When it comes to this

 November 24, 2010

It took my self to the age of 33, in order to fulfill that void which eluded me for some time?  But, to my surprise, I have experienced my first full blown out crush on a rock star (needing only to finish by placing her poster up on my bedroom wall.)  I suppose it can be a sign of attitude adjustment for me personally.  

 

I really should go as far as saying, it speaks to a time when selling out so fast (as so much of those that appear to), really tells me something about my own sanity.  

 

I can totally see that old prick Mr. Opalko (a former mechanics teacher from high school) crocking on his male personified ego, only because he had a bunch of tools around "his shop".  I really hated that old man.  

 

On a more serious note, I guess I'm not all that bad about it.  Really, this is to say that at present, I feel so much less a part of being left out from those so quick to move ahead in the rat race, so many of those are cowards to.

 

It really makes me believe, the more backwards I become, the less it is they know about me.  Which totally takes more talent than not.

 

While I have no desire to have kids, but rather give my life as an adult with some real virtue as opposed to out-thinking everyone around you, then there's definitely a problem.  

 

I totally rather save myself.

 

I wish some of those without the same idea, nothing but heart ache.

Clarity over thoughts

 I think of charity as a matter of choice, is something that creates my strong desirability to withstand the excuse of failed ignorance.  That is what creates my idea of empathic quality, a territory of my own peaceful nature, which it can only be made sense.

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

Marco Almeida

The best feeling in the world is if someone, try to condescendingly correct you, but is wrong because of their own stupidity.

Insincerity

 I am sick of this shit. My life goes nowhere because there are people that decide on a winner take all mentality, make it seem as though I exaggerate my claims, therefore, I am wrong. That is exactly how my therapist treats me, always against my will. It is so typical. I deserve better. People want to see me fail. I am so fed up with the bullshit.

 November 24, 2012

A personal favorite of mine: "The true nature of my authenticity rests in two equal parts:

1- That everything in life can only mistaken vulnerability for granted.

2- That everything one stands for is a measure to ostensibility. " (MA2012)

My sense of self esteem, how it belongs to me, are personal issues that I liberate against the norms of a societies blinding entitlement. - Marco

Just some inspiring quotes (to quote myself) which I have made recently.

"

We live in a world where you model selling out conviction for a prize mentality, yet you cause it as capital gains. Think about it people. Change it. Empower, implore, belonging, benefit all these things. I have come such a long way, and have trained my eye to seed the contempt of others, into fruit trees. Some go bad, others go good. There is no in between.

If you have the guts to even try to listen to your inner voice, and transmit it to the world around you, because you fought for it - then I applaud. If not, if not then I will not be made to suffer.

We live in a world where you model selling out conviction for a prize mentality, yet you cause it as capital gains. Think about it people. Change it. Empower, implore, belonging, benefit all these things. I have come such a long way, and have trained my eye to seed the contempt of others, into fruit trees. Some go bad, others go good. There is no in between.

Shhhhh, we cannot call it that on facebook, we are too much of cowards to demonstrate truth, then defend it based on genius, thought provoking measurement. How did you enforce those thoughts, before - before you realized the methods we have created were to deny ourselves the freedom to choose. Oscar Wilde (a man of his intellect) became a pauper, when his envy was of human nature undelivered. His thoughts are worth more than a million dollar cheque, yet no one else knew it.

Do you have the guts to tell yourself, that the world you abandoned, was for a greater cause. Do you. " (MA2012)

[Why procrastination is not bad for you to lie about]

 My mind wanders. Why? I want to think about a picture, a phrase, an idea, an image, and in thinking about it I see that my mind has gone off to the railway or to something that happened yesterday. The first thought has gone, and another has taken its place. Therefore I examine every thought that arises. That is intelligent, isn’t it? But you make an effort to fix your thought on something. Why should you fix it? If you are interested in the thought that comes, then it gives you its significance. The wandering is not distraction – do not give it a name. Follow the wandering, the distraction, find out why the mind has wandered; pursue it, go into it fully. When the distraction is completely understood, then that particular distraction is gone. When another comes, pursue it also. Mind is made up of innumerable demands and longings; and when it understands them, it is capable of an awareness which is not exclusive. Concentration is exclusiveness, it is resistance against something. Such concentration is like putting on blinkers – it is obviously useless, it does not lead to reality. When a child is interested in a toy, there is no distraction.

