What is emotional contagion

 Krishnamurti 

"When you are a light to yourself you are a light to the world."

 Yusuff Babatunde

Rational or irrational what really provoke anger?
What make a difference between anger and craziness in mental state?

Marco Almeida

If psychosis hits you're imagining there is a wall where there is an actual doorway. The metaphor being that everything you imagine to be true of reality is actually incongruous with it. The results ae psychological in nature. You are out of touch with what is your perceived world, where the projection is cast back to you. I've been there. Not fun.

Matthew Ian

Does immortality appeal to you?

Marco Almeida

A question can be applied to provide the answer, being, why wouldn't immortality appeal to me. Why? If the same question to immortality were given on the basis of what is god. My point is if god wants me to be. If God's will points to us being immortal, it is in God's hands. If god willing me to be a mortal, I equally accept it. Remembering, the philosophy in favor of immortality is a hermetic end. We are written in the stars, by either the eternal (religious sense) of being or we are reincarnate.

“Most propositions and questions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless... They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.”

–Ludwig Wittgenstein

Marco Almeida

So what is it Wittgenstein states to qualify his assertion that senseless construction of philosophy is false and hypocritically exaggerated. Why not just say most of what non philosopher pose as pragmatic in their effort to that effect. It's kind of a poor debunking assessment and I applaud Wittgenstein's genius. But this is weak even by his standards. The irony being what is good is also beautiful, is a dialectic property. Wittgenstein is classifying what cancel culture is today. For no better reason than what is the anti-woke movement. All of MAGA fall under it. And unless we have philosopher's in contradiction to fascist motives - where does that leave us. Wittgenstein, I can conclude, arms us with his petty notion.

in defense of steroid users

 February 9th 2011

I have never been one - who thought about cheating my self into being mocked at. When you think about this - in terms of bringing out your inner fears. We come to understand ourselves best - through such insecurity we rather moot ourselves - before standing up to give and take notice of ourselves in the mirror.

 

Even more curious still - is that kind of scared mob mentality that so few often realize they may encounter. I'm speaking of a fear based moniker - that we face on every level of experience.

 

My idea of living the good life, takes on all comers.

 

The same truth I apply to reason, or as Pascal pointed out - is of the internalized will of 'the many.'

 

Part of a problem much larger than that of exponential variability, is the concentration of our own self attrition. How it happens is still further from explanation.

 

The reality of thinking of extra terrestrial, or lunar speak, is often not equated let alone related to consciousness. More random than such, is painting a picture - much affiliated in the confusion of altered states of community based relationships.

 

Lost in all of this - is the translation of internalized will, a combination of thoughts, to involve the part of ones inner working.

 

Part of my own fantasy, does not require a dossier of exquisite physique, or the search of how fear based intimidation should fall at the hands of those incredulous. To achieve the same thing, without so much to gain, is seen as inferior of myself standing next to those in spite of my own image (such as is the case of body building.)

 

In fact, so much is true of myself concept, I feel vindicated of my true inner beauty. So this in itself is what Pascal related back (toward you) (a) that falsely internalized will, (b) which makes us appear despondent to (c) natural mannerisms of a cerebral nature.

 

We might call it psychological or social cues, ideological signals which we find in the world around us, we only want to make ourselves react.

 

That can only be human in notation;

 

the latter part of associative internalized will, are dogma, that insatiable need to think about where we are at every given moment. Probably, my most Canadian view of myself, is the fact I think. As Pascal then says: that will of the majority independent and good of itself,

may as well believe in god

. That way - I can believe what I

must

.

 

To make such observations at the most intellectual part of your human instinct, will never be convinced of that part of the population.

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

In defense of steroid use #2

If the most fundamental aspect(s) of Pascal-ian logic, the internalized will, the false intention, the ad hoc conscious shifts taking place (dogmatic thinking) as we speak. Those are all non-contributers to the cause surrounding internal suffering of a genuine nature, which is, to go with the nature of depression or non-emotive language. This kind of thinking, as Pascal would have it:

(a) you are not a subject of gods will, everyone else seems inept at it as well.

(b) if the majority exists, a belief in god, I may as well do so.

(c) this is the integral part of Pascal-ian logic, for it to be completely understood, is if you internalize something which is false but can also be true (follows) you accept to think for yourself - not others. However, if you intend on thinking on others behalf, you may as well believe in god, because if you do believe in god, you rather not think for yourself.

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

The above is quantifiable for many which reasons:

Everything that carries with it a false intention (not reason), does not require thinking. It in fact requires nothing whatsoever.

If everything were internalized as gods will, then the entire structure of the universe as we know it is, would in fact require nothing whatsoever.

That in every living thing known to man, her will, her will can only benefit from - therefore, nothing else is required from her.

