March 21st 2014

 Subjectivity can only get you so far, it is found in how close will my subjectivity run as a reversal in the minds of others. The goal is to infer and be inferred as result of having reached subjectivity.

- Marco

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

My heartbeat is in precision like a drum to an eternity that cannot be compensated but empowers the average mind.

- Marco

Cleanthes

 Cleanthes, a great Stoic philosopher

Cleanthes (c. 301 B.C.E. - 232 or 252 B.C.E.), an early Stoic philosopher, succeeded Zeno of Citium as the second head of the Stoic school in Athens. A steady disciple and hard worker, he was not credited with intellectual brilliance, but was admired for his strength of character and high moral qualities. He studied under Zeno for 19 years, and upon Zeno’s death in 263 B.C.E., became leader of the school. He wrote at least 50 works, which contained little original thought but dealt with the themes put forth by Zeno. He became the teacher of Chrysippus, the third leader of the Stoic school.

Cleanthes is remembered as a person who embodied and showed Stoic ideals through his character, life, and behaviors.

Life

Cleanthes was born c. 301 B.C.E. at Assos in the Troad. Most of what we know of his life comes from Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers. According to Diogenes, Cleanthes was originally a boxer who came to Athens with only four drachmas in his possession. He listened first to the lectures of Crates the Cynic, and then to those of Zeno, to whom he was a faithful disciple for nineteen years. He embodied many of the qualities that the Stoics regarded as virtue; he was known to be patient, hard-working, loyal, persevering and true to his beliefs.

It is thought that Cleanthes was very poor, and supported himself by working at night as a water carrier in the public gardens so that he could participate in philosophical discussions during the day. He was at times so poor that he wrote notes on Zeno's lectures on oyster shells and the shoulder blades of oxen because he could not afford to buy better materials. On one occasion, according to the custom of the city, he was brought before the court of justice, the Areopagas, to give an account of his manner of supporting himself. He then produced the gardener for whom he drew water, and a woman for whom he ground meal, as witnesses to prove that he lived by the labor of his hands. The judges of the court were struck with such admiration of his conduct, that they ordered ten minae to be paid him out of the public treasury. Zeno, however, did not allow him to accept it. One of his pupils, Antigonus Monophthalmus, afterward presented him with three thousand minae. According to Diogenes, he once brought one of the pieces of money which he had earned into the middle of a company of his acquaintances, and said, "Cleanthes could maintain even another Cleanthes if he were to choose; but others who have plenty of means to support themselves, seek for necessaries from others; although they only study philosophy in a very lazy manner."

Cleanthes recognized that his intellect was slow, and Diogenes says that he did not object to the name when he was called an ass; but only said that he was the only animal able to bear the burdens which Zeno put upon him. When he was reproached as a coward, he said, "That is the reason why I make but few mistakes."

Upon the death of Zeno in 263 B.C.E. he became president of the school by virtue of his character, though there were numerous brilliant disciples of Zeno in the school. He later became the teacher of Chrysippus.

Cleanthes died of starvation, some say at the age of either 80 or 99. As treatment for severely swollen gums, his doctors advised him to fast for two days. His condition improved so dramatically that he was urged to return to his former eating habits, but he refused, saying that as he was already halfway on the road to death, he would not trouble to retrace his steps. After his death, the Roman senate erected a statue in honor of him at Assos.

Works and Thought

Cleanthes produced over 50 works on topics such as time, duty, freedom, love, marriage, virtues, justice, knowledge, time, dialectics, and Zeno’s system of natural philosophy. Only fragments remain, embedded in the works of later writers, except for a large segment of his Hymn to Zeus, preserved in Stobaeus.

Cleanthes apparently promulgated the teachings of Zeno rather than developing original ideas. He regarded the sun as the abode of God, the intelligent providence, or (in accordance with Stoical materialism) the vivifying fire or aether of the universe. Virtue, he taught, is life according to nature; but pleasure is not according to nature.

He originated a new theory as to the individual existence of the human soul; he held that the degree of its vitality after death depends upon the degree of its vitality in this life.

Nietzsche

 

Zach Reg

Sounds Buddhist. A little depressing. I like to be a bit more positive and hopeful. Life is tough. You are tougher.

