Philosophy – “Why Systems (sometimes) do not Require Change (to help people)” – 5/16/2022

“If we care to solve, we will not need as many resources. In this absence of care, resources become our supplement. We replace a heart, meant to be there within us, with material, ephemeral resources. All meant for accessibility to us cannot be always in this manner for a resource. As there can be nothing more accessible than an individual’s knowledge of self, a resource will only extend as far as to keep ourselves distracted.”

– Modern Romanticism

If it has been true, that a person who displays their habits of addiction will gain more of a likelihood for homelessness, a similar comprehension can be that one with continued replacements of material resources will show more of a likelihood for losing their heart, or themselves, among what now reveals itself as least accessible. Accessible, through what fault? Fault of that addict’s self. Desiring a resource, in place or to replace a heart, or knowledge of oneself, can be no different than wanting to sustain one’s addiction to be kept outside of one’s home.

If a system must change for this type of individual’s help, comprehension to these sorts becomes void. That remains always due to comprehending a person requiring an amount of knowing their capability. However, to view a person a victim will be to view them as incapable. That will make an incapable individual not be at all an individual, though as an incapable collective.

There can be no such thing as an incapable individual. Incapable collectives, however, exist due to not needing to be aware of individuals, within that collective, with their own separate abilities. For when Jews, during that era of WWII, were seen by Germany as still capable to take to their skills of tailor work inside of concentration camps, they were still considered Jews with no true purpose for a life.

Knowing an individual’s individualist abilities will remain an awareness to only this individual, in fullness. If a system shows desire to change to suit itself for knowing different abilities within different individuals, its change will be meaningless. This has always been due to all system’s inability to comprehend an individual enough to separate their incorrect behavior from what they understand has always been valued. For if it can be due to an addict’s addiction that rules them enough to override their value for things with their incorrect behaviors, this cannot be an awareness for anyone except for an addict. To change an institution to better benefit an individual’s ways will require knowledge of a person. Although, no amount of knowledge or resources given to a person, with their degrading faults, will replace their comprehension over themselves without such appearing as a sameness to what they have been doing to themselves, being to override their values with their behaviors with their addiction.

If a person can enter an institution to exit this place still with their faults, there cannot be a flawed institution. Instead, there remains a flawed individual or even a flawed family unit. As perhaps a secondary individual who knows this flawed individual might be their closest friend or relative, if such can be around to aid said flawed individual, it will prove better than any institution. Comprehension of an individual to all that makes them an individual with capabilities, instead of among an incapable collective, can come only from an area of individualism, not collectivism. All knowledge to a person comes from that person, themselves, or from a secondary person who knows enough to not replace that flawed individual’s knowledge of themselves, though to bring a perspective forth in light of their silence.

Philosophy – “To Hell with all Redefinitions, Difference, & Uniqueness” – 9/12/2020

“All originality pertains to the stagnant history of a thing, of a creation, of a development. When people can pertain their future to the history, they are responsible. For responsibility could only ever amount to a person knowing that their history cannot change. And so, the future should not change, though simply improve. For if they were to change their history, they’d change their identity, and they’d just change, not improve, their future. Through such division of difference, and such redefining of uniqueness, we repeat a bloodbath for a history. We repeat the core of human history, pertaining to selfish pride.”

– Modern Romanticism

All history is stagnant. All history is repeated through redefining of definitions, of words, of the world. For such is the reference to the redefinition, or the remaking, of history or our identity. As our history or identity is meant to remain stagnant, and never changed, it is through irresponsibility that a person does not keep such an identity stagnant. Responsibility is the sameness of a thing. Irresponsibility is the chaos that comes from redefinitions and change.

We are irresponsible, because we do not want to keep definitions the same. That is irresponsibility, because to be irresponsible means to never keep things pure. We are responsible in such a sense, when in love, or when we act on our love for a family member or friend. We want to keep them unwounded. We want to keep them unbroken. Such responsibility makes a person remain in that sameness.

As sameness relates to responsibility, then it is change, chaos, and repetition that relates to irresponsibility. How often is a man said to want to protect his woman? How often does a woman state that she doesn’t want to be protected by her man? Sameness for the former. Change and chaos for the latter.

Humans change by redefining their history. For the word “change” has a definition of its own. Not of sameness, makes that definition, when the word has no relation to logic or improvement. Logic has its relation to improvement, while change does not.

Any nation’s voting system, to term limits for a president or prime minister, makes such ways pertain to change, not improvement. Not of sameness, and the differing ideologies create the eventual chaos, for eventual nationwide political upheaval.

The person who believes themselves unique, believes themselves redefined. Once again, all redefinitions pertain to the lack of stagnancy that follows a lack of responsibility in repeating the past. We repeat the past, because we developed a world out of change and repetition. Change and repetition, versus improvement and stagnancy, are the only differences one should notice.

