Part One – Human Nature
To Define Order
It is order that encompasses what does not, or should not, divide. A responsible person will understand order, since to divide oneself from it is forsaking what it means to earn freedom. To earn freedom is to be ordered of the self, then in comprehension that such of what is deserved cannot be gifted. Earning freedom, instead of expecting it being delivered without cost, is releasing the self, our truth, in the greater protection upon what is understood. An individual is no longer the slave when such is able to release themselves. To be considered free out of one’s own efforts, is always upon the difference between being stagnant or dutiful.
To see a goodness in freedom, though never relate it to order, is in the mindset of believing the former should be granted through chaos. A repetition to freedom is through the collective logic that could not be the same with individualism. Earning freedom is the mindset from the one who understands that in its relation to self-correction, is to displace the self from former wrongdoing. A wrongdoing that, by example, would have an individual incarcerated for an improper action. Such would then make of that individual needing to comprehend the necessity for being responsible. It is in this case, that to be responsible will correct the self, or otherwise wrongdoing will repeat the error in collectivist control. To earn freedom in the notion of being responsible is individualism through realizing that human error is the same as incapability.
Mistakes become known to be objective, out of the person who realize their inabilities. To be incapable, is to know one is not meant to commit themselves to a certain action that would bring about mistakes. It is in a person’s uncontrolled and unhindered ambitions that causes them to forsake accountability, for the desperate attempt to make a reality out of a delusional epiphany. Since through uncontrolled ambition, a person becomes delusional, it is then through such idealistic actions that a person merely reveals human flaw.
Upon the notion of inability, there is the stance for where resources are met, through where the mind stores them. By a person unable to be responsible is then to comprehend that their uncontrolled spending of resources is to misunderstand what is limited of chaos, out of disregard for order of the heart. If the heart is ordered, then it is not broken to express the flaws of humanity. Humans are always mistaken because it is of humanity, itself, that is represented as a mistake. Were one to speak of themselves to love as a mistake, then they’ve yet to comprehend that it is always through trust, not of love, that causes such a person to error themselves and to reveal flaw.
We can be shameless when we blindly trust, being for resources spent of the mind. Though, we cannot at all be shameless through blind love, that to the heart, is where holds its residence. An individual trusts for the sake of sharing truth. Truth becomes a resource when it is utilized, making it susceptible to change or manipulation. A depiction of the heart, pertaining to the force of love, is for all that can be broken. In truth’s care, such was sent to a heart with trust that the self could develop if not alone. Though, for the relation to an error, in part on a human too readily offering their trust, emotions are revealed as the sight of their flaws. Their mistake, that is, was in trusting without wisdom that their truth would be treated as a simple resource to be used.
Upon all mistakes, it is to be argued that when society is in disarray and unordered, it had always been through the individual’s lack of understanding to the self, as their trust had been gifted to others too readily. Would trust then, as its gift for another, be in comparison to the prior notion of believing freedom is meant to be the same? As a gift, though if freedom and trust are said to be gifted, then it is where we place ourselves, or our fragilities, that we become imprisoned without awareness for personal responsibility.
It is the responsible self who is most willing to comprehend order, as it is its opposite, being of chaos, that represents the dishonest and untruthful self. In being responsible, admittance to the committed mistake is the first step on the path towards reconciliation. Nothing else reveals itself as more dishonest than the one keeping themselves incarcerated, whether within the literal prison or the mental one. Due to the repeated offender’s wish to forgo responsibility, it becomes identified as the repetition of a mistake. Repeated mistakes are like mass production, by itself believed to be perfect in design, though inevitably flawed. Such a perception for what is deemed to be perfect is just as the mentality of the dishonest, irresponsible person who is unable to comprehend the meaning of a mistake. It is that it will be repeated, or mass produced, if irresponsibility resonates with the person of such a nature through sheer negligence, as they mean to expose themselves to the spending for more flawed designs.
The designs for what are flawed is continually by the touch of human hands, marking our creations as never perfect. As perfection would fall alongside omniscience, then nothing more would be learned, especially of what has been created as a mistake.
Maintenance and preservation are upon the foundations to what reveals itself as objective order, being to the individual who has comprehended the self only ever through perceiving incapability. The flaw of a human is how a lesson is learned. Were imperfection not to be of the human, then no mistakes would ever be made. From this, no education would be wrought from the mistake not meant to be repeated. Though, a factory would repeat perceived-as-perfect designs, because what is beautiful, or truthful, or imperfect is inevitably human, while what is perfect is either dehumanizing or represents death. Then, to the order for what can be maintained and preserved, makes what is not repeated kept the same. To that sameness in knowledge for how wisdom is granted, for it to be passed along in words that represent the objectivism within the notion of human error.
This maintenance and preservation of wisdom is of its sameness to what has already been learned. Wisdom is not subjective, when its simplicity such as to not put flesh near the flame is to know one might be only ignorant for the experience of this. If personal experience is what proves, then let it be so for the person who disbelieves in another’s warnings or wisdom.
For order to be comprehended through a singular relation, it would then have a similarity to Justice. To this reference, Justice can be defined in the same manner as order would be, through the wisdom that blossoms from the one who has learned to be responsible or has just simply been educated. Then, one cannot connect subjectivity to wisdom, nor to the responsibility that would stem towards consequence from one’s mistakes through their freedom. To be subjective about order, or being responsible, or of wisdom, is to remain ignorant by never learning from choices. As choice relates itself to freedom, then so is the subjective self all about the decision. Though, to the limitations for freedom, is then to the same limits that relate to human imperfection, pertaining then to all flaws that comes from choice to consequence.
If it is order that compares itself with Justice, then it is the latter that never holds a comparison to subjectivist thinking. It is since no mistake, by this logic, could be subjective without questioning the imperfect person of their committed action. Since no action, as a mistake, is ever one without it being already subjected on its own, then further question to it would extend the division that resonates with a lack of order.
While Vengeance is the place of disorder, then through Justice comes order. Upon order, that through a person’s comprehended mistake they have caused, out of freedom to choose, brings about the consequences that responsibility would be required to mend. Imperfect humans learn, and improve, through their mistakes. It is freedom that encompasses choices, while no person is ever responsible with their decisions. Instead, a person is responsible for the consequences to their decision because no perfect choice has ever existed. To justify the mistake, perhaps to excuse the flaws behind it, is to be against order and Justice by how reason certifies itself.
Reason is the essence of excuse. To form reason, is to wriggle oneself out of being responsible. Reason is proven here as the core of escapism, same as a criminal during a period of interrogation might attempt to lie or cheat themselves out of being accountable for their actions.
It is never for the sake of Justice, bound up together with the coldness of logic, that compassion should be given to a criminal. Such is the risk, with those who would most certainly take advantage of offered compassion for their selfish benefit. Offering compassion to one who has not learned yet to be responsible, is the same as gifting freedom. Gifting freedom, or to offer compassion to a criminal is no different from breaking an incarcerated individual out of prison.
Once responsibility is learned for the future benefit of the once-ignorant person, order is maintained so long as this individual does not betray anyone’s current trust to their continued betterment.
Since it is by human error and incapability that a person will admit to being flawed and imperfect, then to all comprehension for the self is by way of knowing order cannot be subjective. To believe in such is to divide among the literal meaning of order, with such a definition that never pertains to division, though to togetherness.
To Define Chaos
To the common human, idealization is the place of perfection to the point where a mistake, unto the need for being responsible, can be ignored. It is in the progressive mind to believe a mistake can be the additional discovery, as it would be in the sadist’s mentality to learn from other’s misdemeanors. In progressivism and idealization, alike, the self becomes viewed as perfect or perfect enough. To the collective status, there is probable flaws to it, though any one person to betray such a collection becomes isolated. Among the universal, there is all persons no matter the group. There is, to the universal, the equality in which compares not to the equity that has relation to competition.
Through idealization or ambition, the self, through egotism, can be dissuaded from responsibility. It is of this self-idealized individual who will view flaws among the collective, since apart from that collection they are perfect. The collective that follows the idealized individual is for the mere reason that a collection of flaws could be healed by the perfected one. Perfection, itself, has no need for responsibility, since such a way to be responsible would mean to learn from a flaw or a mistake. Perfection is alongside omniscience, as one cannot be idealized through egotism without eventual lowering to the level of ignorance. As perfection has no understanding by all imperfect humans, it can be said only egotism can find itself as closest to that elevation.
To be flawless is to be omniscient, or to be perfect is to be boundless in depth. Though, the one way a person is closest to perfection is through themselves, as an individual, seeing to the depth of another. By emotion, since to see the depths of a person is to witness and then explore what has not yet been travelled. It has not yet been travelled out of fear to know. Perfection therefore becomes the false pretense in it comparing to fear, since for the idealized individual refusing to associate with another singular person, makes them ignorant, not omniscient.
For chaos to show itself in the heart of the one who misunderstands themselves, is then placed amongst the collection of those ignorant and dependent. Chaos is the place of the unordered heart, though depth can be surmised as what resonates in the external individual from ourselves. No person, by themselves, understands their own reflection among the singular perception that they, alone, possess. Their perception to themselves is limited, though by what another can see in the self can unlock what was kept in denial for its truth.
Chaos is the place of the disordered heart to believe it comprehends itself, though does not. Chaos is, as well, among the collection is those so misunderstood, though only due to how much they’ve denied the truth within individualism. In their group, such individuals believe in their own victimization only because of what being a victim relates to, being denial. It is innocence that is often alongside denial, because to argue that, within the group, one is never at fault, is to reject the human need to be responsible.
Though, to be responsible for the self compares always to how one is bettered, as an individual. One admits to fault, out of holding a conscience, and to not be the sadist who would learn from another’s mistakes. Since the mind of a sadist compares to that of progressivism, one can then compare such an education from external fault to that of victimization, then to denial. Since it is denial that believes not in the external God, would make a person ever only able to idealize themselves. Victimized people compare themselves to being innocent, thus making it a self-idealization. To believe in the external God is to comprehend the secondary individual of their depth, being for the love that perfects another’s flaws.
Division is enticed upon the moment a person takes to self-idealization, since human connection is developed upon the notion that imperfection is the inevitable factor. Through egotism, a person divides themselves from another outside of the human condition. Since connection is born between humans out of recognition for mutual imperfection, we cannot compare it directly to the force of love. Love is that force encompassing the ideal, being upon what a person is able to see through to the depths of another. As love will idealize another, place them upon a mantle for the purpose of devotion, protection comes as what guards what was once seen as isolated imperfection by the one once without this force. Love discovers, and thus, finds what is broken. It heals what is broken, through being humble for the self, though raises the external person to greater and previously unknown heights out of self-sacrifice.
With what comes through as ideal for the person, isolated from love, cannot be discovered among the self while such a perception remains as limited. To the isolation of a person, all that can be comprehended is the realness of pain, being to what remains of them as loveless. Love discovers what had always been broken, recognizes the imperfection to then remove it. Should a heart become broken, then it was through the same reason as death displaces the physical from the once-loved person. A physical form being unbounded another physical form is to the broken heart, the same as what occurs from death. However, it is to the pain that comes with a broken heart that proves the notion of everlasting love. A person is in pain, from grief, because the mourning one still loves what was lost.
To the ideal for who we raise, neither can look back on their former existence while love keeps them on the plane of metaphysics. A non-real realm, being that plane of metaphysics, all because we no longer see ourselves as physical when through our minds, we cannot question the past where we fell. Fell in love, that is, since even to our maternal family who we would not maintain a romantic connection to, it is still within the past where such a force found us.
There is, to an example of a mother, that such is for each person’s residence in the past either in her womb or her consoling arms, that this pertains to shelter. As shelter can compare to love, when through an understanding of control that love, itself, can maintain, to trust elsewhere would mean to cross a boundary. To step beyond, though to not betray the former place one knew and still knows to be their singular source of comfort, can just mean to not grow obsessive.
To the heart, there is the care that encompasses the task that resources can be committed to. Committing the resource requires the heart, or otherwise they become wasted. To imagine this as an example with an addict, who places not just their heart, though also all resources to the addiction rather than to their family, is not at all inappropriate.
Chaos would envelop the one who commits their resources out of addiction, or obsession, because the heart was the first to be lost, if to reference the example of that addict. Devoting resources to wrong areas is to place trust more in what would fall outside of the perfection that love did idealize, when it found the person who is now an addict. Their addiction, or their obsession is now their betrayal, since they have lost their heart before losing what represents the resource. To the ones betrayed, because of their loved one’s obsession, they will not look upon the loss of resources, though upon that of their heart. It is to mean that the loss of something far more valued, over the sheer monetary sum dedicated to an addiction or obsession, means that love cannot be among the place of the material.
It is chaos that commits resources out of response from the mind. It would then be order that commits resources, because of either no broken heart or from a healed heart once wounded. A disordered heart will commit resources, simply out of what the mind speaks to the obsessed individual. The convenience for them to find more favor in what is desired, over everything needed, has caused them to quit their own heart. To then be found, again, would not mean to be loved by a person who could bring that obsessive person’s physical form into their domain or residence. It would be to the task of being responsible, that recognizing the present chaos will be realized also as an understanding for what is broken, both of the self and among others.
Among lost trust, though not among the love that holds its place within a person’s memories, a pain through anxiety is the constant state of their mind. To fear, a person is at a loss for who to trust. However, it is because of their unreluctance to admit is they who are faulted, that the reality becomes clear that a lack of trust is to themselves. As well, such a lost person is not trusted by others, making them without choice though to forgive themselves, the broken individual. Chaos would, in this case, present itself as what is not admitted, by the individual, for where it occurs. Since it is within themselves, they are at a loss of control for such chaos to once more be made into order, due to their continued grasp upon obsession.
To the Way of the Addict
As was mentioned, brokenness or imperfection is to the human condition, and the necessary component for human connection. Connection is followed along with love to its discovery for truths an external person was willing to deny would ever be unearthed. Similar to believe a person could deny their dead loved one could once more rise, the same is for such buried or concealed truth. Truth is comparable to life, since out love, remembrance is never for death. Remembering life is to recall what never did change when among the love that kept it stable, never to be chaotic.
A stable heart is the one that is loved, though also forgiven of the imperfections that had ever made it chaotic. As chaos is to instability when within the heart, order cannot be of something just as fragile without the forgiveness that would bring about repair. It is to guilt that its proof through evidence, during a trial, can indeed bring clarity to the occasion of wrongdoing. Though, a true sense of clarity is for the one whose guilt is individualized, outside of the delusion of pride that brought such a person to believe they were wholly capable. Capability is not to the individual, when alone, as individualism even as a concept, represents the same understanding. No one person, through their pride, will admit to being incapable. An encouragement of pride is therefore just the onset to a lack of individualism.
Individualism can be defined as what connects, upon the formation of order. Inequality is the place of the prideful, when such proud sorts never admit to their incapability for which humans are naturally conditioned. Connection is then the place of no pride, making for those who admit to personal error, who can believe they were born imperfect, can be the ones who are unified.
As fragile as humans are, through imperfection that must receive a realization for it, chaos would inevitably be of the one whose delusion for perpetual capability resides within them. This comes along as the mindset of the addict, whose delusional belief in being able to take any infinite number of dosages would not cease. Such is never realized, by them, to be the burden, instead of their strength. If in numbers a person finds strength, then it cannot be to the incapable individual of them being able to tackle the world. What would occur, same with the addict, is the result of such prideful and delusional sorts consuming all that is around.
To be trapped within that place of pride is to be reluctant to create connection, and to refuse what can form order when among the isolating chaos. A heart, damaged by such chaos, can only be ordered through recognition that their human side is by the discovery that their isolation or loneliness is a falsehood. To the sorrows of the human heart, identical with the chaos, nothing can connect to it other than other sorrows. Sadness blends with its own likeness, same as chaos looks no different when standing alongside itself, even as two persons. Without individualism in terms of recognition to human imperfection, there cannot be the forgiveness that would repair such sorrows when self-blame is always the alternative result. Without such an understanding to human imperfection that defines individualism, pride is the result among those who self-loathe or self-blame enough for their loneliness to become a disguised lifestyle.
A fragile human can be conquered by chaos within the heart, while it is self-idealization alongside pride that makes a person believe in their own capability. Capability is to the use of the human form, though when isolated from the rest through a sheer desire for their pride to appear captivating, there is chaos. Chaos is of the one, as well as to them causing it further, who cannot believe in those also capable. The chaotic one is then proven as the dealer of further chaos, through their pride that believes themselves as the only individual to be capable.
To the use of a human, their forms are able to wither, as with the chaos there is no stability for the true nature in togetherness. Unification comes through, again with the mention of individual incapability. For the individual to admit to their own incapability, means then to unify with the next who also admits to their own inability. Pride is the dropped or swallowed for the sake of this unification, between individuals. Among collectivism, however, individuals are not meant to understand another. That is because this would suppose itself to be individualism, since such is defined by an understanding to how one is incapable. It can be assumed that it is innate to the human mind that through the chaos within emotions, such becomes ordered into calm when individuals admit to their lack of capability. Their pride goes missing for the sake of being humble, while understanding becomes always the place of individualism, never collectivism.
While the human form is fragile, its use is only apparent for as long as convenience is the place of the resource. Convenience is of the resource, though limited in where it is present for the individual’s reach. For a person to present themselves as useful, would require bringing the resource to their current whereabouts, being perhaps their residence. Among collectivism, the definition to prosperity is marked as the opposite. As in, a resource is placed in the closest proximity to the individual, requiring not much effort to obtain it.
To once more refer to chaos by this example of closeness or distance with resources, is alongside collectivism. A willingness to care falls within the definition to individualism, being upon how one person connects not to the resource, though for something of greater value. As the resource will have its representation within the mind, making itself known as a convenience, it is something perhaps of infinite value that is represented to be the heart. To care, being that of the heart’s non-function, since nothing practical can be of anything pertaining to necessity. To differ convenience from necessity, is same to believe in the greater value. Would a mother who must purchase food for her children, believe in the highest value to the food or her children? If the answer is the children, then she comprehends the meaning to having purpose simply through knowing she is not surviving on her own.
Chaos, being the contrast from order, will keep the irresponsible addict closer to the former since what is convenient for them is also supposed to never end. A resource, being something of a convenience, is always the lure for the addict. This is to the mindset of one, being made for the collective, since the resource to their addictive desires will be made close in proximity. To chaos, there is collection in what cannot be seen with difference between individuals. Individualism would require recognition for internal imperfection, as it has been stated, then to the aspect of chaos there is widespread sameness.
Though, such sameness could not be attribute to equality, nor could it be something as a display of human connection. Humans are not connected through a depiction of innate sameness, since it takes effort for pride to be dropped or swallowed in the admittance that one is not capable. To admit this, is then for chaos to become order in the acceptance of help, though only from other individuals. In a collection, help is not ever the case for the individuals within it, except for resources of those who have encouraged the chaos of pride and self-idealization.
To what is believed to be strength in the convenience, in the addiction, there can never be when all to its reference is how a person merely wants more. This perpetual discontent is how a person can follow the mindset of pride, and to never swallow it in the admittance that they are not all-capable. Since to know the self is know what one can and cannot do, then for pride to be swallowed is more for the encouragement of the latter. It is in the way to stay humble, that a person can achieve true unity through themselves, as individuals, being never higher than the next. It is in this equality where a person is able to see others at their same level, not to ever believe their simply spoken status is proof enough for greater achievement.
Among chaos, the mindset to the addict will enable their steer towards irresponsibility as to want a choice. Since to wish for a choice is to be outside the risk of being fragile, then such a person cannot admit to their incapability. It is then that pride can be comparable to a belief in being indestructible, as dehumanizing as it is for such. Outside of being fragile, a person with an addict mentality will be one to wander from individualist responsibility to the sheerness of a choice. Among choice to its endlessness in material number, can cannot devote themselves to being responsible. Their desire for a choice is to wish for a place among convenience, never with the necessity that would bring about their rise from a dehumanizing and prideful place among collectivist capability.
As it is all the deceptive tactic to believe that collectivism is the place of equality or the cure to injustice, its wrong is demonstrated simply to its lack of individualism. Only to individualism, in the display of a singular person finding connection with another to make a pair, can such be a case for equality. Since this is because individualism could be defined by human incapability, then so for the addict who is able to drop their pride to not mingle among the collective.
The Heartless Caretaker
It is to the imperfection of a human, that their emotions act as the source to all errors one will commit. Emotions are to the individual, how imperfection is the factual understanding of one. To one individual, whose emotions are blamed to the mistake, is for the belief that perfection was to the accuser. To betterment and of its making to the individual, there is improvement that accompanies the force of love for all it can discover among what is chaotic of the emotional one. Their chaos is among their emotions, since to their isolation among a collection where no individual can be told apart, there is continued prejudice brought forth from a lacking wish to be understood. Whether among grief or to simple pride for the individual who believes themselves always capable, their stubbornness has resulted from a refusal to be understood. Such comes by with the need to push back observant eyes, especially if the criticism to them has acted as a reminder to their faults.
Love discovers, though it is all for the understanding of what has caused the chaos to stir inside of the emotional, and also fragile, individual. Their capability is to their incapability, since to the response to not wish to be understood, is there as the deception alongside the convenience of being alone. As was mentioned, it requires effort to drop such pride, so that understanding can be the place of such individuals whose demeanors have brought them towards a comfort of isolation.
A mistake is made through what is ignored of the self, through the individual’s limited perception, that their capability is also very finite. There is nothing more that keeps a person moving on, even when there is something wrong with the self, as pride. Even while they deserve to be understood, pride will not be dropped for the sake of another to comprehend.
Emotions are the representation of human imperfection, and when calmness is not to the individual, there is chaos. By what clarifies itself as being responsible, a person does not give into the emotions that would cause further chaos from more mistakes. In being responsible, a person admits to their wrong that was caused by their emotions. In this, they would be calm, since no further chaos could be caused in the display of more heightened emotions.
The notion of what it means to be irresponsible is to wish for a choice, making one outside the order within equality. It is then to be outside the understanding of another, always in the isolation where one believes to only comprehend themselves. Though, in this belief that one comprehends themselves the most, is only ever the mindset since they feel closest to what is wrong. To this, there is isolation, and through that, there comes the greater surge of chaos in the heart from never being responsible in admitting that the self is wrong. It is then to be irresponsible, that one blames the world or others for their own wrongdoings.
To the resource for where it is obtained, a mindset for the addict will make them believe it endless. A source for a resource, that is, because to the addict, such could come from anywhere. By what is referred to any, is in regards to a resource being a deception, a trick, to make the addict believe the provider to it has a heart. It is that source, being of any origin, that supplies a resource out of no heart, and with not even the intent to cause chaos in the deliberate sense. Chaos, to the supplier of an addiction, is not with intent to the internal and external mayhem that is caused. It is why the resource comes from anywhere, that such deception can be understood as the primary affliction and the sole dependence of the addict. In their belief to say that the supplier is their only true caretaker to the addiction, feeds out from themselves lacking a heart. The addict cares for their issue, no more and no less than the supplier to it.
Addiction is supplied from anywhere, since a resource can be accepted from any location. It is by the sheer dependence of the resource, sourced from that anywhere, that deception is laced around whatever heart cares just for the self. Dependence is of the self, and does not depict to anyone else’s vision that it takes to the betterment of a person. If a person can depend on the resource, not with the care for its origin, then they can be in the same category of the addict who expresses the same thought.
Dependence is of the mindset to the addict, what their heart lacks by way of care to something more specific. If knowledge was to the addict, in them comprehending what it means to care in having a heart, they would realize their supplier has none. Though, for all the addict is aware of, betterment to the self can come from any location, for to them, a resource that needs no specifics to its origin is most important. It is their importance, since to know an origin such as this, would mean seeing a truth that does not matter. Their deception is to the place of any, being those that run not in individualist connections, though to what can be readily available.
An endlessness to the resource, is ever to the place that needs no specifics out of trust to its truth. An addict can be deceived in believing their supplier has a heart, though such a false care does come from anywhere. To the simple notion that it comes from anywhere, makes it a deception, by this singular fact, alone. To all who depend not on what they surely trust, since it would come from a place of knowledge to origin, they are those being deceived. It is deception that is the any to the source where one cannot trust, though could accept what is offered without a question in shown reluctance.
A survivalist nature will be with the mindset that desires resource, though can be connected to the mindset of an addict. Displaced from the genuine heart, among the origin where these resources are offered, making to the place of the survivalist as no different than the addict’s own. Survival is the focus of resources, stemming from the collection, to the collective that requires it. Though, one cannot claim to care, when one has no focus upon the individual.
No matter what one’s own intent is to aid the entirety to a people, even if for sufficiency and efficiency, there is no heart to it. To aid the collective, not the individual, is without heart. It is, since to have a heart is as individualism comprehending another of its like. Individualism is the place of care, since one cannot claim, though just pretend, to have a heart when they will not reveal themselves nor their secrets. To the element of trust, and then to the notion that a resource for an addict can come from anywhere, it becomes a one-sided aid. To the question for who receives the greater benefit, would not be of the long-term with the side of the collective.
A collective receives aid, from anywhere, with the thought of instant gratification to its gain. It would then be to the collective’s satisfaction that such aid is short-term. Among those who give to the collective, for their aid, will be in support for the long-term.
For this understanding, one can believe that the collective perishes before the individual. The long-term is within the heart, meaning that those who support the collective care just for themselves. They wield their words, for the sake of aid to the collective, as a mere tactic of deception that they care. Such is the understanding of what it means to gain resources from any source, not to the specifics that one can surely trust without a question put forth.
While a heart is not among those who support the collective, absence is there to those of their survivalist nature to keep them embedded in poverty. Absence, that is, of any nearby heart that reveals a show of genuine care to the issue of only the individual who can possess it. Those among the collective are ignorant enough to the origin of their aid, that they will forever depend. Being ignorant to the origin, is to be alongside the mindset of an addict, with having no care as to where they receive their supply.
To be addicted is to depend on no specific substance, though to the resource that is convenient enough for their supposed needs. Though, to the essence of necessity, it is among a heart that reveals itself as such. A heart is needed, not to the conveniences made closer to those with an addict mentality. It does not requires resources to care. It requires the heart, being the one specific ingredient to genuine care for the individual, and them, only.
It is impossible to care for the collective without added deception. In deceiving the collect to what would not remain, neither in what is given nor of the collection of ignorant sorts, there can be only continued peril until the demise of them.
Betrayal of the First
Betraying the heart comes at the unending craving for knowledge, though just in the manner of alleviating loneliness and its pang. To knowledge, another to offer the self a mote of wisdom or advice will indeed silence, if for but a moment, the feeling of despair that loneliness accompanies. We want others to know, and in such knowledge, there is a short-lived version of unification. We cannot, as we might, call this the essence of care in what is indeed the skipping of the first step.
To hold a heart is, in truth, to its impeccable willingness to care, as it should be involved for. Then, to just want others to know of ourselves is with no other satisfaction than to the deception of compassion. Compassion becomes a deception, or imitates itself, when it appears another can care for a problematic individual. Others of their own heart, in their care to ourselves without it, will state we have no will to solve our own wrongs. They would state, sooner rather than later, that they have no will to solve our issues for us. Another cannot care in place of our own willingness. No one can replace our heart, in the metaphorical sense of such terminology. To care would mean for individualist knowledge to the issue, at hand. To care is to have a heart for the task, not merely knowledge. That is the deception, in believing knowledge from another, amounting to a resource, is enough to replace the problematic individual’s needed heart for the task.
Though, to want another to have knowledge for what is problematic to ourselves comes with another addiction, being to have short-lived satisfaction as to another being a witness to our disastrous states. This is the sort of individual who finds themselves not being incapable, since their pride has made them believe responsibility will not alleviate their faults.
With minds, humans are meant to solve. Though, with hearts, that need to solve becomes no more a chore to a person, since it is no longer a circular feedback to repetition of the problem. If one cannot care, since they believed a resource was the cure to fault, their problem will return.
Loneliness is the place for the individual who all others have abandoned, due to their belief in solitude being where they feel most alive. To live, without a heart, is then to just sustain the self upon resource and addiction. Life is cured not with the replacement of a heart, though with the revival of the current one. One cannot care for the issue for another. Though, it is that their addiction to resources, generated from a feeling of pride, will allow them to believe that such a void can be filled up with such short-lived satisfaction.
In such loneliness, a person is bound to lose more than their heart. Impoverished individuals are those who first lost their heart, to then lose all other resources down to those even spared. A heart is always lost before what is no longer cared for, to show that the material losses are that of what always comes second. For their replacement, it can be, since materialism has no way to replace something of comparison to necessity.
Out of loss to care for tasks, the only ever replacement is of a reborn heart. Out of guilt, there is a need to be responsible for wrongdoing. To be responsible for what is lost, is not ever for the replacement of materialism when such mistakes that caused those losses were from a lack of care. To someone else’s setting of care, their material loss from another’s pillage to them came from a negligence to their survival. Care competes with care, in this regard, to the end that resource becomes seen as a necessity. Resource cannot be a necessity, when it can be replaced. Nothing that can be replaced is to ever be among the category of necessity.
Responsibility to loss of another’s material resource would repeat itself, out of the source to such to have been ended. Negligence from the individual who is without care would pillage and cause poverty to those they could not have a heart for. For the sake of improvement, it is not change that can be idealized into such, when chaos has its identity within what is changed. Change is chaos, because its randomness is generated upon the notion of what is fleeting of a resource. Such is the notion, again, of temporary satisfaction that deceives the self into being permanent.
To be negligent enough to cause another’s loss, relates to change. To the improvement of another, there is compassion and care in the unison of hearts.
Though, in the improvement of others, there can be shared resources. However, to improve another would mean that issues upon the self have been solved. This is so that a lack of care cannot spread as a contagion to another, whom one deems to care for. Care, or a heart, is made as deception, or corrupted, when intentions are instead to steal resources, rather than to provide them. Theft of such that another has cared enough to provide for those close, is the inevitable result of a realm’s depiction for the importance of sheer resources. To its addiction, theft becomes the dishonest or deceiving approach in the belief that a provider to resources could care, when their hope and aim for their continued return. In for such an advantage, and this provider to an addiction becomes fraudulent.
There is no method for the matter to improve, by replacing the heart with material knowledge or a mindset of materialism. Materialists would be those who find value in what can disappear, at a sudden. It is the objective notion of value that what would not disappear remains protected. To protect one’s own or another’s heart is to guard what others cannot be close to, enough for undeserved trust to become betrayal of given care.
To care is not to simply be resourceful, since one commits theft as the inevitable result to believing materialism can replace another’s necessity. One is not able to replace the loss of care or a heart with material substance, just as addiction should not be the attempt to fill the void of depression. Teaching another to care has no merit to what is needed for the individual, as such will become the dependence on the addict’s part in the belief there is another provider to it. To teach someone else to care inevitably has the result of cultivating addiction, due to what repeats itself as a pattern of dependence and self-doubt. It is then impossible to each someone else to care for an issue, without believing resources will grant the opportunity’s opening.
All else, besides the necessity of care, will be in comparison to resources. Resources make up all knowledge at the disposal of one who is either addicted to them, or responsibly makes use of their availability. To any resource, it can become an addiction, since the simple lack of responsibility is on part of those who treat such as endless in supply. Being irresponsible for resources is through the mindset of an addict, just because of the lack of care or to the outright negligence of their division. One cannot divide resources among those who would be irresponsible with them. Feeding an addiction is to feed the mindset of a person who shows their lack of individualism.
As was said of a person, whose individualism is shown for tested resolve, then to be prideful is to be addicted to what can be said from them to not end its duration. That is, power becomes the belief among such prideful sorts that it is endless in supply.
In the necessity for care, responsibility is to the task for what can be beneficial to an apparent issue worth solving. Teaching care is the same as teaching an individual to live, to love, or even to die. Such things cannot be taught, since they either occur or do not at the specific time that it does. It does requires specifics, though one cannot possibly recall the exact time that one lived, died, or had loved. It is since time would imply a limitation to necessities that are an implication of the infinite. No person is born on time, dies on time, nor loves on time. It is since there is no plan for such to occur, making the logic of what can be limited of these necessities to be non-existent.
There is always the notion for what is unexpected, to the individual, when it comes to necessity. Necessity is the place for what is said to exist, though cannot be depended on. Such necessities can merely be believed in, since they do not suppose a direct or practical application.
To the individual, however, comprehension for what is needed can only be among themselves, since no one else can start the path for them. It is a resource that can be given, though would be exhausted of its use within the limitations of time. Then, it would be a necessity that cannot be limited, though reveals itself as most logical out of the multitude of logics that are in everything practical. To the seemingly infinite stones upon a beach, able to be held in hands as evidence for the existence, they would represent something as the practical resources for an occasion. Though, to something seemingly illogical or unreasonable as love is always to the individual what is most logical. It is always to their incapability or weakness that they cannot resist what is certainly needed.
The Greatest of all Lessons
It is a lesson to learn, in the wake of realization for being irresponsible, that it requires will to correct such wrongdoings. As no human can be perfect without receiving no education to one’s wrongs, imperfection is thus the flaws for how a person can reveal their heart. It is through education that an individual shows life, through having a heart to learn the needed lessons. They are needed, in that the mistake not repeated.
Were the mistake to be repeated, then the individual has not learned, as has been mentioned. All mistakes generated within past events can repeat themselves, just as history is known for the same. These words have been said, even now repeated, since their continued mentioning is merely the reminder for what the reader should remember.
No mistake is clear for its repercussions or effects, in the chaos that was caused by it. A mistake is a randomness, being repeated not with clarity for the ongoing chaos. As chaos is a confusion, on its own, order would then represent itself here as the clarity that makes education possible.
Repetition is the madness for how a person never learns from errors, since wisdom is not of them. It is insanity’s only wisdom to believe a impossibility is a possibility. However, since only the force of love shares this characteristic, insanity can be to it. Irrational behavior is to love, just as the same for insanity by way of repeating errors. Though, this is how procreation is the facet for how humans repeat themselves, as birthed imperfections.
Humans are imperfection, itself, making love the needed trait of care in why it pertains to having a heart. To have a heart for the matter of being responsible, is to be selfless. One cannot reject what it means to be responsible, without also refusing to learn. In refusing to learn, one is selfish enough to make themselves as targets for repetition. One does not learn, thus making themselves dependent upon deception. Since deception cannot be anything other than a feed into chaos, one lies to believe they have no concerns, when such words are, by themselves, deceit. Admitting aloud that one has no concerns could be same to say they are not a human.
Being imperfection, itself, and a human should then say aloud they are always aiming to learn, in being alive for truth. Living for truth makes a person aware to themselves as imperfect, so that understanding is gained to another in remembrance for a shared goal.
One lives to learn, as it is also truth that an individual learns so they might continue to live. In continuing to live, one continues to learn. This cycle repeats until death sways the life to join itself in eternal rest, though their wisdoms live on in those entrusted to them. A departure is same for the sake of a person, once trusted, and now having abandoned others to learn on their own. Though, for a different sort of cycle, there is the one of needing vengeance out of desire.
Since desire pertains to convenience, it has no relation to necessity. As care, or a heart, would be for everything needed, then something as what is convenient has no relation to the cycle of knowledge. An individual learns for what they care to learn, though the negative cycle prospected by desire has more of a connection to downfall.
A different cycle, being one in relation to ignorance, compares to not what is needed. A necessity cannot compare to something that fades, if it is memories that make up the life of an individual. We remember what we cannot part with, since its belonging within our hearts is the incarnation of education. As repetition would for some beliefs as to the idea of reincarnation, it can be summarized to repeating all imperfections that if stopped, would mean sheer ignorance. Love is not a belief, though is believed in for the sake of its necessity.
A cycle that states it is practical to dispose of what is not useful, while the mindset for which it generates comprehends the utility among more disposable than what was needed. This is to say that materialists and pragmatists, both, are those who would dispose of what is needed, while being unaware that everything material and practical can disperse with ease. It is for what is needed that can be given a blindness, because to repeat the prior mentioning in comparison to this, one cannot time nor expect the occurrence of a necessity.
What is needed cannot be limited, though through the materialist’s mindset, it is believed to be needless. For being responsible, what is needed is not an excuse to knowledge. Knowledge is the necessity for life’s continuance, since to not live is to forfeit education. An individual lives because they have learned to do so. Since in life, there is wisdoms to be understood, and then for them to be shared with those who are younger and must live longer. One who is wise steers the curious person away from danger, so that each thing simply deemed to be practical cannot bring downfall upon the life that never listened. It is wisdom that should be shared, though the primary reason a person feels pain from injury due to a mistake is because of how short our lives naturally are. Lives, being limited, because of the pain that makes death another necessity.
It is again to state that if an individual chooses to reject themselves as responsible, then they are fleeing from its necessity. By this, freedom is only ever something deserved, while all else is summarized to be an excuse away from what is needed. It is again to state, even for this, that the wronged individual cannot be forced to be responsible for an error, since another cannot represent the care or heart for them.
Forcing responsibility is the same as driving education into an individual’s mind. Such is the same as brainwashing or excluding such an individual from having their own life. To demand reparations, perhaps from a current generation that has no responsibility for a past circumstance, is the same as brainwashing a people out of their lives. Their lives, for which must come with its own lessons, cannot be told to be responsible for an occurrence without also rejecting their will.
It is among the notion of force that such a natural process that cannot be taught, as to care, becomes the perpetual absence from the one who rejects this understanding. An understanding that is rooted in what it means to care, being of what shapes possibility. To the individual who attempts force into a natural process as care or having a heart, will soon discover the impossibility in such a feat. As care or having a heart is meant to be naturalized, just believing in the possibility for its existence is enough to guarantee it is realness.
To the relation of the heart, by how its aligns with naturalism, it can be as well ascribed to an understanding of companionship. For such to bloom, it requires its natural approach to the essence for what it means to care. If it is always that force never accompanies what is natural to occur, then it is by example to its many that it can be believed in for possibility. Nothing in what is natural can be made practical when it is not predictable. It is to say of this that through love or care, or simply to the necessities that these notions stand, there is nothing that can be limited for its predictability.
If one can predict life, then one can predict death. One could then believe that love is a mere material essence, for then all three of these necessities to not be such, though a convenience.
Loss upon what is convenient is not mourned. Since what is convenient was meant to be lost, simply through its consumption, then what is protected is done so for its longevity. It is through this, that care shows its place as a requirement to the matter of understanding. From comprehension, births the natural unison between individuals, never to compile the collective without separation of knowledge. Force perpetuates not the unison between individuals, though the division of them into a collective. By itself, a collective is the separation between individuals from their knowledge. As individuals gain knowledge only among those of their own kind, being other individuals, then collectivism receives nothing except for short-term gratification.
