Mindful action

 Question: I feel like committing suicide; life to me has no purpose, no meaning whatsoever. Wherever I look, there is only despair, misery and hatred. Why should I continue to live in this monstrous world?⁠

⁠
Krishnamurti: Why do we commit suicide? Are there not different ways of committing suicide? Do you not commit suicide when you identify yourself with the country? Do you not commit suicide when you become a party member, join any sect? Do you not commit suicide when you believe in something? That is, you give yourself over to something greater; the something greater is your projection of what you think you ought to be; the identification of yourself with something greater - the greater being your desire for something nobler - is a form of committing suicide. Do listen to it; don't throw it out, Sirs.⁠
⁠
Many of you have identified yourself with this country; you have been to prisons, you have struggled. Have you not committed suicide for something which is very small? Another commits suicide because he has no belief; he is a cynic, all his intellectual life has led him to nothing but despair and misery, and so he commits suicide. The man who believes and the man who does not believe have both committed suicide, in their own ways, because both want to escape from themselves. They want to escape through the country, through the idea of nationalism, through the idea of God; and when God and nationalism fail, or the country or the ideal for which the country stood for fails, then they are in darkness. And when I or you depend on a friend, on the person whom we love, when that dependence is taken away, we are again on the edge, ready to throw ourselves into darkness. So all of us - through identification with something greater, through belief, through various forms of escapes - try to run away from ourselves; and when we are thrown back upon ourselves we are lost, we are lonely, we are in despair; so we are ready to commit suicide. That is our state, is it not? ⁠
⁠
⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
Bombay 4th Public Talk 18th February 1953⁠

Time is not the enemy

 

Metaphysical question

The Golden Opportunity Philosophy Missed

“Academic philosophy missed its golden opportunity in 1921, when Ludwig Wittgenstein first published his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which ended with the following passage:

'The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method. My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'

This was the critical moment for all academic philosophers to maintain total silence and to advance the discipline to the level of pure contemplation along the lines of the meditation practices of the Zen Buddhists. But even Wittgenstein had to go on talking and writing, for how else can a philosopher show that he is working and not just goofing off?”

– Alan Watts, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, p. 137 ================

Marco Almeida

Academia discourages free thinking, period.

Edit: The reason for my postulate (is theoretically speaking. . . ) I understand exactly what Witt~ says here. My point is simpler: that even if I need to prove I can understand (because I say I do) but have no reasons to substantiate it? (How do we know that silence is provable.) Again, I know exactly what Witt~ infers. However, academically the vacuum we live in for fear of untraceable metaphysical action. More so, it takes a very high of skill to master. Therefore, my original statement in accordance to academia is fear based, profs are shit stupid when it comes to practical thinking. They'd probably negate Witt~ himself.

Edit 2: And if you fail to understand anything I tabulated here^. . . god help you. 

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

Why would it be impossible to understand everything?

°○●●••°°

(Not me)

Maybe it’s impossible to understand everything

because understanding isn’t what we think it is.

It’s not a light switch. It’s a nervous system.

It’s not revelation. It’s prediction that hasn’t collapsed yet.

The brain doesn’t seek truth. It minimizes surprise.

What we call “understanding” is often just the moment our expectations stop flinching.

But the world isn’t stable enough to hold still.

And neither are we.

What we call “everything” shifts when we look at it.

And what we call “self” is a story told by the body to keep breathing.

So maybe we can’t understand everything

because understanding isn’t a destination.

It’s a rhythm.

A temporary clarity inside a field that keeps moving.

And that might be more beautiful

than any final answer.

°•●•°°°

My rebuttal:

Marco Almeida

It's possible. We understand what is within the means of our reality. The end goal in everything we grasp is what meaning I assign to it. That is to acknowledge the truth, as it converts into purposely asking those questions. Prejudices are a constant in doubting what those answers are, and if they represent a relevant view in our thoughts.

Winnipeg Fringe Festival

 °●°●°●▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

specialized appraisal

 °●°○°○°○°°

Seeing

 Seeing is ending, seeing is action. If I understand something, the understanding itself is action. —Krishnamurti

From Public Discussion 4, London, 12 May 1963

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Confucius

How about a simple lesson in that suffering is nothing to be ashamed of but learning through it as to behold. It's called avoiding behavior through stereotypes typically because you associate common things with a problematic attitude which qualifies a link to superiority complex.