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

These are limited to the inclusion of Pascal's Wager. He in fact knew, if you were to accept things as they are, you have automatically implied gods will as if you were to believe she exists. On the other hand, the minute you reject a thought of gods will, you are no longer internalizing the world around you, because you think that what you can or cannot accept shall be your choice.

The common misconception people mistook Pascal's Wager, was in principle of reward, that if you believed in something, it could be related to anything, but because you chose not question it, you've subscribed to it's power over you. In fact, Pascal is saying to do the opposite as if you think for yourself you KNOW everyone else around YOU believes god exists. Therein lay the relativity as the principle should it be applied.

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

I know this of plenty of people, in my opinion, that even if they choose not to accept what they read here, or any of my own personal beliefs, habitually they were outright rejecting me as a PERSON. When in fact, the truth is much simpler than that, it is that I am to be recognized as a PERSON, that people internally struggle without

completely rejecting their belief in something greater.

My challenge (thinking based) would be next to impossible, if I were to uncover how my internalizing someone else's (non-thinking based) false belief. Pascal is presuming your innocence, that your internalized will based on another persons - is one in the same - as if you were supplied your very one make-up kit to believe in god. Thus, a false internal struggle emerges, that your conscious takes in part of.

 February 9th 2013

I would not thank god for immortality, because that rumor has since been rectified, the perfect idea of living life as is humanly possible. - Marco

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

Universal freedom 🆚 emotional decline :: (what is) conflicting personality

There is psychological retention where there is no full proof method to it.  This is the why method acting is not strategically valid.

Pacino in theory

reverting back to '0'

 February 8th 2011

From a time of great moral upheaval, there is far less understanding over how awareness plays in part to the human experience.

Part of the human conditions associated, without contradiction do - do not become that sense of reality, which would otherwise inform us of our self embodiment.

Physical I.e. (distinct characteristics) we certainly do not live without our most unadulterated needs. Those needs would , in some other parallel world, be next to non-existent.

So much of my self-examination has come in the form of language, so much so, that the same can be said of my natural existence of life.

So to speak in terms nowhere near my pleasure center, is completely void of thought, instead requires the full rotation of complete reality. A realty that does not exist, but at the same time is not false in its entirety.

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

I have to say, subscribing to the feedback which comes from the world around me, does not put my mind on an axis, which the sun revolves around. It is this place I am trapped to the day I perish the earth. To have the power of such a cross between, those that feel I am, a sordid mess of facts. I will be stoic against such defiance.

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

When this so happens - my provocative sense of self worth?

The answer is quite simple really, it is without knowing a full understanding in which, life seems to be bringing you down. E.g. Not down to earth.

It are these types of people.

I will readily equate, all the people - somehow or other care to see nothing but what is most deserving of themselves. Perhaps that points toward a neurotic sense of self-fulfillment. I am not witness to those people, egocentric minded imbeciles.

I am most interested - in place of my own misfortune not to see others for what they see me as.

My comfort will always search from my middle ground; so as if to speak - on terms of a dignified sense of will. Even my silence will provoke such lack over my intolerable need to dismiss people, which trust they demonstrate to me, is of no impartial quality.

In all my ways of thinking, acting emotive, to such behavior of people.

That when I make my decision, they will know exactly what I think of them. That is the fundamental aspect related back to faking.

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

There is nothing worse than faking death; worse still are those unfortunate enough to be faking at life.

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

How I miss hearing my great grandfather's laugh. When we would sit, over conversation, at his cobblestone staircase leading up to the entrance. How I will recall, that instance you'd (even in silence) make me feel that divorce from reality, so real, yet so vivid to the human nature you were unmistakable. That reminds me of your presence in earnest, that trust, that bonding not typical of how one should act. You are that person, you said, "we live trying to know everything, and die knowing nothing.". I was so young, but those words were so simple, incomparable from the man they were born from. You just knew how to make sense.

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

The right to autonomy

The right to freedom of speech

The right to individuality

Wages no war.

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

War waged on me and my family - totally different story, those nazis have never seen a fight like mine.

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

Marco Almeida

I love that word: nazis. Canadians hate it. I'm Canadian, eh.

Confessions of a second class citizen (good will as its nature's narrative)

 February 8th 2013

‎"There is a luxury in self-reproach. When we blame ourselves, we feel that no one else has a right to blame us. It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution."-- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

 

re; self-reproach 

 

I especially love how the intent of people that only become ignorant of themselves, grow to be unfamiliar in the principle of real understanding, much rather abuse it, than cause their manner evident of concern. (MA2013)

 

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

 

A quick-tempered man does foolish things, & a crafty man is hated. -Prov 14:17

 

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

 

 

Yes - a definite blast to the past. How I miss the times which were less fickle. Where has it all gone, how does it belong. Unbelievable to be a part of a generation, from that our parents wanted a better life, which now is dispelled. You see the true colors of what was then, now is black on white as if an ancient canvas. Such a pity to paint that picture, where the gap between then and now has fizzled.