Were force to be what unifies, then we can believe to be omniscient among the collective. Since that is the mindset already of the collective, through their self-victimization, then such omniscience will be of a vain belief that one knows all about others. However, such a mindset translates into ignorance of the self, meaning that there is no understanding to their individualism. To believe, among the collective, that one knows all of others, from other collectives or even individuals, there is then the ignorance that is upon such a person’s self. That is, the one claiming to know everything of another will know nothing of themselves.
It is the resource that amounts to the infinite, though would be finite if given the limited time to count the actual finite number of them. Resources are limited, due to their alignment with convenience, since to make a life easier for its supposed basic needs, it is instead an ease to fundamental conveniences. What is perceived by someone to be a basic need, is instead a basic convenience. This is due to the factor of their closeness, whether within proximity to the person in desire of them depends on a certain degree of work ethic for their attainment.
It is always left to be known that among what defines a knowledge, or a resource, there is the notion of its availability. Since nothing can be more available without it becoming more common, then the less believed in is the individualism for which involves the care to such resources attainment. The less believed in, making the more uncommon or rare of the individualism that finds itself faulted enough for true unison to occur among others to the same kind, being other individuals.
A collective approach to what is deemed as basic necessity most always involves ignorance to capabilities of actual unison. Actual unison, being devoid of pride, performs itself in the humility that allots for all relations to care. A oneness, by its simple definition, that cannot divide save for an act of betrayal upon trust. It is not a human deed to love, though to trust, since for the imperfections to each individual one, there is the conditions put in place. It would be a wrong to believe one should unconditionally love, since one loves without conditions, regardless of what is altered. However, an individual does, for the sake of resources, trust with these conditions attached. It is because unlike love, trust cannot be freely given in the same way of blindness.
Love is blind, as words are said, though upon the understanding of trust, it would not of the same lacking clarity without wisdom ever involved. Knowledge, in its relation to wisdom, reveals the necessity to learn out of individualist imperfection. For a life to flourish without repeated error, an individual differs necessity from convenience. To learn of an individual’s life is always the necessary property for its continuance, making knowledge what is in relation to awareness. A clear understanding for what is trusted or not allows an individual to set these conditions.
One cannot love with conditions, though can set them upon the ability to trust. With the sake of a resource in mind, there is convenience upon it, though also for how it differs from the human. It is here to prove that a human cannot be seen as a resource, without love as the absence. By what is needed, being knowledge for life’s continuance, can be gained only through trust until its breaking. Such a vulnerability tests an individual into the confines of love, willing them to push ahead either through or around this obstacle. In treating a human as a resource comes without love, due to conditions being set for the prime purpose of convenience. Convenience has its place among sheer conditions. Though, to love, there is vulnerability.
To trust, in its comparison with the human condition, is much to believe an individual can offer it, as it should, to whom deserves it. It is never to then speak of the opposite, being love, as something deserved upon whomever it is felt for. That is because love is divorced of emotion, due to itself not being one. As all emotions would have a person commit error, then to love’s inherent perfection, it can neither be errored nor have an individual commit a mistake. It is to trust, and this, alone, that an individual errors for their education to begin.
Out of life, there is wisdom. Though, out of love, there is what is meant to be deemed as forever unquestionable, Since love relates to the past, then to question history for how one personally remembers it, is to further complicate the future, in terms of education. Though, as a person questions a historian, this is due to the element of trust, now repeated as the ultimate way for an individual to learn. When trust is broken, the error to offer it upon one undeserving of it becomes a lesson received in the hardest way. Truth brutalizes the individual never willing to accept it. It becomes what eventually kills off the individual into the freedom of death, gained in its strength the longer it was avoided.
Repression of truth becomes the inducing of amnesia to the individual, though is the issue festering within them in their avoidance. Avoiding conflict, or evading what conflicts the individual, is not ever to resolve a matter, though only to worsen the complexity that is never to the truth. It is a person’s error, as one of its own, to avoid the simple truth into their adoration for escapism into complexity. As in, an individual escapes the simple truth to discover the complex deception as a method for their comfort.
Humans are fragile through trust. Though, with love being the unquestionable essence within the past, there can be repaired life. When an individual is battered from betrayed trust, remembering what is good within the past is enough to forgive the bad so that such a one does not longer in previous ruin. Lingering within the past will harm the individual, so that love is no longer what brings them forward. Their pain had initially come from betrayed trust, though remains because there has yet to be forgiveness gifted to whomever had committed the wrong.
Addiction to pain or to negative aspects in an individual’s life would not present alleviation to it, without forgiveness and a lack of pride to the scenario. As pride would bring about the individual’s need to victimize themselves, for the sake of believing they are never wrong in a specific scenario, then forgiveness cannot ever be their mindset. Such individuals will believe, in their pride, that only others are wrong. A dropping of this pride into the place of humility will allow an approach towards fulfillment by way of peace.
Truth can be compared to trust, in that a person by present state holds their own without love to carry themselves forward after the gift of forgiveness. An individual trusts truth, because it is a thing meant to be either discovered or reconstructed. However, if the individual has no base or foundation to that current truth, now a newness, it is chaos. This is due that love is meant to be of that foundation, to surge an individual forward into the future. It is once forgiveness is settled upon past errors, that such a future can be made more a certainty. Although, when truth for the sake of its reconstruction, offered then with undeserved trust, is what can receive its faith out of mere convenience. That convenience is how a person can be accompanied to its chaos. It is in the same sense for how an individual can be comforted by deception. Deception can be the place for individual trust, when it is reconstructed because of a lacking foundation. Whereas, for order to be possible, then remembrance to past events by way of offering forgiveness to their errors, pushes truth, or life, into the future.
Would chaos be a theory put into practice, then it becomes the average sight of an individual who believes in what they have manifested for the good, more than what is being harmed for the bad. Humans are addicted, with ease, to deception, all because of its convenience. By a neutral form of the term, convenience is to the closeness for what is trusted without question. Though, would individualism understand its own past, then it comprehends what universally cannot be questioned. It is the deception, for its relation to resource or convenience, that can be questioned as to its origin. However, for where individualism, never collectivism, has its place, such an origin cannot compare to the newness for what is created. That is, origin cannot be recreated for the sake of necessity. Origin can only be reproduced for the sake of deception.
As addiction has no other comparison, except to convenience, it is left to be said that it will have an inherent connection to what lacks a heart. If to the addict lacking a heart can connect to the resource, itself, then further addiction will manifest itself just through this connection of trust. Trusting deception is never by what has foundation, from the past. Deception is the newness to origin, all because a oneness, a creator from the past cannot recreate itself. Into deception, origin can reproduce itself, though only with the absence of a heart. In the aspect of care, there is no deception.
While running through the course of limitation when it involves deception, one eventually succumbs to the realization of truth. Stated again, that truth becomes stronger to its realization, the longer it was avoided. Same as conflict, when it grows, avoidance to it merely enlarges its danger to the self, soon for it to become the greatest threat that cannot be avoided.
Deception, as a Comfort
Stagnation, or stillness, has its place among comfort. That is, until emotions move an individual enough to face the circumstances to their errors. Error is the place of learning. To the individual, resources cannot be sufficient to this universal method of education, if not to deceive or to indoctrinate. A prime focus upon resources is also an individual’s outlook upon deception as being positive for those uneducated. This is indoctrination, as the deception reveals itself in the one claiming to care, when it is not even close to the truth.
To state that resources are sufficient enough for the aid to the collected group of individuals, is to echo deception in one’s words. As was mentioned, convenience is the term that describes what is not necessary to obtain, though seems to be since it is in close proximity. All that is not needed, is a convenience. It is since a convenience can come by way of the infinite, whereas what is immediate to be known as having value is greater than what is convenient. To a mother whose child is her need, offering meaning to her life through its existence, then everything material offered to her offspring is not a necessity. By itself, that is, such material conveniences as food or shelter are convenient, though the child and herself are the needs.
One would find greater value, such as a mother to her child, over something as food that could easily convert over into addiction. It is to say that no one can be addicted to what is needed, for the individual. However, a collective will swallow resources with as much ease as words that claim they are for aid. It is in such words, that deception reveals itself as strongest.
Of words claiming to help, when the enticement from them has no reveal to truths worth having knowledge of, there is from this the taking of necessity. As more individuals becoming collectives receive their convenient resources in earnest, the less necessity is known by them to be missing. Their addiction to convenience, over what is needed, becomes the false value that is never held in awareness to be deceit. None could love what fades, so well pertaining to addiction. In this sense, a person ever remains loving an individual, after their death, for a single reason. It is that individual’s pain, to that loss, that reminds them of both presence and absence. Presence, in such pain reminding the individual of what was once held, physical in their hands. Absence, in the same pain telling the individual to be pushed forth, into another future, with their memories.
Claiming to help, while also feeding addiction, is deceit upon itself, without the fed individual’s means for telling anything apart. Deception is this comfort, due to our unwillingness to part from addiction, the same way an individual can be dwelling in negative thoughts. In the same way that love would tell a person to move on from the painful loss, though keeping memories in heart, there can be to an individual their destructive mindset of not wanting to let go. Of not wanting to release what is painful, only due to that its feeling is a realness more than anything envisioned for the future.
To deception, it is not what an individual can love, though would cling to if it means to avoid truth. In the necessity that truth is, deception could be the desired preference. Since nothing loved can be chosen, then it is to mean that truth can not be preferred. Truth cannot be what an individual craves, though what they need. It cannot be a desire, though a requirement.
Love is for what is needed, since it is a force that pushes an individual onward. Convenience is, therefore, among what can be discarded, never comparing to what would be protected for its longevity. However, an individual who craves their received deceptions, believes more in stagnation, as it is a willingness to belong there. To never be moved out such stagnation through a realization that one’s group or collective cannot disguise what is truthful, is to believe oneself as either not or beyond human. The latter, being beyond human, cannot be achieved. It is to either be human among personal guilt and conscience for one’s own errors, or to be prideful and hold a victimization mindset to believe one cannot be at fault for said errors.
To be moved by emotions is much like hearing a piece of music, seeing a loved one after a time of being absent, or of anything else similar, is to see truth. To what one needs, versus deception, is not to avoid such necessities by way of their equality. In the connection that being moved by emotions offers to an individual, there is equality in how the felt vulnerability is universal. Emotions are what break the human, to show tears, to be vulnerable. This notion of vulnerability is the universal trait among all humans, as individuals.
Avoiding such a similarity is to want for deception, in the stagnation where a lie could never move a human as an individual. Humans are not moved by lies, as they are for truth. Truth, as a word on its own, merely refers to what moves or allows a person to be a witness. In being a witness, having been moved out of selfish stagnation to do so, they are able to notice others as the same as themselves.
No person can admit to their truth being at all different, in the respect that it should not be shared, without egotism promoting themselves to compete on levels of pain. Upon battlefields in war, it was heard that two soldiers fought on those levels of pain. Their competition was seeded from their homeland, recalling the devastation an opposing nation had wrought. Though, when they had seen the other soldier’s eyes, they had comprehended a sameness to the vulnerability upon such a battlefield. Their tears were the same, their faces full of fear were the same. Nothing was different, except when they were brought back to the madness that is in competing upon those levels of pain.
For what an individual can become, outside of stagnation, there is necessity. Within stagnation, there is fear, due to what is needed being pointed upon by love. In fear, an individual does not wish to discover truth, since to their loyalties they are stagnant. Disloyalty to where one is stagnant means for the individual to betray their prejudices. Though, this would make such an individual belong to a collective, since by referring to individuals, there is to be mention of one’s comprehension for their incapability. One cannot be capable, though dependent, within a collective. However, for the sake of truth, an individual can discover both it and themselves, once more.
Truth is a discovery outside of an individual’s stagnation, not changing into an image different nor unfamiliar, though reengaging themselves with has been kept familiar and similar to all others. To the deceived individual, there was this stagnation or non-moving self that viewed a reflection from the world as hideous. As themselves, they were all-beautiful. Yet, to the world, they were all-hideous. A deceived individual is seen by all others as such, though it is themselves who will deny the criticisms as easily as truth.
In their collective, deception runs rampant due to it failing to comprehend that fault is a universal trait among humanity. A collective would not see such a truth, and therefore, such stagnation remains perhaps permanent. While all should receive such criticisms, it was because of the collective mindset that understands fault as with the world, not with the self.
In the making of the self, away from stagnation, there is creation. As creation pertains or compares to order, then there is no chaos to it. For creation’s sake, art is understand as beauty. Beauty is then understood not of the collective mindset, though for the individual’s own. Individualism embraces art, for it is willing to respect the human condition of vulnerability. Beauty is not a hideousness, though a collective mentality will be one to believe their ugliness as beautiful. In such a mindset, beauty then becomes not the protected parts of a world, though the bare, the plain, and the less moving for its viewers.
Whatever would move the individual to creation of themselves, is always human emotions. Then, to truth, it is just as clay. Constructing what would not break, out of such emotions, because the vulnerability that had built the creation came from what was broken of the creator. Beauty cannot be seen as hideousness, since this is the same as finding a truth to be a deception. Comfort will fall over the individual who finds deception as such, as it will be the resources for which were desired, not ever needed. If truth is needed, then it will be loved and protected. Beauty is protected, same as truth, because what is needed to understand, and never wanted to have, allows an individual to see themselves in the light of sameness to others. Through being loved, that is, when truth has its connected to what is vulnerable.
Truth’s Relation to Life
Depict life, the central place to the realm of creation, as nothing to do with deception on the matter to which truth can be expressed. Truth is life’s origin, as the latter is never deceiving. No one lives a lie, as an individual is just able to cling to deception. No singular person is an individual, when through their collective mindset, they become drawn back to the negative aspects from the past. It is merely that such an individual has stagnated, when through such deception it is difficult to move past it.
A deception can be a comfort, as was mentioned, while love forgives the past’s own negatives as the same force pushes a life ahead. Would an individual find the past more truthful than the future, they would be correct. It is the past that is a certainty. Although, it is the positive understandings that only are the truth.
We cannot move, as life is meant to, within the deception where life is stagnated in this comfort. It can be said of all comfort that it is a deception, because it stagnates or keeps the life from facing risk. Truth becomes ignored when an individual takes more to the deception of all negatives to their past, unwilling to find hope in an envisioned future.
The beautiful life is once more finding itself as hideous, whenever it comes within the embrace of deception. A hideous life, or a truth that is now a deceit, can no longer move others. An individual whose life is deceived, becomes a deceiver. Such are the sorts to prey on the truths of others, gaining their trust for the knowledge of them. It is then that betrayal is imminent, all because this deceiving individual rounded the cycle. However, it is such a cycle that is meant to remain, or otherwise no one learns from it. No individual can comprehend such dangers, without knowing where they lurk.
A future is possible out of truth’s mark, within the positive understandings from the past. A future is constructed, from life being pushed forth towards it. Then, it is truth that makes up the future, all from what the past has taught the individual.
It is that nothing for an envisioned future can crumble, when someone finds themselves wandering backwards to the past. Such would involve a stagnation upon personal progress, enough so that being within those negative parts of a past will cause blindness to an individual’s future. With nothing to maintain, such a future does crumble.
Truth remains as itself when an individual finds their place. It is denied when a person has given up on hope, being what belongs for the future. Enough hope to live on, and then a person is able to move forward from such negatives in the past to make something of themselves. Though, when individualism is proven upon future achievements, a person can state that their efforts would be wasted could they not have witnessed the same hope displayed from others. An example to hope is where it is found, being something most always ahead in the future.
Stagnation, in accordance to avoidance, is how a person does not wish to face truth. Facing truth is not to discover it, though to rediscover its missing presence. An individual had experienced it, though now upon the opportunity for its second delivery, it is not wished to be revisited. It is a danger that this individual cannot surrender themselves to, in the fear for how they might become impacted.
To deception, in the way an individual is stagnated, there is no freedom without the truth. In the stagnation a person dwells within, unwilling to find fault in themselves as a victim, this individual will continue to blame another for what is required for them to understand. As was mentioned on being equal, being for how two people comprehend each other as fragile humans, nothing of this would represent chaos. It is order to be equal, then it would represent freedom by way of truth releasing an individual from their stagnating deception.
Even though it would not be a choice to embrace truth, it is for the desire to avoid it. To choice being all of avoidance, makes to deception about the unlearned decision. To its repetition, truth has no relation. Truth is not repeated, nor is it possible for it to ever be, unless the origin, being love, processes another lifeform. Even then, it is just a rediscovery.
A loss of truth can be seen as the loss of life. It is here proven that when a loved one dies, another will remember them for the good in how they lived. Though, to be kept in the parts of the past that pertains to their loss, displaying just the negatives affecting living individuals, there is deception. Keeping the self dwelling in those negatives has been said to be deception, since it stagnates an individual away from carrying the beloved truth forward into an envisioned future.
Since a person might not wish to face truth, their stagnation is not a repetition, though an immersion or assimilation to a collection. None within a collective can be told apart, making individualism never among its likeness. It is the individual being stuck within their stagnation, to such a collective, who requires individualism to embrace their lack of capability. They no longer believe in the urge to find deception as a comfort, though will motion towards that envisioned future now with others who comprehend them.
Betterment is for the individual who can face truth, though when stagnated, begins to decline. Truth can shock the individual into facing what hurts, though will free them within the allotted experience. Being deprived of truth, is to be starved of necessity. Through addiction, there is deception, just as convenience is to resources. To truth, an individual can rediscover their freedom they would not claim to never have known. Whether physical or mental freedom, the positive aspects from the past can be taken forth with the force of love that develops the individual.
Truth is the release, as it is those who it being brought upon are trusted for how it would shock. There are none, save for those kept so close to deception, who are shocked by the weight of truth. Those who are closer to deception will not be so willing to notice a truth, save those to themselves are never even uncovered. To deceived individuals, truth remains buried, either within themselves or blind to them as it shows around, in the external. Though, to those believing of truth, there is nothing to match the thrill for what it can do to shock them.
However, for those willing to share this shock, in nonchalance, there is nothing to that act, save for truth’s own abuse. As was mentioned, truth is the same as life. If life is taken with indifference, it is abused for the sake of negligence. This is in the same of selfishness, since to offer truth with nonchalance to its offer, there is no care to it.
Would a person ever speak of the death of a child to its mother, in the same nonchalant way? If so, then again, there was no care. Truth is, by the trust that accompanies it being offered, delicate in the way it can be changed. As life might perish in an instant, so can truth. Truth can indeed disappear, as by the shock of its deliverance there is something an individual can receive that is also within them. It is the same as blood, being lost. What comes with severe blood loss, is shock. Upon this example, a shock for the offering to truth is by the figurative sameness between individuals, beyond the collective that conceals it.
As a collective conceals individualism, being rooted in deception, then truth is lost among what cannot be told apart. In that collective, the shock represented of offered truth through the privacy where it is revealed, becomes faded. In the same respect, the truth disappears.
An overabundance of truth, same as an overabundance of life with similarity to overpopulation, there becomes more collectives than individualists. Comfort and ease, among a populated world, brings about greater shared truth, starting with the lack of responsibility to human reproduction. A greater sense of ease to a world, comes with the higher numbered population, being due to truth’s sharing itself as life in larger swaths. The notion of desire bring itself into this, since truth can be lusted for. Same as secrets that are shared under the heat of seduction, it was offered to what was trusted, though should never be. In that case, truth disappeared to hands to misuse it.
Information is given to those who cannot be trusted with it, just as a person becomes in the hands of another who ends up manipulating them. There is not from this the need to protect truth nor life, when manipulation is to the motive from the so-called protector. Truth is the life, trusted under the caretaking of another who claims to love it enough to offer their protection.
Deception’s Relation to Meaninglessness
To the addict who would escape truth, there is the deception that leads them quicker towards death. While it is remembrance that is always for the life, a greater spread of deception is the fire that ends the lives of those most addicted. Addicted to deception, that is, finding comfort in what is meaningless. Since what is meaningless would be deceit, then what is meaningful is truthful. Then, what is truthful is life. Though, an addict’s own life, whether their habit leans upon the mental or the physical, nothing is beautiful upon what is lived for. Simple comfort in the place of deception does not extend the life, when it abuses itself to discover a quicker death.
It is death that is meaningless, while it is life that cannot be. It is deceit that sways the addict into finding more meaning in what is meaningless, just as an individual can find beauty within ugliness. These are the addicts who would believe there is life in what is dead, perpetually to disregard what is universally real.
Since it is death that cannot be real to the life that has not experienced it in fullness, then what is living is the truest form of reality. What can be held, not present to decompose, is the realness for what is alive. Two lives that are related to the self, are in how neither are unique, within. There is difference to what is external, in preference for what can be told as convenient. However, among all that is within an individual to another, nothing is quite as alike. It is to this example that perceiving the real cannot be, without referring to preference. An individual who mentions their perception on what is real, claiming it then as their own individualized comprehension, is simple preference. It is the expression for what they have viewed, upon the surface. It is the external details where preference dwells, by itself.
An individual who finds more meaning in what is dead, would be named a nihilist. Such follows the mindset of meaninglessness, being of death. As was said, death is a meaninglessness. It is deception or deceiving individuals who cannot process truth, as such is ignored of themselves while it is within themselves. Their lies carry forth as not what can be meaningful, though just perceived in the name of preference. As the preference sees the external, then this is comparable to viewing what is dead. In what is dead, holding a preference is to deception the same as believing what is hideous can be beautiful. One merely deceives, for the simple sake of gaining another’s preference to themselves.
When a system runs in the regard for preference, manipulation unto the disappearance of truth becomes a near-inevitability. As would be necessary for comparison, life disappears into meaningless death when truth is no longer treated as fragile or susceptible to change. Were a life or a truth to improve, it is meant that greater meaning was discovered.
Would it be death that has no truth to it, since it is never itself in which is remembered? Life is not what remaining living individuals forget, making for truth of the same. Truth cannot be forgotten, though a deception can. It is to life, representative of truth, that death is forgotten as the loss of the physical. To the notion for what can be manipulated, being of truth, death then acts as a safeguard to forget the physical that a living truth can no longer be mishandled. In death, a once-living individual is in comfort. Though, for all living individuals who remember the life, the truth to it is kept caged and guarded in their heart.
Speaking of the heart, in meaning to care, is to handle truth with the same carefulness as would be designated for life. In the heart, meaning to care, or meaning to never misuse what is truthful. To the living truth, or just the life, there is ease for how it can change when it is physical. Life is then remembered within a remaining loved one’s heart, turning truth metaphysical.
The metaphysics of truth are beyond the corporeal or physical realm. Love is of it, making what is remembered what cannot be changed. It would matter not to the remaining loved one’s mind, of what memory being remembered, has for its place in time. To recall a memory to the deceased loved one, whose physical form is no longer apparent, is beyond the time for which limits the extent of life. It is love that transcends time, making it never susceptible to change.
Love would be referred to God, especially to what is metaphysical in the belief a life lives on. It is the afterlife, afterward to living in the metaphysical realm of the heart. It is an unchanging truth, so much said of God, that its omniscience is unquestioned to what is recalled without question. A future can be questioned, much to the disappointment of an Atheist who questions God’s existence. Deception is therefore for what is meaningless, and thus, holds no meaning in questions that would not be answered. Metaphysics is what was physical, in its return to the origin for what began a life or a truth. Not lust, though love, can be to human reproduction, since the former is emphasized in preference.
For what is real, not preferred in what is ideal, there is a universal truth beneath the layers. Layers conceal truth, making of what is preferred always the deception that proves to be different from other external details. Being awed by details that would be different from the next, upon the surface, is to continually yearn for what is physical. To that notion, a yearning to the physical is by way of lust or preference. Love never releases itself, because it cannot be lost. Even one with amnesia is remembered by someone else, making themselves not a complete loss to metaphysics of love.
It is love that becomes truthful, in the transcendence of a life after death. After death, there is meaning to life in all being now forever truthful. Unforgettable, in what cannot be lost, since it can be just the physical or what is preferred that can represent an ending.
Without the evidence to hold for a meaning to a life, there can be or has been its loss. It is without the physical, life is lost to a meaninglessness of no fulfillment. Such is the occurrence, when what could have been protected was dismantled under the burying weight of perception. A perception to a meaning makes of it a mere burden, since it would reduce life to a simple preference for it. Preferring life, meaning to live for the sake of it, is to find existence a mere chore. Holding preference to life is the same as choosing death. It is death that can be chosen, whereas to life, no choice is granted.
An individual is not free to choose life, and not even their way to live. By the individualist mindset, it would never be a matter of contemplation, resonating from confusion, for a person to require time on what has been known to fulfill. Fulfillment cannot take place within death, since such is upon the side of preference. Preferring life, is the same as what was said to prefer the truth. In this, such is never the case when truth is a necessity. It is then that death becomes a convenience.
What is meaningless, in relation to a lack of fulfillment, is to deceit as death would hold no meaning of its own. If what fulfills can be remembered, then it is a truth to the individual. If an individual cannot recall what fulfills them, then it is appropriate to believe such a person is lost. Their loss contributes to the previous understanding of loss, in what is death, relating to meaninglessness. If what can be meaningless cannot fulfill, then the same is said for death. Death is not the truth to the listener’s ears, when their instincts go to remembering their once-living life. Were grief to compel remaining life to dwell upon death, then all that still lives becomes more loss.
No remaining living individual can remember death, if not to risk themselves becoming also lost. To dwell in grief is a choice, since to label what is correct for this individual in finding comfort with memories.
It is to believe in such a truth, being the afterlife for a departed loved one, that there should be needed distance from their once-physical self. That is, dwelling upon death, in the meaninglessness to it, shows that deceit is in what cannot be meaningful. Meaningless death, in wherever the physical form was ended, could transfer to remaining individual life a meaningful truth among what could not be buried. It is the metaphysics to that truth, kept in the hear. It can be remembered when an individual is not choosing to dwell in the grief for what was physical and evident in hand.
For Leadership’s Heart
A divided nation is born out of the one without heart, being the leader to such a realm. As such, no leadership through example can be the governance. When it is example that leads all others to what was first made for the self, then it becomes possible for others to follow. Then, it becomes the concern that without leadership through example, there is itself in the implementation of force. One cannot utter praises of unification without an ordered heart, and it is their people being divided due to it. To care, even of the former examples to an addict, must be without division. It is since division is always comprised from the broken heart, in everything missing in a state to individualism.
Since it is collectivism that resonates in division, then it is never a group that relates to unity. Collectives are the places of division, due to individualism not being among it. One is an individual, when one can admit to their faults. In such an admittance, there is connection among other individuals through the notion of what is flawed, innate always of humanity. Though, a collective will be composed of sorts who never believe in their guilt nor flaws.
If to a nation, raised from a leadership with divided heart, there can be from it just the collectivism that amounts to mere deception. Deception is always to the place of the collective mindset, since the heart has no focus for its collection. It is since collectivism comprehends the resource, though to the heart being divided will result in the same for a nation.
A nation cannot be unified with a divided heart, making of what is cared for being the truth to a population that it does not fall backwards into deception. Praises of unification are not appropriate, when nothing is led in the example of being unified in the self. A broken leader breaks the nation, as such becomes the spread of deception to the supported collective. Among such a divided nation, collectives spring up in being disguised as unity. There is a reason to the refusal to acknolwedge criticism, as it is because of the meaninglessness where deception has its place. Among these groups, criticism would bring to light their faults. Meaninglessness never is to truth, because it is deception that contrasts from life in what will succumb to these faults or flaws being festered.
A fault worsened is an ignored truth, making the understanding that an abandoned individual was deceived into supposed care. If all collectives are deception, itself, then it is their methods to impose force upon those who would name their faults. It is in their methods to state that another should be abandoned, whose truths should not be held in care.
A truth, being something that can be manipulated, becomes the division without its care. One cannot care for what died, though can for what lives on. Within the heart, that is, making of what is truthful as everything unable to die. Though, to the sorts in a collective who believe in innocence first upon themselves, their disorder is to all being neglected. Held in negligence, making of what should be meaningful as meaningless when what died was manipulated in the complete lack of care. Then, it comes to the understanding that the collective could not and cannot care for what lived.
What can be known best, will always be stated as truth. It is deception, on its own, to believe more in what is lacking in comprehension upon others. To the divisions, there is a focus upon appearance. There is to this, a focus on preference. In this case, one trusts more than one can love. For the sake of preference, one can divide due to a lack of forgiveness that would create order. One cannot order without forgiveness unto the past errors, resonating only through the individualism that comprehends itself as incapable.
Incapability is to the understanding among the individual, being the requirement to bringing about unity. Capability is to the understanding among the collective, being the requirement to bring about division. To the latter, there is a vain and prideful method, for all to divide, since nothing can be with focus upon the heart when there is one for resources. Resources are the focus of all groups, divided among the members within it. Though, a heart would be divided among such a group, when there cannot be the empathy that resides within individualism. Since if unity has a relation to connection, then a human cannot form such when there is no belief in guilt among the collective.
Empathy is from leadership to nation, not from itself to a people. A leader cannot claim to empathize with their people, for such a statement would imply themselves as omniscient. A term, as omniscience, is the declaration that the leader, even if being the head, should not learn from a mistke. If to become a better leader for a nation, not for their people, means to improve upon causation in error, then it would be said for them that their heart should be ordered. If in supposed empathy from leader to population, there is omniscience, then such would mean this leadership is in comprehension of each individual’s faults. Though, it would refer the leader to being oblivious to their own flaws, forming the cover-ups to them by way of deception.
Caring for the nation, as a leader, is the promise to support truth in the care of it. One cannot care when division is the same as the splitting of the earth, as one metaphor to understand an earthquake. Support becomes a challenge, just to one’s ability to stand, when the nation becomes divided. Division affects the nation, before its people who are supported upon it. If the earth of land is the nation, then its division will result in the people’s own. Such becomes necessary for the leader’s heart to be ordered, in consideration for the people who depend on the nation.
In the claim from the leader that there is support to each individual, there is not. There is, instead, support from the leader to all groups. If a leadership supports collectivism, there is the same given unto division. Division becomes supported when individualism is not. It is then confirmed as a deception for leadership to claim it comprehends its people.
Comprehending a people, even as a singular in reference to unification, is not through empathy. It is, instead, through sympathy. One cannot be empathetic, as a leader of a population, since this is an impossibility. Sympathy is contrasted from empathy in that it holds relation to distance. It is in the notion that a leadership cannot be connected to its people, or otherwise risk deception being on part of what is never comprehended best.
Sympathy is on part for how it is appropriate to have distance between leadership and its people, though can empathize with the nation. Individualism, being a concept and not in reference for anything specific among a singular, compares itself to incapability. Since this is remembered, it is the nation that to being related as a singular, possesses individualism. Would all nations be as a singular, then such is accomplished through the usage of force. Force gathers, being not of example that refers to individualism.
What is individual can set examples for others to its likeness. Individualism is an example for individualism, referring collectivism once more to division. If leadership strives to collect, rather than to individualize, then their focus would not be upon truth nor the nation to govern. Instead, their focus is the intent upon deception, brought up from the mindset to the collective. It is again to repeat that collectivism controls itself through the fragile binds of victimization, in the continued belief that guilt is not among it. Such a mindset is, once more, repeated as the sole scenario on deception in its relation to division. It is since division is brought out of lacking connection, out of all human vulnerabilitues that would not form the bond without individualism.
Empathy from leadership to people would enable trust, from people to leadership. Trust from people to leadership is a never-ending steer from what is genuine to the idea of care for truth. Caring for a truth cannot be of leadership to people, though the former could then grant empathy upon a nation. As a singular, a nation is individualized. While trust cannot be given from a nation, there is to it the truth that a leadership should hold faith to. Faith, for truth, especially of a nation rooted deep in what is not deceitful, allows individualism in the understanding that a nation cannot do without its leadership. To be spoken again, of individualism, being what relates to all things incapable, a nation without a leadership is the same as an abandoned truth or life.
Truth is fragile, and then susceptible to change. Upon change, there is causation for chaos to its own sake. What rises from chaos, to a people, while the nation become forgotten, is a sheer newness born from deception. When a nation renews, it is the same as the life resurrected. Though, it is never the same as its original form, making it a mere unrecognizable deception to those who do remember being supported by it. Such to to understand that a people are supported by the nation, believed in for its truth, not the leadership.
Out of a new nation, there was idealism to bring it up. There was not what was realistic, marking all that was once real as now a deceit. As idealism is contrasted from realism, then such a newness becomes unrecognizable to the meaning for supported people from the former nation. As meaning has its relation to life, then what is new is just a mere meaninglessness in terms of death. What is unrecognizable is the same as all death, due to what rises from being burned, is always the newness. Though, being unrecognizable, is the same as what is dead.
For Leadership’s Mind
It is a necessity to care, whereas it is a convenience to have knowledge. It is knowledge that is a convenience, because to the notion that it can come from anywhere, allows trust to be blinded to its source. Trusted sources are not received with blindness, for the individual receiving their knowledge knows its origin. The individual comprehends the location to which it is received, though the heart cannot be given to one who lacks it. Out of all things to teach an an individual, nothing for the sake of care can be educated.
An addict’s realm is most always for what is not cared for, as their addiction is provided from an unknown source. To all individuals trusting to knowledge that needs not the care, by them, in the understanding to its origin, they become deceived. Their knowledge gained is not a truth, alone on the detail that the origin remains an unknown.
To this, deceit is against knowledge within wherever it is originated. Being ignorant to this origin makes such supposed knowledge not truthful, though an understood origin is always a truthful one. One cannot be deceived when their origin is understood, rather than all being an ignorance. Since an individual, as an addict, will not even show a sign of being curious to what the origin to such knowledge would be. Knowledge, comparable to convenience, is just as the addiction the same. If an addiction is convenient for the addict to never face what is meant to be given care, the issue is prolonged.
There are those who would benefit from prolonged conflict, generated by confusion and the confused. Comprehensive of this, and then it is known that those who provide the convenience, whom no one knows, cannot have heart. Instead, their offering is not to care, though to just the convenience or the addiction.
Such reliance upon addiction further prolongs its dependence. A dependent mindset, upon resources, is the same as craving knowledge without knowing nor caring for its origin. It is many a time when an addict would die, all because of being ignorant to what is being combined with the intaken substance. Such proves that a convenience is not needed, in the objective sense. It is this dependence, that for the short-term pleasure among all addiction, keeps a people ignorant of the origin. Their addiction sustains them, since this is the effect of knowledge.
Since knowledge can come from anywhere, being all places and all origins, known or unknown, it is therefore a requirement to comprehend the origin to it. Otherwise, one risks themselves being deceived. In being deceived, one becomes a deceiver, when such supposed knowledge is shared to others. In the same sense, an addict can become a provider to another’s addiction. Addiction feeds itself itself, just as ignorance unto dependence can remain perpetual. All is this, until the truth is learned.
Truth cannot cultivate and prolong addiction, when one is not ignorant to their convenience. However, for how many conveniences become available, in their division of resources to all who desire them, less truth is known to those who are reliant. Truth is not a resource, since it falls within the three necessities that were named, being love, life, and death. Truth is among the second category. Truth is among life, cared for, for such to not become deception. Would life need other life, then it is same to understand that an individual should not trust an ignorant source for their truth.
If it is a nation meant to rise, and not its people by the leadership that roots upwards the former, then the people prosper upon that development. It is in automatic fashion, that when a nation develops, then so will its people. Though, would a nation suffer when its leadership neglects it, then so do the people. Comprehending leadership as the objective stature for which elevates a nation, not its people, is ensuring a specific mindset. It is the one that is revealed to comprehend what will be lost, versus what will be sacrificed. For futures that know when to be certain, while a people are preparing on their own for them, makes a leadership most useful in its focus on the land and nation.
Care for the nation, not for the people, is here repeated for the former, not the latter, is made as an example. Leadership is true, by example for it, when other leaders are able to follow the more superior one. By example, since to focus upon nation, not the people, dissuades the leader from the application of force. It is since example is opposite from force, just as order is from chaos.
Chaos is a population remaining collectivized, maintaining a perpetual desire for resources. It is the addict’s mindset, repeated here to be for the unquenchable lust for what is believed to be not be limited in its supply. It is a vain notion, what with addiction in mind, that the material is not limited, even in its craving. The material supports death, all in what declines the addict to be more accepting of their fundamental nature to desire. Corruption is to the addict, being the same for their provider.
Cultivating addiction is the same as doing such for corruption. Though, corruption is not a rise of its own. As in, corruption cannot be birthed. Corruption is a downfall from what was once believed as divine, in its origin. Though, such was a deception, all along.
Deceit is the disguise over what was said to be divine, and perhaps was just flawed, though in the material, leadership finds it as wasted substance. Substance that, for all to its imperfect design, cannot be believed as the opposite. It is the material, that to leadership, when given to its people can be, in vain, comprehended as infinite in duration. Though, to that vain and incorrect notion, materialism is just the same as the individual, flawed enough to make their connection to another of the same likeness.
Love is what represents that likeness, for the same image in what is perfect, though remains flawed. Leadership can deny what is flawed, as not, though will discover its duration as limited when the people were the focus. Individualism is denied, when the collective becomes the focus. This is the desire by a collective thought pattern, to find material resource as of greater value over necessity.
A need, by which is not related to love, life, nor death, though will fade in between as something closer to nothingness. Death is a need, even if it was said that such is a meaninglessness. It is in death, that nothing is an ending. It is the continuance, unlike what is material that resonates to be forever limited. In a sense, what is a resource is just as the loss of it, same as the loss of a limb or an organ. Though, by the most whole of understandings to this, it is the loss that represents an individual’s confusion of convenience with necessity.
Where are the resources, will not be the necessities. Necessities are not for what an individual could claim is convenient to possess, anymore than it is correct to find loved ones as mere tools. The tool is the durable material, reinforced just through the protection upon it. Such would mean that all people are material, as imperfect substance, until love comes as the force to keep what is vulnerable as not. Love is what protects life, that such does become the nothingness upon its death. This is due to nothingness having its relation to death, only when nothing would protect what was meant to be consumed. Consumption is to the material, never loved. Though, a human can comprehend what is food, meant to be used as such, from what is protected being another human. The human cannibal could afford themselves the sustenance to consume, being flesh of their likeness, because a utilitarian mindset notices nothing of sameness in what is used. It is to understand, from this, that when love protects life, it was due to the need to not ever see a loved one kept vulnerable.
Leadership, for the mind, will discover the resources, to then believe them endless. It is a vain proposition that materialism can be infinite, though is just the relation of the self not being seen. It is vain, from the leader’s mindset, that these resources could be infinite. It is, in truth, a simple misunderstanding that what is consumed will not also devour those who desire it. An addiction is just that, being what consumes the addict. Put into simple terms, no material substance can be consumed without the depiction for what is cannibalism. Devouring another, or using others meant to be guarded is the same as leading a people, as a leader to doing this, that will turn all others to a nothingness.
