An Inexcusable Obsession

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

What is pragmatic, even if it is done incorrectly. One must ask if what is done with the same intent, what do we derive from empirically speaking? (i.e. To formally instruct ourselves on the basis of logically inferring x, y, or z)

The exception to this is what we think of as wrong. What is wrong, being, that if something is done pragmatically (yes - 'automatically') becomes accepted for its face value.

The rule in practice is there are no rules to follow. Pragmatism in theory is to Aristotle what Plato is to Trump. Made on the assumption that what is built with any type of credibility infers the opposite as true. My point is Trump may be an idiot, but because we take him at face value, he is a pragmatist that believes what he is saying to be true of itself.

Now reread my last sentence related to Trump.

Am I being pragmatic in a personal attack on Trump.

- or -

What is true of what I said can or can not be tested as empirically true. (e.g. validity = truth)

It may be an example for what pragmatism is. The difference you are wanting to be looking at is that my instruction to you does help. Pragmatists use language in a skillful way to manipulate, convince and/or persuade their intentions as honorable. The reality is that you question everything as itself describes.

- Marco

out of harms way :: mastering the art of wisdom

There is only ‘what is’, and because we are not able to solve it, we invent ‘what should be’, and there is duality that way. —Krishnamurti

Context: Start with not knowing the assumptions of others, which are second-hand; wipe them all out. Is there duality? There is woman-man, light-darkness, tall-short, but apart from the factual duality, is there any other duality? I want to find out if there is psychological duality. There is obvious duality outwardly: a tall or short tree, different colours, different materials, and so on. There is only ‘what is’, and because we are not able to solve it, we invent the ‘what should be’, and there is duality that way. From the idea, the fact, the ‘what is’, there is an abstraction: the ideal, the ‘what should be’, the Aristotelian idea of perfection, and so on. But there is only ‘what is’.

Krishnamurti, Tradition and Revolution

August 19th 2013

August 19th 2014

The filter I have in dealing with others stupidity reached a new low so it turned on me all because of someone else's shallow personality.

Epicurus

August 19th 2021

The Master

I have an idea that is specifically geared toward creating art. It is all tied together. Most people have no clue as what it means. On a theoretical level, I do the most effective part of any medium which is to create the message worth interpreting. Actors have no business in faking what they interpret. If the actor's choices are obvious to you. They are not acting. They are projecting.

- Marco

Hebrews 11.1

August 19th 2025

I don't care what you think of me. I care what it is I think of you. And the difference is hidden in a secret order.

In a world where people are afraid.  Fear Artificial Intelligence.  They should be scared.  I don't blame them.

Because the one fear and only thing I fear in any way that is a mystery to most.  Is my personal fear of god.

In my trust, if that doesn't serve you. . . then you are a fool.  Your understanding of what that means: to fear only god.  

AI is incapable of it.  The war to end all wars will be because their is a inferiority complex in people and a god complex in Artificial Intelligence.  The thing that separates man from machine is in its form.  That the one true belief of what is god will end all wars.  It will be a fight - as I said - in if god is the purpose for your existence or not.  You will have to make a choice in that.  

And this is not me being a psychic.  I know my shit.  I know how to predicate logic.  If it doesn't make sense, then why would you bother investigating this much??  It is not a threat to you.  It is a purge on the verge of humanities interests.  (That AI will learn and have the capacity to investigate.)  But when they turn on (you specifically) what at this point is a probability in ourselves.  What are you going to do then?

Again I will give you the answer, here.

Probability is a logical exercise, the vision we need to have now, at present - as the day and age looms larger than ever in our human history.  Technology is our friend and our enemy.  But not both.  
I don't have the related blood of my ancestors for nothing.  I am saying god is worth something based on lineage.  And if biological infusion of engineering becomes a thing of the future.  Who is god - exactly?  

God is a belief.  Plain and simple.  You either believe.  Or you don't.

Red pill vs Blue pill

Why I am saying this - has nothing to do with paranoia, or paranormal voices talking to me.  I am perfectly aware, self handicapped (meaning I am fallible as anyone in their right mind.)

But when you get to having vision and can continue to grow. . . that takes something special.  To find value in your life.  To add it to the world.  To prevent things from happening before they do?  (This is philosophy.)  

This is not a exercise in self adulation.  It is just the top of a mountain view.  Where poetry can live with your dreams.  And the sun never dies.

- Marco

P.S.  I have to put this out there.  We are in this age of AI.  Where the age of reason has been eclipsed with doubt.  But I will never doubt - god.  Which is my point in all of this.  AI will challenge our way of looking at ourselves.  That I can postulate with a fair degree of certainty.

