She places hand against hand, to stroke the flesh of the overturned palm of this man, this Adrian, who plays a delicate tune aloud, in a stream. A wonderful and melodious tune, that drives up his emotion to the clouds, to where God could say, “You are playing well,” and Adrian keeps playing.
Though, without opening his eyes, he says to her, “You are cold. Have you been outside for long?”
She counters his words with a false smile, signalling the truth, that she had been outside for long. What she does next is speak a few words to him, and they are words that could create disagreement from Adrian, were they not uttered in their gentle tone. For she says, “My dear, I was not alone outside, for I had you in my thoughts. You warmed me, as you always did.”
Still, does he not open his eyes, and he says to her, “You were beautiful, once, and perhaps you still are; though, my eyes are too far closed to see beyond the lids that have shut my vision. I have been focused on this piece for nearly half an hour. Should I open them to see you?”
“You may open them. But, when you do, I may be in the next room, still pretending to look for you,” and he felt her smile, felt its warmth, upon when she spoke these words.
Q: Your reference to humans looking downwards, is a reference, as you’ve said, to humanity’s embrace of selfishness. How is this, when people’s vision of “self-worth” is believed to be an encouragement, as an act of compassion?
A: It is an emplacement, not an encouragement. That is, it is the beginning of something, and that “something” is the selfishness. As one stares down to look at their feet, they will not see who comes crawling at their feet. They will, instead, see themselves, their own form, in contrast to God, who is said to be formless. Humans, seeing themselves, in recent days, to be better providers, more practical providers than God, are neglecting to consider that because they possess a form, they are more susceptible to greed. What inevitably forms from such a stare downwards at someone’s own form, is a world that builds itself upon that greed, upon that continuous “encouragement”, as you’ve named it, of selfishness. And, when a human adopts this, they only adopt it, until they find purified comfort in only ever aiding themselves, consuming each thing they deem to be “compassion”, as you’ve called it, as everyone else starves.
Q: You have mentioned that ‘failure’ is indeed what a person these days has said to be a wrong in even mentioning; that people these days have forgone even the mentioning of the word, and that this is also a wrong. Will you elaborate?
A: “Failure” is a motive. To not mention the word makes a human more afraid of failure, and more in liking of success than ever in history. We are meant to be depressed through failure, because that depression makes us more likely to never commit to that action ever again. Especially if such an action has created harm to either ourselves or to others, we should name the action a failure, and never attempt it, again. We, as humans, wish to be away from failure, and never call a “failed attempt” a failure, and from this, we are more alike the dead, then with the living.
Q: How are we, as failing humans, more alike the dead, than the living?
A: As living humans, we are here to accept insults and belittlement, as much as possible. We grow strong through the insult, when it hurts. When we discourage the insult, we grow afraid of pain, and also failure. When a human has died, a dead human cannot be criticized. It is simply impossible. Or rather, it is possible, of course, but it is a waste of breath. To imagine the dying father, who has a son who had perhaps forty years to speak his own mind, now has waited until the bitter end to say everything, would be cowardly. And it is for this reason, when in comparison to fear, that such a failure would be a motivation for life, not a word to escape from, and avoid. Fear is an incredible motivator.
Q: And finally, you have mentioned that the living human is rather, the dead human, because they are more in comparison to dead, when they have escaped from criticism. Will you elaborate?
A: Indeed, as a dead human, though with a beating heart, such people have run away from failure, and have seen failure as a merciless word. They will say, “Do not see your actions as failures.” Though, such a mentality only breeds a mind that will ignore failure, itself. A mistake is only a synonym to the word “failure”, for both must have the consequences to brave with responsibility. The dead person has no responsibility. The live person does have infinite responsibility. The dead person is carried to their grave, with limp limbs. There is no more strength in them, now that they are dead. What is the live one, if they act the same? They are the weak and dependent person, objectively speaking, when in comparison to the dead. As a dead human, with a beating heart, they are praised for their successes, and never criticized. This is to say that the more a person clears themselves of criticism, the more they clear themselves of life and humanity.
Q: In what manner is love absent from the discontented person?
A: The continual desire for change, creates the most related word to change, and that word is “discontent”; and the most related word to “discontent”, is “hatred”. That is because “hatred” when seen without negative expression upon it, is a word that defines “change”. That is because change is a process of discontent, and to be dissatisfied, means to never love.
Q: And where to you believe this mentality has arisen from?
A: It has arisen from an abandonment of God. In the abandonment of God, one abandons love in its truest and purest form. Content and satisfaction are the words related to “love”, and discontent and dissatisfaction are the words related to “hatred”; and all the colors in the world belong in the center of everything, among life. Should we see this in neutrality, “love” is the stillness, and “hatred” is the movement. That is, among “love”, there is rest and comfort, and among “hatred”, there is eagerness and rapidness.
Q: You have referred to the rainbow as the banner of hatred, and this is because “hatred” should be defined as “endless discontent”.
A: For the opposite reason as love will raise one to an infinite height, hatred will decline one, though it won’t be endless. Suicide, from such discontent, especially among those who alter truth, and their flesh, will be enacted from the discontent; and this is due to what pain creates for the soul. Pain is continually offered the question, “When will it end?” And for the opposite, in love, we never question, “When will the love end?” A color is a color of division, and division is never to be unified when the pain cannot be soothed by love. The descent will result in a decline of humanity.
Q: How is it that a scientist cannot look anywhere but down?
