“Anti-science: universally agreeing with science. When a politician will say, ‘follow the science’, they won’t be for science, because that politician is telling you to agree with the science, without ever questioning the legitimacy behind the data. When the scientific method must require falsifiability for itself to be disprovable, then it is science. And when you ask any scientist what science might be, the most basic response might be, ‘science is everything true, until proven false’. If that’s the case, then some politician who tells you to follow the science is telling you to ‘follow the pseudoscience’. It should be seen as normal for a politician to do this, considering their career in deception.”
– Modern Romanticism
Tag: Science
Psychology – “Why Mental Illness Symptoms do not Return from Tapering off Medication” – 2/8/2022
“It’s as though those mental health symptoms were never there, and you were on a drug that tapped into the placebo effect. You were experiencing a hard time. You were desperate. You reached out, and what you brought back was relief in a bottle with a special child’s lock on it. The cap. When you opened it, your reality was never a thing to experience. You gave full trust to those who were never interested in you, only what is wrong with you.”
– Modern Romanticism
They always say this:
Your Bipolar, Schizophrenic, Schizoaffective, ADD, ADHD, OCD, PTSD, Depression, Anxiety… “might return if you truly wish to go through with getting off this medication.”
They say this, the NP’s, the Psychiatrists, and Psychologists, though none of them comprehend the red flags. How can a person who studies the mind not realize what affects the mind? They offered you a bottle with what you believed, in your heart, was a cure to your traumas, among all other mental afflictions. The red flags, being the very essence in not being able to understand reality. Not understanding reality is the place of mental illness. Being lost in darkness is the place of depression. Being afraid of the future is the place of anxiety. Then, since such is the case, those red flags consist of not being able to tell apart the differences in these symptoms. Whether the symptoms of withdrawal to getting away from what has been perceived to be a reality of a cure, to the symptoms of mental illness that was understood to be an absence of reality; the realities are always there, as our nihilistic endeavor to deny them only places us further lost.
If symptoms to withdrawal is the same as the symptoms to mental illness, what absence of reality is different? The answer is these realities are the same. A medicated individual has withdrawn from the craving for something out of their desperate design, to then have the same mindset for craving something perhaps more recognizable. Even if the latter has been perceived as more “recognizable”, the former had shown an exact amount of perception to recognition as the latter. The former scenario showed the mentally ill individual comprehending life from a perception of pain. Then, the perception of pain was made into a sameness of an exact scenario through the latter, where that individual has perceived themselves being dragged apart from reality.
Withdrawal symptoms and mental illness symptoms are the same, though the prescribers won’t note that. They will not give the warning to their patients that tapering from the medication will bring on the same symptoms as their mental illness. Perhaps the reason for this is to not confuse the patient on reality. If reality is shown to them that the medication is truly an addiction, they might comprehend that their own refusal to acknowledge themselves, not merely what is wrong with themselves, has been what began the mental spiral. As reality is meant to be a depiction of what is real, factors such as pain are alongside this. However, mental illness is known to have symptoms of pain related to the patient’s absent perception of reality. If life experiences pain for what is real, then how can mental illness be a part of this? As in, how can mental illness be a real thing to an individual experiencing it? Moreover, this is the same relation in wanting to extract the perceived need of a medication, also a reality to the patient for its intent as a cure, to whoever might believe their mental illness has been a reality for them.
Having those withdrawal symptoms as the same symptoms as mental illness shows that both are the absence of a perception to reality. If a patient underwent symptoms of Schizophrenia, Bipolar, etc., then such pain belonged to an absence of reality. The same pain is applied to withdrawing from the medication, one that was perceived to be the gateway to reality for the individual as they thought of such as a cure to what was real as their agony. All this is meant to state that there is no reality besides the individual, not to what is wrong with the individual. All absences are the place for mental illness, though as a practitioner to their patient will find that a resource, such as medication, could replace what is missing to said patient, there will be from this only a prolonged miscomprehension of reality.
Philosophy – “If all is Subjective, then Why Take Offense?” – 8/23/2021
“The interpreted insult could come back in being redirected into something different, soon interpreted into a correction made by the insulter.”
– Modern Romanticism
Why take offense at the insult if all is subjective, or if all is relative?
