Sunday, June 07, 2026

What the most (a) sacred right to (b) my own will (c) is then made of [August 26th 2012]




 The most important characteristics about me are:

 

 

1- I am no mental whore to freedom. (corrupted model)

2 - I am no uneffeminate slave to reason. (passive aggressive)

3 - I know how to delegate unstable authority. (systematic)

 

 

My extended beliefs make up a greater circumference of ideals (i.e. detailing), to dream - dream my own reasons, so too become my unconscious civility, my unconscious civility then takes on a personal level of nature (a) am I living a lie (b) can I make wishful thoughts (c) an  altered state in reality to create energy of a cerebral nature. Can my value in all things be invested into one thing, a secret value, a secretive nature.

 

 

My own sense of self (belief) pervades my self gratification of a superficial value. Therefore it is in all things superficiality is the most obvious form of misconduct.

 

 

Can I not fall out of favor with the universe. That seems as if an aggressive formality against myself inhibition, as opposed to the outside forces I trust are at work in my favor.

 

 

I am made not to understand things that operate in the same way the universe does, nor am I in a universe as everyone else imitates. This is the most conventional ideal of wisdom I can think of.

 

 

We are made 'not' to understand why things are the way they are, or why they happen as they do, this is my true belief of life.

 

 

Therefore, I am 'not' made.

I am passionate.

 

However, I am not made to do anything in particular. What I am simply is 'that'. This is in my definition of the universe, my ultimate wisdom at a distance, I ask myself (a) what (b) is (c) that. The 'what' is what I forfeit myself to. The 'how' is to ensure you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state or my satire in all of this.

 

In its effect: life is not a pursual to excellence.

 

 

The universe is not that powerful.  I want to think this is a concept of the weakest version I myself would be able to survive it.  This flies in the face of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory.


- Marco


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




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

This entry in it's entirety was truthfully trying to explain, how does one determine to answer, if there is one thing in the universe that is 'sacred', what would it be, how could it look like, what makes it permanent. Therefore, what then is my sacred right as an individual, myself taught, sacred to freedom.
I believe the truth in that answer, begins and ends in asking the question itself, what acts as sacred, the scared act to feel the truth. Is it even a possibility, in the way you ask a question has the nature of such a duality. What is sacred then what is reason. What 'is' sacred to reason.
That is the question one LEARNS to ask. You do not live as sacred, there is no nature in divinity, only divinity in nature can produce the divine will. This is what provides me, with the revealing of substantiation.
That what is sacred is a substantiation of my own will. That how you answer the question of what is sacred, can only then act as my divine will to answer it. It is the super self unconscious self. Can you live with yourself, in such a self described role, without the power to judge but of empowering the unconscious psyche that is my own minds eye - the eye of god, my eyes to gods will tells me.
==============

Can I testify myself to the will of god, then god would recognize me. How would I possibly know. This is the basis, of asking what is sacred. How do you possibly begin to ask yourself that question, let alone discern its answer.

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

^The very nature of the divine will in action.

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

"I am made, not to, understand things that operate in the same way the universe does, nor am I in a universe as everyone else imitates. This is the most conventional ideal of wisdom I can think of. " (MA2012)
If there was ever a way to inform the masses against its own unfavorable gestation, in the form of ignorance set free, this would be it.^
We live as a means to be sedated of free will, then free thought would radically be different to a cause.

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

In every instance I inform myself, I believe in my truth to reason consequential to each moment a thought is born.

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

"The universe is not that powerful. I want to think this is a concept of the weakest version I myself would be able to survive it. This flies in the face of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory."
June 18, 2014
MA
If the universe acts as the single most viable creation known to man, the conceptualization we have of ourselves in it is our greatest misconception. We take for granted in each instance the universe if it were a creation man has deemed itself as the founder is a fatal flaw. Therefore even in evolutionary theory which aim is to disprove the theory of God's ad hoc existence means only the coefficient of evolution versus theology where man acts being the rational cause or choice of free will cannot be falsified.

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

(Part I)
"However, I am not made to do anything in particular. What I am simply is 'that'. This is in my definition of the universe, my ultimate wisdom at a distance, I ask myself (a) what (b) is (c) that. The 'what' is what I forfeit myself to. The 'how' is to ensure you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state of my satire in all of this."
August 26, 2012
MA
(Part II)
"That what is sacred is a substantiation of my own will. That how you answer the question of what is sacred, can only then act as my divine will to answer it. It is the super self unconscious self. Can you live with yourself, in such a self described role, without the power to judge but of empowering the unconscious psyche that is my own minds eye - the eye of god, my eyes to gods will tells me."
August 27, 2012
MA
============
^What this entry means to me is property of everything I have ever wanted to accomplish in my life. It means I aimed at the kind of ideas that might change our world views.
As far as I am concerned this is what I do now. I scribe and I revisit what I felt at the time.
I asunder what became these ideas which cannot be expelled.
============
This entry asks what is the universe and what does that question entail. I make an attempt at this stating there are certain values we can never fully be aware.
============
This part of the thesis has two equal parts: (Part I) is describing what is my idea of participating in the universe. (Part II) That if the universe is what I say it is can it also be attributed with the same idea of what is sacred. That in both instances it is not a love of god or the combination of truth:
"you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state of my satire in all of this."
That if there were a god what does gods will tell you. The idea is that gods will is separate from yours nor does he dictate it. Therefore, what does gods will tell you if it were a lie.
"my eyes to gods will tells me."
June 21, 2014
MA