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

I have to be the toughest guy I know - knowing what it means to suffer.

°•○○•°°°

I am faster than most people, when they've all but failed to realize how contensiously I've rejected everything they ever thought they knew.  Is it possible.  Is it possible that those rejects have taken out the trash, or thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  It's only too soon to tell - it's too soon.

°••○○••

I need a cosmic shift to take place, so I work hard at it, people fail to view it of themselves as if experience has no meaning or purpose.

°●°○○°○°○°▪︎°

Passivity is fatal to us. Our goal is to make the enemy passive. - Mao Tse-Tung

What is. . .

What is death?

Death is love.

Deatb is a flower.

Death is the past.

- Marco

Generic sedation

The real tragedy for any artist in life is made, by letting them think everything you do... fits perfectly into something of a box.

- Marco Almeida ©️ 

Thoughts when playing aloud: true morality is never quitting your reality (Marco's theory of everything. . .)

Theoretically, only one thought can lead you to transcend everything you ever thought possible.  That thought is: why did they let me?

(No further context necessary.)

Loss of confusion

She felt hungry.

As I sat there, I could see her looking at me.

She felt hungry.

Her eyes told me.

They told me how hungry she was.

I could feel she didn't know how to ask me.

So she just sat there.

(And I did nothing.)

I did nothing and for a split second,

I felt like everything I had in life. . . 

it vanished.

That is not a sad part of this poem.

The saddest part of this poem I saved for the first line.

(end.)

- Marco 

I found this re; acting form, truth and theory in acting (Krishnamurti)

 So, whether you are sitting quietly, talking, or playing, are you aware of the significance of every thought, of every reaction that you happen to have? Try it and you will see how difficult it is to be aware of every movement of your own thought, because thoughts pile up so quickly one on top of another. But if you want to examine every thought, if you really want to see the content of it, then you will find that your thoughts slow down and you can watch them. This slowing down of thinking and the examining of every thought is the process of meditation; and if you go into it you will find that, by being aware of every thought, your mind - which is now a vast storehouse of restless thoughts all battling against each other - becomes very quiet, completely still. There is then no urge, no compulsion, no fear in any form; and, in this stillness, that which is true comes into being. There is no 'you' who experiences truth, but the mind being still, truth comes into it. Krishnamurti

The dogma of a neurosis

 The transformation of the world is brought about by the transformation of oneself, because the self is the product and a part of the total process of human existence. To transform oneself, self-knowledge is essential; without knowing what you are, there is no basis for right thought, and without knowing yourself there cannot be transformation. One must know oneself as one is, not as one wishes to be, which is merely an ideal and therefore fictitious, unreal; it is only that which is that can be transformed, not that which you wish to be. To know oneself as one is requires an extraordinary alertness of mind, because ‘what is’ is constantly undergoing change, and to follow it swiftly the mind must not be tethered to any particular dogma or belief, to any particular pattern of action. It is no good being tethered. To know yourself, there must be the awareness, the alertness of mind in which there is freedom from all beliefs and idealisation because beliefs and ideals pervert true perception. If you want to know what you are, you cannot imagine or have belief in something which you are not. If I am greedy, envious or violent, having an ideal of non-violence or non-greed is of little value. To know that you are greedy or violent, and to understand it, requires an extraordinary perception. It demands honesty and clarity of thought. Whereas to pursue an ideal away from ‘what is’ is an escape; it prevents you from discovering and acting directly upon what you are. The understanding of what you are, whatever it be, without distortion, is the beginning of virtue. Virtue is essential, for it gives freedom. —Krishnamurti

From The First and Last Freedom ---------------------------

Without freedom from the past there is no freedom at all, because the mind is never new, fresh, innocent. It is only the fresh, innocent mind that is free. Freedom has nothing to do with age, it has nothing to do with experience; and it seems to me that the very essence of freedom lies in understanding the whole mechanism of habit,both conscious and unconscious. It is not a question of ending habit, but of seeing totally the structure of habit. You have to observe how habits are formed and how, by denying or resisting one habit, another habit is created. What matters is to be totally conscious of habit; for then, as you will see for yourself there is no longer the formation of habit. To resist habit, to fight it, to deny it, only gives continuity to habit. When you fight a particular habit you give life to that habit, and then the very fighting of it becomes a further habit. But if you are simply aware of the whole structure of habit without resistance, then you will find there is freedom from habit, and in that freedom a new thing takes place.⁠

⁠

⁠

J. Krishnamurti⁠

Public Talk 5 Saanen, Switzerland - 31 July 1962⁠

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

How would you awaken the mind as a whole? How would you see that you are completely alive inside and outside: in your feelings, in your taste, in everything? And how would you awaken this feeling of non-fragmented living? There are only two ways of doing it: either there is something within you which is so urgent that it burns away all contradiction; or you have to find an approach which will watch all the time, which will deliberately set about investigating everything you are doing, an awareness which will ceaselessly ask the question to find out in yourself so that a new quality comes into being which keeps all the dirt out. Now, which is it you are doing?

