The main threshold of Compulsion

 

It's intimidating to practice love; only fools don't participate in it.

Marco Almeida 2025 

Mental Grace

 Intent of persuauion (vs) of perception

The mental acuity of graceful thinking.

"I love dealing with people like you, but only if you believe in god."

People that have no true sense of self regard are next to those with little empathy.  People of no self regard are the real fakers in life. MA2025

Now consider the following on philosophical grounds... unless you think you are capable.  Then, don't bother reading nor interpreting.

○○○○○


How does this justify the belief in gods name.  no logic. > @Bible_Time: Be strong & courageous. Do not be terrified or discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go. -Josh 1:9

(HERE IS A DISCUSSION: I had on this subject verbatim over facebook as is...) 12 years ago between 'Lib' my interlocutor and myself.

Lib: Not sure if you are well versed in Christian Dogma, but if you need any explanations, talk to me tomorrow.

Marco: I am simply saying if the opposite were true, as in, you or I  were being told: Your belief in god, means only bad things will happen to you. = no logic.  Same thing applies: in saying if you do answer to gods name, then only good things will happen to you. = zero logic.  God does not depend on my existence, especially the belief in that.  If you find my interpretation a misunderstanding, I argue it actually propels the message in the dogma as an ascertainable truth.  I am strong & courageous, I am not terrified or discouraged, these are things that reflect in gods image.  My belief is in one thing and one thing only, that is, if I believe in god it is because YOU exist.

My entire belief system predicates on the fact I believe that god is in YOU - but YOU would never know I think or feel that way.  It is my sacred right to defend that honor toward gods image.  If you make me believe god does not exist in YOU, then my faith rests in gods image.  Christian dogma follows only one thing, that your belief in god cannot fail you, when in reality it clearly does.  Your belief in god is what dictates that thinking.

^All this follows, therefore, the power of my belief rests in you, not god.  How would you ever know I think that.  It is a manifestation of the question god exists or not.

People fail me all the time, because they do not question their belief.  That is the point.  Ask yourself, what is more legal, gods image or your belief in god.  Truly examine that, think about it.

Lib:  Marco, I don't believe in God anymore.  I tried really hard to go back to  Him, but I couldn't.  It's like trying to fall back in love with a mate - you can wish it all you want, pray all you want, cry all you want, but in the end, you can't change it.

Marco: And I totally understand that Lib.  You have furthered my point.

"How does this justify the belief in gods name. No logic. > @Bible_Time: Be strong & courageous. Do not be terrified or discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go. -Josh 1:9"

^People cheat their illegitimate understanding of beliefs, and what they signify all the time.  That is my point.  You have to find the truth about it, in order to redeem any self-respecting type of beliefs you own.  It is a very powerful thing.  I believe you have everything a person could want in life, in terms of honest possession within you.  I openly confide in that.  Why else am I an actor.

And as I say that people cheat, this is when they do not question their authority over you - as if - as if licensed to eliminate your personal space, kill satisfaction, take a domineering or condescending approach to truth and reason.  I suggest: that people give themselves too much credit in their ability - they use the question of god to justify it.  Nothing could be further from a qualified truth.  And that qualified truth is this: People aim to exterminate the will to achieve certain things in life, they use their skilled acumen as professionals to limit your purpose in life.  Truly think about that.  People make a habit in cheating each other all the time.  When rules are broken they point at each other, as when rules are kept promises they turn to god.  Highly unlikely, but very very convenient.

Lib: I don't understand stand what you are trying to say.  Use simpler words.

Marco: Re; cheating

What I mean is people cheat.  They cheat by using their belief in god, to manipulate others.  They do this without questioning their fair use of belief, form prejudices instead.

"1- When rules are broken they point at each other, 2- as when rules are kept promises they turn to god."

1= People are quick to blame each other, that follows 2= when it comes to their false interpretation of something, they refuse to be wrong even some of the time.  Both 1 and 2 distinguish how hypocritical people are in real life, they sneer at one thing and inform their double standards to the other.  In other words, they use god as a subject to manipulate others, while they themselves conveniently turn a blind eye when things go wrong.  All of the sudden they abandon their so called loyalty to god, making the use of god as a tool to get what they want.

I cannot make it any clearer than that.

