Philosophy – “Why Machines would not Understand Love” – 3/15/2023

“Between the black or the white, there is nothing but everything brought forward from a certain past into an uncertain future.”

Modern Romanticism

What a machine knows is to compute A or B from a scenario, or from a file where something can be accessed in its objective light. What it cannot do is comprehend the middle-ground where nothing can be objective, though resides upon the solid choice of the individual. A machine can bring on disappearances, though that has its role in life and its physical components. Only physical components, for only life can be taken apart, though love cannot; because the disappearance of love would be the disappearance of memories. To those memories, they define love to the connection that had been formed through moments shared with a beating heart.

Should a life die, or when it does, a person is forced to bury what remains of them, whether whole or not in their physical body. A person can bury that. Though, to love? What of love does a person bury, store, or conceal of grief, other than what is felt by them to be the most misunderstood thing to others? To that grief, a person isolates themselves. Upon that grief, love persists, and nothing could erase what a grieving person knows or what they’ve taken away at a disconnecting “goodbye”. A machine couldn’t fathom this, because a machine would see a life as a file, with its disappearance as a file’s deletion. A machine would see black or white, though not the black and the white that relates to what’s in that middle-ground where something cannot be deleted. Though, should a grief-stricken person want for their pain from their grief to disappear, one can believe that should that occur, they’d take the joyous moments away, too. For as love cannot be black or white, it would be black and white, meaning that what’s separated from one will be separated from the other.

In all of love’s pain, itself defines growth, as a metaphysical essence that is only painful because of its existence in a person’s heart. A metaphysical heart, not being the one that physically beats, has been dealt with grief’s dose of pain because of love’s eternal “life”. An existence that does not have physical form does not die. While a machine comprehends parts to make a whole, it would have to comprehend only a life’s deletion. What of love could be deleted, if not ever physical? What of love could be taken apart, when it had always been whole, not ever possible to be split into black or white?

Philosophy – “Why ‘Anything Goes’ Epitomizes Deception” – 1/10/2023

“If ‘anyone’ might tell you the truth, offer you blatant evidence of whatever making, design, or origin, you are admitting that just ‘anyone’ can be trusted. Truth should be offered from those whom you trust are not there to taint its presence with deceit.”

– Modern Romanticism

“Anything goes” will not be at all relevant to truth. Truth will not be in its place, among a culture that describes this term, being “anything” or even “anyone” to be allowed freedom enough to express, while that takes place outside of specifics. With specifics, there can be truth, while whomever and whatever can be termed with this word, “any”, can be comparable to what might be offered, from an origin, that remains unknown. An unknown origin, represented of an unknown person or object, as no one’s words are credible enough to argue for that person or object’s trustworthiness. Whenever a professor might tell their students to not receive their sources, for something as a research paper, from “any” location, it will be with the subject of “credibility” in mind.

What will be “any”, as an identification among “anything” or “anyone” will be deceptive, as something like a cause, an ideal, or an entire revolution will lose sight of its original purpose, intention, and goal when it held no foundation and no standards to be grounded. Without grounded foundations, nor standards, a cause, an ideal, or even a revolution can veer off from its origin. To that end, such an origin can be forgotten, or even given a mote of deliberation for intended displacement. Whatever other ways in which something that began as a thought can be led astray from its original design, purpose, or origin, what it next becomes can be a mere “anything”.

If all things, to a Nihilistic mindset, can be rendered being meaningless, in due time, that identifies as a belief that deception will rule all truths over. Although, that can be a case for argument’s sake, should an individual person ever gain an ability to, at will, induce amnesia to forget their origin. Without such an ability, one’s origin and history are believed to be false by that individual, and it becomes deception to take the place of that same individual’s future through their belief to be “anything” or “anyone”.

To memories, being what make a person or all persons, nothing can be meaningless when origins are still known. To forget one’s origin, believing to a current era in their life that their past had not built them, reveals a realization that themselves, faced as a social construct, must be reborn under a new identity. However, that remains as deception, for without recognition of one’s past as something to build oneself, there has been recognition of evident human errors even up a level of evil, as being justified for that purpose of being forgotten. Why else would a person want to reidentify themselves, while they might believe their past can be forgotten, their origin smothered over, and now believe in themselves as a product of “anything”?

