Philosophy – “Why Money cannot Buy Happiness – Same as Love is not a Choice” – 5/29/2021

“The material. It cannot substitute the lack of the immaterial. To anyone who disagrees that love is no choice, it should then be safe to assume they want something as money to be the route to their heart.”

– Modern Romanticism

Is love a game? It is not, objectively speaking. Life is the game, because when it is lost, we leave behind what was more than perhaps the money alongside a will. We can cheat to become free, in the material gain of it. Though, it is not so much the case that we can deceive our way to something earned.

Love is not a game, because it supposes itself as the matter of nothing earned, nor anything cheated to gain. We do not gain love, since we gain respect. We do not earn love, since we earn trust. We cannot fully earn respect, when it is an option to cheat to gain it, just as we can place the same reputation upon ourselves for others to fear us. We cannot gain trust, because deception or cheating is not an option when a lie’s vulnerability is to its exposure.

What would love then be? Since it cannot be earned, nor gained, then it must place itself as the immaterial and invisible non-existence a person is limited to only believing in.

It is to be said that we believe in another, through love, that we might see to the depths of themselves. For truths that were not seen by that individual, masked either by what was cheated to be gained or through deception unto fragile trust, and then we unearth them. We unearth the truths that the external individual had not seen, because perception to the self is always limited.

We trust in God, because we believe in Him. We trust in love, because we believe in it. We merely believe that such exists, because there is no evidence until it is found. When it is discovered, it is for only one time.

Though, it is the material that could purchase evidence through deception, for its gain. It is the material that through a choice, becomes a wrong. Love is no choice, because the material cannot substitute it. If one disagrees, then one is content with turning to addiction after tragedy.

Love is no choice. It is the epitome of all objective correctness, in the universe.

Then, to want a sheer choice, outside of love, either through what is earned or merely obtained, is to excuse oneself away from committing to correctness. It is to have more commitment for fear and simple tolerance, over love and warm acceptance. One corrects, through love, because the imperfections that one perfects is the same for how a person unearths disguised truths within someone else. To perfect an imperfection is to bring to light what was held in darkness, because one should know that the lie is never the human.

Philosophy – “The Objective Problem with Diversity” – 1/22/2021

“Split the gathered knowledge in a mind, and once more, one gets the many words for separate books, put upon library shelves to be abandoned.”

– Modern Romanticism

It should be noted immediately that the only result of diversity, upon when it is forced, is ignorance. Does one not force apart a thing, after it has been gathered together for its creation of wholeness? Would one of their adoration upon diversity direct this towards families, separating perhaps fathers from the unit? That has already occurred.

Perhaps the cruelty in this mindset would be better off causing deliberate grief, in the killing of children of their own mothers? Though, why not “go that far”, when such is down the same path?

Diversity, according to the causation of it, leaves a stain of what was bled. As in, through what was ripped apart, whether being of flesh (an abortion) or of communities (of mind), relates to the reminder of all that was lost. What cannot be torn away is the love that did indeed unify a thing, in creation. For it was to the opposite form, of true diversity, that “creation” brought about the differing colors. No one “introduces diversity” without being the deconstructionist who tears down what was already naturally built. Once more, why not cultivate this mindset to be something for people to kill off others, in the name of the pangs of grief, of the heated despair caused by loneliness? It is all down the same path.

Diversity, when introduced, deconstructs. It tears apart. An example of an abortion is the causation, not the creation, of diversity. An example of a psychopath dismembering a person, is what is “causation” to diversity. Though, what of love? How does a person side with choice, though also side with love? It cannot be, that according to what love represents, there is choice involved. Love involves no choice. How then, does a person who sides with this cruel form of diversity, ever comprehend what it means to unify?

The ignorance that is caused by this cruel form of diversity disallows all people from realizing what creates unity. That is, creation, itself, is the breeder of unity. We do not cause diversity in the name of unity. We create diversity in the name of unity.

Philosophy – “Why to be Humble for Identity” – 1/6/2021

“Sinister is the one who gains a high on their own self, while their actions are left to the negligence of others. To be proud for identity is no different than your average historical dictator, who through his own pride to his idealist nature, found that others shamed what he did which either was to the negligence or outward brutality upon his people.”

– Modern Romanticism

What defines the monster? It is the he who neglects or is brutal, while also possessing a prideful self in the mannerism of narcissism. The narcissist only ever looks upon reflections of similarity. They do not see, nor just wish, to find interest in another’s viewpoint. Similarity attracts the narcissist to either the literal mirror, or to the reflection within a pair of eyes where they see wholly themselves.