From Krishnamurti On Education

Reverse Psychology

 •●○•°°

Inner wild

 °•●••°°

The kind of taboo that surrounds gender roles is where I have come from with this angle. I use prostitution as a very real metaphor to help understand how we have come to homophobia, racism and the sexist attitudes related in our reality of it; whereas prostitution is a good example to our least presumptive of those stereotypes. 

 To prove this I also argue why we have created targets of ourselves, if not unconsciously given solace to how we think re; each other in terms that liberating society - is to question our ownership of it. (i.e. subversion)

Therefore, prostitution makes a very viable use of challenging those ideas re; stereotypes without the alienated view from it. We treat gender roles as a subversion of each other.

Loss of confusion (a principle in awarness)

 It is fairly obvious that most of us are confused intellectually. We see that the so-called leaders in all departments of life have no complete answer to our various questions and problems. The many conflicting political parties, whether of the left or of the right, seem not to have found the right solution for our national and international strife, and we also see that socially there is an utter destruction of moral values. Everything about us seems to be disintegrating; moral and ethical values have become merely a matter of tradition, without much significance. War, the conflict between the right and the left, seems to be a constantly recurring factor in our lives; everywhere there is destruction, everywhere there is confusion. In ourselves we are utterly confused, though we do not like to acknowledge it; we see confusion in all things, and we do not know exactly what to do. Most of us who recognize this confusion, this uncertainty, want to do something, and the more confused we are, the more anxious we are to act. So, for those people who have realized that there is confusion in themselves and about them, action becomes all-important. But when a person is confused, how can he act? Whatever he does, whatever his course of action may be, it is bound to be confused, and naturally such action will inevitably create greater confusion. To whatever party, institution or organization he may belong, until he clears up his own sphere of confusion, obviously whatever he does is bound to produce further chaos. So, what is he to do? What is a man to do who is earnest and desirous of clearing up the confusion about him and in himself? What is his first responsibility; to act, or to clear up the confusion in himself, and therefore outside of himself? I think this is an important question that most of us are unwilling to face. We see so much social disorder which we feel needs immediate reform that action becomes an engulfing process. Being anxious to do something, we proceed to act, we try to bring about reforms, we join political parties, either of the left or of the right; but we soon find out that reforms need further reform, leaders need regrouping, organizations demand more organizing, and so on. Whenever we try to act, we find that the actor himself is the source of confusion; so what is he to do? Is he to act when he is confused, or remain inactive? That is really the problem most of us face. KRISHNAMURTI

Krishnamurti on reverse psychology and manipulation

 To exploit is to be exploited. The desire to use others for your psychological necessities makes for dependence, and when you depend you must hold, possess; and what you possess, possesses you. Without dependence, subtle or gross, without possessing things, people and ideas, you are empty, a thing of no importance. You want to be something, and to avoid the gnawing fear of being nothing you belong to this or that organization, to this or that ideology, to this church or that temple; so you are exploited, and you in your turn exploit. This hierarchical structure offers an excellent opportunity for self-expansion. You may want brotherhood, but how can there be brotherhood if you are pursuing spiritual distinctions? You may smile at worldly titles; but when you admit the Master, the saviour, the guru in the realm of the spirit, are you not carrying over the worldly attitude? Can there be hierarchical divisions or degrees in spiritual growth, in the understanding of truth, in the realization of God? Love admits no division. Either you love, or do not love; but do not make the lack of love into a long-drawn-out process whose end is love. When you know you do not love, when you are choicelessly aware of that fact, then there is a possibility of transformation; but to sedulously cultivate this distinction between the Master and the pupil, between those who have attained and those who have not, between the saviour and the sinner, is to deny love. The exploiter, who is in turn exploited, finds a happy hunting-ground in this darkness and illusion. KRISHNAMURTI

Marco's peace

 Is the Incessant Discussion About "Ending the Self- ego" a Symptom of Psychological Disorder?

