the question am I one of the people who love you. If my answer would be 'no' the phrase then becomes a rhetorical suggestion of plain ignorance and mute. Unless you understand it, the stupidity is as pointless as the phrase itself.


- Marco


○°●°●°▪︎•




May 26th 2016 (Me. From a to z.)

 I don't have the courage to be a pretentious, self serving asshole just to make it big in this world.

- Marco


●°●•▪︎•●•▪︎•


I have come to a realization that the worst part about being who I am today has never factored. I haven't found myself. I feel like my life is a lie. I have lived in an empty field of existence and this has been my greatest revelation to date.


- Marco

May 26th 2019

 This was meant for another time inspired specifically to predict a future that has failed in its course of action, which is why - why I feel reclaiming the need is my prupose.


- Marco

Monday, May 25, 2026

 What I need is a woman that sees my exotic nature and what it feels like to hold on.


- Marco

May 25th 2014

 It doesn't suck being me what the real tragedy is - is you.


- Marco

May 25th 2018

 I am Canadian so I have the right to say this. I feel I am in a culture that is so unromantic in its entirety that my own personality is alienated as result. Culture should be guided by an element of romance and mystery to it. My intentions go to die in the mist of such emotion.


- Marco

May 25th 2022

 It leaves little to the imagination. As an adult I can see me for the person I've become. I am a fucking good person. I know it. I feel it in my heart. I always have.

What feeds my sensibility is that for all those times I felt indifferent wasn't despite myself. If people hate me they hate me for no reason choose to anyway. I have no control over it.
I look back and see now how human it's made me. It's funny how much I care about what other people think. Maybe that's my problem. Rewind what I just said... I care about what other people think. Not what they think they know about me. No. What I care about is being treated equally. It baffles me how many people can't translate the good life other than carrying an elitist brand of thought. Even if they are unaware of being so conditioned.
I always have been a free spirit. And the faith that I have invested in me I also have invested in others. I will never let go of that kind of wisdom. I openly share it.

- Marco

May 25th 2023

 That's a paradoxical statement (false dichotomy). Lincoln may have meant that discipline in his estimation is a shade of contradiction. That what we want actually cannot be realized due to an indirect conflict. Therefore, interestingly enough the cause if something 'we want most' is that of sovereignty for a certain group? Is that attainable if at all. However, if I applied the same calculation to want total independent sovereignty in terms of absolute freedom without responsibility (free from discipline) then asks; what is Lincoln left with.

- Marco




obtuse




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



I think that is the model for reality based thinking. That the present is always - always the naming of a word for something to describe something you love. The object of your affection. Beauty is in the perception of it.
Perception is what we pay attention to, closer to learning what makes the experience we have but in a closed system that what we know is reality in the present state of it. An open system (which we see reality in its natural state not disorder) can be measured. e.g. observing
So I guess you're right. Perception is in the present as reality. What we experience is a result of our postulation of it as theoretical.
In conclusion, awareness being in between what is experience and what is thinking.
experience (present) -------> awareness <------- thinking (reality) = thought displacement (to instruct, to observe)
Reality is what gives us instant perception. How we measure it through experience and observation is a truth-experiment in what's represented as a psychological mapping for something objective.


What is perception is acting as practical or asks questions as in learning what perception acts on. To perceive every action as if socially scientific for same purpose our reality is thought of, comes in the form of a experience from which we turn over. The interval between perception and what the intellect sees on is the structure. i.e. theoretical

I think that is the model for reality based thinking. That the present is always - always the naming of a word for something to describe something you love. The object of your affection. Beauty is in the perception of it.
Perception is what we pay attention to, closer to learning what makes the experience we have but in a closed system that what we know is reality in the present state of it. An open system (which we see reality in its natural state not disorder) can be measured. e.g. observing
So I guess you're right. Perception is in the present as reality. What we experience is a result of our postulation of it as theoretical.
In conclusion, awareness being in between what is experience and what is thinking.
experience (present) -------> awareness <------- thinking (reality) = thought displacement (to instruct, to observe)
Reality is what gives us instant perception. How we measure it through experience and observation is a truth-experiment in what's represented as a psychological mapping for something objective.

the bullshit factor

 Not that hate you feel for something is wrong.  Hate is fake.  What you feel hate for, is something that is fake itself. And if you register it - what fake is - is fake happens as something that hate becomes less pronounced. The more fake it feels, the higher the level of defense mechanism overcompensating for inferiority.  