A deception takes to itself in a denial upon specifics. To specifics, given light upon specific moments, objects called mementos, or locations where someone might have felt comfort or despair, those are traces of a past tied to meaning. Nothing among that should confuse oneself, for in their meaningfulness, a person has been given clarity. All confusion stems to a future, not history. A deliberately erased or forgotten origin, up to when an individual can believe themselves as “anything” for their future, comes with admittance that their past efforts and experiences were indeed a nothingness, a meaninglessness, and are deserving of such forgetfulness. What this also means is that deception will be their way to identify themselves, without necessary conformity to their past. They have admitted that all previously held specifics from a clear history cannot be viewed as spaces of education, nor as lessons to be learned, brought out from imperfections and errors correctly identified as such.

We might argue that a person holds freedom, in regard to their future. Though, to an individual’s past, there cannot be a freedom embedded in a forgetfulness, through a notion that in self-expression one can be “anything” and even “all things”. A person remains a slave to their past, and always faces a blur being their future. That history can only be that one strict facet of clarity. To an individual’s future, clarity comes in shaping it with lessons learned and education received from their past. Though, to this now-repeated theme called “anything” or merely with that word “any”, deception reveals itself in what a person cannot trust when, to their past, there is now that blur. An unknown and their unknown origin, as it has also been repeated, while with an individual’s deliberate intention to forget their past, believe it as not what defines them, their clinging to deception becomes apparent through their admittance of that. As in, to see their past as a blur, as meant to be forgotten, that comes into a reveal of them admitting that they deceive themselves in believing that their origin remains unknown.

Poem – “My Life Reuses Old Daylight” – 11/22/2022

I once wrote a smile down.
I once carved a line in the sand
upon a shore, after I had realized
that time is an infinite sprawl,
leaving wounds as open as oceans –

as that smile came to be known
as that divide between sadness,
softness, and some other choice.

That smile was from recognizing
that life repeats what it ignores,
that heartbeats will continue
as footsteps that skip
entire moments of darkness
for the place of eternity.

If I leave this ocean. If I take
to Heaven, with a similar
or a different faith, I will not awaken
with another’s eyes. I will always
repeat these words
as being grains of endurance.

If I ignore, then I regret,
while holding hope as a fishing net
around an unforgiven future
before I recede from the past.

If I erase that line,
I become focused on mirrors,
hoping that humanity has changed,
that nothing will come apart.

For what unity has not also been
the division? What isolation
has not also been the reveal?

“Another Mirror, Another Enemy” – Novel Excerpt

A grave. Open and wide, like a mother’s arms. Water comes in from pouring rain, filling up that gap, as the soil absorbs nothing. He sees the scenery in me, the mirror. The mirror, another one of them, although there is only one of me in this corner of Dan’s room. Only one of me that never leaves. Here, he admires me, or he remembers himself. Scenery gets further shaped from all he recognizes, in himself, in those cracks in his complexion that cannot be damage done to the glass.

He discarded his coat because he was cold, to walk over to rediscover a corner for familiar warmth. I witness intrusions lodged like shrapnel in his echoing soul. Unremovable shrapnel stuck there, like an incurable sickness. If he’ll heal, he will do it in forgetfulness. For who remembers anything, after their death? Who remembers death? Don’t people remember life?

I see a man looking at foggy scenery, mourning before a grave meant for him. His name on a headstone, while no others are nearby. He can be counted. He will be remembered, while he’ll forget his own history whenever he takes that dive.

Philosophy – “Why Society is not to Blame, for your Errors” – 8/22/2022

“One who blames their individualist faults as having collective origins has forgotten that a problem will be fixed, through self-admittance. When one admits that their faults have been theirs, one can be aided through available resources. Although, admitting that these issues originate from one’s surroundings, instead of oneself, will mean that one no longer possesses an issue to be fixed. One has admitted, through this latter scenario, that this world must be repaired, while we can forget ourselves and others who have issues for a supposed fixed world to solve.”

– Modern Romanticism

A perfect world must be realized as even less realistic than a perfect individual. When we blame our surroundings, this world, this means we have not admitted that our faults are our own. To identify an issue will be first through admittance. Next, we take to resources. However, to skip over that stage of admittance will be for someone to venture to resources, though without such admittance for oneself, upon their issues, all resources will be wasted without comprehension for their proper application. Such means that if one blames all institutions for their inadequate or dysfunctional resources, one has blamed what gets wasted of this world before those who enter rehabilitation centers to waste their own time out of that misguided admittance for a fault.