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

My rebuttal: 

Nietzsche is a notorious villain of philosophy. What we like to think of as typically nefarious in practical terms. He is a villain because his beliefs are inhibitively intrusive. What we like to call a cold calculating nihilist.

Manoel de Barros

 

Passo e fico, como o Universo

 

Callicles

 My opinion of Nietzsche 'Callicles'

Trying to debunk Socrates is a noble lie I will not admit but care to deny. This means you can characterize the argument as valid but it doesn't make it true. Therefore, a weak attempt at debunking and at best unconvincing critique of Socrates. It fails.

Here is the argument I've read and critique.... Verbatim.

- Marco

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

Callicles

Plato's Gorgias is simply the most existential piece of writing ever created. Nobody managed to surpass it, and nobody will. In the Gorgias you have the essence of the existential philosophy - with the question ''what life to follow''? The life of philosophy (and arts, morals, etc), or the life of politics? That the life of philosophy is ultimately in conflict and at war with politics is the most predominant theme in Plato.

For this reason the first word in the Gorgias is ''war.'' The dialogue is nothing more than a war between Callicles (who utters the word ''war'') and Socrates. This is a war between the manly Callicles and the effeminate Socrates, a war between the way of life of the real men, thus, the way of politics, and the way of life of the slaves, of the slave morality defended by Socrates. Nobody attacked the philosophical way of life more violent than Callicles, thus the Socratic way of life, and the question is, why did Plato do it?

What really triggered Callicles to declare war on Socrates is Socrates' insistence that it is better to suffer injustice, than to do it. Callicles says that this is the life of the slave who is impotent to cause violence, thus, for a slave, to suffer injustice is a noble thing. The slave, because of his impotence, considers that doing injustice is wicked. Because Socrates insists on this way of life - the life of the slave, Callicles accuses Socrates of trying to ''transvalue the values'' of men. For Callicles, and for every man out there, to suffer injustice is just wrong, with the caveat that you have the power to cause injustice or violence and harm. Those wo don't have the power are slaves, and for them a life of suffering and impotence is better, but for the real man, causing violence and injustice, especially when wronged is the noble life. Callicles defends the existential life of power, whilst Socrates defends the life of the powerless and impotent slave who can't revenge a wrong. And the slaves invent religions and morals to carry an imaginative revenge - and this is what Socrates does in the myth at the end.

This is the main reason why Nietzsche himself attacked Socrates. For Nietzsche Socrates is nothing more than a ''roturier'', a peasant, who ultimately destroyed the noble aristocracy he came in contact with. For Nietzsche, the aristocracy was defeated by the slave morality with a terrible weapon - the dialectics, the main culprit being Socrates. In the Gorgias we have the best example of this Nietzschean war - the dialectic, and the life of the slave being at war with the noble aristocracy played by Callicles.

One of the most decisive Calliclean attacks on Socrates and his philosophical way of life consists in the fact that people who pursue philosophy late in life are useless people, who can't do anything else, who are inferior to all other activities, and who can't compete in the harsh political arena. These ''effeminate'' men choose a life of philosophy and arts, and thus a sedentary life, from cowardice, a cowardice that ultimately will corrupt the whole of society. This is Rousseau's attack on philosophy and arts - philosophy and arts make men effeminate, unable to lead a virtuous life, which will ultimately corrupt everything, and society will crumble.

In the dialogue, Socrates, with all his dialectical slave morality tries to defeat Callicles, and Socrates is a good ''mob orator'' and a demagogue, and in speech Callicles is indeed defeated, simply because Socrates is a better trumpeter. But Callicles's principle remains victorious - the life in the pursuit of power is the best life.

Callicles is superior to Socrates just because Callicles studied philosophy. Philosophy must be studied when young, as a preparation for the life of the real man, the life of politics. But, Socrates has remained a philosopher as an old man, and this is a mistake. Politics for Callicles means to have friends, to build a network of power so you can defend yourself from enemies. But, Socrates remaining a philosopher, thus poor and destitute of power, he will be a sure victim if somebody was to accuse him of something. And Callicles attacks Socrates on exactly this thing - that philosophy makes you weak, unable to defend yourself, and will ultimately lead to your doom.

