Project Excerpt – “Of Chaos & Perfection” – Philosophy – 5/28/2021

To be flawless is to be omniscient, or to be perfect is to be boundless in depth. Though, the one way a person is closest to perfection is through themselves, as an individual, seeing to the depth of another. By emotion, since to see the depths of a person is to witness and then explore what has not yet been travelled. It has not yet been travelled out of fear to know. Perfection therefore becomes the false pretense in it comparing to fear. For the idealized individual refusing to associate with another singular person makes them ignorant, not omniscient.

For chaos to show itself in the heart of the one who misunderstands themselves, is then placed amongst the collection of those ignorant and dependent. Chaos is the place of the unordered heart, though depth can be surmised as what resonates in the external individual from ourselves. No person, by themselves, understands their own reflection among the singular perception that they, alone, possess. Their perception to themselves is limited, though by what another can see in the self can unlock what was kept in denial for its truth.

Chaos is the place of the disordered heart to believe it comprehends itself, though does not. Chaos is, as well, among the collection is those so misunderstood, though only due to how much they’ve denied the truth within individualism. In their group, such individuals believe in their own victimization only because of what being a victim relates to, being denial. It is innocence that is often alongside denial, because to argue that, within the group, one is never at fault, is to reject the human need to be responsible.

Though, to be responsible for the self compares always to how one is bettered, as an individual. One admits to fault, out of holding a conscience, and to not be the sadist who would learn from another’s mistakes. Since the mind of a sadist compares to that of progressivism, one can then compare such an education from external fault to that of victimization, then to denial. Since it is denial that believes not in the external God, would make a person ever only able to idealize themselves. Victimized people compare themselves to being innocent, thus making it a self-idealization. To believe in the external God is to comprehend the secondary individual of their depth, being for the love that perfects another’s flaws.

Philosophy – “Why Love doesn’t Comprehend Time” – 5/15/2021

“As we love, we feel the other person, never ourselves. To this degree, we realize that through such love, it does not die, even in death. Within our heart, we feel them. To feel the other person has us comprehend the limitlessness of our beloved’s existence, even during the flesh’s non-existence.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love is, what duration is not. There is no expiration to love, marked as a tag upon its very worth.

We feel the other. It is not us, that we feel, through love. To ourselves, in such “love” for however it is felt, would instead represent its opposite, being fear. To ourselves, by ourselves, we are fearful. We are so, because in that vulnerable aspect of being alone, we are afraid to trust, once again. Trust would weaken us, so that we are revealing vulnerabilities to someone we understand as equal to ourselves. We’d come to know that they share the same vulnerabilities as ourselves.

It is because of fear, by such lone vulnerability it presents, that we are durable. We have duration, as we reveal our flaws and limitations to the open, to anyone. Such is a deception, because to reveal our imperfections to just anyone, is the same as to no one; thus, it is comparable to loneliness. It is through love that we have unlimited strength. For to fight for someone else, rather than just ourselves, we discover what it means to fear for, rather than to fear another person.

Even after the death of a beloved, love exists. We will wish, as perhaps Atheists, to want for God who represents love, to reveal Himself. As evidence, that is. Though, in sameness through that mindset, we will also state that God is dead.

Even in death, our evidence for what can be proven, cannot be at all. It is what’s being kept close, never meant to be spoken about through criticism, that “proof” has no meaning for what we cannot possibly question. How can we question what we feel, for its truth, without attempting to revive it? Such would form the criticism against what we claim to not understand, when we do. A question upon love would be to limit it, being against its essence within eternity.

Beyond the limited duration of life, love holds onto what remembers. Through death, love pushes us forward. Though, we’ll continue to remember. We will, as though we’ve lost them during the previous moment.

If we feel another, even after their death, then what evidence is there to offer when flesh is dust? And, we cannot hold out evidence for what is dust, in flesh, though so real, in the heart.

Imagine the torment the human mind would have to endure, were we to be suddenly absent of the memories, meant to offer us comfort, upon a loved one’s death?

Who so non-empathetic, yet so scientific, would find it wishful enough to offer “treatment” to the grieving individual, upon sight of their tears? Such tears are calming for the grieving one. Tears comfort the mournful one, all due to the memories that remind the living of life’s importance. If one so non-empathetic, yet so scientific, could believe another is impaired by their grief, then they’ve yet to understand what keeps life moving.

It is always the past that gives life hope. Such is the only representation of the future, being hope.

Love, the past.

Hope, the future.