 Vulnerability pays an often visit to the word it itself created, that we know as 'love'.


- Marco


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




 My birthday: written on August 27, 2012

On the subject of virtue and if your virtue is sacred or cosmic:
"That is the question one LEARNS to ask. You do not live as sacred, there is no nature in divinity, only divinity in nature can produce the divine will. This is what provides me, with the revealing of substantiation." - Marco Almeida 2012/2014

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



2 Timothy 1:7

 

For God hath
not given us the
spirit of fear;
but of power,
and of love,
and of a
sound
mind.
2 Timothy 1:7

Numbers 23:19


 

Ecclesiastes 3.11

 


The subtle art of seduction by Marco Almeida

 


I am just going to say it. Actors in Winnipeg that think they know how to act - don't admit it. They won't admit they have no idea what it means or what that entails.
I've attended hundreds of classes pertaining to acting.
It has never once translated into having landed a profession in the field. All I ever wanted to be was an actor. In fact, I still am an avant-garde that cares about the art of seduction and treats the entire thing as an idea.
But when it comes to Canadian cinema or the skill it takes to truly make a difference - to this day I have never come across.
True in fact - in my experience.
=======
What else boils in my mind - is that the case I make is so rejected... the paradoxical nature I present gets more rejected than actually presenting ideas behind the subject itself.
You don't know skill until you quantify your methods.
The scene in Winnipeg I have witnessed are superficial at best. Same applies out in the universe of all.
Fuck the fake work-outs enduring countless hours of time and getting royally ripped off. My point here is simpler.
Get the fuck out of my way... I am an actor and I'm tired of being told I'm not.
Marco


Amos 5:24

 


hostage of the king [Phenomenology vs Ontological reasoning]

 what is the difference between ontology and phenomenology in philosophy


Ontology is the philosophical study of being and reality—what exists and the nature of that existence. Phenomenology is the study of conscious experience and how things appear to us from a first-person perspective. Simply put, ontology focuses on what is out there, while phenomenology focuses on how we perceive and experience it.


The relationship between these two areas can be broken down into distinct branches: [1]

1. Ontology: The Study of Being
  • Core Question: "What is the nature of existence, and what kinds of things fundamentally exist?"
  • Focus: Investigates the structure of reality itself, independent of human perception. It categorizes things into concepts like time, space, objects, properties, and universals (e.g., What makes a chair a chair?).
  • Goal: To map the fabric of reality and understand what it means for something "to be". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
2. Phenomenology: The Study of Experience
  • Core Question: "What is it like to experience a phenomenon, and how do objects appear in our consciousness?" [1, 2]
  • Focus: Investigates the "first-person" point of view. Instead of asking whether a tree physically exists in reality, a phenomenologist asks how the tree appears to you when you look at it, remember it, or interact with it. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Goal: To describe the structures of our conscious experiences, such as perception, memory, and emotion, exactly as they are lived, without filtering them through scientific or theoretical assumptions. [1, 2]
How They Differ and Connect
While they ask different questions, philosophers often use them together: [1, 2]
  • Separation: Early phenomenologists (like Edmund Husserl) advocated for "bracketing" or setting aside traditional ontological questions about whether an external world objectively exists, choosing instead to focus purely on the structure of subjective experience. [1, 2]
  • Connection: Later philosophers (like Martin Heidegger) argued that the two are deeply intertwined. For Heidegger, to understand the meaning of Being (ontology), we must first analyze the unique way humans exist and experience the world (phenomenology). [1, 2]

Proverbs 18:21

 




Saturday, June 06, 2026

Phenomenology

 Eden



●°○°○°○°○°○°○

Argument: 


When God told Adam and Eve that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would bring death, I don't believe He was speaking only about physical death. Adam and Eve did not physically die the moment they ate the fruit, yet God said, "in the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die." Something died that day, but it was not their bodies. It was their spiritual awareness.


Most people define spiritual death as separation from God. I would argue it begins with separation from yourself. If humanity is made in the image of God, then to become disconnected from your true nature is simultaneously to become disconnected from the experience of God within you.


