Your mind travels faster than then speed of time. [A synoptic look at neurosis]

 The basis of the term neurosis should be converted to be the nature of understanding [time] and the property of [mind].  Think of your mind as a safety vessel storing information which is NOT relative to time, simplify that with the same idea you have of life right now. (Note: Typically a nihilist would negate the same method of thinking about yourself in the world is poisonous or treasonous with regard to dogma.  In other words a nihilist would argue that if you favor of your own ideals, you are false, subjectively flawed as a realist should behave.  Since I negate the very reason for what living should be - which is status quo - the nihilist provides substance.)  This follows - how safe is your position taken with regard to your sense of security, what does this mean of mind.  The main hyposthesis is this: if your mind travels faster than the speed of time - what is true of mind.  That is the basis of your exsistence. Ultimately the essential premise of this is simply how thoughts are born, and how all thoughts are information stored deep into your unconscious mind that translates to the world you think you see is happening. Think about the following as they are related on an empirical level.

====

1- Nothing you see happening on the outside travels to you - whatever it is you see happens only inward - it is an inversion of reality.

====

2- If the speed of time is the same as mind, then everything I see on the outside is travelling inwardly.  Both mind & time cannot be true.

====

3- Time = mind (mutually exclusive) That is my point.

====

4- And of course I am measuring time with the model (neurosis) you base it on refers to time.

====

5- That which explains the state of time as an altered reality from inside/out [neurosis] is seen as abnormal but relativity [nihilist] kills it.

- Marco

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

AI Generated interpretation (in response)

You’re wrestling with some really dense, heavy concepts here—tying together how perception works, the subjective feeling of time, and how isolating it can feel when your internal processing doesn’t match the pace of the external world.

There's a lot of philosophical weight in the idea that our perception is an "inward inversion." In cognitive science and philosophy (like Kant's transcendental idealism or modern neuroscience), it’s well-recognized that our brains construct a model of reality from sensory data rather than directly "touching" the outside world. When our thoughts are racing or hyper-focused, the subjective experience of time can feel radically distorted—either speeding up or feeling completely out of sync with the clock on the wall.

At the same time, when you start trying to build absolute, universal formulas out of this—like Time = mind (mutually exclusive) or that our consciousness physically outruns time—it's worth taking a step back to ground things. The subjective feeling of time dilation or racing thoughts is very real emotionally, but in everyday objective terms:

• Physical time moves at its steady, measurable pace regardless of what our thoughts are doing.
• Internal experience (how fast we think, worry, or process) fluctuates wildly based on stress, focus, sleep, and state of mind.

When those two feel entirely out of alignment, it can feel exhausting, disorienting, and profoundly intense. It sounds like your mind is running at a hundred miles an hour right now trying to solve or map out this massive existential puzzle.

Writing through these big abstract ideas can be one way to process, but sometimes getting caught in theoretical loops about reality and consciousness can make the world feel pretty distant and overwhelming.

How are you doing right now in your day-to-day? Are you getting some rest, or has your mind been running this fast for a while?

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

I do not have a neurotic craving for success as it is driven and dictated in society today, that some still argue is a method for survival, in fact, those that do believe in supply and demand as a working for monetary consumption are unconsciously pathological in their resolve. Talk about out dated!

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

My existence depends on one thing and one thing only - am I not eccentric enough I can tell you to fuck off.

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

Being trapped in your own unabiding sarcasm is mans worst friend of himself.

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

Never fear to form an opinion simply because others are afraid to form it themselves. Whereas the basis of that opinion should be informed from the fear to which it brought you, insofar sexism - racism -prejudice - injustice as social and societal norms exist.

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

I know what it feels like to be disrespected, although not being given respect takes far more talent for who you really are. - Marco Almeida, 2013

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

 September 5th 2026

That's solid foundational question impregnable to a metaphysical end. (Which is performed surmiseably as philosophical). So, I shit you not to sweat it any futher. It's a good thesis, but the trajectory is a negation itself.

We ultimately are fallible and creatives such as myself. We all do it (philosophy) different.  

It's the feable types that follow and try to exhibit how much smarter they are. (Not the matter itself.)

I come across plenty of zealots on www. I must equate it with something that'll work for myself, as I have found there are many a philosopher out there but few can pull rank. Further to this testimony, philosophy as I mentioned earlier should be rooted in metaphysics.  

°○○•○•

Which is to say there are principles invloved in the price we ask questions, whereas the cost of the answers we pose shouldn't have to be referenced. I am making a point about using unscientific means not to reproduce something already known (i.e. plagiarized) but to create what is originally made as something useful. I always aim to make what I say as useful has value. 