 “Incessant discussion about the ending of the self with insight is a neurological disorder in duality.”

Let that sink in.

The self, being a product of thought and time, tries to end itself using what else? thought and time. It turns the ending of the self into an idea, a goal, a topic for debate, and endlessly chases it like a dog chasing its own tail.

This chase becomes spiritual neurosis.

The reality is simple but brutal:

As long as the mind functions in duality, all talk of insight, awakening, or the end of the self becomes part of the self’s survival game it mutates, it disguises, but it never ends.

Real insight is a movement outside the loop, not something you arrive at by rehearsing concepts in your head.

All romance is - is art.

All fanatsy is - is art.

I don't play your game as an artist.

My job as an avant garde is to create ideas.

And those ideas change. Change the same game we thought we were used to playing.

- Marco

●°●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

Truth values

 

The Logic of Illusion

Contradiction is a category error 

T: Phenomena is proved by measurement

A: Measurement is unprovable

S: Antinomie 

Consider the following: 

How can male be the opposite of female if all life is related to itself, and has evolved from itself, was itself, and is now entirely itself?  

Two dialectically opposed judgments may both be false; for one is not mere contradictory of the other, but may say something more than is required for a simple category of contradiction.

Dialectical opposition is not simply proposing P, the thesis, and not P, the antithesis. Nor is there the suggestion that the Law of Excluded Middle does not hold; that something can be both P and not P.

The ontological distinction between phenomena and noumena, is the epistemological classes of objects that are clearly heterogeneous. 

If an attempt is made to combine the two in harmony — to draw a synthesis — the combination can only be attained by accepting the initial heterogeneity. 

If the distinction is accepted, a synthesis must be denied.

Understanding is rooted in the phenomenal world of empirical senses

Only unity to be achieved — a resolution between thesis and antithesis — will be a synthesis of appearances. 

This is not a successful unity, however, but an illusion. 

Appearances always fall into contradictions and the antinomy remains. 

Reason, as a transcendental principle, is ‘…an idea which can never be reconciled with appearances.’ 

Knowledge of things (appearances) is distinct from our knowledge of things in themselves. 

The place of ‘contradiction’ in Kant’s dialectic is quite consistent with the rules of traditional logic. 

Although reason demands things in themselves as ‘unconditioned’, such knowledge, Kant believed, ‘cannot be thought without contradiction’ of the empirical notion of things for us. 

These are conditioned and within the appearance of a causal framework. But as soon as we recognise these different forms of knowledge are heterogeneous, ‘the contradiction vanishes’.

°●°●●°●°●°○°

My rebuttal:

Not sure why measurement is unprovable though. If I move from a to b I can postulate b is better choice to make than a. 

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

°•●○•°°°

Marco Almeida - Axioms are unprovable truths. Such axioms predicate mathematical measurements.  Gödel's incompleteness theorems, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two profound results in mathematical logic that reveal inherent limitations in formal axiomatic systems. The first theorem states that in any sufficiently strong, consistent formal system (one that can describe basic arithmetic), there will always be true statements about numbers that cannot be proven within the system itself. The second theorem extends this, demonstrating that such a system cannot prove its own consistency.

●°○○○●○

Marco Almeida You don't agree with godel's incompleteness theorem?

°•○●○○●

My rebuttal:

Kirk Lazenby it's that there's a chance that not all truths are absolutes.  Which is what I think we are disagreeing on.  Our disagreement is ambiguous at best. Godël proved nothing can be absolute.  What I disagree with is that reason itself, can fluctuate between variables.  Therefore, using contingency analysis we can only guess with what is true or not (without any absolute truth notwithstanding.)  For example: if I want to shoot someone in the head.  The behavior in itself we would agree makes me culpable.  But if I want to shoot but do not.  This does not disqualify I made a choice based on no true or flase fallacy of it.  I chose not to shoot.  It does not make the action I took not to any less false.  I may still have wanted to shoot - but didn't.  The act of not shooting, is an action that to reason or not to reason makes me morally complicit in activating movement of that reason to carry out my decision.  However, if I were pathological, I may jusitfy my actions as just.

Marco Almeida ©️ 2025

Pathological indiscretions

 °●°○°▪︎▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°