Philosophy – “The Infinity of Love & the Universe” – 5/5/2021

Displace yourself from what the skies know, to all your arms have carried. You know, in your heart, the human nature that demands to keep carrying. Beneath the Heavens, and we catch the rain.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love is, what humans aren’t. A divine element of the universe, unable to be totally fathomed by the human mind. To define it, is to know infinity.

Science explains love, through origin. The Big Bang. Anytime to explain the Big Bang on how something “forms from nothing”, is to realize how love works.

And we are strongest when we feel the other, not just ourselves. Beyond just ourselves, we love. To ourselves, we are fragile, vulnerable in all we wield and carry. Discarding such a load, is to let another wield it. To let them, because we are vulnerable. To love, and then to be loved is never to feel the self. To love, is always to feel who we are loving.

Blinded, only because we no longer see our own reflection. Ignorant and blissful, because we are no longer self-aware, through love. It is by limits, where we comprehend what hurts, within. It is then by the eternal, where we lose ourselves in the arms of another.

It is not love that can be limited, though limits us.

We are limited by love, though when loved, we are eternal in their minds. To die, is to be loved, forever. Love is origin, though reverts back to a realization for objective goodness, in the forgiveness to all that was the beloved’s opposite, upon death. We forgive the bad, to remember the good, within the origin love represents.

Origin. Of love. Limited by it, because we are not God. Imperfect, when full of truth. Perfect, when full of lies.

And, we are ever unable to limit love, through how we have no power over it. It limits us, through our inability to comprehend who remembers us, what loved ones recall us, upon our death.

Death is the only limit by what love, itself, cannot go through.

Philosophy – “Why Both Atheism and Christianity should Agree to the Non-Existence of God” – 4/6/2021

“Non-existence has only a place for everything trustworthy. Therefore, wouldn’t we hold trust for what is certain, being of the past, being of what is both dead and not?”

– Modern Romanticism

If God is said to be of love, then He’d have a relation only to the past, not the future. We stride forth to uncertainty. While the future is full of fear, the past is full of love. While the future is full of doubt, the past is full of wisdom.

We’ll hear the Atheist speak of the “obsolete” nature of religion. We’ll hear the same from their mouths on the “deadness” of God. However, has that not always been the case? Among what is dead, though is also not, of the past where we comprehend everything as certain, this is how we understand eternity. If God is said to be of love, then He’ll be in direct relation to the past, being of what is said to no longer exist. If Atheism wishes to bury religion and its teachings under the dust of cathedrals, it will remain alive.

God cannot die, nor can love. The past cannot die, because even if religion, itself, is deemed as obsolete, our comprehension for what is non-existent is what remains alive. As the Atheist will deny the existence of God, it becomes the appropriate thing for what the Christian can also understand. Denial of the past is only half of the equation. It is both denial and acceptance that makes faith.

We doubt what we cannot see, or of what others have said to be alive. When Christ died, people believed it. When Christ rose, people denied it.

The past, of what we remember, being of all we love, shows us purpose. It is always because we recall that we have one. If God is said to show all their own purpose, then He is of the past. He would be the sun that warms our backs, though we’ll cast a shadow forward which is the fear within the future.

What makes up the meaning of each individual life, if not what is dead, though is not? Among all those who have sacrificed, such as of Christ upon the cross, the dead are remembered for their lives that we might find meaning to keep moving. We gather strength from the past, learn lessons from our previous errors, all in the recollection of what is determined as dead and also not. That makes up the faith, that the future is bettered away from fear.

Metaphysics – “Why Love and Trust are Opposites” – 3/23/2021

“Always wander with your eyes facing forward, as your mind looks back.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love and trust. Dualities of sorts, though only ever the latter works for the former. It can be said of trust that it is something in which we are aware to. We cannot be trusting of all things, for that would make it just as blind as love. There are those who blindly trust, though this is what causes ruin among companionship. If we blindly trust another mortal human, then betrayal is certain. Trust is only for the convenience of a person, as it is not a necessity. As in, we do not trust what we need, such as food, water, or shelter. Such things we need, so there is no necessity for it to be aligned with trust. Though, among other people being given trust in the intent of revealing our fragility about them, is always the granting of wisdom upon realizing what is good or not.

If we better ourselves in where we have been faulted, then it is to say that when we make mistakes in trust, we later become constructed. We are criticized for having done wrong. The only legitimate sort of person able to criticize someone for fault is one who has foreseen the negative consequences arriving. As in, they have been within the same experience of those they are perhaps offering a warning. When criticism arrives, it is legitimate in their allowance to the blindly trusting individual to find out for themselves what mistakes could be made.