Humility for the self, does not generate narcissism. For if a soldier can be boastful of who they saved, it would be no different than this “pride culture” of those who take to the highness of themselves by believing someone owes them something. If a soldier boasts proudly about who they saved within earshot of the person whose life was nearly gone, that latter person would hold a sense of guilt in them. That is because there is no repayment to a life saved. Therefore, to the prideful people in this world for their identity, how are they heroes? How can a hero be boastful for non-selfless acts, if they weren’t just selfish?

Selflessness is heroism. To be prideful for nothing more than one’s own identity, will leave all action to the negligence of it. We cannot love, if we are not heroes. And, we cannot be heroes, if we cannot be humble for who we are, within the presence of those we have saved through our love.

Philosophy – “Why Pride is not Valid, without Proof” – 1/2/2021

“To be proud, one must have proof for the external creation of a thing. If for internal creation, then how is proof for identity the case of simple admittance, if one cannot show validity? Would no proof for identity simply be the raw deception, because that evidence is lacking?”

– Modern Romanticism

Swapping identities, would require proof for it. Just as a name change must require validity for it, as well, then so should every form of identity require that evidence. If not, then it is nothing more than deception. However, for pride’s sake, creation should not be allowed to compel a person to feel such, when they have no proof of their acts to what was formed. For the sake of pride, a person must show proof of action, not a display of words. At the same time as one cannot simply state aloud their identity, is for the same reason that anything else held for pride must be proven of action, not words.

Neither pride nor identity is valid, without its show, not tell, of proof. A person leads themselves, understands others, through examples of truth, not through the force of their words into the listener’s ear. For that would be the same as seeing the self, while ruling over others, through deception. There’d be no room for the truth that should compel a person to also identify with someone else. If a leader has a way with identifying with their population, then it is to truth that they follow. If their examples are through proof of action, while it is words that are seen as an atrocity, then it is deception that the opposition follows on their own. An individual, as a leader, cannot be truthful neither to themselves nor to others, when they cannot identity with another based on what they prove through a show of it. It is the case that no person has a real command over their own speech, if they have no way to show what they admit.

Would a person simply say, “I saw Jesus Christ in my backyard?” and be expected that this can be taken seriously? Is the culture of “anything goes” merely following the pathway of deception? If that be the case, then why follow it at all? If a person cannot be taken seriously on them stating that a UFO landed in their driveway, then why should we, for instance, take seriously a person who says they have a different gender? Can proof be offered for that, or is it simply at outward, spoken admittance to it? And, if they are prideful to this sudden realization of themselves, though there is still no proof, then there must be deception to which they follow.

It is simply the case that if there is no proof, then one is lying in the attempt to get another to believe them. Neither pride for identity can offer validity of who or what someone is, without that evidence. If this were simply the case, then Atheism would never be a way for certain people. Without evidence, a Christian could say to an Atheist the words, “God exists” and the latter would believe the former.

Quote – “Why Choice is the same as Division” – 12/27/2020

“Comprehend that choice is the one division that relates to division, itself. As much as we choose, we choose for diversity’s sake. Diversity. The word that belongs to the slave-master. The connoisseur of differing flavors who manages to discover merely his favorite, not the beloved to which sprouted from someplace beyond his knowledge.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy: Creation & Causation, and the Act of Sheer Responsibility for Upheld Life – Chapter One – “Of all Artists” – 9/21/2020

To the future, the artist can tell where the present will go. For the present, the artist can see that the past shall shape his wisdom, so that the future holds clarity. For to what the artist can create, there is always a distance from Creation, to futurist scenery. Though, it cannot be that an artist will foretell the future, when the present is never obeying his command. A command, directed upon only the present, will move Creation to the future.

To love, makes the artist someone who shall raise. Raising what has been created, as a Creation, is the essence of support. For what the artist raises, shows he is responsible. An artist supports, by way of the past, for the present to step forward into the future. Love is the expression that the artist shows to his Creation, and in his support, what is raised, is never neglected. For among all love, there is the raising of things vulnerable, or things beautiful. In what the artist views as beautiful, is what all artists view to be beautiful. Alone, and afraid to make the journey, without guidance; and soon, Creation reveals the artist’s design for how it has been structured.

Reinforced, and never remade; protected, and never changed; adored, and never to abhor, is the ideal notion of artist to Creation. Of mother to child, it is the same. Love beats the heart, out of excitement, and never fear, to see what shall become of this Creation. Love makes the soul yearn. For it is the development of both who we are, and what we attach ourselves to, that to its loss, we lose ourselves. We lose our development, being what each human yearns for. It is out of knowledge that to be lost in the present, is to be stagnant without love.