If one blames their surroundings, before themselves, this way for admittance refers to their world as needing to care about such faults of individuals, while that individual must not care for their personal faults. Though, if a purpose to an institution will be to aid troubled individuals, what becomes of this purpose when an individual cannot be aided due to no focus of themselves upon themselves? With a world to focus on a troubled individual, there comes negligence to an individual upon themselves. We cannot blame dysfunctional institutions, when this purpose to aid troubled individuals becomes voided when believing that such institutions must be fixed, before those troubled individuals. This has been due to those troubled individuals lacking a requirement of care, to themselves, that no institution can offer, through a resource. As in, no resource exists that can teach a person to care for their own faults or to admit that their faults are their own. However, it has been an ease for an individual to instead blame their surroundings, before themselves.

If individuals will be neglected, while institutions must be saved, all have lost this understanding upon what holds fault. An individual cannot be taught to admit that their faults are because of themselves, or because of their own actions or inactions. Rather, an individual can be taught that these institutions are at fault, when it remains easier to blame such, over oneself.

Philosophy – “Why Collectives are often Victimized” – 5/16/2022

“Up to a collective, their victimization resonates through an inferiority complex. Contrasted from that, an individual remains superior. An individual can dominate a collective, to name simply that group as inferior, when an individual has not been regarded first. Capability to an individual can only be through them, though when they regard themselves first as among a collective or group, their perspective of inferiority to themselves become evident.”

– Modern Romanticism

While knowing an individual, with this operative word being “knowing”, their collection of group-thought can come secondary. Turning oneself into a singular understanding for where one belongs will disregard oneself, as oneself. This has been because all examples of regarding a collective before an individual will evaluate all within that group as never superior to a leader who dominates them. Regarding a group before that group’s individuals will render them as inferior to leadership, subjecting all within this collection to a lack of perception to who leads them whether through respect or tyranny.

In our knowledge that respect must be given, never earned, makes it ideal for a group to not be involved with acceptance, though tolerance. If respect shows itself as a gift, respect becomes a later improvement of it upon an individual, within a group, to their capabilities. Knowing an ability of an individual will mean to regard them, before their collective, group, or movement in where they find belonging. Defining acceptance cannot be compared to tolerance, for as tolerance remains something earned if not brought on to a collection or group, acceptance defines itself as loving. Loving an individual, if not a group, will be a reveal to special understanding of them, far outside of where they once sheltered themselves in a state of belonging.

Belonging has always been an ideal, to an individual. When that individual discovers belonging in a collective, their acceptance among it cannot be to that aforementioned definition of tolerance. Though a collective will want for tolerance from their surrounding world of other groups. However, if an individual, with that group or among any group, separates themselves from it, there can be acceptance from other individuals. No tolerance can come from individual to individual, though remains as a desire from group to group.

When a group can believe itself victimized from lacking tolerance, there can be understood from this a belief of inferiority to that entire collective. This means for a person to regard themselves first as among their own accepting collective than as an individual with knowledge of their own abilities. This becomes an inferiority complex when there can be no such thing as a capable collective. Regarding a collective before an individual shows itself no different than tyrant’s understanding to a slave as capable, though still a slave and thus no better than an expendable.

As a set of parents with multiple children must regard this group of youths as possessing their own individual characteristics, instead of simply a group of children, this example shows contrast between a tyrant and a leader of respect. A collective, given respect, has been done in a mere second of its deliverance due to such not requiring a prior ingredient of it without a thought of acceptance over tolerance. Among a collective, individualism must be indeed regarded first, though without knowing categories of different abilities, there cannot be a notion of ability. Along with comprehending individualism before collectivism, for our sake of seeing a person as not merely an expendable, there must also be a placement of automatic respect from leader to collection. This instant awareness from leader to collection remains existent, so that no special attention can be given to a separated individual without further respect upon their improved abilities. With such enhancement through practice, this remaining danger to accept from leader to individual stays when separation cannot be to an extent of granting what has not been deserved.

Philosophy – “Why Systems (sometimes) do not Require Change (to help people)” – 5/16/2022

“If we care to solve, we will not need as many resources. In this absence of care, resources become our supplement. We replace a heart, meant to be there within us, with material, ephemeral resources. All meant for accessibility to us cannot be always in this manner for a resource. As there can be nothing more accessible than an individual’s knowledge of self, a resource will only extend as far as to keep ourselves distracted.”

– Modern Romanticism

If it has been true, that a person who displays their habits of addiction will gain more of a likelihood for homelessness, a similar comprehension can be that one with continued replacements of material resources will show more of a likelihood for losing their heart, or themselves, among what now reveals itself as least accessible. Accessible, through what fault? Fault of that addict’s self. Desiring a resource, in place or to replace a heart, or knowledge of oneself, can be no different than wanting to sustain one’s addiction to be kept outside of one’s home.

