Project: A Two-Step Sequence to Problem Solving: From Delicate Heart to Resourceful Mind – Summer, 2021 Project #2

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.


Useless Knowledge

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 2 – 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.


Foolhardy Equity

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.

Chapter outline

  • This chapter reveals how the activist becomes the hypocrite whenever through their depiction of care, they turn to the resource that is the addiction over the heart. Note: this is due to the heart being a necessity for a person, over the mind, which in reference to addiction, is a convenience.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Activist Hypocrisy – Pt. 2”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes further the hypocritical activist, in comparison to a therapist with one-sided trust, reminding the reader of the Hippocratic Oath being a document that supports hypocritical aid by way of deception through promotion of genuine care. Note: because of no care, the deception for it can be the only replacement, when nothing can truly replace a person or the heart when it either was lost or never there to begin with.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Activist Hypocrisy – Pt. 3”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter becomes the final piece to describe the hypocrisy of the activist, in their addictive and deception tactics, though here to unveil that such maneuvers will actually dissuade a population from creating authentic relationships, since addiction is the easier option. Note: describe how power behaves to gain a hold of people, through the notion of progress bringing about ease through convenience.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“As Liberals find Fault in Greed”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes the Liberal notion that Capitalism is the core of all greed, though only due to it being a system of controlled and deserved resources.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“As Conservatives find Fault in Pride”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes the Conservative notion that Socialism is the place of pride, though with culture being of the collective when raised from depth to a surface detail such as race. Note: in this, remember that “culture” has become those “surface details” in that it has strayed from the infinite depth of individualism to the finite and minuscule details of race upon the exterior.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Sincerity within Family”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter explores how a person can only ever be sincere among those they personally know, versus those who have not received enough trust to allow a closeness into greater comprehension of them.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Insincerity within Professionalism”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter explores how professionalism is the place of one-sided trust, being also one-sided understanding that is based on resources. Note: professionalism, being the place of resource, should be described as also the place of limitation.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Love within Family”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter encompasses family, being where love resonates as the place of remembrance to the past. Note: in this chapter, describe how those who ban speech would be against family, when words are the testament for memories.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Lust within Professionalism”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter encompasses professionalism, being where lust or “the gain” is depicted. Note: this chapter intends to prove how professionalism does not equal care (the heart) when its dealings are to an end result, not to the past or the eternity that is within the heart (to care).

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Eternity against Convenience”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes how it is eternity that is the place of the past, while it is resource that represents the uncertainty of the future. Note: describe here how the certainty of the past, pertaining to love, can remedy the fears of the future.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Kind-Hearted Deceptive Liberal”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter reveals the way in which the common Liberal believes in the resource, though maintains the thought as adjacent to the thought of resource (or convenience, being what relates to everything limited not in reference to care, though deception).

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Cold-Hearted Honest Conservative”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter reveals how honesty cannot be a kindness, due to its nature of not withholding information. Note: withholding information is the core of all deception.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Resources against Honesty”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes how the past compares to the trait of honesty, by how itself a person expresses it through remembering the past. Note: deception would be to the short-term that is in relation to a limited resource, while it is honesty that lengthens the future through remembrance of the care within the past.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Order against Chaos”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter reveals how it is order that represents itself as a mended heart, when it was chaos repeating its rhythm as emotions, instead of to the logic of lacking obsession. Note: to this chapter, describe how order defeats chaos, simply through its opposite representation in how it never actively tackles it, though merely stands out as the better sight – since to fight chaos is always to cause more of it.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Socialist Deception”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes the Socialist obsession with resources, being the pinnacle behind chaos and limitation before exhaustion of emotion. Note: describe here how just like a tool becomes exhausted of use, then so do emotions by their repetition.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Socialist Chaos, in Openness”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter describes how it is “openness” that pertains to representation, while it is the latter that presents itself as a resource – in relation to competition, being the opposite nature of equality. Note: this chapter should note the concept of “equity”, being what this chapter should describe as the epitome of lacking care to the person, though of the need for forceful elevation that one did not earn (pertaining the “earning” to rights or freedom).

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Capitalist Order, in Privatism”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter explores how it is privatism that compares itself to the individual, making of itself in relation to the heart that should be ordered. Note: if the heart is not ordered, the individual inevitably mingles among the collective (being a place always chaotic).

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Blame the System of Selflessness”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter explores how a system of selflessness is contradictory to where selflessness is meant to be shown, being from the individual. Note: it is since selflessness has no place among the collective, because it is always to the resource that a person clings to among the collection (when one, within the collective, is a resource, themselves).

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“To be a System of Inequality”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter explores how it is to business that craves the competitive nature, while it is to inequality that represents the same. Note: Competition is to inequality, not of its opposite – making this chapter to be one that shows how a system of inequality is best, while one is able to earn what should never be a mere gift.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.


“Praise what can be Lost”

Chapter outline

  • This chapter revisits and elaborates upon a concept (written once as a blog post) that a person takes life for granted when they turn to the resource, over the unlimited nature of the ordered heart – being the definition to praising what can be lost, in the recognition of human vulnerability within the heart. Note: it is in never understanding what can be lost within the next moment, or to believe a relationship or life can be without conflict, that a person takes life for granted – meaning that a person, through this mindset, believes more in conflict over the resolution of it, due to how conflict is the place of a person who denies human vulnerability.

Chapter word limit: 1,500 words.

Leave a Reply