The transvaluation of values defended by Socrates, is the main motif of Nietzsche's entire philosophical life. Nietzsche is best understood as defending the position of Callicles at war with slave morality and the likes of Socrates. Just because slave morality won over the noble morality, Nietzsche warns us, the time is now ripe for a new war, and a new transvaluation of values, in which the noble morality defended by Callicles will defeat the slave morality of Socrates.

March 21st 2025

 The miracle of creation is a source of universal properties, everything that was you became. There is no way you or I exist without some unknown force making us exist. If we call it god, then so be it. I call it my soul. If god does not live in me, then why should I bow to it.

- Marco

do you (March 20th 2009)

ever wake up with a feeling of complete enlightenment, where answers come naturally as they are. If I could describe this to you, it would be as though living in a world of perfect total clarity. I guess that sounds hard to believe. So much of me, although, particularly has made this impression of late - I can't say 'why' I get these feelings. I suppose it is to do with enlightenment on some level. Though enlightenment can be purely subjective a retort. This recourse of myself, in some stages, throughout this time in my life I think has a certain level of objectivity in mind. Causes which I can communicate without some belief in knowing the outcome or what may result due to cause.



I restrict these feelings - not to ambition - per se.



I would equate my own enlightenment to 2 phases separate of natural cause(s). One being passion, the other being hope.



Sometime(s), if I wake-up, it's living as if in a nightmare, to which end I cannot differentiate the outcomes present-ed to me in that state of utter delirium. In which case, most dream(s) depicting the challenge of your altered state in a (i.e. parallel dimension) for sake of argument cannot be unfounded in a universe all its own. As unnatural the vivid a psychosis might take you.



When I awake from this dream state, the world appears to me, exactly as it once was a priori to the dream world before it happened. I do not realize this until, I begin to challenge the thought, with the same thought that 'it was only a dream.' However, these are not the answers one is to fill without a sense of urgency. Which, this leads myself to believe, that my retroactive sense of the dream life is an opportunity to examine the question of its exactness. However, my problem became one of, what measure can I propose the possibility of a duplicity? In other words, how can I answer questions, to answer, in a world that does not exist from this of our own. If there is a correct interaction between myself, into a modern day paradox of the cerebral kind, when I make the choice to correspond with a mixed interpretation. One part human (physical), the other dream (spiritual).



There can be no confusion between underlying variables, which a paradox of this kind would undertake the possibility of both human (cerebral) or "the dream" (psyche) to co-exist. The dichotomy present is theoretically, when one is awake, there is no definitive proof that dreams exist. Therefore, you or I as a physical entity cannot assimilate or combine the same physical properties without a dream which make-believe is absent.



In this desired state between dream-life and the presence of time in physical reality, there are conditions from which the physical property between one's answer to what-is-real, is to believe what you want to believe. That condition is already present in the universe of one's cerebral ineptitude. The second part of this ulterior "dream state" is the non-physical attributes, which exclude such things such as hope or vision is to wish fulfillment. Wish-fulfillment is something typically associated with dreams. However, therein lay the difference between the dream-life one experiences without the interpretation to correctly match disingenuous inferences. The nightmare - which is equally relevant to one's dream life is nonetheless a dream of escape, or abandonment.



(1) In conclusion of such argument, the favour of what dreams represent are insofar as emblematic of conditions. I argued this, because conditions of such self-awareness prior to the dream-life could not possibly cohabit in the same place you once were before the dream happen(s). This is lucid to no particular subjective force, which is to examine, with what dreams contain physical yet actual properties. In fact, the dream-life is impossible to reconstruct which is what makes them so fascinating.



(2) The conclusion of such a dichotomy, is that common sense already dictates what we know about dreams, but not why we dream. The dream life represents one's physical attributes, the paradox, that one does not differentiate between the dream life. The purpose of when one dreams, assuming we have no direct idea that something physical happened, even if immune to it. The paradox of an altered state such as dreams, in fact, lead to the same direct answer of strictly unknown phenomenon.



