The power of why

 I see a viable alternative or unknown type of variable being a common denominator. I am speaking to the nature of morality decoded. Morality is undoubtedly our ultimate characteristic infallibly human. Its alternative is linking the nature of morality without which immorality deviates from the human condition of which we are prisoner. So if we are incumbent on this aspect of life, which in order to survive means we are in search of what is moral vs what isn't there has to be a modality involved to displace in ourselves what would be immoral. 

To present how the nature of morality is decoded (as mentioned earlier) morality happens to be central into how we identify ourselves as a person with various degrees of intrinsic 1- value  2- experience 3- worth etc. 

Against all odds the most common denominator weren't the norm in association to morality if and only if behavior can be modified. I am stating there is a clear association into morality should evidence suggest behavior can be modified. I am suggesting all our behavior is geared toward acting as agents of change.

Modified behavior depending on factors of altruism as the main predicate in favor of morality, should in turn postulate that modified behavior relative to the human condition relates back. Reciprocity vs human evolutionary thinking.

The mirror mirror on the wall as we've represented it herein resulting in reverse psychology. Hold up a mirror to equalize behavior.

If you are in search of morality in every sense of the word it is the height of human observation and right on cue with the terms and conditions of satirical philosophy. For example.... examining western world psychology we have an experimental phase of thought whereas political campaigns sush as the USA use a canned heat approach to slight rivals of opposition politcal parties. 

Hitherto we also can manipulate everything in light of what state we are in based on the mother of all thought, questioning what is creation (theologically). Which is the same field of knowledge or what we seek as knowledge.  All of it is therefore ontological.

Rebellious equilibrium

 

At the core of an actors acting ability is it the courage to maintain a dialogue between being decisive at making choices or can making choices result in being decisive. How does the brain interpret what is happening vs what needs to happen. The ultimate question is what will the character want that drives the intent behind ones inhibition to do so.

The inner dimesnions of an actor

Coping mechanisms vs real action

Your aim as an actor should not be seen as an actor whose ability would be to show off effective coping mechanisms. That is not what people want to see. Let the character play you.

What are you thinking while you're acting is forming an ontological point of view. We use it in practice as we participate as sentient beings in everyday life. The usefulness and structure of language combines this ontology and we call it acting.

Truth Traveller

 

Acting is channeling a medium without the observation of your inner cynic... what exists between the relationship of both (being impulsive being neurotic) and eliminating the need to both (being seen being validated.) In return your reactions mean nothing to the abstract audience but everything from your outer critic emerge as a revelation to the moment.

My test of faith departed

We care about religion. The same way we espouse contradictory aims in real life. Therefore, this speaks to enlightenment. Philosophical interpretation bestows upon us all ritualistic type of bond. We all search for truth tying together a deontological perspective. Both duty and obligation become the same core our beliefs stem from - from its inception to the day... we are learning to walk. In other words we grow into a belief each programmed differently. The end game we all want the search for truth to guide us in that quest. We begin and end but it's an unknown variable. Constant is it's all a blur.