If a system must change for this type of individual’s help, comprehension to these sorts becomes void. That remains always due to comprehending a person requiring an amount of knowing their capability. However, to view a person a victim will be to view them as incapable. That will make an incapable individual not be at all an individual, though as an incapable collective.

There can be no such thing as an incapable individual. Incapable collectives, however, exist due to not needing to be aware of individuals, within that collective, with their own separate abilities. For when Jews, during that era of WWII, were seen by Germany as still capable to take to their skills of tailor work inside of concentration camps, they were still considered Jews with no true purpose for a life.

Knowing an individual’s individualist abilities will remain an awareness to only this individual, in fullness. If a system shows desire to change to suit itself for knowing different abilities within different individuals, its change will be meaningless. This has always been due to all system’s inability to comprehend an individual enough to separate their incorrect behavior from what they understand has always been valued. For if it can be due to an addict’s addiction that rules them enough to override their value for things with their incorrect behaviors, this cannot be an awareness for anyone except for an addict. To change an institution to better benefit an individual’s ways will require knowledge of a person. Although, no amount of knowledge or resources given to a person, with their degrading faults, will replace their comprehension over themselves without such appearing as a sameness to what they have been doing to themselves, being to override their values with their behaviors with their addiction.

If a person can enter an institution to exit this place still with their faults, there cannot be a flawed institution. Instead, there remains a flawed individual or even a flawed family unit. As perhaps a secondary individual who knows this flawed individual might be their closest friend or relative, if such can be around to aid said flawed individual, it will prove better than any institution. Comprehension of an individual to all that makes them an individual with capabilities, instead of among an incapable collective, can come only from an area of individualism, not collectivism. All knowledge to a person comes from that person, themselves, or from a secondary person who knows enough to not replace that flawed individual’s knowledge of themselves, though to bring a perspective forth in light of their silence.

Love Quote – “Love Someone more than Yourself” – 4/1/2022

“We are afraid of the hurt that love can cause. We are often willing to avoid it, at all costs. When thinking for this, we believe it better to be feared, than to be loved, though only the latter requires more risk. When we love someone else more than ourselves, then when the other is lost, we comprehend loss. There is no true realization of value, until what was lost is not returning. Are people so easily able to eject love from their hearts, as though it was merely a flake of debris? Why not let love attach itself, as though something unable to be freed, and as if you are barred within it?”

– ModerN Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Deception behind Inclusiveness” – 3/9/2022

“If to be included means to belong somewhere you could not find, on your own, then you were hand-held on the way there. You were given what you wanted. If you had stayed alone to figure it out, you would have embraced what you needed. There is life, and then there is no life. There is for the former, finding out what cannot be lived without. There is, for the latter, being led in a direction that will most likely be the decision never for you, because whoever did the work for you never knew what you needed.”

– Modern Romanticism

Sometimes, and perhaps much of time, or even all of the time, pain is the medication a person needs. For what is pain, unless being a reminder for what is needed? Many people ignore anxiety. Many more people treat anxiety as a condition. Anxiety is painful. It is our fears that always tell us something. What else does fear tell us, other than to accept what cannot be ignored, being the life that must be explored without constant distraction? If we treat anxiety as what distracts us, then anything else we are distracted by becomes what reinforces what we are ignoring. We are distracted, because our fears are telling us something we are ignoring. If we embraced life for its painful sides, we’d see a place we could roam around in, soon without that fear gnawing at us. The fear has stopped, because we are no longer being deceived enough to not listen to its call.

Inclusiveness is deception, outside the necessities a person requires. It is not survival, though life, that bares the place of necessity. All a person can do, for the sake of their survival, is take the fundamentals with them. Their life is not to survive, though to rise beyond the fundamental into something more structured and not meant to collapse without further neglect. What a person most often neglects are their life, choosing to live in the survivalist fears and tensions and anxiety that keeps them ignoring the sounds of a racing heart. Inclusiveness becomes deception when we are wanting to be included in a place where all we are focused on is what must be more. More to be included for, while there is nothing there for the focus of a necessity.

Included for something for us, that the world has sculpted for us, is never what we need. It is what we want. We want to be included, though we don’t need it. We don’t need, nor require, nor do we need to breathe this inclusion we say is a right for people. If life goes on, then nor does inclusion. If a right is what inclusion is, then it is temporary. If cultures change to where people are included, then all manner of things including someone might disappear tomorrow. Then, if life is all that continues, our deceptive inclusions are on the basis of survival. We are absent of life, because we are afraid of what we need.

