“Our obsession with the ‘individual perception’ has stemmed from only one source: the invention of the camera. We can only say ‘lens’ because of the literal lens the camera has, though our own eyes, having been in existence since sight was first around, since light was first around, since before the camera flash was first around, also have a lens. Our eyes are glassy, appear as lakes, or as a reflection of something captured in a mirror, or in the water to that lake. When we view a reflection, we require light to see it. Alike to that flash, our eyes need the light. Our eyes show tears, further marking its semblance of that lake, or even that mirror. In a camera, there is ‘captured perfection’. In a painting, there is ‘captured imperfection’. Movement is more-so expressed in the painting, over the photograph, because the sitter for the artist had to have been moving, for the painter to make corrections. And so, within our ‘obsession with the individual perception’, here our eyes become betrayed by that ‘captured perfection’, causing imminent and rampant confusion to plague us. That is because to ‘see perfection’ is as unbelievable as that disbelief is instinctual. It is an instant response as a reaction to one photograph, as well captured, in an instant.”
“The decline in popularity among the misunderstood connects itself directly with ignorance, and also the knowledge and patience required to comprehend a creation. As science goes, it attempts to comprehend humans, as humans comprehending humans. As children, we cannot comprehend the doings of our parents until we become our parents. In the same sense, those religious folks wouldn’t comprehend God unless they attained godhood, or were arrogant enough to replace God. All artists in their desire to create from their own mind, weave an image out of their own image, is alike God who had created Man in His own image. Out of the dust, something rises, and the like. And, for what reason does popularity take hold of the artist of no individualism?
Recall what it means to be misunderstood, as the artist. So many times, does this occur, when an artist who takes his or her craft seriously will release a work that he or she does not care for, though it garners popularity. And why is this? It is because the work not cared for, not taken care for, is a work that can easily be comprehended. By the artist’s own mindset, this means that any work of any true seriousness will never be comprehended by those viewers upon the creation. In relation to God, through this, we have viewers, we have creations, and we have God. Who are scientists in this scenario? They must be the viewers, who see both God as a non-existence, and all creation as ignorant and needing help.
That is, such ‘creations’ are the children of Man, the children of God, and they are ignorant according to science.
God declines in popularity alike the artist, when a heightening misunderstanding overcomes the creator, the artist, and parenthood, itself. That is, the ‘children’ turn from creations to viewers, begin to ask questions as any scientist with immense curiosity, and are never the ones to offer absolute answers.
The artist throws a work into the field of view, though has been met with decreased popularity because no one comprehends it. And the work from artists of no individualism, whose works lack emotion and are soulless, are the easily understood works; because, due to the mysteriousness of any artist, their truth comes as a pleasure to always be misunderstood, and only ever understood by life, when the artist is dead.
Therefore, when God is fully dead, he is revived, as Christ was revived in the same sense. A misunderstanding leads to a question, and all answers quickly become erased when a spirit has taken them to the grave.”
“The sculpture points itself to flesh, the form, or the face, and each recognition to what a viewer beholds to be a human, or an animal, relates to truth. Truth is merely defined as the recognition of it, and each artist should be knowledgeable to differ a truth from a lie. That is, to differ an original from a counterfeit. To know his own skills, the artist’s own skills, makes the artist alike the mother or father, or perhaps of both, with both shared traits, and able to recognize the creation of a child. The work, that is, and should such a work, like a painting, like a sculpture, be tampered with, it becomes without recognition, alike a parent’s child who has been mauled.”
“The beholder of the artist’s creation, has seen also God’s creations, so revealed by what the artist is, when he is dead; and we say the same for God, to say that God has never existed. It should be the most obvious thing, when the artist has died, swiped his final stroke, and finally has found fame when his body has become ashes. He no longer exists, and so, his works are praised. In the same sense, when God is no longer in existence, is no longer believed, humans see humans, humans find science to be useful; and, the most that comes from this, is to find that we enslave one another, while believing we are free. From the artist’s chains? From God’s chains? It is only because a life has no use, when dead. Though, why is it that we say we are free, that we are independent, when we are away from a mother, from a father? Is it the same?”
To Man, his submission is to be pulled down from clouds. Why say it is a societal teaching to never see Man weep? It is not so, for his emotions, when released, are divided between sadness and anger. For the former, his emotions are those ambitions, with his mind raised in the clouds, until when his tears rain from storms; and for the latter, his emotions are caged, and in contemplation, Man is searching to break free from confinement. As a monster, Man has contemplated too long; and due to his presence in a prison population, contemplation has made Man reflective on his actions. He plans escape, to be among a world, where there is swaying grass and rushing waves. Man accompanies a prison population, while Woman awaits his return.
