“The Danger of Interpretation”
An interpretation holds a single meaning.
To interpret is to fragment what has always been a whole, for it to then become an incomplete form. In comparison, a whole could be a mirror. In contrast, the whole of the mirror, when “interpreted”, is now a fragmented mirror. To see something as a wholeness, is to understand that what has been witnessed is not wounded. Currently wounded, that is, for what was once wounded, would not matter for this description.
The person who carries over wounds, not mended, or has been wounded just a few moments ago, is the “interpreted” individual. A wholeness to a person is interpreted, after they had once been assimilated into another incomplete form, to make a union. What is union, in this scenario, besides a complete understanding in the making of that unity? Meaning, one interprets the individual by their place once in a union, whether that be marriage, or their own nation, or anywhere else they found belonging.
Interpretation is perception, making perception to be defined as never seeing the whole, the past, and only the present, of the individual. Though, if an individual holds purpose in freedom outside the union, believing themselves free, then they are not wounded, and feel no signs of betrayal. In that case, they had wanted out.
It is why an individual will always question the obedient collective, being the herd, on their purpose. Once the individual can make a perception, their place in such unity is detached or displaced. They become just one fragment to that whole.
Love teaches a human belonging. Though, it cannot be taught for individuals who do not know each other, between themselves. They are individuals as sheep gathered into a collective by the shepherd. Each of them who chooses to follow does not know the feeling of freedom in detaching themselves from the collection. Loves unites, though it does not unite people who do not know each other. Such a forced unity only ever breeds fear, among such individuals whose distrust of each other enforces the prejudice of distance.
Forced unity, enforces fear. It is because a collection is a wholeness, that when interpreted by an individual, they become detached from the collective. To silence a thought, means to silence an individual, and to believe the voice is one of union from the entirety.
We fear what we are distant towards. We are distant, because we are fearful. We are fearful, because no spark of curiosity has brought us the motivation in seeing something up-close, for its truth.
The dangers of interpretation, only ever reside in external perception upon a thing that requires no insight into it, other than for what it is. Of anything innately defined as what it is, then to interpret it would refer it towards its opposite. In the name of Justice, would such a concept be interpreted, it would become division. That is because the word “Justice” refers to order, and never disorder. To interpret a thing like Justice, inevitably makes Injustice or Vengeance. That is when a person’s anger enables them to makes a choice, being one of many to the interpretations. For when one can shatter a whole, one is in the choosing, in the freedom, outside the collective. It is that Justice, by its definition, relating to order, makes such a word a resemblance of a collective that should not be shattered into “interpretations”. If individuals hold their own interpretation, hold their own freedom, then their desire to freely perceive the objective definition of Justice, creates the danger.
To interpret Justice, makes such a perception become Vengeance, inevitably so. In the rebellion against objective Justice, an individual wishes for a choice. For to have a choice, would be outside of that objective Justice. We can only ever define Justice to be something representing no freedom. It is the same when a convict has no freedom, when they are incarcerated. The reason for the sentencing is to not allow the convict to do more harm upon the world. Their freedom has been forfeited.
Any person who disagrees with Justice pertaining to a lack of freedom, will automatically believe in responsibility to be with choice, to be with excuse, to be with escape. Who escapes Justice, besides those who’d never believe in freedom as earned? Freedom is no gift, like love is given. It is deserved, like trust and respect.
Therefore, to interpret Justice would mean to involve freedom in the individualized perception of it. From this, makes Vengeance, in the choice resonating with freedom. For to be free, would mean to reason oneself out of the objective defining of a thing, such as responsibility. We interpret what we believe cannot be objective, in its defining. Such means, that the interpretation to a thing would make choice, or freedom, involved only in the personal desire to what one wants. It is always outside the objective definition to what was interpreted.
Since to be “outside” the realm of Justice, is in relation to a convict being outside the realm of incarceration. The believe, that in being outside of it, they are free. They are only voided of being responsible for their crime. Any human who currently possesses true freedom, had earned it. They were not given it. In the name of personal responsibility, a person understands that what they are giving through their earned freedom, is themselves, no longer a threat to another’s freedom, another’s life.
All of this means that an interpretation on Justice is an adherence to personal desire. There is freedom, and there is choice, in the interpretation. Though, when it comes to interpreting what should never be fragmented by that interpretation, the only freedom there is, belongs in the one who wishes to hold an individual voice. By this, nothing of objective meaning is adhered to, when we can interpret the definition of a word to soon become something fragmented or divided.
“The Danger of Blurring Lines”
A common human way with our Nature is to believe one should have a choice in any matter, for freedom’s sake. To possess a falsified sense of freedom means to have the reasoning in escaping from the task of being responsible. To be responsible, means to be logical. To hold reason in one’s grasp for a weapon against responsibility, means to invent excuses for why one should not ever be such. It is then to say to have a choice in reference to responsibility, means to always steer in the direction away from it. A person of choice, wants paths. They do not wish to be led down a path, without their choice.
Another common human way with our Nature is to say that what one can choose, cannot be controlled by another. It is this that states a person has freedom of choice. Though, within responsibility, there is no freedom. Among a nation, to throw “responsibility” upon the shoulders of a citizen, force them against their will to do as the nation says, causes rebellion. To force a collective group to think, to behave, to motion on a certain path, defines slavery. Among the individual, however, should they rebel against their own personal responsibility, their immaturity has compelled them to want a choice away from Justice.
For the self, a person has a choice, or a personal endeavor to see a random change to themselves. Among the individual, a person is choosing their path for their life. Among the collective of individuals that makes up a nation or any population, there is only slavery being made of each of them, should such a nation desire control over all. To take away freedom, means to do so by force. Forced unity is a resemblance to slavery, when that system rejects the individual’s motives to earn it. A nation does not gift a person their freedom. For all true freedom, is earned, making the slave only such when they belong in a collection of their same kind. A person can indeed make themselves the slave, should they neglect the idea of earning freedom, and continue to believe it as a gift.
Between Justice and Vengeance, a human who truly fights for the former, does not take to human desire. Desire embraces a path for the self, stepping on the side of Vengeance, over Justice. Justice takes a path for others, stepping into a realm where sacrifice, honor, and selflessness takes place. A person offers wisdom, keeps structure, and above all, forgives enemies, upon when they know that retaliation will cause a war. To feel anger, means to want retaliation. It then becomes a feud, of opposite contrasts, where no closeness is found.
Without a strict focus on the objective definition of Justice, there is only the distance of prejudice that sparks the paranoia of a person’s next vengeful action. For within one action of Vengeance, comes the next. After the next, comes the third action, causing the cycle that repeats, incessantly. Nothing quits this cycle, until forgiveness takes place. There is always fear in it, because fear equates to the distance of lacking forgiveness. Forgiveness involves foresight into knowing that the future will only involve further bloodshed, if such a forgiving behavior is never implemented.