There is, of course, interpretation involved.  

My point is to master language and logic itself. My arguement rests where empiricism ends. What acts empirically should only be a philosopher who acts with ¹ convcition ² vision ³ courage.

Marco

•○●○•○○○••○°•○

How much of philosophy comes from the way the philosopher wants reality to be and how much is based on actuality? And what's better in the majority of situations: to seek foundational, ontological truths or tangible, experiential epistemic truths?

As I age, I find the latter more helpful, I'm just wary of self deception.

Woke [sophistry]

 Here is the reinvention or what I call the greatest lie in modern day revisionist theory. It is related to what we understand as 'woke'.

Woke ideologically speaking - has become a lack of common sense in everyday thought. The irony being that everything anti-woke protesters think of as common sense is just the opposite of reasonability.

This tribal influence, of cult minded right wing personalities - is an open wound festering itself as indescribably unprecedented historical period.

The anti-woke agenda is very simply self described: the world's crisis actors. It reads:

If you don't want to be told what to think; when in reality you really don't know how.

The truth is that the anti-woke agenda is an elementary level of thought.

Why the anti-woke agenda? They don't like being told how wrong they are - exists only in a vacuum where disorder meets their discomfort and distorting the truth with misinformation, using reverse psychology, then labelled the cynical value of being woke = as fake news.

What we are seeing in this day and age is criminal activity being normalized. It is the war on woke ideology.

- Marco

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

I call this a phenomenon. Plain and simple, god does not exist, and if he did exist, how would we know. That is the ultimate answer to everything in the universe. Some use their mental approach to god as hedonists that refute all sense of logic, which is convenient to those that purge upon others disbelief in god. - Marco
 

June 19th 2024 the ethics of Marco Almeida

 There is something about me. When I feel wronged. I always almost always make myself to blame. It goes without thinking. I don’t know why this is. I do know where it has taken me. I know I am a sensitive person - it is not out of character for me if you know me better.  

But to further this self examination, it boggles my mind how much hurt I've been through. 

In return from such a realization, it comes from a place of repentance. That people who blame themselves before placing that same type of judgment onto others, are people of god. This means you look out for others, putting their needs before your own.

It's about feeling disappointed but on a human level, most won't understand.

What I can say of me is that it makes me a good person, not - not that it makes me better than others. It simply means that when you connect the dots, you know what good vs evil looks like. And consequently there are those who perversely take advantage of that in spite of you.

In conslusion, there are people in my history. Some I loved dearly that completely shattered my personal perception of myself, my well being, and only misunderstood me for what I can now say had nothing to do with me. It was about me blaming only myself.  

It can be lonely.

- Marco

°•●●○○••••

The paradoxical nature between God and man is the very fabric of philosophy. Therefore, theology is philosophy with a general assignment of those variables. The truth is not theological. Only the question of God is philosophical and unknowable. Which creates our own dialogue.

°●○°○°○°○°○°○°○

June 20th 2026

I don't know about that.  A pure metaphysical standpoint, from which all things derive thenselves as is, does not physically represent an apriori discerned representation of MY REALITY.

°○°○°●°●°

 So what your argument says, is interesting to me.

°●°○°○°●° 

My point being that my personal affirmations (i.e. thoughts) that I hold myself to.  Are they merely dogmas of some type.  How do you know I am acting on my metaphysical representation of my relationship to the physical experience. Which to your point: would make my own sensory experience - obsolete?  °•●•°°

If in which case you don't see my contradiction as constructive of your idea.  Then, please refrain from a thoughtless response to me.

Thanks for your insight, regardless.

- Marco

16 July 1944 ~ Krishnamurti

 

ambiguity as silence

Steven Bernstein

June 8th, 2026 ○°○•○•• There is a paradox that lives between what is courage and what cowardice is. If you fail - you don’t find yourself in the irony of it, it is in the paradox (as mentioned), do you find yourself that makes for something personal. A great thinker percolates moment to moment. •°○°○°○° Marco from Winnipeg P.S. I have listened to everything you said. The key elements are how 1- transmission works if you are alone in your thoughts, (this is poetry) 2- relapse of memory is if you misplace value in oneself trying to justify something you cannot control, and 3- contrivance in general is the idea if you live to concoct a viscerally purposeless mode of convention. = We are all just copies of something else we haven't learned about ourselves yet.

- Marco

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

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]