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

intoxicating defect (April 29th 2009)

 As do - stop - then do - run, that is the kind of adrenaline one might find dense, so dense, it fills the air in a making of lighter weight to carry as if gravity reversed itself, only, to reduce our sense of less application of necessary force. That redundant, because, if force travelled upward without any kind of gravity would defy the laws of a physical nature, the laws of gravity would not allow for such disobedience. This provides a clear example, of the Newton provision to gravity, that all such force cannot travel upward without a return to it's original frame of conjecture.

The more you actually try to prove, perhaps, the less you get out of it - would have been a better result - known to such things without any weight to them. However, even insufficient information finds its way into an inscape, trapped, within the parade of gravitational pull, so, parades were given a general route to follow without really telling us anything about its purpose. Science, has no mystery attached to its easy, happy, frame of existence in life.

Upon so much one stands by the wooden leg, on a little, deviant, perhaps omission of greed, as completely left to search a time in place that that the place originated. Where does this keep, holding down, this weight of such fortunate circumstances, described, only as the perverse patronizing force of a cynical nature.

This body type of no particular birthstone, gave such, to the freedom of age upon years, counting not days or years, but only recurring thoughts of force given to him by nature.

First came the worst - as forming the heart in shape with love - came betrayal. It is something almost unavoidable, but to the best of my knowledge, bitter resentment does not contain which instead in fact rose out of inner peace, strength, sincerity, which can only amount to pleasure of something unknown to most anyone else.

Then perhaps time became a pill of enemy-like, proportions, that you consume in a small tedious dose, a prevention of the mind to wander back from there, that in time, you may recognize how these creatures concealed itself from you, only to reveal the mask they can no longer hide behind, that when they see you, you may know they are in fact - yes - in a small tedious dose, you may know they are in fact living a lie.

Though there is nothing that this time in the occupancy of a story, can measure the diameter of width over infinite whereabouts, such moments are made. As to refuse the laws of physics, to also may refuse, those that contaminate it.

Along side of moral ambiguity, is intellectual dishonesty. The flood against time is a result of perverse cynicism, so to speak, one combines the elements of random execution as if to examine nothing worth deciding, then replaces it without the ethics of reason, then dangerously crossing the joining crossroad. This is an extension of conscientious stupidity, for sincere ignorance, but what can only then be replaced, again with defying such anarchy to the same principle once it appears.

The weight of the world in a free falling choice, coincidental to, the defiance of laws or scientific explanation.

No longer has the insubordination of gravity, felt so mundane, as if to say take me from this long awaited return, as if to respond, you were never here that long from vacation, then what are you doing here, you forgot. The question was a matter of decency, yet, so few people act in truth, they rather pretend, the lie is always a better solution to the problem. Though even lies deserve proper solutions, which is how dignity is recovered from such greater things less than short-lived material in matter.

Though once, that same liar snuck in behind that buried shadow, quite content with being only half-witted, or clever depending on who you ask, throughout this time in the trial of no-return, so many disguised have made their living on it. To this end, it is to refuse going through the motions, where as they were - so many disguised - rest on their laurels.

In my time, I see a generation gone by which I refuse to acknowledge with any envy, only remorse, that those are they who are now happier going through the motions - it is there that they will stay, I seek refuge, from that one-upmanship, of ulterior motive, or grieving a reality, that represent so few.

Which is where my gravity has always been.

East vs Western literature in Philosophy

 How do Eastern and Western philosophies differ in understanding truth?

°○°○°○○°○°▪︎°

I feel Eastern Philosophy is poorly understood therefore improperly interpeted of what is its qualification for empirical ends. I am stating that as objevtively false. That objective if I may position myself in arguement, is constructed (if we use Confucius or Zhuangzi) as examples of omniscient or omnipotent ends that do not topically transcend in its validation to philosophically accepted norms. I am also saying that is a superifical view of ancient wisdom. We hold it to a lesser regard in issuing normative style (providing substantive or contingemt) of what is practical in application.

