“The path to Justice is slender and perfidious, fraught with missteps of ambition and despair, egotism and doubt.
Should you choose this road, beware those who would waylay your hopes and disembowel your dreams.
Remain sure and remain true.”– Path of Exile (Izaro Phrecius)
“Grief compels the fool to act out, from it. Grief compels the fool to raise a fire against those who wronged them. They are consumed, blinded, by the need for Vengeance. The blood boils up to their eyes, and they see nothing more than their own carnage.
A common human element is hunger. Hunger is the most fundamental of human desires. Though, when we give into it, we are corrupted. And, we share that corruption with others who also ache from hunger.
Yet, water will relate to Justice. Water will douse the fires of Vengeance. Justice will forgive. Justice will stay calm. Justice will quench thirst, instead of satiating hunger. Hunger is endless. Thirst limits us, for our stomachs do not expand, as we do not grow larger, from water. Water purifies us from corruption.”– Modern Romanticism
“When prejudice is believed to never be a fear, it becomes a one-sided standpoint on who can possibly take a form of it. When prejudice is believed to be a fear, equality is soon promoted in the belief that all sides, when prejudiced, feel the same thing. For when emotion can be realized, in terms of sameness, there is a unison involved where comprehension becomes commonplace.
Whether in love, or undergoing a tantrum of fear, there is comprehension. As an example of a solider to see another of his kind, there is the same expression in either’s eyes.”– Modern Romanticism
“The Danger of Blurring Lines”
A common human way with our Nature is to believe one should have a choice in any matter, for freedom’s sake. To possess a falsified sense of freedom means to have the reasoning in escaping from the task of being responsible. To be responsible, means to be logical. To hold reason in one’s grasp for a weapon against responsibility, means to invent excuses for why one should not ever be such. It is then to say to have a choice in reference to responsibility, means to always steer in the direction away from it. A person of choice, wants paths. They do not wish to be led down a path, without their choice.
Another common human way with our Nature is to say that what one can choose, cannot be controlled by another. It is this that states a person has freedom of choice. Though, within responsibility, there is no freedom. Among a nation, to throw “responsibility” upon the shoulders of a citizen, force them against their will to do as the nation says, causes rebellion. To force a collective group to think, to behave, to motion on a certain path, defines slavery. Among the individual, however, should they rebel against their own personal responsibility, their immaturity has compelled them to want a choice away from Justice.
For the self, a person has a choice, or a personal endeavor to see a random change to themselves. Among the individual, a person is choosing their path for their life. Among the collective of individuals that makes up a nation or any population, there is only slavery being made of each of them, should such a nation desire control over all. To take away freedom, means to do so by force. Forced unity is a resemblance to slavery, when that system rejects the individual’s motives to earn it. A nation does not gift a person their freedom. For all true freedom, is earned, making the slave only such when they belong in a collection of their same kind. A person can indeed make themselves the slave, should they neglect the idea of earning freedom, and continue to believe it as a gift.
Between Justice and Vengeance, a human who truly fights for the former, does not take to human desire. Desire embraces a path for the self, stepping on the side of Vengeance, over Justice. Justice takes a path for others, stepping into a realm where sacrifice, honor, and selflessness takes place. A person offers wisdom, keeps structure, and above all, forgives enemies, upon when they know that retaliation will cause a war. To feel anger, means to want retaliation. It then becomes a feud, of opposite contrasts, where no closeness is found.
Without a strict focus on the objective definition of Justice, there is only the distance of prejudice that sparks the paranoia of a person’s next vengeful action. For within one action of Vengeance, comes the next. After the next, comes the third action, causing the cycle that repeats, incessantly. Nothing quits this cycle, until forgiveness takes place. There is always fear in it, because fear equates to the distance of lacking forgiveness. Forgiveness involves foresight into knowing that the future will only involve further bloodshed, if such a forgiving behavior is never implemented.
Any human’s first instinct is to be selfish, to feed themselves, to clothe themselves, during a time of survival. It is because of this, that when lines are blurred, Justice is never discovered. For who buries a corpse that had fallen, from being alive, without another’s hands to do it? Who is the Vengeful sort to do this, when they only aim to beat the dead body? Forgiveness has only one objective: to forgive the past, of all experiences during when that corpse was alive. It can be said of the same for anyone, that when selfishness become selflessness, we bury, we forgive, though cannot forget, what had fallen. As any burial, it is a selfless act, like forgiveness. If one were to forget, one would not be able to forgive a haunting memory. It’d never be an ability of a person.
As it is, if to forget was possible, and never forgiveness, then no human would possess a mind stored with the memories of the past. Each fragment of knowledge is a memory, kept in mind from being taken either from a book, or from word-of-mouth. It makes the lacking of fear of any individual, when forgiveness and compassion can be the things offered towards memories that haunt. We know, through memory. Therefore, we can know, through forgiveness, when we understand that what haunts another is at the same level of torment as what haunts us. When humans comprehend that they’re both in fear, both vulnerable, then love can take place, by knowing that not one is stronger than the other.