All mothers, among all artists, treasure their attachments, for they are never material. In not ever being material, they are never viewed as disposable.

Love drives Creation, out of realization that to create, merely means to perhaps benefit the vulnerable form. For as the artist makes, they make themselves. They understand themselves, as they fortify themselves. They unmask themselves, showing truth to the world that would be otherwise kept hidden. The artist will, though should not, deny themselves as not alone in the world of others alike. Their loneliness in personal comprehension can shut themselves to isolation, which is the realm of the artist. They discover vulnerabilities, within, that without space, would be kept locked away.

Love always burns those images into view. We are meant to create, not for the gain of it, though for the gift of it. Therefore, the artist who beholds the Creation as his own property, is indeed selfish. His love to the message of statement, of appearance over doing good, makes him arrogant. The making of statements, in sheer intake. In doing good, we inevitably sacrifice materialism.

Love fells rays upon what cannot be seen, over what is deemed as invisible. Thus, the artist connects with another of his kind, making true understanding between Creators.

We cannot be in love with ourselves, without meaning we are in lust with ourselves. The artist who creates, is one who gifts. Though, in their desire to say it is only they who can comprehend the Creation they have made, such are inevitable words. For who else, whose confusion to life has made them an artist, would not offer themselves the personal satisfaction of that revelation? Revelation awaits all who hunger for a store of knowledge, even if it comes from somewhere within the artist, themselves. Their modesty is their subtlety. When they wish to understand their own thoughts, they become lustful in their newfound path to acknowledge and accept themselves.

To be on the path towards a future, not merely within the space of the present, there is meant to be knowledge of the past. Knowledge of former mistakes, not ever received by the artist with blindness. How else, in this scenario, does an artist create? How else, if not to make sense of confusion that originates from the past? Of answers to unasked questions, definitions to undefined understandings, as they become the torments we face in our sleep. All realities are unperceived nightmares. They are faced in the dark, for we do not attempt to dissect them, in daylight.

On the way to Creation, an artist makes of the dark, being things they do not understand, as their present. For to be in the present, is to be lustful. Though, to steer such a present towards the future, is to be loving. Love moves the emotions, the mind, and stabilizes all things that would be dust, without it. To Creation, all artists command what can, and should, face their Creator’s direction.

Guidance, among principle, ignores choice, and does not heed to materialistic freedom. Love loses its light, whenever we cannot remember. To remember what? It is only to remember what originated the love, or simply originated. We were not here, first. As both our mother and our father survived enough to put us upon earth, we can be grateful enough they thought themselves to lack a choice. In raising us, that is, for to the artist, raising the Creation involves no freedom upon the self.

To the Creation, love guides it. To love, there is not restraining control, though only the mind that leads the vulnerable form. As it is, no artist should see the form, the shape, the physical essence as what needs to be free. We free the mind, as such is the only representation of this freedom.

Survival befits the guide, who controls what is led, towards the future deemed as uncertain in the eyes of the Creation. For were the Creation to create, they’d sure recall what their Creator told unto them. That, to create merely means to continue what shall survive. Artists create, because what exists of things no one, not even the artist, comprehends, there is darkness. From darkness, comes the light of Creation. From Creation, comes other Creations, begun to its development by its father, born into the world by its mother.

Love cannot deny life, for the artist will expression the rawness to that emotion, by way of knowing pain. To empathize, means to understand the woes of a Creation’s experience. We love, out of knowledge that the Creation can be hurt. We then protect, out of knowledge that our own instincts lead the hurt towards mending. We carry in our arms, the wounded of their forms, to be healed and then sent for another test.

Why is God called Father? To begin, and nothing more. A beginning is to life, and all else related to such Creation. What has been created, was not out of choice, though out of love. If what is created is born out of lust, then it is in the crime for selfish gain, to rob what can be used. To reap a benefit, merely means to manipulate the life, never to love it. As love is useless, it is then the emotion that purely and strictly defines the forward motion to being developed. We love, because we can, as there is no other reason. There never is a reason to love. There never is an excuse. We either love, or we do not.

For to manipulate would mean to deceive, and if any artist deceives a Creation, they would not be like God. They’d be like Satan, offering a choice outside the realm of love. In offering a choice, there is desired power over one’s own form, over how one could define themselves. Without love, we are merely the choosers to a different destiny.

In not heeding the artist, Creation rebels. In being deaf, Creation throws its ears to mass noise, instead of mass silence. In silence, we pray. In silence, we weep. In desperation, we are merely meant to be silent, so we know the artist can listen for the one who can show gratitude.