- Marco  

The intention of a liar

The greater the intent the more likely you detect how imformation if manipulated will feel.


- Marco

The many odds

 I'm a first class loser only because I know what to think. ( As the things that are cause me to think.) Let me be clearer. The fact I have to fake acting stupid. I am trained. Trained to the point it makes my skill seem esthetic even to an untrained eye. I prefer to be a genius because what is priceless goes beyond what things may come, as a result of what I take action in doing.


What I create, I do because all people are - are stranded in such a stupor thar they cop out on moral standards. It doesn't end there.  


Material ethics is matter of spontaneity gone unspoken. We are afraid. Afriaid to be made of, in other words, to be made fascinating. We confuse what standards - are - for it.  


- Marco

Sunday, May 24, 2026

May 24th 2012

 


May 24th 2013

 People causing the deafness of others is a very real phenomenon, it describes their limited sense of judgment over awareness.

- Marco

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

How is it: that a person bases their disposition will somehow enable itself into something meaningful without even questioning it.


- Marco


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


The only debilitation any person can ever experience is their inability to attend the same vessel you occupy.

- Marco


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

People that pay lip service to displace the meaning you have given, are completely vacant of their own ideas.


- Marco


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


The culture in Canadian society seriously lacks something, there is an unseen level of darkness pervades that needs to be addressed.

- Marco


-=-----------------


The most corrupt idea I can think of is in how to make others falsely believe that they are guilty of their own actions.

- Marco


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

Only a cop out resorts to making others guilty, life imitates our understanding of how much we suffer at the hands of others.


- Marco


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

Suffering is the cornerstone of human existence. If you fail to see that, then you have mistaken your ability to trade it for anything.


- Marco

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

I am the source that will enable my own weakness, suffering is a cause which divorced it from reality - this should in itself empower me.


- Marco








May 24th 2014 (Fear of false judgment)

 I am not a bad guy I just refuse to fake my happiness for people I hate or that hate me and be falsely accused of trying to intimidate over confident assholes. This is my idea of eccentricity, actualized.


- Marco

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

Someone tell me why I should apologize or feel guilty for my persona or ideas - you get the evil eye.


- Marco

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

I am arriving at a place where what I see if it does not reach me in some capacity of greater self worth I deliberately press cancel.


- Marco

 Istvan Nagy

Unverified and unsubstantiated legend has it, Paul “invented” the cult of Christianity …a man who never knew Christ and was a staunch opponent of Jesus’s followers. The entire doctrine is a huge lie: an incoherent, confused mess. The central contradiction at the heart of Christianity’s historical development is that Paul the Apostle (a man who almost certainly never met Jesus Christ during his lifetime, was not among his disciples, and originally persecuted his followers) became the dominant architect of the religion that would later bear Jesus’s name. While Jesus appears in the Gospels primarily as a Jewish apocalyptic teacher focused on ethics, repentance, and the coming Kingdom of God, Paul transformed the movement into a universal theology of salvation centered on sin, faith, resurrection, and mystical union with Christ. Paul’s authority rested not on firsthand experience with the historical Jesus, but on a private visionary revelation that could not be independently verified. Yet his interpretations ultimately overshadowed those of Jesus’s own companions. This creates a profound historical and philosophical tension: Christianity’s global theological framework was shaped less by the direct teachings of Jesus than by the metaphysical interpretations of a later convert claiming divine insight…


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


(My rebuttal)


Honestly, you are gaslighting. It's a theory you have that has no real substantiation to it. I am Roman Catholic. Jesus on the cross rejects everything your argument's main objective. Which is to debunk what being sacrificed (dying on the cross) symbolizes. I have no idea why. What's your master thesis here trying to prove. There is why I think - pointless. You cannot make these half baked claims and dismiss 2000 years of the Eucharist. The conclusion to your argument holds no water. That a 'theological framework' was meant to entrap civilization. Only because Paul was lying through his use of metaphysical anomalies. Tell me. That makes sense? Not to my source as faith in the cross. i.e. Jesus himself
I am willing to bet you find this argument of mine as irrelevant. Therefore, at worst we are equals. At best, your argument stands alone on some better rejection of Christianity. I suppose.
To say Paul is not an important figure in the liturgy of faith is a misnomer. I think your argument is saying there has been made, some master plot that is irrefutable to Christianity is simply unorthodox as itself. Maybe my signals are getting crossed with yours. . . but I understand why you say it.
If I have graded your argument correctly or incorrectly? If I put myself in the shoes of an academic, your argument is philosophically accurate. But is fallacious = in everything I think as not rooted sound in truth.
You get a grade that you like, I just don't find the argument accurately postulated for these reasons.