Any human’s first instinct is to be selfish, to feed themselves, to clothe themselves, during a time of survival. It is because of this, that when lines are blurred, Justice is never discovered. For who buries a corpse that had fallen, from being alive, without another’s hands to do it? Who is the Vengeful sort to do this, when they only aim to beat the dead body? Forgiveness has only one objective: to forgive the past, of all experiences during when that corpse was alive. It can be said of the same for anyone, that when selfishness become selflessness, we bury, we forgive, though cannot forget, what had fallen. As any burial, it is a selfless act, like forgiveness. If one were to forget, one would not be able to forgive a haunting memory. It’d never be an ability of a person.
As it is, if to forget was possible, and never forgiveness, then no human would possess a mind stored with the memories of the past. Each fragment of knowledge is a memory, kept in mind from being taken either from a book, or from word-of-mouth. It makes the lacking of fear of any individual, when forgiveness and compassion can be the things offered towards memories that haunt. We know, through memory. Therefore, we can know, through forgiveness, when we understand that what haunts another is at the same level of torment as what haunts us. When humans comprehend that they’re both in fear, both vulnerable, then love can take place, by knowing that not one is stronger than the other.
The ignorance of a human, in contrast to knowledge, resonates in the fear within the distance between people. To what one knows of another, makes knowledge. To what one does not know of another, makes ignorance. This much, is obvious. However, to be fearful, would also mean to be ignorant.
It is the case of any murderer who kills their victim, without compassion, through such ignorance and fear. If they had not been knowledgeable, then they had been ignorant. Their fear enters the picture by way of not stretching outside the realm of selfish discontent of the world, being the murderer’s mindset, to be compassionate. For if the murderer were compassionate, were brave, and not fearful, enough to step outside what has shut them inside their mind, they’d discover knowledge.
It is to be Xenophobic, that the fear a person feels, is only because they do not have the slightest interest in knowing someone. For in being too comfortable with what they already know, they are fearful in knowing more.
For why else would a person not wish to know another, if they did not fear what they possibly could hear of them? It is the greatest pang of fear by a human, to hear something from a source one does not like, and be shocked by its truth. As it is, all truth comes from sources where the fearful one does not wish to acknowledge can be the onset to a unity outside of such fear. If they were to see another, know another, being one other individual, they’d form a bond. That is a fear that comfortable humans do not wish to face.
To be vengeful, or to cling to the side of Vengeance, is unlike fear. One knows, through the personal desire to be vengeful, that the one such Vengeance will be directed upon, has committed an act of betrayal. It is knowledge that acts as the motive for Vengeance, not ignorance. Though, to what the vengeful person is ignorant of, is something that will not birth the forgiveness needed to halt such a cycle of Vengeance. That is the further knowledge needed to complete the tale, bring about the death, and the life is laid to rest. It is the same when one forgives to break a cycle of Vengeance, that one can forgive what can no longer be destroyed, being a corpse or ended life.
A person’s task to be responsible would then mean to be the one who forgives, and breaks the cycle of irresponsibility and Vengeance. It is in the knowledge of who we have forgiven, that we can lay to rest whatever has been strained by hurt, for however long was the time.
In the manner of personal desire, a person does not act responsible. To blur the line between responsibility and irresponsibility, or logic and reason, or Justice and Vengeance, means to, again, fall on the area that is most suited to human instinct. Selfishness is a part of human instinct. Since it is, one should never compare love to the instincts of a human.
When it is about protection, however, of a loved one, that is instinct. It is only due to that love objectively makes the pair unified. They are one, meaning that by one of the two loved ones to protect the other, they are protecting themselves.
All choice, therefore, is not based on the coming death or the coming love. In death, there is no choice, but to understand that it will come. In truth, death is more predictable than love. For what we control, is always our own lives. We are compelled to understand ourselves, as we pull who we love always for a union of singularity. Though, when trust becomes a factor, it is love that becomes limited, only when one now begins to fear something they never wish to involve in their lives.
“The Ruling of Competition”
Structure is never divided, unless by ignorance to displace a collective of the same structure. To build skyscrapers, is to build many of the same kind, many of the same color, many to the same arrangement. It is never, by that collective, possible to distinguish one from the next. It is ignorance, being aligned with lacking responsibility, that disfigures structure to become deconstruction or destruction. The destructed structure is the same as the divided collective, when the individual means to displace themselves from the rest. Though, to earn freedom, especially by way of understood cruelty and mistreatment, makes it valid. Freedom is only ever valid, when it is earned. Though, to be irresponsible, would mean to displace oneself from responsibility, because one wishes for a choice outside of it.
One can confuse the meaning of responsibility with the meaning of slavery, when they do not understand that to be responsible is individualized, while to be enslaved is to be collected. In the former, one defines themselves. In the latter, a person defines someone else.
All slaves, in relation to sheep, are herded, and not allowed to stray from the collection. In the name of structure, it is the same as slavery when all one can see of it, is sameness. Sameness, especially of groups or categories that lack individualism, makes the objective slave. The slave will be killed, should their disobedience prove them to be “without function”. In function, there is slavery. In individualism, there is truth. Of all truth, there is no fear, and never the prejudice that would make distance. When we know truth, we know something outside where fear confines us, and defines us. When we define ourselves, we are individuals. Though, when we confine ourselves, we become prejudiced. It is in such confinement, that we lack an interest in seeing beyond what we already fathom. That is the fear where all forms of prejudice, mark themselves.
A person who means to displace themselves from structure, is like a brick that has fallen from its collection to make the building. As a metaphor, to build with bricks is to build with sameness. Though, to build with stone, is to realize that no stone is of the same size or shape.
Structure has no division, unless through the displacement of the individual from the entirety. Like the example of a brick loosening itself from the whole, it has merely made the entirety more unstable, even if only by a fraction.
Competition rules, by function, and nothing more. It rules over the collection, granting stability only through a collection, while totally rejecting the individual for their ability. They who rule through competition, rarely understand the individual, for truth. Of truth, there is the individual, and there is something greater than a deception of a color, belonging to prejudice. All people desire honesty from where they know it is best sourced, making what will believed to always lie be a sight only upon the surface. Does one, before a well, not sink the bucket into darkness to find what is needed, being water? The same is true by a person finding truth in its expected source, though never in color, and never in upon any surface. It is the same as a treasure hunter, who is meant to dig to find something that is always more beautiful that the endless sameness of sand. The sand is nothing of worth to the treasure hunter, making what is discovered beneath it, always more beautiful and to be valued.
The treasure is treasured, so to speak, as each individual holds their own heart. That heart is the treasure by which is found only by another individual, whose perception can cleanly cut its way to that truth. In competition, however, truth does not become discovered of individuality, because it focuses on the function, not the beauty, of the person.
A collection, in this sense, is born based on function. An individual possesses no function, though holds the beauty that could only be seen by another individual. It is based in the body, this function. This form, resembling something so much attuned with vulnerability, is much related to the insecurity of all which the mind sees of the fragile. Of the vulnerable, of the weak, it is what the mind understands of the form, that when ruled through simple function, becomes aware. Awareness is the key to being the individual. To be the individual, would mean for a collection to always be displaced into fragments. Each of those fragments, are each of the individuals.