The ignorance of a human, in contrast to knowledge, resonates in the fear within the distance between people. To what one knows of another, makes knowledge. To what one does not know of another, makes ignorance. This much, is obvious. However, to be fearful, would also mean to be ignorant.
It is the case of any murderer who kills their victim, without compassion, through such ignorance and fear. If they had not been knowledgeable, then they had been ignorant. Their fear enters the picture by way of not stretching outside the realm of selfish discontent of the world, being the murderer’s mindset, to be compassionate. For if the murderer were compassionate, were brave, and not fearful, enough to step outside what has shut them inside their mind, they’d discover knowledge.
It is to be Xenophobic, that the fear a person feels, is only because they do not have the slightest interest in knowing someone. For in being too comfortable with what they already know, they are fearful in knowing more.
For why else would a person not wish to know another, if they did not fear what they possibly could hear of them? It is the greatest pang of fear by a human, to hear something from a source one does not like, and be shocked by its truth. As it is, all truth comes from sources where the fearful one does not wish to acknowledge can be the onset to a unity outside of such fear. If they were to see another, know another, being one other individual, they’d form a bond. That is a fear that comfortable humans do not wish to face.
To be vengeful, or to cling to the side of Vengeance, is unlike fear. One knows, through the personal desire to be vengeful, that the one such Vengeance will be directed upon, has committed an act of betrayal. It is knowledge that acts as the motive for Vengeance, not ignorance. Though, to what the vengeful person is ignorant of, is something that will not birth the forgiveness needed to halt such a cycle of Vengeance. That is the further knowledge needed to complete the tale, bring about the death, and the life is laid to rest. It is the same when one forgives to break a cycle of Vengeance, that one can forgive what can no longer be destroyed, being a corpse or ended life.
A person’s task to be responsible would then mean to be the one who forgives, and breaks the cycle of irresponsibility and Vengeance. It is in the knowledge of who we have forgiven, that we can lay to rest whatever has been strained by hurt, for however long was the time.
In the manner of personal desire, a person does not act responsible. To blur the line between responsibility and irresponsibility, or logic and reason, or Justice and Vengeance, means to, again, fall on the area that is most suited to human instinct. Selfishness is a part of human instinct. Since it is, one should never compare love to the instincts of a human.
When it is about protection, however, of a loved one, that is instinct. It is only due to that love objectively makes the pair unified. They are one, meaning that by one of the two loved ones to protect the other, they are protecting themselves.
All choice, therefore, is not based on the coming death or the coming love. In death, there is no choice, but to understand that it will come. In truth, death is more predictable than love. For what we control, is always our own lives. We are compelled to understand ourselves, as we pull who we love always for a union of singularity. Though, when trust becomes a factor, it is love that becomes limited, only when one now begins to fear something they never wish to involve in their lives.
“The Danger of Interpretation”
An interpretation holds a single meaning.
To interpret is to fragment what has always been a whole, for it to then become an incomplete form. In comparison, a whole could be a mirror. In contrast, the whole of the mirror, when “interpreted”, is now a fragmented mirror. To see something as a wholeness, is to understand that what has been witnessed is not wounded. Currently wounded, that is, for what was once wounded, would not matter for this description.
The person who carries over wounds, not mended, or has been wounded just a few moments ago, is the “interpreted” individual. A wholeness to a person is interpreted, after they had once been assimilated into another incomplete form, to make a union. What is union, in this scenario, besides a complete understanding in the making of that unity? Meaning, one interprets the individual by their place once in a union, whether that be marriage, or their own nation, or anywhere else they found belonging.
Interpretation is perception, making perception to be defined as never seeing the whole, the past, and only the present, of the individual. Though, if an individual holds purpose in freedom outside the union, believing themselves free, then they are not wounded, and feel no signs of betrayal. In that case, they had wanted out.
It is why an individual will always question the obedient collective, being the herd, on their purpose. Once the individual can make a perception, their place in such unity is detached or displaced. They become just one fragment to that whole.
Love teaches a human belonging. Though, it cannot be taught for individuals who do not know each other, between themselves. They are individuals as sheep gathered into a collective by the shepherd. Each of them who chooses to follow does not know the feeling of freedom in detaching themselves from the collection. Loves unites, though it does not unite people who do not know each other. Such a forced unity only ever breeds fear, among such individuals whose distrust of each other enforces the prejudice of distance.
Forced unity, enforces fear. It is because a collection is a wholeness, that when interpreted by an individual, they become detached from the collective. To silence a thought, means to silence an individual, and to believe the voice is one of union from the entirety.
We fear what we are distant towards. We are distant, because we are fearful. We are fearful, because no spark of curiosity has brought us the motivation in seeing something up-close, for its truth.
The dangers of interpretation, only ever reside in external perception upon a thing that requires no insight into it, other than for what it is. Of anything innately defined as what it is, then to interpret it would refer it towards its opposite. In the name of Justice, would such a concept be interpreted, it would become division. That is because the word “Justice” refers to order, and never disorder. To interpret a thing like Justice, inevitably makes Injustice or Vengeance. That is when a person’s anger enables them to makes a choice, being one of many to the interpretations. For when one can shatter a whole, one is in the choosing, in the freedom, outside the collective. It is that Justice, by its definition, relating to order, makes such a word a resemblance of a collective that should not be shattered into “interpretations”. If individuals hold their own interpretation, hold their own freedom, then their desire to freely perceive the objective definition of Justice, creates the danger.
