In love displaying no function, makes among emotions the manipulative assets or resources that a business world would hold for advantageous gain. Material gain, that is, since among function there are the manipulated emotions that reveal their short-term use. What is most useful is also considered the most logical, though within the short-term. Comprehensive of this, makes then of the short-term logic as illogical for the long-term. It is then to understand that love, through its non-functional nor utilitarian nature, cannot be considered for short-term logic. Regarding love in its eternal essence, makes it logical within the long-term.
– A Two-Step Sequence to Problem-Solving: From Delicate Heart to Resourceful Mind
Tag: Logic
Philosophy – “Why Human Responsibility is the Enemy of Progress” – 11/11/2020
“No human could immediately correct themselves, without needing convenience. Whereas, no human could form wisdom, without an extended time in suffering.”
– Modern Romanticism
To think science would be needed, if there was a way for all humans to “grow up”, is the definition of ignorance. All humans, when errored or imperfect, displaying such in their actions, when observed by scientific eyes are granted as an idea for a correction. A correction. For to correct the error of a human, is progress. Is it “progress” to say that a human has been corrected of their error, through immediate convenience. We can also say that the human form, full of errors, is the definition to things so instantaneous, like lust, exiting as quick as it entered. As it is, all human bodies enter and leave this world like the flicker of lightning. To differ the body from the mind is to differ a “temporary” aspect from an “infinite” aspect.
We could not be errored beings, without our bodies. Not at all could we be understanding of our imperfections, of our flaws, without in the knowledge that such is seen in the mirror. Of our flesh, of what has been sculpted, perhaps to the detail of an amateurish artist. We can protect, out of love, though against what if we never interact, if we live alone?
Human interaction is the necessity to which a person finds error. Through observation, we see error, we criticize it, and then find a need to correct. Though, on the side of progress, wisdom is never for its sake. As in, wisdom does not heed progress’s wish. That is, for progress seeks correction of every imperfection, instantly. It is to the same example of a wound, needing its bleeding to quit. For when the act of pressure to the wound was performed, it was immediate in its desire, as quickly as the wound was observed to be severe.
Wisdom would tell a person to find a dutifulness in responsibility. Wisdom would tell a person to not commit the same fault, twice. Wisdom would tell a person that error is inevitable, and thus, should not be believed it can be extinguished, in absolution. It would be the case, upon two occasions: love or death, making either the time when we stop seeing errors, and consent to the outcome.
It is then that wisdom makes the human not needing progress, not needing science. For if all humans were wise, heeded the need to be responsible, no immediacy of science’s offered conveniences would be necessary. It is rather a petty revelation, to which science only exists to offer convenience, at the absence of wisdom, and the continued existence of human error. For the more errors that scientific eyes can notice, the more there is to correct. It would indeed take more time, to form wisdom. Though, to what science offers, makes time our greatest impatience, and the immediate moment making our greatest desire for a cure.
Philosophy – “The Artist and the Politician” – 10/28/2020
“Why should art be a thing of chaos, when it is a thing of order? Is it not a creation, revealing order, opposite from a causation that reveals chaos and disorder? This would mean that all art, of emotions, so disorderly, can only become order when they are confined to their place.”
– Modern Romanticism
There is an imprisonment, so certain for the artist to whatever they create, that it should not be free. From the writer to their page, or the painter who traps their canvas in the frame, nothing of emotions are there to express political ideals. Only logic, and nothing more, should be for the political endeavor. For the artistic endeavor, to free the limited movement of a painting, as emotions to express a political opinion, will cause chaos. To free the sculpture of pure emotion, from being bound to a base, will only cause the chaos that such artistic desires have formed. Formed, for the artistic creation was indeed a creation. It was not an intention for causation, as is the surge of chaos.
The surge of chaos, so much neutered when it is brought to art. For art can only ever be order, when it is bound to its singular imprisonment. When it is never moved, when it is never free, it is art. Art is not free, even when graffiti is limited to a wall, to a surface.
We are artists, when we can create from the chaos that is in our minds. We are those who cause chaos, when we can shout political opinions to the world, in the belief that such emotions, in such verbal language, are free. This is the onset of chaos, objectively so, when we don’t realize that logic is the only endeavor to the political ideal. It is not emotions. For if it were, then no artist upon this world would ever bind neither the sculpture to its base, nor the writing to the page.
Emotions cannot be free for the political opinion or ideal. They can only be expressed, and turned towards the artistic endeavor. This would make the art even confined to the space where it has been branded or placed. It might be the painting trapped in a canvas, as the canvas is trapped in a frame. It might be the musician or theater performer bound to their stage. It is always in the place of the artistic creation, whether from painting, or song, or film, makes the art never free. Once more, if it were free, it would merely result in the chaos that pure emotions, in the art, would cause.