To trust, or to love, there is no mistakes for the latter. We do not fault ourselves, through love, because only trust can open a person up. Love partakes itself to memories. We comprehend of the universe through the lens of science that there is no “direction” in outer space. The Atheist would be one to believe God has no existence, because he or she cannot “see” Him. Then, to believe that out of trust we could perceive where we can be faulted, would not ever make God before us. Even if we were to turn around, our “mind’s eye” would simply shift itself on its opposite. For as humans exist in the universe, there is no direction, for ourselves, besides to another who we can trust for their practical and physical properties. That is, we cannot be in the “embrace of God”, unless we fall. And, we cannot be in the embrace of a human, unless we run to them.

There is no direction in the universe or outer space, because it is trust that signifies where we must look with physical eyes. Though, by our mind being able to hold memories for what is behind, in the past, makes makes such a direction appear as a “dead end”. That is, the past represents the “nowhere” we could return to, if our aim is to forfeit the act of moving forward. If we do run forward to the arms of someone we can recognize, then it was only because we did not forfeit the future. It is towards a direction that we move towards what we recognize. Then, it is in the understanding of having no direction, that we comprehend what the past symbolizes. The past is merely the symbol to having nowhere to go, because we have renounced our desire to move forward or “move on”.

If there is no mistakes through love, then it is correct to believe God as perfect. Is the Atheist who says the words, “God is dead” totally wrong? If it is the past that references death, being a place a human can only ever cannot physically return to without forfeiture of what should be recognized, then it would indeed makes everything that is absolute wholly important to the individual. If all futures are so uncertain to the human eyes, and never the mind, then the direction onward can make us feel fear. Though, to hold trust in the past, to God, to all that is certain, is the belief of knowing what is true. The past, or God, or faith, offers strength. If God’s word is referenced as the truth, then everything “truthful” would belong to death. Everything truthful, being as its absolute in the past, would pertain to what cannot return, unless it comes upon the individual as a “revelation”. As in, all we could fully trust, is in what we can remember. We can return wisdom to ourselves from past experiences, as it situates itself among all we can trust. Our “revelation” would then be a “second coming” of such wisdom, that does not ever cause a person to commit the same mistake twice.

Love and trust, being opposites. The latter is with the awareness for the future, though either in accordance to what we’ve previously experienced, or the blindness for which trust can stand. However, if we have not learned from the past, then we merely repeat our mistakes. In the repetition to our faults, we bring about deceit, will lead others to their doom, in the failed leadership we’ve displayed of submitting to our fear of the future. It was because others blindly trusted our capabilities of our physical and practical properties, never comprehending that they have a mind of their own.

Philosophy – “Why Love is not an Emotion” – Pt. 2 – 3/15/2021

“Everything fleeting does not correspond to love. If we love, then we remember. It is through our memories that love never abandons, though only haunts, ourselves.”

– Modern Romanticism

“God loves you,” as it is said. In reference, love never abandons you. Unless one can voluntarily suffer amnesia, love does not leave. Love does not run. Love does not depart. Though, it can be said of a person to abandon love. To abandon its concept. To abandon its changes in one’s life. Though, the torment this introduces is on the level of leaving one’s memories upon the road. For whether painful or not the slightest bit harmful, whether sickening or simply miserable, these were moments that merely mattered. They had showed us a world in which was always alien, or disbelieved, to ourselves.

“God loves you,” as it is said. In reference, love knows you. Love sees you. Love comprehends your every fear, your every fault. It is love, that even without a “belief in God”, can often be received with doubt. To doubt faith. To doubt what is eternally attached.

To love not ever being an emotion, is in reference to doubt, to fear. A person doubts out of their faith always being genuine. A person doubts because their fear is directed towards the instinct of love’s protection. As in, to say the words, “I doubt this would ever occur, so be comforted.” It is to doubt the danger, sometimes even in the underestimation of it, simply in the need to reduce its strength of being a threat.

To each emotion, from whatever origin they hail, references simply our concern for another. In opposite from prejudice or the ignorance of another person, instead of fearing them, we fear for them. We are concerned for this person, for their mattering in our lives means only that they can disappear during the next moment.

How a person matters, is why a person lives. Simply for no reason, other than the heartbeat, at the fundamental level. Though, once prejudice is exterminated from the individual’s mind, then fear of another becomes the fear for another. They become remembered. They become important. And, most of all, they become something unrelated to the temporary. They become something unrelated to mere life, because they are now loved.