The relativist notion, if to take Einstein’s theory through the metaphorical light, could mean that the largest object (the largest issue) tends for the person with it to “warp” what is around them. In this metaphorical light, this could mean that the larger issue (in reference to the larger object for the force of gravity), brings causation of further dilemmas upon surroundings. Such is the common result of those who have yet to comprehend their own interior space or the recognition for what is indeed objective or non-relative.
Continue reading “Philosophy – “If all is Subjective, then Why Take Offense?” – 8/23/2021″Excerpt – “As Love is more Logical than Science” – 7/13/2021
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
Philosophy – “Why Love doesn’t Comprehend Time” – 5/15/2021
“As we love, we feel the other person, never ourselves. To this degree, we realize that through such love, it does not die, even in death. Within our heart, we feel them. To feel the other person has us comprehend the limitlessness of our beloved’s existence, even during the flesh’s non-existence.”
– Modern Romanticism
Love is, what duration is not. There is no expiration to love, marked as a tag upon its very worth.
We feel the other. It is not us, that we feel, through love. To ourselves, in such “love” for however it is felt, would instead represent its opposite, being fear. To ourselves, by ourselves, we are fearful. We are so, because in that vulnerable aspect of being alone, we are afraid to trust, once again. Trust would weaken us, so that we are revealing vulnerabilities to someone we understand as equal to ourselves. We’d come to know that they share the same vulnerabilities as ourselves.
It is because of fear, by such lone vulnerability it presents, that we are durable. We have duration, as we reveal our flaws and limitations to the open, to anyone. Such is a deception, because to reveal our imperfections to just anyone, is the same as to no one; thus, it is comparable to loneliness. It is through love that we have unlimited strength. For to fight for someone else, rather than just ourselves, we discover what it means to fear for, rather than to fear another person.
Even after the death of a beloved, love exists. We will wish, as perhaps Atheists, to want for God who represents love, to reveal Himself. As evidence, that is. Though, in sameness through that mindset, we will also state that God is dead.
Even in death, our evidence for what can be proven, cannot be at all. It is what’s being kept close, never meant to be spoken about through criticism, that “proof” has no meaning for what we cannot possibly question. How can we question what we feel, for its truth, without attempting to revive it? Such would form the criticism against what we claim to not understand, when we do. A question upon love would be to limit it, being against its essence within eternity.
Beyond the limited duration of life, love holds onto what remembers. Through death, love pushes us forward. Though, we’ll continue to remember. We will, as though we’ve lost them during the previous moment.
If we feel another, even after their death, then what evidence is there to offer when flesh is dust? And, we cannot hold out evidence for what is dust, in flesh, though so real, in the heart.
Imagine the torment the human mind would have to endure, were we to be suddenly absent of the memories, meant to offer us comfort, upon a loved one’s death?
Who so non-empathetic, yet so scientific, would find it wishful enough to offer “treatment” to the grieving individual, upon sight of their tears? Such tears are calming for the grieving one. Tears comfort the mournful one, all due to the memories that remind the living of life’s importance. If one so non-empathetic, yet so scientific, could believe another is impaired by their grief, then they’ve yet to understand what keeps life moving.
It is always the past that gives life hope. Such is the only representation of the future, being hope.
Love, the past.
Hope, the future.
Philosophy – “The Infinity of Love & the Universe” – 5/5/2021
“Displace yourself from what the skies know, to all your arms have carried. You know, in your heart, the human nature that demands to keep carrying. Beneath the Heavens, and we catch the rain.”
– Modern Romanticism
Love is, what humans aren’t. A divine element of the universe, unable to be totally fathomed by the human mind. To define it, is to know infinity.
Science explains love, through origin. The Big Bang. Anytime to explain the Big Bang on how something “forms from nothing”, is to realize how love works.
And we are strongest when we feel the other, not just ourselves. Beyond just ourselves, we love. To ourselves, we are fragile, vulnerable in all we wield and carry. Discarding such a load, is to let another wield it. To let them, because we are vulnerable. To love, and then to be loved is never to feel the self. To love, is always to feel who we are loving.
Blinded, only because we no longer see our own reflection. Ignorant and blissful, because we are no longer self-aware, through love. It is by limits, where we comprehend what hurts, within. It is then by the eternal, where we lose ourselves in the arms of another.
It is not love that can be limited, though limits us.
