Philosophy – “If One should Ban the Gun, One should Ban the Camera” – 8/8/2020

“Deception is the only tactic of those who yearn to prolong suffering, over simply ending it.”

– Modern Romanticism

The responsibility of a person comes first into question, upon the witnessing of an incident.

For if one saw that their own house was burned down, would they blame the simmering fires, the few trailing sparks, the smoldering coals? If one has been cut by a knife, would they blame its sharpness? Does one ever question the eagle on its ability to fly? In science, does one ever question why a person walks? Is there any reason? One has legs. They were meant for walking.

To question the purpose of the fire, the knife, the wings of an eagle, or the ability to walk by legs, is pointless.

One questions where a person is going with a torch, where a person is going with a knife, where the eagle is flying off to, or where the person is walking. For this defines the essence of responsibility.

When we acknowledge the person, who we see with a gun, as responsible, we simply trust them. Why would we ban the gun, when the responsibility lies upon the person who uses it?

The arsonist who set the fire, is responsible for that. The person who murdered another by drowning them in a bathtub, is responsible for that. Or, the person who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge into the ocean, took full control of that action. Whereby suicide is no method of being responsible, it is to the person who cares for that suicidal someone who may stop them from doing this.

What if we were to ban the camera?

By this, it only means that the mind has been damaged by the camera, as the gun damages the body.

Since its invention by a Frenchman, who by no special mention must be understood that such a device couldn’t be made in Zimbabwe or Mexico, or any other place, it has been a tool for deception’s tricks.

The camera obscura was the first usable model of the camera.

Soon after, Photoshop came around, that furthers the deception of this device. Its lies, which are only guaranteed because of its function in taking a shot of a specific place, make such a capturing needing to be very particular. For of any person who lies, only they know the truth. As in, whatever such a cameraman had taken, might not of been the whole scene.

People will say that the camera has saved lives. So has the gun. It should be instead said that the gun is honest, while the camera is deception.

If there’s full-on trust needed for a person with a gun, is there any needed for a person with a camera? Does “trust” even come into the equation, when one could simply use Photoshop to make real an unreality? Yet, when the gun kills a person, the evidence is plain as day.

Think on an example of a hunter. If the hunter heads into the wilderness, carrying a net in one hand, with a rifle in the other, one device will be used to capture, while the other will be used to kill. Think on that, when one compares the camera to the gun. One prolongs suffering, while the other silences it.

Think on the net that the hunter holds, to capture the deer and keep it in some foreign place. Think on that, when one can compare it to a kidnapper, who abducts a child in the streets.

Think of R. Kelley, the infamous abductor, and then compare him to each and every Journalist who lives.

Cameras should be banned, if the gun is to be banned. Prolong suffering, with a camera, with abduction, with deception, and one is merely a torturer, not ever honest about the idea of ending the pain.

Philosophy – “Why the Pride Rainbow is the Symbol that Withdraws Others” – 6/16/2020

“While we focus on the sight of a wound, so external upon the skin, we never notice if there’s an infection. Do we notice the virus that crawls in the blood, the sigh of helplessness from one remembered grief?”

– Anonymous

Reverse psychology in how the “pride rainbow” is shown upon a banner, operates like how a human willfully desires to see something beneath the Earth. We are, as humans, treasure hunters. We long to see something that does not appear dead, like dust, upon the surface of our memories.

Reverse psychology works, in this sense, that by a person telling someone to focus on color, in raising such a banner, that person told such will begin to wonder on what is beyond. That speaking person is, in this sense, telling the listening person to do the opposite. For it is inevitable for any human that they will want to know something beyond the color.

For a banner to attract the focus to color, makes a person who is willfully ignorant enough, able to withdraw their focus to the exterior of any human being. It withdraws the focus from the interior, so that we remain in that ignorance. For those who wish to know something beyond, there is the question that states, “Color is always seen, of Nature, of the world, so what is beneath the color, beneath the grass, beneath the soil?”

While the focus remains as the exterior, nobody of such promotion wishes to “get to know” a person, comprehend them beyond the simple color. It might be also the same when a person, who raises such a banner, is telling others to never see within them. To perhaps what hurts? To perhaps get to know them, and befriend them?