The evidence is found in the immediate consequences of eating the fruit. Adam and Eve suddenly became aware of their nakedness. Their bodies did not change. Their perception changed. Before the fruit, there was no shame, no fear, no hiding. After the fruit came judgment, comparison, division, and self-consciousness. The first thing Adam does is hide.


God asks Adam, "Where are you?" This is a strange question for an all-knowing God to ask. God did not lose Adam. Adam lost himself.


The tree was not called the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. It was called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fruit introduced a dualistic way of perceiving reality. Humanity began dividing existence into opposing categories: good versus evil, right versus wrong, us versus them, worthy versus unworthy. The mind became trapped in opposition.


This is where I believe humanity misunderstood the lesson. The problem was never that opposites exist. The problem was identifying with one side against the other. Light and darkness define one another. Life and death define one another. Good and evil define one another. The moment consciousness becomes attached to one side, division is created.


Jesus later says, "The kingdom of God is within you." If the kingdom is within, then heaven is not merely a place outside of you. It is a spiritual reality within you. Likewise, Paul says, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." God is not merely external to existence. God is the ground of existence itself.


This is why spiritual life is not simply about believing certain doctrines. Spiritual life is the restoration of wholeness. It is the ending of inner division. It is remembering who you are beneath fear, shame, labels, and separation.


The serpent introduced division. Christ restores unity.


Adam represents the fall into fragmented consciousness. Christ represents the return to oneness.


When Jesus prays, "that they all may be one," He is not speaking the language of division. He is speaking the language of unity. The entire movement of Scripture can be viewed as humanity moving from unity, into division, and then back toward unity.


From this perspective, spiritual death is not primarily separation from God. It is separation from the awareness of the divine life already present within. The moment humanity became divided against itself, it lost awareness of that unity. The moment humanity returns to that unity, it experiences spiritual life again.


The forbidden fruit did not merely introduce physical death. It introduced the experience of separation, judgment, and duality. The path back to life is not found in choosing one side of duality over another, but in realizing that beneath all apparent opposites there is a deeper unity. Humanity fell when it became trapped in division. Humanity awakens when it remembers that all things ultimately exist within the One from which they came.


I don't believe the Bible was intended to be understood only as a literal record of historical events. I believe it operates on multiple levels simultaneously. The stories, prophecies, parables, symbols, and metaphors speak not only about external events but about the landscape of human consciousness itself.


To me, the Bible is a manual hidden within layers of narrative. It is a map of the human mind, the human spirit, and the journey of self-awareness. The language of Scripture is the language of symbols, archetypes, and patterns that can reveal different meanings depending on the level from which they are observed.


This is why the same passages can produce countless interpretations. The text is not exhausted by a single meaning because consciousness itself is not exhausted by a single perspective. Every story contains layers within layers, reflections within reflections, and meanings within meanings.


When I read about Adam and Eve, heaven and hell, Christ and Satan, life and death, I do not see only external characters and events. I see psychological realities, spiritual principles, states of consciousness, and aspects of the human experience being expressed through symbolic language.


The Bible, in my view, is not merely a book telling humanity what happened. It is a book showing humanity what is happening within itself. Its stories are mirrors. Its prophecies are reflections. Its symbols are invitations to look inward.


For this reason, I do not believe the deepest truths of Scripture are found by remaining only on the surface of literalism. I believe they are found by understanding the language of consciousness hidden within the stories, where every symbol points beyond itself and every meaning opens the door to another meaning. The text becomes less a record of the past and more a living exploration of the infinite depths of the human spirit and its relationship to God.





Virtue of the what is

 



Virtue.  There is an ethical system in place. Theology is the beginning of all philosophy.  Unless you deny asking what is god. (Not, "what is"?)  The truth can only equate to ethically sound reason.  If conflict arises.  Conflict is the vice formlessly becomes how psychopaths function.


Marco

confessions from the ♥

 


respect as its welcome

 I'm the only actor I know that won't settle for getting told I can hold the stick end of the stick only because of how idiots think, but they can't tell the difference. So when I played along, I told them where to go. Fuck everyone in Winnipeg that can't act worth shit. I know what it means to be dehumanized. I value myself far more than you ever will. That's all I learned. And it's enough to make me vomit. In the end I will never forgive you. (And even if only I know it's true.)

======
The moral of the story is if you are not willing to stand alone in this world as an actor that goes against selling out. You aren't worth ๐ŸŽญthe time.๐ŸŽญ (Nor the guilt.)
=======
I know I can act. I'm a Canadian - yes Canadian philosopher. I can write. I know how to behave myself but not at my own expense. I'm pushing 50 and not getting any younger. But happy in my own skin. I'll never identify with the same people that I never had the intent to make feel bad about themselves. All I ever cared about was becoming my best version as an artist.
=======
I'll meet you at the corner of respect and courage. I'm a cross between it. (Otherwise you're all copouts to it.)
- Marco



Premonition [freedom] informing reality