“If human reason questions, then human love will define. Love will make the surety, that reason will tear down. Love will make the truth, the wholeness, the clarity, that reason will say is a lie, only fragments, the uncertainty. What is a human, in a scientific world, if not the confused one on the search for a nothingness? It is a nothingness that will render them dismembered in a heap of depression. Love will keep a life satisfied, while reason will say upon the human that their search is endless. Though, is it not to love that we say our search is over? Is not infidelity the point of returning dissatisfaction, upon the marriage that is meant to define satisfaction?”
– Modern Romanticism
Tag: Reason
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.
Philosophy – “Human Reason is the Essence of Chaos” – 4/26/2020
All that comes to us as a “choice”, not bound by duty or responsibility, is something to create the eternal dissatisfaction, creating chaos in its aftermath. What is love objectively defined to be, of a person who lives by it? It defines itself in the person as the responsible one. To whom we fall in love with, it was never a choice. Though, what was a choice was for a man to turn his head to notice the stunning beauty of a woman.
Love is the emotion, not chosen. For there can be no self-love, if self-love is a choice to do. One cannot persist to love another, through romance, without enabling madness and obsession. A human is not bound by Nature’s will, while having their curse to create chaos, with reason. Reason is the device of a human that makes a choice, without the responsibility or duty bound up in love.
We are bound up with responsibility for who we love, because love is the ultimate bond. Through love, a man is responsible with when and where he spreads his seed. Through love, a woman is responsible with who she trusts. For the when and the where of a person, for the being in and the being at, that is the discipline spawned from the male mind. For the who of a person, that is the trust a woman places upon those she can feel will not violate her. Not to violate what? Not to violate her mind, for a woman possesses two forms or virginity over merely one. The virgin mind, like the form, can decay were it to be neglected.
When a man makes a choice outside the realm of those he is meant to love, he has left the picture, he has left the painting. When a woman makes a choice, she is presented with endless choices, thus being the painting without a frame. She is called “free”.
Human choice is what makes up human irresponsibility. When we present a society with infinite choices, we have presented to society an infinite stream of chaos. All choices are against love, against what we hold to be precious, being life. In what empowers us, through a choice, we cling to the blatant dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is believing what is stagnant must be able to advance.
Yet, in what part of this do we ever find a time to express gratitude? To whom do we express this gratitude? Well, if we cannot express it to those we love, because all we feel is dissatisfaction, we will be selfish and thank ourselves for what we selfishly did for only ourselves. Human reason is the product of dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is the product of chaos. While love creates stability and order for a soul, dissatisfaction will rupture it, because a human made a choice. What is more, is that a human deceives themselves into believing their choice was unique, when a million others have made the same choice.
Deception is not something new for a human, and neither is selfishness. A choice can be seen as predictable, especially of a human being selfish. What is most surprising is when humans trust each other, through the modesty that makes us less prideful. The most unpredictable emotion out of all of them, for a human to feel, is love.
A Remembrance – “Three Layers to a Human” – Philosophy on Life – 10/20/2019
Three layers, meaning, three separate areas that can become three focuses for a world, filled with creatures identical to “intelligent beings” called Homo-sapiens…
And these three layers are:
Bottom layer: Death.
Middling layer: Flesh.
Top layer: Love.
In a current world obsessed with “liberation” and “equality”, we’ve changed simply the words for the three layers, though they mean the same.
The changed words become:
Bottom layer: Poverty.
Middling layer: Truth.
Top layer: Reason.
There are still the same meanings to each layer, and no matter how many words are added, the original meaning stays the same. That is because the original meaning is still operating outside of human control. That is to say that there are forces at work, in which humans, too stupid and too arrogant, cannot possibly control, without inevitably playing into the hands of both fate and Nature.
When we disbelieve in God, we begin to look for truth…
In such a scenario as a “disbelief in God” makes human change the word “love” into the word “reason”, and everything below “reason” becomes “everything useful”. Though, God, if He is an existence, would never see something beneath him as any alike a “practical application” for something else. To “take care” would mean “to care”, and would also mean to apply the emotion of love to keep something durable. And, to see something or someone beneath oneself as “useful” would turn the tool eventually broken, if there is no emotion of love involved.
And then, when we begin to find that humans are, as well, just as “untrustworthy” as God, we begin to long for love’s return. Though, since we’ve already taken the step down from Heaven to be upon Earth, we’d also take an additional step down from Earth to be in Hell. This is to say that we’ll now identify more with animals, find compassion more in things we are meant to eat. As well, it is among paupers who find themselves looking upwards, not at the sun, by at the passersby so they may offer money.
In a world “filled with distortion”, it is only because of our immense compassion for animals that is not the cause of that distortion, though is a result of our distrust towards humans.
We first distrusted God, until we began to believe in humans as “realer” than what we called an “imaginative being” like God.
Though, if God is “for the imagination”, then the same would be true that the imagination is for God. That, those who would create, would be those involved in the sciences, studying movement, as an observer, as even a voyeur, much like how God is written to do the same. That is, he looks, he watches, though does he “make use” of those he loves? In fact, does any human “make use” of those that they love?
Do we, as humans, not as gods, but as mortals, ever look upon an infant we’ve created, and dare to perform an experiment on a child? We might, were we to be sadistic, because sadism is revolved around what is going to be seen beneath the flesh of the naked infant.
Therefore, to “make use” of someone beneath someone who has taken God’s place, would be to see what beneath the flesh, which is death.