From the mind having sight of the body, means for it to be viewing what has been weakened by neglect. To contrast function from form, means to contrast what is vainly believed to eternally remain collected, from what still has a weakness. All structure comes collapsing into those individual fragments, when the acknowledgement of form’s weakness is lacking. Form possesses weakness, while sight upon function is merely a vain attempt to see what is believed to never collapse. Of that latter scenario, one will believe that such a structure cannot collapse, if sheer control is twisted around it. That defines the collection of slaves when individuals make the fragments, after the entirety has been broken down.
A ruling competition is, therefore, the enactment of vain control over function, and never form. Were one to have control over form, they’d be able to perceive its weakness. They’d offer wisdom, in place of contempt for that weakness. They’d offer compassion, in the knowledge of what is well-understood, of the individual. For as weakness will grow through loneliness, this makes love only ever genuine when one individual can connect with another, for one and one to make one.
“The Definition of Love, on the side of Justice”
All love builds the unison that forms a collective of oneness, though only between individuals. It should be said that a person who wields “protective instincts” for each breathing loved one, does so out of that oneness. Instinct relates to the choice of personal aid. Love, itself, voids reason, voids escape, of its responsible enactment. One is no coward in protection. To protect, is the same as destroying the threat to who one loves. As instinct relates to the selfishness of providing only for the self, then to protect a loved one would be the same. We protect out of instinct, due to that oneness of ourselves unified with who we love. For if we lose them, we lose ourselves.
If Justice remains defined as a forfeiture of freedom, then it is the same with love through its selflessness. Love is selfless, and by its factor of responsibility will make it outside the realm of reason, freedom, and choice. No one is free within love, making love and Justice much alike. No one is free within love, because one is responsible for who one loves, out of genuine care. No one is independent, if they are loved.
Upon this world, independence is impossible while love exists. To make oneself as someone who rejects love, makes oneself the person who will become prey to love, upon one day. Each rapist in this world is a person who stalks those who have no protection, from love. The stalker is always infatuated by the isolated individual. All this means, that through a lack of independence, and through a lack of freedom, a person is always trapped in this world, because of love. Love ensnares, captivated, and captures all individuals who look upon the face of it.
A memory is none so bleak, when it reminds a person of who they love. To say the words, “God is dead,” merely translates to “A love is dead.” A oneness, a collection only between individuals, is always the instinct, combined with the protection of love. Therefore, in relation to a prisoner who is incarcerated, the same “captivation” occurs here, when such a criminal removes themselves from freedom. To “lose the self”, would have to relate to a criminal who removes themselves from the world, making such a selfless and defeated act, the forfeiture of freedom. What memories would be of that criminal, when they are gone from this world, gone from freedom, and into love? That criminal loves, by being both selfless and responsible enough to not want to cause harm upon another. If love is a place of being captured, then of memory upon death, makes the criminal the relation by their selfless act to admit to crime. Just as a person confesses love, a criminal confesses, or admits, to the truth.
If everything loved is not of the heart, then neither can truth be. What we love, is the truth, being when it comes to us as vulnerable. It is then the case that a person who loves, loves truth, while a person who is loved, has their truth loved. All things meant to represent truth, are the honesty whether of the criminal or the lover, meant to be trusted by those who are also trusted to hear it.
We offer truth, to be loved, to be cared for by someone we trust. When love said to be of the heart, as is truth, it is to mean that we are having our vulnerability, our weakness, our faults, loved. In being loved, they are mended, those faults. Though, when such trust is betrayed, the wounds reopen, ever-so larger. When such a case of betrayal is committed by an ease of falling into the seduction of someone who means harm, it is truth being manipulated. Truth is distorted of appearance, when it is being toyed with, and not ever placed into caring hands. Though, how else would fall in love with what deceives us, if we never had prior honesty for ourselves?
Understanding of truth, defeats prejudice, by the realization that what is revealed, is always vulnerable to our eyes. What we see, we commit to memory. What we forgive, is always a memory. We memorize things that cannot be forgotten. It is again to state that were a human able to forget, instead of forgive, then love would never be a thing. All knowledge upon Earth are memories, vulnerable to the memorization of those with eyes and ears to it. Love remain, in this respect, an embrace of knowledge. It encompasses the mind, while the mind stores knowledge or all that was fragile to the senses of a human.
Of sense, it must be that a human’s 2 main senses, of sight and hearing, relate to love by how distance is kept to perceive, with either. Love relates to respect, allowing distance to be granted. By the 3 secondary senses, of taste, touch, and smell, there is no effort made that pertains to the distance of what is fragile or open. For if a person uses their eyes and ears to perceive, they display effort in attention. If a person uses their nose, tongue, and skin to perceive, they display effort in the closeness that pertains to lust. Through the latter, one discovers limitation in the distance of it. As an example, scent fades the further it is away, while both taste and touch are truly limited by distance. All this pertains to openness.
Openness of what is fragile, be that a wound, makes knowledge the consumption of eyes and ears, primarily. To the blind person, they will use braille to read a book, by using the sense of touch. This makes them limited by distance, though also the same in perception were there to be read of a person the texture of their skin, by the same sense. To feel the skin’s texture, or any texture, there must be closeness. Such means, that knowledge for the blind person is confined to the senses of craving. It is why their ears are heightened in perception, above all their other senses. For what is known of a blind person’s excellent hearing, must be understood the same of what was already mentioned. That, the 2 senses that pertain to love, create better “awareness” to what is now even at a further distance, to be perceived by hearing, for the blind person. For when that blind person’s sense of sight is disabled, it is the other sense of love, that can perceive sounds at an even greater distance, than usual.
Then, for the secondary 3 senses to be of lust, makes such perceptions to be reserved for closeness, as has been mentioned. Though, to the “openness” of knowledge to be apparent, is then the vulnerability of what is available for perception. One must, for touch, be more opened, more vulnerable, to that sense. It is then to say of any woman whose legs must be parted for there to be penetration, that her essence of “truth” resonates in the creation of it, being of life. Greater openness relies on secondary factors, being lust, that should never be made primary. Though, when it is, such sorts in this world remain both blind and deaf to logic.
It can be proven here that love epitomizes logic. The straightness of logic is there for the openness of what is vulnerable. What is penetrated, is what is received with logic. All logic is the love to create the spawn, being of life, being of truth. The “image of God”, in this sense, is all images of creation, being what exits from the womb of a woman.
By all of this, Justice has its way of knowing what can be fathomed of truth as the evidence for claim. An example of this is like the man whose lust compelled impregnation of a woman, though now wishes for choice, freedom, and reason outside the realm of his responsibility. In any claim of doing, in relation to who is responsible for it, there is admittance. One admits to the fault, to the penetration of truth, being like a woman. Like the example of both a mother and a father to an illegitimate child, “claim” has its strength upon the word “custody”. For to “own”, would mean to own up to being responsible, and thus, display courage. Love, in this sense, in relation to Justice, is the courage of knowing responsibility for such a claim. It is in the manner of their knowledge to the doing, that their admittance is their submission to responsibility, to a forfeiture of freedom.