It is in the disbelief of love, being what the Atheist will make a science when such becomes the knowledge of it. When love becomes a knowledge, then this force has replaced the middling necessity of life. When such occurs, life is the never-ending utilization of itself, as a perpetual state of cannibalism full of others who devour another for the material resource.
The Gold of Humanity
While resources are received with the trust to their gain, it is not so much for the origin to them. Question will doubt an individual’s trust. It is since doubt is against trust, because such a lack of faith is enough to question what has induced confusion. It is trust that can deepen the well for greater amounts to a resource. However, trust can be what deepens the love for how the protector makes themselves vulnerable, in place of what is loved.
It can be believed, of the protector, that their trust is to themselves being vulnerable. Such is to understand what is being trusted, being the protector for their vulnerabilities. To the protector, and then to the one being protected, trust is one-sided just on the side of what guards.
Though, were it to be the case that what is vulnerable is willing to displace from themselves a resource, it becomes their loss to another’s gain. This is of the first notion to how trust is capable, making the side for whomever offers a resource as those to feign protection. It is their goal, in this sense, to remove protection for the sake of their own material gain. In this case, one can comprehend a tyrant as a power among the type of trust that deepens a well for greater amounts to a resource. Though, the resources become thinned in the same stages a person starves. Starvation from the material is the result of those vain enough to believe their supply to be endless.
A well, for those resources, was believed to deepen itself, indefinitely. Through trust, this was believed, though it proved the limitation of what is, in fact, being lost. As was mentioned, a resource is as limited as the loss of it. To find one’s resources as made to be indefinite is to submit to their loss, all due to that such consumables are not meant to be protected. The urge to consume a sustenance, whether for survival or pleasure, is the proof to the needlessness of their protection. Only in their protection from those meaning to steal them, it is viable to then do so. However, evidence to the notion that such a resource remains temporary is for why they will be eventually consumed. Even by the protector, they are meant to be.
Protection for what is meant to be lost is not viable, in the understanding on what is meant to be used versus what is not. Though, in the confusion or the questioning to what is trusted to protect, means to hold doubt upon love. Doubt deepens the confusion, as an individual goes to question what cannot be said to protect. Though, it would not be a leadership nor anything similar capable of protection, since its desire to bring a freedom through materialism would result in addiction. A freedom, that is, since to an addict’s mind, their cost for the addiction is not mattering.
Comprehensive for what is resourceful, makes then of the professional world, itself, as a realm of no heart. Since it is there where provisions to an individual are all-material, then it is the same to understand its place to be among what fades. To protect work, or the same to believe of a person to be the labor as the slave, is with vision for what is temporary. Temporary in being only such, makes of the professional realm as a place identical with everything that cannot last.
Though, the humane side of the professional world comes at the risk for what is deemed to be rightful. A right, granted unto the worker, is still yet done with purpose in mind. For the sake of the cycling business, what refuses to do will be disposed. By this concept, in refusing to do makes the same in the example upon executing the rebel. This rebel’s individualism, to dissolve themselves from the collective in their expressions to what was disliked, had been forced to depart. All rebels are executed, though when one is able to leave, that is their individual selves. It is within the collective that such an individual was incapable. It it then outside of it, where another place better-suited can be found.
Among all working worlds, named as the professional world, none can claim it is a realm of the heart. One, within the collective, cannot believe to care for the other members in it. It is that utilization is the mindset for each group member, there to use what skills are found as convenient. What would be deemed as a necessity is not among the professional world, because for the understanding of purpose, it is the individual revealed not as mindless.
If to be mindless or heartless, then it is the latter that, in truth, is appropriate to consider for description’s sake. Purpose is to the convenience, though when it is for the collective, there is just what is resourceful. When it is to the individual, there is purpose that the others, within the group, cannot comprehend. There is intention, that to the other members of all groups, would not settle in being understood. A collective’s understanding is to what benefits all, within the group. To an individual selected among the group, there to be benefited in ways apart from all others, there is introduced unfairness to the rest. It is the reason that individualism is separate from groups within the professional world.
Compassion, relating to the heart, will reveal itself as alien when an individual is favorited among a group. A group is that which is equal, making all individuals appear as rebels to the rest when selected for a supposed mistreatment. When given special treatment, their selection for this results in the unfairness to the rest. It is here proven that fairness does not exist, unless the intent is to segregate those who should be treated with it from those who should not. However, that is the same as being unfair, when the understanding to the professional world is to be equal.
It is this form of equality that contrasts from the one between individuals, when within the workforce all are tools to accomplish the task. By this, no compassion is meant to be given to a worker, from an employer, to not risk unfairness to the whole.
For the manner in which an individual extends their aid to another, cannot from heart unless an expectation unto a deal is never in effect. This is to mean that one cannot aid, with heart to the action, unless it is a self-sacrifice, and not a fear to the loss of a thing. One provides the resource, though whose fear is generated in the belief it might be stolen, is same in thought that the deal would be one-sided. One cannot claim, in this respect, to be genuine in their care for an individual or even a group when one is wishing to have resources claimed for themselves. As was mentioned, no heart can be given as a resource, same as to care cannot be learned as a gain of knowledge.
Same to think that a heart cannot be replaced with another, in the metaphorical sense, is also to realize that such is never aligned with resource. A resource, having its place in what is material, causes it to belong for the mind. It is then to not confuse what is for the mind, with what should not be divided of the heart. To replace heart with mind, for the strictness unto this, is to condemn what is meant to be whole, for the sake of division. It is to state that one can divide resources, though when the heart becomes separated into fragments, there is the true meaning to division.
Division of care is not as the supposed unequal place in dividing resources. To what is equal, compares to individualism, and just this. Compassion has no place among the trade of resources. Instead, it has its place among what is sacrificed, if an individual can separate themselves from the group. A group, in consideration for what is collected, is the same as a collection of resources. Collected, as in to mean that such a group cannot stand to lose material resources. It is the reason to their adoration of believing themselves victimized. In innocence, one cannot find fault when selflessness is not among them. It is the trait of being selfless that aligns with being sacrificial, and the greatest of things to sacrifice is the resource in favor of revealing a flawed heart.
A resource is limited, though the heart is eternal in itself transcending time on the manner of being selfless. It cannot be revealed, if the individual cannot sacrifice what is not needed. Needed, versus convenience, is once more a remembrance to the contrast between heart and mind. One requires their heart; though, to the resource, it is a convenience. For those who can be compassionate, are the individuals able to reveal a heart that is apart from the collective. Such means that one reveals their heart when this individual is no longer viewed as a resource.
Why Love is the Heart
Contrasted from the mind, love is to the heart. The heart is not comparable to the mind, since the latter is reserved for fear. To the loss of a resource, fear is that pain, making of the mind a perception of what is durable until not. That is, the mind perceives what cannot last, though with heart, there can be protection upon what is more valued. It is objective, in this sense, that the heart is more valuable that a simple resource. A resource, being a convenience, cannot be more valued than the heart, when it is this place, pertaining to love, that protects what is not meant to be lost.
A loss is to what was failed to be protected. However, a sacrifice is to what was not needed, as such can even pertain to a human. There are those, rotten enough to lack hearts, to be heartless enough to not care for individuals. It is their focus, being confined to a collective, that the individual becomes ignored. To their attention, such individuals are used as resources for the extent of a collective made pure.
Purification upon the collective is, in truth, corruption to this controller’s heart. Their wish to unify is by a divided heart within themselves, making their lack of focus upon individualism to become what divides their ideals. Though, such sorts would not realize that for what is idealized, of a person, is to look upon the heart of another. In such a sense, it is their wish to replace a heart with another, in that idealization. It is their belief that another’s heart is corrupt, when the truth is that individualism is the mere thing to realize what is imperfect among another. Their drives become the failures when this all proven as an impossible task. It was always because of how the individual became ignored from being both greatest threat and superior to the ideals for another. One cannot aid another, in genuineness, without an ordered heart, nor without sacrificing resource.
Without the genuineness, nor the order, to a heart, there is greed. There is what is reserved for the mere self, alone, believing it as more of a need than a heart. If it is a resource that is a convenience, then among all that can be counted as one, the heart cannot be gifted to another. Instead, one allots their trust to another, to deepen a well that becomes filled or fulfilled with everything genuine.
An individual is either genuine or deceptive, in comprehension for what is needed or convenient, and understanding of the difference between sacrifice and loss.
Love is to the heart, as the resource is to the mind. In trust, there is to the former comparison the guardianship upon what is loved. A guardian is received with the trust to protect, though could be betrayed of such in having been used. Betrayal is to the realization that the guardian has served another’s purpose, instead of their own. In being used, an individual is so until their convenience has been exhausted. Though, would the guardian have found their own purpose, in the protection for another, then their attained trust deepens the fulfillment to what never ends. An ending to trust, is to the betrayal of it, being also in comparison to the guardian acting as a mere resource. This end to trust had been the guardian’s betrayal, when their function was proven as temporary.
While love would pertain to the heart, it is trust that becomes the looseness, on its own, correlated between what is loving and what is a resource. While trust would not complicate nor cause chaos to what is kept simple, being love, it is to the matter for being used that such complications arise. Blind trust, being what complicates all psychological processes, unable to be cured until the remembrance to what an individual can been before allowing it. It can be trust that displays itself as loose, in the manner for confusing what is free in material with the same to all things immaterial.
Trust could be loose, though just upon what is being confused. It is a confusion in the extent for an individual believing themselves as loved, though was betrayed to cause this complication. As psychological complexities are cured by truth, then it will be memories to awaken a person with loose trust to being aided. True aid, coming from a place with truth, is to the heart. While all else would use, the heart cannot.
A trust, being one-sided in its condition, will bring of the protector to the heart their betrayal. Since it is the guardian who is allowed to protect, then such becomes trusted. A guardian protects, being trusted, though upon being used, it becomes their heart to guard. This guardian, in such a sense, becomes selfish and thus, distrusting on their own.
When heart is lacking of an individual, it had been because of a tolerant focus upon what is deemed useful. Merely such, when an individual, who lacks a heart, cannot comprehend the difference between what is physical to what is not. Among what is useful or functional, there are these things being physical. Such reveal their durable nature. Though, a heart cannot be broken, unless it was trust being confused in its allowance to those believed for having their own loving heart. It was that trusted source’s allotment to what was offered, on a path with the material, that deception was the unseen trait being the cause to the confusion. When clarity is met, there is understanding to the confusion, forming wisdom that aids the future. To this, knowledge is understood among those who have learned meaning for what is beneficial or destructive.
While lacking the heart, an individual displays the resource for the purpose of attraction. As deception has its space with attraction, what matches the resource is what can be replaced. A deception is layered by another. Even if deception is removed, its veil can still be replaced. Clarity is true, only when the individual sees to themselves for what is deceptive or not. It is their heart that contrasts from the resource, in their comprehension to its realness. One cannot idealize deception, since what is not truthful is meant to be removed. Deception is removed, due to it being a convenience. It is convenient for the one who can find the attraction, though is not needed.
What remembers, is for what does not die. It is not the heart that dies, in the metaphorical sense, though lives on in another’s own. Each thing needed, to another person protective of their heart, comprehends itself as true against what is deceitful. It is a deception, that being perceived, can be such just because of what is limited to it. All individual perception is limited, when upon a collective or collection that is defined as the same. A collection of resources, being limited in their arrangement, is yet the same as sheer life when not protected.
It is to note, here, that a collective being the sheer life, as unprotected, is the mere utility being used. One cannot claim that a collective is being aided, in the same manner as if such is protected. A collective, or a group of individuals, are being used in the same manner as a collection of resources. A heart, being protected, keeps the truth that does not vanish just as the collective would. A group of individuals, believing in their victimization mindset, that their aid is genuine, are instead being deceived. Such becomes objective upon the notion that a collective, as all others, is contrasted from the individual who has clarity in not being used. An individual who has rebelled from the group has recognized that their departure is to discover true connection, what with it pertaining to the heart. It is since an individual cannot be deceptive, if their motives to aid are individualized of their own heart, to not being part of another group.
The heart is the instrument of individualism, making what is within the mind relate to collectivism. If the individual, genuine in their care towards another, can be such only when it is not a motive stemming from another group. From another group, and then there is competition, being not the collection between hearts. There is, here, the debate upon resources.
A formation between minds is one of competition, or else it is a deal for which is built on the trust that deepens the well for further gain. However, a formation between hearts is one of genuineness and self-sacrifice, showing no deception between individualized motives not stemming from groups. It is a survivalist understanding to see what is meant to last, though a truthful one upon what remains forever in the heart even after death. An individual does not remember the resource, in the same manner as they will not recall all utilities perceived of others with their former group.
Why Trust is the Mind
Comparing the mind to trust, in terms of the resources that fill the deepening well is to gain the objective, though collectivized understanding among all things convenient. Though, for what can be understood of the resource as being limited, will make of this well take more to loss over gain. For those who believe that their resources will remain in their infinite source, is in disbelief or denial to those aiming to take them. A theft, this is, in its exploitation to the gullible nature among those who do believe their resources cannot expire in amount.
For those who exploit this, are indeed the psychopaths to a generation. Such sorts are, all due to what a psychopath is. By their mindset, it is to take objective consideration for the collective. Since to the opposite of a psychopath, an objective understanding to an individual is truest comprehension without allotted deception. It is to empathize with an individual, out of objective understanding to their errors, as a human, being a feat the average psychopath cannot accomplish.
Furthermore, to the psychopath, objective comprehension to the collective is always a deceit. It is objective, just in what is avoiding humanity. It is the psychopath’s mindset to avoid the human condition, in their singular focus upon disconnection or division. This is their focus, through the consideration that individualism is not among such a mindset. A continual focus upon collectivism, through objectivist standards, cultivates psychopathy in its continual avoidance for what creates actual connection. The result of this is theft.
It is a theft to the well of resources, turning what is believed by the group to be forever in their amount, into a nothingness. What retains this division is their lack of awareness to what is being stolen, thus making certain sorts among a population likely to point blame upon the world. Instead of to themselves, which to individualism is the path towards an honest gain, such people become thieves, on their own. As in, such people become duplicates to those who have stolen from them.
What occurs from this is a cycle of avoidance to accepting what is. What is, being what is already understood, being just the self. A human is what they are, until they remember where they originated. Such becomes the singular truth, since to alter this will be the deception.
If one cannot trust a resource’s origin, then to never trust this individual’s own origin is to be self-deceptive. There are sorts who comprehend this, in the belief that themselves is not of them. They wish to be originated at a different place, though changing the past is the same as deceiving the self. Those who alter what is their origin are no different than an addict who is unaware to their supplier’s origin for where what is mixed in the substance.
With comprehension for what is the psychopath’s mindset, there is the idea of progress possessing equivalent traits. Progressivism, at a rate in which no person whose slowness is taken in stride to individualism can match for its speed, goes onward at the inevitable abandonment of humanity. Individualism comprehends others to the same likeness, though while progressivism will tend to the collective, the former becomes neglected. This becomes alike with the psychopathic mindset, due to individualism defining humanity. Since it has been said that human connection is impossible without an admittance to being incapable, in the dropping from pride to humility, then division will remain to the collective.
Division for the collective, since the psychopath’s thieving mentality will take for themselves as the eventual outcome. Among the collective’s collection of resources, an outcome as the psychopath taking theirs, cannot be avoided until individualism becomes valued. When individualism becomes valued over a group, there is understanding of human connection. Through this, what could be lost being of a loved one, themselves, become protected. It is to mean that those who maintain more of a value for the group, over an individual, would allow death for their loved ones.
At the quitting of the heart, there is progress taken at the fastest pace. Though it will be fear that becomes the control to a group, making the physical heart in its rhythmic speed as the singular match to the onset of progress. It has been stated that a resource is as limitless as it is limited, then such is the same for those who retain their appearance as humans. Though, such individuals will become thieves, thereby not allowing their humanity forth. Our perception of them is no longer a limitless fashion, discovering what is unknown by them to themselves. It is since human perception is limited to the self, though limitless for another. Then, to those who disguise their individualism with psychopathy, there is nothing to see for the sake of infinity. An infinite well of resources is comprehensive at the sight of what is infinite in heart. To the sight of a psychopath, such is never the case. This outcome is the same, duplicating the psychopathic mindset in the value of resources or the group, over the heart or the individual.
Duplicates to this mindset are much the potential, when this limitation is around for all. It is eventual that starvation is the outcome, both for aid through the material and also the immaterial. Heart to being mindless, or with lack of care to the same for resources, the psychopath’s comprehension for what is stolen is that realm’s avarice. Greed is among those who thieve from those whose collection of resources were for the rest, not the individual.
Psychopathy is the state of lacking heart, to then steal from individuals who will become mindless or without their resources. Without their resources, and such become thieves on their own. It is then that such a population become psychopaths, being heartless, on their own.
Progress leads a population to further division of resources, until individualism is lost from what cannot be gained to the individual. Division of resources, apart from the individual, leads to the group. Such ends up in the outcome of a divided heart, through such newborn thieves gaining their mindset from viewing the same in others. By perception being limited when upon the self, then to others, it becomes limitless. It is to comprehend that aid to another comes at the possession of a heart, not of one’s resources. Drying up the heart ends up to the same effect with a pool of resources, thus bringing up the same image for a well.
All psychopathic traits stem towards the idea that the heart is an inconvenience, being blinded to the objectivism for its necessity. Such traits carry themselves as being incorrect to the heart as an inconvenience, since it cannot even be the opposite. As a psychopath, in consideration for progress, dwells in the mind, trust can be gathered to them from those who lack their wisdom. Since it is wisdom that is formed through knowing who to trust or distrust, then none can come for those who trust the psychopath’s instincts to receive their faith.
Pledging what is untrue to resources, apart from what is truthful among a heart, makes replicas for what is lacking to both trustee and the source to the material. A psychopath will determine the resource division, though comprehends nothing of the heart for how it, as well, can be divided. In this, trust comes to them from those who lack their wisdom, the same as to have resources be missing.
It is the resource that is convenient to possess, so it will be trust for the psychopath who offers untrustworthy resources that is most agreeable. For all to agree with a new division of resources, comes always at the cost for what is needed. When there are those who trust the psychopath, among such a person’s manipulation of convenience from their blindness or ignorance of the heart, these sorts become more divided for what is desired. It is their missing heart, not their missing resources, that causes this division. Though, it is their missing resources, not their missing heart, that brings about trust to the psychopathic one who divides them.
It is worth to repeat that understanding psychopathy is knowing that the accompanied traits involve an ignorance to individualism. In their favor for the collective, the individual becomes ignored for its innate concept among those with heart.
A psychopath has blindness to both individualism and the heart, as such a mindset can treat an individual person as either convenience or inconvenience. This becomes aware to them, when the truth to the heart, among the individual, reveals itself as a threat to deception. Since it is deception that tempts, then the psychopath is encompassing to temptation and allurement.
It is a heart that is divided, by what is ignored to individualism. When individualism is ignored, then an individual is tempted on towards what should be considered untrustworthy. With the heart being divided, trust becomes offered with as much ease as the division among what is convenient. When an individual becomes treated as a convenience or its opposite, the heart becomes further divided from itself in consideration of truth. Such results in greater embrace for deception, among more vulnerability to the individuals who grant it.
Resource of Human Flesh
A convenience, for reiteration’s sake, is to loss for those who would mourn for the material over a greater value as something needed. Or, it is something to another to be sacrificed, in earnest, to further the preservation and maintenance of what is needed. It is not correct to believe that a convenience is needed, since this displays the notion of selfishness from one with this belief. Among all to be convenient, is always unneeded. This is due to what is indeed needed is what such conveniences are sacrificed to preserve. It is the addict’s mindset to crave a convenience, over what is needed. Such is the same, among those addicts, to value convenience over perhaps one’s own family.
A convenience, by what it equates, is what can be done without. Nothing is more unneeded than a convenience, making what is required to an individual’s life as something more to the definition of loss. Among what is lost, could be life. When life is lost, there is what was needed to an individual, to prevent further understanding of loss. Though, in understanding loss, an individuals comprehends nothing of sacrifice. This is due to what was lost can, with ease, bring to a mourner’s attention the feeling of guilt. To guilt, there is a desire to join what was lost, being what was needed. For love, all is needed. For death, the same is said in what is needed. Then, to the understanding of sacrifice, there is life that lives on through the value of love.
As love cannot die, then it is life that moves on with the force of love at its back. Convenience corrects nothing to an individual, save for what could be done without. It is remaining life that comprehends, through the idea of sacrifice, that whomever was lost could also be done without when remaining life is to be valued. Though, not to believe that the life is not kept, all because death is also a necessity. Death, being needed, allows remaining life to quit the grief, in the understanding that flesh is the sacrifice for life to find other value in its remnants.
Though, to treat remaining life with the viewpoint of convenience, is to be without heart. Among all there is to protect, there is a heart, guarded for the sake of loyalty’s display. Loyalty can be rivaled by a greater dosage of another’s devotion, creating the higher standard for a heart once betrayed, though now protected. However, it is the guardian raising this standard, as such is with vanity to blame the one in possession of that heart for such a standard.
With the death of a heart, there is guilt. Though, such guilt is caused due to the perceived lack of protection to such a beloved one’s heart. In the death of a heart, there is guilt upon the guardian’s shoulders. Then, to blame the one in possession of that heart, shows to them that the guardian is heartless.
Since among all there is to comprehend of a convenience, being through an individual’s offered trust for the material gain, will make of what cannot be trusted form from wisdom. An experience, through which allows an individual to recognize convenience from what is most to least in its realm. There are items most convenient, as there are those least convenient. Terming it as accessible, is same to state an item or service is more convenient than others. Though, this is, again, in realm of competition, pertaining to the mind as the battle between knowledge and ignorance.
Nothing about the heart can be the debate between itself and another. Such is the confusion, at times, when there are those who might state that a war of hearts has begun. Though, this confuses emanates as the misunderstanding between trust and love, or mind and heart.
The mind, to which resonates with convenience, holds its place as well with competition. Lesser or greater, in the limited value, though nothing is more infinite in worth than the heart. In comprehension of that, one is able to admit that the life being saved was more valuable than what was used to prolong its existence. If to find more value in medicine over the life such treatments are used to save, then such an individual cannot even understand the difference between a tool and a human. For what is used, versus what is protected, there is everything for the sake of the latter. It is in finding infinite value with what cannot be utilized. Then, to believe medicine holds more weight in worth than a human life, would make all doctors and other practitioners of this art lack the comprehension that just the former is useful. How it is the case that a doctor would find greater value in the medicine, if it is being used to its disappearance? Such doctors or practitioners would not understand the simple notion that knowledge from discoveries is useless if it is never used or put into practice. Protection is not to what is used. It is among what is used to prolong the protected individual, that such is being utilized to then vanish.
Then, to all things that are recognized as needed, there nothing among for it that could be measured as a higher or lower in consideration for its worth. It is then that such confusion between the mind and the heart, or between trust and love, resonates. Such confusion is resonated in these certain individuals not comprehending that trust battles with itself, even within the individualized self. It is to the heart, or among all things needed, that there is sameness. There is the truth that never dies, though keeps itself comprehensive to the individual. If the mind interferes with the heart, there is question and doubt upon what is truthful. There is fear, instead of the love being what the heart locks within itself.
Should what is convenient become a greater involvement to the life, over to prolong the existence to it, then there is addiction. Addiction, in this sense, is understood as taking fundamental materialism that is used to prolong an existence, and then implementing greed. To desire, greed becomes the prime output upon what is never needed. Once more to the objective understanding of what is needed, makes it opposite from the notions to the heart. Understood of the world, and then the heart is seen as the place to which individualized truth is protected. Though, it is often when an addict will place their loved ones in danger, if to just supply their addiction. Such is the case of the heart being unguarded, so that what is the mere convenience can be held to a greater support for its supposed value.
What the object has in its comprehension for the mind is not among the flesh, since the addict contradicts the notion of an addiction for what is needed. Flesh, being protected, becomes instead the wounded part of an individual who lost their understanding for guardianship. Though, it is again to state that wisdom is never formed without comprehension to one’s mistakes. This makes the collective within more of a likelihood to be the group of addicts, over the individual. Since it is individualism that represents itself through comprehension to being personally responsible for faults, then not to the collective will this be revealed.
An addict fails to recognize flesh as made to be guarded, though will apprehend the resource pertaining to their addiction as being the greater value. Among convenience, there is the greater to the lesser. Since this is the case, then the addict will attain their wisdom in viewing the addictive substance as a nothingness in contrast from what should be valued to the infinity.
Beauty is guarded for its fragile self, making all that is beautiful given the possibility for change. When the beautiful becomes touched, it changes into an unfamiliar form. Beauty was given one shape, to then be shown as the next. Such is the case when protection does not resonate to sameness, when flesh is one with two people who love the other. Though, the addict would not comprehend what is beautiful, since their desire to protect is not for the flesh. It is then that what is wounded becomes the normative nature to a realm that could be devoid of it. Among ugliness, not to what is beautiful, there are the addictions to convenience that are protected to its limitation. It has been mentioned that for truth to become infinite, it is valued to its infinity. Beyond the passage to time that would wilt and decay the flesh, love for protection’s sake reminds remaining life that this truth, this value is eternal.
Among convenience, all the objective for their material structure would not be protected, if meant to be used. It is flesh that is revealed to the protector, that destruction is never upon it for its wounding. Protect the flesh, if there to be loved, through comprehending all convenience as just the useful instrument the contrasts from what cannot be utilized if guarded.
Love is no Rarity
Comprehension for the sake of truth is to the heart, to an understanding for love as not a rarity. Love is not rare, though it is avoided to the truth among the heart for the sake of a person to be different. All differences are to the surface, apart from the sameness that is within an individual to their heart. Among all that is different, there is to this the notion of preference. People prefer what is most tempting to their desires. All differences for an individual’s preference can be compared to book covers, such this analogy will recognize the multiple as separate from the oneness of truth.
Truth cannot be a division, on its own, except for the heart to be broken that results in the undertaking to preference. In brokenness to a heart, there comes a yearning to prefer. Though, upon the human condition, preference cannot be. No singular individual can prefer the truth, being of the heart. It is since the heart compares not to the convenience for what is desired nor to the inconvenience in what is rejected, though in what is needed.
Though it is not rare for what is needed, since such traits among the human side are just avoided for the sake of clinging to preference. As well, an individual discovers this comfort for what is preferred, along with keeping a mindset that values difference. Among difference, there is choice. However, there is no choice when it becomes a requirement to know the heart, being what is needed to understand.
Another’s heart cannot be preferred, since it aligns with the self’s own. Such is the method for which love has its place, among a world where individuals avoid each other. Rejecting the need to understand the heart, is to reject or to loathe the self. A mindset, as to value difference, is to implant in one’s mind the aspect of self-loathing. It is to mean that an individual cannot despise another, without such becoming the reflection to the self. Since perception is limited to the self, then to another, there will be a glimpse to the infinite among all an individual believed did not exist.
Non-existence is to the death of the physical flesh, though not the heart. This makes what exists to the understanding for an individual as what is evident, before themselves. It is, again, an understanding to the self, as being limited in its quantity. Comprehension to all limitations and fragile aspects to a witnessed human, will be before the viewing individual. It is to see their reflection as what compares to a knowledge, understood in the innate sense. To see another is to comprehend ourselves. Such is the understanding to perception, a limitation to the human eyes upon the material.
The notion of love or compassion to be rare among humans is to the mere avoidance of another. To speak such of traits for a human, as to be compassionate or vulnerable, is to see the self as lacking of those same qualities. Qualities to which are more in comparison to something always accessible to an individual, though avoided for the sake of being different through competition. Through likeness, humans are collaborative. However, through difference, individuals become competitive to their own mind.
To the mind, a difference is what dwells for it, due for the sake of resource in its division. From division, a collective would claim that their diverse set of differences are a union. However, it is division being a part of this, due to a simple term as difference denoting itself as everything segregated upon the surface. Exterior details are as resources, since survival will become the concern for those whose supply of them is scarce. When a supply to a set of resource is scarce, then the less choice is available. To the accessible nature of the heart, the mind with its resources is selected and just that out of avoidance to what is needed. Freedom cannot be to the individual who believes in what is meant to be accessible to the material.
Limitation is to the material, since for each thing so vulnerable as to be left as such, there is its purpose for consumption and disappearance. An individual perceives, if to then understand themselves. In what is understood among another, then the same is for the self, becomes what is no longer left as vulnerable. A human, being left vulnerable, is without the protection that always aims to keep them from disappearance. If one is content with the disappearance of a person claimed to be loved, the same to be satisfied for a consumable made to disappear upon its intake, then such an individual is heartless.
However, to be mindless, opposite from heartless, is to be blind through trust. A trust to the preferred difference from another, is to then find, in a vain manner, what is believed to be rare among the human condition. It is a resource that is better said to be rare, since what is scarce is just that. For all things that are material, in being most accessible, places a greater emphasis on competition over collaboration or likeness. As was mentioned, the workforce that employs these philosophies for competition’s sake, cannot claim to care for the population it serves. It is better to state that the population serves the workforce or the business, not the opposite.
Perceiving what is rare with another, is same to view what is scare among the self. Though, this is same as to avoid truth, whether of another or among the self. It is the heart that cannot be scarce, though just avoided for the sake of desiring deception. Deception is the place of the multitude, as it is represented to the gullible individual what could not disappear. To the aware individual, comprehension upon the material substance is in knowing that such is made to disappear. In its lacking protection, there is nothing that should keep it from its disappearance, upon being consumed. Such an understanding will then comprehend what is the rarity. Since it is never what truly leaves the individual, remaining for an eternal time in their heart, it becomes then the unprotected and consumable substance that is always the rarity.
There is no consideration left present upon what is rare through an individual’s heart, when in understanding for how humans are the same in that aspect. Within the heart, humans are the same. Upon the surface, humans are considered different. It is through the idea that a human cannot or should not be left alone, to that difference. Since with a difference, an individual is kept to it, though will provoke a division through lacking connection to another person’s difference. Among all there is to comprehend of preference, it is to know what is infinite in quantity. All that is infinite in a quantitative state, is not the heart that reflects oneness.
Love, the oneness, the same as truth for its origin in the heart. Love, the perfection, because nothing can divide what is indeed unquestionable. The common Atheist will find it their necessity to question a theism, to the extent that belief, on its own, is not logical to an individual’s awareness. However, since to what end has love, in the comprehension to it as not of something human eyes can fathom, ever revealed itself within the realm of trust? We trust, or we love. Then, we trust whomever we love, because such is inevitable towards what is physical in its evidence.
Perfection compares itself to what is unquestionable, since it is to do with the past. The past, in relation to love, cannot be questioned. To question the past is to doubt what is known. If to science or Atheism that knowledge in discoveries from practical experiments is viable to display evidence, then neither can admit that previous findings are questionable. It is not in the case, even in science, that what was discovered, in a former time, is scrapped. Questioning a fault, either of a human or to anything else physical and vulnerable to being broken, is not the same as expressing doubt for what is remembered. Expressing doubt for memories, could be said as repression of trauma. If what was so shocking in its truth comes back to a person, within the future, as a flashback, then it is doubtful just in a person wishing to avoid it.
People avoid truth, or the past, the same way in steering from the future in noticing what is the same as the past. Among all discoveries, nothing can be more deceitful apart from them as to believe is a truth is the same as a lie. What will be understood as deception is the same the division to the heart, in the denial to what has always been. What has always been, received with denial, is to be deceived.
There are individuals who would offer prayer, at not the answer being received because it is their doubt that compelled the question forth. The answer has always been known to the individual. It is just in their avoidance of it, of the heart or other individuals with the same, that compel prayer.
Fundamentals of Necessity
Survival is key to the prolonged longevity among individuals, though only to its extent. In the notion for what is first to consider with survival, it is shelter. A common knowledge as this, though made more so in realizing what intrudes the human form quicker than hunger or thirst. It is either the intense cold or heat that would end the life, faster than what is lacking in material consumption.
To the understanding of this, that shelter is the first consideration to human existence being lengthened, there is the heart. Shelter is related to all previous descriptions to the heart, through its comparison to human improvement via evolution. A comparison, that reveals all perfection and oneness to reach for, as the goal or motivation that dwells within the surviving individual. No organism is capable of survival, without the hope to reach for that is outside of remaining stagnant.
Communication, to which shows its greater portrayal among humans over other organisms, is in respect to the vulnerable heart. Guarded as it is, though wouldn’t allot improvement to the individual human without the misplaced trust understood from betrayal.
Communication is greatest in the vulnerable condition among the human. No individual can communicate, in the effort to prolong existence, without the vulnerable nature to the condition of being human. Connection forms the alliances, out of being vulnerable through trust, though the betrayals teach the lessons to all individuals. When divided, a beginning occurs to the split sides, now in understanding for what is most or least convenient. When a side proves to be less trustworthy, then it becomes communicable. Nothing wishes to communicate to the betrayer, at least with all words that compare to objective peace. War is the aftermath of division, though forgiveness is the unexpected action to those who await their punishment.
Apart from communication, shelter shows signs of its downfall through the signs of imminent betrayal. This inevitable outcome to a union would divide the heart, or the source where one has their shelter. Shelter is where the individual belongs, and then comprehends truth. Truth can be exposed to deceit, being the betrayal that would shatter a heart. Among all that is truthful, there is what is best understood. Being best understood, that the truth can be retreated to, as the meaning to shelter is here reiterated. A comfort to truth, not the deception that has an individual be confused, shows a place where knowledge is most gathered to its familiarity.
However, even truth can grow into deception, when this comfort restricts an individual from discovering others to form unity. Since shelter can be this, as a restrictive area that closes its doors to those distrusted, it is a deception among it. Though, this is individualized, when a collective would introduce others into their domain out of blind trust. Individualized distrust can be understood to another singular person, when experience in this regard has been their past. To dispel that individua’s distrust requires an example for which those hearts with outside people can be considered equally flawed.
Apart from shelter, there is the middling to each scenario of survival. This is when the individual begins to crawl from shelter, to see the light. This is the middling area of creation, to which an individual pours themselves, their wisdoms from their time to soul-search within shelter to what has is newly-formed. Love has its connection to shelter, whereas what is trusted to its freedom after the creation of it is the definition of water.
Trusting water is the same as trusting life. It is the same as trusting the vulnerable aspects of an individual who is outside of shelter. Water cannot be closed within shelter, when there are cracks for it to leak through. Such is the same of understanding how humans are vulnerable, when their emotions cannot be sheltered for long. We are loved, for how we are kept safe. Though, to place ourselves outside of the safe-zone of shelter, there is risk to be undertaken and even embraced. Through this, an individual trusts all that has been gathered in the form of wisdom, in their raising within shelter, to now become someone of independence.
An overburdening shelter, such as what might be compared to a collective, allots not the life nor individual to realize themselves and their capabilities through risk. That is, a collective would not allow an individual to live. For this reason, it is why history has disliked the rebel who steers apart from the collective to being individualized.
Water is the life for which an organism is even made of, being the majority of a human’s form. Life is the water, being the truth, and also what can become contaminated if not treated. One cannot share such contaminated truth or water, being to how an individual is vulnerable, since it will not be differed from deception. Truth, when foul, is what becomes toxicity. In this, there are the individuals who are kept alone, because their toxic nature will steer others apart from them.
The collective is a contamination among water or truth, held back by a dam that lets not the individual free to be shared even as a flood. The biblical Genesis would have Noah, through the tale, reveal to its readers that life or truth is the water. Within the ark, life or truth rides upon the water. What is spared is not the toxic nature of individuals, though are those who are kept safe at the origin being love. At the beginning of life, whether new or renewed, there is love. There is the shelter that even Noah had came out from, to see if the rains had stopped.
A toxic nature of people will be among the collective, making the cure to this to come back to one’s origin so that contamination will no longer spread. In the tale of Noah and his ark, just him, his wife and children, and the origin of all animal species were spared. It was a metaphorical telling of truth being spared, at the origin or the shelter when contamination is being cleansed. It is since all contamination becomes cleansed at new-fallen downpour, marking the collective as among the filth. However, among what is pure, is the individual, marking them as within what makes truth free even as a flood. It is to then prove that the individual cannot be deceitful. It is since deceit stems from the individual, now associated with the collective, whose victimization mindset will never believe themselves as flawed.
As the collective will not believe in the flaws that are the total depiction of humans, themselves, then it is the individual who comprehends what it means to learn from truth. Learning from truth is the same in admitting to being faulted as all other individuals.
Once again, human connection is only possible through individual admittance to being flawed. To find injustice to a social context, not being awareness that society is another creation by human hands, then this is one more example to not admitting to fault. Since if society has been created by humans, then it cannot be blamed. If to the understanding of humans being inherently flawed, resonating as proof in emotions, then all to their creations cannot be perfect nor flawless. With society being another creation, same as a painting or a toilet, then to even the collective’s perception of its flaws makes of this awareness an admittance to being humanly errored. Such is their admittance, though also another’s deception when, for themselves, it was perceived.
Individuals are able to counter arrogance with rediscovering their origin, when contamination is to the pretention from them. Though, pretention will originate not from the individual, themselves, when individualism is defined by believing in one’s incapability and inherent flaws. Instead, pretention will originate from the collective. It is since the collective possesses this toxic or contaminated nature to believing itself incapable of being flawed. Since this belief is the opposite of incapable of being equal to another, then this will become a promotion of difference. It is contamination or pollution that remains on the surface, noticeable to those who find fault with it. Since such is the case, it is always the collective that is the wrong trait among all of humanity. Objective wrong is the collective, that to pollution, contamination, or toxicity there is no willingness to comprehend the self in a clear reflection beneath the filth.
There is no willingness, from the collective, to admit to being wrong. Despite being objectively wrong and wronged, there is no admittance to this, making them the contamination. A contamination, that is, that cannot admit to itself being the source of all present circumstance.
Convenience atop Necessity
Convenience will be once more reminded as a deception. Unrelated to the force of love, makes of a convenience as all an individual will crave. Though, it is an individual associated with the collective. Since if not part of their group, such an individual maintains the mindset of being victimized. Their blame to the world is the unrecognition of the meaning to creation. That is, not recognizing creation is to misunderstand what humans are capable of.
Such capability to the human, is to their desires or wants to have more, and thus, spread along their mindset that pertains to dissatisfaction. Such dissatisfaction is perpetual, mingling with the afterthought that there is still not enough. To this, there is the perpetual belief, through their dissatisfaction, that they are not incapable. This is the mindset of victimization that coexists with pride. Since to be prideful is to refuse the aid from a place that is sincere, it then seeks the same from deception. It is to mean that wanting more is to crave what is deceitful, pertaining always to a convenience or a resource.