Creation is a test, and a lesson, for other Creation. Love will lose its light, when Creation cannot heed what created it. When we suffocate, we do so by how we suffocate love. Where and when had been conceived, is defined by the who in such a scenario. Who was trusted by the woman, enough to reveal her wounds? Then, her scars that were committed by former men; who accepts them? A man, or a soon-to-be father, is meant to comprehend what he does, as himself. His beginning is her ending. His Alpha is her Omega.

Beginning of life. To next, the ending of life. All is the artist’s path to their Creation, making of who is loved the developed person who had never faltered. Due to their support, they never stunted in growth, metaphysically so. Of their mind, they were free, and of their forms, they were sacrificial.

To lead on the Creation to the future, can only be in the realization that who had created the artist, was also a Creator. Love is the reason to be pushed. Onward, towards the future where one can further making something of greater light. To be beautiful, is to be vulnerable. To be loved, is to have those vulnerabilities overseen, and thus, understood. Cracks to flesh, makes the vulnerability known of what is beneath.

Who had created the artist, being also a Creator, is they who had loved, and had taught guidance to the current generation. Of individuals who last, it was only due to who allowed them to live, that they can understand the meaning of responsibility.

Love is the only emotion that compiles all others. In the artist’s belief that no one besides him could create their work, they would be right. To the Creation, the artist comprehends all they know of themselves, to form what is created into shape. The artist shapes Creation, through the use of knowledge. For to know, merely means to understand how to move. Thus, the artist understands how to make move the Creation. To move it into shape, that is, is the artist’s goal. For as all people, and even among animals, are artists, then it is to the inevitable understandings of movement, that pushes Creation to the future.

The artist creates, to diversify the world in terms of separate ideas. Ideas that can blend, though will always form a one. Though, to idea that compete, there is still to be a one for whichever emerges victorious. A oneness, is always a Creation blended from a multiple. Creation is that which is formed, by the artist, out of separated understandings. These are understandings that come from the artist, of themselves, and of what the artist understands of others. It cannot be what the artist assumes of others, for such is merely the naivety of what cannot be understood between individual Creators. A Creator is a oneness, formed of themselves to the limitless height of the developed. All that is developed, is limitless, though only in what the Creator creates. It is not in development that we gain, though only for what we can gift. In development, there is never limitlessness in pieces, or division by way of what has been fractured of Creation. It is always Creation for the sake of the next.

All artists blend the idea to the next, especially by way of the Creation heeding what the Creator has taught them. To understand the words of the Creator, means to understand truth. To understand truth, means to obey it. For as knowledge is passed, then it is truth that becomes passed, in the sheer name of trust. We trust what is not deceptive, being not of appearance. We cannot claim to trust what we see, because a focus on appearance becomes always the blindness to action. Such focus on appearance, turns corruption covert. For if we focus on appearance, we are blind to the acts of those who are evil. As they tell us to see appearance, we become deceived. All is tempting of the appearance, for it is a distraction, and nothing more.

To the strict focus of appearance, is to never wish for sight upon the act of the person. To want a Creator, or even God, to show themselves, is to want to be deceived. For to trust, is meant to never see a face, though only the actions that would prove the face necessary to be revealed. Why would anyone ask for the face of God, without in comprehension that by way of love, action must be foremost so a face is recognized?

It is always that we do not prove through appearance, as that would relate to deception. Were “proof” to hold meaning in sheer appearance, we’d be deceived. It would be unlike requesting proof of someone’s care, not their negligence, through their acts. Whomever neglects us, in this world, never acted for us. Therefore, why would they need to make an appearance? Though, to wonder solely on why God never shows His appearance, is to question the reason why the abandoned street orphan never has anyone to simply appear, in their own sight. For appearance is nothing, if not the greatest deception to those who expect action. To simply appear before the child, to simply proclaim one is their caregiver, though to see in full view the child’s apparent negligence, is to experience deception.

Action proves, as appearance does not. Existence relies on the realization that one is alive, not that an understood Creator would be a true thing.

No love can simply be an appearance. The artist creates, so that the Creation can remember the actions of care that its Creator implemented. We have no mind without love, as have no motivation for existence without its heart. We would stagnate ourselves in our own wounds, as they never mended. For as we fracture, love heals. Love is the healing that does not shatter, until the mind is broken. Though, when the body is broken, love comes to seal the wounds, protecting all that is vulnerable.

