A Two-Step Sequence to Problem-Solving – Chapter 40 – “Eternity against Convenience” – 11/6/2021

To the eternity of a resource, there is none. It is simple vanity to believe a resource can be eternal, as such clings to the notion for what deception entails. As in, deception is to the addict’s own belief that a resource does not need limits, that to be free from the debt that could pertain also to how much the self can be burdened is a realistic endeavor. It is never a realistic endeavor. That, to believe oneself indestructible against the debt or the burden is in the belief one cannot collapse under its weight. Then, it is the aspect of deception that relates to the belief in a resource that should lack limits, due to not being of heart nor care for where is its origin.

The origin, that compares only to the knowledge or the blindness of it, through either the aware or the unaware person who is wanting it. If the eternity to the resource is not possible, if it is deceptive to believe such is the case, then everything ever eternal will be of the past. That is, to the history of anything that be given a date of its expiration, there is either what is disposed, as the tool, or what is remembered for eternity. Something or someone that or who possesses objective worth would not be a convenience. Even to the addict, who favors material substance over immaterial life, it is the deception that even would they believe their addiction is the greater worth or value, it cannot be when that substance is meant to be consumed. That is, to be consumed by the self and for the self, is being selfish outside the recognition of what is made to be protected. If not to die, and in the realization that it cannot be consumed at the time it is seen as endangered, then the addict cannot be said to guard the consumable that would be indulged by them.

To the past, love is. What is the power of love always relates to the past, whereas to the future, there is hope. Hope is uncertain, as it is a mere blind trust towards what a person can wish for its occurrence, though is not with surety. If a material substance cannot be eternal to the past, in missing remembrance after it is consumed, then of the person who is shared with love, the only uncertainty is their life. Love is never an uncertainty when even should an individual person die, there is remembrance to it. Then, love would be the memories, that whether being positive or negative, are up to the individual perspective. If truth is the individualism, then upon remembrance to the life that died, there is love.

One cannot present themselves as loving, if not contented by the fact of individualism as being of truth. If their life goes on, it is not the individual person’s beating heart as much of it is love that remains to keep steps moving. Presented with the history, an individual comprehends through conscious awareness what is the physical presence of the past that keeps remaining physical presences onwards in their life. As the material can only be the comparison to life, then the immaterial is the comparison to love. Such is the meaning that proves that love cannot die, because in its historical relation, it is what is both dead and not.

An average Atheist who states God to be dead has stated half of His truth. To the non-believer, an understanding of the meaninglessness within death is better for them than the meaningfulness within life. Half of God’s truth is to believe in His deadness, of His non-existence. The other half is to believe in His life, of His existence. God, being dead, is both that and also not. As in, the figurative entity of love cannot die, when He already encompasses such. The non-existence, though also the existence if believed to be a truth for the individual, relieves the intimate feeling of grief when that is the meaninglessness to death. There is desire, by the living to the dead, to join them in their graves. There is meaningless death and wasteful energy spent on pain, when a living individual is not aware of what is with them. Death is meaningless, as this is inherent. Though, what is living and also not is the love that keeps remaining life to possess meaning. As in, life only has meaning because of love, as it is not the living who would be alone who could continue to plod their life. Alone, there is only grief and the meaningless desire to be among the dead. Depression and self-blame is the result to this. Among grief, there is suffering and rejection of meaning. Among love, there is peace, the notion of Heaven, and acceptance of one’s remaining self with the memories that will last.

Life goes on in the name of love, since to death that would be meaningless to dwell upon, no life has a choice though to keep moving with all memories constant at heart. There is the notion that even to what was agitating or sinister of an individual, that such could be or should be forgiven by the living. There is meaninglessness to blame the dead, since criticism is there to better life. It is all a convenience and an addiction to be among the negative emotions resultant of grief. Nothing is more convenient than to suffer and to weep over death. Whereas, nothing is more necessary than to move on with the love that drives remaining life.

In heart, the care to live is to remember what has meaning. Convenience is a short-term pleasure that, to life, is a deception without the truth to individualism and love. Then, it is to individualism and truth that there is the notion of human will and care. Freedom is this, without being shackled or imprisoned in the meaninglessness of something so forceful as death or the addictions to grief. In grief for a person’s addiction to this mindset to suffer in, it is a a simple convenience. It is convenient to be alone, among grief. It is, however, a necessity to seek those who are stronger than the self, due to what the self, within grief, cannot accomplish while alone. It is not a necessity to grieve, since to death and for its remembrance, there cannot be meaning when no living person, if ever wanting to no longer suffer, must grow stronger. If not to the present time during when grief is strongest, then sometime. If grief stays, it will consume. A convenience, as it was written before, is the essence of avarice. Nothing disappears, so quick and so often, as the convenience.

A convenience never lasts, which is not to say that grief will not last. Just as a flame being used for the sake to burn an object, grief will burn through the living individual enough to turn them to ash. A person, consumed by their grief, is a person who was unwilling to move beyond it. Beyond the loneliness, beyond the convenience of being in pain when that is easier than to overcome it.

It is not a simple task to overcome one’s stagnation in grief. Although, it is easier to remain in it, apart from the opportunity to go against it. Eternity means to amount oneself to the meaning of life, being to know that love will go on to push the living person ahead. It is the inevitable and inarguable outcome, should a person choose to move beyond the convenience of grief or from all conveniences. Eternity has no end, not only by the definition to the word. Eternity is to know that life is limited, though love is not. Against convenience, eternity comprehends the future, through the inevitable act of being against convenience. Grief is the epitomizing example as to how individualism surpasses collectivism, through either the access to freedom or in being enslaved.

To support collectivism in the sense that a person, as a collective force, should be used is not so much different than to support all absences among grieving individuals. Sadism is the result of one’s own mindset, should they find no freedom in individual responsibility. There is no way to redefine freedom, other than to consider how it is naturally defined. Whether to find meaning in death or in life, there is only the latter to which a person is free apart from what shackles their own mind. As truth has been said to be defined the same as life, then what is deceptive about convenience is the same matter for a collective that is being used. It is because a collective will believe itself free, though cannot be the case when itself is not individualism.

A support for collectivism is a support for both negligence and ignorance to the individual. To this support, a person with it can be said as contented to believe it is better to assume what is wrong than to know who is wronged. In the army being used, it is to persecute another nation or another collective. In the belief that the other collective is wrong is not to know which individual has been wronged to this endless persecution with a mindset of ignorance.

Leave a Reply