A convenience has no meaning to necessity. One cannot need what is a deception, being a convenience or a tool. As tools will maintain, then they are not the value. Though, as even tools can be maintained for their prolonged durability, then what comes to mind is the protection to that extended longevity. The tool, when used, is being taken away of fragments to its durability. A lifespan is limited, as this negates the possibility for humans to be immortal. Since life compares to truth, then any individual who is immortal would not have a fear to die. With no fear of death, there would be a fear of life. With a fear of life, there would be a fear of living or to learn. The immortal one would have nothing to question, nor to learn from, since everything among them would already be a certainty.
To compare immortality to the understandings of Satan is with the notion that convenience is to the words from such a figure. Contrasting truth from deceit is to do the same upon time and instantaneous gratification. This is to mean that through prayer, answers are received with time. However, through the impatience that comes with the unwillingness to learn, there is retained ignorance. Then, through the same impatience, there is a forgetfulness of life and truth.
Convenience contrasts from truth, meaning to fill an era with it is same to spread about deception. Temptation is the place of Satan, as truth is to God. Such is said, among religious language, though can be said to be objective when still in consideration to the understandings of convenience.
Truth has no place in what is gained, remaining with the collective in its keeping. Instead, truth has its place in being shared, since to withhold it is the same to never admit to flaw nor guilt. A collective responds to the truth in its incorporation with convenience, thus making all being pure in its meaning to become corrupt into meaninglessness or death. The Atheist’s words to say God is dead, is the psychology of being unaware to the death of truth. What would be wholly practical in a world that beholds convenience as a greater value than truth, is just to mean the death of an ignored reality. An ignored reality that, for its meaning between sorts, has only received its death due to ignorance. This ignorance is the defeat of truth, though not its actual death.
To ignore truth, or to avoid what is truthful in being a part to the collective mindset of victimization, is to find it evident that without evidence for a truth, it cannot exist. Though, ignorance is to ignore, not to believe something as the non-material is non-existent when its death is to the avoidance of it. Since in a world where what is practical or convenient is held in greater value or esteem, then it is to send the same share of praise to deceit. What could be truthful for any era is always to everything ignored. It is truth that is ignored, because it is more convenient to be a listener for deceit.
All to what is practical is easily understood, bringing about to the affected era a shorter attention span being another symptom of deception. It is the convenience or everything praised by the pragmatic to be easily understood, all for what it represents as nothing for patience’s sake. If to truth, by its non-avoidance on the individual’s part, can be learned through time and patience, then is to the easily understood notion of convenience or practicality where deception lingers. Convenience compares to all being easily understood, since all that is desired is met with impatience to be gained.
Corruption and greed falls within the attitudes of impatience, since the areas in which such mindsets dwell lack patience for the gain. It is such mindsets that most often have their place in the criminal world, since their vocations are of a dishonest fashion. An element of dishonesty that relates, with no further explanation to it, to deception. All is comparable to the comprehension of ignorance within the praise to the material, being the same given unto convenience.
If convenience is praised, though this individual cannot admit to doing the same unto deception, itself, then such a person is deceiving themselves. Convincing the world with words is not the same as evidence of actions. Though, when truth is evident to an individual’s non-avoidance of it, there can be time to which is taken to comprehend it. When such is not taken, then words are as believable as the convenience of deception. A tactic for those most deceitful is to believe in the weight of words over actions, matching the meaninglessness of them. Such a tactic is to cause various impatient individuals to remain ignorant, and to become spreaders of deceit, themselves.
Convenience, to an individual’s idea that such can be truthful, becomes the lesser relevance with the shortening of attention spans. These attention spans shorten with time, due to them requiring the stretch towards meaninglessness that pertains to irrelevance. With irrelevance within convenience, there is deceit. This is due to impatience being among what cannot be truthful as something that has limited relevance. What would be infinitely relevant is individualism, pertaining to truth in how it is the state of a person in their admittance to fault.
No collective that releases deception can speak of truth to their collected audience. It is an individual that can speak to a collection or group with truth, just as a parent would for multiple children. In bringing about relevance is in the individual thought patterns that pertain to something that can be questioned, though if truthful, can also be proven of it. To doubt, between individuals whose flaws have formed a companionship, would be proven, over again, with the sincerity of the heart.
One cannot be truthful with what is material or limited in its durability. This is to know the difference between what is loved from what is used. Truth is not comparable to what runs through its course in time. Truth is to the protection of it, that when age’s unavoidable grasp upon flesh makes it become dust, nothing turns deceitful in memories. As deceit can be questioned on whether it is legitimate, truth cannot when it is the same as what is fully comprehensive to a memory. With the death of a loved one, an individual cannot question those memories that hold the past moments spent among them. With death, there are no more answers among the dead. By this, an individual understands the difference between truth and the deceit, when the latter will be what attempts to induce forgetfulness. Such is due to the representation of convenience and deception, and then to lust, among all cravings that are incorporated into what was wanted.
As such is the case with truth, that it is never wanted. Truth is not wanted, the same to say one does not crave their loved one’s death without sadism being to their mindset. To speak of the death to truth, is then deceiving the self that forgetfulness will be to the inevitable remembrance. If to trauma, there is amnesia, then such could occur upon the death of a loved one.
Relevance will speak of itself as either eternal, or the short-lived to becoming irrelevant in being forgotten. One can speak of what is relevant through remembering a loved one’s life, after their death. Though, one cannot speak of relevance to a meal upon a time, when such was not there to become a memory. Even to a setting that has been set up for an occasion, nothing that disappears is the memory. Nothing that disappears of something as sustenance, such as a cuisine that was prepared for the self, becomes the memory. One remembers not the cuisine, though who had prepared it, since to its desirable taste there is understanding for who created it. This is same in the understanding for who had raised a child. One does not remember their childhood, for the simple sake of the term. Instead, one remembers their childhood for those who had made it memorable.
Among Infinite Convenience
To the amount, generated at any number as a convenience in the shape of a product, is much in relation to the scattering of ash. To death, being in relation to ash, is infinite down to the microscopic as a particle of dust. Dust is what compares to death, though what is also meaningless as a convenience. To death, being meaningless, means to convenience that all is infinite among it. To the understandings of deception, such is infinite in its comparison to both death and convenience. Nothing about truth can be in comparison to meaninglessness, nor to death, nor to convenience.
A comparison to the infinite, is by the quantitative, to the understanding of convenience. To understand the insecurities of an individual, is same in the knowledge for what is deceitful. Deception, itself, takes for advantage an individual who partakes in the collective among its insecurity. To feel safe, when one associated with a collective does not learn, is to not love. Among convenience to its infinity within the spread of ashes in death, a nothingness is in comparison to these gains.
Truth cannot be gained, though rediscovered, since it is present in the individual since birth. From birth to death, there is meaning until meaninglessness is to an ending. An ending is meaningless, when nothing is remembered of it. Death is not remembered, since life is, making everything meaningful pertain to the latter. As a loved one is remembered after their death, makes of life the objective meaning. Since to remember death is to recall failure, means to be scornful of life after death. Such is the cowardice of an individual who clings to deceit or the shelter where their voice was withheld. To scorn the dead is no different to being the same as what has died. Meaningless words for meaninglessness, turns out all the same.
In the conveniences for how an individual, insecure as such a one might be, there is exploitation upon human desire. Human desire is fueled through dissatisfaction, making this infinite amount to convenience match what is the same among meaninglessness. Meaninglessness is to the material, trusted as it is for its mere purpose or function. Without a sheer focus upon function, meaning comes to the relation of life or truth.
We cannot be deceived with life, since what is remembered cannot be evaded upon its recollection. Finding truth is the same as rediscovering it within the self. The individual’s self holds truth, since when denied, it is not ended of existence. When an Atheist denies God, is the same for an individual to deny the self. The self, to which holds truth, meant to be rediscovered, making something as deceit, as death, unable to be revived. Among the self where truth is kept, denial upon its existence is to believe less in life, though more in what is destructible. The latter is to believe in function or practicality.
An invention, no different from the convenience, is unrelated to truth in how it can be denied. No function is denied, though given blind trust to its purpose in benefiting an individual’s life. Not function, though truth, is denied when it cannot be given evidence without its rediscovery. An Atheist expects evidence for such truth, though accompanying a first-time discovery. In what is denied, of truth, cannot be so evident as what is avoided with the individual’s persistence.
No convenience as no deception can be denied, when it is acceptable without protest to its benefits upon the human form. To extend longevity through function is to erase individualism for its admittance to being incapable. Since through the individualist’s admittance to being incapable, there is formed human connection, then nothing to this can be said of function. Function cannot be comparable to individualism, because everything of the individual is protected by another to the same kind. An individual protects another, though does not use from the other who trusts their care in blindness. One trusts to the notion that there is a lesson, when such is granted from betrayal. There is not blind trust to the connection between individuals, when such is instead replaced by love. Though, the trust that is blinded, is within the realm of function due to such pertaining to manipulation.
A manipulation upon the insecurities to an individual is the attempt to recreate origin. Though, as such is impossible, there is the inevitable leaning towards function instead of the protection that is between individuals. Individualist protection is between hearts, whereas function resonates from the mind. Love is the origin, not possible to be remade when such defines the maneuver of a species towards its evolution. One’s insecurities are utilized for the sake of recreating material, though is the same as recreating death. It is the same as deconstructing what is qualitative through its togetherness within individualism.
Individualism cannot be deconstructed, which is same in the instance of it being unable to be deceitful. Individualism cannot be deceitful, because it does not resonate with the collective. A collective, for which is the same as a collection of sameness, is to chaos what order is to the individual. Chaos is a sameness, meaning that for the scattering of dust or meaninglessness, there is the same to the spread of convenience. Necessity is to truth what cannot be divided, save for the brokenness of the individual heart. From knowledge that allowed an individual to be broken, is not without love to repair it. Love repairs what is broken of the human life, since it reincorporates themselves with truth. A wisdom, for which cannot be ignored if that individual accepts repair, requires strength to discover it.
Truth is rediscovered, as it never becomes to an individual as found for its first time. Wisdom is not the same as truth, because to it, there is now avoidance for what is deemed as danger. Despite truth being a danger among those individuals who have avoided it, makes to its rediscovery an understanding for the sameness within the self. Apart from the surface to the self where there resides difference, such sameness reveals the remembered heart for which is the person. A heart, being the life that is represented as the truth, becomes the remembrance to those individuals who remain. Though a sameness, is represented as the equality between individuals. It is the life remembered upon death, or upon their physical departure.
Authenticity is to the remembrance of the heart, separated from what is practical. Each thing lack in authenticity is to the resource, pertaining to the mind. Though, for what is remembered, making it of the heart, is to life or truth that cannot lack in authenticity. What means to be authentic is in reference to what cannot be divided, though distracted from truth to deception. As it is convenience that pertains always to deception, then from it comes the temptation that are revealed as distractions.
A distraction is lacking both in truth and authentic value. Though, it can be layered, if to further conceal the truth. Once more, to define truth is to comprehend a wholeness, though a distraction is divided among replications to something other than this. That is, among all that is other than the truth, lacks authentic value, being then replaced with something short-term and temporary. In comprehension of life, to this scenario, will be to know itself as temporary. Though, in comprehension of truth connected to life, there is nothing of this in reference to the ephemeral. Of everything short-lived, being a deception, connects not to life in being temporary.
To all things that are temporary in their span of life, refers to what is forgotten. Then, to life that is the reference of truth, compares more to what is remembered. If at all to see life as the loved essence that both possesses meaning and offers the same to its protectors, then nothing can be temporary to this. To the reason a life has an existence, continuing on, is through the love from the protector. Preservation is not unto the notion of life as temporary. In eternal love, life goes on.
Though, the authenticity to a world that has no understanding for it, will refrain from viewing truth, to then become more the addicts that turn to distractions. As an addiction is a convenience, while will conveniences are the bread to addicts, then nothing of a specific world that promotes greater accessibility to a product or service can possess authenticity. It was through the sacrifice of everything authentic that such a nature of each material thing becoming accessible is ever possible.
With more things becoming accessible, makes more addicts, and then makes greater the chance for greed to open its doors for poverty upon the individual. Though, among an impoverished landscape, the collective will be preserved, if just through the insecurities that are feed of an addiction. If just through their insecurities born from lacking anything authentic, this collective’s view upon love will be confused with trust. In this confusion, their blind love that is born with the individual, becomes instead the blind trust of no question to the origin for their material gains.
Those who Add to Deception
Addition, though in the reference to collective control, is aware to those who report and who inform. For information’s awareness, though addition will replicate deception in the manner of it supporting a group. If information supports a group, then it was a telling of something meant to deceive. Such is that if truth were to this information, less division by way of the shock to truth’s effect makes the collective more gathered. Truth shocks, though makes more individuals instead of a controlled group. A collective for which relies on deception, believes less in the individual who is truthful. Individualism, being truthful, makes of all information in support of a collective or group as deceitful.
Deceit speaks to the collection, since unity is not true among it. Union can be understood as being created from understanding imperfections, among humans. Human nature demands to be understood, though a collective will desire their comprehension through no admitted fault. Such a demand from a group cannot be understood when the objective notion to a human is understanding through fault. Connection, through fault, breeds the unity that truth has developed.
Developments from truth are a depiction of the individual, apart from the collective. Deception is to the collective, as truth is to the individual, making information for the latter an addition. Whereas, to the former, it is a wholeness before division to the heart takes place. As addiction is cultivated through its division upon resources, it was always first with the same upon the heart. A heart, divided as such, bring about addiction through no individualism. To the same understanding of the literal addict to the substance of choice, individualism is not among them, apparent to their disconnection from familial surroundings. A disconnection shelter to the streets, or their abandonment by others, refers their appetite to the addiction over anything truthful.
Those who perform with appetite in mind are those who promote the emplacement of addiction and deception into a realm. Where no truth can reside, that is, makes of this a mere addition or layering over truth. Though, as no truth can be destroyed, being covered as it is with deceit, then for the same descriptions as what is not ephemeral to it are here repeated. That is, no truth can be slain nor dismantled. Truth is an essence not possible to forget, as individualized as the one who has had death claim their loved one.
Deceit speaks to the one who believes in all things meant to be temporary. Whereas, to the individual who comprehends the truth for each thing to be eternal, relates their efforts to that of love. To those in belief of all things not meant to last, are those who find value with deceit over truth.
Deceit cannot be truthful, nor can it be associated with value. It is since something valued is so, without end. For the sake of love, each thing said to never last, was done so with deceit at heart. Otherwise, such words were spoken for the sake of comfort to the self, in the belief that it was meant to occur. What passes on, even with a stopped heart, does not bring about endless amnesiacs. What passes on, even with a stopped heart, brings about the memories that define an individual.
Through the resource, if given greater trust to it over the heart, then to deceit one has pledged their support. To information where a collective, not an individual, cannot discover its origin, makes to addiction the consolation to each wound. An individual is wounded, while the collective should be separated to form individualism. It is since a group will not admit to being wounded, that individualism and truth is meant to unravel such a collection. To the heart meant to be kept whole, is same to truth or life being protected. Though, for loyalty’s sake, understanding of the heart is same to life, and such faith and support cannot be given to resources or addiction without its short-lived extent. It is same to think of life as short-lived that such a mindset believes in all meant to be protected as instead to be used. A utilization of life tears it down, turning it into the mere resource.
Would the heart be less valued than the resource, then it cannot be said as the case. Instead, the heart would not be valued in the slightest, thus revisiting an addiction that is offered for repetition’s sake. All to do with repetition is in understanding the addiction, that such is revisited for the sake of what ends to then begin, again. An understanding of this notion of repetition as the same with life, is to disregard the memories for all occurrence. An occurrence for which can either be remembered or forgotten, is the same to differ love from lust. What is craved is to lust, then to need is to love.
Love does not recreate itself, since it represents itself as the origin to all creation. What is beloved to the individual is remembered forever, though to have treated such as a resource is to present betrayal. One betrays, is the disregard to love, that to one being used there was the comparison of them to a resource. All resources that, to their short-term span of life, have no comparison to what is protected. Since this is the case, then nothing of itself can be for repetition’s sake. It is to mean that life is born from the womb to the challenge of loving it, or to the task of enslaving it.
A presentation of betrayal, through the scenario of the common addict to their substance of choice, finding value in such over their familiar surroundings is same in understanding resource from heart. A value, for which could not be short-term, is betrayed upon the resource being given this protection. It was a need that to the convenience was granted this protection without understanding objective value. It is that to everything valued, there is nothing convenient nor usable of it. In its regard, something as equitable as a resource is nothing to the same for value. One cannot be valued, if measured through equity. Instead, one is measured as a resource, to the limits in which the surface, not the person, is being perceived.
It has been stated that to perceive, means to be limited in vision. Though, it is a limitation on the surface, not to the person. Of awareness to the aspect of care, in a scenario where what is equitable can be measured, then it is in the limitation of flesh where such will be matched. To flesh, and then to what is equitable, there is limitation by utility. A human being is used, through this, making relevance become irrelevance, just as a slave would become useless upon their exhausted flesh.
Life has no comparison to what is limited about the flesh, since a limitation compares more to the resource over the protected heart. For those who claim equity is the symbol of care, will deceive by way of enslavement being their primary motive. Since it is that holding accountable the human flesh as a product of everything equitable, then it will be noted for its limited design that such compares to the slave for their similar limited durability. What is durable about the human cannot be seen through the lens of what could be equitable, though what could be equal. It is equality upon knowing an individual matches with another, through understanding that limitation exceeds itself upon their remembrance after death. If a slave cannot be remembered, due to their usage until death, it was for such utility that had brought about their demise. It would not be that a master to this slave would remember what was meant to be exhausted.
Addition, upon the notion of being equitable, notes the relevance to each thing limited or held to disadvantage of a human. When such a limitation or disadvantage is seen through the lens of victimization upon them, there is the desire for equity to the cure. Though, nothing short of what is limited about a human is more exacerbated than through equity. A comprehension instead to what is equal about an individual to another is always more the eternal relevance. An eternal relevance, as what pertains to being equal, cannot compare to exhausted utility that compares more to equity.
It is more the case that none who side with the notion of being equitable can claim to care for those deemed at a disadvantage. One adds to their relevance, being of themselves forced into another unfamiliar realm that offers them advantage, though is instead the gain towards their masters. It is the mindset of being equitable that compares to those being masters of slaves, where gain to them is more the desire than an understanding to what is limited or incapable of the individual. A truest comparison from slave-master to the desire to be equitable, is always from gain to that master over comprehension that individualism refers to incapability.
Empathy past Resources
To empathetic eyes, they are in notice to what is beneath deceit, when such is layered upon the truth. As truth holds relation to the heart, while deceit resonates as resources, then to the empathetic sort there is a view past the infinite towards oneness. Without all empathy to individuals, a world is formed out of narcissism in the value placed upon resources over the individual. This is due to everything corresponding to empathy has its relation to individualism. It is to mean that none who claim to understand an individual’s concerns can do so, when their focus is upon resources.
Resources corresponds to its division, though to the oneness of the heart, there is truth. With truth, requires the empty to view it, noting what would have no reference to truth being of those resources. One divides what is offered of resources, though empathy is nothing to its division when it views the oneness that cannot divide. As it is, such oneness cannot divide without betrayal against the heart.
A mind, for which compares to everything analytical to a person, shows its strength in being wise for the spending of resources. Was was previously mentioned, resources are wasted when the heart is not together. When the heart is shattered, carelessness unto the wasteful resources are done with the desire for immediate gratification. When such resources are wasted, empathetic individuals would comprehend this wasteful person as not contented by such maneuvers. Nothing is, to those who waste what is gained, ever for contentment’s sake when such gains are being used. An unending spending to those resources amounts to their waste, just as flesh is the same when exhausted and never given protection.
In whatever world where there is no value over truth, means to value resources to suit a collective, not an individual, and their supposed basic necessities. Survival guarantees to the individual what such guarantees to themselves, though dependence upon unknown origins would have them deceived. To love, being the singular origin for individualist survival and evolution, comprehension to that requires no question to without simple denial. It is a simplistic measure of denial, when such is needless against such an origin. Though, the practical mind will invent numerous accessible allowances to resources, while their dependence is that those who gain them will not question their origin. To love, there is its oneness of origin, making it unquestionable when it represents the past. What originates, will preserve in its truth. Though, what should be question for where it originates, cannot preserve when its inherent nature is to deceive.
Love does not deceive, though its origin is always received with sheer doubt and denial upon the favor towards deception. That is, when a collective or group, not an individual, doubts or denies such an origin as love, it was due to their preference being of everything deceitful. Then, to the infinite that deceives, presents no oneness to those not ever empathetic enough to be individualist at the origin of love. It is again to reiterate that one cannot claim to care for a group, when the individual is not among them. Instead, one takes advantage of the group, for equitable gain, deleting their rights in the motive to breed more disadvantage over the opposite.
Seen through empathetic eyes, the heart is comprehend as everything both truthful and eternal. Limited as resources are, in their inherent definition to each substance, then nothing to them can represent something as eternal as truth. Though, as resources are infinite, such are just in what is deceitful of them. For this reference to deceit is once more to understand that to something so infinite as a resource, can be from anywhere or anything. Infinite resources are generated from anywhere or anything, being those deceitful origin that cannot compare to the oneness of truth. These are resources that have any origin to them, and will not be questioned by those desperate enough to receive them.
It is in the mindset of those impoverished, that there will never be question to what is gained as a resource. Their desperation rings to them as extended desire, to fuel their addiction into being no more than a thing among the collective. Their wish to gain, out of a desire for a resource, is perhaps to their unawareness that this results in their stagnation.
A belief in resources being infinite results in a life among stagnation or deception. Deceived, that is, in not questioning such origins of these resources, though would present their denial to the truth or oneness that is the singular origination. No organism does not originate from love, since to deny this is not to be progressive, though to cause generations to be degenerative. Their denial to what is certain, in regards to their memories, contrasts from the desire to the infinite resources where no understanding to their origins can take place. No understanding of those origins results in this life within deception, made as the life among the addict’s mindset.
Love will believe in what will never end, though the addict comprehends would would, as always does, end. Though, this addict’s understanding of this ending only matters so long as new pleasure replaces what just ended. A comparison of the addict’s mindset to life, is to refrain from understanding love as the origin that cannot be questioned. Through denial, an Atheist would question Creationist as the origin to each living organism. Though, upon the Atheist’s secondary trait to believe in everything practical, has more in reference to deceit than to the oneness of love or truth.
Seemingly so, that if Creationism is the logic that comprehends the unquestionable truth of an origin that evolves all living organisms, then such a logic had or has understood evolution greater than modern methods to its comprehension. Love or truth, apart from the practical or a thing so much utilized, has more awareness by its inarguable and unquestionable origin, than to all things usable that is emplaced better with deception or division.
If being apart from deception or division, then the heart compares to truth, though does not as well compare to change. As in, truth does not change, though is added upon, making what is truthful not subjected to chaos. It is chaos that is caused due to the avoidance of truth, though the heart bleeds or leaks what is truthful even to the unawareness of those in denial of it. As one can have a hemorrhage without being aware, then so will truth leak from its unchanging origin. Denying what does not change compares to the craving for convenience, since chaos has its resonation with consistent alteration. Through chaos, change is made, though with deception as fuel. With improvement, truth is understood among all, though known to never change.
A comparison of what never changes, if viewed, is to those empathetic eyes that understand another same as the self. To another, compared to the self, for what never changes is seen through empathy between two people who cannot be differed. It is difference that compares to the surface, where chaos is not told apart, except where loyalties are shared with groups. As loyalties cling to preferences, then further chaos is supported into the onset to distrust. As one might defend their loved one from an attacker, it is in preference to whom is defenseless being revealed as a greater show for trust.
Despite an inevitable occurrence, since love clouds the judgement for those distrusted, all loyalties lead into chaos and conflict. However, upon what is realized as unchanging or through sameness, it is the internal that through empathetic eyes can comprehend this similarity. Nothing to what is viewed, within the external person, can ever be said as different from another. Such is the mode of being equal, that could not be compared to the advantageous and opportunist methods of being equitable, that there is the notion of being human.
Favoritism plays its role for equity’s sake, making not the given advantage to support a disadvantage. Instead, whoever becomes favorited is given an advantage. It was because their disadvantage had been overlooked as meant for their advantage, when such can be the case in understanding internal or innate talents. Through sameness or being equal, an disadvantage or weakness becomes an advantage or strength when understanding is met between a pair. That is, to refer weakness to strength becomes so between individuals, not among the collective gathering supplied from convenient or unknown origins to resources. Since it is not to the average human to question where such gained power originates, such will be the onset to corruption.
Upon what is given loyalties to preference, comes at the interest to flesh. At the interest for its potential harm, whether positive or negative to the affect, is without empathetic eyes to penetrate past. To see to the internal of an individual, is then not to notice flesh. Though, among those in their interest for it, whether with positive motive for its defense or negative to its harm, there would be sheer preference. It is into prejudice that comprehension for sameness or truth remains avoided.
A Cycle of Addiction
Upon the notion of preference, what fades is to what is trusted when its focus is upon flesh. An intake, that to the convenience for a gain made more accessible to the potential addict, is developed within closest proximity. To make more accessible is to make closer the convenience. Though, the necessity cannot be closer. When to the sameness that resides upon the internal, then an external craving comes at the focus upon the flesh, the intake to it, as well with the gain for it. Greed is supplied through the lack of questioning to the source or origin to such intakes. Consumption grows the collective, since individualism is not among it to admit guilt.
Preference is displayed for the addict’s choice, making to it an external regard. An addiction is limited from its supplier, when tolerance grows upon the substance. When tolerance is to the avoidance of truth, comprehension for what is acceptable is never upon deception. Tolerance and acceptance, as both are of opposite in origin. Tolerance shows its relation with fear, when to the addiction there is lesser sustainability for the addict during a gradual intake. Though, upon realization for truth, nothing that is deceiving can be acceptable.
To then admit that tolerance is dedicated towards what is deceitful, is comparable to the addict who tolerates their addiction. As addiction refers to convenience, then among all things more accessible to the collective or group in their mode of desperation, it is in the motive for mere gain. Though, for what is gained from the collective or group is not for their benefit, though to the provider’s own.
Would someone believe that an addict gains more than the supplier to their addiction, can be same to find that a desperate group is benefited more than an organization that supplies it. Individualist interference would be, as it can be shown, more beneficial through equal understandings for the internal. An equal understanding to the internal, is a direct notion to equality. Two individuals are equal through comprehension for a sameness upon that internal, whereas preferences would inject greater distrust in the perception of threats. As fear would generate itself around distrust, then to preference there is same with the understandings for convenience. With what is convenient shown with fear to its limited duration or amount, reveals to each preference the same similarity.
Resources are as unlimited as such are limited, as was repeated before, though to the emotions related to fear makes to each gain a given characteristic of greed. One fears what would expire in duration, thus desiring a greater amount upon each gain. An onset to greed is upon the path for what is most uncontrolled, being change. While sameness would be to the internal, then each thing preferred will be upon the external.
Knowing that to trust means to find comfort in a familiar sight, means then that distrust will be upon what is not tolerated. An addict seeks the familiar sensation of a gain, making for all who seek convenience or short-lived pleasure a sort to not tolerate external unfamiliarity. By this, there is further distrust with prejudice that both entraps the distrusting sort and restrains them from broadening such zones of comfort. Upon the familiarity to sensations accustomed to the addict or dependent upon a material substance, there was to it the sacrifice for what was most similar or familiar to themselves. Such is the reference to the heart that, once more, relates to their abandonment for what is most understandable. It is to human nature, where understanding compares itself to what has not died, though was left alone, being the heart within the addict.
With the heart, there is loss, though also the remembrance for its value. With all individuals most dependent on the material substance, such persons turn among the material. As in, such persons become the material, as addiction or dependence is the relation to a disease, able to be spread further. A heart, being sacrificed to the perception of the addict, means that to all others in care for them, comprehend loss to its value. A heart, being valued in the objective sense, makes to the dependent on the substance for addiction a subjective decision.
While subjectivism compares more to the collective notions, over the objective realm within the individual, there is different among the external favoring. A desire or preference to something material being favored, makes to itself always upon the surface. As the surface will be judged not by the individual, though by the collective, as either preferred or not, then its craving supports such a collection or group to become its own material indulgence. As in, just as a resource is a collection on its own, based on number or quantity to its existence, then among the group there is the identity of being an addictive substance.
A collective becomes no more the addiction, than what such groups are addicted to. There is, resulted from this, no human connection by which understanding can take place under the force of love. What has been the supposed replacement for the heart is the endlessness to resources, making these collectives depend on each other out of lust.
Quantities have no remembrance, as a natural comprehension to them, since such could be the belief in the meal being recalled over the one who created it. There is no sacrifice to care or the heart, for such will represent itself as a loss. While the heart has been described as a oneness, makes to itself not an amount for replacement’s sake. Out of quantities, replacements can be enacted. Though, a heart, through its representation of human qualities and characteristics of imperfection, resonates with the irreplaceable.
While the heart was lost to the addict or dependent, its rediscovery is to the recovery of the collective that individualism can, once more, be also renewed. Rediscovering the heart brings back individualism, in that such a spot to a person has its value. Though, such a held belief that materialism could replace it, the heart, comes upon the addict or dependent as vainness.
For an issue present, and in knowing what the mentality to an addict represents as being its own dependence on the material, refers what would not be resolved unless through the heart. The heart, for which represents care or the determination that drives an individual, not the collective, onward, will be to the resolution towards all circumstance. It is circumstance that cannot be resolved by the collective or addict’s mindset, when such groups exist to depend. Existence, when dependence is their direction, will make them depend upon other groups. Though, it is not in the manner of individualist understanding for imperfection, when such groups do not admit to this.
Since it is a group that will not admit to its own faults out of apparent belief in victimization, such would make the collective the issue. An issue, that through a reluctance to admit to being faulted or flawed, reveals to itself without the awareness even with the group. That is, if a group believes itself victimized, then it reveals itself as having an issue. Though, when the same group cannot admit to being imperfect nor flawed, then it reveals itself as an issue in comparison to an addict whom no former familial relations had remained around. It is to mean that in a group’s abandonment of the heart, other individuals with potential care forsake them.
A fault, not for its individualist awareness from this singular person, though in its universal reference to the internal. As preference or desire comes in contact with the external, then for the place of the internal keeps to the sameness among individualism. It is what promotes a truth, with union between individualists, that this togetherness is genuine. Union or togetherness is a falsehood, without the focus upon individualism. Unity is a deception or falsehood when its place is granted upon the group.
What would be the issue of the individualist is their incapable nature, in the admittance to such. Revealed of the individualist, being their incapable nature, though not as issue of the collective or group when individualism can admit to being imperfect. To be human or being imperfect is not the place of the group, making what is an issue unresolved without individualism.
It is a group that is a societal fault, while not ever admitting to being faulted. Whereas, it is an individual who is not a societal fault, though will admit to being faulted. Each individualist possesses the heart needed to resolve an issue, being the group. It is the individualist’s admittance to being faulted that such pertains to the gain of knowledge, outside of the group that would represent ignorance. An ignorance, being of the group, while the individualist breaks from its confinement onward to the necessity of learning.
As the heart cannot recreate itself as convenience, then not to the individualist can anything become added. As addition compares to the quantity of a material substance, individualism has its place among the immaterialism to the heart. An issue, for its non-physical element, cannot compare to the addict’s mindset when a heart cannot become an addiction.
Beyond the Hippocratic Oath – Pt. 1
Confidentiality amounts to secrecy under the supposed care or actual control of those who siphon information towards their unknown origin. Among the ones, whether to be doctors or a government, there is one-sided trust being on part of the one handing such information. Those who trust, being among those who gift its allowance to those so unknown to them, in the personal sense, become vulnerable in the unawareness to their information’s destination. To give this information, as well with the allotted trust, those who are stated under their oath will be consumers. Offering information to those undeserving of it, is by this one-sided trust that could not become mutual.
A trust as this, belonging for the sake of this oath, there is secrecy being held of this information from both the one who gave it to others curious of it. It can be to the benefit of the one allowed this information, that their secrets would not enter into hands of those curious. Though, for an individual to believe their information is safe, even in the possession to those allowed of it, brings about a vulnerability.
Under this oath, for the meaning to being confidential or private with given information, trust is upon just the side that allowed it to be gifted. Upon the side of the those who possess it, brings to mind an ideal for control upon outcome. It cannot be, that when information is received to those who cannot divulge their own secrets, that such trust is mutual. When one-sidedness is to those allowing of their information, though cannot know secrets from those who have gained it, this trust remains restricted to one place. If a patient to a doctor can offer their information, though the same patient cannot know personal information of the same doctor, there is one-sided trust. In the same manner of a government wishing to be omniscient among its ruled population, compares much to the patient and doctor scenario through how trust is, in these cases, one-sided.
What restricts the one, under oath, to divulge their own secrets is through the same mention of the heart. Among those who would pledge their place, in whatever vocation is being upheld, to resources, there is the same state to either doctor or government. Whether doctor or government, or other realm in which information is gathered, such is the same sight for resources. When information is kept as a resource, trust is one-sided due to the essence of greed. Were trust to be mutual, no greed would be apparent, though the place of human connection is made as the two-way street.
While one side would offer their information with freedom attached to it, then the other would not out of protection to it. If the heart remains the vulnerable spot among all realms, revealing the essence of being human, then nothing to a one-sided trust could be so. As in, nothing to a trust being one-sided could be human, when it is what reveals itself as mutual making both sides vulnerable.
When vulnerable, there is a clash of information being shared. When this aspect to being vulnerable is one-sided, there is the other an understanding to itself as a threat. Though, upon the side having offered their information, threat perception is not with awareness to the other. The other side, having gained this wealth of information, is not being perceived as a threat from the one who gifted its resource. Since to the one who offers information, their view upon the one gifted it is not with perceived threat. Without understanding the one gifted of a resource, as information, to be a threat, there is vulnerability upon the side that supplies it.
Such is for the sake of blind trust that awareness to what is threatening is non-existent. Without awareness for a threat, vulnerability cannot be subdued without itself becoming mutual. Though, for the sake of both sides being vulnerable, without human connection for trust, there is mutual distrust. If distrust is mutual, there is the onset to conflict.
A shared realness of comprehension, being one that understands itself and the other side as lacking of trust, makes of the opposite form of human connection. Distrust will bring distance, even if such sides oppose each other, through physical confrontation. It is distance, in being withdrawn from the heart, that a lack of care results in this ongoing distrust and refusal to unite. While it is distrust that causes two sides to be distant, it is trust that creates a closeness or union to the heart. Though, it is to the heart, that through trust, there is willingness to guard such from external threats through loyalty.
Upon the side that desires information, then such a one cannot be perceived as a threat from those who have given it. This is since from a one-sided trust, information is given with the belief it could not be mishandled. Though, to be compliant with the request for this information, leaves out the necessity of questioning its destination. To the side unwilling to unveil its own wealth of information, means such is on the protection against the threat of those curious. While a doctor or government could request information from a patient or populace, their own refusal to divulge secrets is with the notion that curious sorts are a threat.
Since what is most threatening to what terms itself as evil, is the truth that is leaked from its own source or sources. To be questioning of these areas is to want trust as mutual, though will not when from doctor or government or similar realm is a collective on its own. A collective distrusts others to the same, though is because sustenance could not sustain what is not substantial for the addiction.
Information is an addiction for those who wish it, though a necessity for its protection with those who keep it. Would one group have dominance over another, their information or resources are to be substantial in their continued requests. No individualist could offer information to an unknown source, since that is the same as being part of a collective. Since an individualist can neither be categorized nor sworn to a demographic, such means individualism is uncontrollable. Such means that not those who recognize the truth, though among those who are fed deception can be controlled or contained.
While what would describe itself as a resource will pertain always to choice, carries through the understanding that fairness cannot be with equal measure in this. That is, to be equal would not mean for its choice, since a decision is on part for personal favoring. If to be equal references the selflessness of all, then it would discount personal favoring towards a preference. Since preference partakes in each thing external, to the internal refers towards the equal nature of the heart. In being heartless, the collective is without care. It is through being heartless, that what accompanies this is the belief in the self as victimized. Then, a resource could not be among what is equal or fair to all individuals, without the endless dependence upon the addiction.
A mind for resources will be described as one for the belief in valuing the material before the immaterial heart, making such as no different than the common dictator that worships what can be conquered over what could be preserved. Since not to the material nature of a resource can preservation ever be among its part, makes for objective value as among the immaterial. It can be again stated that were a doctor to find greater value in the material resource of the medicine over the life it is used to save, there is confusion among this practitioner with what counts as utility.
A resource cannot be saved, though the life that uses it will be. Then, among all that is favored will not be the resources, though with those saved by them. However, valuing what is resourceful, without regard for individualism, is the same as placing the material as higher than the immaterial. Fairness is not achieved without consideration for individualism, making collectives as uncapable for this.
Under this oath, fairness is achieved from collective to another, though with the delusion or deception that offered information is not being mishandled. While this deception would thwart the individual into believing their information is kept private, as such would occur between individualists, their unawareness to their categorization is kept afar. Since each individual would believe their offered information is an exchange between mutual trust, the deception strips all awareness to being categorized. It is in being categorized or understood among a demographic that no information is kept private, though is shared knowledge among its collective.
What is achievable through this breed of fairness forgoes the individualist’s question to the origin where such an offering is sent. Though, fairness has its reveal of truth through individualists, where the trust is mutual. The ongoing one-sided trust would restrict a confliction between the two parts, though with the convenience of being deceived.
Beyond the Hippocratic Oath – Pt. 2
Pertaining addiction to convenience reveals the stature of those meaning to provide such an ease for obtained resources. Since to the ease of it, more of an accessible nature is there to fortify the addiction. Though, not ever in the place for improvement, and then the addiction is in relation to change. A change that, to the addict, is required to keep upon its continuum, enough to ease tedium. As tedium would awaken the addict to the course their desire has them plod, no mind of their own is allowed with this unending change. To promote change, in this sense, is to promote the addiction that opens past the strain of boredom or tedium, allowing a false perception of newness to arrive.
Though, as originalism has no comparison to newness, making what is changed for the addict as a perception for what will, once again. An addiction changes not to its improvement, though for the downfall of the addict, themselves. It is to mean that an addiction is not improvement to the way of convenience, since what improves or uplifts would not pertain to something so temporary. It is in the unwholesome or impure understanding of an addiction or convenience, that such regards itself as ephemeral to perception.
Perceiving what is limited about the addiction, though under oath by perhaps a doctor, there is being given what becomes a dependence. It is then to realize such a dependence is limited, if through the doctor there is reliance. Such a keyword, as reliance, is the mere clue required to comprehend what is addiction. One is not addicted to a specific; one is just addicted.