Lib: I think that that is all a given Marco.  People are not infallible, they justify the inhumane/evil in themselves as the Will of God, The will of Allah, The Fickle Will of the Gods.  But this is nothing new.  We can't change it.  We can only change ourselves and let our own actions (hopefully) inform others about our way of thought and belief.

Marco: You really think it is a given that people cheat, then I agree, you have read what is taking place in this discussion.  Thank you.

Lib: Yes people cheat.  They cheat on their mates, exams, diets, taxes, etc.  But not ALL people ALL the time.  The one area that I have faith in is the general Goodness of People.

Marco:  Moral courage is my single greatest attribute, you will not find it on any resume.  There is my case.

Marco Almeida 2025

The differences of cognition, your membrane, and cosmic Philosophical thought

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DEyT5guSU6K/?igsh=MTN5NjgxcDZpd3l5ZQ==

The mental registry for the brave nature of mind is not to be confused with militant behaviors.  The only perplexity one will ever encounter:

1-  This is to be candid in behavior and indifferent to reasoning.  

2- Not a subordinate to god. 

3- A persons unconditional worth can never be outdone.  

Think of prejudice. You, has consequential satire involving an irony through god.  To be inferior is not to obey god. Therefore, you are servng gods will and only gods will. God (God's idea) dies inside a mind that discriminates in both self and self doubt.  Nothing can doubt you... especially ignoring god as if, reading this criteria as though a dangled carrot out in front of your eyes.

In the spirit of metaphysics

 

What is Ayer's theory of meaning?

"… which an utterance is meaningful only if it expresses a proposition the truth or falsehood of which can be verified (at least in principle) through experience"

Diane Gall from what I've investigated upon which Ayer's categorically states he rejects metaphysical values when dealing with philosophically deduced variables.  (Therefore, I proceed in thinking I have  accurately defined his work.)  When surveying the above formal aspect of Ayer, would you be in agreeance... that it is a flawed (double meaning) as the dichotomy (I think) suggests.  I accuse Ayer of using a double meaning to that end, being, a double meaning can be inferred.  The statement registers that both metaphyiscs and philosophy are NOT separated at birth.  My question: is that experience directly quantifies the measure of reality ONLY if it is meaningful, thereby, what qualifies as experience cannot be understood as metaphysical origin?? That in fact negates Ayer entire premise. 

I think I am being fair here in, not saying Ayer's purposefully does it.

What, as if any query might you offer in rebuttals... either to my own personal view or that there's better proof to what Ayer's has written.

Please oblige myself.

Marco

P.S. happy healthy NY to you and yours!! ❤️

○○○○○

Diane Gall di. You know I love you and everything.  But the article's primary function offering its justification (making its own case) flies in the face of Wittgenstein. Which to me (anyway) is completely inflated and therefore counter intuitive a model.

Wittgenstein’s motto “The sense of a proposition is the method

of its verification” misleads substantially. 

How can the article in question passively negate what is so simplies the model itself.

I promise you I will read the article.  I have to go to staples to print it all out.  But quite frankly the article (not you) insults the law of averages.  I think it's a desperate argument. I could be wrong.  But I think I am onto something in rebuttal. In other words I completely agree with Witt~.  It's an obvious case in point.  Yet the reader is checkmated?? Give me a break...

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/download/3535/3346

HNY to you are yours as well!

○○○○○

Hi di, 

I have read the article and come to the conclusion.  That ~cognitive meaning vs. (some not 'all') ~emotive inference as an appeal to ignorance which debunks the entire article.

I am not dismissive.

I am clarifying it's trying to debunk something using some form.

There can only be 2 seperate assumptions which characterize meaning when focused on principles, being, verificationism can be mutually exculpatory.  

My findings are that between this obvious tautology.

That what is emotion must be inferred as non meaningful.  Therefore, what is non meaningful is also emotive.  Therefore, not cognitive meaning. (Not empirically valid.)  Which is, if you haven't formulated it, is a fallacy not commited in the article.  But I find it dishonest. 

Yet, in its entirety the article is intellectually sound.

I side with Wittgenstein's model of V-TOM vs V-CRIT as I stated to you about a week ago.