Improvement has no relation to stagnancy. Change does, however, because it goes in every direction, besides upwards. Improvement moves upwards, towards an eternity where once in outer space, there is no direction. For there is no direction in outer space. Though, improvement heads in that direction where change and chaos is impossible.

Philosophy – “The Stupidities & Intelligence of Men & Women” – 9/2/2020

“A generalization is not so much the trivialization of a person, place, or thing. It is more the act of simplifying a person, place, or thing so that ambition, as a drive for stupidity, does not bring in a chaotic mentality.”

– Modern Romanticism

A man is direct, and straightforward. He is weak, when he holds back, though he is smarter when he does. Intelligence always operates on the aspect of vulnerability. That is because for a man, he will go straight, and onward enough to smash into a wall. Then, rather than attempting to understand the wall, fathom the obstacle for why it has been placed in his way, he will merely drive it down.

Men and their ambitions make them forward-thinkers. As a stupid one, such “forward-thinking” will always meet obstacles. To crush them all, makes the man an idiot. What does a woman do, when she has been the observant one to a man’s predictable Nature? She wishes to be forward-thinking. She looks to him, says that her being “held back” is an oppression, and then goes to aim for his exact motives, to replicate them. It is the same as her looking at her own reflection to apply the cosmetic, and seeing something hideous. She then embraces that ugliness, not ever wishing to only be seen as beautiful. For a man is an ugly fool, whenever he is a forward-thinker. A man is plain, in this sense. When a woman imitates this, she is also plain, as it is known of her to accept that.

All the intelligence of a man is in his need to understand. To use his ears, over his eyes, and pay attention. He must pay attention to a woman. He must pay attention to sounds, not only sights. His recognition of beauty, is his recognition of a woman. His sight upon her, is his penetrative gaze past such beauty. Though, if a man remains stuck upon appearances, then to him, it is another obstacle. If he breaks her, whether physically or with manipulation, then he is an idiot. He is an idiot to break what he cannot be honest with, for that would require vulnerability.

A woman’s intelligence comes when she finds it not worthwhile to give into vanity. To “have it all”, as some might say. A woman’s vanity, being an innate trait that can be given connection to her curiosity, is her desire to touch everything. As unpredictable as a woman is, it is because she represents change. If a woman speaks openly about change and choice, then she is speaking about vanity. Choice connects to “diversity”, while “diversity” connects to an endless source of colors. Colors are always infinite, so her intelligence would come from mere observation to them. To listen to who tempts her, however, would result in her touch. Her touch, would pull down what has been build upward.

If a woman has more of a chance to develop Alzheimer’s Disease, then it only means that she has been using her ears more, over her eyes. What she sees, enables her curiosity. Though, her eyes are only used after she has heard what pulls her in, for the sake of temptation. What she sees, is always another imitation of her beauty. Another attraction, that is, being what pulls her. What she touches, is a thing chosen, centered among the numerous choices and colors of this world.

Within vanity, there is chaos. Within chaos, there is change. Within change, there is infinity within the range of choices.

A man’s intelligence comes to counter the comprehension to what he believes should be destroyed, by his hands. Rather, he will mold to improve, and not destroy to remove, the ugliness into beauty.

A woman’s intelligence comes from her being able to use more of her eyes, over her ears. This makes her able to give less into temptation, from what is spoken to her, by fork-tongued tempters.

Philosophy – “The Difference Between Change and Improvement” – 8/20/2020

“Improvement has sat, like the building on its foundation. It is, until change came along like a hurricane to tear it down.”

– Modern Romanticism

Change is very much like the wind, not ever directional in its motions. It curves, this “change”, and does not ever move across a straight line.

There are those who state that “control” is an illusion. Yet, that is the same as one who is impulsive, and unable to control their emotions. For in logic, a person is controlled, subdued, and not liable to cause an outburst under the slightest hint of pressure.

To be a leader is to not adhere to change. To be a leader means to never say “change” is necessary. For to speak of change, is like speaking of the wind. For each change, there was a perspective for it. Each change is unpredictable. Unless there is one viewpoint to which leadership governs itself, then change will be the maneuvers of that leadership.

As change is like the wind, then too much will cause a hurricane. Such a storm will radicalize “change” to the point of a movement desiring all around to be torn to shreds. All will be believed to be torn down, and made anew. Yet, to how many times can this occur? Who has questioned the limits to change?

There are no limits to change. One will become deceptive in how one constantly changes, until no one knows the original form. The original face has changed in personality so often, that deception becomes the truth of life. In that, we comprehend that a leader is not the head, by such a sense, as they are like the body. The body shivers, in fear. The head turns. The head holds eyes like gems encrusted in it. Those eyes are meant to focus. Those eyes are meant to keep ahead.