Relying upon convenience, brought to the addict’s attention from the oath-bound individual who collects information, cannot have relation to specifics. Specifics are what would limit the perception from the addict that their substance could expire in amount, as well to offer the understanding that it could not present change. It is the notion of change that pertains to downfall, since its material composition has much for a relation to chaos. While nothing immaterial being in relation to objective value could present itself as identical to change, it would then compare to improvement. It is then to repeat that an addict’s salvation is through the heart, being the means to care about the issue for which plagues them.
To the needs of an individual, such can be provided for from another in the same likeness. Comprehending that is same to mean that individualism supports individualism, or that an individual supports another individual. In this depiction, no person bound under such an oath would possess the individualism that requires mutual trust. Along with such a lacking requirement, what is offered from such collections, not individuals, are what is convenient, not needed. As one cannot compare their own life to a convenience, so then will the medicine offered by perhaps a doctor be said as one.
While a convenience can be said to be made more accessible to those required for these supposed necessities, there is to this belief a missing facet. It is that nothing could be more understood as accessible as to the life worth saving. To believe a mother whose child is in danger from illness would find medicine more accessible over her offspring, is a confusion. Such is the confusion for which compares an objective need to a convenience, since for a thing more accessible than another means to project options. Would could be to such a mother, whose child is in danger from illness, more accessible than the child, themselves? It is to mean that what is needed is not ever something to bring closer, though was closest to an individual since its beginning.
Creation relates itself to truth, though is not usable for its understanding of missing utility. Function would not be to the loved individual, since this is the same as to view another through the lens of slavery. It is function that depends not on the self, though upon another able to use them. To the purpose of this, there is none without such meaning to become exhausted. Since it is against love to behold function as the trait for those who are one’s beloveds, then it will make among each thing needed as useless. If then to speak of the doctor who finds more value in the medicine over the life it saves, would be confusion in the understanding for what is needed from what is functional. It is the confusion to believe the human individual aids the medicine, rather than the medicine aids the individual.
Despite how tests incur to create devices for convenience’s sake out of human elements, the simple notion to differ what is needed from what is functional is comprehensive of standards and limits. It is, while to the mindset of greed, there is a great relation among the slave-master who could find those human elements as more functional than the objective convenience. To what is convenient would relate to something so functional, through objective means, though not to the end that makes a life either proven to life on or die at the hands of utility. Since a life could die at the hands of a doctor, makes to a resource undependable unlike the human, themselves.
Accessible as the resource can be, is not to ever state that what is needed can ever be closer to the individual. An individual is closest to what is needed, meaning that to make closer of requirement is to rediscover truth from the deception of convenience. A material convenience, deceiving as it is through definition, shows no comparison to what can be more accessible than the immaterial heart. To the opposite, a convenience cannot be anymore accessible than what allures a collective or gathering to the temptation. It is forever within the audience to understand what is most desired, versus what is least.
In love displaying no function, makes among emotions the manipulative assets or resources that a business world would hold for advantageous gain. Material gain, that is, since among function there are the manipulated emotions that reveal their short-term use. What is most useful is also considered the most logical, though within the short-term. Comprehensive of this, makes then of the short-term logic as illogical for the long-term. It is then to understand that love, through its non-functional nor utilitarian nature, cannot be considered for short-term logic. Regarding love in its eternal essence, makes it logical within the long-term.
While it is hearts that connect out of individualism, then to recognize the resource is not a facet of care would be correct in the understanding. No resource, when given, is done so without sacrifice, though itself in its limited intake has no comparison to the heart. It is the heart that compares to individualism, being not limited of itself. Individualism cannot be limited, when it has no comparison to the resource being an intake of addiction. One could not love the resource, though be lustful for it. One could not love the food for the meal, without instead expressing such a sentiment to the one who created it.
Limited in its regard and definition, one under an oath of confidentiality is not capable of displaying care for the sake of their offered resource. In exchange for the gain of information on the side of them, what is allotted upon those who have offered it is a resource believed then to be limitless. Would such be made more accessible, then it forgoes care. In remembrance to what cannot be more accessible than the heart or to care for a concern, makes what is a resource as most limited. A resource, being most limited, will be the cost of something of actual value as what was given through blind trust.
While no threat could be perceived of the one who trusts, then such will be the case when distrust is thrown upon those who are being questioned. Since to question means to distrust or to doubt, enables the understanding that even such trust is limited before objective value is understood of the heart. To debate, is for two minds to battle another. Then, among the one whose closeness is to their heart, no debate could be offered of the other without such other than a deception.
To debate from the one with closeness of heart to themselves with one absent of such, is a feud between truth and deceit. Such means that to question what is now being distrusted, reveals the awareness to something unable to be accepted for its deception. Knowing this, then to see that a resource is comparable to deception, shows that among those doubtful of what is limited refers to the heart as the opposite. Since it is faith that supposes itself upon something so closed as what remains loved, contrasts the understanding of a need to a material resource. One holds faith for what is closest, being unable to become more accessible. Just as what is claimed to be loved could be neglected, repeats itself to the same understanding of the heart. Such then repeats itself to the same understanding of the addict who forgoes objective value to perhaps familial life, in the favor for their addiction.
Part Two – Human Conflict
To Disobey the Heart
Disapproval or disobedience to the heart is a direct reveal of lost comprehension to the self, in the act of forsaking individualism. An individualistic self is abandoned when the collective for its addiction to resource reveals its material value, instead of finding the heart as the objective place for this. Since it is the heart that could have value, then to all things collected or gathered as a resource would not be things deemed with worth. The supplement among material things having worth for amounts to the temporary. Such is understood for the short-term as having value, though upon the long-term is understanding to the heart as having this latter worth.
At the understanding of life with this supposed temporary aspect, is as well the rejection of individualism for the sake of a collected resource. That is, to name life as temporary means to forsake the self for the addiction of such resources. It is since all resources are ephemeral or temporary in duration, making what is life, if not guarded of its value, as nothing more than an addiction. If to be obsessed with life, then this terms the collective. It is in being obsessed with life that one could be fearful for its sudden loss upon the next moment. This is, of course, a fear that even stunts the development of a life, though would also be in comparison to how groups perform. As in, for a group to believe resources are the value, makes to their mindset a fearfulness on its duration of supply. When such a supply expires in that duration, the same fear expands upon the desire for more. When such a fear takes hold of the group, their presence within such makes them, too, a resource.
It is fear that is exploited for the advantageous gain from others with greed as a mindset. Then, among those who are consistent in their fears for the ending to the supply of resources, allows a weakness to be observed from those with strength enough to perpetually disable this disability. It is a feat towards exploitation upon fear that to a group so aware for what is not perpetual, as resources, causes their obliviousness to make these phobias permanent. What allows these fearful groups to become resources is same upon all things that could not survive at the same longevity as others. To be consumed, within the desire to consume, is the inevitable outcome for these fears. As one had been the sort to crave, though also becomes what such a group had feared.
Disobedience or disapproval to the heart is for the notion that the self can live, among survivalist methods, without the heart. Such is likened to least understanding the thing of eternal value, being the heart. What is worth repeating is that nothing more accessible, by nature, could reveal greater representation from the heart. For its objective worth, there comes comprehension for what is not applicable to die in the protection of value. Though, by resource, there is ignorance to the eternal notions of the heart, that for what should be protected not ever in relation to an addiction, becomes ignored.
As to crave means to obsess, compares as well to the delusions an individual can ascribe to care. It is among the sorts in their belief that having a heart for a thing is always subjective, though cannot be in the contrast from what is either short or long-term. Since in the logic that relates to short-term benefit, there are the inventions brought from the scientific mindsets and fields that show their comparison to the limited resource. A short-term benefit, relating to the resource, since it is among function to count itself as among the limitation. Among science, there is for the mindset of it a presumption that the current function of a device or tool could be outdated. This is presumed through the simple idea of a function needing newness of origin.
It is in what is deemed as original, for the short-term, that not for the long-term could such be seen as useful. That is, were a tool from centuries past be seen used, centuries later, one might state it is an outdated application for such a device. The next statement is to remind the user to this outdated device that greater advancements have replaced its function. By example, none would state the typewriter is greater in advancement than the computer, since what is short-term, either in origin or of original idea, has to do with the benefit upon creativity. Even for a similar example, that a sequel to a novel should, though does not, have an improvement upon its predecessor, one could admit to the advancement being a failure.
Failure reminds the creator that the idea, within the short-term, should be replaced with another that shows advancement from its weaker predecessor. Along with the understanding of care, it is not that with its comparison to the long-term that the short-term benefit for invention’s sake could improve without the heart. It is in the inventor’s mind to have a heart for the project, making to the short-term benefit from their creation as the opposite for such a maker. Disobedience for what is the heart, understanding that its role is a non-functional one, is a lessened focus upon the long-term for the sake of greed. It is that to be avaricious means to ridicule creation, not ever for the sake of believing in its longevity. Greed stands to the false creator as a motive to consume what has reached its limit in duration.
A durable nature would reside within the short-term, though the element of care that belongs to the heart takes residence for the long-term. One could not designate subjectivist thought patterns upon what is short or long-term, if in the understanding for what is material or immaterial. Immaterial structure is none at all, for such could not be deconstructed. Instead, immaterial structure is abandoned, to then deserve its rediscovery. Disobedience to the heart is this, that to ignore objective value means in the same sense to abandon what holds meaning. It is in the function against non-function that to the former example of a doctor to medicine, such resources are the function applied to the non-function of life.
An understanding of the heart is through noting the singular element of value, as that is through its permanence unto the protection of it. Though, it does not strengthen without betrayal, being the risk for which contrasts to the gullible nature for disbelieving in upcoming conflict. It is not an understanding of the heart, through knowing it in the metaphorical sense, can compare to the temporary. Nothing upon love, nor the heart, nor the need to care can compare to something as impermanent as a resource.
Since nothing functions of what could not be made use of, makes to love, or the heart, or the need to care not something of trust. That is since it is an option to trust, though a necessity to care. One possesses no choice when it comes to care, for such is the inevitable understanding of betrayal. It is that upon the betrayal, there was the traitor’s choice being an excuse outside of care or the heart. It was not such trust having been abandoned, so much as it was the heart. Though, to the rediscovery of the heart makes for the traitor’s notice upon their inevitable loneliness were such a one to keep to the choice, over the necessity.
All is a necessity in the proof that something meant to be rediscovered, not replicated, as the heart compares to empathy. It is among narcissistic tendencies to believe in replication, since to discover others that are not viewed through the lens of sameness, though with difference, accompanies the alienation. An individual with these narcissistic tendencies will not find another to be of sameness, though the tale to themselves, requiring a mote of understanding, holds difference. It is in such difference that even then there is sameness. Though, a narcissist will not view sameness, though just the difference. A difference that, upon closer examination, reveals all the concepts to the heart, in relation to human fragility.
Not believing in sameness, though finding replication or repetition as the value, breeds the collectives or groups. Such groups possess their mindset of narcissism, outside of the understanding the empathy is ever possible through individualism. It is by the heart being a reference to individualism, that through the necessity to rediscover it, when abandoned or neglected, cannot be replicated without these narcissistic tendencies.
Narcissism is comparable to finding a sameness as a difference, and then the difference as the sameness. In the latter, a difference being viewed as a sameness is in looking upon the surface, then to not see the person or the individual to discover what challenges into a truth. It is deception the one without empathy follows, in the objective sense. It is that to be subjective about difference is to compare the surface with others becomes the eventual understanding, by perhaps the hardest realization, that such is the mere shield against others to the necessity of individualism.
A Command through Addiction
It is while obsession will find itself upon the pursuit of convenience that a leadership will gather such, if in the desire to expand. An expanse that tells of the swath of those resources, though also with the thinning of them. When the resource has its place with the individual, there is the reference of the heart, being stabilized, that is least to the likelihood for wasting such conveniences. While certain leaderships could enact upon avarice to the exploitation of fears, it is for these entities that understand which realm shows their level of strength to a shield. A shield that, for its symbolism, represents the motive of fear that could be exploited if there’s more restraint to its defendant than to the attacker.
Thinned resources amount to the faults of convenience, as well to the value for them. It is leadership that sways its populace through offered resources, though in the deception of political maneuvers, nothing is ever offered without something to the people’s loss. To then make such an offering grander, in terms of its appearance, will allow such a latter loss to be more hidden in its disappearance.
In a populace’s addiction to offered resources through leadership’s approval, same is understood for what the leadership gains to itself. An understanding to pleasure, same for the manner of addiction, blinds both population and leadership for what is being lost. What would leadership lose, if not for support? Its understanding to those who belong opposite from addiction, possessing a mind of their own, would have more of a respect for a need over a convenience.
Respect to the convenience results from a disorder to the heart. An understanding to this amounts to the greed that enables one with such disorder to crave the external, being varied sources of the material gains. If to renounce the heart, would then mean to forfeit the need for internal governance. It is by the convenience in sacrificing one’s own, as a certain leadership would be this capable, reveals that this sacrifice would not be a loss to it. A difference in sacrifice or loss is resource for the former with necessity to the latter. Then, to forfeit internal governance compares this objective loss to the the heart, in the greater respect for convenience. While what is convenient could not be the heart, makes to the notion of internal governance as what is closest. Closest, in comparison to what could not be more accessible.
Within the mindset of greed, there is forfeiture of a need for the liking upon convenience. It is a leadership that forfeits its own populace, for the focus upon others that makes up the understanding upon why leadership, itself, cannot possess compassion unless to appear selfish. Though, in this breed of selfishness, there is truth to leadership by an example as does not pertain to force. Forceful leadership has its inclination towards an offering. All offerings thereby relate themselves to the resource, being of its comparable nature towards limitation.
Perceptions make the addict blinded to what could not be seen, except for others to make this obsessive individual aware. Aware, that is, to these aspects for which the addict is blinded for their respect to the resource. If an addict could be compared to the leader whose mindset is one to sacrifice its own nation, for the sake of a deceptive compassion for external nations, there is then greater alienation, not union.
A leadership is truthful to its heart, being its own nation. Though, deception is made as objective to its nature when there is sacrifice to the led nation for a false compassion to others. As though to abandon the heart, much like a mother neglecting her child, is all comparable to each scenario of surrender and weakness for an external cause outside of what is most comprehensive. Union does not spark from force, to its truth. A truthful union is created through example, in the deception of what is viewed as selfish, though cannot be. That is, selfishness upon recognizing the heart as the value would be comparable to a family holding its resources for its own, to not divide it among others when said family cannot sacrifice them.
Such supposed sacrifice amounts instead to a loss, once more in the recognition for the two term’s difference. A loss is one when what would be perceived as being unable to be offered, cannot be a sacrifice. Instead, such a loss would result in the thinning of resources, repeating what is the fault to their limitation. By the protection of what is utilized, or to guard those who are loved, an understanding to what is a value resonates not with the former without loss of the latter. Though, as truth cannot be buried in its death, makes for a rediscovery to it as a necessity.
An absence to the individualism of a person is not the possibility, though more the likelihood of its negligence. In that sense, a negligence to individualism is same with leadership rejecting its own nation for the false compassion upon others. There is, to this end, a means to believe in a deceptive breed of union, though with its result being a rebellion. The heart could not be stopped of its blood-flow, terming that the afterlife mimics what was always known. That is, what is afterwards is not death, when the meaninglessness to this is not what presents pain in the form of grief. Grief, to its pain, manifests as the remembrance to life, though its physical absence is the haunt.
An understanding for what is above, adjacent from what is below, is to realize among remaining life, memories are kept. A physical realness that to the grieving individual is remembered, though in pain. When in metaphysical remembrance to the love, there is the heart for which is understood as the value. What is above remembers what is below. Though, such life, when remembered for itself, is kept to the value of the heart that makes such always above the meaninglessness of death.
Absence to individualism is, as was stated, to be the negligence of the heart, when a comparison of grief compels a heartlessness to actual remembrance. In grief, one is heartless or selfish to the pain that them, the mourner, feels. A mourner becomes the contented selfless one of individualism when to move apart from grief is ever possible with the positive memories of life, in heart. Though, when leadership could present a false compassion to other nations, apart from its own, this idealism neglects the realistic nature of the heart. To this effect, it is a negligence to the home country, being the heart. It would be deception that paints the image of union, then making itself a mere idealism on part of greed. A convenience, it is, to unify based on a perception of being unequal. As this perception, itself, is limited, then so is the resource. The result to this is the means to utilize, for such compassion had been false and was the mere tactic of political seduction.
Trusting that which represents itself as a collection, pertaining whether to experience or to its monetary wealth, has no difference from the addict to their source for addiction. Upon what tips this balance from dependence to addiction, has all to do with the sheer promotion of materialism as the value over the heart. In any world that shows greater respect for the practical or utilitarian, over the impractical or loved, there is a further steer towards a normative addiction. It reveals to be the mindset for a group of individuals who depend, in excess.
Should it be true that resources would be the cure to an inequality of wealth, even in the rearrangement of their resources, it becomes the individual to disorder that new arrangement. Since it is dependence that complies with the arrangement, much as a business deal is meant to be undergone in replacing competition with collaboration, the threat to this is truth. When truth refers to the individual, no compliance is readied enough with one to confirm itself as among the arrangement. No amount of unequal resources can be arranged to a point of itself being distributed in evenness, without it being realized as the mind becoming wasteful of itself without an ordered heart. No amount to a wealth of resources can be distributed in their evenness, without a regard to the individual. Collectivist or group-like systems cannot, if there is no regard to the individual, redistribute wealth without the threat of truth to that arrangement.
Since in the notion that truth could be rearranged, is not possible in its effect upon the individual. Individualism, by its relation to the heart, cannot be arranged to order as a teaching. Since it is not possible to each a person to care, then it cannot be the same to order a heart for its purpose in being equal. As an individual rebels against the group, then its heart, being a representation of truth, is shown to a collection as a threat against its deceit.
The Socialist Exploration
Individualists are not the army as a collective. To understand the collective as representative of the slave, is not incorrect. Though, a slave cannot be an individual nor an individualist. While the resource pertains to a group, an individual is one with their own mind to form understandings, as the highest of all is in recognition of similar faculties. Such faculties being the vulnerabilities between the self, as an individual, with another to the same kind. It is then the group that acts under control of its master, since in the obsession for resources distribution, the imbalance is to possess an individual mind. An understanding behind having one’s own mind is in reference to truth.
To repeat that deception is the place of sheer resources or among all that is respected to the offer, is appropriate to the description. An individualist cannot show respect for the resource, since it is not the value among those placing worth upon freedom. It is to the resource that could not be free, among its material design. Since it is not the slave’s form being material in design meant to be free, it is then left with the mind as a testament to freedom.
A thought, that while it is encased within the deconstructionist attitude employed among subjectivist mindsets, becomes appropriate when faced to a group. Since a group will resonate as the horde of slaves meant for the master’s work, their purpose will be to distribute resources in the invalid understanding that the material is meant to be free. It is the slave’s delusion, that perhaps even would be their willingness, to believe the body is for freedom’s sake. One does not liberate themselves, in the flesh. Instead, freedom is objective through its status with the mind, in the motive to deconstruct what is the group.
Faced with reality, idealism then makes the individualist. It would be willingness that makes the slave, especially through the addiction that offers them pleasure instead of pain. An army of individualists cannot be grouped, though against tyrannical rulership can be the truth, among unity, to deconstruct its shadow. Those obsessed with depictions of reality, thus make the tyrant whose adoration is the material. An individualist is one when value is placed upon the immaterial heart, though wastes nothing of the mind’s purpose to dissect and analyze. All understandings, that is, reform what was deformed or dissected into smaller parts. A newer collection is then created, though without the waste that would be entertained through a mindset of greed. While greed would ruin a world in its liking to groups in their wholeness, aiming to swallow whole without dissection and analysis, an individualist with a mind of their own would venture into understandings through needed separation.
Introverted, though able to search, makes this individualist as able to renew the cycle of conflict as would the seasons be differed. A comparison to society is life, though a collective force would be desirous to consume what is not understood. It is the groups that are willing to discover pleasure, fueled through lust, while burning what could not be comprehended in its components of ash. If pleasure is then to fire, the all human understandings, centered through the heart, are fed as water being the vulnerabilities meant for solutions. It is understood of the solution that it resonates as a mixture, brought up among equality that contrasts always from the fire meant to burn a substance to its waste.
Extraversion, though a personality type, refers itself in its fundamental sense to all materialism in its external belonging. Among what is external, is not ever to equality through resource. Equality is valid when understood as a mixture, within the water, not belonging upon the external. One raises, in equitable standards, with the resource unto lust. Lust generates the gain, in its material form. The same is comprehended of flesh, during a gluttonous or avaricious period. Among the prime notion for what is external, always pertains to the flesh. A reference to prejudice is in this, when to flesh or of all things external has its place upon preference. A preference is for the external, since its relation to a group makes for each within such to not be told apart. If told apart, individualism is born of it, though becomes a group, once more, when power and control is maintained.
If for external evaluation, there is preference for each thing most or least convenient, in its comparison to levels. Nothing of equality, within the mixture, can be measured for its level. Since an even distribution is such, would then make it the objective notion of equality. Then, not to the lust-fueled understandings of sheer resource can equality be to its defining. As in, to define sheer resource is in the notion of freedom through materialism, in contrast from the same freedom with a thought. When even distribution of resource is viewed through equity, there is less notion to the value for individualism and the heart. Through equitable understandings, there is the place of the mind, that through an unstable and uncontrolled heart, furthers the waste of thought. While it is a thought that could be a resource, its waste is when its focus upon the convenience is even of the human state, once more to disregard individualism. An understanding for individualism is that such could not be controlled, when it is nothing of the external. The external is controlled, among its groupings, since nothing is told apart among such.
Individualist understandings are told apart, though made so alien to the collective that its wish is for the former’s extermination. A belief that for a group’s won design, the individualist either rejoins the collective or is viewed with enough fear to deserve this extermination. Though, this fear comes through upon the view of truth, that those who could not be controlled cannot be swayed from deception. As was mentioned, deception can repeat itself, though truth cannot when its representation is the heart. A heart is divided, as was also mentioned, when itself is unstable enough for the mind to waste its resources.
To the waste of resources, addiction is to the rampant spread of them. A pauper whose willingness is for the resource, becomes the addict in the wish for their endless gain. Though, what is endless of resource, is misinterpreted when such is designated for the heart. Limited as resources are, makes to the heart as a limitless or priceless value. It can be said of something material that its worth is depicted upon its rarity. Then, to believe the compassion of sorts is, too, a rarity, is a misinterpretation of truth. It is that truth, being something meant for rediscovery, cannot be a deadness in pertaining to rarity. If what is rare is such due to extermination, then for what an individualist stands for can only be the truth. It is that the truth is loved, when seen as more than flesh.
A human, more than flesh, when the protector to itself is understanding of it as not meant for fear’s sake. However, it would be a fear for the individual, rather than concern placed upon the self to keep a distance. It is fear that keeps itself related to prejudice, in the distance that would reference convenience. A human, treated as convenience, is always to prejudice as much as to trust or distrust. If the pauper, having nothing material to their possession, reveals a heart of their own, there could be no more waste from their mind. As freedom is not a gift, then neither life can be unless truth is rediscovered same as the heart. To care for the predicament that has caused a person to cling upon waste, all from forfeiting the convenience in the manner of wishing for greater amounts of choice. Were choice to be lessened among its materialist aspects, all to be needed for a pauper would be revealed. It is the act of unearthing truth from beneath the pile of deception.
A pauper to the non-pauper is upon the former as having regressed from freedom of thought to becoming a group or category. It is then that power-induced sorts of their own collective or group become trusted as being individuals with hearts. If a pauper would be one among wasted resources having caused their condition, then the non-pauper has their place among the heart without an aspect of greed. Greed compels one to appear an individual with a heart, though whose deception would offer itself to the pauper as a means for resource to be endless in supply. It is then that addiction takes its hold upon both pauper and among those with greed, when individualists are rejected from both collectives. It is that neither the greed-filled sorts nor the paupers have comprehensive understanding for whom would devour the other, with survival for the victory of one side. Though, were those provided for by the avaricious sorts to gain their own thoughts, it would present the end to their dependence.
As Fairness is Unachievable
Fairness, if among the collective, is more competitive than collaborative. Just the individual can represent what is fair, since it is defined through the making of it. No introduction of fairness is valid when itself can be emplaced for the advantage of a one, in their rise above the rest. It is to mean that unfairness is achievable with the attempted introduction of supposed fairness. An introduction, that to the denial of unfairness, is kept with the belief that all things can be fair in its emplacement. Though, would fairness be introduced as supported by favoritism, as such is its typical nature for that emplacement, there cannot be its validity when unfairness affects the majority.
While the minorities would be believed of those supporting of fairness to have none, there cannot be its introduction without a removal of individualist freedom. It is to mean that conflict is the result of introducing supposed fairness. To believe in being fair, means to support conflict, when a view for equity is more the favoring for competition. It is equality that refers to each of every one, as it cannot be the collective or a group that receives it.
As will be repeatedly mentioned, to this time, equality is valid only through individualism. That is, resolution through the nature of being humanly vulnerable is opposite from the competitive nature between groups. One cannot be fair, within a group, without its division into several individualists. It is in individualism where freedom is incorporated, since collectivist thoughts resonate in being without its own control. Addiction would be the mindset of the one to believe that deception has a heart, though itself is playing the favorites if just to place the best piece upon the chessboard. As in, those who are given this supposed fairness are the same to the providers for addiction, that to play favoritism will deceive those controlled into believing they are such a provider’s personal favorite. Then, to desire being a favorite, comes with competition.
Fairness is, to the individualistic mindset, understood as the creation of it. It is to mean that there is no fairness that could be offered to someone without the desire for control. If to fairness means to offer better advantage, such would mean to just offer advantage and not its betterment. Such would mean that this gained advantage is a one that makes advancement unfair for the rest. This is the same as favoritism, for to introduce fairness is no different than perhaps a father granting his college fund to just one of two children.
Equity stands as the means for fairness, though its nature for favoritism drives upon others to be lacking. Its focus upon specifics resonates to that notion of favoritism, relating something as fairness as non-existent or invalid when it is convenient to uplift those who are trusting in their blindness. It is those who rely upon the activism that aims for fairness as blind to their own individualist self, among what is close to themselves as their heart. Though, the heart, for its truth would not be heeded, while is more convenient to be deceived in blind trust. Since no fairness is achievable among the collective without its reference to inevitable competition, it would have its objective place among individualism.
A result of knowing fairness as non-existent is the realization of its opposite. That is, unfairness is the reality that is eternally existent, upon the notion that creation of an individual’s future is manifested by themselves. To material gain, fairness has no place among its equal distribution. Since this is due to the freedom for materialism holding its risk upon enslavement, then to the mindset for individualism is understood upon freedom. It is that freedom has no place for the human form, though to the mind. Having one’s own mind is outside the space of being enslaved to addiction, since it is such that would capture thoughts to the extent of themselves being nullified and meaningless. A question upon fairness is to inquire for meaninglessness, since a thing that references what has no existence cannot be questioned further towards a supposed lesser nothingness.
If it is nothingness that cannot be any lesser than itself, it is fairness that cannot be questioned when it does not exist. What an individual perceives then to be fairness, is an actual understanding of advantageous material gain. Through this, there has been an attraction towards the material, whether through outright addiction or a mere spurt of lustful wishes. Fairness cannot be a thing as alive, since itself is a nothingness to the understanding that it cannot reference equality. No one, that is, is equal in fairness, though the prospect of being at an advantage is enough to satiate the addiction to the material.
Humans possess material in their flesh, making for all that is gained as a symptom to greed. As one cannot attempt to bring about fairness for a collective or group without selective choosing of whom is seen at a disadvantage, would then make greed as both motive and identifier towards who would be benefited in the gain. It is an endeavor within a narcissistic mindset that in this selective choosing of those disadvantaged can mirror such identities in others of the same kind. That is, those who attempt to bring about more fairness to a group are the avaricious narcissists who identify with those at a loss for their material substance. It is them, as well, of those who are introducing fairness who are benefited from the one represented as their favorite. Favoritism is the inevitable siding with a supposed fairness, due to the mirrored image of those both with greed and a mindset of narcissism that matches with those at a disadvantage. Would such not be the case among those disabled, for having such mindsets, their desire to have greater advantage is their ignorance to believe themselves equal. It is in them that there is greater susceptibility to being exploited for the weakness of having a disadvantage.
This non-existence to supposed fairness is further proven in knowing it cannot be universal, when those who are given their advantage are susceptible to developing an addiction. As with favoritism, those selected are bettered to the false belief that those who had offered the advantage had a heart. Though, the deception becomes a commonality among all those deemed as the deceiver’s favorites, when kindness is granted in the same dosage to all. In the example that a nurse would offer kindness to a one is favoritism, though in the mindset of the one receptive of it. When the same nurse is seen to offer the same kindness to another, there can be perception from the first a certain betrayal.
It is perception that through the understandings to favoritism, reveals itself, even in this sense, as limited. Favoritism clashes with the place of individualism, with the latter being revealed as equality. Though, favoritism mimics equality to the realization, beyond its deception, that those exploited by it were being used. Just as a mote of desperation would compel a person to discover utility in the wrench, greater dosage of the same yearning could propel that same person to use someone else. It is with such a utilitarian mindset, that control is upon the notion of greed. In greed, there is disallowance to the one being used to possess their own mind, since to the avaricious one a wish for gain is their motive. If to the one believing in fairness is playing favorites among others, then to those being used for this tactic would have their greed levelled to a highness.
Two individuals would not consider the others as their favorite, though it is possible for a deceiver to a group can perform the act of being an individual, with a heart, to show kindness for those at a disadvantage. A disadvantage that, to such a deceiver, would be a prime target for utilitarian gain. Advantage is to advantage, as this deceiver has to themselves a benefit for their appearance, while to those receiving an advantage possess now their material gain. For both appearance and material substance, there is deception. It is while the former to the giver of the substance acts as a supplier to an addiction. It does not a requirement to be an addict, before this series of exchanges commences, though the mere notion of being susceptible is sufficient.
It is to fairness that of its non-existence is a deception, being nothing of truth an individual can comprehend is their sameness. It is a need, not a convenience, to discover depth that is beyond the surface. Such would require its own effort to plunge beneath the surface, meaning that to be comforted in no risk to the development for the self is to be deceived. Comfort is a deception, in its causation to stagnancy. Development comes with the understandings to life, to truth, to the emotions that create movement. If motion is the identity of life, then the same is said for the truth being reached for, along with the emotions that are said to move ourselves.
By the notion of favoritism, comes next into the equation the repeated understandings of convenience. It is to those deemed as a favorite as also a convenience, all through what is a greed for those in their advantageous dealings. Those who would deal in the prospect of upholding what cannot be maintained without protection, would then find their wealth in decay. It is a decay that stands for something opposite from value, though in the ream of pure function. A function that, for its comprehension, has nothing to do with value. It is a function that compares more to what is valueless, being of something more convenient. Since it is a doctor who would find value in the human life over the medicine, it becomes the latter revealed to be useless without actual value. None can find differences to the definition of value, when through this contrast between use and useless, there is a oneness to it.
Questioning value has its siding among the decay for it. When one takes into consideration a thing for subjective reasoning upon it, there is its deconstruction. A thing then deconstructed, out of question, becomes a person and enclosed desire to perceive it, though in a limited fashion. It has been said that perception is a human limitation, out of its own definition, while it compares to the notion of questioning wholeness or oneness. An attempt to deconstruct value is through question, since to inquire is to dissect or take apart.
While convenience would have its spot among the realm of deconstruction, then it becomes value that shows itself as of necessity. As necessity and convenience are opposites, noting equity as among these descriptions compares what is favorited of certain minorities as becoming most convenient. It is then what is least convenient, being of individualism that cannot pertain to function, that becomes the negligence. Since it is the heart that, for its truth, is neglected until rediscovered, reveals that to the favoritism and equity for minorities, there is deception. A lie is what is spoken of the one believing themselves capable of care, though in their heartlessness, there is the mere desire for gain.
One cannot claim to care, when to their questioning for the definition of value, there is also to their mindset a siding for function. That is, one could not side with both function or a utilitarian or pragmatic mindset and also a willingness to question the meaning of value, without being deceptive. It is the heart, that through its meaning for truth, cannot compare to function. It is function that compares to what has limited durability. It is in what is limited that pertains always to human perception. It is then that what is perceived from the human to value, becomes proven for what is never truthful. One could not claim that their own definition to value is their truth to it, when that is the same as deconstructing a togetherness among the truth.
It is those deemed as convenient, also a slave, who could not possess individualism without breaking from the collective mindset or their own group. Believing in the specialty to the group, is same to further the place of one’s function. As function, one is the tool. Though, as an individual, one comprehends that outside of being a slave, the greatest weapon is to possess one’s own mind. The mind, being inherently functional, reveals to work for the human form in all pain that the flesh undertakes. It is an alarm that the form sends to the mind, revealing all what is limited to it. The mind, then, is not limited if outside of what the form can speak to it. Communication from form to mind causes human limitation. Humans are then limited in what cannot be forever in their capacity to undergo, being perhaps the pain that keeps us confined or alerts oneself to an apparent wrong.
In the notion that value can be subjectively interpreted, makes to an automatic fashion its own addict’s mindset. That is, an addict can interpret to then question value, since to their heart, care has been displaced or is missing. Their behavior or action is their truth, while whatever words are spoken carry on as emptiness. Those words, that to their emptiness, resonate from the addict’s disordered heart. In the group that the addicted collectivist has their place, to the value of the heart, there is the question of it. Though, to believe the addict could truly side with a deceptive mindset, as though to be born from it, is not correct to the slightest. An aspect of addiction is to deceive the self, since such is the place of favoritism. It is in the mind of one believing themselves to be another’s favorite, that there is a deception. If one belongs as a minority to a group, then to believe one is being cared for by those who side with function, there is nothing more than this deception.
While deception is favored to the collectivist mindset, it would be truth that is not favored, though valued, in the individualist’s own. Addicts value others to the same collectivist mentality. Each thing that matches itself to a state, is among function, since that is due to the orientation for a machine forced by its master to be obedient on the speed towards progress. Though, would each part to that same machine come apart, there would be the individualism that possess its own mind. It is repeated here that the slave’s greatest weapon is their mind, making for itself as a value to be freed, not the form.
To an issue that requires its resolution, nothing else can prolong the dilemma more than the continual dependence on function. A dilemma being of deception, and then possessing more repetition for its longevity than what would bring about resolution as individualism depending upon itself. It is in this regard, that equity stands for deception, when to its involvement with function would have no place for freedom nor mutual understanding to all things vulnerable and limited to a human. A human is limited not in their mind, though in their form. It is then that the slave fathoms that limitation, though would be wrong to wish for their form to be freed. It is the form that could not be freed, without first displacing the hindrances to the mind. Such would result in another master to the form, of one that had been there, though was ignored.
Truth or value is ignored or neglected, making its rediscovery a necessity. It is then that neither truth nor value can be questioned, when such would result both to be convenience in the eyes of the inquirer. A respect to the individualistic mindset holds all comparison to what is value, being the heart. It is the mind that to the slave would need freedom, though with understanding that the form becomes a resources, on its own, if under an alien master. Furthermore, such a slave’s own form would be a wasted resource, if negligence to value, being of the heart, is continued.
No comparison to the heart or no contrast from the mind is to the notion for what relates or what does not relate. As in, nothing is at all credible to reveal itself as according to the heart, when occupying itself in the external. As well, all things comparable to the mind are held as a deceit for difference, though cannot be told apart when collected. Deceit plays with the mind of a child, since value to each of them is rendered, in falsehood, through function. In curiosity being the common trait between children means for the heart, in its depiction of value, to be their dependence in the form of parenthood. Though, institutions would attempt to care, through deception, if to gather children into collectives or groupings. It is then that their attempts for care to such gatherings of undeveloped sorts could not fathom value, when such belongs to parenthood.
A child possesses no understanding of individualism, rendering them the same as perhaps the mindset of a narcissist who, through awareness, would look upon the surface to see mere function. It is in this comparison that realization to a child aligning with that of good or evil has a place within upbringing. An upbringing that, for the contrast between function and value, would render a child either still wishing to learn from the surface or to discover something of equality to the value that is beyond the external factors. It can be said of function that to be curious over the simple pragmatic elements to a tool, is to be deceived apart from viewing what has value. Then, to all manner of convenience, there cannot be its truth when curiosity would not display eagerness to rediscover it in its negligence.
Then, to admit that nothing gained for the self, in the way of convenience, can be termed as truth, there is to the negligence for value that such would benefit the mind for its freedom.
Activist Hypocrisy – Pt. 1
An activist is one who targets presence, since that is the same with a focus upon the material or physical. With that, there is focus upon utilitarian properties that convey meaning through what would perish, faster than what would last of the immaterial. It is an activist who would target presence, since to provide by way of the immaterial becomes the impossible task. It is this case, when much to those in dire need of their support from such activists, taking to the physical as a substance for basic necessity is with ease. There is nothing in existence as a basic necessity. There is only necessity or convenience, as what relates to being basic is always material, by nature.
As it expires in duration, then to all activists with their focus on the material, there is treated even of those in support by them as the same. That is, those who are supported could not be among the immaterial, since such cannot be offered in the physical and perceivable sense. What is left is the same focus on the material, though to the understanding of those being supported if it should function for them. If what is offered, in the material or physical sense is dysfunctional, then it might even render who is supported as further in decline.
While what is material, to its nature, can expire in duration, such is the confirmation that it is a trial to the inevitable error upon those being supported by the activist. An activist support, through materialism, though is a tool or resource to those requiring of aid. It becomes those being supported as identical to experiments, since a test for material essence has nothing else to its purpose save for utility upon it. That is, such sorts being supported by activists become fuel for data gathering. It is that to gather data, even among those offered with material support, are not aided for the sake of themselves, though return to science and progress what is bettered to the aspect of addiction. It is that addiction compares all of itself to the material, that to it being offered in greater focus upon what is practical, holds less attention to what is inevitable to last.
It is among the human feats of endurance, that to the common activist, there is hypocrisy in wishing to aid, in the genuine sense. An activist’s focus on the material is the hypocritical notion that to speak of aid is not to the same understanding for its natural application. It is that to apply aid, in its natural application, would be to adhere to the immaterial. Such confirms that to each physical application for aid has no relation to individualism, when this term compares always to the immaterial heart. A heart, being immaterial, is contrasted from the material in that it could not be an addiction, on its own. That is, nothing immaterial or non-physical could be emplaced with addiction, since to be addicted to the heart or individual would mean to reject the force of love to the enslavement of the collective.
The activist carries the resource. It is by this aspect that any and all resources can be considered for the addict’s path. Without will, an addict cannot escape the resource believed, in vain, by them to never expire neither duration nor supply. Without the individualism that pertains to will, an addict remains a slave. To the resource, a person is kept in the mindset for survival. It is all resources that are material that each thing of this remains a convenience to the addict or individual now associated with a collective. Then, by what defines itself as a problem is by the mentality of victimization, that no improvements are possible without strict adherence to individualism. In this adherence, individualism becomes understood as superior to collectivism.
