“Those who deceive themselves into believing that wealth can bring about happiness, are always those who do not have it.”
– Modern Romanticism
In comprehension of the two types of wealth, being that of the monetary sort and that of the heart, can allow us to recognize what indeed fills the void of absence. Among all things present, being either in relation to what is meant to be consumed to then disappear, or in what is remembered because of our continued awareness to it, is to the differences between life and love. Within life, being temporary, though meant to be protected from the dominators, will indeed be viewed either through a lens of protection or control.
Those who wish to dominate or destroy the viewed life, do not protect. These are the sorts who find it in themselves to believe the life, viewed by them as lesser, must be dominated over in its consumption by the supposed greater force. Among what is always temporary makes to its potential to disappear, as always a sight of vulnerability. Presence is the filled void, made of what is protected close to our hearts. To treat what is meant to be dominated over, never to allow such to control the self, such as monetary wealth, is in the understanding that permanence resides only in what is protected. No person protects their monetary wealth, anymore than a slave-owner would protect their captives as though they loved them.
To protect the loved one, is then not to dominate them. Happiness is to the protector in what fulfills them by being the shield to what is protected. If dominance is ever the supposed loved one’s character over who they claim to cherish, then they believe more in their desire to control.
Among power or wealth, being that of the monetary sort, will not ever fulfill if it controls the one who possesses it. This is to say that any person who wishes to control those they claim to love, must be discarded of. They are then the ones dominated over, because that which uses, becomes used. The person who devours, becomes devoured, themselves.
For the sake of happiness, fulfillment belongs in what will not die due to the protection granted. In what cannot burn, being not of the metaphysical relationship, makes such presence in our lives last an eternity. If love is ever believed to be a madness, it is then through the idea of what haunts. We remember for what we cannot forget, because in love’s purpose to make all things possible, we are still yearning for the return of what had not been a consumable possession so easily discarded. Of its genuine nature, we belonged to it, and then likewise for the same of the other.
It it appropriate to compare the monetary world to the human form. Able to burn, for the cremation of it. Possessions can be burned, and then forgotten. It is in the understanding of what is immoral about necrophilia, that to remember a deceased person by their usable flesh, is not in the representation of love. By what can disappear, especially among what is able to become decay, is always lost, unlike love. In remembrance, we comprehend that is not love that died, though the trust for the utility of flesh. As it is, to remember a deceased person for their utility is not to love. We remember a face, as the sheer formation of all to be recognized. As an arm can appear as any other arm, or as a leg can be similar to another’s leg, we recognize the face through eye contact. For what cannot die, being love, makes a human in fullest knowledge that we cannot control it. We cannot control who we love, because the human form is the symbol for what can easily disappear and decay.
Placing dominance upon the form is the sign of control. Were that same form to control us, then it is lust. Love would not control, nor can be utilized by what it represents. Its representation can only be established through meaning. By what never did die, nor did truly disappear, makes everything defined of happiness the glimpses of what reminded us of ourselves as we recall it.
Modern Romanticism 