Clarification: what is cognitive meaning vs emotive inference... intuition on a purely philosophical level... qualifies emotion.  Therefore, intuition also serves to suppot my arguement that verification theory uses logic to identify with (but not exclsuive to) what acts as empirically valid statements, terms x words or sentences.

So, as I stated herein - Witt~ "The sense of a proposition is the method of its verification."  Not only holds as true.  It is in fact an absolute in principle.  Carnap rejects all metaphysical on the foundation of verification theory.  (As sides Ayer) It falls apart at the seams.

The author makes numerous vague examples in using his assumptions which come across with mere irony and is less than Persuasion.  It offers in depth analysis.  But historically invalid, for the reasons I have demonstrated.

Fascinating article.

Thank you for it!! 

P.S.  how he debunks Witt~ is for children...

My proof:  reading the pic... I address the problem with verificationism in the article and according to Ayer. It demonstrates both emotive and cognitive meaning.  It is an example. An example of how verificationism is double meaning, therefore, the fallacy is implied and therefore "not verified."  Wittgenstein was right.

Plain Yogurt

 

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 1 Corinthians 12:4

Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 1 Corinthians 12:14

If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 1 Corinthians 13:4



Can love translate into acting.  (Not the love of acting.)

 If you understand this into your inner most being ...you've made it far in life.  I can promise you. And you can go even further.

The Futurist

 You are metaphysically incomplete if you make choices that can only be measured based on past experience. Reality is a meditative state to occur from which we establish our selves both analytically and apriori.  It relates to style and is the cornerstone of all things beautiful, all done in language.  Your relationships are what bind you.

The failed romantic

 “Anger should not be confused with passion, and far too many people operate solely on anger, and this cannot produce art that is valuable. Our anger should arise over situations, conflicts, lacks, needs, and our application of these angers toward an act—of creation or caring or anything to which we can give ourselves—purifies the anger and turns it into something useful: A witness, a testimony.

…

“One of the great gifts of art is that it can purify anger. Art takes the anger and puts it to a good use. Until you are ready to release your anger, do not approach your art, or you will destroy it.“—Martha Graham/Interview with James Grissom

○○○○○○○○○○

1“I dreamed a lot when I was growing up. I told you about that. I was, as Tennessee said, a fabulist, but you have to get out of that amber dream of desire and really craft an artist out of the rudimentary tools you were born with. For the entire life of an actor, you are burnishing and sharpening and replacing tools that you need to have at their highest levels of performance—over and over again. It is never enough. You have so much to read, to listen to, to investigate, to endure. Your heart has to be broken and to mend. Your mind has to be challenged and stretched and adapted. Your body has to be strong and supple and tough. It is an almost impossible task: Actually, it is an impossible task, but in bravely attempting to fulfill it, you might achieve truth or greatness or inspiration.”—Kim Stanley/Interview with James Grissom/Photograph by Arnold Newman

 In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness.

Miyamoto Musashi

○○○○○○○○○○

Psalms 121:3 TPT

He will guard and guide me, never letting me stumble or fall. God is my keeper; he will never forget nor ignore me.

Factoring Fear: continuity being the biggest kathartic element

 Pleasing (not acting) displeasure "the as if"

Acting is not a rush of adrenaline....
Neurosis is paradise for someone taking a psychoanalytical position but for many other's it's not.  (Unconscious of this disposition.)  This type of attitude is overkill. Energy is not a focal point. You break the pattern of convention when you pay attention.

You want to emit that everyone around you is acting a cause and effect.  The body knows how what is happening. 

How acting affects the neurosis of an inferiority complex

'...concepts are a mind's recognition of the fact that objects share identical characteristics in differing quantitative measures. Legitimate concepts, therefore, are neither intrinsic or subjective but objective-signifying in retainable, repeatable form, a mind's grasp of reality'.

Therefore, it isn't that a neurotic can't contradict reality, it is foretold that they, in fact - refuse or reject it.

Being small in acting takes a  immense amount of presence.

Do not fear to fathom imaginative elements which characterizes philosophy

 What is Ayer's theory of meaning?