In the notion that through activism, a greater swath of people can be aided, is no different than telling a lie than it can move faster than the truth. Truth is slow, in contrast from deception. Through another comparison, truth is as water, while deceit is as fire. If individualism is the water, then to see collectivism as fire would be correct when the collective cannot be associated with individuality without negating itself. Fire blends, combines with itself, since that is the objective understanding of a group. No one is told apart, that is, though this becomes the illusion of unity.
A collective is not a unification, because fire is never unity. If an activist reasons by way of the resource, then it considers whatever is inconvenient as the fire meant to be extinguished. However, that is the same as an addict beginning to possess a mind of their own. It is the same as an addict, once part of a collective, becoming an individual. Would an activist fall upon the resource as their way to promote aid, then it becomes a useless endeavor when nothing can teach the troubled individual to have will. It is then to know that should any person, dependent on resources, possess will, then both activist and activism becomes useless. The activist is then prove here to be one who considers even those with faults to be victims of heir own scenarios, thus maintaining them through a collective approach and mindset.
When truth is water, it is the same as being able to fathom one is never a victim to external circumstances and that the only outcome can be internal improvement. Water is comparable to individualism, since its only way to destroy a thing is when it is realized as possessing weight. Whereas, fire is weightless, thus it compares to a collective or group when such is realized as possessing no significance. The individual breaks themselves down, since in being water, there has been a burden to wield. When the weight becomes great enough, it must be dropped. Else, that individual risks themselves developing a collective mindset where fire uses them as a weapon, through the feeling of anger. As a collective, as a victim, that anger is upon the self not being improved, through inward understanding of this person’s own insignificance. Just as the activist’s own resources become useless upon a supposed victim realizing the freedom through human will, the person associated with a collective has always understood how useless they have been. It is since in being without will, both the supposed victim associated with a collective or group and activist are resources that are useless, without total dependence or with the discovery of the value behind individualism.
Being apparent as it is, those who devour or take to the resource also become a resource to be devoured. Without the self to admit to such guilt, then themselves, as a resource to the activist, becomes useless. It is human will that relies on guilt or the comprehension of personal responsibility. As responsibility can be only of the personal kind through truth, is a deception of its own when taken to the collective approach. While activism can believe that a group, over an individual, can achieve more quantitative results, nothing more represents quality or the truth as individualism. It is through the desire for quantity of results that the seed for deception is planted. What rises, if not immediately, though eventually, is a population of those without will. In being seen as a resource, there is the notion of quantitative or collective efforts being inhuman.
Would the fire of a collective or group be extinguished, then it is either to say that an individual has emerged or that those who provide the resources have deemed the person, who became a resource, as useless. Through a victimhood complex, a human being is fire. It is through their anger to never believe themselves a member of the guilty party. Through anger, a false belief in strength is apparent, though simply adds more evidence to ongoing self-deception. None through anger are strong, as this emotion cannot be controlled, just as fire is unable to be. Only when imprisoned, can a fire be maintained. When imprisoned, the guilt has been proven through evidence that no deception should be able to taint.
The uselessness of a resource is the same as a thing reduced to ash by fire. No activist can aid when their response is directed to the collective, when that is the same as pouring fuel upon such a fire. As long as the activist responds to fire or acts as a provider of resources to a person who is not deemed personally responsible, it remains a deception. As deception responds to the fire, not seeking to put it out, though stoke the flames for their continued spread, the notion of truth remains absent. No resource is applicable to the revival of human will, being the greatest importance for recovery’s sake. Would the addict, dependent on resource, take to the resource that an activist provides, there is no more done than feeding the addiction the same as to fuel an inferno.
Activist Hypocrisy – Pt. 2
In connection with the activist, being of all manner of aiding professions, such as therapist or doctor, nothing more represents the hypocrite than the notion of confidentiality. If to trust said aiding profession with personal secrets for not returned of information from such vocations, then there cannot be reason for a person, being aided, to hold their trust. Such trust is one-sided, referring to the sheer untrustworthiness of the profession. If to trust either therapist or government entity in the dealing of one’s own personal history and secrets, the threat belongs on the confidentiality. It is to mean that it will be unpredictable on what will become of such information, whereas it is predictable of those who have no oath of confidentiality. It then becomes a question of who to trust, either of those so unpredictable or predictable.
It is that hypocrisy lays in where a person cannot return trust, since all manner of information, given with that trust, becomes offered to supposed safekeeping. To not return trust makes a person a hypocrite, because it is typical of such a sort to be trusted. To the vulnerability of an example with a woman who gives her information to any form of manipulator, will do such merely out of desperation to aid with a mental, emotional suffering. As desperation is a weapon, it makes that woman or the person seeking out a therapist a mere resource to be used.
Confidentiality, whether through the blind trust of a manipulative lover or therapist, would become broken when it is proven of what is done with such given information. It is so, since that confidentiality even extends to the manipulator’s victim or the therapist’s patient. Even upon the right to access medical files or records, what has been recorded is no different than seeing a blank page. Nothing applies to utility from mere records or documentation, since such documentation would have to be altered, and thus proven by manipulator’s victim or therapist’s patient to be a lie. If the sole documentation cannot be corrected, then utility has not corrupted what should remain as the truth. However, if it has been utilized outside of simple documentation, then it remains unknown to the notion of utility. Such would need to be the case, or otherwise disprove the objective relation of a therapist’s patient to a tool. Resources become useless, when not used.
Materialism, in relation to utilitarian mindsets, runs opposite from the immaterialism that would or should not expire in its duration, though not supply. Immaterialism is the value in which compares directly to quality. Qualitative value is immaterial, in showing no relation to limit. It could then not be a supply, when nothing wholly qualitative is physical in design. Abandoning this or to forsake individualism is the same as taking away the foundation to a structure. If it is the resource that, through its quantitative state, is revealed as limited, then it becomes strengthened to its durability when its foundation is beneath itself. Without quality, quantity is useless, just as to detonate the foundations to a building results in its collapse. A sheer focus on quantity is the mere tools and other implements to construct the structure, though to lack quality is also to lack foundation.
For repetition’s sake, all things among a collective represents the endlessness of chaos. A cycle of chaos to order, or of fire being out with water, determines the superiority of quality over quantity. It is the same superiority of the value behind individualism over collectivism. Although, while the activist and their related cohorts believe in betterment through the mass production of quantitative aid, there becomes merely its collapse. It is in the idea of deconstruction that a fire, within perhaps a building, weakens structure for the construct’s collapse. When destruction is the result, what remains is the foundations that, similar to roots, can be built upon the same as a weed requires a complete uplift that it might never regrow.
To see fault in the foundations would be in the inevitability of changing, not improving, the structure that those supposed flawed foundations were supporting. Thus, improvement cannot be to the foundations, because in the same way as the earth beneath a person’s feet could not be altered, it can only be present or absent. An understanding of the phantom or apparition is that it floats, making a metaphorical understanding of a foundation as similar to a beginning, such as birth. A phantom would have no need to walk upon a foundation, since it represents the ending of a life that did.
Each thing that falls, is destroyed, would become a phantom. A literal ending is not the absolute, since so long as whether a foundation, quality, water, or individualism is the beginning to progress, there is always another thing to be made. Life goes on, as such is said. Though, would a person find perhaps a nation’s foundations as flawed, then to the logic stated, it cannot be improved, though merely have disappearance. Upon that disappearance, due to such an opposition for a nation’s founding or foundations, all things that are objective progress become deconstructed or destroyed. One is not able to believe in progress, without a realization for what had actually began it. Rediscovering a thing already founded is the same as blinding individualism, now turned collectivism, to not think for itself within the realm of human will.
If the activist means to represent the quantitative collective, then both the activist and the collective merely use the other. Both are resources, benefitting the other, making the exchange as no different than the workings of business. So be it that it is business, though the resource becomes useless if there is no will from the one aided. However, upon the activist realizing that the aided person, before them, possesses no will, then as a tool being used, it becomes understood that nothing of it works. If activism is supported on the notion of intention, then even if good, an intent’s comparison is to the separation of what possesses utility from what does not.
In the factoring of trust to the understanding of utility, the concept of the action is solely based on it. To see what one can do for the one requiring aid is one-sided upon the recognition of who is being utilized. It is the activist who is the resource to the one being aided, though without human will on the side of the one requiring aid, all of activism is useless. It is then not something to be taught, being human will, since it requires an inward understanding of individualism for its possession. Individualism cannot be taught. Instead, it is made as an example to all persons, that it might hopefully be replicated.
Though, for the sake of replication, there is no repetition. An understanding to individualism is that it represents nothing of quantity. As it is the foundation to all things and the representation of truth or order, it remains a oneness. A oneness, being something that is both beginning and end, though never an absolute upon the latter. That oneness, being only ever an absolute upon creation, makes to individualism as something that begins a new chapter to individuality. It is not progress that can be achieved, without individualism. Collectivism is inferior to an individual, the same as fire is inferior to water or that a structure is rubble without its foundation. If an activist means to repeat their aid, for the sake of the collective’s benefit, then it will inevitably become a realm that learns instead of offering knowledge. Such is based upon the now repeatedly said, one-sided trust.
Trust ignores human will, since it must be something that breaks, being sometimes of a person’s own life structure, revealing emotional imperfection. Since human will is to individualism, then trust becomes blind only when the self is no longer received with it. Such is the understanding of social well-being. Communication, through human vulnerability, is the water or the tears that comes through the act of trusting another with personal information, as solutions are soon formed. That is, if individualism, being human will, has no place for the person, then they remain a tool meant to be manipulated by incorrect people, places, or things to trust.
If decisions are forced, then human will or individualism is not adhered to whether by activist or the one being aided. Individualism follows the road of example, thus only replicating itself without repetition. Such a form of replication would be to truth, as this oneness cannot ever repeat itself by way of quantitative involvement. Quantity would then adhere to force, as quality corresponds to example. An example to truth remains, of itself, undivided. A person can only, at a time, cling to either truth or lie, as it cannot be both simultaneously. A simultaneous involvement of truth with lie, the same as to believe a thing so hideous can still be beautiful, is the flame that conceals the water or the truth. As oil floats upon water, there is access for it to burn with this buoyancy. Then, as deception conceals truth, such is of fire concealing water. Calling something so hideous or so deceitful as beautiful is the same as being deceived when what is concealing the beauty is the hideousness, and thus, the beauty or the individualism is never actually noticed.
Activist Hypocrisy – Pt. 3
In knowing that the addiction results from absent individualism either in the form of the heart or in the notion of truth, those tactics meant for the sake of simple utility fall upon the place of deception. No deception exists in individualism, on its own, though the person is starved without quantity. If to quantity a person sustains themselves, it is still not on the quantitative sustenance that communicates to the individual for memory. Recalling the gift to that sustenance, one comprehends that quantity is not built upon nothing. It is to mean that through the manner of direction, by which has no meaning within sheer space or the outer space of the universe, foundations or individualism is necessary to comprehend where such sustenance had its origin.
Since sustenance has origin, then the organism’s survival is dependent not upon the intake of it, though also on the risk of being consumed, themselves. That is, an organism survives not only with the necessity to consume, though also preventing the risk of being consumed. In the memory of where sustenance originates will then be the prevention of such consumption against the self, since truth or deception is decided upon the awareness for that origin. Creation compares to the origin of all manner of organisms, though without awareness to where one’s own sustenance stems from, then such comprehension is risked to be lacking with the self.
Addiction results from absent individualism when such is not remembered, by way of sustenance and the intake of it, in the concurrent and vain belief that it does or should come from anywhere or nowhere. If sustenance could come from anywhere or nowhere, such as to mean a government is meant to support its people, then such is the tactic of deception that would refer to ignorance. It is an ignorant notion of sustenance that to not show care nor awareness for where supply has its origin, results in greed. Greed or corruption is the result of not possessing standards, in as far as to never reveal awareness for the intentions of those in their dealings. Limiting who is being dealt with, for the manner of business, reduces the risk of corruption in the onset of avarice. If not limited, then to those who are being dealt with, in terms of business, will be the deceivers of such supply being generated from anywhere or nowhere.
With knowledge, a person, such as an activist, has been trusted enough to be allotted it. Would trust be two-sided or two-directional, then the sharing of knowledge becomes mutual. Although, the activist, when relying on a one-sided trust scenario, there remains themselves as the resource to the client who is the uncertain consumer. Uncertain, as it is, since among all resources, it remains without clarity upon its durability through longevity. If the activist, as a resource, is useless, it was deemed as such only because of lacking will on part of the client. When survival is considered among the scenario to the exchange, there presents the risk of being consumed without either activist or client’s longevity. To this, there cannot be consumption to the point of exhaustion, when both sides are being prolonged for sustenance. An activist gains information through one-sided trust, while a client, should human will be present, is benefited through their own form of consumption being the resources that the activist offers. It is that should human will not be present on part of the one provided, being the client, then the provider is useless.
There is a degree of force, in being the place of deception, that upon its side, there can be a subtlety continually confused for the gentleness that is in example. The authoritarian, at heart, would know that brute force is not the only method for their enactments. Through subtlety and cunning, something that deemed itself as valued, with its showings through example, can deconstruct. If to believe that the authoritarian uses brute force as the only show of their power, then the believer to this follows all authoritarians. That is since chaos can be shaped into any form, though while chaos can be anything holds the evidence that it is sheer deception. The authoritarian is deceitful, though when the world is aligned with a lie, what results is the expectation. That is since deception always attracts upon what is expected to be of one’s favoring, until there is no other display of opposition against what is now unexpected or surprising to show brute force. It is to mean that brute force comes afterwards, would an entire nation be deceived or coerced by its leadership.
By this notion of force through deception, a human’s will or their individualism remains the rebel as a constant display of example. It is example that opposes force, the same as to tell is a deception over showing or proving a commitment. Words are alone, until actions reveal them. If an activist holds their tactics in deception, it was because of the reliance on collective achievement. As collectivism opposes individualism, makes such no different than a deceiver resenting the truth. While a resource, being either activist or client, can be used, the deception plays its role into which can be proven more individualistic over the other. A reliance on collective achievement is the same as believing more in deception over the truth. Using others, in place of comprehending them as individuals with human will, is to never display the heart for care to their dilemmas. Without the heart to care, what remains is the mind that hungers for resource.
The risk of being consumed revolves around the client, since being a part of a collective marks them as a potential for lacking human will. Even if the activist is deemed useless due to the client possessing no human will, an understanding of desperation will reveal that the latter becomes a usable device. As desperation, on its own, is an instrument for utility’s sake, a single realization, on the client’s part, will offer them individualist understanding for where their weakness is being noticed. As the difference between vulnerability and weakness is in the notion of exploitation, it is the activist whose focus on the collective will drive them to discover a weak point. Unveiling information will be the place of force, even if such is not seen, in the literal sense, to be tortured for. The aspect of force is able to be applied upon the notion of discovering weakness, that through a factor of temptation makes information able to be taken.
Force is not always brutal, by nature. Subtlety is a form of force, that through its deceitful methods, takes information without proper consent. Such is the same as the lack of consent in the effort to prove the charge of rape or theft. Without consent unto the property of the individual, becomes all the same in the desire to take without approval. This encompasses all matter of achieving the gain of information, even if not taken with the use of physical strength. It is information that can leak, much to the ignorance of the person who is oblivious to it. It is the same as to not be aware that one has a wound that is bleeding.
If through force, then anything as genuine as the friendship, born out of the risk of two-sided trust, will not be aligned with truth. With force, deception is the result. Deception is the result, as well as the tool needed for the gain of information. If an activist relies on collective mindsets to gain their progress, then it is mere information extraction. A collective mentality believes in progress, unable to be achieved by the individual. Although, the progress achieved, in this regard, is executed only through the knowledge that the self, while alone, is unable to tackle the world’s perils. When it comes to person’s personal struggles, there is nothing than can educate them on the notion of care. Would progress be made, with the collective in mind, there is less focus on individual struggles and more of an intent to face societal ones.
If to the activist, whose methods are for the collectivist environment, then nothing internal, of the individual, would be solved when much of the resources goes to waste in the feeding of addiction. That is because resources are wasted in the lack of human will, or in the yearning for whatever substance or mindset keeps them addicted. Addiction becomes fed when these resources are wasted to support what is concealing individualism. In a sense, collectivism supports addiction, in which both are quantity. Though, the quantity will waste itself, when it is always unpredictable to whom will use those resources with enough individual, not collective, responsibility. Wasted resources are wasted trust. If an activist places trust on their client to make proper use of the tools most convenient to possess, they become realizes as inherently useless when the first understanding was that they never learned from former experiences. If is it sheer resources being offered from client to whomever, then it is nothing on individualism that would create a genuine connection.
As Liberals find Fault in Greed
The Liberal motive is for freedom’s sake, though with attraction to a collective in this regard, nothing else would represent the task for being responsible other than to the individual. Through example, responsibility is learned through its observation from others who can be trusted to unveil their truth. It is in the notion that to conceal truth means to conceal history. It is deception, of the individual, when such cannot reveal what would be their freedom, would they be able to admit what is holding them apart from their release.
It cannot be freedom through the sense that it is collective-based. That is since freedom cannot belong with a quantity of people, when it is the quantitative state that aligns with addiction or of its numerical place. While addiction is numerical, it is that what belongs of deception, being of something most quantitative in design, that allows an army to become attracted. As it is, deception will be certain to affect the minds of larger numbers of individuals, though while an emotion is broad through its singular spread, there is no differentiation for the sake of individualism. Individual traits would require the knowledge of individualized histories, no longer concealed for the sake of deception or simple silence to it.
As not telling truth is no different than speaking a plain lie, makes what is addictive be to the factor of deception that aligns well with a different factor, being death. Death, being quantitative, would make truth a relevance to life, thus aspiring only ever an individual to unveil what would further themselves in greater unison to others. With freedom, there is connection, not the notion of comprehending the self. With actual freedom, there is connection of the self to another, not with the fear of concealing the burdens and woes of personal history. Though, as the factor of trust has its place in this, the motive to be responsible has its spot, as well.
A mistake, in consideration for what is individualized, cannot be the same for a collective. While a thing as avarice or greed can be, to an individual, more understood, it is less so the case from the prejudiced mindset. Believing another is afflicted with a mindset for avarice, in knowledge of that individual, should provoke compassion. It is in the mindset of prejudice that to refuse to see such knowledge of that person that they could be associated with the rest. It is then to state that a belief in collective responsibility is through the mindset for prejudice, while such remains among stark ignorance.
Not knowing the individual in the refusal to do so, is then to be left with believing there is much to comprehend of a group. Though, as nothing can be differentiated among a group, between individualized subjects among the collective, nothing is understood save for what is being provoked to them. Same as an army under the command of a general would be provoked, though it is the latter that commands the former in the reaction of being threatened. Such a general, same as a mother to her child, reacts to a threat upon them with an act of violence in the case of self-defense. There are the weapons utilized. All collectives act as weapons, thereby making it impossible to have knowledge of such without provocation.
All broadness to an emotion, when it is a singular, reveals its comparison to the greed that pertains to addiction. With a quantitative state, addiction being aligned with deception, since both give their place among reliance due to attraction, never would be among individualism when such shows more place within quality. As quality will not be among the life of the one with an invasive attraction to an addiction, same is said for the collective that inspires its form of responsibility based on prejudice. As prejudice will not adhere to individualism, makes of collectivism the realm that follows its own quantitative state in its display of numbers. With the show of numbers comes the mindset for an attractive addiction, or to the deception that would affect the armies of their numbers.
With greed, there is a focus upon what is individualized. Although, without knowledge for an individual whose success if a mark of their supposed greed, what is left is the ignorance for the place of example that is in individualism. It is example, that in its leadership standpoint, shows to ignorance a display for how success can be accomplished. Though, while collective responsibility would have even the successful individual be accused for being corrupt in their path to success, it is on the side of belonging to a group that keeps its own ignorance. Ignorance would divide, though knowledge would unify. It is those less knowledgeable to the individual who are more in the likelihood of associating example with the factor of force. As in, to associate a person whose success might have been out of legitimate methods with those who did such through sheer deception and dishonesty.
Upon those most ignorant to the individual, therein lies what is deception, itself. That is, to tell others that those most successful have become accomplished out of their supposed methods through deception is to deceive others. That is due to the first response being of accusation that brings about such deception, due out of never inquiring the successful person on their methods. Through such research, one has the self fall into the path of example. It is that it can be understood that deception is a form of force, outside of the example that truth and knowledge brings.
Greed is then upon the factor of wishing for as many as possible of ears to listen to such deceit, without in the case of individualism ever being known. To the average politician who speaks to audiences or collective, their rhetoric is made objective as deceitful when their goal is to reach as many listeners as can be possible. While no story is understood of an individual makes only the politician, among their collective of listeners, capable of individualism. Through this, the power is directed towards said politician in their success for being deceptive as an individual always communicating to a collective.
While it might be stated that someone as a politician, in their gain of power, can be comparable to anyone else who speaks to audiences, it is perhaps better to be in the knowledge of popularity as better to be aligned with deceptive tactics than sheer power. As power would have nothing on its own, means for someone who is popular to achieve greater influence over their audience. Comprehensive of the neutral meaning to deception, refers to all whose aspiration is their gain of popularity makes to what is most quantitative of themselves as collective-based. In the notion that popularity is better to understand deception, then allows further context as to the meaning for individualism. As could be mentioned of the force of love, it is useless. As in, it is without use. Then, to the individual, there is the same. The individual, in this case, is not worthless, though useless along with the previous mention of love.
To believe utility has the same meaning as worth is same to state that individualism is as utilitarian as collectivism. Collectivism is usable, in the matter for being advantageous in an individual’s gain. An individual would take advantage of a quantity. Since this is known as the case, especially during instances of needing a many of a thing to suit a goal, as one of it would not be enough, defines what is quantitative as usable. Whereas, among individualism, with the notion of greed to match the current analogy, it cannot take the place of utility. With greed to the information that was given with trust in mind, utility marks this in whatever purpose such information was used for. Would such be the case, then the given trust has become a betrayal. As all humans, through their connections outside of business orientation, trust another with information that would otherwise not be allotted to anyone else, to then discover that such as been mishandled would be betrayal.
Betrayal states that the trust that was allotted was not the worth of itself. Trust is worth, though upon a collective, there is only what is useful. From audience to individual, there is trust. Though, it is trust that the individual will perform the action being needed. Although, would all leadership come to comprehend that it is a people who perform the majority of actions to better a nation, there would be the objective realization that a collective, as a people, are used. Humans use themselves, of their capabilities, not meant to be in reliance for a politician or other governing leader to correct matters.
From audience to leader, there is a belief that human will is among such. That, through their actions, there must be great responsibility with such power of theirs. Within greed, again to reference popularity, negligence is more the outcome of those who are meant to show less of their responsibility and more of their submission to those of a nation that compares more to individualism.
As Conservatives find Fault in Pride
Pride should not be to appearances, though deception will be. As was stated upon many other times, deception is the place of quantity. To influence the quantity is to be deceitful, allowing those who are affected by words, never actions, to remain ignorant of the truth behind individualism. Should one look upon what is grand in appearance, to then accuse it of its splendor as an act of deception, is only for the self to be deceived. As in, to perhaps accuse a wealthy individual that their height of achievement was only possible because of deception, is first to confuse the notion of being popular with what it means to have control, and second to believe that appearances tell the truth. To control the self, of one’s own finances that pertain to an ordinary addiction, is the contrast from the opposite route, that to control others, is deception. If a wealthy individual is opposite from quantity, being of the addictions that most certainly ascribe themselves, on many occasions, to the poor, then their control is not to others, though to the self. It is not to mean that their wealth brings them fulfillment, though in the process of becoming successful, such earnings could not have been gained without such self-control.
With pride, there are the appearances a person might take to, being outside of all accomplishments that occur through action. Actions are the betterment from individualism, due to truth being adhered to for the sake of self-improvement. Upon an issue, were pride to be the method to accept what is wrong of the self, then appearances unto deception is their way. Without action, there is appearances. With such appearances being a focus, pride becomes arrogance. With appearances and without action, betterment to the self can only come through self-deception. That is, to alter the appearance to suit what one can comprehend, though requires no action to make such occur. An altered mindset is a deception, when no action was taken for its change.
Would all action be on the side of individualism, then all inaction, negligence, or deception is upon the side of collectivism. Then, to believe in collectivism as such, is then to comprehend that pride, only of an altered mindset, never action, is the connection between an influenced group and a withdraw from individualism. That is, there cannot be truth, though there is deception, when both quantity and deceit draws less from the self. Instead, it draws from the influenced group, as such is the rule for assimilation or a forced sense of adaption.
Individualism cannot adapt, though must acclimate itself into a societal group. However, there is a risk to be tempted by deceit, when no longer being of knowing to the self. It is a necessary evil, that is of collectivism, that from individual to societal group, there can be determinations upon what is convenient or needed for the self and what is not. Without external human contact, to form a group of more than two, an individual or the pair cannot be risked of temptation. As an example, would a romantic pair be ever alone, together without other contact except for each other, the temptation to commit an act of infidelity is not possible. Though, would external contact ever be the case for such a romantic pair, then the trust to the other becomes risked, as beyond truth, or the self, there is deceit.
For the sake of pride, an action that would remedy an individualistic fault can be done through the loyalty upon either oneself or another whom one’s trust is greatest. As what defines an individual’s closest friend or the one whom their heart, their human will, has been given strongest, is through the trust of information or secrets, such loyalty will inevitably be displayed through action. A promise is words, alone, until actions prove it. To the self, a lone individual gains their wisdom. Such wisdom is for where a person’s trust was placed, though not wisely. Wisdom is gained then through unwise actions, making what wisdom is to be the opposite of what it is not. Would pride be the occasion for what is deemed a noble actions through one’s loyalty, it should be the only secret not told aloud. Since if a secret as to be prideful for the noble action were to be spilled, what accompanies the places a person has put their trust is now doubt. It is doubt for what information was ever given, from the prideful person, that is now thought upon to be truthful or not. The uncertainty to this is brought upon the trusted person who now questions the other’s loyalty to the relationship.
Should pride be expressed for a noble action, then loyalty is questioned for what the actions had represented, in truth. This is to mean that pride, upon noble feats, should be suppressed. Another notion to comprehend is that pride can only ever be expressed for the sake of appearances, and that to speak of it without action is all for the sake of deception.
That is, to bring upon the influenced quantity that is noted to be the minority group is always recreated through deception. As was said and now to be repeated, quality cannot be mass-produced in the act of repetition. This would be same to believe that to prove one’s loyalty to a relationship, one must repeat the deed that showed this. As many are perhaps forced to repeat themselves through words, alone, is never the same for actions unless another either did not pay attention or was never a witness.
Actions, along with the notion for what is long-term or short-term, compare themselves to the latter when what is an addiction is mere pleasure for the former or the short-term. As short-term pleasure is no more a truth than what is avoided of the self, a contrast from this to a long-term, memorable action is greater for the sake of of loyalty to what reminds the self of their individualism. To the reason a person finds it near-impossible to move on from what held great meaning for them, is through what is actualized as an impossibility to forget the accomplishments. The pain a person suffers in their wish to move on is the cost of the realization that such commitment had not had its supposed worth.
Pride can, or should, be kept within the self, not ever expressed when such could resonate to another’s ears as being of an ulterior motive. Rather than to admit what is not at first obvious, being of the ulterior to the intent behind the noble action, all manner of pride should be repressed for the sake of actual acceptance to the self. That is, to accept the self through the suppression of pride is in the understanding that such noble deeds were not ever in the desire to improve the self, though to another’s betterment. Would pride be of the intent to improve the self, then such, on its own, is the mere expression. Although, on its own, it is conjoined with the factor of appearances. Appearances make the deception, being that to better the self through the simple expression of pride is not ever in self-acceptance, though in this deceit upon the self. Such is the case, since a deceit will translate from the expression of pride when there had been no act for it. Through the absence of action, it becomes here understood that all an expression of pride resonates as is not path of selflessness, though for the self in the form of selfishness.
Being for the self, in this connection of pride to being of inaction, makes to pride or being boastful within one’s own nature as inherent in being for appearances. As to the act, then there is proof for what a person is. As to pride, expressed through self-praise or boastfulness, there is, in the words used, an intent to remind. As in, to remind another person of what might have been forgotten. Would the prideful person comprehend that an action speaks louder than mere words, being proof of a greater sign to commitment, there can be no desire to remind. In the repression of such pride, there is lesser risk to being seen as someone of desiring to make an appearance. Along with that, there is lesser risk to be viewed as someone who is straying from their commitment. As it is, expressing pride that is voided of action is no different than an example of an abusive lover to someone else, as the former expresses continual apologies for their behavior and mistreatment to the other, without action as a display for commitment’s sake.
Sincerity within Family
None should be able to, with the notion of the possibility for sincerity with only another individual, be able to state that such is also a reality among a collective. A family cannot be a collective, though are a group. Comprehensive of that, it cannot be an army. A family, not an army, though related to individualism unless there is one among it received with negligence. Would a family member be neglected, then the entirety is no longer of individualism, though of collectivism. Unity is the mark of individualism through its qualitative state. Then, it is collectivism being here reminded of that it pertains to quantity. For the purpose of speaking of a neglected member to a family as causing the entirety to be a collective, is knowing that the essence of quantity is to division.
Quantity is to division, when for the matter of resources, all is understood of negligence that its reception is in relation to a tool. While the tool can be neglected, it is still used. A human tool is one without will of their own and without individualism. Negligence is always to the human tool when such a one is not received with the care, in reference to being breakable as an instrument would. All tools break, though are then replaced with a betterment. It is the task of those in their possession of human tools to consider the notion of improvement as mere replacement for whatever breaks to then be discarded. Such is the same as a soldier is discarded, though wept for only by their family.
From individual to individual, there is the definition of individualism, along with the singular. A duo to make a singular is also individualism, since such is the representation of knowledge with the offering of trust. Although, whenever such information is more spread among a greater force, then such becomes a collective of differing opinions from those who are their own individualist. Individualism is always to be defined as human will, of not being the simple listener to another words out of blind trust and being without adherence the devotional actions. Individualism is offered from human connection, born from trust, though becomes collectivism whenever such passed information is no longer discussion. Without discussion or simple interaction on the basis of this free information, there is greater risk for the distortion of it into deception. Whatever is heard and then believed in is a truth, though is a deception when none are able to interact with another for the sake of acceptance to those differing viewpoints. Without individualism through such acceptance, there is the collectivism that remains as an opposing armies supporting differing ideals.
With deception, there is no acceptance to the self. With the pride that believes in self-acceptance, there is deception upon the self when there had been no adherence to acts that are better as a display of devotion. Without action, there can be no acceptance to what the self has sacrificed, in the same sense as to trust another with information comes with the inevitable mindset of modesty. Such is to mean that the sheer prideful mindset is one of no trust allotted. Instead, it shows intentions that are enough to be in the deliberate placement of the prideful self in the collective, remaining willfully safe against criticism for whatever information would otherwise be sacrificed.
Without a degree of sincerity to the attitude of one’s noble deeds, there is only the notion of obligation. In believing there can be human will without sincerity to the action, then such is the deception faced towards the self when nothing of an obligation matches what would be true to the individual. There is truth to which the individual has within themselves, though deception and collectivism will be that which conceals it. Collectivism, or of societal accountability, becomes termed here as the concept of external reliance. To count the reliability of society to replace what is a personal wrongdoing, then it is to mean those most obligatory are meant to handle such faults.
Deception is to ignore what is personal about the self, as through family there will be the same. If family is close to the self, then this is true when one can claim to know where one has placed their individualism, if not ever to the multitude that remain in ignorance. As a speaker to their collected audience is not able to admit to knowing the stories, in relation to their faults, of each individual within said audience, such is the same in differentiating family from what is more aligned with obligation. As an example, a worker to their co-workers remain such, until those co-workers become individualism in the form of friendship. Through trust, information is offered, as would not be the case among another person more distanced. Distance does not trust, since a sense of trustworthiness was not offered to begin with, nor was communication ever present for closeness to be achieved. As it is, trust is allotted upon those who have been communicational to the individual. It is then to mean that the politician is, in the objective sense, secretive of the most personal information that, despite all the words spoken to their audiences, are never told. It is then to mean that would a politician ever speak of such information, then the nation’s population could be considered a true threat.
As truth is a threat to those who mean to govern a collective on the basis of deception, it would be the form of individualism where this damage will be dealt from. It is not a sincere person who devotes themselves to a group, though would offer their time, in separate quantities, based on the severity to the fault. Through such a consideration, trust offers its place, though it is not an obligation when it is not centered around professionalism. Meaning to be loyal, as the person with such devotion cannot, for the knowledge to themselves, of their own character and will, believe they are worth more than the other.
If knowledge is on part of the individual, then in being sincere for the sake of their truth expressed to another, deception is the result of absence to what is known. It is in meaning that would the leader tell their audience that there is knowledge, from them, upon what is understood of a nation’s problems, is all a reference towards ignorance. There cannot be knowledge if not expressed from individual to individual. Then, should a leader not be deceptive, the individualism such a one can face is their nation, being a oneness not meant to be broken. It would then not be the people a leader speaks to, though what the nation represents to them. Deception is for the leader to say they know their people. Honesty is in the leadership that knows their people for their country.
A leader that compares a collective to themselves is even unaware of being an individual, on their own. It is to mean that would a leader find themselves believing in their nation’s people as a family unit, deception rules their intentions in what is not truthful to such a population. What cannot be truthful to a population is not what is for a collective that such might be a part of, since it has been said that a group represents the quantitative state.
Quantity is all that a number is. Although, in the knowledge of what each singular within a plural is, there can be no ignorant when quality has become the discovery. All that is a rarity among the qualitative condition is a direct reference to quality. Among character, being within a person, is then to believe less in the exterior details of quantity that is endless in amount, to begin believing in individualism or the person. If not to place individualism as greater than collectivism, in this sense, is same to state that quantity would overrule quality. It is always the inevitable case that quality outmaneuvers quantity. Such is due to the previous descriptions of the addict, whose deception to the external perceiving eyes must find it objective that their behavior is not their own. Being under the influence means to be controlled, referring a collective quantity as everything related to the desires to control.
As no leader can control what is not known, makes then of the collective of any number as unable to withstand itself. Such requires an individualist’s perspective to awaken the sense of a person influenced by what is deceptive, in relation to an addict under the influence of their abused substance. An individualist offers an objective view to the one governed by what is deceptive, awakening the person from their delusional senses to what is outside the collective. Through familial understanding to the concept of collectivism to individualism, there is ignorance for what is neglected, the same with the world leader who is believed to oversee those not meant to be of such a state. Although, outside of the familial unit, a deceiving collective is the replacement, all due to the individual not ever present for those most neglected.
Insincerity within Professionalism
Comprehensive to the notion of resources, being among many to divide what is collected or a collective for its utilization, refers all to this focus as purposeful. To have purpose, though to lack control for the sake of what such could be, means to forsake individualist human will for another to construct these deliberations for the individual. A person being unable to take it upon themselves to build their own purpose belongs within a workforce, with the need to survive among it. The essence of survival, in simply its presence among where one labors themselves to a task, will be the depletion to the genuineness of a noble act. As one could perhaps state that to clean dishes for a living is for the entire benefit of the sake that no one should eat from a dirtied dish, is perhaps doubtful as to the true reason an individual has not ventured further.
The genuineness of the task to do something that has no place for the individualist’s own purpose is to reduce oneself, from individualism, to a collective or group. As a resource, there is no chore left to the self other than the task that only benefits the self. It becomes then a selfish deed, as such is not individualistic in the sense that it would be purposeful to the individual. As in, would genuineness refer to displaying heart to the task, then there is will. There is the characterization of being able to surrender the self to labor, without such being the force to the task. As was said, an association among a collective is to utility. An association among a collective is to act as all armies, to be weaponized, though is also a representation of a certain ignorance. That is, to lack human will in being weaponized is to be ignorant of the self, as all such a thing like collectivism rejects the meaning to individualism within it. In the value for the collective, one does not nor cannot place worth upon an individual. While the individual is more the likelihood above all other things to rebel against the collective, such is due to the reason of being truth against deception. All people so deceptive will find truth to be a threat, for such is the reason a certain voice will be silenced.
Truth must be genuine, to the reason that it comes from the individual. An individual is genuine if outside from a group or collective, since the rest do not hinder nor conceal what is meant, of themselves, to be revealed in a separate fashion. If one individual is selected among the rest, then there is truth come alive from a group that will remain ignorant for the reason. Among the workforce, this is named to be what one did deserve, since no collective can be seen equal with one another. For the monetary view upon a person, there is awareness to how such can be useful, though individualism is born within the workforce out of the passion displayed within purpose. Being purposeful for oneself will mean to venture for greatness that is beyond the others, within the group.
Being of a lesser to one’s superior, in the workforce, is to mean that when there is truth that is to its most subdued, it is the same as deception. That is, to remain among a collective will compare to deception when to its value, there is only what is valuable in such being temporary. If an individual’s purpose means to rise above others, as such will be inevitable to the ambition among one, there is more of a permanence to their own cause. If it is a goal that stays in the minds of those who are ambitious enough, then from this ambition there is purpose. To the noble act, such can seem a choice, though can steer a person afar from all decisions were the surety upon the action comprehend such as irreplaceable. An act is irreplaceable when there is no other choice that belongs more to excuse.
All is limited under the resource, since such, to its nature, cannot be more than what is available. For what is resourceful, professionalism can guarantee it through words, though not ever with proof that requires action. As it would be a noble gesture to no longer speak on one’s love to another, though replace that with actions, makes to all those of this specific demeanor as unlimited. To the nature of the unlimited, is always against those of words who are limited to them. A guarantee, as to the professionalism behind what is deemed as free or accessible, is a deception under the rule for what runs with true freedom being to the notion of protection. That is, to protect freedom means to guard, out of love, what is meant to keep moving through its life. Though, out of what professional act would do this, if not through the engagement of the deal? It is to mean that no professional act is genuine nor sincere, though is restricted by what is limited of the professional, in terms of resource.
As all resources are limited, then in contrast from this, those of their familial states are not. By this contrast, to be resourceful is not to be familial, since there must be a difference between the material and the immaterial. Then, to state that the material is a freedom should not ever be through its transaction upon the deal. Material freedom is the same as liberating the literal slave perhaps from their plantation where they labored. Although, would a transaction be the case in the form of deals through these comparison to professionalism, then there would never be such sacrificial freedom. One gives away what is not needed to possess, as sacrificial freedom by way of its material state. Would there be a lack of this generous nature, then something is being taken for the trade-off of this so-called freedom of the material.