 

I have always respected you Raquel. I will always have your back despite what is prevalent today, from the traced circle I left behind that since came through to us.

Powerful stuff my friend. Powerful stuff.<p> </p>I remember these times well - made sense. <p> </p>

xoxo (Marco Almeida)

 

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

 

Marco updated his status.

2:56pm

"I love how I make people feel worthy about themselves but take exception to that. It is the oldest trick in the book."

 

 

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

Marco updated his status.

2:52pm

"Accept me, know me, want me, give me, based on what I feel, not on your idea of credential."

 

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

 

 

Marco updated his status.

2:48pm

"‎"So remember the day I realized I had allowed others to define me. That day when I asked, "Who are you?" "What do you want?" I was liberated from a trance." (Donna Wisel, 2013) 

 

Marco updated his status.

2:42pm

"

“Most of us are not raised to actively encounter our destiny. We may not know that we have one. As children, we are seldom told we have a place in life that is uniquely ours alone. Instead, we are encouraged to believe that our life should somehow fulfill the expectations of others, that we will (or should) find our satisfactions asthey have found theirs. Rather than being taught to ask ourselves who we are, we are schooled to ask others. We are, in effect, trained to listen to others' versions of ourselves. We are brought up inour life as told to us by someone else! When we survey our lives, seeking to fulfill our creativity, we often see we had a dream thatwent glimmering because we believed, and those around us believed,that the dream was beyond our reach. Many of us would have been, orat least might have been, done, tried something, if...If we had known who we really were.”~ Julia Cameron ~" 

 

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

 

 

Marco updated his status.

1:23pm

"I love the way people dismiss me that at times, they judge you based not on what you feel, but how you think, then pretend not to exist so to act as if they have."

 

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

 

Marco updated his status.

1:10pm

"Here is the truth about acting, if you are not making it about yourself, then you have no right to do it. If you are making it about the other person,then you are faking it. If you fail to create an intimate dynamic, then you mimicked a character."

 

 

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

 

 

Marco updated his status.

12:42pm

"Last night was worse then the love of your life in bed as a prostitute."

 

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

 

Marco updated his status.

12:35pm

"I understand not everyone has to think the same as I do, what I cannot accept is that my epistemology is rejected on no uncertain terms. This is what separates me from people that generalize everything in life, when it is a critical amount of forethought that is required, displacing those values."

 

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

 

(end)

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

". . .despite what is prevalent today, from the traced circle I left behind that since came through to us." - All I meant there is that reality today is not so much different, because I 'traced a circle' to know the difference between then and now. I have learned a lot about myself through the needs of others. Dive into the circle as if a hole resurrected from the depths of time, travel, search and rescued.

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

"If you are working on something exciting that you really care about, you don't have to be pushed. The vision pulls you." - Steve Jobs

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

"To get back my youth I would do anything in the world, except take exercise, get up early, or be respectable."

-- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

"Heaven forbid that I should die en route, as always happens to the man who fails to find what he is searching for in life. The man who took the wrong route and chise the wrong name." - Saramago, Manual of Painting & Calligraphy

When fear comes knocking at your door, you must answer it with faith. Nothing else is effective against it.

"... I learn to narrate life, moreover in the first person, and in this way I try to understand the art of penetrating this veil of words and ordering the insights words provide."

"But once having copied out a text, I am prepared to affirm that everything which has been written is a lie." - Saramago, Manual of Painting & Calligraphy

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

"a1.1 Writing in the first person is an advantage, but it is also akin to amputation. a1.2 We are told what is happening in the presence of the narrator, what he is thinking (should he wish to divulge his thoughts), a1.3 what he is saying and doing and what those who are with him are saying and doing, but not what they are thinking, except when what is said coincides with what is thought, a1.4 and this is something about which no one can be certain. a1.5 If my friends were characters out of a novel written not by me or one of them but by a third party other than ourselves (the author), each one of us would only have to read this novel in order to become as omniscient as the author himself presumes to be. And so, since they a1.6 are as real as I am and a1.7 just as reserved or a1.8 not so open that others might a1.9 truly say "I know," and because I a2.0 can only convey some of my thoughts in this narrative which is not a novel, a2.1 I resign myself to ignorance, to the impenetrable a2.2 nature of faces and a2.3 the words those faces utter a2.4 (it is the faces that speak, the faces that understand), a2.5 and I shall go on speaking about my friends without knowing what they are thinking, a2.6 but only what they are saying and doing. a2.7 And even then on condition that they say and do it in my presence, otherwise I shall never know whether they are telling the truth about what they did and said when I was not there. And if they were to tell me any of this a2.8 I should have no way of knowing whether they a2.9 had agreed among themselves what they would tell me if they should testify on behalf of each other. a3.0 If this narrative were not in the first person, I should have found it an even better way of deceiving myself. a3.1 In this way I should be able to imagine every thought as well as every action and word, and in putting them all together a3.2 I would believe in the truth of everything, a3.3 even in any inherent falsehood, because that falsehood, too, would be true. a3.4 The real falsehood is what is unknown a3.5 and not what was merely formulated in accordance. With that hundreth of the hundred ways of formulating what one normally calls a lie."