Whoever first said the words, “Art is free”, never understood that art has a place in this world, where the artist is confined. They never understood that the chaos of emotions becomes order, when it is driven into the artistic creation. They never understood that outside of art, pure emotions causes the chaos that is never on the side of creation. They never understood that creation and causation are two opposites, where the former represents order as the latter represents chaos.
Philosophy – “Love, the Epitome of Logic” – 6/12/2020
“How can we neglect love, when the seeking of knowledge causes the stain of ignorance, upon whatever was dissected, was destroyed? For it is only that love is neglected, or it is only that God can be turned away. It is because love, itself, is not something to ever neglect, on its own.”
– Anonymous
It is that knowledge can only benefit itself, upon existence. It is that love benefits others, through its non-existence. For that love does not neglect, makes it a non-existence, only when we turn away from it, when it cannot turn away from us. What knowledge gains, is granted from flesh, dissected and deconstructed through analysis. Physical matter, is what knowledge takes advantage of, whereas love will keep things whole. It is to say that knowledge is only ever gained through ignorance, while love is only ever given from the knowledgeable one for the one dissected by such ignorance. For ignorance is the sight of something torn apart, deconstructed. It was the touch of ignorance, for the knowledge of someone else, that caused destruction.
When love can be the thing to keep something whole, there was never a need for ignorance to have dissected something. It is that love keeps things whole, that it represents logic, when the most logical of things to do is keep something whole so there is never a need to solve what is broken. In merely keeping something from falling apart, that is love, becoming what logic is, at its core.
Base a ruined marriage on the love being lost, for that is because love would be the only ingredient to keep the marriage upright and stable. The touch of ignorance, the cause of destruction, is always for someone else’s benefit, for someone else’s gain. It is just as divorce is for the gain of both former husband and wife. Love does everything it can to protect, making there be no need to destroy something for knowledge’s sake.
Excerpt – “A Fine Line for Justice” – Chapter V – “When Choice Equates to Destruction” – 6/5/2020
Choice is the only thing to define the irresponsible self, for such means that to be irresponsible was to have a choice in what one acts upon. To have a choice merely means to never want for lacking one. Because, when one lacks a choice, one is automatically responsible for everything they are bound to do, out of no freedom away from it.
Reason is what causes a human to have a choice, for it defines freedom, in the sense that having a choice is what makes a person escape the necessity of being responsible. Being responsible is what reason despises, for human reason is opposite from love.
Human reason is opposite from love, because while science will side with reason, reason will counter contentment. One should be content with being responsible, because in what we create, we are responsible for upholding it. Love is the emotion, beyond all other emotions, that cannot amount itself to discontentment. We are, when responsible, the sorts to say that we will love what we have created. Thus, we are not willing to neglect what we have created, though be responsible for it, because we lack a choice in the matter.
When we have a choice in any matter, choice becomes defined as something to relate to destruction. That is because one has no choice out of being responsible, when we are meaning to uphold what we’ve created. To uphold creation, means to not be irresponsible enough to neglect it. Why would any person, who is responsible, wish to neglect something they mean to love? They’d have no choice in that matter, meaning that they will do it, without hesitation, without fear.
A person with a choice, is someone who will contemplate only in the effort of stepping away to neglect what should be taken care of. If one can say even to their friend that they are unable to be complete without them, then they are saying that they wouldn’t be whole, if they were alone. They are saying they’d be like the unfinished painting or the premature infant, without wholeness, without that person to complete their image.
When we deconstruct, or destruct, what has been created, we have not created anything. Destruction cannot be created, as it has already been mentioned, because one can only ever destroy what has already been created. One can only destroy their own, or another person’s construction, not ever create something called disorder. It is to say that one cannot create disorder, though only disorder the order that was created.
Choice is the one thing that defines disorder, or destruction, or deconstruction, when it relates to the freedom within human reason. That is because reason is, again, the thing that relates to being discontent or dissatisfied with what has already been built. Such means that one, through the power of reason, will call themselves upon ignorance, not knowledge, to destroy what has been created. This means that love is the emotion, beyond all others emotions, to relate to logic, which science has now been proven to neglect.
Science neglects logic, which means that science neglects creation. It means that science, that sides with reason, does not side with knowledge. It sides with ignorance, as it sides with sheer greed. It does not side with any bit of knowledge within that measure of greed, without dissecting or deconstructing something else. If science sides with reason, then science does not side with logic. If science sided with logic, it would have no need to deconstruct the thing being preserved. It merely takes advantageous gain from something already objective “useless”, as love is, to break it down into something now seen by subjective eyes.