Inclusiveness is not backed by necessity. It is backed by the options, the multitudes, the numerous, the infinity in dissatisfaction that makes humanity most typical for compulsion and obsession. If inclusiveness is the same as offering options, then it will not unify. When inclusiveness allows for more people to find their place, then more people are finding what they want. If less people are finding what they need, they are being strayed from the pains and anxiety that life stands for. Life stands for pain, as it also stands for truth. In being deceived for inclusiveness, we are being given availabilities and accessibilities that remain within the realm of what might be fitting for a demographics or category. It is the same with media. Media offers inclusiveness, based on opinion. However, if it does not offer the facts, then it offers what people only want to know, not what is needed to know. To that example, inclusiveness is deception.

Including the person to what is wanted, not what is needed, embeds them in the survivalist approach, in believing this is life. Survival is not life. Survival is the presence of fear, and also the absence of love. As much as love and life are necessities, they can be to some the most painful recommendations their existence can bring. Life to life, then love to life, as these combinations are sometimes painful, though needed. At the same time as a pinch on the skin or a nightmare would and perhaps should wake you in the night, life will remind you of what is real and also clear to the senses for what is needed.

Philosophy – “The Purpose of a Polarity” – 2/15/2022

“Are we meaning to make more than what simply is, being the vastness of one subject or the landscape of different views of those meant or should be given light? There is a necessity to a divide. It comes during an era of complexity. Boundless complications require their simplification. If simplification wasn’t a response to the complex, we’d not understand the complex.”

– Modern Romanticism

The world is filled with politics and genuineness, business and honesty, religion and rational thinking. The world is filled with polarities.

Most believe people in the notion that not everything is black and white. Although, even if a person attempts to reason one out of war-like or conflict-introducing thought, it was the “unique perspective” that, perhaps being outside the norm, merely was the polarity of peace to the war.

To understand the humanity or the reasons behind a person’s actions, then to mention that what was done cannot simply be “right” nor “wrong”, would also be in comprehension to how a side has been taken. Or it should be. When we understand that the soldier fought not for the right nor wrong reasons, though for their reasons, their view to which we say might be “unique” or “outside the normative ways” is also polarizing in our now-present bout of confusion. This confusion stems from knowing what is complex about a world, or about a person. A person is complex, as this is what confuses us. As humans, we divide because we crave sanity. We are not meant for confusion or the sheerness of complexity in that we are always meant to be “outside of the outside”, so we remain locked in. If we were always complex, then the soldier would not have been one, fighting for their reasons, their cause.

We simplify the complexity of the world, because without doing so, we would not understand what is complex. When we can understand what is complex, we are not constantly proud in the belief of our supposed “uniqueness”. We are not meant to be so much wishing to stand apart from all else, that we soon gain a god complex mentality.

As everyone else, as humans, our divides come from the eagerness to be sane. Our eyes find a shattered puzzle, and we meant for it to not remain as the confusing abstract. Naturally, we build the puzzle, as the same is said for an architect to a city. We build the puzzle, the same as construction workers build the shops, the hospitals, and the museums and libraries. Simplicity is the sanity, in knowing how to divide the purpose of a shopping mall from a gas station.

Quote – “Why Death is Inherently Meaningless” – 1/12/2022

“How does a person understand meaning? By remembering it. If we remember death, we are recalling an absence. At the same time, we are recalling the pain that defines the absence. We remember love, though become deluded at the thought that it, too, has died. Love does not die, though life does. Love does not have a heartbeat to stop, because it is always moving without such limitations. The proper comprehension of meaning is in knowing what still exists, to ourselves. A meaning that cannot die is one being loved, without the limitation of life. What meaning does life have? None, if no life is ever loved. Death cannot hold meaning when we could never love what never lived, to begin with.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “What is Art?” – 11/22/2021

“Art cannot be said to reference chaos, because chaos is not a creation. If specific art is said to be a representation of chaos, though was also created, then this is contradictory. Art is a creation, though chaos is not. Chaos is merely the absence of creation, because one cannot create what is chaotic. Order is created, though chaos is merely the absence of order. If it is the artist’s task to make sense or order of themselves through the piece, then they will create. If it is a mother’s belief that she sees herself in her child, then it was because her child is a creation. It is then that the art is not deceptive, though truthful. It is then that art is not the chaos of death or absence, though of life and presence.”

– Modern Romanticism