"… which an utterance is meaningful only if it expresses a proposition the truth or falsehood of which can be verified (at least in principle) through experience"

Diane Gall from what I've investigated upon which Ayer's categorically states he rejects metaphysical values when dealing with philosophically deduced variables.  (Therefore, I proceed in thinking I have  accurately defined his work.)  When surveying the above formal aspect of Ayer, would you be in agreeance... that it is a flawed (double meaning) as the dichotomy (I think) suggests.  I accuse Ayer of using a double meaning to that end, being, a double meaning can be inferred.  The statement registers that both metaphyiscs and philosophy are NOT separated at birth.  My question: is that experience directly quantifies the measure of reality ONLY if it is meaningful, thereby, what qualifies as experience cannot be understood as metaphysical origin?? That in fact negates Ayer entire premise. 

I think I am being fair here in, not saying Ayer's purposefully does it.

What, as if any query might you offer in rebuttals... either to my own personal view or that there's better proof to what Ayer's has written.

Please oblige myself.

Marco

P.S. happy healthy NY to you and yours!! ❤️

 To measure and to calculate a narrative.

Ideological signals are the process of learning through listening through honest attention.  The real question is how can you test that against reality.

○○○

Intelligence of the body

 

The privacy law

 Friday, January 10, 2025

The god fearing pursuit of reality (deluxe addition)

Simply, the human condition rests on guilt. Not wanting to feel guilt, therefore we all fear it so we  purge the body from it. We find excuses moat familiar to us. Those same excuses are meant to avoid or pardon facing our own gullt.  As result we lie to ourselves.  This is human nature.  It is incumbent upon ourselves.  We learn.  We train ourselves in error.

Guilty of superstition 

Fate can't conceal the blood on our hands.

It is no accident.

When in control...

The terror lives in your eyes.... so is murder.

Superstition gets you nowhere with guilt.

Because guilt is not something you can take for granted.

Guilt implies the body purges the sinner from sin.

When we think of guilt it also implies its meaning; that because we cancel guilt over the shame we feel... only once it has been cancelled.  We do not have to take ownership of our guilt.

Psychopathic behavior breaks psychological rules of convention which would result in not caring for a persons safety comfort or well being.

We don't want to feel the guilt nor made to.

BigC at 5:16 PM

Sinple version of my thesis stated above is as follows:

No one ever wants or cares to admit they are in the wrong. So they make excuses. We all do.  No matter if you consider yourself to be a sinner or not.  We all make the same excuse in a lie.  Whether or not you agree.

The god fearing pursuit of reality (deluxe addition)

Simply, the human condition rests on guilt. Not wanting to feel guilt, therefore we all fear it so ww purge the body from it. We find excuses moat familiar to us. Those same excuses are meant to avoid or pardon facing our own gullt.  As result we lie to ourselves.  This is human nature.

Guilty of superstition 

Fate can't conceal the blood on our hands.
It is no accident.
When in control...
The terror lives in your eyes.... so is murder.

Superstition gets you nowhere with guilt.
Because guilt is not something you can take for granted.

Guilt implies the body purges the sinner from sin.

When we think of guilt it also implies its meaning; that because we cancel guilt over the shame we feel... only once it has been cancelled.  We do not have to take ownership of our guilt.

Psychopathic behavior breaks psychological rules of convention which would result in not caring for a persons safety comfort or well being.

We don't want to feel the guilt nor made to.

Superstition negates guilt

 

 

Purging the body at birth

 

Straight edge cowboy

 

 Success = personal to keep going and don’t stop doing what you love.

Feeling naked and being naked are totally different things.  Separate yourself from an action.  (Now think to yourself.) Nobody wants to see the actor policing an action.  Nostalgia means taking it easy. But take what is yours when time comes.  Channel your energy. Protect your shine. You don't challenge the dialogue.  The audience cam see that. Your script is the bible.  You let it dictate hownpresent your are.  If you demamd the audience's attention.  You've made it as a dangerous actor.

The properties of acting is ABOUT factoring in TRUTH  Do the AUDIENCE NO FAVORS!!
The reinvention of architectural design a subliminal measiire.  The narrarive is a controlled message whcih must be examined purpoaefully and properly.

My family

 

Mario

 My beautiful dad.  Means everything to me... especially this pic.

 

 Marco's life philosophy:

How can you make a decision when you don’t know the answer- without abandoning yourself in the process of thinking.  (You, the thinker, pretends to know.) How could you know what you are pretending to know can be true or not.