“For the sake of love, or even for the love of God, science only questions what can be questioned, again afterwards. Never-ending question comes from unceasing confusion and the same lack of clarity that love nor responsibility had never touched. Such would make of itself belonging in the same comparison to a psychopath, that through their heinous acts, only ever lead to eternal imprisonment or slavery.”
– Peter A.W. Wyatt
Within the future, uncertainty makes us feeble to walk the road where steps should remain so clear. As they should, though with fear, a person perhaps cannot find even the strength to move. Fear is the paralyzing emotion for which only love can remedy, to create of them the future that becomes certain. As love can only ever be externally applied, makes of fear the emotion of loneliness. To science’s understanding, it is “progress” that yields the result for the future’s awareness. Though, for what science stands for is always the ability to reason. Where reason relates to excuse, makes of a person more inclined to wish for a choice, something of a coward to the future. It is not ever a thing related to unity, while the vein of progress continues to stretch.
To cling to the survivalist nature of ourselves, the people who walk the roads of our lives on towards where we can be sure, is not to cling to what would bring clarity. For of what brings about clarity, marks itself as love. Stability in the current moment, reveals clarity for the future. This makes of reason, being of what science adores, the very instability that is related to chaos. If events unfold to which makes a person unable to unify with another for control over the outcome, is always to science for its endless desire to discover. In this sense, a discovery is nothing more than an example for how the end result of a creation, being the future, is never met with clarity.
It is science’s true opposition, being of love, that makes of the future the clarity for which neither a scientific mind nor one for progress would find agreeable. Progress cannot align with love, for the former’s train of discoveries is endless. As for love, it is a discovery, on its own. It is a discovery that cannot be dissected for the simple scientific sake of more discoveries. For a person discovers of love what they vow to belong in their lives, for eternity. However, through the ability to reason, would make a person able to commit the infidelity that steers away from such a vow or responsibility meant to be upheld. It is to wonder how futurism can be something that considers progress or development, when it opposes the necessity of love? How does a human develop without this concoction of differing emotions? Science does not question this, because it would result in progress coming to a complete halt. Progress relies on its endless continuance. If not for that endless pathway for progress, it might discover love, along with the satisfaction that comes from it.
To people’s dissatisfaction, is how a person reasons, is how a person makes an excuse, is how perhaps a criminal might wriggle themselves out of a predicament in which they were caught for their acts. It would make science, itself, align with criminal behaviors, simply from the beginning of its inception. To how a person is dissatisfied, is how they are yearning for more. Though, to how a person loves, is by not ever wanting more. To a person’s love for another, by who is before them, makes of them the necessity to settle down with that discovery. As well, such a discovery was never deliberate. It is not a deliberation to love. What would be deliberate is to commit that infidelity upon one’s spouse, so that trust is betrayed.
People makes excuses, because they desire a choice. In having a choice, a person is now free from what confined them, being that of prison or a marriage. A choice is simply what sides with reason, because everything that relates to such freedom, is what also compares itself to a lack of responsibility. To what the future stands for, is to immediately comprehend what such responsibility understands. That, to the objective mistakes a person has made, such as of someone who committed that infidelity against their spouse, or of a person who committed a crime, responsibility would be to embrace a clear future. Though, a “clear future” is always decided upon their guilt to the matter. Whenever a criminal is decided of guilt through their trial, would benefit the collective of society. It is to the criminal’s declared guilt by a Judge, that makes them able to benefit and continue the development of that society. Though, should such a criminal be able to understand, for themselves, the guilt to be felt on what was enacted upon as a crime, breeds the personal development for a clear future.
We are clear upon that responsibility. We comprehend the actions in which must be taken, for that responsibility. Though, does science ever comprehend the necessity for being responsible, when all it cares for is its endless discoveries in the name of either personal or societal dissatisfaction? To be mistaken, would make a person needed to uphold their own individual responsibility. Individual responsibility would be for the betterment of a future, so that such a mistake is not repeated. Is for science to hold its foundation upon reason, upon the basis to which responsibility cannot be realized due to a craving for choice, makes of itself the only essence in the world that is never wrong?
For science to base itself upon excuse, to say that it was “in the name of science” to have caused such a travesty, will always be in the same mentality as a psychopath who committed their chosen crime. For that psychopath could not fathom responsibility. They did it to satisfy a craving that was born out of always being dissatisfied. Would any serial killer ever be content with just one victim?
For the sake of love, or even for the love of God, science only questions what can be questioned, again afterwards. Never-ending question comes from unceasing confusion and the same lack of clarity that love nor responsibility had never touched. Such would make of itself belonging in the same comparison to a psychopath, that through their heinous acts, only ever lead to eternal imprisonment or slavery.
Modern Romanticism 