“The Definition of Hatred, on the side of Vengeance”
Discontent is the stance of hatred, opposite of the contentment that falls upon the side of love. We were meant to display contentment for the enactment of responsibility, revealing a lack of freedom. We are not free, when content. Though, we are free, when discontent. The person who is free, has a choice, holds reason in their grasp, though is discontent. It is because, as a human, one is selfish when not wanting to forfeit freedom to be responsible. Upon the side of discontent, one is inevitably hateful. For as hate would be on the side of discontent, then it is contentment that is on the side of love. This would make all things of Justice to be opposite of the selfishness that coexists with hatred.
Love is the selflessness of self-sacrifice and responsibility. It is discontent that defines the beating heart, not beating for anyone else, besides the person who originally possesses it. When one can sacrifice, it is not in fear, though for love, that they do so. For should one fear, then it is not the focus of sacrifice that is apparent, though is now the focus upon loss.
It has been said that those of instinct, especially when combined with love, lose themselves, should they ever lose who they love. It has been said that a person is unified to such a degree, when who they lose is torn free from them. For that defines loss. To love another person more than oneself, means to have added upon oneself, another person. One adds to themselves, through love. That means that through love, a person is loving more than themselves. Meaning, they are loving more of themselves, in the addition to themselves. The keyword being “more”, makes love the addition within a genuine unison of trust.
It is anger that becomes the brightest instinct of an individual, who is feeling for what is threatened. Through love, a person who loses who is loved, becomes acting as the vengeful one, to the one who committed that loss. Were that to be murder, to betrayal, it is a passion, this anger. Though, to its inevitable acts of destruction, a person of such regard are only acting of such an instinct as anger, towards what has been lost of what has been added. It is in love, that a person adds. Then, it is in anger and Vengeance, that a person makes loss towards whatever caused that loss. It is but a cycle, that continues until forgiveness enters the picture. For it is, in this, that prejudice becomes more commonplace, when none wish for understanding to mutual vulnerability.
When one loses everything, their first instinct is anger. Both depression and anger are said to align with each other, to act hand-in-hand. Then, it is loss, not sacrifice, that sparks this anger, stemming from a feeling of grief.
Sacrifice, in contrast to loss, represents the disposal of everything that is material. Such a word as “material” could even be directed towards another person, though such involves the complete disregard for their individualism. It involves the complete disregard for empathy, when a person is merely a tool to another individual. To lose, would mean for something to be evicted from the heart, and always this.
Our anger then always arises from the feeling of loss, not the act of sacrifice. What we eject from our lives, is always meant to be the material. For in being material, such objects are labelled as “expendable”. Some would make the argument that life is temporary, and due to this, humans are also expendable. Though, does the one with love in their heart for another person, have a say in what is expendable or not? They’d have the largest say, since what is expendable to them, is not who they love. It is nevertheless an absence of love, and even a denial of God, to say that each thing merely possesses a use, even of people. If any world became constructed in such ways, only after rejection of a tradition of religious values, it was only to lean in the direction of making everything and possibly everyone as expendable. That is a world of manipulators and deceivers, who cannot fathom truth, when such is brought forth from the vulnerability that only love could reinforce.
When one believes that to add material upon material to make weaknesses become strengths, one is only in the denial of what those weaknesses represent. Material cannot simply replace wounds upon the already-existing material, when the immaterial is lacking of the builder. Neglect upon that which has been wounded, will result from lacking immaterial. For as the “material” has representation for imperfection of things, as physical objects able to break, then it is the “immaterial” has representation for perfection of things, as metaphysical substance unable to break. It is to state that one cannot fix a mind with a bandage, though love can soothe such wounds, being immaterial on its own.
The builder, who resides in their negligence, is always to be the one who merely wishes to add material to material, never yearning to apply care and gentleness to the wounded material. We must, as we are able, to care for wounds of the heart through proof of trust for being gentle, and not brutal to the wound. We are scaled by trust, though not by love.
Hatred’s greatest connection to Vengeance lies upon our want to clash our bodies to other forms, making it like material clashing with material. In this, it can be called a war. To what we protect, out of love, it is what we destroy that makes the guarded thing or person survive. We hate what aims to ruin all we love. Humans are not so much those who destroy simply for the sake of it, as much as we are doing so to protect another thing. Though, to the anger that ignites a structure, we are never forgiving in this Nature.
Love is a monolith. Unparalleled in competition, love is, and that makes the king of all emotions the one undefeated, and proving of what humans are. As not the craving for destruction sorts, though as the loving ones, doing all they can to preserve what they know. Though, for how little a human knows, is how little they will ever come to learn. A human being’s current ignorance matches up to their courage to know more. If their courage is subliminal, then their level of knowledge will remain the same. They will not want to lean out of their comfort in what they do know, to know something they always shed fear towards.
When it is that love is life’s form of contentment, it will be hatred to be life’s form of discontent. It is, as well, that hatred cannot at all be a form of repeated expression, being what life is, in relation to art. For art is the repeated expression, born from the confusion and intricacies of the artist’s own mind. Art is repetition, though only comes naturally when it is truly the act of “making sense” of what the artist is attempting to comprehend even of themselves. Though, the artist will then say that the world cannot comprehend them. That is the naivety of the artist, due to that the artist will inevitably connect with his or her viewers. Though, in interpreting the artist’s piece, those viewers have merely fragmented the work. In such a case, interpretation is allowed, for what of life should not be interpreted so each person holds their own vision in this world? It is not to say that it is a wrong to interpret a thing. It is merely inevitable of any human.
Though, in the case of what love represents, it is on the side of Justice, whereas Vengeance is on the side of hatred. We are meant to do all things selfless through Justice. And, if a world raises a so-called “wisdom” for people to believe that all must do what is important for the self, they are hypocrites should they next speak of Justice. In the enactment of Justice, one forgets the self, and one runs to the fire, while others flee.
Hatred is the discontentment of a person who does not hold Justice in their heart, because Justice is build through the knowledge that requires genuine care. To structure something, being of a life, makes that life lifted through the genuine care that sides not with hatred, though with love. We are simply what we do not know of ourselves, when we hate ourselves. Though, it is the truth that ignorance is what enforces and encourages further ignorance, when we do not wish to know a person, by their heart. As it has already been stated, to be discontented means to have placed oneself on the side of hatred. To be contented, means to have placed oneself on the side of love. Love has its meaning in stagnancy. Hatred has its meaning in continual movement and non-completion.
Nothing is complete, while bent around hatred. Everything is complete, while bent around love. In the genuine care of a person, of a nation, of a house, of any structure, love is involved, and can be the sole ingredient that keeps a thing from falling apart.
We are wandering while alive, stilled while in love, and continually disarranging and disordering what we are discontented with while hateful.
Hatred must come with action, and it cannot come with words. No person upon Earth can possibly express hatred through speech. In the attempt, they inevitably criticize. A person who speaks words of criticism is, in fact, reminding a person what they already hate of themselves. That was the person who heard those words of criticism against themselves. Words act as a mere reminder, to an already existing implement.