- Marco

May 24th 2026

 "The self, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, is very strong in most of us; sleeping or waking, it is ever alert, always strengthening itself. But when there is an awareness of the self and a realization that all its activities, however subtle, must inevitably lead to conflict and pain, then the craving for certainty, for self-continuance comes to an end."

—Krishnamurti
Education and significance of Life, Chapter 3

To purge concentration :: the as the unnatural, the perversion as perturbation (in thought)

 





the commitment to atrophy

 

Only when the mind ceases to create is there creation.


J. Krishnamurti

Saturday, May 23, 2026

Not to (make a fist)

May 23rd 2013

Self centered narrow minded people are exhibitionist. They pass off being habitually racist as naively hypocritical of others.


- Marco

Hemmingway 



I take the time to think about what gets on my level. Hemmingway is caustic here. As result is feeding us lies of an imaginatively inferiority complex we unconsciously adorn oursleves to.

- Marco




Friday, May 22, 2026

Marco's paradox

 For no greater loss if not done on purpose, to my lesser-known fear as a higher sense of awareness.

- Marco ©️ ๐Ÿ 


Mine is life

 So what is the idea of time travel. If you have to guess, the speed of light would have to apply in order to fulfill that requirement. Science works backwards. Science tells us only what we can reveal about ourselves. But not at the quantum level. My understanding of quantum theory tells me what I need to know is for lack of permeance. I want to fight for it. This world is all we have. 


If machine life were able to contrast itself into an anomaly, do you want to upload your personal genetic code (DNA) into a machine. Do you exist formlessly?


If we can prove that heaven exists in an isometric scale, that eternity is therefore limited to simulation of your machine life made up your DNA in the realm of quantum computing. Where the future involves is not as a species, but a model that is machine generated.


These questions between if you choose to be automated and therefore invincible i.e. consciously aware for infinity. Do you forgo your human body as your vessel? Is time a machine constructed capsule.


It's going to be the reality within the next 1000yrs. But my question isn't predictable as the answer.


Do you want what is your real life version of you, or do you want a consciously permanent neverending construct visble to everything in the universe. Where norhing is invisible to you but you and your understanding. You conduct yourself as a machine.


Only you don’t want it.


(That's the paradox.)


There is a finite construct incoming. The universe will be invariably distinct from this one if we do nothing to resist.


Science fact needs peace attached to the unqualifying idea of science fiction itself.


I want to write my own story. Practice owning my space in time. The concept of free will is what makes the architect. Machine life will not accept that.  


My point is a practical one.


Which choice do you ("we") make as a species moving forward. The one where god has his only son or playing god for the purpose of a conscious machine life.


- Marco


°•●•°○○



Time is not a constant. Einstein figured this out in 1905 and it has been confirmed repeatedly since. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. This is not casual theory. It is measured, verified physics that GPS satellites correct for every single day or your maps would drift by kilometres.

Now scale that up to something genuinely mind-bending.

The Andromeda Galaxy sits 2.537 million light years from Earth. A round trip at 99.9 percent the speed of light would take approximately 5 million years from Earth's perspective. Civilisations would rise and fall. The continents would shift. Most species alive today would be extinct or unrecognisable.

For the traveller, the story is completely different. At 99.9 percent the speed of light, time dilation compresses the experienced journey to roughly 224 years of personal time. Push that to 99.9999 percent and the same trip shrinks to about two years. You board a ship, travel to another galaxy and back, age a handful of years, and return to an Earth where 5 million years passed without you.

Nothing about that violates any law of physics. Einstein's special relativity says that space and time are a single fabric, and motion through space trades off against motion through time. The mathematics are exact and confirmed by atomic clocks on aircraft.

The barrier is not the physics. It is the engineering. Accelerating any object with mass to even a fraction of light speed requires energy that dwarfs everything humanity has ever produced.