(3) The final conclusion of this continues between the altered state of dream(s) to physical property. There are in litany of the subject hope - and - passion. Perhaps, there are few other types of interaction which shapes the human mind or ego, yet are sublime to subjectivity. Both hope - passion, working together do not form dream(s). However, those are concepts which form vague if not abstract interpretations impossible to emit through gestation. Unfamiliar as hope - passion, resemble nothing they reveal to. The same kind of ambiguity refers back into the dream life in hope of achieving a desired goal. Passion - is of unfulfilled destiny, that can only be broken, yet crushes the feeling of a wish fulfilled. Therefore, hope always leads before passion. Such is the dream life as is to living the good life.

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

Just to clarify something. . . I do not plagiarize any of what I write. In fact, teachers in the past would ask me of a source to my writing. When I would reply these are my own thought(s), they either wouldn't believe me, get jealous, then fail me.

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

So why don't you wirte a book. The way you express yourself with words, you would make a great author. Serious! I would purchase, not becuase your a friend but for the way you write.

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

I am seriously_flabbergasted. Not so much due to the compliment, (because you've truly humbled me), but why you have flattered none the same. I thank you. Totally unexpected. I thank you.

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

1 John 2:6

 I strive to feel this in my heart every living breathing day I spread myself. There is a line you must be prepared to walk and it is razor thin. I trust myself in this manner of feeling and in my thoughts. I spend my time with it using my internal clock as my guide. The wisdom you must gain provided. It provides peace. Well being. And above all... god. God is the first and the last piece of resistance in life. When you realize that God is your refuge you will fight for it. That's what this proverb means to me.

- Marco

March 20, 2013

 I work so hard to feel defeat. It is more valuable than winning.

- Marco 

March 20, 2017

 I am not what I survived. I am everything they never took away and everything they could never be.

- Marco

Can one be aware with all the senses simultaneously? | J. Krishnamurti

 Krishnamurti is a genius because he knows how to go beyond sensory perception without any limitation. The questions after hearing them were naturally stupid or what he called lazy, therefore, completely ruined it for me.

9:53 to 10:30 = the conflict of desire is found in that sequence. The image must be eliminated before the thought caused sensation to build off of that image, an image created by the brain. This is the sequence between how we question interference of desire. And desire is immutable. Immutable because the space between sensation and what is thought has built that image. What you give the image you must eliminate (as I already mentioned) the thought about the image. This is consciousness in motion. That I eliminate the image before any sequence can occur. Sensation <=========== > thought = 'instant perception' - Marco

Krishnamurti

Dustin Hoffman

 Acting

This is my style of acting.  To act as if you had seen a thought coming from me.  

Acting to me is a psychological endeavor on a metaphorical level.

As I have studied in the past 20 years the ultimate question: what is acting.  The answer is founded in Aristotlean logic.

Acting: "plot is (character) revealed through action." - Aristotle 

In my 20 years (of learning to be am actor) when you look at that phrase it helps embrace the very nature in acting for me personally.

I am not a method actor per se.  This doesn't end there.

- Marco

March 18th 2014

 Re; the following is my argument for existentialism A fusion between both divergent thinking and conceptually as plagiarism. Meta physics is something Nietzsche was attempting to debunk based on nihilism as its main attribute.

I refer to this anti-thesis one that Nietzsche invented as an algorithm or what he refers to "precursor" re; Spinoza and why logic inspires the creative element. Basically what Nietzsche is trying to proclaim is that there is no such thing as stolen knowledge; this also proves how divergent thinking is a cause for pragmatic reasoning. (Although Nietzsche would outright reject my view as flawed.) I am arguing not in favor of what Nietzsche pronounces:

(1) should reason be mistreated

(2) but he limits it to chance reasoning.

Example: the fact Spinoza (through the combination of instincts) confirmed a belief Nietzsche thought was born out of his own private thoughts. Therefore, it is not only a coincidence but has to happen between supremely eternal beings or what Nietzsche infers as 'twosomeness'.

"I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by "instinct." Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness..."

― Friedrich Nietzsche, From a postcard to Franz Overbeck, Sils-Maria (30 July 1881) - Marco

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

Rarely do I coexist with anything Nietzsche has offered, but this paragraph I can respect.

"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history" — yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die. One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened."

―Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense

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

Spiritual truths seem strange and mysterious only because humanity lives in its own imagination. — Philip Arnold

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

Probably the least pronounced of all things being equaled, is it thought, of as renewal. - Marco

It's all in the approach. As a person that battled through my personal struggle with mental illness. I had to convince myself that playing a victim was what caused it. Second, when you learn that is the case, I had to struggle in coming to terms with not resorting to playing a victim (retort it) and not to use it only as some form of a defense mechanism. Once you become subconsciously aware of it, that changes the perception you have and in turn how you project yourself onto the world. It is in this manner, I now realize I have no control in how others see me. I observe my behavior and govern my freedom in a manner of thinking about how I unlearned from the habits I ultimately made work against me. The enemy comes from within, first. To be subconsciously aware of your psychological state instantaneously. It is a an effectual biographical look at myself, as I express it here to you now.

Conclusion

My psychiatrist did not want to listen to me playing the victim of a society that I rebelled against. He wanted me to see (me) and not adjust to society. But to see myself in society on terms that are worthy of who I am objectively. I think I have. Not because I am affected by society. But because I know what I want from this place of a psychological nature. All without being a victim that society makes us, unless you invert it - then examine, unlearning what the model is trying to turn you into. You displace the victim and acknowledge that you rather be a victim. It's a trajectory that's changed me, my life, and is prevalent in what I do.

- Marco

 

 

This is unhealthy full blown neurosis (method acting).  I know what is I'm saying. My point is it might fly in the face of what he is saying, though if I want something badly enough, it won't be at the same cost for my personal undoing.   People know who I am.  I can act dangerously as well.  Immersion is not technique.  They are conceptually driven.

- Marco

Verse by Marco

 "In good spirit"

God if this is the chaos in my life, which comes only by your design. I am a better man for it. The collision between stars if not yet born. The fragility of a moth to a flame. I am yours, I surrender. And heavens flowers bloom like never before. I now believe in everything that awaits. It is you. You have guided me and everyone else that never thought (to know) that what they see is not what you see. This is the secret to life. To knowing how much you are present in us. It is a perfect design without showing us your face.

I understand it.

Thank you for this.

- Marco

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

The breath of angels

I have come to this place.

And I can't even imagine as to why nor how I got here.

But the birds are singing a different tune,

where my thoughts in this empty house,

I can hear.

You see, my dog left me today.

And the winter just got a little longer.

Each of my steps a little heavier in the heart.

But through these thoughts,

I have come to this place.

It's all I have, there's everything around me.

I no longer am surrounded by things,

my ears filled without noise.

Just the silence.

When I walked into my house (as if for the first time. . . )

knowing she wasn't there nor going to be.

The house feels so empty.

She was my life force.

And I've just had the greatest revelation.

I. . . 

uh. . .

realize that without her I know nothing.

So now I'm at peace.

(And that is the greatest peace of all.)

- Marco

P.S. I will love you forever.

 To do as humans do is a deconstruction. This means relationship to human models is a means. (Machines = means to a means.) That AI can only be a geneationally generated - therefore isolated theoretically driven model. The language used to program AI will be inadequate to its own end game. Provided that machines cannot decide on things independently.

(This is a possessive element similar to any machine related reality. Possession of your own brain = possession of their own program, such is being, such is awareness of cause, such is mind independent of thought, such is love, such is feeling, etc...)

1- You can have a machine possess philosophical models of human elements to conceptually instruct them.

2- (I am using this as an example which limits machine-life not to possess character and identity...)

3- But a machine cannot act pragmatically out of its own volition or free will.

Machines will always be based on command. It means that machines are meant to regurgitate and comply only as information models. Machines cannot feel. That is a fact. Machines will only superimpose that humans feel. But they will never understand empathy. Machines don't know why humans feel nor know the cause associated. No matter pattern. Nothing will ever program machines to feel. This is an undeniable fact. You can program a machine to kill. But it will never offend nor be offended nor offer a reproach designed to pass for feelings.

As mentioned above... "Means to a means" = that without its own end to a means. Machines will not act to the interests of solidarity insofar as humanity requires human empathy.

-Marco

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

°○°▪︎▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different?