This is why love cannot be an emotion. Because, if it were, we would never remember. Love encompasses memories. Despite how memories can make us fragile, we are not alone even with them. Out of the most beautiful memories, come our beauty. We are revealed as sick, within love, requiring it to never be further sick without it. Love, by itself, is a sickness. A sickness that we yearn for, in another sickness being that longing. A sickness that prevents sickness. Love is a vaccine.

Nothing of love is emotional, except for the fears and concerns we hold for the individual, beloved life. Though, love, by itself, is not emotion. As in, it is never temporary. For no matter how deeply we bury our memories of the past, they cannot depart us. In our attempt to depart from them, whether as the drunk through the bottle, they are us. These memories are inside of us.

“God loves you,” as it is said. In reference, we are always remembered, even if we don’t believe it.

A Critique on Paganism – Pt. 1 – “How the Physical and Real becomes Forgotten” – 1/24/2021

“That which becomes forgotten was meant to turn to ash. That which isn’t forgotten, is like the sun. As the sun continues to glow, and whenever it fades, we will not remember it. We only remember the sun, as it continues to warm us.”

– Modern Romanticism

Should a Pagan worship the physical, then it worships the endless supply of tools. It does not worship what can be loved, without it no longer being a tool. Usable, for the tissue paper made to wipe the eye of a tear, can be “worshipped”, though only because we found it practical. Have we lost sight of what it means to worship? Upon the Abrahamic God, who represents love, we cannot find practicality in Him. However, through our desperation, we wish for it. We believe in miracles, despite science having taken the place of “the practical”. Does Paganism then worship science?

Love is not practical. This would make the Abrahamic God neither practical, nor physical, and not even something in comparison to “existence”. Whatever “exists”, in this world, can be touched, can be held, and that to a human, is a physical and external thing. Though, love is not a tool. Do we say to a person, whom we love and cherish, that they have merely been whom we use? That would be betrayal. From betrayal, comes a lack of trust from the one betrayed. If we are meant to trust God, then how does God trust us? This would be more evidence into God being unable to be at all physical, if something in which can be used can also trust us. For what trusts us, is to the care of it. If we worship what can be used, then we depict reliance as something more necessary than what is within ourselves. Does a tool connect to another? Or, does a tool merely fix what is wrong with another? And, if a tool only ever fixes another’s problem, then it will never be able to understand a person, within.

No tool understands itself as such, until it is given purpose as one. Though, where is the purpose in being loved? There is none, if love cannot be used. Love cannot be what we say we feel, when we use people. Does the Pagan comprehend that “the physical” is nothing more than the sheer reliance upon endless possibility? Can we rely on God, or can we rely on science, to make the possible occur? Pagans would worship the latter, in that sense. All others, would comprehend and be sure of themselves. For all that is known of love, is to know the self, and thus, be honest with another, without deception.

We cannot discover the endless, in possibilities, within love. However, we can discover that love is an endless Creator to possibilities. As in, we cannot be dissatisfied, in love, were we to hold it in truth. We cannot be dissatisfied of a oneness, when those possibilities, endless as they are, cannot make us satisfied. If one ever witnesses a woman wishing for truth, though instead takes the endless into her arms, then nothing is ever whole. She takes the endless, with the continuance of a broken or unfulfilled heart.

Nothing that is physical, can be worshipped as love. Do we worship another person, for the sake of their love? Or, have we been worshipping them, depending on them, because they were merely useful?

To worship a God of love, is to find Him useful. That is against love. That is, even unknowingly, believing more in a tool, over love. Though, through our physical forms, we can act, if we love. Though, we cannot solve, if all we do is combat the endless problems of others with ever-more conflicting and debating people with their differing solutions. What we should solve, is a person, by knowing them at heart. That is love.

Quote – “Why Perfection does not Exist” – 1/22/2021

“If a person’s salvation lies upon understanding who they are, then to the concept of perfection, we should immediately know it cannot be identified with. For at the heart of all beings, we are alike. Imperfect to know each other, and never perfect enough to withstand each other.”

– Modern Romanticism

Book Concept: “Why Evil goes to Heaven” – On Forgiveness – 12/5/2020

“Did Christ die in vain, for only the smaller, less threatening, sins we can individualize and segregate from the greater horrors, on Earth? Surely, what with the crimson streams tainting the man’s flesh, upon the cross and dying, love is not to be symbolized as limited in its depth of forgiveness.”