To interpret Justice, makes such a perception become Vengeance, inevitably so. In the rebellion against objective Justice, an individual wishes for a choice. For to have a choice, would be outside of that objective Justice. We can only ever define Justice to be something representing no freedom. It is the same when a convict has no freedom, when they are incarcerated. The reason for the sentencing is to not allow the convict to do more harm upon the world. Their freedom has been forfeited.
Any person who disagrees with Justice pertaining to a lack of freedom, will automatically believe in responsibility to be with choice, to be with excuse, to be with escape. Who escapes Justice, besides those who’d never believe in freedom as earned? Freedom is no gift, like love is given. It is deserved, like trust and respect.
Therefore, to interpret Justice would mean to involve freedom in the individualized perception of it. From this, makes Vengeance, in the choice resonating with freedom. For to be free, would mean to reason oneself out of the objective defining of a thing, such as responsibility. We interpret what we believe cannot be objective, in its defining. Such means, that the interpretation to a thing would make choice, or freedom, involved only in the personal desire to what one wants. It is always outside the objective definition to what was interpreted.
Since to be “outside” the realm of Justice, is in relation to a convict being outside the realm of incarceration. The believe, that in being outside of it, they are free. They are only voided of being responsible for their crime. Any human who currently possesses true freedom, had earned it. They were not given it. In the name of personal responsibility, a person understands that what they are giving through their earned freedom, is themselves, no longer a threat to another’s freedom, another’s life.
All of this means that an interpretation on Justice is an adherence to personal desire. There is freedom, and there is choice, in the interpretation. Though, when it comes to interpreting what should never be fragmented by that interpretation, the only freedom there is, belongs in the one who wishes to hold an individual voice. By this, nothing of objective meaning is adhered to, when we can interpret the definition of a word to soon become something fragmented or divided.
“To wish for empathy, then do not trust those who’ve been known, not by their individualism, though by the system they are in, to be deceitful.”– Modern Romanticism
The greatest deception in the world, is to believe that a person in a system of it, can be honest. There is no honesty from a voice that calls out to the herd, and does not speak to the individual.
It is needless to even speak of a world leader as “prejudiced”, when their own profession is very much limited on what it can know, of every individual. Within this world, to believe that a politician can be empathetic, is much in relation to how often we share our private information for social media monitoring.
Only what resides in what is personal, from person to person, can there be something resembling equality. Yet, in today’s time, it has been painted over with a “collective” approach, as though each industry, each system of a society, could be transfigured into a picture of empathy. Though, what machine meant to use cogs, like a task meant to employ a worker, has anything become achieved, if empathy is wanted?
Within Business and Retail, for example, a person cannot be known at a deeper level. Business and Retail are industries that do not care to know a person’s heart. That is where deception and blind trust are involved, in such areas of industry. The businessman trusts the other businessman, out of blindness. Have they ever spoken? Have they ever talked about something that might reveal a secret? Have they ever befriended each other? If they did, that could be exploited. This is why when people desire empathy outside of home, they become deceived, and used as tools or slaves.
Why would a worker demand empathy from his or her employer? Why would a citizen demand empathy from his or her world leaders? Why would a person, as a victim to bullying, demand empathy from an “anti-bullying” Activist? It cannot be the case, when such sorts who are expected to give empathy, are not in any position to know you. These people have a job, and only a job that offers them a very shallow perspective of the entirety.
Worlds leaders cannot even be called “racist” or “sexist” or anything else, when they were never your close friend, to begin with. For any word like that, would be a representation of betrayal. How can a world leader, or a celebrity, betray a “promise” when they do not know you? They promised the nation of the task. Though, did they promise you? Did that world leader call your phone, to specifically speak to you about the task? Did he or she keep you in mind, throughout it all? If not, they do not care about you, in specifics.
Empathy cannot be given from a system. It cannot be given from a person, an industry, a realm that is not there to know you.
For nothing in this world would be achieved, if everyone within a workforce of systematic behavior, became something of comfort and stagnant bliss. Everything would halt, business could collapse, as poverty would be rampant. If each employer, each politician, each celebrity, was meant to offer empathy, honesty would be believed as the forefront of what these people are believed to know.
This is all because empathy is the domain of comfort. When we empathize, we halt a task that could cause harm, to focus on “inner hurts”. We focus on what is harming the individual, within themselves, of their emotions. Though, as the task is halted, the entire machine of society stops. No one gets their bread, nor their milk, nor their clothes, and people lose their homes.
If one expects empathy, then gain it from home. If one expects empathy, then gain it from a lover, from your mother, from your father, from friends, from siblings, among all those one can easily trust.
For empathy and love is a gateway out of motion, not a gateway into it. In comfort, we fall silent. In comfort, we stay still. In comfort, we do not wish to rise to face our newer tasks.