Excerpt – “A Fine Line for Justice” – Chapter Three – “The Definition of Love, on the side of Justice” – 6/4/2020
Love must be, as it has always been proven to be, on the side of calmness. Of course, some may be those who will disagree, because their romances have not been proven fruit. Though, to think on them in a careful manner, was it the love you wished was stable, turning then into something far more destructive, being fear? It certainly must have been, considering that love has no motive to divide.
Those who bring their world onto the side of Vengeance, are those who have said unto love, that it is not needed. Only a person who creates, who raises, who builds structures, meant to last for future centuries, are on the side of objective love. Love, by its only definition, means to protect what has been created. Of a child, who a mother will protect, and a father will protect, because they have both raised him or her. Their love is the shield, not the unfocused and uncontrolled intent that means for destruction. Destruction deconstructs, of course, though so does negligence. One can leave something alone, for quite a while, so that it will deconstruct itself on its own. How does one, in this latter sense, relate this to Vengeance?
Vengeance is intent, though it cannot be the essence of merely forgetting something. Though, unless that abandonment was intentional, then such would belong on the side of deliberate destruction or deconstruction. When we neglect, we are certainly not on the side of love. However, in what we neglect, it is unlikely we can truly move past what does live. We have seen it, and it is like a passerby to the pauper, who could have noticed their presence, though their passing merely meant to not aid. Or, their passing had meant that it was not their responsibility to fix what the pauper neglected of themselves.
It should be noted that “to neglect” merely means to replace one action with another, though the new action does not tend to as much as the former one. The loving one will tend to as much as possible, simply because love is an emotion, above all others, that will never forget what one has created.
One cannot create destruction, though merely destroy what has been created. Therefore, in the name of negligence, one merely leaves one what has been declared to either be obsolete or dead. It is left to rot.
It is never with choice that a person will protect a creation. It is with something beyond simple human instinct. That is because to make a choice, one is at the step of being undeveloped. Such means that for a social realm to encourage the freedom to choose, makes their instinct be based around deliberate destruction and simple human desire. To love, however, to preserve a culture or a tradition, is thus to base a social realm around the necessary development, as one that comes with a slow pace.
For to be impatient would mean for disaster to spring up. To be patient would mean for preservation to take the place of life. In the preservation of life, we do not cling to simple human desires in the name of lust.
“A Human, a Virus” – Philosophical Thought
Has anyone considered that humans operate the same as a virus?
Like a virus’s mutation, we humans will change based on environmental factors. Our surroundings demand that we remain surviving, when those surroundings appear alien to us. That is, we survive just as a virus survives.
Adaption. It is an acclimation to fear.
In such a sense, how do we accept another person into our domain, when they represent what we fear?
Adaption is the necessary component against what we fear, not acceptance. Just as we are fighting against a virus, in today’s time, we do the same when we are fighting against an invading nation.
Alien aspects, are like those viruses. An interference, and it cannot die, because it will always return, some other day.
How do we love a virus, or a human that presents themselves as wanting to protect his or her ideals, when everything “alien” is, in fact, an invader?
More-so, we want to purge everything that invades. Our nations are very much like well-constructed bodies. Fragile, in breaking down, and needing to be protected.
An invader, and like a virus, this concept will never fade.
Xenophobia, which is very much linked to the “fight or flight” response in the human brain, will never die.
Perhaps it is why viruses are un-dead things, to begin with, because we will evidently believes ourselves to have created ourselves, in a time of survival. That is, each person who lives, has only lived because of what they do not fear, being things and people who are familiar. They only live because of other people, as those people have both uplifted and “created” them.
A Quote of Wisdom – “The Reason why Meaning Fades” – 3/16/2020
“Meaning holds light. Meaning has no residence in darkness. This would mean that meaning holds its definition in purpose. When relating purpose to the word ‘should’, meaning would state that we ‘should find purpose in the future’. However, most people will comprehend their future as dark and uncertain, and thus, they turn to their past.
Why is it that myths are merely the spread seeds of truth? It is because like all things misunderstood about truth, each ‘myth’ is related to an interpretation of the truth. Though, they are mere lies, and as it is, such lies are just fragments of the whole, of the absolute, of the entirety.
The multiplication of humans results in the multiplication of lies, the multiplication of interpretations, or the multiplication of viewpoints. Thus, we describe this to be ‘freedom’. Just as a dandelion’s own seeds are blown by the wind, all this describes is the essence of change, and never improvement.
While each life heads into the future, one should expect improvement. However, our meaning fades when all we are holding from our origin is a fragment of a whole. That whole, being a togetherness of humans.
When we find meaning in our past, we find meaning in pain. It is the same as pushing time backwards, and as such does not naturally occur, we create pain. More uncertainty and fear, creates the pain we dislike to feel.