A: It is because history has a habit of burying secrets. A scientist, in the denial of God, refers to life as opposite from death, inevitably so; for it actually is that love is opposite from death. It is not reason, but love that dictates the functions of the higher, or primate, brain. Genesis has described God as the Creator to Life, and after Creationism took place, God had rested. Through reason, there is industry. Through love, there is rest. This is the very reason for why the Christian God is considered the “God of Love” in being the entity who differs Himself from the opposite of honesty. And the opposite from honesty is deliberate analysis.
Q: How is it that such truth, as you’ve depicted is from God, is out of reach of a scientist?
A: Such secrets that “human history” has buried, is the reason for why all branches of science have no choice but to look down. The fixing of mistakes, upon the stain of human touch. Human action has created human fault, and human fault is repaired by those who offer answers to problems. They are the scientists of our day. For was it not God who a needful one looked up to? How would a scientist ever become obedient to God, when they, themselves, are the ones who provide answers? Had God looked up?
Q: And in what fashion can such truth ever be discovered?
A: Intuition and honesty and the “living of God” is all how a human can ever be one with God. When reason is embraced, then skyscrapers raise. Truth to “media outlets” that represents itself as anything of the unknown, which is a truth that relates itself to a “higher standard” will appear “shocking”. For it is because, like a woman’s nude body, truth is shocking. Truth is flesh, easily sculpted, and through dissatisfaction, and the continuous altering of truth, beauty is soon altered. Beauty is flesh, and the recognition of the face, and such details of features represent poetry. When skyscrapers rise, media is shocked by “higher truth” that is at God’s level, because even for how tall a skyscraper is built, “shocking” truth is that truth that remains out of reach.
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.
Bleak
and melancholy are these two men, with faces absorbed in dread.
Soon
as they tread the steps to the chamber above them, a conversation begins:
“It
is absurd how Devorah has shown herself that way! She revealed herself with such
lasciviousness to her aspects! How is she upon the stage? I have seen her,
though I did not see her.” And these were Bertrand’s words, spoken with the
highest tone dedicated to frustration.
“We
both saw her,” says Antoine, as he settles into a position of comfort so that
his words may spill, unhindered. He continues, “There is as much passion in
her, as there is seduction, albeit raving in the latter, and dreary in the
former. There is nothing that I admire more, though despise no less.”
“Are
such words necessary, my friend, Antoine? That you’d describe her in such a fashion
has begun to irritate me,” says Bertrand, casting a dark shade of a glance upon
his mellow expression.
“I
have begun, myself, to notice that you find fault with everything. Though, I
don’t mean to criticize harshly; as I simply mean that you never see brightness,”
and the awkwardness is clearly perceived from Antoine’s words, should the
reader recall Antoine’s life.
From
a dark shade, comes bewilderment, and Bertrand says, “Your mention of me
speaking through negativity, is strange enough for you, since you cannot even
fathom the opposite. Your home, and your place, is less embroidered in good fortune
than from mine. How long ago did your father pass? Your mother fell into a
total despair, not very long afterwards, and I see her! Her hair clings to her
neck, and her eyes are full of tears, during each moment of the day. This would
be, of course, during any time I’d visit you. For I never see her anywhere else,
because she doesn’t seem to leave your home, does she?”
“No,”
says Antoine, with a single monosyllable word, that was enough for an answer to
that disdainful question.
Q: As for your belief in a woman’s way to make herself attractive, are you able to explain why you believe it is always necessary?
A: Attraction is like butter, when melted, not frozen, and the connection of love and devotion will make a man melt into a woman’s attractive appearance. Should a woman be hideous, objectively so, then a woman will have made herself a stone, for the man to chip away. She will have turned him into a slave, working with pickax at grueling work. Love will not be smooth in this, and a man will see his romance as he sees his own life.
Q: What does a man want from love?
A: Rest.
Q: Rest should coincide together between a man and a woman. Is this not correct?
A: It is not correct, because it is not competition that drives a man to want a woman. At least, it is not competition against her. He will not want to challenge her mind, challenge her knowledge; he will want to challenge her heart. Her heart will be more attractive than her face or form. To think of her attractive appearances as melted butter, will be a correct assumption, because an appearance should be made easy. The heart of a woman challenges a man, and he will face external challenges to win it.
Q: And why should a man not challenge her mind?
A: It is because to challenge a woman’s mind will more likely cause him to befriend her, over romancing her. Love always begins at a glance. As for friendship, between a man and a woman, will be the same as a man befriending another man. He will feel like a homosexual, should he not be a homosexual, when he chooses to challenge her mind.
Q: As for what is discrimination; can you you point it out?
A: It links itself to the nervous system.
Q: Both anxiety and discrimination link themselves to the nervous system. Can you explain in detail?
A: The nervous system is the pain in which a body feels, and there comes the emotions and mental breakdowns based on the level of pain. Anxiety is universal, because all human beings possess a nervous system. All human beings possess a heart, as is obvious, and nothing worth pointing out. Discrimination is faceted by anxiety, due to such crimes of “hatred” actually being crimes of fear. Each human being desires change, but not every human being is willing to extend beyond patience to achieve that change. Radicalism is the essence of impatience, and impatience is what causes the greatest of devastation.
Q: And on the subject of territory, it is said by you that the “fight for equality” is what links itself to anxiety?
A: Anxiety and equality, in the fight for the latter, always feeds into the former. We live in a fearful society because of our fight for equality. Equality is the essence of fair share. Equal opportunity; equal rights; though what human being has ever been satisfied with such equal numbers? No deal in competition has ever been stable enough so that one does not rise above the other. If all were at the same height, no one would see the horizon. No one would see ambition. No one would see the future. This is never the case.