Krishnamurti in Rajahmundry 1949, Talk 1

Now, you have to die to that memory, to die to your vanity - not argue about your vanity, not find explanation why you should not compete, or why you should compete, or why you should not be ambitious. If you are not ambitious in this world, you are destroyed - this is an argument to support your particular drive of ambition. But you cannot argue with death. It is there; you cannot tell it "come another day". So, you have to come to death directly, with tremendous energy, not with just negligent, careless, thoughtless acceptance. But to come to it with tremendous vigour, you need a clear, healthy mind, a sane, rational mind, a mind that is a good mind, not a mind that is beaten, broken. And you can come to death intimately only when you die to the memory of your pleasure, immediately, not to something which you do not like - that, most people can die to - but to something that you love, that you like. Then you will find that the mind is no longer occupied with memory or with cultivating memory, because then memory ceases as time; you may use memory, but it ceases as a means to achieve in the field of time. K

Curiosity (psychological cracks)

 

Look! There is a gentleman over there who is wriggling his leg, and he is unaware. If you say, "Look, watch what you are doing", he will stop it for the moment, because his attention is drawn to that, and at that moment he is there completely. But a few minutes later, he will forget and begin again the nervous reaction - which means that he has not understood the habit, habit as time.

So, time is the product of thought; time is the result of our desire to do things gradually, psychologically, inwardly to do, to bring about a change, a transformation, gradually, because we are frightened. We are frightened to do something immediately, because we do not know what the future is going to be. If we did certain things, we do not know what would happen; therefore we want to take everything into consideration - the future, the yesterday, the tomorrow - and in the meantime the problems multiply. Whereas, if you had no tomorrow at all, tomorrow being the memory which responds as thought, and if you had understood the whole structure of memory, then you will see that time is a hindrance to immediate action. 

- Krishnamurti 

Transformation and psychologically breaking through

 

 Instagram

Hilary Putnam argues that while empirical science allows for a "correspondence view" of truth—where we use our sense organs to verify that our ideas match the physical world—mathematics offers no such biological bridge. Because mathematical entities like numbers and sets are abstract objects rather than physical ones, humans lack a "mathematical sense organ" to perceive them directly. This creates a profound epistemological gap: if mathematical objects exist independently of us (Platonism), we cannot explain how we "see" or interact with them to verify our knowledge, yet if they don't exist, we struggle to explain why mathematics describes the world so perfectly, leaving the discipline as a puzzle where "no theory works very well."

==========

 "mathematics describes the world so perfectly" = false.

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

sashinator5000

 

 I do agree with you. I want to point out that it would be more interesting to pose the question of whether or not mathematics is discovered or created. Does math already exist in the universe or do we make it, which is still quite hotly debated in the philosophy of science community

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

Marco = 

Here is the philosophy to answer it. If numbers exist, then philosophy (exists). It is very simple to digest. The complexity of numbers is that numbers to reflect nature of reality cannot impact us. Even if numbers change in some fixed reality we are unaware of, how would we know. Therefore, numbers cannot act for what we already know. Unknown variables are the quest for both mathematical or philosophical formulae. Truth is our only constant. Which is a concept. Numbers do NOT form conceptual ideas. If we cannot instruct how numbers inform us on a quantitative level. Mathematical ablatively must be made more accessible rather than abstract. What I mean is: for mathematics to be better understood requires concepts that we can interpret on a meaningful level. I'm not saying it's not probable. I am saying our knowledge may only be incomplete unless we qualify what mathematics does.

 

René Troy Tun

 Wittgenstein: Opening Investigations

Michael Luntley, Wiley Blackwell 2015

Michael Luntley offers a revolutionary interpretation of the opening section of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Luntley’s reading challenges the prevailing view that there is a grand sweep to Wittgenstein’s enterprise and marks a major departure from standard arguments about the nature of language, meaning, ostensive definition, and normativity. Opening Investigations introduces an improvisational conception of language use and posits that understanding language is more akin to the

open-endedness of aesthetic judgment.

In defense of his argument, Luntley provides close readings of the primary text alongside critical engagement with the most recent literature on Wittgenstein and other contemporary philosophical work. Written in accessible and engaging prose, Opening Investigations makes a powerful case for re-integrating Wittgenstein studies into contemporary philosophical debates. This book is sure to provoke lively debate among Wittgenstein scholars and will be of great interest to anyone studying Wittgenstein’s work.

The book -

Critically engages with the most recent exegetical literature on Wittgenstein and other state-of-the-art philosophical work.

Encourages the re-incorporation of Wittgenstein studies into the mainstream philosophical conversation.

Has profound consequences for how we go on to read the rest of Wittgenstein’s major work.

Makes a significant contribution not only to the literature on Wittgenstein, but also to studies in philosophy of language.

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

Marco Almeida

A good book surely. But I already understand. Why should I bother.

René Troy Tun

Marco Almeida There are very few scholars, including Kripke, who would boldly claim that they have fully understood Wittgenstein. Actually, I have never heard such claim before.

Marco Almeida

Donald Brackett Fair enough assumption. But to assume from what I said and to infer I don't qualify as a scholar I doubt is up for interpretation. I don't need to be appraised - coming from the audience that reads it, my point = if I don't like what a person has to offer in philosophy, how would they know? I classify my criticism in silence. Which is where I came from toward you. (Philosophy in my view requires that.) Which means even if a scholar has nothing to offer, why should I care. How could they possibly ever know? I have written essays in a similar manner to university professors who in my view have no credence to what is shadow of the truth may be. I find my cross in philosophy as an example of style and prose to inform the masses what finds something for themselves. To instruct something that is not already known, is quite frankly, defensible enough given the right formulation of language.

