“No standard of obligation is a claim of care to another individual or even a collective gathering. There is no amount of monetary value that can out-measure what is the heart’s weight in gold. One cannot care, without comprehending what possesses worth versus what has value.”
– Modern Romanticism
All of value pertains to how much money can aid a collective. All of what has worth pertains to how long one can care for an individual. An individual is cared for, through a test of the heart, through a test of character, and through a test of a person’s truth. Truth is displayed, through a set of individualistic principles, that state a person can care when they know themselves. To know oneself is always to understand one’s limits, though upon the monetary sum, only this has a limit. To be in certainty of oneself, means then to find that a heart can hold the potential of unlimited and eternal care. However, since this is a show of one’s love to another, then to corrupt such means to fall upon the feeling of hatred. What was once a show of care, is now a show of resentment.
To be equitable would meant to know what is profitable. That is because equity is a mere show of one’s obligation. Would a company need to offer equitable standards for its employees that the most disadvantaged one are aided, then this is an obligation. It is, since a company must operate like a machine. Though, the heart would not and cannot be mechanical. The heart can either love or hate. On its own, it cannot be a reveal of obligation. The body or the flesh can show its obligation, due to being under the command of the workforce, itself, as a machine. As the human form has limits, then the heart that shows care would know what it takes to sacrifice such energy not needed for the self.
Sacrifice pertains to what is not needed for the self, though could be better suited for another, who might be starving of their bare necessities. To love the individual, to weaponize the collective, or to help the self, where the first holds relation to love or hatred, the second holds relation to obligation or to make use of multiple machines, while the third has relation to personal depletion. One cannot love while one is empty. One cannot make use of anything that has been destroyed. One cannot be together with another with hatred in their heart, unless meaning to destroy. One could be together with another, through love, though risks themselves on the unpredictable, though destructive, feeling of hatred.
What we, as loving individuals, can ever sacrifice, can become a notion, to ourselves, of having been used or manipulated. Though, to be obligatory through means of equitable aid would not be loving when we are deliberate to know it is required. When a company enforces equity through its rules and regulations, it is no longer about individualistic care. It is now about a show of force to it. As individualism rules through example and truth, then what is forceful or deceptive means to be on the side of collectivism.
As individuals, we aid others, of the same kind. Individuals aiding individuals means to trust, through the privacy of knowing another. A collective aiding another collective means to do so, out of sheer obligation. As no one person, out of that collective, came to know every other person in that second collection, means that there is an inevitable factor of forgetfulness to it. One will forget what one has met, though two individuals, who are friends, family, or lovers will always remember the other.
Modern Romanticism 
I have long wondered, why does the feeling of emptiness occupy so much space? Another thought-provoking post.
LikeLike
I am always of the firm mindset that one cannot claim to care if it is an obligation to do so. Is a friendship an obligation? How about a romantic partnership? No. These aren’t meant to be a job. These connections are beyond paper documents and contracts signed with one’s signature. They’re deeper than that.
Though, certain people or groups can somehow believe that equity is the place of widespread care. I say it isn’t, when a person who obligates themselves, out of their profession or more concern for the paycheck they’re getting, to care for a person they will forget.
It’s of a very common example, such as this. If I ever revisited the doctor who delivered me from my mother, to then thank him for doing that, can I or should I expect him to remember me? To remember my name? Moreover, should I be insulted at him forgetting this? No. I shouldn’t expect any of this, nor should I be insulted. What I should expect is his forgetfulness, because this doctor has probably delivered thousands of children over the course of his career. Simply put, there are far too many distractions among these vocations, and never enough genuineness through what I claim, in this post, to be represented of the human heart. Again, it should be expected.
LikeLike
You’re a wise, thoughtful poet-person.
LikeLike