(Pg95-96 Saramago, Manual of Painting & Calligraphy)

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

Marco Almeida

Just now · 

The answer as to why Marco Almeida has himself been hired, what is the answer to his prayers as a self-professed writer.

"This business about writing and thinking about what you are writing. I only saw you as a painter." "A bad one." "I never said that." "But it's what you are thinking. It's what everyone thinks." (Pg98 Saramago, Manual of Painting & Calligraphy

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

Working examples in computational Meta binary axoims :: the cosmic order of things...

 What is universal? (e.g. norms) ~ psychology 

°●°○°○°○○°○°

Why would we suppose that other people have the same subjective experience of being alive/aware as we do?

°○°○°○○°○°○°

I have read some responses herein and although I admire philosophy to a sophisticated degree, keeping things simple challenges things far better.  

What is normal, per se, is how we encounter both what registers as conscious ergo subconsciously.  

There is such a thing. If we want to define what that thing is, it can be whatever defines any particularly universal axoim. (i.e. norm) Such is the supposition through langauge.  

What we see as art strikes me as good definition. Defining art through language requires sensory input. The object vs the irony 

We all see the same thing but have different definitions if subconsciously processing the thing. What is art fundamentally proves our sensory experience reaches beyond what is normal.

Though only normal comes to us as homeostasis. A state in which we govern ourselves and is accepted either through equilibrium or static epistemological (univseral) ends.

My point is once we account for as normal, what is abstract can also (in my proof) account for as art. We recommend what is universally adept, as though we live our lives mechanically before realizing it manually, we have control. We have control over what conventional wisdom otherwise dictates, unless we deviate from it. This is all philosophically computational.

- Marco

°●●°●•●•○•○°○•

[Not me:]

No. Your awareness is determined by your cognitive horizon - that horizon is represented as the amount of information your mind can use while constructing it's image of the world around you.

Depending on if your horizon is large or small, you'll be able to interpret more or less of a timescale regarding your situation. What that means is people with large horizons can understand how events from today and yesterday, will impact tomorrow. Its an improvement on your ability to predict which changes how you'd act today as a result.

On a closing note - if you lack a cognitive horizon, you are unable to consider the world around you. You become a surface for others to implant their perspectives on to yours, adjusting your reality to their benefit. People in this situation are "unconscious" while awake.

°•○●•••○•°°

[Not me:]

Because we all wear the same systemic headset. 

What have Plato, Kant, Whitehead, Hoffman and every other philosopher got in common? They all use the systemic eye; a set of a’ priori systemic modes to see. 

Within every human being is a set of a’ priori modes. The set allows us to systemise and thus synthesise our positions in reality. It also allows us to structure our thoughts and by extension, languages. More importantly, the set also gives systemic agency to consciousness. 

Allow me to give you a quick rundown of some of the modes.  

Once again: the mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things. 

Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Gödel used adding to figure out that our mathematical models don’t add up and so on. You employ it to engage the fields you enter. Adding is a monumental mode. You can’t speak if you can’t add. 

Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Your mind has ran through many categories just reading what you have read. Without our ability to categorise or add, we are blind to the world around us. 

Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We don’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human, in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. The premise is loose at best and we can identify with that. It all adds up. 

Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. All knowledge is built around combinational configurations. When something doesn’t figure, it is because we haven’t yet combined with the correct configuration. 

Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. To unify around the correct configuration and add it up. 

There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. Once again, you are employing them right now as you engage with me. 

This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. Just try and read my words or engage in any verse without them. Try reading my words without adding. Try reading them without the mode of categorisation. 

From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more because it is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best. 

In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that.

Again, this set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. Debunking me involves engaging the modes so there’s no getting out of the box. 

Embodying this set; meditating on this set: holding them as a fixed set that work in conjunction of one another, places you in the eye of consciousness in a systemic manner. The refinement of this set will take us further into it; into the true self. 

Evolution is an inward journey. There is no out here. We need to refine and embody this set before we look to find it ourselves in deeper realms. 

Perhaps consciousness is just an emergent novelty of the brain: an epiphenomenalistic fluke of evolution if you will, but either way, it’s a set. A systemic set and consciousness is flat without it.

Yap.

°●°●°°●○°°●°●°●°

[Not me:]

See Plato's dialogue on "Protagoras", on objective truth.

[End].