Conclusively: To master this type of thinking is dialectic theoretically multiplying the use of logic into a supposition. = my personal idea of Wittgenstein.

 Wittgenstein and the subversion of Platonic Reason : by Paa Kweku Quansah

Plato invented Reason as this abstract something which is the ultimate reference point of the actual human practice of giving and accepting reasons. Thus a justified belief or action ceased to be what was ACTUALLY ACCEPTED or COULD BE ACCEPTED by a person or group of persons. Not even what was acceptable to some deity would pass muster. Justification became a question of

correspondence to this abstract entity called "Reason". This correspondence in turn was a matter of avoiding contradiction in one's system of beliefs. Plato's Socrates was notoriously known not to have told people what to believe but to always leave them standing stupified after exposing the contradictions in their propositions. This was famous Socratic Elenchus.

For a long time, philosophers played this game of Reason invented by Plato. They rejected common sense justifications and always posed the question of whether whatever was accepted as reason really corresponded to Reason. And so far as the philosopher had any semblance of authority in the social setting, the basis of this authority seemed mysterious to the ordinary mortal for the philosopher's propositions were always said to be grounded in Reason.

Consider in this respect, Kant's attempt to ground everyday common sense morality in Pure Reason. As Hegel was to point out later, anybody who hoped to derive some actual moral guidance from Kant's moral philosophy would be in for a very terrible disappointment. For again, as Hegel says, Kant offers you a merely formal principle, something to the effect of "avoid self-contradiction in all your actions". Here we see some semblance between Kant's moral imperative and Socrates daimon who always told what to avoid doing and not what to actually do. Indeed Hegel tried to subvert this abstract Platonic Reason. He tried to get Reason back to the context from which first Plato abstracted it and made it into a self-subsisting entity. He tried to get it back into the context of human social relations. But Hegel was still too much of a Platonist to overcome the Grandmaster. In the end everything terminated in the mind of Absolute Reason.

It was the Austrian philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who actually got the task done. Of course, I do not speak of the Wittgenstein of the Tractactus for this Wittgenstein, enchanted by the sublimity of formal logic still remained shackled to prison of Abstract Reason ( "A picture held as captive"). But Wittgenstein truly comes into his own in the Investigations. Here, Wittgenstein showed in manner undone before, the origin of Plato's concept of Reason in actual linguistic practices of human societies. He showed its origin in what he famously called "a form of life". Reason is returned from its supposed abode in some metaphysical world to the everyday human world of social interactions. As he puts it " What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use".

Anybody who has read and digested Wittgenstein cannot return unproblematically to the sort of conception of Reason Plato championed. It is as if with Wittgenstein, what began as an abstraction from human life in Plato returns gain into that life. The cycle has been completed. I should like to end with the fine words of the American philosopher Richard Rorty, an ardent student of Wittgenstein. Concerning Wittgenstein, Rorty wrote " We philosophy professors are lucky that one of the great writers of the century came among us and left behind a description of our habits which we might never have formulated for ourselves" ====================

my rebuttal:

I suppose I can support what I just read as conceptually sound. But what is the point or better inferred: what am I suppose to be thinking here as result. I read that Wittgenstein was a great philosopher that created his his own aversion of what is reason - into dietetical theory. (This can only be a fact.) Platonic reason is not something we inadvertently seek, because it dominates Westernized frame of thought, debunking, deduction etc. - All of this. So, what point I make herein relates to the dichotomy we live in a dominate view of (1) plutocracy (2) follows that Socratic philosophy is far from mastered in everyday westernized way of life (3) philosophy (truth itself) is fundamental to Witt~ regardless of the deviations we encounter as philosopher's or not! (Truth is a pathless land.) Aristotelean metaphysics would agree with my view, that dialectically speaking poetics is the force behind our causes. And acting as identical beings that master the art of thinking into equal parts or what is presented in such a word for word. This follows: the aspect from which we articulate meaning are metaphorically; ideas. Therefore, ideas govern our philosophical pursuits so much that reason instructs why we express into language is anything that can be taken from what's useful or apart from what is useful.

My conclusion to what I learned reading your dissertation is this: that no matter the philosophical inquisition as it associates to dialect. That Wittgenstein gave us. Then, we formulate rules from which we look deeper into ourselves? This question posits a inferential way of examination, observation, and ultimately our psychological impulses. If what I say in relation to your dissertation, all of it is a laboratory of thought experiments on a spin cycle. = This is my view of doing philosophy. Whether you can adapt to my views. Wittgenstein could be read 20 years from what we discussed and only be understood for what it is, only than based on this query.

My second point here is: most philosopher's are not the same. They would outright reject my views, but maybe only because my use of language seems to oscillate or obfuscate. Not my fault. There is substance to be had. I have had philosophy professors that dismissed me because of this type of jealousy.

- Marco