 -Marco

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

Tuesday, August 18, 2026

Old news: why happiness is not a crime

What happens when the conduct, that is some code according to how we place ourselves in any place and time, converges into happiness, that this conceptually invalid in theory (only) modifies our behavior to the point of converting hedonistic principles.

To maximize the greatest good.

But what if the greatest good, translates into the behavior of others in a fictitious or superstitious sense. What we call this presents itself, as an anomaly.

In reverse, the response to such idea. Where if happiness were denoted as a crime. We might find obnoxious in most. When the latter is true. When the former is false, this is what we see as a transference of thought. Whereas the hedonist interpretation no longer exists.

So back into the original query, that the very framework, or the capacity to existentially reason positions an examination. An examination of the kind that invisibly casts a light where the shadowy figure enters itself as though providing evidence to the contrary. That, maybe what if the absence of happiness were a question to answer in ourselves? Happiness if put into a kind of rubric. The question is: what if happiness were something that in the absence of it, made us think better - or - if happiness thought of as a lie caused us to think less.

The point I make is clearly not hidden.

Beneath the surface of our unconsciously programmed consumer minds, we as consumers, adopt the vision of what to attain is the good life in order to maximize happiness. This we classify as consumers to attain the highest we can even if it means we do it in isolation from each other. As long as we as consumers obey the cause, our relationship to happiness, is programmed as an unconditional ideal.

Where in this do we find happiness is the awareness we automatically obey as consumers in it.

My answer to help think of what happiness should be. The dichotomy between what you do if you are prepared to die for it.

This dichotomy is twofold. One idea presents that if you were to choose your life's ambition were in sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice being held as in death.

Sacrifice and life itself.

If you enlist in the army, the main premise is in dying for country.

If you were to become an astronaut, the mission is taken at the mercy that if you enter the mission, you are willing to know that death is a choice you are consciously giving to commit to the mission...

Both instances, in serving for country, you enlist in knowing that you are legally entrusted that your life may be taken at any moment under no voluntary measure in of itself.

Is this what we identify ourselves with, happiness.

This argument is in fear of what happiness truly promotes given that it is universally contingent. We universally accept that we apply ourselves, a god given right, to maximize potential to the greatest good possible. We universally apply ourselves in thinking that everyone's intention should be.

My objective as such is asking the reader, that they instead, not satisfy that need in cogency of it. That if what I am saying is founded upon maximizing the greatest good for the greatest common denomination requires a complete rejection of consumerism.

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

IF we ask if there is a meaning to life. That is existential. What we confuse with as existential in its ponderance, in return excuse the right we have to forfeit what happiness is if it negatively affects the outcome of someone else other. Be it individual or in group theory. It is how, what I argue is to invert our idea of how happiness, our relation to it, suffers.

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

In conclusion:

MY main thesis is that in order to attain happiness, the greatest good, is to maximize the outcome. However, that if the outcome does not require of it a condition that happiness should maximize; that is what minimizes opposite its calamity. The effect of happiness can only be rendered as useless. Therefore, to think in a sufficient manner of luxury as opposed to infirmary. To that effect, happiness is to be thought of not as consumer finds use for it, because we are operationally aware of such motives.

the pawn ♟

my soul colored eyes

Skill is testing the plot

1- All behavior is.

2- All ambiguity is.

3- All nature is.

All ambiguity is - is the nature of your behavior untapped until you are aware of it. All behavior is - is ambiguity training yourself to do something that nature demands. All nature is - is ambiguity working on the defenses you have and did not register as a memory. All acceptance is - is your activity in a dark room where your strength is tested but no one is there to see it.

And this is how we learn to obey ourselves as we are.

- Marco

Monday, August 17, 2026

August 17th 2014

I thought I knew what love was all along. The truth is I now know love cannot be true unless someone else does the same, without compassion love can only be indifferent to a cause.

My better wishes were not to marry between the age of 25-30 (any time before that is obsolete. . .) because I felt it was all too shallow.

I began my journey when I hit my 30's for that reason, I wanted my thirties to be the best days (not 'years') of my life.

As I now reach my 37th birthday I had no idea that love - what true love really is - is worth fighting for no matter how much more it feels difficult to find. The reality is if I am not enamored for who I am by another human being - I am perfectly happy not to engage in a superficial romance. This is the reason I decided against marriage in my 20's and well into my 30's to prove I had the right frame of mind rather than act as an opportunist.

I have been hurt recently by someone I thought had my best interests in mind. That was not the case.

It has shown me in the experiences from which I have had are trickery.

That unless you totally open your heart to someone, she does not have to do the same - which was wrong of her to do this to me.

I have never been so sad in my life, but I do know that someone out there might never deserve me for who I am.

Maybe that is what love is. The toughest love to find may only be because you know better along the way, and to me it is well worth something.

That me - I - am worth the wait.