The leader who believes solely in change, believes in chaos. The leader who believes solely in improvement, is a leader, simply because emotions do not rule them.

No leader should be bound up with emotions. It makes not a leader, though an unstable individual. If that “leader” cannot control themselves, how can they control their nation?

Philosophy – “The Definition of Subtle Political Assassination” – 7/22/2020

“No man deserves to call himself honest, if he cannot look at change, and name it next an upwards improvement.”

– Modern Romanticism

If a politician will not ever be honest enough to take down a president, or another politician, through the use of the gun, there will be left the deception enough to come up with a convincing lie.

The gun, honest. The camera, dishonest. The pen is mightier than the sword, or the fist, or the gun, only because it is never honest. It wields subtlety in its grasp, because it wields the soft words said to “not harm”. Yet, it does, though in the subtle sense.

For this is where Journalism gains its power. How many fathers have said that their daughters are studying such a wretched profession? It is because a woman comprehends change, so much like her menstrual cycle, so much like her beauty in terms of the image being shifted. Body image, to her internal changes, is much comprehended by the woman in what changes of the world. Therefore, she will be naturally clung upon expression, through art and words.

Journalism is the wretched profession of sheer deception. Like what was just mentioned, the pen wields dishonesty by causing the chaos that is within emotions. It is because chaos, or change, or emotions have no real direction. Where a leader of honest will wishes to create improvement, it is the deceiving leader who wishes to cause chaos. To speak of change, not improvement, is to speak of chaos. For that is because chaos relates to randomness of events, only ever no longer discussed because they have dried up of that expression, through repetition. For any piece of art becomes tedium if any one work becomes the sole conveyance from the artist. This is why media outlets deem a topic to be “irrelevant” when the subject is somehow no longer of importance, to a viewer. It has simply been dried of itself, like no blood left in the body to be drained.

It is that objective truth shocks the individual, while objective deception is only ever convincing. It is that the truth will be harder to consume, though create cleansing. Whereas, a lie will be easy to consume, though cause the most intricate complexities within any system.

From a politician’s lips, come the words. Yet, it is proof that must be the action. No one proves through words. Journalism creates a stain upon a world, red as blood, wreaking of the stink of change. Changes are chaotic. Changes are the emotions to a world, so deceptive in that chaos. In a world that does not know love, knows change, knows life, knows chaos and emotions.

Excerpt from an Essay – “The Flesh Sculptor” – The Process of Change is a Selfish One – 3/2/2020

“Truth is the one thing that must come from another, through our placement of trust upon them. Yet, we will desire to understand ourselves, after betrayal. What happens when we betray ourselves, have dealt wounds upon ourselves, and we lack all courage to forgive what we have done? Is not the hardest person to forgive, ourselves? It is that ‘change’ comes from a self-discovery. Upon the arrival of that change, we forget what it means to forgive and to love, because those changes had been physical, not metaphysical. Those changes had been the wounds to carve flesh, turning us into someone who has raised nightmare from a Hell within. A Hell within, that had resulted from an external betrayal. It is now that we know that life is only lived, with another by our side.”

Nightmare is the realm of our subconscious mind, being a place misunderstood about ourselves. We do not, though would like to, know what our beginning tells about ourselves. Would we like to bury it, again? Nightmare, not dream, is an interest by humans to become immortal, by returning to places of old historical wisdom, among other areas kept so subdued in darkness, that it seems only those who could control it, would be today’s consumers. Consumers of information, consumers of text, and the basis of a “nightmare” is the idea that Death is immortal. For it must be, that Death is our true beginning. A way we have these days, an obsession over our identity or appearance, is an obsession over nightmare, the immortal world, and Death.

Subconscious information soon undergoes for the receiver of it, a series of transformations. We do not know where we are in such a darkness. Our only identity seems to be confusion, when we blunder about in the study of something that in daylight, was beyond our understanding. This is to say that rather than walking through Heaven, we are walking through Hell’s territory.

What we raise from Death, or nightmare, or the immortal realm, will be things of ugliness that we will say should be accepted or loved.

Change will always be the element of something pertaining to adaption, not acceptance. That is, everything that has changed creates fear and paranoia. Each change that comes will arrive from seeing ourselves in darkness, and only using the sense of touch to paw at our flesh, to feel what we are blind to.

We become the flesh sculptor, when our eyes are cloaked in darkness. When we do not see the light for improvement, though only the seemingly random changes, that can only be touched.

Touched by hands that sculpt, and there is never an added layer of satisfaction upon ourselves. When love is offered by someone with an external vision, would be the thing to tell us that we are satisfied. Because, as love comes to us in terms of knowing we need not the materialism to make us content, it instead comes to us as a showing of a oneness. As that oneness, love is the emotion that makes us not want for more. For it would be a great insult upon either a man or a woman, when the other beloved might say aloud, “I want more than simply you.”