A person who criticizes has understood another. In their critique, they are, in truth, speaking words that relate to love, to dispel of that internal hatred the listening person possesses.
It is that criticism is on the side of love because criticism betters life. Criticism betters a life, when it can understand a life, as understanding is always on the side of attention, as attention is on the side of love. We offer attention, our eyes, our awareness, to someone else, while loving and caring for them. However, in the act of hatred, there can be no words. There is only the singular act of that hate, which is the proof of it. By the same reason as we should know that no words can prove a love, that an action should proof our love to another, is in the same definition that hatred must require physical proof. In such a sense, love will keep a life, though hatred will remove a life.
If the hands had never moved to destroy what had been raised to perhaps adolescence, or early adulthood, then it is not hatred that aligns with them. If they are merely speaking, then it is criticism, or love, that is their motive. In the criticism, there must come of the critique, the intellectualism not meant to be lacking. A mind is the ingredient to a critique, accompanied by a heart, because one cares enough to construct what is lacking. It is called “constructive criticism”, in this sense, that is the relation to this subject of ignorance versus knowledge. To willfully hate, would mean to deconstruct. To willfully love, would mean to construct, based on the knowledge that it takes to build.
It might seem that a criticizer has no action to hurl forth, because it is their speech that they put in the open. Though, their singular act of proof had come when they first offered attention to a struggling structure about to collapse. It is in the example of a leader coming forth, with the full intention of gaining control of their nation’s struggles, and thus, rebuilding the damage. That had been their singular act, which was the one in stepping forth.
Though, in leadership, to be discontented with a nation, would mean to deconstruct, never to construct. To be simply the leader who enters their position as another life, and then to construct the objective damages already done upon the nation, would mean to love and give their knowledge. Because, it is not a leader who is meant to be lazy in their contentment for what is damaged. A leader is a life, so therefore, it is life that connects with life, by way of a leader connecting with their nation. It is a one to connect with a one. That leader merely constructs, in the act of rebuilding what was damaged, to then be contented with their results.
When there is a leader who is there to connect with their people, not the nation, they are the leader who cannot separate nation from people. In that, they treat the people as a single unit, not with their own minds. A leader must look at the nation, not its people, and as the nation benefits, the people benefit. For in the leader’s eyes, there is discontentment for the damages, and the damages, only. If the leader is discontented with the nation, itself, then they are desiring to deconstruct further, and cause more damages. If the leader can repair what has already been damaged, then the leader has shown genuine care, and can display their knowledge for what can be arranged from disarrangement.
Hatred cannot act on its own. It must require proof of itself, in a singular act. If a leader has come forth to deconstruct their nation, has come forth with the sole motive of discontent, then they despise the nation they are leading. That leader’s motive of being discontent was their singular proof to the hatred they represent. For they came forth with that motive, claiming to lead a nation under a new vision. It is such a leadership that despises its own nation, wanting change for the sake of change, and not the improvement that relates to construction.
“Trust, Deserved for the Responsible”
Those who were irresponsible, lean themselves towards all things like hatred, among destruction, among death. It is those that are responsible who lean themselves towards all things like love, among preservation, among life.
Those who believe it necessary to justify the irresponsible actions, of perhaps a pauper, by continually gifting the pauper with more of this presumed Justice, will only be offering the pauper what they already comprehend. Such means, that these people of Justice will only ever be offered another thing to consume.
Some may say that to offer the pauper Justice, is to act out in responsibility for what the pauper did that was irresponsible. However, in what way does this teach the pauper to be responsible, of their own accord and individual making? They are still of the mindset to be irresponsible. Therefore, until they forsake and abscond with such a mindset, for however old it is, that mentality will only continue to flourish in the “giving of Justice” by external sorts.
A true measure of Justice is when an irresponsible person can admit their wrongdoings, and thus live up to what it means to be responsible. Thus, their new actions will be directly opposite of their old ones.
Responsibility is only the mindset for the individual. One cannot be responsible for someone else, without making the one who is being aided, feel powerless. It is, again, not Justice that anyone can offer to the irresponsible individual, as much as it is merely something to encourage the poverty by embedding the irresponsible self.
When another person embeds exactly what an irresponsible individual has been taught, it is no different than their upbringing that taught them the same wrong lessons. By embedding these people, one almost literally embeds them, by never allowing them to rise beyond the very low point they exist at. When one can love, one can comprehend the guilt of themselves in being irresponsible. Thus, it is the “guilt” one is placed upon, that differs from innocence, in any trial of court. One has only ever been innocent at birth, when innocence, from a court system’s reference, simply means “had not been involved” with the crime. Like an infant, never was involved, because they are now neither irresponsible nor responsible for what had taken place, of the crime.
What of trust? What do we do to trust the individual who has found themselves sightly enough to be responsible. It goes back to having to abandon the mindset of being irresponsible. Even if such an upbringing of an individual, haunts the individual, it matters not, because they must still abandon all childhood memories of being irresponsible, if they are ever to be trusted in the opposite. One cannot operate a machine, without being responsible for it. One cannot make mistakes, of a clumsy kind, without being irresponsible.
If we are responsible for what we do, in our lives, then we can simply admit to our wrongdoings, of those mistakes, without further denial.
One must look upon themselves, see themselves as the irresponsible one, if they are to realize what they’ve done, was objectively wrong. To be “objectively wrong” in a scenario, means that all irresponsibility comes with a choice for it. All responsibility comes without a choice for it, because we cannot escape what we, among all others, know we’ve done.
Trust is granted upon those who deserve it. Just as respect is earned, so is trust, as trust becomes the guiding point to respect. One is trusted for how they are respected, to not betray the one who respects, within the vocation or place that they’re respected. One is respected out of proof, and therefore, one is trusted out of proof.
When it comes to Justice, there is proof for the evidence given at a trial. This is obvious, though many will believe that respect should be automatically given, just as love is automatically given. This should never be the case, because trust is the only thing that amounts itself to something deserved, aside from respect. The addict cannot be trusted with many chances to clean him or herself up from their addiction, or otherwise not be trusted to be around children and other individuals.
How does one, even for paupers, know that what they’re trusted with, will not be used for anything else than what they know? Such means, to offer the pauper the coin, and what will they do with it. Giving a pauper money will only ever prolong their faults. Justice can only be a thing of admittance, from the one who has been irresponsible.
Justice, being of admittance, is what occurs of the irresponsible one becoming responsible enough to never want justification for their own faults. It is not based on mercy if one desires forgiveness, over punishment. The very fact that a pauper has remained that way for years on end, has come from irresponsible actions. Their negligence, in what continues to decay of themselves, is them drowning in their own irresponsible ways. To be responsible, meaning to not have a choice but to commit to the right path, will cause all choice and freedom to diminish.
The pauper has their freedom in the streets. Though, in what extent that this “freedom” is seen, it will remain eternally bound to the definition of being impoverished and irresponsible, if a nation’s leadership continually believes in the idea of “offering Justice”. For again, Justice cannot be offered, and it must be seen of those who can be trusted to do better.