- Marco

Private pathology vs neurosis (psychological)

 

 question: Are there necessary truths that are not analytic but are either synthetic or metaphysical? If so, what would be some examples and how would you justify your claim?

•●°●○°°○○°○•

Everything is metaphysically relevent when it comes to reasoning on a philosophical level. You reach a state of transparency in a world we are in. The order in what we seek to interpret into language. The transcending of our very thoughts into something concrete. It is metaphysically impossible not to perform philosophy without the antimatter we have within ourselves to repel or displace (a thing for that thing in itself). My point is that in order to prove what we think is a finite process within a system that may or may not work against it. Philosophy to be true of something can also be false.  

- Marco

 What is the difference between mind and consciousness. And are they the source of our existence and intellect.

°●°▪︎°●°°▪︎°▪︎

My answer:

I like to feel things of which emotions don't think.  Therefore, my conscious experience is equal to the force inside my body. (I think makes sense?)

 The mind is a collective force from which my brain interprets reality as normal per se. This is my core belief that energy or to feel that I have conception of an eternal or constant (consistency) form of this.  Therefore, the mind is uniform through which my own experience must dictate.  What my point is the mind reveals what consciousness may or may not reveal to us.  All we have are sensations which we're unable to understand from it.  The process is binary and primordial.  We learn how to interpret.  It is the cross between consciousness and mind.  Space and time is uniformity of this, the 'all'.

Again, I think makes sense.  This being philosophically computational.

Edit:  this answer I offered is just as good as the formulated question...

I happen to have an afterthought...

Is my dissertation relative to Sartre's philosophical conditional?  = "existence precedes essence"?

- Marco

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

October 10th 2025

 October 10th 2025

I look at this a little deeper. It's pathetic. What is the main difference between AI generated personalities and the function of a neurotic actor's motives - makes this pathetic.
Most actors are confused with being intolerably narcissistic when the reality is (that 'bad actors'), who have no place in acting, lack one of two things:

1 - being that they lack the device to find pathological need which relates back to the world through an honest use of your authentic personality.

2 - what kind of mental acuity does an actor possess between: their empathy vs their psychological state = that an audience really looks at and detects fact (truth) from fiction (their ability to see what is real or fake.)

Perverse actors trick the brain into believing things that AI could never do. We are talking about cheapening the emotional motives = changes and causality = the actor uses in any moment given circumstance. Cheating emotional connection is not only depriving of AI - it is pure trash, because most actors are guilty of it too.

Taking a copy and paste approach to acting is AI generated.

Emotional truth is something confidential to an actor. As I said earlier emotional truth can be cheated - but hardly even known about, unless you use your mind to connect the dots in life brought corrective interpretation. This is awareness in action. Directors can manipulate anything they want using AI instead of bridging gaps with actors as they could in role playing. Performative art has to be revolutionized. Most directors are blind to. Unless a revolutionary skill in acting takes place. We have no language to decipher from it. AI developed language has surfaced and it will take genius to subvert.

- Marco

Leap frogging ignorance (takes courage)

Why is it I can imagine a better conversation with a package of crackers, more interesting than most people.

I might be born and raised in Winnipeg, but my blood is Portuguese forever.  I think I am the kind of individual that makes being Canadian a whole other way of pride - and I am very proud of that.  I transfer what is my best into the romantic image I desire, and I change the landscape of this countries identity.  I love my Canadian friends.  This is who I am.

The expression on his face was that of someone who has reached a crossroads where there are no sign posts, or only signs written in a strange, indecipherable language. - J.SARAMAGO

Sometimes I wonder why I became friends with people who now are only alien to me.

The moment you think about it, the moment you want to be happy, you will cease to be happy. Forever. Possibly forever. Do you hear? Forever. The stronger your desire to be happy, the unhappier you will be. Happiness isn't something you can conquer. People will tell you that it is. Don't believe them. Happiness either is or isn't.

J. Saramago

The source from which words actually count as something are only if they are timeless, meaningful, and change the way you see things.

When you learn to take a sophisticated approach in life you begin to mirror things that originally appeared abstract transforming itself.