Love is the emotion that results in satisfaction, if kept pure. If it has become impure, then the emotion that shifted from its presence in the mind, to now a presence in the form. This is to say that lust now governs the desires of a person, and soon, deception and change, too.

When a person says that they love themselves, they may soon state that they are unique, that they are their own person. Though, this is the voice of deception that is stating a person’s own doings are original. It is, as well, to state that the person wants change, resulting from a feeling of dissatisfaction. They are not feeling love, when they want change. They are blind to their deception, and so they have fallen into lust.

When we are the flesh sculptor, we are committing to action upon the feeling of guilt, burying that heavy feeling far below until it cannot be seen. It is because no one, when they act, are in want to see what they’ve done. They do not care about the tears that flow from another person’s face, upon when another person has seen what they’ve done to themselves. They believe themselves strong. Though, they are weak, without the continuous praise from other actors. And, there is no greater act than the deception, itself.

As a flesh sculptor, we change, and never improve. Were we to improve, we would find that satisfaction coming from another. And, what results in any amount of deception, besides the lack of trust? Should a person believe themselves only capable in knowing themselves, then they have embraced the feeling of distrust, and are now entirely deceiving themselves. They deceive themselves, because change can only ever accompany the process of a person attempting to know themselves, by themselves. When a person is alone, made that way because of betrayal, they see themselves in darkness. But, they have embraced it enough to become a flesh sculptor, being a person who only feels, and does not see.

Philosophy – “What is a Lie?” – 2/13/2020

A lie is differed from the truth, when we understand that a lie remains as the same. A lie remains asleep, though does not atrophy into a puniness. It is the wholeness, not ever changing itself, as people cling upon it. When an Atheist calls God a liar, he would be right, when we know even from Christianity that God is unchanging. Truth, of a person, is the person being manipulated by a word or a collection of words.

When an Atheist says he ‘does not believe in God’, it only means that he does not believe in God’s word, not in God’s presence. God’s presence is unchanging, because God’s presence was never physical, and therefore, not something to ever change. Does anyone, of a human on Earth, ever change with the course of time? Of course they do, by the grayness to their hair that comes around. Truth is the thing that is both changed and changes others, as humans who are changed by others, and also change others. We are manipulators, in a sense, and the reason we cannot be immortal, is because ‘change’ is inevitable.

We can only be arrogant enough to believe we are God, though will still be assassinated by the bullet. Science had not killed God, but merely stopped believing in one extra source to change humans. Or… is it that science is merely denying the fact that when God was said to ‘create Man in His own image’, God’s own creations are changing their own creations? That, it is an inevitable thing to occur, that humans would change humans, and it is merely the case that science is unknowingly acting to religion’s teachings?

Dialogue – “A Critique on Socialism” – Title: “A Man in Love with Death”

Q: To recite what you’ve said: you believe that Socialism is merely Nature’s guidance of the Sapient into death?

A: Not only that, for I believe it to be the proof of God, and the proof of Darwin’s theory.

Q: Would you explain?

A: Darwin speaks of devolution, while a belief in God is a belief in love, and represents the highest ground that a human can gain, in terms of the moral and the ethical. How is this? It is so, because when a human is in love, they believe in God. Inevitably. Such a human believes in eternity. What is the message of God, besides to believe not in an entity, but to believe in eternal life? That is love. To love, is to live life. It is because love makes life eternal, and worth the fight. Darwin’s thoughts on devolution should be proven now as factual, through Socialism, because as a human once believed in God, they grew to believe in work, and truth. What a human lacks in trust with God, they soon believe in truth. From modesty and love, comes the view of the flesh. From the view of the flesh, comes the view of the skeleton, if truth, or flesh, is dug too deeply.

Q: You believe that a human, when not believing in God, will inevitably believe in truth?

A: A human desires evidence, when departing from God, so they will search for it. There is not one thing else in this world that does not decimate love, than dissatisfaction. The continual search for truth, is that dissatisfaction. It breeds dissatisfaction. Love does no more than satisfy.

Q: And for death?

A: Death is a different form of equality. We have current generations, once more, believing in equality. Through, it is through Socialism, that they believe in equality. They don’t believe in love. They believe in power. Such a mention of power is indeed objective, because there is nothing more that solidifies the concealment of love, other than the destruction of life, and that is, the power of death. The “power of death” is opposite to the “power of love” and it is a different and more solid form of comfort. It is an end to an end, while love is an end to a beginning. We believe in abortion. The destruction of life. We believe in pessimism. The destruction of life. We are surrounded by comfort, and due to this, we believe in negativity and drama. These things are our new comfort. And yet, would this planet care at all, when are are extinct? No. It would not, because a home, like any home, as the earth, is abandoned, like the cave to the next cave dweller.

The “Change vs. Improve” Scenario – The Concept between Changing and Improving

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.