“Love knows. It does not ignore. A human factor of trust allows love to deepen, that we come to know more of another. Would betrayal be another factor to that human connection, we then take our knowledge of that person to the next life. When we move on, we can plot revenge, though being no different than the person who brought on betrayal. That is because even through hatred with the motive of vengeance, we are still equal. No better and no worse in hatred, as we were there for them, in love, for better or for worse with our vows.”
– Modern Romanticism
It is not love that ignores. Nor is it hatred. Both love and hatred belong in the same place, though only the latter is born from the former. It is in the risk of being hated, that to love and to deepen such through trust, we are showing colors we would not express to anyone else. Would we betray a person, our risk to be hated is in the other exploiting what is now known. This repeats a cycle that follows the other, who was the betrayer. Love doesn’t choose. It occurs, without warning or hint. However, the one we love is special. Though, that does not mean this specialty was born upon foreknowledge as to what should be selected. Would love have anything to do with selection, we can match it to the bottommost level where one is neck-deep in poverty. Natural selection, or to survive, is when an organism is most-suited to survive given their environments. Would love have to do with this, it would represent our limitations, not what inspires ourselves to be beyond the focus of them.
What does ignore is the one with a negligent mindset. Of negligence, it will be the refusal to know an individual, marking them as the same among a group, that nothing else of its likeness can be differentiated. As it is, no individual among a collective with its broad sweep of a singular emotion can be differentiated. A collective is seen as a singular, already. Then, whoever ignores or is being negligent chooses to not know the individual.
Out of knowledge, only for the individual, hatred can be born when the comprehension of their individualized story is received through empathy. Sympathy sees, though is limited by looking upon an individual as a collective. Sympathy is distanced. Empathy sees the other the same as the self. Thus, the notion of equality repeats itself, here. To love is to be equal. To hate is to be equal. An understanding of this to know. Since it is knowledge that, through mutual trust, can bring on a mindset of fear as to what might be lost upon the instance of betrayal, equality can compare to both love and hatred when both sides are equal to the potential of being exploited. However, it would not be only the simple case of exploitation, if such is being expected. If a side is willing to forgive, this would come along as least expected.
To love, once more, despite being hurt through betrayal, means to forgive. It means to forgive not only the other, though have the acknowledgement needed to see the self as never innocent. It means to then forgive the self.
Since knowledge is a product of love, it would also be the same for hatred. Love grows into hatred, because of what is known of the other. It is the betrayal that displayed a different side of the person we would not have expected to be a traitor. Our lack of expectation to that is a match to the lack of expectation to anyone who would forgive a traitor. Although, their expectation of an act of vengeance against them would be a factor for what is unknown about ourselves. If one betrays, one knows not. If a person forgives their betrayer, there could not have been expectation to this. If a person enacts vengeance to their betrayer, there was expectation to this. Although, the knowledge from the traitor in them first exploiting the one betrayed could not be whole when love, being never a choice, has no place among survival when it would forgive the threat, not do it harm.
Modern Romanticism 