Those who are irresponsible, will be those will demand respect, without action not bound to choice. Such means, that any action not bound to choice, is always the right action. Though, when the irresponsible demand respect, it means they desire justification for their irresponsible actions. Such means, that to be irresponsible is on the side of laziness and inaction, and to demand respect, means to always want a choice and to have freedom. For freedom, in its purest sense, means “to have while not having”. For one will have a choice in any matter, though it won’t amount to any evident and provable substance. Thus, any choice in the world, when not limited, makes destruction the inevitable result of anything evident and of structure.
“When Choice Equates to Destruction”
Choice is the only thing to define the irresponsible self, for such means that to be irresponsible was to have a choice in what one acts upon. To have a choice merely means to never want for lacking one. Because, when one lacks a choice, one is automatically responsible for everything they are bound to do, out of no freedom away from it.
Reason is what causes a human to have a choice, for it defines freedom, in the sense that having a choice is what makes a person escape the necessity of being responsible. Being responsible is what reason despises, for human reason is opposite from love.
Human reason is opposite from love, because while science will side with reason, reason will counter contentment. One should be content with being responsible, because in what we create, we are responsible for upholding it. Love is the emotion, beyond all other emotions, that cannot amount itself to discontentment. We are, when responsible, the sorts to say that we will love what we have created. Thus, we are not willing to neglect what we have created, though be responsible for it, because we lack a choice in the matter.
When we have a choice in any matter, choice becomes defined as something to relate to destruction. That is because one has no choice out of being responsible, when we are meaning to uphold what we’ve created. To uphold creation, means to not be irresponsible enough to neglect it. Why would any person, who is responsible, wish to neglect something they mean to love? They’d have no choice in that matter, meaning that they will do it, without hesitation, without fear.
A person with a choice, is someone who will contemplate only in the effort of stepping away to neglect what should be taken care of. If one can say even to their friend that they are unable to be complete without them, then they are saying that they wouldn’t be whole, if they were alone. They are saying they’d be like the unfinished painting or the premature infant, without wholeness, without that person to complete their image.
When we deconstruct, or destruct, what has been created, we have not created anything. Destruction cannot be created, as it has already been mentioned, because one can only ever destroy what has already been created. One can only destroy their own, or another person’s construction, not ever create something called disorder. It is to say that one cannot create disorder, though only disorder the order that was created.
Choice is the one thing that defines disorder, or destruction, or deconstruction, when it relates to the freedom within human reason. That is because reason is, again, the thing that relates to being discontent or dissatisfied with what has already been built. Such means that one, through the power of reason, will call themselves upon ignorance, not knowledge, to destroy what has been created. This means that love is the emotion, beyond all others emotions, to relate to logic, which science has now been proven to neglect.
Science neglects logic, which means that science neglects creation. It means that science, that sides with reason, does not side with knowledge. It sides with ignorance, as it sides with sheer greed. It does not side with any bit of knowledge within that measure of greed, without dissecting or deconstructing something else. If science sides with reason, then science does not side with logic. If science sided with logic, it would have no need to deconstruct the thing being preserved. It merely takes advantageous gain from something already objective “useless”, as love is, to break it down into something now seen by subjective eyes.
The subjective nature in viewing anything to have a meaning only in one’s individual perspective, is the very danger within destruction. It is not the unification of individuals to desire more of a perspective over a one to offer to a social realm. For such would be the basis behind an actual diverse world. For “diversity” only refers to creation. Thus, it can be attached upon those creations, the word “responsibility” for them.
How does a modern world replace the word “diversity” with a different definition, if not to renounce the meaning of the word “responsibility”? If such a modern world simply wishes to see diversity as what is already in existence, then it is not any newness to ideas that are appreciated.
Subjectivity is merely defined as the breaking down of facts, or structure, to become opinions, or deconstruction. When we yearn to “see through the eyes of the beholder”, we are not giving allowance for anyone else to see the same image. Thus, we are never objective in offering what we can see, or if we do offer it, then we will deny the importance of another person’s relation. We will say that what we can see is “unique” and unrelated to another person’s vision.
Such is only the boldness of arrogance in a person believing they cannot at all be like another, in identification. It is the purified essence of arrogance, to believe that one stands upon the Earth, without needing to say they are alike another, in motives or inspiration.
In what a choice is, the subjective nature of a person will cause them to choose, for themselves, and in the view of what is needed for themselves. For the self, a person chooses, though in the responsible ways, a person lacks a choice. For which action does a society make, when it should understand by now that to choose, only means for the self, and then to be responsible, means for others?
Multiple choices are the multiple options granted upon someone, for they will find freedom so well defined within themselves to be impoverished. Socialism, in this respect, is the idea by which to offer anyone a choice, offer the freedom that does not degrade, is to grant no one the responsibility deserved for others, who one loves. If one cannot be responsible enough for another, then it is that previous mention of “consumed Justice” that a nation of impoverished sorts, will intake. That is, for choice to be something related to the irresponsible self, and of every pauper to be in their state out of being irresponsible, it will be in freedom’s essence to be without the need to be responsible, to upkeep someone else.
For freedom, in its essence, is the only thing to define both an abandonment of the self from others, and an abandonment of others by the self. How would one disagree, without falling into the same belief that one can be subjective on this matter? How would one disagree, without first realizing that to be free, is to never belong? A person who is free, is a person who is searching for belonging? Does one believe that the released slave, even from all the cruelty from their master, wants to be kept in that freedom? It is never the case, when they wish for belonging among a different, albeit less cruel, source.
In this, the former slave has a part in belonging among those who would offer him or her protection, and work that betters a payment made unto them. Though, in the manner of being responsible, a person cannot say that they are free, when they will always lack a choice for what they are responsible for. Does one say that freedom comes with a choice? If so, then their freedom is lost, when they come into a job that requires having no choice, but to do the tasks one is responsible for.
Choice matters little for the realm of belonging. When we belong to someone or something else, we have no choice. It is what we create, through belonging to an external source, that a choice is lacking.
One can easily state that their belonging to an external source, is in the same respect as being property in terms of being a slave. One could say this, and thus, want a choice in what they do. Thus, arrogance is born from this, when one can say that no one rules over themselves. They desire a choice in what to do, within the workforce, thus making “choice” have everything with reasoning oneself out of being responsible. As it has been mentioned, reason counters contentment, counters love, when it is always fear that divided a populace into countless groups. Reason is on the side of fear, in this sense, because as love requires the contentment to not want for more, it is reason that one will utilize to escape from what they might deem to be a predicament.
Reason is the essence of believing oneself to have a choice, even within marriage, even within romantic love. Even of a friendship, it is, as it already has been mentioned, the abandonment of others in exchange for the self, through a choice that benefits only the self.