Woman holds a belief in a “Second Coming” to Christ, in the sense that she had her virginity taken by the first “Coming”; and to better comprehend, Man would return to ease that longing, should Man choose to remain true. Love is the infinite emotion, an expression of truth upon Woman’s yearning soul. And as Man is the scientist, the inventor, and maker of numbers and mathematics; and especially in numbers, Man will create armies, though upon one day when he matches himself with Woman, he will allow all walls to collapse, upon seeing Woman. She may choose to urge him towards further success, though it will be for her satisfaction. And Woman’s satisfaction extends beyond, in so much as she complies with the guilt of the undoing. Woman reverses upon a memory to see what may else be born in the future, with Man in her accompaniment. And upon him staring into her eyes, he comprehends that there is else to do for her appeasement; and this is in the name of lust, and never love.
Love is the eternal emotion, welcomed by the flames of lust whenever we realize that love requires lust for its maintenance. Man realizes himself, whenever in the clouds, as only ever vulnerable when his ambitions begin to rain tears. And upon the ground, Man is also incredibly enraged, when his truth has been grounded. Man is enraged whenever no one, especially for the heart of the monster, has heeded the beast’s howling call. And it would take Woman’s angel wings to lift the exhausted monster to Heaven, and then beyond. Love is the emotion that reveals truth by flesh shown only when in the darkness of privacy. Beauty is the flesh of Woman, and Man had made it; as he will, at times, call her his daughter, or his child, and treat her in the fragility as all beauty is meant to be protected.
And why is Woman to be protected? For it should be the same as the mother wishing to protect her own child; or the organization in protection of the endangered species; and we can finally see that it is the instinct of love, to protect that which may be endangered. Does Woman aim to resist the call of love, or rather, the action of love? It is instinctual for the mother attached to her child, to be the shield to her child; and it is instinctual for the organization that possesses much power to protect the life that is endangered. Though, what will be the realest reason for Man to protect Woman? It should be comprehended that without Woman, Mankind, itself, would starve, would perish; and therefore, it is to say that without Woman, we’d not survive without her nurturing ways. Humans have learned to survive, and to say that comfort is a thing, in today’s time, as eternal, and provided by leadership, turns a nation into the epitome of vulnerability.
“The artist has a singular vision of reality. Such a vision provokes reality to move. Although, the artist has a liking to pick up reality to perhaps drag it. As well, the artist has a liking to make reality writhe in pain, or echo some cry of thrill. Nothing prevents the artist from showing movement.
And for what purpose does this movement conceive its own definition? That definition is the purpose of evil. Art is not evil. It is merely an interpretation of life. Of all what stays inside life, it is the birth of potential. Had Hitler’s mother known of what evil she’d birth? Had Caesar’s mother known of what power she held in her womb?
Art does not convey love. It conveys truth. It conveys the reality made into truth. For reality is nothing more than a stagnant image, and perhaps the blank canvas, before the artist makes life from it. It is the empty womb, the darkened hallway, before there is a child nestled within, or torches lit upon the walls.
Love is a stagnation. Death is a stagnation. And the artist does not convey these things, for these things do not display movement. We are contented in these two things. We want for no more, when either in love or dead, or close to death. For love, we willingly submit. For death, we are forced to submit. And for both, life has no hold upon us.
What is life? It has been said to hold the definition of ‘worth’ or ‘value’ and such things are only ever measured through age. The ‘existence of time’ becomes an existence, when we are able to see life for its truth.
When we speak of evil, we speak of that life, and its discontinuance. We speak of the constant discontent. For a human can only ever be contented when willingly content, or when in love, or when forced to be content, or when near death.
Truth is a middling. Love is a higher. Death is a lower.
We, as humans, are always middling, no matter our ambitions.
It is because when love interferes with the dictator, he is no longer a dictator. He soon renounces his ambitions, and settles in with a wife, while people still pound on his door to murder him.”
Let fall what water will drop to taste, The shadow from a woman’s edges To blue eyes within a puddle of ivory. I feel from them, the ripples of despair, The love we behold, is a pain of memory, Love has been bridged, Over cherished hills of cherry tops. Above a breast and a nipple, And two lips that aim to kiss, The temple of me, a man with much remorse.
Oh, my beauty, how you’ve grown Your heart to meet the risings of this garden, The detail of veins, The intricacy in their weaving, I feel their coming upon us. As the many deceptions you’ve been enticed By, to make another world. And to the world you’ve created, One of lust, It is one of death, by my judgement.
Deny me no longer, The one who aims, To tear free that heart, and to pull loose, Each vein, Apart, so that blood flows free, Each feeble pulsation, is a sordid one.