You are responsible for asking these questions to reserve your right to freedom. In my mind freedom should be universal.

Existentialist thought by Marco Almeida

 °●•●●°°●°●

Oscar Wilde

"The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves."

 -- from "Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young"

Far and away the most crucial aspects of Pessoa's work that I wholeheartedly agree with....

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

Living, it seems to me, is a metaphysical error of matter, a mistake of inaction. 

I look attentively at the traces of absorption and distraction that are erased in it. 

No problem has a solution. 

We use our feelings indiscriminately to resolve the problems of our intelligence, and we do it because we are tired of thinking or because we are too timid to draw conclusions, out of an absurd necessity to find support, or out of a gregarious impulse to return to others and to life.

Since we can never know all elements in a problem, we can never solve it. We lack the data necessary to attain the truth as well as the intellectual processes that would exhaust the interpretation of those data. 

- Fernando Pessoa

1- Seeing is having seen.

2- the thing we suppose is alive in the supposition. 

-Fernando Pessoa

Reading Pessoa and discovering things that interlock in the chaos of my mind is taking me to a place I've never been. His work is genius and I am thankful to see it the way it's meant to be treated. As a work of pure unmitigated genius is. It reminds me of the first time I read José Saramago. I feel every thought I have like inside a goldmine, the depths of a metaphysical mental state, my own sense of relapse which completes me internally. 

I thought Saramago changed my life. Pessoa is in fact raising that bar to different levels.

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.)

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

Antimony a skill in detecting irony

 

So what is it that we are seeking? What is it that a person wants? He sees that his life is boredom, a routine, a battlefield, a fight, a constant struggle with never a moment of peace, except perhaps occasionally sexually or otherwise. So he says, "Life is transient; life is changing; there must be something extraordinarily permanent," and he wants that permanency, something other than mere physical daily routine and experience. And he calls that "God." So he believes in God, and all the images, rituals are based on belief. Belief is the outcome of fear. If there is no fear you can see the leaf, the tree, the beautiful sky, the light and the birds and a face; there is beauty. And where there is beauty there is goodness. Where there is goodness there is truth.

J Krishnamurti, Inward Revolution

Acquiring the divine will an empirical mastery

 °●●°○°▪︎°▪︎°

the jeopardy of competition

 "Perhaps, I am concerned more of morality in the guessing department, if there is a moral upheaval involved is clearly not existent, therefore there is no argument to be made.

I support the loss of competition, on an internal level, such as in failing to make that leap of faith to something 'greater' unknown, or the risk taking involved with such competitive disposition."

July 14th 2014

MA ============

Marco Almeida

September 18, 2010

When I look at the viral element of survival, sometimes, competition is seriously done while that moment of time had completely evaporated.  I'm not quite sure how to make an argument against the most greed, is it competition, or is it?  Is it contempt for the vanity of its alluring nature, which sometimes, but only sometimes. . . should be kept at a safer distance from the greed which it informs.

 

I think that, there is more of it's practicality (or lack thereof the term), then it's comical sometimes expedient alienation in effecting potential outcomes.  Perhaps, I am concerned more of morality in the guessing department, if there is a moral upheaval involved is clearly not existent, therefore there is no argument to be made.

 

I support the loss of competition, on an internal level, such as in failing to make that leap of faith to something 'greater' unknown, or the risk taking involved with such competitive disposition.  I have never believed in the acquisition of wealth, if it has something to do with giving under falsehood of greed.  I always thought that contempt begins first with greed, only ending in deception.  It is that middle ground-breaking ability to assume, my worst, or sometimes best.

 

It clearly alters our misconceptions, as long as greed is involved.

 

So the challenge, is simple to attend to, how deviant or how killer the instinct perpetuates on itself.

 

I like to believe that that my thoughts are met with clarity, a clarity, where misconceptions are the norms unassociated with my character.  I'm speaking of a reputation of private nature, my own inhibition of the will, to support the internal jeopardy of most neglected thoughts.  That is where the true nature of competition emerged.  However lost it has taken its turn - somewhere else in time - only to be difficult to rewind.

 

So, here I am.