“Justice, the Involvement of no Freedom”
No one possesses freedom for how selfless and how vast the essence of Justice can reach, for its effects upon those irresponsible. Upon those irresponsible, it is what Justice is potent against, though to those who believe their choices will supersede their necessity to be responsible, it is never the case. Choice amounts itself to freedom, though Justice involves itself for no person’s freedom, nor anyone’s free will. They have abandoned another, out of ignorance in knowing them, in the realization of only knowing what wrong was dealt upon themselves. Any wrong in the world, to be returned with another wrong, is not Justice, in its objective definition. That is Vengeance, as is the inspiration to destroy what has been built by another, without needing to know who they’ve created as enemies.
No person on Earth will ever hold Justice to be in mind, when their motives are that of doing the same wrongs as their enemies. To be on the side of Justice, is for each person to comprehend the definition of “equality”. For it means to know that for each person’s irresponsible ways, will only land them in a place where they possess no freedom, and no choice. That is, of course, prison. When such people are subjected to having no freedom, they have no choice but to face their own individual faults.
No person will have their freedom, once they comprehend that freedom is opposite from Justice. It is, because freedom is the reasoning out of a place within the responsible self. As Justice is on the side of logic, as logic is on the side of love, and as love is on the side of the responsible self, it goes to show that for any person who admits to wrongdoing, they forfeit their freedom.
To give freedom to those once irresponsible, is only in the effort to believe they are trusted to never commit the same crime.
It is to say that upon any pauper in the world, one cannot simply offer Justice as though it is another thing to consume. One must, as they will learn, that to be responsible is the only way for a pauper to no longer be one. When they can be responsible, they are trusted to contribute to the upbringing of a social realm. It is here that it can be understood that the raising of society is much like raising a child.
When raising a child, one teaches their offspring to be responsible with their future actions. Thus, when a child leaves the home of the parents, they are free. Though, they wouldn’t be “free” for long. They’d find their belonging in a career or in education or in a simple apartment where they find a new home for themselves. Therefore, freedom is never the thing that someone of an responsible self will encounter, because they comprehend that to be responsible, one has no choice, no freedom.
Freedom, when purified, will be with the belief that there can be those wholly irresponsible, with another, such a government, in the care of them. Such governments will create every sort of minority in their divisive ways. It is because they neglect that the individual is the smallest sort of any of the minorities, so therefore, they reject the rights of any individual. Such means, that for all the existing minorities, all will center itself upon the individual and their actions, to repair the negligence, as they were irresponsible.
For what a person neglects, as they were irresponsible, it should be repeated that a person who has crossed a creation with negligence, has brought disorder from order. For it should be repeated, as well, that disorder, nor destruction, nor chaos, nor deconstruction can be created. One merely disorders or causes chaos from something that was created, or was ordered.
All intent, in being responsible for one’s irresponsible actions, comes from an individual right. The individual right that mentions that proves that “to be responsible” does not come from an external source. If one denies this, then one denies another person’s individual rights. Such is inevitably the case, when we consider that a pauper, for example, has their own individual rights, to raise what they’ve neglected. Any government that holds the idea in mind to care eternally for a nation, will forever neglect a person’s individual rights. It is because an individual has, again, the willingness within themselves to be responsible for their negligence. Or, if their choices, as such can only be a choice, compelled them to do something for themselves, then it is greed that such a government encourages.
To look upon the people named to be “victims”, wherever is the view for the individual, who can find themselves needing to be responsible for all choices and all negligence. Their freedom must be abandoned, so that their irresponsible ways become their responsible ways.
One must look at freedom as though one believes in choice, as one must look at choice as though one comprehends that a choice only ever benefits the self. Once more, all responsible ways marks a person without choice, without freedom. Because, just like the criminal who loses his or her freedom for their crime, we have no choice but to acknowledge and learn from those mistakes. It is through that newfound wisdom, that we can comprehend something of our responsible self. That, we possess no regard for freedom, when being responsible after we were the opposite of that.
Only the dumbest upon Earth, will state that their freedoms surpass the need to be responsible. One has no freedom, when they must be responsible, when they must comprehend that they believed themselves able to get away with all manner of crime. Every criminal upon Earth has believed themselves to be “free” when in the continual escape from the law and order where Justice defines itself.
It is in this that a person who defines themselves as a victim, will not ever receive trust to do better. Though, that victim will place their utmost of trust in someone else to better them. Thus, it is defined of such people, that their laziness is something that cannot be grounded on wisdom and the necessity of being responsible.
No person can be wholly responsible for someone else, unless they are under that person’s personal wings as a loved one. Though, a government is incapable of this, because a government is not in knowledge of each person it aids. Therefore, it is in sheer ignorance of each person it aids, and lacks all genuine aspects of “having a heart” when it comes to their aid. The falsehoods of advertisements prove this, when we comprehend the deception of niceties that is wrapped over their actual intent and purpose. For if that purpose is based around numbers and vote count, then it is, again, based around ignorance, and of no urge to know a person. Therefore, with such ignorance, it is based around destruction of a populace or a nation, as it is never about the preservation of structure.
From the individual perspective, to the subjective taste, to the freedom for any one person, to the desires that follow humanity along its road, each of these things become erased at the point of one realizing their responsible self. One loses all, upon the realization they have no choice but to follow along with the duties needed to be committed to, once one comprehends their wrongdoing.
“Ignorance is the Breath of Vengeance”
Justice is knowledge, centered around the knowing of someone. It is ignorance that would destroy a person, because that ignorance has no relevance to life. Knowledge relates to life, though is of the form. While knowledge is of the form, it is that knowledge can be subjected to its own death, that also life is subjected to the same. Life is subjected to death, as this is obvious, though of knowledge, it is ignorance that condemns knowledge the way that death condemns life.
One cannot side with Justice, if they are not in the realization for their mistakes that led themselves to Justice. One’s Justice is not related to a justification for their actions. That is because to justify irresponsibility merely means to prolong the fault of the irresponsible one, until their mindset is never changed.
Knowledge is locked away in the mind, though through the realization of anything that would pertain to knowledge, it is the true pleasure for any human being. It is relief. It is alike the criminal coming to terms, or making peace, with their faults, out of true guilt in what they’ve done. Guilt cannot simply be made as “evidence” to show in court, so that the criminal’s sentence is properly served. Guilt must, as well, be something of a personal feeling by the perpetrator of the crime, or otherwise they’ll continue their misdeeds. It is that having a mindset of no guilt, makes the criminal wish to merely be free, have a choice, and cause more destruction and chaos.
As love protects the weak, so does the mind lead the body of a human. The mind, of course, controls the form. Though, it is the mind that, as well, controls the logic that the form, by itself, cannot comprehend. The form, were the mind to act on what the body feels, would be actions based around desires of personal gain. Thus, greed would be onset of any society that has forsaken the true meaning of Justice. For Justice cannot be something of personal desire and greed, as it must be something of an external and selfless gift to their creations. Such creations, being the society and environments that surround a person, must be met with the feeling of being reborn within the guilt that makes them realize their faults.
One is not influenced by their creations, as much as a parent is disciplined by their children, when it should always be the other way around. Though, with an increase of technological advancement in recent decades, it is going to seem like the opposite, what with the newer generations teaching the older generations how to work a gadget.