It is to know that freedom of the flesh is not in the space of what is ever not sacrificial. It is typical, to the places of professionalism that cannot be sincere to its nature, that flesh is the metaphor for anything bought through monetary means. Whether an entire mass or the smallest portion, flesh is the craving of those gluttonous or avaricious enough to have from a source that is anywhere, anyone, or anything. Such is the greed, that for the sake of the ignorance to where the source of the craving holds its origin, is to be deceived on the actual product. The intention is thus to merely satiate the desire of those wanting this flesh.
What defines greed is the addition to the already. That is, to added upon what is already present, is greed. It is the merchant’s task to commit to this, making avarice an inevitable mindset for one. Would it be the case, as well, that all people of business or professionalism were wholly honest, none would rise. To make towards success, suppression of emotions, marking the traits of the psychopath among those who are most monetarily successful, is necessary. Though, its outcome out of these inevitable factors throughout the route of the professional life is always the lack of sincerity. There cannot be sincerity for what is limited, as in being sincere, one is always sacrificial. A sincere individual is one that sacrifices for the benefit of another, in their display of some different type of wealth, being their heart. As it should be said, no nation’s worth of itself in coins is ever comparable to weight of a heart in gold. That is, there is no benefit between two that can be upon monetary supplement, without the sacrifice of what is sincere and heartfelt.
All of a human’s will is centered to the heart or the individualistic place of care. For care of the occurrence, requires sacrifice to the material in the display of what is most favorable to such a situation. What is loved would not be used, since such is the opposite from all transactions of business and the professional world. A heart cannot be of sameness to the mind, though can be in awareness of the other. Comprehensive of what is resourceful is to mean that the heart is aware of what is limited. For the heart to view the mind can mean that the individual with care has noticed what has been discarded from those who used what is not meant to be utilized to the extent of its exhaustion. If to work means to be used, then there can be no heart without such being limited.
A heart that is limited is none. Among the professional world, to associate heart with the scenario for what is human in its appropriateness to reveal, is to soon relate what could be heartfelt to what could be resourceful. All is limited of the heart, making the aspect among resource to overlap what is true and human.
Love within Family
A knowledgeable individual will state to be empathetic with those whom they have been trusted to possess information. Empathy is the state of mind from the individual out of such information being in their possession, that such connection is ever possible. In connection, a transaction of information was made, though was during a selected period of time in which was most private. Trust is the occurrence between individuals whose information cannot be public, since nothing to trust is unconditional. That is, nothing to trust is unlimited for its sharing to the public, because not everything nor anyone can be trusted. To share information to the public is to trust both everyone and anyone, making such as trust as unconditional.
One trusts whom one loves, referencing family. A reference of closeness that this can simply be, is due to trust being what has deepened the connection. As a person can love all that is required, it is the gaps caused by distrust that forgiveness would close. To speech, being among all that communicates information that is trusted to another individual, information is given upon the understanding that the listening person would understand it. Would these words ever be deemed as cruel, then it is due to what information is that communicates even to those offended of its supposed misuse. Truth will be the threat to those who mean to bury it. Those meaning to conceal truth are in promotion to a mindset of blatant distrust to not simply the common stranger, though to also those who are family.
Words can do no more harm than a memory. Memories are what a person already understands, though could certain language bring to the surface what is meant of them to not be heard, then it was only the truth. Those same individuals whose memories, when brought on them through external language, would induce headaches and flashbacks, are the same as those who are offended by what could be said. If such specific language is barred from its communication, then it is truth that is being banned. As truth can only be what a person inherently understands to themselves, marks what is long-term to the damage of this as fed through a blindness upon what is kept in the dark. As in, both the truth and awareness to the self are met with shared blindness. The greatest of evil to a person’s mind will mean to believe this individual can understand another, though such apparent blindness to the self references this comprehension as its opposite. That is, without the self embracing truth, always being offended by those words that surface unwanted memories, there cannot be encouragement to the empathetic understanding of another for the same engagement.
All of what is trusted within family is done for the sake of privacy. Would this element of privacy not be the case, then all of trust, on its own, is unconditional. If trust is ever to be without conditions, then such a mindset will compel the individual to never learn through the gain of wisdom. That is, to be unconditional with trust means to believe all others are worth trusting. Although, this will even mean to never listen to the warnings from another who might be family, referencing that the one with beliefs for unconditional trust could be distrusting of those who are close. With all of what is trusted, there is knowledge being gained. This is the shared knowledge that is equivalent of those within social gatherings, among collective understandings, though is truthful when it is from those whom a person already knows. To take knowledge from a stranger, in the belief that this is a benefit within collectivism of its shared knowledge, means to ignore that one does not know this person. Thus, in being a stranger, this knowledge gained can be denied, since without trust for them, there is the same factor of blindness.
Through trust, communication is the factor for which information can be transferred. It is in the qualitative place of emotions that individualism, through which human will is centered, becomes expressed as the truth for a person. Truth is of individualism, due to its oneness or aspect of being singular. What defines deception is to the person these emotions are being expressed, though the listener holds intention to manipulate or exploit them. Would ever emotions be manipulated by a person being trusted for their expression, then such trust has been one-sided. This deception is for the information that is unknown on the listener’s end, due to such one-sided trust making one part vulnerable and the other as invulnerable. When communication is one-sided, there is a one-way flow of information that would be used where it lands. Such is the case when an individualism cannot communicate with individualism, as the manipulation to this truth turns it into a distortion.
What is original to truth can become the deception when the manipulator can distort what were the words, in origin. When original words become changed, there is deception. When familial truth becomes turned into collective or shared knowledge, there is no likelihood to the idea that there is function or use for it. When it is family that pertains, on its genuine nature, to the useless, no collective can belong of it. Whenever a collective mindset considers what is practical before what is merely loved, there is no truth for it. It is innate to the idea of being practical, that only through this, it is deceptive. Deception clings to the functional, due to that individualism is not part of it. Nothing expressive is upon what is functional, due to nothing able to be manipulated on it unless through the notion of one-sided trust.
Would a familial life, being on the side of individualism, ever be connected to collectivism, deception would overrule or overlap truth. Such is the reason for a necessity to keep the useless and usable segregated. Nothing obligational, being of what pertains to collectivism, can be on the side of the familial. It is through the force or state of mind as love that all things in reference to familial life can be regarded as useless. As family is not used, unless betrayal can be revealed as a truth for this intent, then among all things utilitarian would be deceptive. Utility clings to deception, due to that when something as innate to be truthful as an emotional expression becomes manipulated, the only reveal to this is upon the notion of its manipulation. As in, for the necessary aspect of truth being only such when its share is two-sided, then for information to be used or manipulated makes to such become a deception through an inevitable result. That is, the result, from using or manipulating information, is a deception.
There is no truth when there is no two-sided vulnerability. Such is to mean that individualism is only such when truth can be conveyed upon a two-way street. Familial life would entertain this notion, upon the idea that expression would not be used from someone also meaning to convey their truth. When truth is conveyed upon the two-way street, it is truth. Upon a one-way street, it is deception when that is the result of such an expression being used or manipulated.
In the remembrance for what can be said, it was truth that for itself being trusted to the listener of it, is able to be recalled upon whatever moment allows that. It is in the domain of communication between two individualists that these persons are, through their human will, not meaning to exploit the other’s information. It is better left to be said that upon the side meaning to indeed use or manipulation the expression of truth, would be for the benefit of a collective. Though, for the sake of an individual’s memory, some statement being said for another to hear or read is now to be retained for its truth. For its truth, meaning that not upon the intent to cause deception in the distortion of it, though to always recall what was stated or written is always to be the truth of the words. If words are recalled, then such holds meaning to the individual. Though, would such words being recalled provoke anger, then it is in the offense against what the person who remembers them comprehends already of themselves. For these words to ever be held as taboo would be, to the innate understanding of this, truthful.
If words, ever being remembered, are banned, such are truthful. It is not what is factual that is ever considered taboo, though what inspires human curiosity or further thought upon the subject. To this, the idea to believe that words, on their own, are violent, is the mere promotion that individualism should be suppressed. It is to mean that truth should be suppressed, so that human will or the need for one to think without being told what to think, is never a consideration among the normative collective. A collective requires itself to be used, though never for the sake of truth. All families can consider what is spoken of, within the walls to these familial lives, to be truthful unless there is one, belonging to a collective, who means to betray what is getting to be known.
Lust within Professionalism
To note the past, of what is the heart or individualism to the idea that such should be expressed, is not ever on the basis of the professional world. No one so delusional could admit a grander ideal than to believe that the professional world does encompass the future, or is among the doings of progress. If all to be practical exists with what is futuristic or envisioned for the sake of betterment, then nothing comes of it. Nothing does, since what is expressionless of the professional world is due to its placement within a collective design. What cannot be expressed is what is restricted or exclusive to individualism. An individual holds a story of their life, though would not have this be used, unless they were being associated with a group. As such could be the case, were expressions ever used, then it is for the sake of profit or gain. A used or manipulated individual’s emotional expression is for the sake of gain with a scene of one-sided trust.
Those who believe their romantic partners were ever once manipulative, though cannot say the same of a profession that aims to indulge in the gain of information, puts themselves at the highest likelihood of being used. What the professional world and the manipulative lover have in common is wanting information, for the sake of its exploitation. This is due to what a collective stands for. That, to be associated among one, as is the view from certain professions to the actual individual, then there is a person’s own personal weaponization to their expression. If, for example, a politician or popular individual believes a group should express, from the entire collection, all at the same time, there is the same notion of weaponization. A group is used. Though, when an individual expresses, it is for the sake of problem-solving.
When dealing with an individual’s historical account, there is all of it pertaining to the heart. It cannot reference the mind or a resource. What the mind exists for is its practical usage. What the heart exists for is its impractical presence, since would its expression be seen as useful, then there was not itself in communication with another individual. It was not, in this sense, individualism communication with individualism. There were no individuals communicating with the other. Instead, there was the mere exchange of practical resources.
In a world that believes resources are where a nation thrives the highest, means that all for what is individualistic, by design, is received with negligence. That is, to control a world through wealth or a resource means to ignore the actual knowledge expressed from individualism. To believe one person is the same as among their associated group, is to belong the self within ignorance. No collective association, that to state one person is as helpless, victimized, or even to be understood as the others is at all a display of knowledge. Knowledge will relate to the heart, due to both the notion of negligence that can be risked upon what is historical to the mistake of a person and what can endanger the group, as well, if the individuals become dwindled out due to a perceived lack of their own individuality.
Among anywhere the heart will be neglected, will be the same to forsake the individual. An individual is to truth, as to possess human will makes for not the choice, though the necessity to take place. In having will, there is necessity. All necessities run upon the notion that an individual must be allowed freedom, though it is inevitable that a collective will be the tool. The tools of society are collected, so to speak, since it is the same with the professional world that aims to make use of the varied resources through its only understanding of two-sided trust. When both sides are used, this only compatibility had been possible through the individual. To the client and their intent on not being used, though to use the professional world to their own advantage, marks them as still among a collective in being told what to do by another of a higher degree in rank. As in, would a person be seeing a therapist for only their own benefit, troubled words to be expressed are then in better place for the ears of anyone genuine. As in, from individual to individual, therapy cannot be when mutual benefit ever aligns with two-sided utility.
As it is, end results are what the professional world relies upon, considering the example of a therapist to a limited amount of sessions. If in this regard, then anything limited of anything pertains to a resource. A resource will be limited, through how it accompanies the functions of the mind. The mind, being limited, because of how a resource, being either convenient or the opposite, will not be indefinite when defined as an expendable. The human is an expendable among the professional world, due to their place among the finite. It is the work that, when put into the task, is limited due to how function is designed. As in, while the heart would be a thing that, out of human will or care, can solve a issue of life, it is more the obligation to repair the tool with another tool. The latter is an obligation due to even the limits of the tools invested in repairing the tools. A collective joining itself with another collective is the same as a flame clashing with another to its same kind. All is finite, even with an example of fire, because it will not last if there is nothing left to burn. It is the same to consider that a collective becomes useless when there is nothing left for itself to be used upon.
An example of being a collective that is used, can be aligned with another of a paralyzed individual being unable to use some of their bodily functions for the professional world. In being finite to this realm, nothing is individualistic unless to the creation of a thing. That is, without consideration for the end result, individualism comprehends that itself can create, instead for being utilized for the cause. From creation to causation is the same as differing order from chaos. Towards the end result, there is the proof to which the professional world understand utility. That is, all end results are the exhaustion of use from a resource. As a client to their appointed professional is in use of what such a professional has for capability’s sake, there to this client a deceptive belief in the resource’s limitlessness. Although, the professional knows that their client is limited, the same in knowing what is above the former comprehends that what is beneath, in rank, holds also a limit.
Everything that is above utilizes what is beneath, the same as to know the client is inferior to the supplier for their desperate resource. As in, what controls the client to the notion that their human will is non-existent, is through their leaning towards being utilized instead of that singular compatibility. In being compatible to co-exist, both professional and client display healthy value for the other. Although, it becomes unhealthy when there is no human will on part of the client, though the professional is gaining or determining the uselessness of such a client.
Totalitarianism should be understood as this, as what is the presentation of being dominant over the functional. As in, to see nothing of human will on the side the client, though there is vast control from the professional to the client in the determination of what is useful or useless. It is same to mean that would a healthy compatibility ever exist, there is the example of a people using their leadership or government, not the opposite. By the same example, a leadership is the slave or the mere tool to the people, should be submissive to its people, and able to always openly consider the people a threat out of perpetual fear. Out of tyrannical leadership, the professional world is connected in lusting or wanting for what can be used, though rules with this in mind without any regard for the people’s or the client’s individualistic or human will. An expression will be that which is beautiful or vulnerable, making form not to follow function without a betrayal to the free self.
If to care would refer to the heart, then to not care without such will make a person a resource. What would a leadership be, when a nation’s people have no motivation for personal aspiration? Without this human will nor even a show of being free-thinking to individual perspective, a leadership becomes tyrannical in the knowledge that its controlled people will not think of those above as a threat. It is to mean that this people’s expressions of being vulnerable are in the understanding and willful acceptance of being under control. Without placed worth to the human will of individualism, collectivism is of such a people that accept being told what to think. It is their ignorance, that to human perspective upon all subjects, connects both the incompatible aspects of the professional world with tyrannical leadership in an absence of individualistic knowledge in accordance with truth.
Eternity against Convenience
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.
Kind-Hearted Deceptive Liberal
If the Liberal believes it is wise to even the distribution of resources, then their motto would be to deceive through the blindness for the origin of them. To care, a person does not, when their resources are simply within their possession. A resource, when in the possession of a person who does not care, can further the deception along with ignorance being the best justifier or even another convenience when in such blindness of such origins. Deception is to division, as truth is to unity. There is no evenness, without the involvement of the heart. A heart is divided as a missing presence of itself from where it is most accessible. One’s heart is divided to be apart from the place of the individual, when that person is among the collective in association of themselves for their supposed evenness with another, in the name of supposed equality. Though, it is not equality that can be spoken of, among collective or societal gatherings. It is the equality that, in the name of the truth through individualism, can be the only sort to be guaranteed. Though a personal place, it is the equality of individualism where a person can comprehend themselves through another, in needing no reference to diversity when being equal refers to sameness.
One is not more to the sameness, since dissatisfaction in its reference to convenience cannot refer to a contentment that encapsulates the quantities within chaos. Chaotic efforts are not of the foundational kind, or are not set nor risen from the foundation. A Liberal who means to bring material equality through the mention of resource distribution is from the mindset of dissatisfaction. It is a dissatisfaction that runs upon appetite and corruption, since without limitation for all amount of resources, there is no control. Such becomes the mere feeding of addictions, as each pertain to a person’s perpetual dissatisfaction.
Discontent does not resonate with betterment, since the latter term must operate upon foundational efforts. As collectivism relies on individualism, is for the same that a distribution of resources must be supported by individualism or otherwise risk their waste. Resources are wasted by the addict, referencing both provider and consumer of them as lacking control for their indulgences. What can be said to be a waste is due to the ignorance of the self, for how such inward individualism shares human limitations. If a Liberal means to even the distribution of resources, then there must be, with understanding of heart and care inside individualism, the personal involvement to the crises. A scenario as one that runs on chaos cannot be fed with more, being additional chaos to merely prolong all desires of those who fell low because of impulse. If impulse had made a person impoverished, then the Liberal’s goal to blindly even the distribution of resources will fell them lower or maintain their current degradation. With the latter, there is such dissatisfaction pertaining to sheer dependence upon the consumable resource.
A resource is consumed, though wasted, when it was granted upon a person, impoverished as they are, who will seek more. A more to the desire for its repetition will enter the same scenario of being used when one is using. To be consumed as one is a consumer is similar to the mindset of vengeance, that to kill and so one shall be killed. A death, so wasted, was believed by a person with vengeance for their motivation to be the convenience for one’s pleasure. The cycle of vengeance is the same for the cycle of typical consumerism or is similar to the cycle of life. That, with death there is new life, even if such is believed to be wasted when old or believed-to-be-new things had died.
If a resource is even, then it would be supported from individualism’s own cause due to the necessity of not confusing their value for the greater worth of the individual’s own limits. If a resource is consumed, then there is always risk to limits desired to be broken for the sake of progressive achievement. Though, without patience, addiction and corruption can be the result of what had not been waited for, being the one of personal involvement. If a factor of time is a concern, due to its own limitation upon the impoverished individual, then such a person can consider its place for a future consideration of greater responsibility. It is to know that time had only exhausted itself, before the world ever rid itself of all resources. In wishing for a resource’s greater accessibility, there is negligence to the inward individualism that cannot ever become closer.
If to evenness, then there must be heart, that without recognition of evenness will be the necessity of care’s division from the self. If to maintain the resource for its even distribution, there will be risk for the outcome of corruption without regard for individualism as the foundation that supports all division of substance. Though, as nothing is so distributable as deception, there is the provider to a resource being the greatest indulger if only to keep alive what is being consumed by them. Deception is divided, due to itself being a separation apart from the individualist self. As individualism has been said to be truth for how the expression comes from within, makes of any gathering of resource of all grouped collectives the deceptions that cannot express.
Within truth, there is no force, though the example that is set for another to follow. With such example, true leadership is bred from those by integrity. An integrity to match the self with those who such a leader can understand, makes to this leader as one who cannot deceive when their motives are for individualism and freedom. When a Liberal comprehends freedom as forceful through a diverse, though divisive, mindset for entrancing in unknowns, there is deceit among them.
Entrancing in unknowns, being either of the minority that requires its forced acceptance for the sake its place among societal standards or of the resources given without awareness for their origin, is all deception. Deception is the collector to it, though soon becomes the distributor. This is due to the quantitative aspects among things as flesh or convenience, that for their division, are not ever rooted in the heart. Such are rooted upon the abandonment of the heart or the necessity to care for a dilemma, belonging then among the sheerness of the mind. While mind is quantitative, the heart is qualitative.
If meaning to give without an understanding for limit, one inevitably feeds an addiction. As was said, those who devour become devoured. It was said that those who offer without their understanding of limits will feed an addiction, though also indulge for themselves. There are addicts who enable, as to be the enabler is an addiction. There is pleasure to be gained from offering another the sustenance convenient for their intake towards their supposed satisfaction. An enable would believe the person, who might be emotionally troubled, can be content merely on the resource. It is to not understand the person, for their limits, whenever such an enabler believes, though has no knowledge, of a resource. Resources are limited, as through this fact, alone, will define what is never equal between two humans. As two humans conflict over the inequality of resources, there is a third who can comprehend what makes the equality among this. What does create such equality is to be beyond the dependence for resource and its even distribution.
An endless conflict over the bottommost level to human systems, in being whether rich or poor makes no different to the addictions both sides suffer from. If the rich feed from the poor, it will be the poor that feeds from the rich. In devouring another, one becomes devoured. Two sides to their own addictions, not being cut from the same chord in the fear that their indulged sustenance will be depleted. It is the Liberal’s desire then to sustain the middle-class, as it would be the common addict’s wish to maintain their own basic functions, since this middling area runs as the bridge to both sides of addicts. In not understanding the person, one cannot say to know their limits. One feeds addiction, though maintains this dependence in reinforcing the circuit. A bridge or a circuit, being the middle-class, is the function of a person, an addict, wishing to keep their own mobility to still supply themselves. An example to this is the middle-class’s taxes, run from the same bridge or circuit towards those who possess no mobility. The reason a Liberalist politician believes it is best to support the middle-class is not with the intent upon aiding them, though to use them.
A belief in the resource, in not knowing the human for their limits, will become the inevitable belief in equity over equality. As equality will state itself for how two people will unify upon what is beyond their struggles through bottom-level addiction, a belief and an ignorance in the understanding of resources will cause the endless conflict over them.
Cold-Hearted Honest Conservative
It can be said that deception is a kindness, during states of mind when addiction will feed upon it. The devouring of deception is the same for kindness, when the latter will stagnate an individual. There is nothing more stagnating that to not be told the truth, though this stagnation or stillness of the self is willful. If a mother has not seen her child, surrounded by the worriment of her family members who are unwilling to tell the truth of her offspring’s death, expresses continual concern, this is not willful in her own ignorance. A person is willfully ignorant when truth is not an importance, making this example of such a mother not of this kind. To have will means to have individualism, to not be subdued of the truth through the telling of deception. Even if surrounding family members to this mother deceive her, it cannot be for long when human will strives to be curious for the truth.
Such a finding of truth is an entertainment to the unity displayed between two individualists of their own individualism and heart. In heart, there is will and the truth for which is made up within an individualist. To mean that collectivism can conquer truth is not so when a group cannot sustain itself without the will from a leader that guides such. If a group is not controlled, then what is of it is a mass of individualists. A group must be controlled, because collectivism is not of individualism.
Unity is for individualism, as truth is open and shared between individualists. However, truth is also private. Though, this does not refer to truth as deception, not when silence is the enforcement of deceivers. Those who support silence upon speech are deceivers, when it is that truth, to such sorts, are transferred to the wrong areas. Truth becomes a distortion, into deception, when it is no longer a gain for the support of individualism or the care to an issue in which only an individualist can correct of themselves. Deception reinforces the collective, when it is believed a societal fault can be corrected by society. Deception will subdue the individual into a state of willfulness to ignorance, because the individualist would no longer be curious for it.
To be curious over truth, as what regards the individualist as meaning to support themselves by way of unity, will mean to be beyond the convenience of everything more accessible or available to them. If to the heart, that cannot be more accessible or available to an individual, is depended upon, one has begun to rely upon truth. One relies upon knowledge, not their ignorance, to solve an issue only the individualist can solve.
While a heart can be divided, its division is always its absence. An absence of the heart or the will to care makes one open to the deceptions that fill the space, due to what addiction stands for when the material means to replace the immaterial or true value. A heart is superior to the mind, as this is objective, though there is deception upon care when one can state that a great number of falsehoods or excuses can be the truth to replace what is missing. An absent heart is an absent truth, the same as the mother example with being curious for her missing child. If there is heart, there is the wish to know the truth. It is as the curious self always refers to the truth, not the facts.
If in kindness, a person is stagnant, there it was due to their willfulness to remain ignorant to information meant to shock. It was curiosity that led a person to wanting to know. It is now a test of that same person’s strength to overcome their shock, and then to deal with the loss or the gain told within that information or truth. It can be said that would this truth being discovered represents a loss, their way to overcome it with addiction is through them still clinging upon a material possession. As in, would a person who has lost another, due to death, turn to alcohol to subdue the pain such a loss has caused, this addiction is due to their focus upon what is material with that absence. A person can be only addicted to the material, meaning the common addict has found both their grief and the material replacement to the loss as their addiction. With such an addict, in their focus on both the loss and the gain. there has always been their willfulness to be ignorance of the truth that is of love. It is that there is no absence, except for the desire to convince oneself of it.
An addiction stagnates, making a person also susceptible to being addicted to kindness and compassion. There is an effort to be compassionate and soft towards those who are hurting. However, being soft towards another is only effective when their expression of vulnerability is displayed. This is due to the notion that human vulnerability is human will, alongside truth, and maintains itself for the place of humanity. We are humans towards what is injured, though we can appear as demons towards what has deceived others to be already healed.
If there is an addiction to another’s kindness, it becomes a representation to how the enabler is said to be kind. Kindness and compassion can be addictions, if the person depending on them receives resources instead of truth. To the honesty behind a person meaning to speak words of truth, the effectiveness is applied towards what is hardened against it. However, their vulnerability will be revealed should it ever come from the enabler turned truthful. Expectation is to deception, as shock is to truth. What a person wants to be told will always deceive and bring about the stagnation that keeps an addict from moving on with goodness at their back. What erases stagnation is truth, though comes at the necessity of being genuine to the person addicted to deception. It is to mean that neither materialism nor a resource can be genuine, when honesty is.
Withholding the truth, though allowing deception to flourish, makes of those with their supplies of information as deceivers in their means to hoard it. That is, to withhold resource makes of the person to do this as honest in their wish to replace such with truth. To withhold resources will allow such to be replaced with truth or honesty. Although, to withhold information will allow deception, by way of the resource, to become the dependence from a population. No group can subsist upon the truth, because a collective does not represent unity. As truth would be whole, its presence is only to individualism, not collectivism nor a societal grouping. Truth must be whole, since it represents the heart. Once more, if a heart is ever divided, it is simply absent, then making all other divisions as mere tools or usable objects to the control of their leader.
A puppet represents what is controlled for what is meant for them to say. A puppet does not speak, since it possesses neither humanity nor human will. Then, it cannot be the representation of a collective to be human nor free of its will. Such refers to the collective as a collection of slaves, since without will, individualism cannot be in its place. Without control for the collective, there is individualism.
Information cannot be a resource, unless it is not truthful. Only deception can represent the resource, the same as what is being used is not admitted for such for the sake of the tool not showing enough human will to question the genuineness of a supposed good deed. If a good deed is not genuine, then it was in the effort, through an ulterior motive, to bring about a specific end through such usable implements. Although, if information is truthful, then it was for the support of individualism, thus making all supporters to collectivism as deceivers. It is since no collective can operate without external control, as no act of goodness is ever genuine if a group was merely used. If a collective speaks of themselves as content with being used, then there is no reason for either activist nor protestor to be against any historical account of slavery.
For the sake of privacy, truth can be shared. Though, if truth is shared among those who are deceivers, then this information becomes deception. As it is, no information can be told to a group without it becoming deception. It is because deception is ever such, when it cannot align with an individualist’s inward design to care for the information being said. Such mean that among those within a collective, it is not cared for to the origin behind such information. This information could be fictional, as it is now believed in. If information is ever questioned, it was done so by individualism. To question information’s origin is to question its credibility.
Resources against Honesty
No past is deceiving. It is the one who might deceiver another, represented sometimes as the historian, who can mold truth apart from its original design. The importance in knowing the origin of information is in first being able to question it, though this requires having been witness to how this information first originated. Being knowledgeable or being ignorant is the same as being either the individual who comprehends another through unity or to be among the collective that is controlled through deception and division. An army is separated or scattered without its leader, referring to those who go upon their separate ways as now individualists with their human will. If, during a situation that calls for it, the past must be recollected to remind the people within the present of what were human errors, there cannot be ignorance to the origin of such information. As it is, facts cannot be questioned. Only what is said to be the truth, though is deception, can be offered a question by the individualist.
Nothing is as resourceful as what allows a collective to be deceived in how it is controlled, through always the manipulators to truth. Unity is broken when the individualist cannot recall the past for truth’s original design, thus making all collectives or groups as tools without human will. Such collectives or groups are then used for more division and more progress from pragmatism. If in pragmatism, all function would bring about progress, then it is form that represents the original design of truth. Form only follows function when it is said that truth must follow deception for progress to be made. However, this is the same as believing that all original designs of truth must be distorted into deception for greater progress from further divisions. If to bring about more categories, either from supposed diversity towards the goal of endless progress, it was always in the desire to utilize such to that extent.
Progress cannot be achieved without what is useful, making division necessary for the deceiver. From pure pragmatism, there is no honesty to the origin of a resource. A deceiver is then not ever honest to the goal of their divisions, despite these divisions being resources of themselves. As was said, a collective is nothing without a controller to it. Since such is the case, then all collectives are resources without a word of honesty revealing their purpose. Towards a goal, that is, of not nobility, though of sheer manipulation for the place of power, makes of those who are hungered to these divisions or resources as the controller to all societal groups.
A person cannot be goal-oriented without purpose-oriented. Though, in the situation of losing track of one’s original objective, there is mere distraction and one then becomes another avaricious sort. Avarice or greed is born upon the pleasure for such resources, though without neither guilt nor remorse to what is lost from individualism or the care to solve one’s fault. A recognition of imperfection is one also for limitation, being another reference to how a person, being used, also uses. As one is being used or devouring another’s sustenance, themselves become devoured at the mutual dependence upon the other. Though, deception is noted to be such when there is willful ignorance to the intentions for why a person would be utilized. One would have no reason to be knowledgeable of the origin, when their pleasures are satiated through their own avarice.
A resource will forever be against the honesty of telling where such have originated, since there is no use for this truth. There cannot be a use to all truth, which is why form cannot be functional. One breeds a society of willful ignorance, where to believe that form will follow function is meaning to conceal individualism or truth beneath collectivism or deception.
A life, a will, or truth must be whole, or else it represents the deception for which no one knew the original design of it. Though, while history will never repeat itself without its truth becoming distorted into deception, such repetition is upon the making of new exploitable errors from humans. That is, history can repeat itself when it is deliberately done. As in, deception will be the repetition of differing divisions, repeating to future generation’s ears what is a mere difference, though not the truth. Truth cannot be repeated, since history can only repeat itself once. The singular time that history repeated itself is when it had occurred. During the praise of diversity, divisions and utility become foremost to the supposed progress of a world. Although, this is simply the praise of invention, in terms of what can be found usable or exploitable.
If upon the notion of difference, then what is repetition, to this degree, is a short-term pleasure that must be made changed upon the next division. That is, the praise of diversity is a mere branch from a short attention span that has been the evolution from avarice and pleasure. If one were to think on the act of multi-tasking as an improvement of humans, they would be referring to the self for what can be gained off what is exploited or used. Pleasure is the place of the short-term, then making diversity also such. A forcefulness of diversity, to its introduction, is with the collective’s purpose in mind. That, to control or be controlled is the place of force, since deception refers to a telling of truth, not a direct reveal of a fact. If the essence behind a collective’s understanding of truth is to speak on it, then their offense has been taken to the expression of truth through individualism’s expression of it. Although, expression of truth cannot be made factual. Expressions can be reminders to the factual occurrence, though not the fact, itself, when only the expression or the words of their telling can be repeated.
Not truth, though a fact, must be evident to only the eyes. Telling truth is to speak on what is already known, then making those who oppose speech as an opposition towards what is already understood. Everything so resourceful will be told deception, said to be truth, though cannot be when it was not revealed for eyes to see. Upon the truth being said that it must be revealed for it to be so, there is deception in what is told. Nothing told can be truthful through speech, when evidence is required through the action. Those who support speech that is meant to reveal truth are confused, since their offense is upon the expression that words are displayed. Speech is an expression, to be nothing more, as such can be repeated through multiple reminders for the person who denies what has been seen. One cannot deny truth. Instead, one can deny facts, since perception is made through what is understood or seen. A collective will fault itself upon attempting to apply a resource to the honest person, the way in believing an expression can overlap a fact or someone not willing to withhold information.
Information that is withheld can be replaced with truth, as this is turning what is a necessity into a convenience. It is convenient to be told a lie, though a necessity to know a fact. What is truth is the expression of an objective or literal fact, as only a reminder to those who deny it. What is resourceful are always the deceits from a person who believes more in sheer expression, over the reality. Idealism always compares betters to deception or resources, since the idealist will attempt to replace what is realistic with what is idealistic. The withheld information is never known, though as all facts, will not die and will wait until their rediscovery. Although, as a fact can be made public to a population, a truth can only come from an individual. As was said, individualism is truth and also human will with freedom aligned with both, meaning that being an individual is to be free to speak or express what has not been said.
Although, what is said or expressed will come to those who are replacing realism with idealism as deception, only because their view of betterment is through the desire to make conveniences more available. In such broadening availability, these conveniences are set for the support of the idealist, though the realist understands what supports all idealism, being individualism. Individualism is the place of truth, though its expression cannot be more available than to the person who expresses such truth. As in, all expression of truth resides with the individual who finds the opportunity to express it. It is then that realism is the foundation beneath idealism, or that individualism is what supports collectivism.
The trait of the honest person is to always tell the truth as a reminder to what the listener already comprehends, as is what the speaker knows that they know. An honest person cannot lie, when the listener to their words will know, for themselves, what is a lie or a truth. If a person tells a lie, then their resource was for the sake of convenience. Such convenience feeds addictions, being the deceptions.
Order against Chaos
To the order of a heart, an individualist is no longer in repetition with what is rhythmic and synchronized within the collective. If equality appears to a person as sameness among external viewings, then they have shown themselves as confused. Synchronization with physical movement is no different than the marching army. An army has been previously compared to a collective or group, as this notion of repetition is within patterns of perceived sameness. The synchronized movements of a marching army is as the factory that repeats the same process for mass production of a product. It is in being repetitious that such is displayed upon the external, though everything internal or within a person is individualism or the truth meant to be expressed.
A truth, being withheld, is the suppressed reminder of what is, to the realisms that an idealistic collective attempts to replace with a change. Idealism will encompass change, though the truth that is revealed from being suppressed with offer example to a person for what is neither functional nor what will work. If to the physical repetitions of an army or collective will stay its focus upon function over form, then it is realism that means to remind these collectives, through its expressions of truth from individualism, of what will not be functional nor will be applied without collapse.
Individualism is suppressed when the expression of truth also is, though without individualism, there can be no collectivism. If to replace entirely the realisms with the idealisms, it is not possible without suppressing the freedom to express or to speak. This is to mean that if progress depends upon function, it will blind itself towards an objective when it neglects or deems as obsolete what has always been functional. That is, to believe a system has not worked, then to change it merely for the sake of doing so is to be blind towards foundational function or individualism. It is inherent that individualism supports collectivism, making the latter inferior to the former. If an army requires leadership, it was because none of the soldiers possessed their own individualist human wills to to take upon, as themselves. To follow an order is to be used or to be functional towards the objective.
On the notion of replacement, a tool can be swapped with another when its usage has been exhausted. If meaning to idealize a human, there is great desire for such a person’s function. However, there is not adherence to human limitation, as such is the comprehension behind reality. Were a limit to be applied, idealism would fall into the realistic realm or mindset, as progress would be halted upon its road.
Without a degree of repetition, mistakes cannot be repeated. This marks progress as dependent on the disappearance of individualism, since to question being used is to show corrected towards what might be faulted. Progress then would rely on a lack of equality and human freedom, along with the disappearance of human will so that productivity is displayed within endless function. If function is the place of a tool, then an army is the same. Freedom cannot be used, because such traits as the human heart or will to question incorrectness is revealed through form or truth unable to be altered, except when it submits to aligning with a usable collective.
An obsession to be anti- to a fault that already represents itself as an absence is to bring more of one’s own opposition. That is, to be anti- towards what is an absence, in the essence for how it is a fault, is to be among the fault, inevitably. While a collective would be accustomed to dealing with societal faults, it is only individualism that can speak against it. A group or unit does not fight as one, though acts as a control group that is commanded or manipulated by a person of power. This is the same as an army that engages conflict or battle only to add to the chaos, instead of subduing it. All conflict is the combination of more, since collectives can only ever be aligned with things related to deception. It is a deception to believe one can cure what is chaotic of a society, though engages in the chaos to cause more of it.
Chaos is a causation, not a creation, meaning that it is absent of the order always created. One cannot create chaos, though merely cause more of it. To the reason of order bring of creation is to mean that deception is not something evident to know, though is the mere absence of a fact that would be expressed with an honest or truthful heart. Chaos is a resource, as profit is able to be made from a lack of security. Though, its deception, by this tactic, is in theft. As in, what is dishonest through profit or gain, by way of avarice or greed, is the understanding of resources when divided as the collective or for the collective. The collective is used, making it a resource, as the dishonesty is there in what brings about chaos through the addition of it. Would a collective build itself, it could do no more than add further chaos.
Individualism subdues chaos, though only when the latter is revealed as such, on its own. This happens, inevitably so. It is that chaos cannot support itself, on its own, without eventual collapse. A collective, when desiring to seek resolution for a societal issue, cannot undertake this task without a lesser to the individualist heart. One cannot care to solve without a heart, since the heart is the place of care to an issue. One cares, though becomes chaotic when missing the heart to replace it with the mind. As the heart cannot be used, it can always be absent of a person when their addictions have mounted themselves above the value of meaning to care.
Caring enough to solve crises would not require resources, on their own, since that reliance results in collapse. This is the inevitable occurrence, because it is a division of resources to represent all division within chaos. It is a match, since chaos cannot be itself without an absence of individualism. If individualism is absent, then it was because the idealists among the collectives have attempted to replace it with themselves.
If in repetition that chaos, in the addition of it, would be aligned with the collective, comes as a match to how an army is able to gather. As in, to gather what is a collective, makes the group. The group is collected or gathered, in number, as is the factor of repetition that makes up the understanding of chaos. It is that within more of the same, there is no difference to tell it apart. To repeat, being either of chaos, collectives, or mass production is to know that individualism is lacking among this sense of sameness. Repetition is not the heart that beats in its rhythmic fashion, though to know that it is creation. The heart is individualism, itself. A missing heart is absent individualism, or what is understood as the broken heart. Through hurt of the self, there is the absence of a knowledge to what was, and now no longer.
Humans hurt because of what is understood. The only way a human can be blind through hurting another is in the hatred that prevents forgiveness or in the willful ignorance that fails to comprehend the concept of unity. Hearts can conjoin, though unity is not a deliberate production. As in, unity is not under deliberate desire to create it. With union, being a creation, there is no deliberation except for the collectives of it that are always upon their foundations, being individualism. If a human hurts because of what is understood, then what is not understood is held in ignorance. Though, what is understood is of the knowledge a person possesses.
As chaos cannot be a creation, makes everything of it as a nothingness until something is made, being order. Order is the creation to what chaos is not, since the latter is causation. To cause chaos is to disassemble the creation of order, the same as to end the life or to bring nothingness of even poverty to the one who had plenty. All is to mean that one cannot create chaos, without the deliberation of such, which is to say that chaos is deliberately caused. It is to mean that collectives are deliberately grouped, the same as tools are used with the same deliberation and purposefulness.
The idealist who obsesses over the ambition will cause more than create. Their blindness, through their ambition, will be fueled from their ignorance towards the destruction and ending of creation. All things that possess matter have been created, and then to destroy such is without regard for even another human’s value of their life. Through this, there was blindness, since to neither see nor perceive matter is to realize the nothingness of chaos.