And yet, such people are still humans, as only their arrogance will ever compel them to state that they have “replaced God” in such a way.
From these three layers.
Bottom layer: Death.
Middling layer: Flesh.
Top layer: Love.
Love protects the flesh, so that it doesn’t stray towards the layer of death.
Would “reason” protect the flesh, leave the flesh unscathed, or would reason only desire to “make use” of the flesh, so that ennui and apathy causes that person, who is being used, to decline towards death?
We would ask this of a hospital, which is the focus for that hospital, that if either their goal is to “make use” of the flesh, or to “love the flesh” as they apply the necessary medicines for a cure to the ailment. That is, how does a hospital think, when it means to cure, should it ever mean to cure, in the way of preserving life, that which the emotion of love is meant to do?
Poem – “A Chest Full of Stars” – Romance
Go belittle all else!
Unto this rotten love,
Of all else given,
We’ve dismembered enough,
As our cries show many agonies,
Many moments of eternity.
We are frail children,
Tiny ones of no might.
We have death as mothers,
And cruelty as fathers.
We are children perhaps of love?
We are what remains of a rotten world,
And its disguised future.
Funerals surround us in antiquity.
Prayers are our final outcome,
Not the death, nor the message from the bottle.
Not the wine that we drain on dried lips.
I finally bequeath this question unto us,
“What will we become,
Besides another questioner?”
Reason makes Christ a nuance,
It makes religion a forthcoming.
It makes tragedy a storytelling.
What has become of love?
We fall so easily
Into each other’s arms.
We lick each other’s wounds,
And grace each other’s palms,
With blood and sand,
With tears and ashes.
I could kiss thee,
And rain upon thee,
My weeping.
Though, how could I ever,
When you can’t even define the forever?
Dialogue – “The Scientist and the Poet/The Evidence of God #2” – 6/18/2019
Q: How is it that a scientist cannot look anywhere but down?
A: It is because history has a habit of burying secrets. A scientist, in the denial of God, refers to life as opposite from death, inevitably so; for it actually is that love is opposite from death. It is not reason, but love that dictates the functions of the higher, or primate, brain. Genesis has described God as the Creator to Life, and after Creationism took place, God had rested. Through reason, there is industry. Through love, there is rest. This is the very reason for why the Christian God is considered the “God of Love” in being the entity who differs Himself from the opposite of honesty. And the opposite from honesty is deliberate analysis.
Q: How is it that such truth, as you’ve depicted is from God, is out of reach of a scientist?
A: Such secrets that “human history” has buried, is the reason for why all branches of science have no choice but to look down. The fixing of mistakes, upon the stain of human touch. Human action has created human fault, and human fault is repaired by those who offer answers to problems. They are the scientists of our day. For was it not God who a needful one looked up to? How would a scientist ever become obedient to God, when they, themselves, are the ones who provide answers? Had God looked up?
Q: And in what fashion can such truth ever be discovered?
A: Intuition and honesty and the “living of God” is all how a human can ever be one with God. When reason is embraced, then skyscrapers raise. Truth to “media outlets” that represents itself as anything of the unknown, which is a truth that relates itself to a “higher standard” will appear “shocking”. For it is because, like a woman’s nude body, truth is shocking. Truth is flesh, easily sculpted, and through dissatisfaction, and the continuous altering of truth, beauty is soon altered. Beauty is flesh, and the recognition of the face, and such details of features represent poetry. When skyscrapers rise, media is shocked by “higher truth” that is at God’s level, because even for how tall a skyscraper is built, “shocking” truth is that truth that remains out of reach.
Q:
A:
Dialogue – “The Evidence of God” – 6/15/2019
Q: You say that to seek the “evidence of God”, one must look no further than upon themselves and their yearnings?
A: What have we of the “Second Coming”? It can only mean that such an event is similar to any other event in one’s life, that involves the “return of love”. As well, the “loss of virginity” to a woman reveals a certain void in her, one that has not yet been filled by the “returned lover” who had taken it. Should it be that such a man who took, or rather, stole a woman’s virginity had only done so, for the sake of taking it, then the “Second Coming” then becomes the yearning. To “look upon themselves” as you quoted of me, is the evidence of yearning. One doesn’t at all seek the “evidence of God” unless through humanity. A machine is impossible in such a task. “God” is always only either denied or longed for, in the return upon the weak, could they be a woman, who desire that void to be filled.
Q: Then, the “evidence of God” has only to do with humanity. How does a scientist comprehend such an ideal?
A: The scientist can only comprehend what changes consistently. Therefore, the scientist, as a scientist, can only comprehend science. The scientist, as a human, will comprehend love, through humanity. For a human inevitably believes in God when in love, and when in love, a human should find that their love is unchanging, much like God. Love should not change, or otherwise when it does, it was only because discontent met love on a path. Everything unchanging dies, and becomes unrecognizable, when it changes. We describe the “face of God” as linked to those we love. And, in the same fashion, those we love should always be recognized.
Q: How is science not ever able to discover the “evidence of God”?
A: It is because science represents the “changing” while God represents the “unchanging”. God is called “unfathomable” or “omniscient” or “perfect” and all such words, because God is unlike the ordinary human, who continually seeks change in their own imperfect lives. As well, God is the God of both love and death, not just love. Such things, both love and death, are invisible to life, especially death. Though, the one thing that puts a halt to life, is death. And the one thing that puts a halt to discontent, is love.
Modern Romanticism 