Why are people proud based on color? Why aren’t people proud based on contribution to what comes from one’s identity? The former is the work of a mother and a father. The latter would be the work of us. Upon the focus of an exterior, the interior becomes neglected, especially of those who have their own focus upon their own exterior. Though, when we focus upon the interior, then the exterior does not become neglected, because it will then become rather simple to apply attraction to that exterior, to that color. It wouldn’t require work, as it never does require any real labor, in that sense, to make something attractive. For attraction is based on instinct, so such a task should be effortless.

For such a task of attraction will be proven effortless, when we can comprehend that the labor of expression comes from an internal source, as not color for the sake of color. We are not laborious when we work to attract, because it is the same as stepping outside to notice what attracts us. Based on instinct, not based on work ethic. What is based on work ethic is our realization to know that what we can contribute in terms of different flavors, is not in how we appear, though in how we make the world appear. When we paint, as an artist, we paint by what we feel, do we not? Therefore, it is our contribution that comes by as labor, that we know it stems from an identity to make into something for another’s connection. Our identity is always another’s identity. Therefore, it is in what we do, that is the contribution, to create color that is not so obvious as how we appear, on the outside.

What can attract, will be immediate, as it is from us to the attraction. What we make to attract, does not require any effort, or should not require it, for we should know that instincts compel us to be attracted. In what we are expressive in doing, that is the work that is needed in knowing someone. We express, because we know, because we have that knowledge through getting to know someone. Though, in seeing color, there is something still so blatant about it, that for it to be a focus, makes us lose contact with being beneath the surface. Is it not that attraction will be instant, upon recognition of it? Why must color be the focus, especially of something so blatant as an external reveal? The work required in “knowing someone” is indeed a task. Therefore, the work required in healing someone, through what expression inevitably does, will be the task. In healing someone, a person has to know someone.

Book Concept – “A Fine Line for Justice” – Based on the Idiocy within the Freedom to make a Decision – 6/1/2020

Within limited choice, there is limited power. There is limited potential, and there is less arrogance. There is less people to believe that destruction is the way to go for preservation of another individual. Such means that not division of origin, being of skin color, ethic background, religion, social status, etc. would be preservation, as much as it is on the side of destruction, provable by its division. When a person upholds motives of preservation, their ideals have stuck themselves on selfless endeavor. They uphold honor and justice, in its objective sense.

When bringing people to believe that “all things are subjective”, what will occur is the dissection and insecurity on what is the objectively correct move. For to be right in doing something only means to never have had a choice in doing it.

When we love another, we don’t hesitate, nor do we consider, the correct move to make. We will only be as those we’ve said do not pay attention, when we take time to consider. In essence, we’ve been blind to trouble, to the knowledge of what to do. Base a society around choice, and continuous consideration is the method of pure doubt by a person.

Choice, or to make a decision, involves consideration. Though, all it amounts to, is what will benefit the self. What comes from this, if made as a purified lifestyle within a social realm, is the negligence of preservation of another, and more of the destruction of others. We will cling to a word that is “empowerment”, never the word that the emotion of love holds to be dear, being “eternity”.

To show someone the world of your own, not merely hiding yourself, would be like nowadays Walmart showing Target its world, its secrets, its motives, its designs, and much would be compromised. Competition yields fewer results, over collaboration.

To be objective, in this world, is to retain the structure of a whole. To be subjective, in this world, is to dissect the whole, so a multitude comes from an entirety.

One cannot look at “justice” in this world, and believe one has their own view on it, their own interpretation of it, their own opinion on it. If they do this, they will inevitably corrupt it into the definition of “vengeance”. Anything born out of subjective viewing makes a thing based around personal gain and desire, not for the benefit, or the preservation, of another individual.

A Quote of Wisdom – “A Power over a Right” – 4/20/2020

“There is certainly a great difference between having the right to do something, and the power to do something. When it is one’s power, rather than one’s right, it seems one can dominate their own individual right, though will dominate the rights of others. One casts themselves as a leader to that right, though since they hold power, their rights are still the same as other’s. Therefore, a power versus a right, is the very difference between tyranny and individual freedom.”