– Modern Romanticism

We each possess an arrogance. The one that states we may control the outcome, of an individual. We act as miniature gods, to dictate the right from the wrong, of any person. We decide punishment, because forgiveness is never a choice. To do right upon another, would make humanity pure among all people. Yet, we’d lack the freedoms we “desire”. For we could only ever “desire” freedom, because it pertains to choice. And, because freedom pertains or relates to choice, it would make all objectively correct actions not belonging to choice.

How does freedom pertain to choice? Through punishment. How does restrain and confinement pertain to no choice? Through forgiveness. The individual who has done objective wrong, is one who forgives those around them, forgives the world, forgives society.

Out of choice, comes a desire, and only ever a lust, for freedom. Out of no choice, comes the right things to do, though at the causation of tyranny.

For Christ, forgiveness was of no choice, to him. For freedom’s sake, he’d turn to what only he’d want. Therefore, it was not to freedom’s sake, and so, he took the punishment upon himself. For all people will turn punishment to themselves, upon when they forgive all who wronged them.

We can become creative, when ascertaining the “possibilities” for punishment. Our creativity borders on the choices a person makes, when relating to their own freedom. This makes the Judge in a courtroom possess the need to punish the criminal, so that freedom is to both that Judge and the rest of society. Though, continuous judgements, continuous punishments, results in a world without correction.

Quote – “The ‘Uselessness’ of Love” – 11/26/2020

“Here, the scientist might say to love, among prayer, among God, that such things are impractical. Yet, it cannot be more obvious. Nothing of love, is practical, is utilitarian; so why would a scientist say such words so apparent? Is there ever ‘evidence’ for love, being metaphysical? Does not the scientist work with physical components, able to be dissected? Through dissection, a body is. Love cannot be dissected, for it is not physical. Not with use, so love cannot ever die. Eternal as it is, love cannot be killed. To the Atheist who says the words ‘God is dead’, most likely believes that memories can also die, at one’s whim.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The ‘Uselessness’ of Prayer” – 11/26/2020

“Though, it shouldn’t be, that through our innate comprehension of love, we’d ‘make use’ of that loved one, whether they’d be God, or of family to friendship.”

– Modern Romanticism

Do we love God?

Do we love our friends? Our families?

Could we love the source to all love? It is in the understanding of love, that we realize we should not ‘make use’ of all that is loved. Therefore, in prayer, in clasping our hands, we should not think that anything practical might be of its result. For that is against love.

Are we saying we should “use” love? Does love have a use, to say that who we place love upon is seen as using oil to fix the squeaking sounds of a door? Again, it is against love to say it holds utility.

Against love, we manipulate, through practicality. Against love, we deceive, through practicality. Against love, we consume, through practicality.

Love is all-knowing, all-seeing, all comprehending; and we may be the same, yet our human hunger stays us.

We want, we crave, we are lustful, so we pray to believe it will ‘do’.

It is an error to fall so easily into human greed, lust, and gluttony that we forget what love is about. It is about the simple understanding, among nothing more. For do we not, as we have a photograph of a deceased loved one upon a shelf, just stare upon it whenever we find it necessary? That photograph collects dust, when it is not touched. It is that we have no desire to “use” it, because it merely represents a memory of the past. A dead past. As it is, this is the objective definition to what is immoral of “using” that which is dead. We do not comprehend who we love, when we negate it by turning to such practicality.

Death is stillness, not the movement in the ravenous behavior that accompanies desire. Therefore, by our understanding of such stillness, it is love that is just as powerful as death.

All stillness, is not of use. And, are we not stilled, also silent, when deep in prayer? Yet, our craving human minds are wishing for the practicality from God. Why is that? Why is it that we have rejected, for so long, the mere notion that prayer is not compatible with practicality and utility?

Are we here to simply say we should manipulate, deceive, and enslave who we love? For is this not the reason we are to “submit” before God, before whoever we love? To never say we have control? Even an Atheist would agree with these words, if they are not the sort to believe it perfectly fine to manipulate who they love.

We are here to believe in love, to guide us upwards. An “ascension” merely equals “improvement”, among nothing more. We are led to Heaven, away from the wind. For the wind represents the forward motions of life. In the embrace of love, we are uplifted, escalated, and risen. The forward notion of life, represent the individual voices. Love leads, though leads up the mountain slope, up the stairs towards Heaven. Life leads itself in unpredictable, randomized directions. We have no control, so long as there is love.

The vain desire for a human to want control, to want a choice, epitomizes deception. Against love, there is choice. Against love, there is control. In our world, for whatever time period one points to, is always the area of idealistic implementation. Of selflessness, through invention, as the gift, humans follow.