Quote – “A Choice is Nothing for Responsibility” – 9/20/2020

“No person is ever responsible, in terms of choice. As this would be the same to ask a mother which of her children she would choose to die, since if not, she’d be responsible for them all. All responsibility is, rather, within the realm of not having a choice.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Of True vs. False Diversity” – 9/20/2020

“Nothing made should be viewed as all that which can be divided, without breeding a materialistic mindset bent around choice. To choose, merely means to escape from the responsible self. To do the right thing, is to embrace responsibility.”

– Modern Romanticism

Diversity has its two meanings in creation and causation. What is born out of the latter, is the division of things already in existence. We can divide creation, into causation, to make a diversity such as the “gender studies” we believe diversify male and female. Diversity of what already exists, is nothing so different from being an anarchist or a torturer. Someone who tears apart at a nation, or tears apart at a person’s mind, to have something for pleasure’s sake.

Out of diversity to creation, we are not destroyers, nor those who fragment, nor those who confuse. We are creators, artists, and those who lead with discipline enough to raise what has been formed. Formed out of what? Formed out of a thought, to be made as speech, in the name of Individualism.

In the target of speech, there is soon the targeting of thoughts. We are targeting the former, being of God, being of creation, being of artistry. We are targeting what can be formed, what can be made, what can be understood of another without seeing the surface. A creationist way of diversity, has its meaning in life. Diversity, by way of causation, means to destroy life. For to cause, merely means to have had a choice, in doing so. To create, merely means to have had no choice, and one must take to the responsible task of raising what has been made.

To the diversity of causation, we are tormenters, destroyers, and those who despair creation into a nothingness. To the diversity of creation, we are sculptors, musicians, and obey truth like nothing else had ever mattered. In creation, we are not deception, we are never lustful, and we are not materialistic. In creation, we love, because what is before is, simply can be offered that support.

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 – “Why Having a Choice Relates to a Low Attention Span” – 6/19/2020

In its respect, attention spans rely on what we realize we lack a choice in doing. To care, to be responsible for the pained child of ours, to notice that to love means to lack a choice. When we pay attention, we grant that attention when it is needed most.

To have a choice, means to abandon the duties of one needing to be responsible. Responsibility is granted unto creation. It is also granted unto what one has destroyed, and now one feels guilt for their actions. It is because reason offers a person many choices, while to love offers no choice for the individual. We are freed only of our desire to decide, to contemplate, to philosophize, when we love.

It is simple to understand, that when we see the one we love in pain, we say to ourselves that we possess no choice but to rush to their aid. It is fear that causes the realization of the danger. Though, it is not the fear that motivates us, as much as it is the feeling of love, that drives us on.

Though, when our attention spans have been shortened, it is because we always thought to have a choice. We even thought such decisions, given from our freedoms, to stretch beyond the scope of responsibility and care. We step beyond the realm of families, so that we end up as deadbeats or wretches, who do not care. We end up as Narcissistic individuals, who feel fear when attempting to comprehend another, to love them.

A lack of a long attention span is only ever formed, because of the omission of dutifulness. When we are not dutiful, we believe we are free. Through having numerous choices, we attempt to pay attention to multiple things, rather than paying attention to what is needed most. When we have many choices, we are not given many tasks, though many freedoms, as that is against the need to be responsible. To pay attention to a one, rather than on a multiple, is the same as loving someone. For we do not divide, when we love, as we see those we do love, as loved equally.

To be wholly free, means to be without a need to be responsible. Therefore, to have a low attention span, means we have not paid attention to what matters most, for another’s sake. Because, unlike a child, an adult has responsibilities, for they always pertain to providing for others, or contributing to a social realm.

It is the same when a child has a low attention span, is easily distracted, because their ways in the world co-exist with having no duties, no committed tasks, no responsibilities. A child inherently has a low attention span, because Nature has made them needing care by a mother and a father. Children have nothing to care for, except for the care-free wonders of their youth. Therefore, children have low attention spans.

Love is the emotion that requires an individual to be responsible, to be dutiful, as we lack any choice in what matters, for any matter.

Quote – “A Transgender is the Embodiment of a Stranger” – 6/18/2020

“All things understood of a familiar person, or familiar object, is as such. For the familiarity of a person or object, is in relating its likeness to something already similar. We each have flesh, as humans, and such flesh can be wounded so that it is not familiar to us. We are shocked by the open wound, for one reason: it is unfamiliar, and objectively not meant to be. Fear ensues, and in relating the Transgender to the open wound, is even in relation to their philosophies. That, whoever they are ‘within themselves’ must be revealed for the world to notice. How do we accept a Transgender, if we do not accept an open wound?”

– Anonymous