Death has made you fowl, Enough for murder to be my art. Love has become our fate, Though, to what we make of blood, With its many hues and shades, Guarantee us to be opposites, A hue and a shade. Won’t we love, among so many birds?
Q: You have mentioned that despite Feminism believing itself to better marriage for women, that it was inevitably to destroy the entirety of marriage?
A: It is correct, because Feminism had a main ideal, and that ideal was discontent. The essence behind love is to make a human not want for more, other than the one who they’ve devoted themselves. Love does not make a human want more, and because Feminism has made a woman want more, then marriage inevitably would have succumbed, as it has done.
Q: Could you elaborate on why love is never to be met with discontent?
A: It is because marriage is there as a lock, and bound together, no two of the ones who are married should ever part from the other. Through the marriage, the ‘leaving of the house’ initiates the process of longing, and the forcefulness of patience. A man lacks the most patience over a woman, and his inevitable ways with discipline, does not make him the patient one. Over a man, a woman will listen to words, and words entice the utmost out of patience. Love cannot, or rather, should not be met with discontent, due to how love operates in the sense that love offers rest. Love offers relief, away from the stresses of life.
Q: And on why Feminism would have inevitably succeeded in destroying marriage, and even love?
A: It is because the most discontent find ways to make use of things. And the most useful of things, are in fact, the most useless of things. This is love, the most useless thing, because one is not meant to look upon family through lust. Discontent makes the human want more, and in wanting more, one makes use of tools. When in lust, a human is out of love, and in the process of wanting more, and that is either a child, or escapism away from stagnancy. Creation, that is, to make art, and therefore, the artist is always the one who is discontent. A world that wishes to create further stagnancy is a world that is seeking the other form of equality.
Q: What form of equality is that?
A: There are only two forms of equality: love and death. Love, as the former, is the higher equality. Death, as the latter, is the lesser equality. Meaning, love is raised, and death is lowered; or rather, love raises, and death lowers. A skeleton, when relating to death, is just as any skeleton, by the bones. Through flesh, and through love, we recognize life, the breathing, and the emotions, because we abandon the dead, save for the memories of their life. Through flesh, a human will recognize their beloved, just as a skeleton, were it to walk, would recognize another skeleton as the same, and be a slave. It is so, because a slave has no way to distinguish his misery from another slave. In today’s world, death has grown to be the new form of equality, because truth, or a woman, or flesh, is never raised. This is Socialism, because death, or poverty, is the only other form of equality, besides a love for God, or the love for a husband, being the love for a father.
Your growing fragrance, Matches this room and its aromatic candles. And I have found it upon myself With my hands to claw at the flesh of thee, To tear and yank the burden of attire I see, To match the nakedness to the maker of me, Who is a demon that I cannot let flee. You have sweat glistening upon an arm, And a face that whimpers beneath the soaring skies.
When I choose to love, I live as the beast, To devour the wholeness of your making.
When did you last submit? Where will you see yourself in coming years? Above the sands of shores where shades dance on a form, That has never been nude.
I shall lay you upon a bed, For myself to see, And to glimpse a moving breast, And two legs like the purest white from birch.
When I’ll make you mine, I’ll differ nectar from wine, And make the world find me tiresome.
Q: The fundamental difference between changing and improving is, as you describe it, changing to what is going to work, and to improve is to improve by adding layers. Is this correct?
A: To change would mean to divide oneself between the working and the not working. And to improve oneself would mean to work off the “already working” and then add layers.
Q: And you say that in the past, society has displayed the latter method?
A: That is correct, because though technology has not allowed for better results for medicine, we were improving drastically through artistry. And in today’s time, what is seen as useful is, of course, knowledge. Artistry is not at all useful, because things which produce emotion, like a painting or music is inherently useless. The word “useless” of artistry is related to how a human would not “make use” of a loved one, unless they’d put them to work.
Q: And you say that during the current times, society has displayed the former method?
A: The former method, meaning to change oneself, is the enactment of changing between the “working” and the “not working”. Artistry is inevitably lost in a society that gains more touch with the “useful” over the “useless”. Is a woman at all “useful” if they are held in a home, without anything to reveal use? They soon become useful, and are never truly loved. It is because love is stagnant, unchanging, as it is never meant to be anything other than love. To love is to love forever, and for this reason, it is why previous scientific methods were seen as inferior to the current ways, because “improvement” was not made for science, though was made consistently for art. To “change” is to merely change, and to do no more than swap between the “working” and the “not working”, until one eventually and inevitably settles on “working”. It is because one wishes to be seen as useful in a society that operates like a singular machine.