Through knowledge, structure is uplifted in creation. All structure will meet its downfall through ignorance, because it had been the intent on destroying something that the ignorant one had not known. Not having been known, a person is not seen with empathetic eyes, and therefore, not ever said to be alike the ignorant one. It is here that it is stated that an ignorant individual is always the one to believe themselves unique in how only they comprehend themselves. Thus, in what they comprehend of themselves, they are resisting the necessity of knowing others.
A society based around not uniqueness for the individual, though of realization that each of share common concerns and faults, makes us less likely to be arrogant, and more likely to be selfless. In terms of that, a person who says to themselves that no one could comprehend who they are, is going to be someone alike the abstraction within art. For that means, that this person is going to represent the disorder within both abstract art, and ignorance.
Through the subjective belief that one’s view or opinion only ever matters to them, is to reveal here that they are less likely to face the discussion of others. In this psychological pattern, a person who believes themselves to be unique, will believe all others to be less-than-unique. That is because the knowledge for one comprehends of the self, will be believed by that individual to never measure up or match with another person. Through this, a person’s pride surpasses the need to be humble for one’s individualism. Thus, arrogance is the result.
It is only arrogant individual who is on the side of ignorance, if they are unwilling to know a person by relating them to themselves, in their “uniqueness”. A person who merely wants to see themselves in their own reflection as unique, as bold, as proud is a person without a desire to relate that to anyone else. For that is because the thing related to being honest with another person, is love. No one of this sort of mindset is at all honest, because to be open with another person, is in the effort that they would not make themselves appear “unique”.
Through ignorance, a person of that claimed uniqueness will be more-so willing to destroy another person who they simply don’t understand, than ever willing to keep an open mind to their differences. All the differences between one person and the next, matter little to the equality within the motivation for each of them. Those motives, being that of either the want for knowledge, or the ignorance that compels a person to cause destruction, should be judged upon, in terms of their character and ideals.
It has been said that to want for knowledge relates to simple craving, as this refers not to greed, though to hoarding. A person who hoards knowledge may not be a sort to splinter it into subjective fragments. Though, to simply know much about another person, and not be willing to share that knowledge, is apparently through the unwillingness to be objective. How would one be viewed, were they to say they comprehend a subject or another person, and then say they are not willing to share that knowledge?
In knowing a person, one has appetite or curiosity to understand them. One must be patient in the effort of comprehending them. As it is through sheer ignorance that a person will find themselves capable of destruction, upon all that they do not wish to comprehend, it is always knowledge that prevails in terms of support. When one raises, based on knowledge, they raise because they weren’t ignorant.
For it would indeed take a mother and a father a typical eighteen years to raise their child. Though, it would take a mere second to murder that child, the day after his or her eighteenth year in life. From life to death, or from knowledge to ignorance. What has been raised, has been wasted.
All knowledge, when wasted, the only thing related to what life becomes when it has been killed. The fertilizer, that will be the aid towards hope for new knowledge to build something else. Is it not in Nature’s intent to raise something?
“An Abstract Order”
All order, were it to be abstracted, would make it disorder. All things related to order, relate to logic. All things related to logic, relate to love. All things related to love, relate to the one who is responsible for their own creations. When order is abstracted, it becomes nothing of a focus on logic, nor a focus on love, nor a focus on being responsible. It is to create a social order, when one is all logical, loving, and responsible for their creations. It is their creations, alone, that will be rejected of order, were they to be met with negligence. For “negligence” simply refers to the unkempt or disorganized mess, that could indeed be rearranged so that it becomes order.
Order is nothing like abstraction. For in the removing of laws, of the rules, from order, there is complete negligence and ongoing ignorance. In this sense, disorder is the disagreement with rules, with laws, and with those who uphold the peace within any social realm. Those expected to uphold peace, are expected to be responsible. However, those who live among communities should also be expected for just as much responsibility as those who fight against crime.
In abstraction, there is no creation. It is a sheer nothingness that breeds the irresponsible individual, who will expect their “hand-outs” without any involvement of themselves, their own skills, to earn their earnings.
Love holds all the difference in what can be organized from disorder. It is in the example of a parent to their child, who could either neglect or take care, of that offspring. Love is logical, because both logic and responsibility relate to, again, not having a choice in the matter. For what one comprehends is the right action to take, will be what could not be offered a choice, nor a road out of their duties. One is allowed freedom outside of a task, when they believe such duties are not needed. Therefore, to have a duty means to be responsible for creation, within the tasks born from knowledge and wisdom that will raise that creation.
How would a parent not use their own methods, their own teachings, to raise a child? Why should it be complex, when it is love that raises, when it is logic, as well as the common sense to never neglect, that raises?
Creating abstraction from order, creates disorder because it is the same as rejecting what had created order, being rules and laws. It is logic that relates to love, and therefore, it is the need to be responsible for what one has created, that urges a person to care for it.
Just as the artist will care for their painting, or the mother will care for their child, it is what is fragile that doesn’t deserve death. It is why we state that no one upon Earth can truly decide the death of an individual, when it is to protect that causes a person to hold meaning. Any person, without something to hold near to them, without a person to trust, is feeling the pang of loneliness, upon most days. It is their wisdom to never trust, though has been through continual faults that have bred such wisdom.
Continual faults, or continually being irresponsible, have led to the resolution for such a person that to simply close themselves, will not allow knowledge to be read from them. Closed, and no more like an open book, as such a wisdom only encourages a lack of understanding among people.
A lack of understanding among people only ever encourages division, that is in regard to an abstraction among order.
Upon ordering something, we have done so with knowledge, with wisdom. Therefore, to hold a wisdom of never trusting anyone, is not so much wise as it is simply ignorant. In fact, it is ignorance in its purest sense, because to not trust, is not know. Since trust is mutually given, without lies and manipulation, simply saying to not trust is in fear of being betrayed. Though, in such a suppose wisdom, it is ignorance that such a person clings to, in the effort to protect themselves.
However, in the effort to protect oneself, how does one comprehend meaning, except in selfishness? If meaning in terms of protecting someone else, having someone to trust, is not important to the distrusting individual, then it is within their mind to have meaning in only what is granted to themselves. Thus, there is proven from this, that to have a choice, to have freedom, by means of reasoning oneself out of a matter, is to not be on the side of love, and be on the side of hatred.
For of hatred’s definition, it originates from discontentment. Raise a society around continual discontentment and dissatisfaction, and a society born around hatred is the result. Whoever began such a way among a social realm, is the who comprehends nothing of Justice.
Abstract the order, and society becomes centered around disorder, disorganization, and incompetence. One cannot blame a society for its treatment of them, if they are neglecting to treat society. A society without treatment, is a reflection on the people’s negligence. A society that normalizes abstraction, without action taken in regards to not having any freedom for it, creates a sheer rebellious society.
As no society can exist without existence, referring to physical structure, an abstract society is an “invisible” society where each person has no awareness for the knowledge within another person.