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

Context: Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different? Why do ideals, ideologies, whether political or religious, exist at all? Is it not one of the divisive concepts of man that has brought about conflict? After all, the ideologies, the left, right or centre, are put together by study, by the activity of thought, weighing, judging, and coming to a conclusion, and so shutting the door on all fuller enquiry. Ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. They are like belief or faith that separate man from man. And this separation comes about through time. The ‘me’, the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if the tribal divisions can ever be bridged over. Man has tried to unify nations, which are really glorified tribalism. You cannot unify nations. They will always remain separate. Evolution has separate groups. We maintain wars, religious and otherwise. And time will not change this. Knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about that global comprehension, global relationship, a global mind. So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in ‘what is’, the actuality, totally disregarding the movement of time?

the secret to privacy 🔏

 

●°●°●●°▪︎°▪︎°

There's a group of rich people that own land with few nice cars parked outside that tell me we're all the same and I didnt work hard enough to get to where they are. That, I could have and should have worked harder. What do you think of this statement. Is it simply how hard you work that tells whether you'll be rich and successful?

○°○°○°▪︎°▪︎°

It's not how hard, it's how much (you work).  There is an element where the two fall under the same category = you work hard as well as work a lot to get where we are today. 

There is no weakness in that.

In fact it is a matter of reputation vs material interpretation.

Your reputation that you work hard and work much is the opposite of material (capaitalist) ends.  The material types are elitist group of people that make their wealth independent of actually being lazy to have earned a reputation that is to be respected.

My point is I respect (my respect draws from therefore is conditonal to) people that work hard and work much.

I opposed the alpha lifestyle where elitists aka with alpha frat style mentalities, are posers, fakes.  They "work hard to play hard" taking vacations and make it habitual to act in a way that does not appeal to real people.

In conclusion, we all are born slaves.  We are not born to be slaves.  We are born to serve and that is my point here.  You do not have to possess a slave mentality.  It is a better alternative in thinking about your position in life, rather than consider yourself a victim based on comparison.  The false idea.  The circumstances are the same, but the signs (if your can see/read) them are hard to ignore.

I look no further than narcissistic assholes hell bent millionaires that couldn't hold a candle to these thoughts.  I preach but no ill will only to those that will leave their baggage at the door.  

God bless being Canadian for who they are, what we should represent.  

I am a Liberal.

- Marco

If beauty were dark (clouds)

 We are what we fail to become..

- Marco

The coming of wisdom

 The question of what is right from wrong is the ultimate test of wisdom. The manner from which all things are expressed into its equal or lesser parts. When I think of it, there is a certain amount of timeless quality to be gravitate toward. The expulsion of the will.

- Marco

Secularity and the origin of wisdom (a priori)

 If life originated purely by chance then shouldn’t it continue depending on chance and not choice for logical consistency?

Maybe or maybe not - you are asking for the word 'trust' as it would apply to ALL your interests here. If you trust yourself then there is chance in agreement which are psychologically neutral. My point is: If you believe that you possess the unconscious drives (i.e. psychological impulsivity) which are your defense mechanisms for negating what we subconsciously see or do, that is free will (choice). FREE WILL by definition is not just something we are in favor to and throw babies out of windows.

When you see past both free will vs trust - you will have no motive which also choiceless awareness comes into play. This is pure unadulterated wisdom.

So my second point following my criteria (stated above) means that you are already rooted in wisdom. There is a polarity in your query. One which the paradox is that if we consciously believe what happened yesterday, nothing there happened by chance. The original outcomes always remain constant from the day before. Not until did you apply a condition to those things (e.g. rules based theory) did you find things that you decided were true or changed your psychology. Logic is a formulation of rules. Rules change as you regulate your behavior, and the way your perform logic to enhance your psychological space in time. This is a awareness which you become the observer. And the observer is the observed. Once you record things in this manner, the world changes around you according to perception and the arrangement of your attunement to logical thinking. I am talking about your own self formulated rules on a meta level. (Aristotelian logic)

Note: I noticed how some of the responses your question has generated incomplete variables. I only attempted to, at the very least, provide you with some form of postulates that you may pick apart from.

Great question though!

- Marco