A fragment is what we hold, and we will soon come to comprehend that truth, or flesh, is not meant to be free. It is, however, meant to be filled with purpose, moving towards the future, feeling no fear.
To fragment ourselves, our species, means to multiply. For we will divide others or divide ourselves from others, while we will multiply our ideas into a many.
The point being, that meaning fades under the circumstances when an origin, a creation, or truth, multiplies into myths and lies, from where it began.”
“Receiving Inspiration from a Different Art Form” – 3/8/2020
In my time of writing, I have received inspiration from a different art form.
Some have said that this is a powerful way to write literary works.
In many other’s cases, it may be true, too.
For those who cannot understand it, it is much like a sculptor going to see theater performances, and receiving inspiration from the movements of the actors on stage. The sculptor would then gain the inspiration of the movements of the actors, and use that for the “movement” portrayed in their sculptures.
In my case, when I write literary works, I receive inspiration from music.
Therefore, for other’s cases, it is indeed a very powerful resource to receive your inspiration from a different art form. It may enhance your work into many different areas, to see your own work at a “core”, like a seed, and then sprout into various directions.
“The Reason behind Reason” – Why Science has Ignored the Highest Form of Logic – Philosophy
Science has created a polarity. That polarity that recites the words, “Everything other than religion, will be logical.” Yet, why it is that science cannot realize that the highest form of logic, is love? Love is indeed the highest form of logic. Why is that? It is because “love” relates to prevention, as science will only ever gain its ground, its power, when it can dissect an issue, while keeping the issue alive. It matters not, to science, how many people perish from the issue, so long as there is something to be learned from it.
Love is logical, because “prevention” has to do with responsibility, and “responsibility” has to do with “preventing a problem from beginning, in the first place.” Science co-aligns with business, while business co-aligns with money. The very Nature behind science having the continuous debates against religion, is because religion understands logic more than science. Religion understands, and frequently taught, love, being the most logical of things, against anyone’s perspective. Where religion comprehended, and taught, the “oneness” of God, science merely questioned that “oneness” and fragmented it into division. That is what the “power of reason” is capable of doing. It fragments a whole into separate parts.
What is more, is that those “fragmented parts” relate to the body, something that science is fascinated by. Science has said that it is not capable of fully understanding the mind, because the mind will always be related to religion, through having the metaphysical properties of love. Therefore, it is a literal impossibility for science to ever fully comprehend the mind, because it refuses to abide by religion’s own teachings, being love. Science, throughout history, has denied “reality” in way of a feeling, of an emotion, of something metaphysical. It has, instead, described reality as something “visibly seen” with the naked eye. Love, being metaphysical, and lust, being physical. That is, everything of the mind, has to do with love. Everything of the body, has to do with lust. There is no denying any of this.
There is no denying what has taken place, in a “contemporary” setting, being our obsessive focus on appearances, and the body. Truth. That is truth, the body, and so long as the truth is changed by what science does, and never raised by what love does, the truth will remain forever buried.
There is no denying that what has taken place, what with the current human interest in “bodies”, especially on a woman’s point-of-view, that love has nothing to do with the body, and only has anything to do with intellect.
It is ironic to think about, that when science maintains an interest in the body, it rejects the mind, making humans seem more moronic. It is also ironic, what with science ignoring the highest form of logic, being love, that religion perhaps has the true understanding of intellect, or logic, or of the mind.
Poem – “A Nest Full of Tresses” – Romance – 8/20/2019
Beauty’s empire, or beautiful empire,
Has arrested its attention upon the Earth.
Many treks are walked to see it,
And a one, a woman is there to embrace it.
I have offered it,
As I have extended it.
I was not the one who voided it,
As much as it displeased her.I have a fit torment,
To walk in her shadows,
Created by melting fingers, like candles,
And to her eyes! Alike the strands that whisper
The sweet profanity to my next world,
That empire, a trophy that is near-nothingness.Love has a way of calling disaster to itself.
She has a way of managing my failure,
And entertaining a kind word,
A memory that is woeful, from a faraway place.
A love that had taken her, beneath sheets,
Beautiful memory of so many idlers,
A defeat, and then the symptom,
The woman who I have come to love.She has remembered,
In relation to that golden empire,
Of enormous walls and precious stones,
The first time she conceived.
She waltzed under brick and marble,
She sang music under skies,
And breathed between delicate lips,
Formed as a careless smile.Beautiful woman,
With your eyes magnificent,
What have I loved, under the guise of a tongue
That speaks words of faded lies?
I am a man without applause,
And the sheer guilt of a winter I’ve developed,
With flakes as the skin, the ashes, and the dust.
The stale creation of that memory.
Modern Romanticism 