Slowing down the outward medium

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE7NzMPsdSN/?igsh=dGE0a2M3M3I4aXIx

Never play your hand to fate. Be grounded in the work.

Distraction is a coping mechanism you ignore. And many actors are guilty of distraction based on their lack of coping.

The common threat of dogma and respect

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE6J0sPTnfl/?igsh=enF1cDhueDFqbDk5

Safety vs intimidation

Direction; what are the motivating factors of fear based acting.  Ruthless love vs agressive behavior

Being religious in a person means that non religious people don't care for those that are.
Prudence and constraint vs breach of respect (rules for behavior) 

An audience is not waiting on the actor in giving permission to see them act.  Make choices that are not boring to watch.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE5A5ILivXE/?igsh=MTNiM3UxaWFkc20wdA

Rejecting right wing ideology. We are all 🇨🇦 ian.

Funny Bone

 

Knowing your Role

 

Personal Issues

 Psychologically revolutionary people, they will open up your psychology to revolutionary ideas and actions.

Reaction is symbolic of our virtue, of your innate desire to be free from illogical abstractions, where reason is learned. MA2025

“...for "to be thought" and "to be" are the same thing.” Parmenides

“To be and to have meaning are the same.”  Parmenides

I want to make people feel important as result of who I am, excited that they see me as their equal. That is no small task. MA2025 

"The ages live in history through their anachronisms."

-- Oscar Wilde

○○○○○

My faith restored an undying faith

 Acting is a constant test of faith. Day in and day out. Undying faith.  Self reform and self renewal. MA2025 

The truth of my personal perfectionist attitude is a pursuit in ideology, it questions why fantasy is the best medicine for me psychologically. Because perfection in (my ad hoc) fantasy puts truth in the work. MA2025 

○○○○○

Why do I feel like my life is just beginning. And not in a bad way.  I feel good about myself. Things are changing for me.

"Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work” - Aristotle. 

I haven't felt this kind of passion in my life before. It is like translating my life's journey into a whole other language.  I am learning in a way I  never have before.  I am putting faith in myself in a manner I can trust who I am for the better of life I become.  It is truly truly a multidimensional shift taking place inside of me, somehow?  I dont know how else to describe it.

I check off all the boxes as stated above, fast forwarding into now... I want to learn about how music works.  I have always carried a passion for music.  I finally picked up a guitar.  I have had dreams in real-time, about playing guitar.  And now it hits.  

I am also in a philosophical modality, where I've visibly created patterns in my thinking and I will never quit at - only because I am best able to articulate my ideas and given my language involved... philosophy has taken me years of practice.  I consider myself always always an infant at this level.  Making sure you keep hungry and eyes in focus.

This all ties into my very public display of how I care about my main objective: art.

I do believe in what I have to offer.  It's time.  It's time I become more invloved (within reason) that I want to be an actor/politician in principle. About That I do have a strong premonition to asunder.  That all in due measure, I would hope, raises a bar from where I ultimately give myself an opporutnity.  It's about force.

More importantly, I feel at peace. I am slave to god. This, I am at peace.  It is in the church I feel most at home. It grants me kathartic impunity.  It helps me I reach out to god.  It fills me with pride to be there.  To recall what I am thankful for.  Where my fear of god is meant and this fear of god is met with a calling.  More profound than just these words profess.  To serve my parents and honor them has been a gift.  To run on empty and not the vacuum society creates.  

I am a privileged person.  

I lead a privileged life.

It's time to give back.

Marco Almeida 2025

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.)