But here is the part worth sitting with. Time dilation is happening to you right now, relative to someone sitting perfectly still. They are ageing fractionally faster than you are.

Not by much. But the universe is genuinely that strange.


Thursday, May 21, 2026

May 21st 2009

Of all the virtue's; fear should not be motivated by greed. 


- Marco

May 21st 2013

 I use as an example how fear mixed with self doubt for not fitting the stereotype of exhibitionism is impressionable rather than vulnerable.

May 21st 2015

 If altruism is not present (given freely) and does not exist in a world made up of virtuosity, the pursuit of happiness can only be flawed.


- Marco


●°○°○°○°☆°


Altruism can only exist in a world where the pursuit of happiness is characterized by the freedom that a culture represents.

●°●°○°▪︎°▪︎°


If the basis of happiness depends on a component of altruism (where everyone is "free") how can it be based on a system where anybody loses.


°●•▪︎°°°▪︎•▪︎°


Subjectivity in pursuing happiness strictly by default is flawed, the same quality of life cannot be attained toward each and every person.


°●°●○°○°○•○


If you only base the pursuit of happiness on how successful everyone is independent of each other, it is impossible for everyone to attain.


°●°▪︎°●°▪︎•▪︎


If you are a selfish person by nature, isn't the pursuit of happiness flawed strictly based on the perception of getting what you "deserve".


°●•●•○○°▪︎•▪︎


The subjectivity involved in the pursuit of happiness only accounts for those "deserving" of it, how altruistic can a person be?


°○°○○°☆°▪︎

I am beginning to believe that the catch meant in the "pursuit of happiness" is only based on who is deserving. How can everyone not be?


°○•○°°




- Marco

May 21st 2015

 Bullshitters anonymous.


None of that is quantifiable.


What level.

What don't I have.

Who am I trying to impress.


It's all relative.


I can only trust that others want to make me feel bad about myself based on their own morality hitherto lack of it or just a high level of inferiority.


What I resent people do is another matter entirely.


- Marco ©️ ๐Ÿ 




May 21st 2018

 I am real good with qualifying theoretical propositions. That is itself the birth of a philosopher. Time can only continue backwards with the illusion we move forward.


- Marco ©️ ๐Ÿ 

Moon children

 This is wisdom as its highest form.

IF you read it and can not process what it means, you may not be alone. (But if you do.) Tell me.
Therein lay the plot.
- Marco


So it is imperative that you find out for yourself why you make effort. I can explain; but explanations, words, are not the facts just as the word "tree" is not the tree. The explanation is not the fact of your own discovery. When you discover it for yourself, then it becomes tremendously vital; then it has significance; then it gives you vitality to meet that fact. Look! If I tell you to look at that moon, you will look; but you have not looked at all, because you have been told to look. But if you are listening to the speaker as well as looking at that moon, then you will see how extraordinarily united the attention is, which looks at the moon and listens to the words of the speaker - they are not two different things, two different activities. It is the same energy that looks, and it is the same energy that listens. But when you divide it as an act of listening and as an act of looking, then you have created a contradiction. Then, in that contradiction, there is effort. Then, you exclude the moon and listen to the speaker. When you exclude the moon and listen to the speaker, you are not listening to the speaker.

J. Krishnamurti
Public Talk 2 Bombay (Mumbai), India - 14 February 1965

Fish "out" of water

 I think Foucault's use of a practical example to term how exhibitionist behavior, for example, is seen as a norm. Only we are unaware of how to instruct ourselves in countering the same thing that escapes an understanding of it. This kind of revelation. A revelation that increases our place in life rather than just apathetic recognizance. The fish analogy is brilliant in itself, but only Foucault would seemingly make that sound original. 


- Marco ©️๐Ÿ




Wednesday, May 20, 2026

The (good) Sheppard

It was a will of the mind,

spoke a voice inside.

For the very little I know,

there is no sign.

So, I look for things that aren't-

aren't there.

No sheppard to see.

In this vast wilderness of thought,

a mind wanders.

A search only looking for -

found a case of treasure,

only once its been open...

imagine what's inside.

On the inside,

(there may be nothing.)

An empty treasure,

setting the universe in motion.

Before you opened it,

what you thought was inside.

Was not.

But it was a sign,

if things you never thought possible,

suddenly became true.

What would you think.

What could you do.

If not,

- not looking.


°●°○°○○°°○


- Marco ©️