A repetition of chaos, not so unlike the repetition of resources, is also not so unlike the repeating emotions that drive the repetition of sameness through mistakes. What defines ignorance is not by how much one does not know, though is levelled on the basis of what one has denied themselves the value in seeing or perceiving. As in, through the deliberation of resources, there is also the deliberation of a mistake. Causation is always deliberate, making creation as accidental. It is love or in the eyes of God that Creation was by accident, though not a mistake. One could look upon an accident as though it was a mistake, though its ignorance is not by what is deliberate. That is, one is deliberate and also blind, among this ignorance, through only a purpose had defined the act as a mistake or an error.
Although, what defines humans as themselves is mistakes unto purposefulness. When humans possess purpose, they are often blinded to outcome. Would God or whatever being able to create do so without mistake, then it was seen with outcome understood before the action of creation. It is therefore in the minds of imperfect humans to resource themselves upon ideas, and then take to deliberate mistakes for the sake of knowledge. For the imperfect human, knowledge is gained in the comprehension of one’s own abilities and inability. Though, within the mindset of a Socialist, the concept of addition to the collective is better for the definition of what it means to achieve.
It returns to avarice or greed, with such a mindset. That is, to believe that more would equal greater to the extent in which a human being could understand, allows a person to, once more, comprehend their limits. It is to mean that to attain more for the sake of knowledge means to comprehend less of the self and less of the faults an individual can cause. An individual to a collective, through these descriptions, is in differing a comprehension of the self, with knowledge, to the comprehension of another, with assumption and ignorance. One cannot know the suffering of another, without taking to one’s own individualism. If a Socialist believes in the value of a resource, then they overlook the value of a human. A human can be valued, only through individualism. Collectivism is the resource, as it makes use of other resources. Collectives utilize other collectives, in the same methods that armies will realize a weapon will kill as any other, no matter what nation invented it.
With emotions, there is the exhaustion of them, in the same place of a tool. When a tool is exhausted of its use, it is discarded. Such is to mean that when emotion or mistakes, through their repetition, are exhausted of their use, then so are humans. When a Socialist deems a resource as more valuable than a human, it is because such a person realizes that repetition does not apply to a human, in the reminder that such is created. That is, deliberation is the place of a mistake, through purpose. When the Socialist believes more in a resource or the collective, over a human or individualism, it is because the value has not been placed with knowledge, though only the deliberate and purposeful mistakes through ignorance. When the emotions are exhausted, this is when deception or idealism becomes the replacement of realism.
Since it is deceit that aligns with resources, as both pertain to division, then among all perception to a human’s awareness will be imperfect and always untruthful. Though, when Socialism will follow the resource or the division of a sum of currency to enact itself upon equality for such materialisms, it will fail. No materialism can be equal, in amount. To the notion of equality, there is it upon being human. Only in understanding oneself as a limits human, there is equality. Human connection, upon the place of unity, in being able to look beyond the external is developed through mutual understanding of imperfection.
When human relationships conflict, there is betterment and strength for them should there not be any inclination to abandon them. Should a relationship be upheld, in the recognition for how it began, there will be its reinforcement. It is love that began the human relationship, and thus, should also be love that corrects the mistakes that drive a one to chaos.
Chaos cannot correct, since in its deliberate efforts, there is value for materialism. To value materialism over the human will end all relationships and then all unity. Division is then understood better as the place of the material, as the materialist cannot be anymore than the divider of human connection. The materialist, if with sameness to the mindset of a Socialist, believes less in the beginning of life and creation and more in the chaos that would end all manner of immaterial value. The heart, being immaterial, cannot be a repetition without emotions, as the idealisms, to replace individualism or reality. Such is the reminder that the heart cannot meet division without its sheer absence.
An absence of the heart will be replaced by materialism, said also to be collectivism, resources, or addictions. Chaos is the mere advantageous playground for the opportunist. What cannot be equal with resource division will be with human connection, in the understanding of how such a union first formed. If, in the belief that a nation began in the wrong manner, the only route one can take, through their idealism, is in the path of division. One has to, in a sense, remove the heart of such a nation to plant a new one.
A nation with neither heart nor individualism as a great value is one with a greater understanding of addiction or materialism. If one is addicted to chaos, it is because one has found a use for what will disappear if not utilized. If the perception of life is merely its temporary place upon a world, then there cannot be value for the person for the sake of their protection through human connection and love. As it is, love began the connection, the unity and equality between two humans. It would then be chaos or materialism that ends the immaterial creations of love.
To the flesh that is a resources, it can be loved in being protected. The risk of human life, carried to the open, is applied when it becomes endangered of being consumed. That is, such flesh can be consumed and can also gain for itself by way of sustenance. A building of flesh, so to speak, is how gluttony makes the individual become a collective, even on their own. If being Socialist demands collections, then it demands flesh. It becomes a device of hunger and no satisfaction. One could not satiate the Socialist whose value is the number of resources, vainly believed to one day be equal among a society’s people, as everything becomes consumed. To run out of all other’s money is to mean the same for flesh or any quantitative collection.
A collection can be armed, since it is being used with what it is freely given. So long as a person sustains themselves as useful, they are given the hand-out that is said to be free. Although, it is not free, when the sacrifice is freedom. That is, one trades away their individuality for themselves as a collective in the belief that this is freedom. One is merely favored, in this. One is merely preferred, as all useful things tend to be. Though, one will be one day exhausted of that use, because a human being, now a tool without will nor freedom, cannot last to the eternity that love represents.
Love is eternal, though only upon beginnings. If creation is love, then love is always behind an individual towards where they could not see nor prove its existence. In the Atheist’s request that the existence of God should be proven, it is not possible when no human, as an imperfect being with consumable flesh, cannot look to the past with their physical vision. If evidence should be physical, then only something so useful as itself can be offered. That is, only something more representative of a human can be offered as a sacrifice to become the collection of flesh or evidence to its existence. A human’s DNA respects this, though would God be proven, then love could be found as useful. Love is never useful, when we cannot see it.
A Socialist believes in all things equal among the resources as necessity to be, though only for functionality’s sake. With form, there is beauty. There is what should not be changed, though inevitably does when it is risked to be endangered of being consumed. That is, whenever a human is no longer loved, they are being used, whether within the workforce or in daily tasks of the day. Though, no human can be equal in function, unless through the synchronous movements that define the repetitions of a factory. With such, there is no humanity nor individualism. Humanity relies on its own freedom, though balanced with usage to understand cruelty.
Socialist Chaos, in Openness
For the representation of difference, there is place for it among openness, though allotted of itself only for the sake of being a resource. Differences resources as useful things for different situations, as a bandage could be used for a small cut while stitches are used for gashes, everything represented is merely useful. It is repeated or reminded that what is not useful is how a creation began, through care. That is, to care means to have heart to the creation. One could only care to begin after one decides to act. As deception or an expression of truth without physical evidence to a fact is in spoken or written language, an action will prove the existence of something physical. If made by nature, then it requires proof. If man-made, then it should or would be recognizable, perhaps instantly.
It is care that creates, while it is carelessness that destroys. To be without care, means to be without individualism. In its openness, the useful thing being represented is for the sake of its category. Wherever it or the person was placed, it was done with purpose. Again, through purpose, there had been use to the intention of where such a representation was meant to belong. Although, without individualism, an object or a person is inevitably forced to be somewhere, the same as an army is commanded to dominate territory.
Humans cannot be open with their representation without being of a collected category or grouping that is being used, for a purpose. If the purpose is a blindness, then this is proof to missing individualism. Missing individualism can be said to be simple ignorance, since knowledge can only be applied towards what one can have no prejudice of, being the self. That is, one cannot say to not know the self, without lying. Individualism knows itself, though will, at times, conceal itself with collectivism so that truth is less shocking and impactful to the individual. The individualist understands themselves, though only fully when their addictions and collective deceptions have been removed, in the same sense as an addict removes their abused substance to understand their existence without it.
Socialism is deceitful in its vain belief that a resource, through their collections, can be equal among humans. It is individualism that overrules this, inevitably so. That is, it is the reminder to one’s care to a problem that ends up solving what is the true crisis, when the others had been distractions. All supposed issues are distractions, when they deter a person apart from their individuality.
Distracting oneself from the self will allow a person their openness, though is a distraction, themselves, when someone else consumes their advice. Only as a resource, is a person able to be used for purpose. If a person has decided to use themselves for a task, then it was because of their own freedom and own accord to overlap care upon function. It is in this that an individualist understands that function is inferior to form, when the latter becomes useless without the care to be committed to a task.
With force, there cannot be equality. Though, with equity, there is the forcefulness that is shown through the utilitarian understandings of collectivisms as resources. The competition that compares less to the equality between humans, though more for division that a resource is viewed, in vain, to be equal in their distribution. It is the view of resources to believe them able to be equal among humans, though opportunity is the same life for how a person makes them or it. That is, the quality of a person’s life cannot be measured by how much resides within it, though is based on the understanding of where one’s place is. It cannot be the task of being everywhere or being anything that a life demands, since this is the same as being competitive or being unequal. Demanding equality does not make it.
Demanding what one wants will refer to a person and their quality of life as lacking. However, a lacking quality or being lacking in quantity holds a difference, as it is necessary to know which is which. Out of discontent, a person wants more. This is desiring quantity. Although, desiring quantity is the person wanting to fill a space that never was, in the first place. One cannot want quality, because it is everything qualitative that is a necessity. That is, one cannot want what one needs. One cannot demand what one needs, because necessities have all to do with their gain through an individual’s abilities. If one has no understanding of their abilities, then there is also ignorance for their place.
Wherever one is in the world cannot be demanded to be higher, if one can say that it is a necessity to not be poor. The openness a person can express, for the sake of wanting more through its demand, will ascribe themselves as at the resource at the disposal of someone who will make use of them. Of course, being used for work is to the direction of an individual’s abilities. Though, demanding instant reprieve to one’s own suffering is in reference to how such an individual is discontent to quantity. No individual can be discontent to their abilities to achieve greater standing in their life, without admitting that their skills are of lower quality.
Lowest quality for skills will deserve lowest quality for quantitative earnings. Being represented as a person of difference will mean their segregation is upon the surface, though not believed to be valued for individualist ability. That is, if one is represented for difference, then one is not represented for individualism. Such a person is represented as a category. It is because representation should be defined not as one’s place, though as a mere color that perfectly blends in with all others of the same sort. As part of a category, a person cannot be stated to be an individualist, as this attempt to represent them is deceptive. It is deceptive, because as the individualism is being ignored, then all else that is being revealed of such a person is how they were created. As in, to represent a person, in the open, as a difference will not mean to display them for what it is they can accomplish. This is the same as representing a person as a painting from a painter. Understanding who someone is, as an individual, is knowing how well they can compare to you. Though, it is always from being in the perspective of another individual that this would work, being for the definition of equality.
Competition is not mean to be equal, though Socialist comprehension of equality is born upon the resource, even in the ignorance for how anything quantitative would be for the sake of competition. If one considers the notion of equity into this matter, then it is always on the basis of profit. What is equitable is always resulting in profit, due to the nature of function. There cannot be care, out from the place of the heart, when there is no consideration of form. Through resource and competition, there is division through the understandings of chaos. Chaos can be interpreted as a division, due to collective notions of what is controlled to then be manipulated. With resources and competition, there is manipulation and deception, due to the realm of business that acts in relation to the addict’s mindset. It is the addict’s mindset that does not care, out of missing heart, for consequence, so long as there is gain of the material for pleasure’s sake. It is that business differs from pleasure when it operates on the side of honesty in not taking to the addict’s mindset for not caring for consequence. As it is, corruption can be said as the example of believing reputation is a lesser worth over material gain.
Function believes in itself to move, as what is equitable becomes profitable only to the consideration that the faltering business will, once again, have motion. If business halts, then function halts. Such means that equity will pertain to profit, since lacking care will display itself as deception enough for a person, said to be disadvantaged, believing themselves cared for. No person is cared for, when a lacking heart with an addict’s mindset believes only in the pursuit of material gain, enough to treat the disadvantage worker as merely an inconvenience. Though, their inconvenience can be said as a convenience, when their use is to represent a company as good-hearted.
In the place of competition, chaos is born from the demanding individual whose supply is not enough. Although, a disadvantaged worker is said to have abilities not qualitative enough. If the demanding individual has lacking supply, while the disadvantaged worker has lacking quality in their abilities, the it is the former that will overlap the latter when care or heart cannot be applied. The heart will represent form or the honest individual who understands themselves and their abilities and place. All things quantitative of material nature, represented as the mind, is useful even with the deception of stating there is good intention or heart to allow usefulness for a disadvantaged worker. If a disadvantaged worker is still useful, then there cannot be heart nor good intention in this when the result is their usefulness. As well, there cannot be heart within this when the heart, represented as the form, is useless. It is to mean that there is no consideration for how one felt, though for how one could still be used.
Capitalist Order, in Privatism
Through all order that pertains to the individual, truth is kept for the knowledge of self and all things and people closely connected to the self. The self will be private, through the notion of understood truth. In the repeat of what form is, it is the truth that remains superior to deception, the same as individualism is superior to collectivism. Truth cannot be anything more than individually understood. If it is not individually understood, then it is uncontrolled and within the open. It is ignorance. Such an ignorance is in the negligence against the individual and individualism. Even should one believe that form will follow function, truth comes to be understood in the long-term. That is because function is a relation to mere short-term material gain. When it is that the short-term material gain is depleted, in relation to Socialism, there is the truth that awaits all individualists in the long-term.
It is truth that frees an individual, always from the enslavement of the short-term pleasures due to material gain. Equity is profitable, the same as profit is equitable. This is same to believe that what is useful is used, as what used soon becomes useful. Though, the long-term will represent the ignorance that those of short-term benefit had ignored or kept in ignorant negligence. Deception is always the mindset of collectivism, since all things useful are always deceived to believe they are cared for out of a supposed presence of heart. If heart is absent, then that is the reason individualism is being ignored for the preference of collectivism.
Preferring collectivism is the same as preferring the value of a resource over the worth of a human being. Believing societal conflicts can be resolved through collective ideals is no different than believing deception is more feasible and more advantageous over truth. It is because truth is useless, that makes such the only reason individualism is kept in negligence. When heart is absent, then all the focus becomes is function. Truth is always a private place, through the knowledge an individual or individualist has for self or themselves. There is no openness of truth or the individual, when such cannot be made useful. However, truth can be made known, though one cannot be practical or pragmatic about it. If a person believes in truth, then that is what defines it as such. Would truth or individualism be made factual, then individualism could be forever ignored as all humans become simple useful objects.
As individualism is useless, then the collective is revealed as useful. No individual can be controlled, when such represents itself as a questioner or free-thinker to their surroundings. A placed value directed towards collectivism is with the preference of function, though form will speak for the heart or for care with all belief and wisdom in understanding of what cannot work or function. What is functional or useful must work, though an individualist rebels. If for the sake of pure progress, then there cannot be individualism, nor truth, nor privacy. All must be open with the representation of the controlled category.
As order will be distinguished for only the individual makes the collective as chaos if not controlled and lacking of a voice. There cannot be voice with the chaos that would fell a tower or burn the home, though with the person who stands apart from the rest meaning to act in terms of bravery because they were not told to. With all that can be ordered is only a short-term duration within the place of deception, when it is collected. There cannot be an eternal constriction upon such a collection, without an individual to step away from it. From the chaos, there are individuals who escape it. Such individuals comprehend that chaos is uncontrolled to the collective that is no longer functional. While it is those who desire change to demand quantitative material gain, it is because such a change will be from the chaos that they represent. A collective must be the useful, tamed beast, or else it is a mere distraction and nothing else.
To the care for the issue being viewed, there must be representation of the heart. Otherwise, representation acts to the useful, without understanding if such is controlled or is not. With the latter mode of representation, discipline for the sake of the collective’s control can become authoritarianism, with ease. Although, with finding value in the uncontrolled collective, it is to mean that distraction is believed to display worth. A distraction cannot be worthless if it is deception that is being operated. One falsifies the idea that such an uncontrolled, chaotic collective holds a voice, though cannot when it is mere distraction. As well, such people within this chaotic collective distract themselves. Their distraction extends outside of both the knowledge of self and understanding for their place. Their place, as a distraction, is never to be useful in terms of ability. Instead, their place is to be useful for the moment, until exhaustion is their next field of belonging. That is, what is demanded of such a chaotic collective is their undoing when it is power that still reigns above it, not ever to the place of that chaos.
Chaos can be understood as the rainclouds that disperse themselves, soon when they cannot unload more rain to wherever it was sent, at random. If made more of a comparison to flame, such is the probable place of a distraction. Fire destroys, meaning that it distracts. Fire is only useful to block evidence or facts that would be in existence as knowledge against the ignorance and negligence of the individual. Neglecting truth will also mean to be ignorant of facts, since to ignore the individual who is representative of all knowledge means that the collective will value flame to destroy what is individualism. If the collective values flame, then it is the previously mentioned discontent of supply that defines it.
Being discontent to supply or material gain will be with the negligence directed towards individualism. One is unable to believe in truth if not believing in the individual, because there is negligence directed towards them. Believing in the one who will accomplish what no one else possesses the will to do, is to not believe in deception. It is since deception always be defined as those are deceived, in believing in those who have done all that has been done, though no longer appears, in form, as anything understood. Understanding the individual is a direction towards equality. Comprehending the truth is always in the place of not ignoring it. If one no longer ignores truth, then individualism is the focus. Although, individualism is inevitably the focus, the same as a consumer will find quality as more truthful and more emotive over the manufactured and overdone deception of mass production.
It is in the question of what holds meaning that the place of truth can be understood as not what is mass produced where sameness is viewed as a collective gathering of a category. A category is a representation of something without meaning. That is because a mass produced item, or even of a person, has been collected without the voice due to the simple fact that they were collected. For the sake of the voice, only the individual possesses such. Their meaning is with flaw, though necessary for such to be humanly connected for the sake of true union. As union is accomplished through the vulnerable nature within humanity, then division will be the result of a collective that seeks its own control. For the division that results from an uncontrolled collective, it is individualism that will be born from it. As an individual can only arise when parting from the group, any uncontrolled collective will be divided into multiple individuals.
The same as a gathering of rainclouds can no longer cause the downpour, means that there will be separations of that collective to be individual for their separate paths. If paths are separate, then it was because he the collective had separated. In the knowledge of the self, an individual comprehends their own capabilities. Individualist capabilities are to truth, though their privacy is in only the individual making use of them. Being different, only in terms of individual capability, is outside the fathoming of what is equitable. That is, if what is equitable means that all disadvantaged workers can compete at the same rate, then there is external, vain belief to know that individual’s capabilities are shortcoming.
To know individualist capabilities is only for the comprehension of the person, themselves. That is what defines a truth, that for the sake of an ability will not ever b equal to another’s own when in the workforce where collectives reside. This is more evidence to mean that no collective can be equal, without the forceful application of the deception that places vain understanding of an individual’s capability. Deception will make use of the chaos, though only for the distraction of it. In distraction being useful, there is always opportunity for individualism to be birthed from the evidence of a thing destroyed.
Blame the System of Selflessness
If a society’s system comprehends individualist capability, then it will desire proof of it. If a company represents its employees based upon external difference, then it is deceptive in its negligence towards the individual. There is deception, as well, placed in the lack of value for what an individual can prove through their abilities. If qualification is less of an importance to a company over what it might represent upon the surface, then it cannot claim to care for what their representations feel. Without heart, there is no humanity. Without such humanity that conveys the place of a person, of their ability through the understanding of human limits, there is only belief in the limitlessness of distraction and chaos. That is, to have endless chaos would mean that to believe there are boundless material things to be both consumed and destroyed.
Chao is the causation, not the creation, of it. This has been said. This would mean that a collective cannot be a creation, though merely something acting as harm as a causation to a society. In its place upon the world, there is the thought of selflessness being the reveal. Though, the only kindness expressed through deception is the preference to not expose the truth. That is because what is truthful is far too shocking for those of weak hearts or those without hearts to understand. Although, to many, their freedom would be upon the realization of such truth, since it compares to what they have ignored of themselves.
One cannot say that truth is not ever in comparison to freedom. Selflessness is for freedom, since the selfish person would only choose to confine another out of fear for the truth to be known. Although, in the repeat of a previous example, a mother cannot be told lies long enough to forever sway her curiosity over her missing child. She will want to know the truth, being in relation to having a free mind to the fact of what is. As truth is expression, those not with heart enough to express it are not selfless. Expressing such a truth would be selfless, since it is always cruel to keep a person knowing nothing. If one loves a person, truth will be revealed at the understanding for how they will react. Although, such truth will not be shared with nonchalance without cruelty and carelessness being revealed here, as well. That is the reason why truth can be a privacy, while openness is merely the usefulness.
Neither truth nor a fact is made use of, if neither can be manipulated for the sake of change. As change compares to chaos, then nothing of what is strongest, being both of individualism and factual knowledge, can be altered. It is unbreakable, because such essences serve their purpose to break and alter. However, it was only after breaking and changing the self apart from how one believed themselves were meant to be categorized, that their voice is now being heard louder than any collected army.
Whenever individualism is blamed as insufficient to the solution of the problem, it is the same to the idea that truth would be useless and not practical as its own application. Since truth is useless, the beauty would be, too. Beauty should be understood as the truth meant to be guarded from being absent, the same as a mother who sees herself in her child would also lose herself in losing her offspring. Absence, as it has been said of the heart, is the only way to divide such. To divide the heart is to make it absent, as is the place of death or what is chaos being the absence of creation. If individualism is blamed, then truth is blamed. Though, such a blame had, again, been the case out of a perceived uselessness. Though, to perceive truth as useless is ever an obvious understanding. To understand truth as useless is the same to blame God for not curing someone of their terminal illness. Science must have been birthed from the awareness of this, that to blame truth is to inevitably place fault upon the self. In loathing the self, one brings about change. One brings about chaos.
This chaos, through change, is the universal place of fault. Change is a fault, though improvement is not. Improvement would perhaps be the place of science that builds its progress, in the realization that individualism surpasses it or would when human ambition becomes uncontrolled. As all collectives are weaponized for the sake of their practical nature, to lose control over progress is the same loss for the self. That is, one loses control over the supposed creations that became causations or chaos, after the result of losing one’s own individuality. Understanding the self is realizing limits. As nothing can be more uncontrolled than power, limits become necessary to reduce the onset of tyranny.
A system of selflessness can only be individual-based. Whereas, a system that finds value in collective progress is a worth placed towards convenience. As convenience was repeatedly stated to pertain to the addict’s mindset, the nothing can be more blamed than the person who desires short-term pleasure. A worth directed upon short-term pleasure is one that desires no more than what individualism will inevitably conquer, at such pleasure’s end. Being guilty to pleasure is the same as recognizing what did not last. The guilt a person feels for pleasure is an inevitable reaction of the mind that has recognized what is not individualist, in nature, nor truthful. It was deception, brought on by its place of short-lived convenience.
Although, with past mention of mass production, this will mean that nothing produced, in mass, can be a creation when its alignment with the short-term refers to its presence as short-lived. A short-lived presence is an absence, as individualism did not create it. As nothing mass produced can be long-term in its design, such means that there cannot be protection added to it. This is the case when anything produced, in mass, is easily replaceable. Individualism cannot be replaced, because its value is not to the monetary kind.
Individualism cannot be replaced if believed mass production can be referred to it, due to the foundations being needed to be stripped away to build in new ones. A replacement is always the materialism, though in reference to previous loss, is not comparable to individualized loss by way of understanding knowledge. It is knowledge that shows the past for what has been lost. It is loss, that when individualized, cannot act as a replacement when nothing is changeable of the past. Knowledge becomes practical in its attribution and match to the predictable and unpredictable future. Individualism cannot be replaced, unless it is, as was already stated, given new foundation. Although, a certain degree of self-loathing is the requirement for permanent rebirth. That is, only through the hatred that is born from the knowledge within love is a person able to change individualism, at its foundation.
At the roots, individualism has its beginning. A system of selflessness would be a system of truth, of knowledge to the past, though also forgiveness and acceptance for all errors. If acceptance nor forgiveness cannot be applied to the past, then mistakes are repeated in the form of reconstructing dysfunctional function. What is functional about function is in what displays movement, though controlled only when reality is better understood over the idealisms of the controller. Even among workers within a workforce, reality is meant to be better understood over the idealisms of their enforcers, or otherwise individuality becomes lacking. It is reality that pertains to individualism, because only the individual can comprehend what is as close as usually what is ignored. To a human desiring material gain, all of individuality becomes received with negligence when what is wished to be closer is the material objects. It is better to that individual that identification to the material is more understood, for its repetitive factor among its division, than with knowledge of the self.
The self is real, and only through it is an individual comprehensive to what is most accessible. All materialism cannot be more accessible, without the factor of more being a sign of dissatisfaction. Selflessness can be believed to be represented as a person’s resourcefulness, though can only be seen of the resources as apparent of that when they are sacrificed. As individualism cannot be lost without itself being either absent or abused with negligence and deception, then to count resources as selflessness is through the notion that such can be replaced. If the existence of resources can be seen as simply replaceable, then it becomes a false understanding of value when such is always limited in the numerical sense.
All of value must be in consideration of what cannot be replaced, since in reference to selflessness, there is no greater place to put worth than to the heart. A heart that is selfless is one that cannot be told to be such, through any resource of learning. With its loss, there is no sacrifice. A heart cannot be sacrifice, as such can only be lost. This is due to what the heart is, as a place stored with memories. To have knowledge of self is to remember one’s origin, since deception occurs in the ignorance of such origination or where one started. If the individualist’s heart is treated with limited value, then it has been viewed as expendable.
To be a System of Inequality
A system cannot be the place of sheer individualism, since societal function does not operate on the useless and dysfunctional realm. If progress steers a nation forward, then individualism will be seen as forcing it backwards. Although, a society that is strict upon collectivism or function to be the first place will also bring a nation backwards. This is all due to the notion of reality colliding with idealism. An idealist will believe in reality as second-place, before their ideals. To function progress, in believing reality should come second, is to always reverse a nation’s progress. There is nothing least progressive than to operate a societal space wholly on function. When individuality is neglected, it was because it was placed second after function. When such individuality is neglected, it becomes missing. In its absence, there is sheer belief that the repetition of mass production can be an appropriate leadership. Though, the only things ever repeated are the mistakes of history. Such means that in the idea that mass production will create what is flawless in design, is instead the blindness to how such will be the rapid causation of errors.
Errors are a repetition, because individualism cannot be repeated. As with errors being a repetition, such are also replaceable. All flawed products are replaceable, when they are expendable. A human being becomes expendable and replaceable, when weaponized through being a collective. A collective is a weapon, the same as an army. If a soldier was killed, themselves are seen as replaceable through their flesh. A physical component, being flesh, is all to understand what division represents. It is that no soldier nor any expendable human can be forcefully gathered without negligence towards their individuality. If individuality is ever completely neglected, what is left is tyranny. The tyrant ignores and neglects the voice, because only the individual can have such. As well, such a tyrant had become one through their weaponized collectives and armies who do not question their word.
Each repeat is the same mass production of those errors that are only replaceable because a human, through their imperfect selves, had caused it to occur. A mistake is caused. That is, one causes an error. A mistake cannot be created. No human being’s individuality is an error, unless hatred is to replace what one loves that belongs of the self. As it is, no love for the self can be possible without a recognition of all that also belongs to the self. What belongs to the self cannot be a repetition when a limited is unable to be placed on the immaterial. Each thing immaterial is never a resource, as is the case with everything expendable, replaceable, and repeated in supposed production.
When progress is halted, it was because of a belief that function is greater in its place, with people, than form. Or, it was the belief that collectivism, through its innate design of repeating errors, holds a superiority over what is unable to be divided among differing separations being the individuality of a person. Production of knowledge will be applicable towards the future. It is the future that defines what is meant to be corrected of a remembered error. It is not the self ever to be corrected, though can be replaced when foundations are uprooted. Replacement to error is the repetition of these mistakes, as it can be proven through this thought that mass production is the production of continuous flaw. If individualism had been uprooted to replace such with mass production or the repeat of error, then this is no different than placing deception as a greater value over truth. That is due to what past knowledge represents. If past knowledge is useless, due to either the lack of correction required for it or the perception of its goodness, it is what can be overlooked being all errors of it.
Idle knowledge is not representative of the division of mass-produced resources, since nothing is desired for it to be changed nor is there anything else to learn for the further gain of knowledge. Knowledge, itself, is a resource when applied to the future, in terms of correcting what is not seen as good. Contentment of knowledge, or simply contentment, is the same as love when nothing is seen of it to be requiring change. As change applies itself to the correction upon a perceived wrong, then anything idle is deemed useless because it is perceived with contentment. There is finish or finality to it, as it becomes useless, much like the dead life that can receive no further correction. As it is the common understanding of certain religions to speak of death as now to be loved, such will reference always the contentment of something that can receive no more change in terms of correction.
An unequal gathering of resources is the system that applies to this contentment, to the understanding of reality that cannot be changed. Although, as reality can be forcibly removed and then replaced with the mere vision of it, nothing is so much alike to this than deception. It is what is real that compares to contentment, since to reality a person is only delusional when believing it can be evaded. The negligence to the value of deception translates to the avoidance of reality for the sake of change and for the place of one’s own ideals. One cannot be idealistic without believing less in the value of reality. Reality then becomes neglected, as well as contentment, to the engagement of forcing one’s ideals to the replacement of what is being ignored. With love, there is contentment, as dissatisfaction will result in infidelity. It is the infidel, to the relationship, who had turned to addiction, or the desire for more, outside of the contentment that love brings. In such a manner, this deceptive person desired materialism over submitting to the immaterial design of love.
Being inequal is no different than understanding that resources cannot be equal, in the acceptance of reality. Accepting reality is a way to comprehend both the self and to create the union in knowing all others can compare to such an unequal side of humanity. As in, humans are unequal through usefulness, though equal when useless. Such means that humans cannot be equal through their ideals, being the source of all utility and progress. Although, humans can be equal when recognizing where there is contentment, in the understanding of the reality without ignoring it. As it is, all human perception is a limitation, that through it, there is belief for betterment. However, when reality is understood, there is recognition for contentment, or on what cannot be believed to be bettered without the introduction of materialism that threatens the union in immaterialism.
The competitive nature of human is in idealism, though is also inevitable. A cycle from this is the group that must form to represent the chaos that becomes undone through an understanding of reality. It is delusion that feeds through ambition, neutralized to this expression. A recognition of what cannot be possible, with idealism, is understood as simple delusion while reality was ignored. Ignoring reality is how the potential of wanting change, that cannot occur without the deception against truth, becomes delusion at the acceptance of realism. Idealism combats realism, only when ability is greater than another’s own, thereby further proving such unequal traits among humans.
Being unequal will translate to what cannot be, out of recognition for one person’s comprehension of their own abilities in contrast from the useless place of another. One is useless, with knowledge that cannot amount to change, then kept in the past as a discarded figure. All that means to be used will be understood, in the future, as such knowledge has been applied. Although, when delusion is the reality of a person’s idealism, there is only inevitable acceptance to that or otherwise face defeat through the application of force. A delusional person, with ideals beyond their own control enough to cause mass chaos, must be forced to submit, forced to surrender and to kneel before those who comprehend reality.
Without reality, humans would be simple conflictions. Although, without idealism, humans would not have been born, not have ever endeared themselves to move, and not have ever possessed their curiosity passed along their life from infanthood. Love cannot change, making it the epitome of the real. Love is reality. This is because what is most unchangeable is what a person would not wish to see changed, without themselves losing their faith. Whether a faith in a believed god, or the faith one holds as loyalty to their spouse, such things would be threatened by change. It is since without faith, humans would constantly threaten each other, without pause.
To pause for the sake of one’s contentment is to not take for granted what has been gained or what is present. As was said of individualism, if such is absent, then all can one want is more. Dissatisfaction takes precedence before satisfaction, the same as deception will become a shroud over truth. It is truth that must be a oneness, the same as the self cannot be more accessible than how a person comprehends themselves. In this notion of what is most accessible, what would then be unequal is how much a person will desire more. Being accessible to ourselves, being ourselves or our abilities, is how the notion of what is unequal should be recognized as the system that cannot change without being referenced as the system, already. It is since to be idealistic is to desire change. Then, one’s own ideals will be introduced against another’s, being further proof to the necessity to recognize that idealism proves everything as unequal.
Praise what can be Lost
Vulnerability is humanity. It is the only way that solution can be formed, to combat existing conflict. To be vulnerable means to break the self apart, not ever in the desire to deconstruct external creations. That is, to show tears means to reveal what would otherwise be hidden beneath a mask of flame. Fire is uncontrolled, though to the addict for anger, there is somehow belief in them to be functional in it. There is no such thing as function, within addiction. As all function is represented as the addiction, itself, then any person claiming themselves functional within addiction is a contented person with their flaw. Although, recognition of the necessity to correct this flaw comes at the understanding for what such a person has broken of another. At understanding the causation for another’s pain, the solution becomes to break the self apart, in the display of remorse to the mistake. Otherwise, there will be birthed a mindset of blame, a victimhood complex to the self, while mistakes become repeated without a necessity to learn from the past.
Functioning upon the point of being content with mistakes is the same as being satisfied with the self’s own ignorance. To this person, the greatest ignorance is upon the self. That is, the individual who has broken another, who blames that other person for such a fault of themselves, has been blinded to the self of what is wrong and requires correction. Would then the question be to wonder on who should be necessitated to tell this wrong individual to change, it would then be answered that only themselves can come to this realization. As has been repeatedly said, up until now, that to teach a person to care or have heart is impossible. No resource can create what is the heart, as that would imply that accessibility had forged such a sense of self of a person.
Deception did not create truth. Though, it is true that deception came from truth, in the same way that God was said to evict what became Satan. Each limitation, comparable always to the resource, is the deception that overlays truth. If it can be said that individualism is superior to collectivism, then it would be the case that the human being who faces the sky instead faces the earth. Such would mean that the individual who looks upon their collected pleasures, being always material through design, cannot be facing the earth that is full of them, with praise. All praise, when faced towards the sky, is in the effort to scorn what is limited of the self in the greater decision to make corrections.
Whether of faith or of science, there is mutual understanding to all humans that the place of material pleasure is a representation of our human selves, though is also what defines deception. One cannot make extinct the individualism that reigns over what would fill the flesh to enlarge or expand it. Individualism brought about the flesh, as it is the creator to such. It is the same in the way an addict overcomes their material desires, if to believe their truth or themselves can conquer what is controlling them in the utilitarian sense.
The utilitarian properties of an object of use are meant to be deconstructed for the purpose of analogy. That is, function will be deconstructed for the sake of understand what allows it motion or utility. As usefulness becomes uselessness, such is the same as bringing what has been built into what has yet to be reconstructed. The blocks, therefore, are useless until there is something to construct from them. In the constructed design, such is only necessary for further construction when imperfections are revealed. There is meant to be improvement to the construction, though the chaos is in what has been broken. Chaos replicates, as what can be seen of simple blocks to build the structure will be numerous. As well, what has been mass produced, in the same sense as a something of lesser quality has been constructed, is in reference to the chaos of repetition.
Chaos is unable to be the construction, because it cannot represent creation. Imperfection is the vulnerable side of humanity. This is everything to do with self-deconstruction with the necessity of understanding how one might function, again. If grief stagnates an individual, there will be the necessity of chaos to comprehend the greater necessity of function. Such is the comprehension of progress, though would require individualist understanding to complete it. It is not that one follows, when in grief. It is that one will understand how one had functioned before such stagnation, though including the changes that were inevitable to their mind within that grief.
What is lost, though not, is the realization that will construct something of the self that is greater. In this recognition, beauty becomes the form a person protects. What form is, repeated here as the unchangeable essence of individualism, is grander when grief does not stagnate a person into a negligence of their own improvement. Improvement does not hold consequence, though changes will. Changes resonate upon choice, while improvement is something inevitable to occur or otherwise downfall is the result.
Although, without choice, a person cannot make a mistake. Without a mistake, there can be nothing to learn from the past. It is that all knowledge is useless when received with a blind eye to its potential for the self’s improvement. The idea in being a victim means to be ignorant of all such potential, that stagnation becomes the result of those who crave sheer choice and error. These people are errored, and then they will error others. They will wrong others, though will place faults upon all external events and people within said events. As improvement is without consequence, then everything consequential is through the desire to escape the self. That is, to be beyond the self would bring about chaos. To be beyond the self would be the epitome of human decisions, outside the individualism that is, in vain, believed to confine a person of what they might gain.
Accessibility cannot be more, when pertaining to the self. Nothing regretful can be of the self, though there is acceptance for who one has become. However, to make a choice on who one can become would require external interference upon others. That is because in the realization that oneself is wrong in the external sense, of their own surface details that do not pertain to their individualism, all decided changes will simply be the endless chaos. It is merely a mask that has settled itself over the truth of individuality. There is the notion of required interference upon others, because influence reigns itself in deception. It is upon who a person could be, that these changes are made only on the external or the surface. To change the self, not improve the self, is to repeat all errors of deception. However, it aligns with the statement that what has been changed, of the self, is now the most accessible trait.
Appearances will change, since that is the fact of one. Appearances hold no place for truth. It is since by themselves, nothing can be proven. A change cannot be truthful, though with the foundations of individualism, there is improvement. With a loss, comprehension of the self is needed. Through required praise, it is set upon what has not been lost, though remain in heart, human will, or in the place of care. It is not individualism that is confined to the singular person, though to all whom a person care for. Individualism is the embrace about what is cared for, that could not be, to a person, ever neglected. No person, of care, would notice someone who is kept so accessible to them as a resource. As a resource pertains itself to the mind, the heart will encompass what is deemed useless or not within the strict design for utilitarianism.
Humans love, because of care. Care resonates with the belief that something remains, even if it has disappeared in the physical sense. A resource is always physical, evident to the flesh that is kept in the frame of trust. As the resources build a construct, then so does trust. Trust builds what would reveal the foundations, at the base, being love. What a person cares for are to support all that is trusted. While love will be said to be blind, then blind trust will refer to gullibility. When a person will find the collective as the betterment over individualism, it was because of the gullible nature that decides for chaos over improving to the individuality of the self. Gullible people will believe in chaos, because whatever will satiate their desires to the short-term will be better understood. Though, without individualism, there is no improvement of the self, except for the stagnancy of comfort.
As humans, we hold potential to care because of what is most accessible, and also least resourceful. Being more humans than those with love in heart, we neglect more with the desire to use than we understand what is most accessible being those who have never abandoned us. Such abandonment comes at the absence of heart, since it was as a mere passing thought that did not remain.