We are limited by love, though when loved, we are eternal in their minds. To die, is to be loved, forever. Love is origin, though reverts back to a realization for objective goodness, in the forgiveness to all that was the beloved’s opposite, upon death. We forgive the bad, to remember the good, within the origin love represents.
Origin. Of love. Limited by it, because we are not God. Imperfect, when full of truth. Perfect, when full of lies.
And, we are ever unable to limit love, through how we have no power over it. It limits us, through our inability to comprehend who remembers us, what loved ones recall us, upon our death.
Death is the only limit by what love, itself, cannot go through.
Philosophy – “The Two-Step Sequence to Problem Solving” – 2/13/2021
“Without the desire to care, one cannot advance to where one solves what is wrong. With all the knowledge in the world, there is none that can teach a person to admit a problem exists.”
– Modern Romanticism
Wandering to a bookstore to purchase a volume that teaches a person how to solve a problem, will not solve anything deeper than that.
The deepest problem that a person suffers from, is the unwillingness to care for what is wrong. One can have all the world’s knowledge, with no care for how to apply it. Whereas, it is possible to solve any problem, when the first step to this sequence, has been conquered.
The first step, the desire to care…
Versus, the second step, the knowledge applied for the problem to be solved…
And, one cannot skip the first step, to move onto the second. This is because, as it’s already been stated, one cannot solve an issue, without the genuine care for it.
An “excuse” or a “reason” for why one cannot accomplish their task, may come in all forms. One can say the words, “I do not know how.” Though, their lacking knowledge, for how to solve their issue, is never the true reason. Their truest reason is that they do not care enough. Such means, they have not conquered the first step, in this “two-step sequence to problem solving”.
This is how rehabilitation centers fail, for addicts. What with all the knowledge such a center possesses, will become useless when the addict, themselves, have not conquered the first step. Such an addict can only ever move onto the second step, when the first one has been accomplished.
Having a heart, is the first step.
Having a mind, is the second step.
Why else does a person enter a bookstore to purchase a volume on “how-to”, if not having accomplished the first step? It is then an impossible task, for any author, to write a book to teach a person to be motivated enough to solve their issue. This is to say that one cannot teach a person to care. Such motivation needs to come, from within.
One can receive advice from another, though only ever in requirement for sheer knowledge. Neither a friend, nor a therapist, can teach a person to care about what is wrong.
Philosophy – “Why Science cannot Study Love” – 1/27/2021
“There comes a moment between a daunting pair for both sets of eyes, when something occurs from nothing. That is love. That is what nothing can observe, other than the two who came to comprehend what they felt.”
– Modern Romanticism
There are far too many scientific research studies attempting to predict or to replicate the sequence of when love takes place. This is an impossibility for science, because it relies on the subject of “the choice”. As in, who would one choose, based on these characteristics, for instance. Or, who would one choose, based on outward appearances, as another example. That is not love.
When it comes to preference, it is about lust. It is about the gain, the reward, the materialistic prize for which all things lie embedded in the flesh. When a man and a woman are connected in sexual intercourse, both sides feel pleasure. As in, both sides gain something. No one is meant to be lacking from the “satisfaction”.
Satisfaction relies on materialism. Whereas, anything other than the material, of something so invisible to the eye, would relate itself to love. In fact, it might relate itself to divinity. Of divinity, to something so immaterial that it would be called “imaginary”. As it is within such scientific studies of love, to “imagine” the preference of a person, displayed before the subject to find worthy of a relationship, is again, to see something material. It pertains to preference. As the subject imagines the specific characteristics for the study, it becomes materialized in their mind. They imagine it, to materialize it, so that whatever is seen in the imagination can be received with either approval or disapproval.
If something so powerful as love cannot be imagined by humans, then it must not even be an emotion. Pertaining to the divine, it must be beyond what makes a person so imperfect due to emotions. Love must be the perfection that cannot be imagined, because it has not yet been seen. For nothing of the future, where love always goes in the heroism for which it stands, can be comprehended without feeling fear, being love’s opposite. If we are too uncertain about the future, then we feel fear. Though, of what has “not yet been seen”, would make of love the most unpredictable of processes to occur. We cannot simply predict what can either be given or taken of us, in the next moment. Such would pertain itself to life or death.
How is it that science can attempt to replicate or predict a future relationship, when such a thing, as love, “has not yet been seen”? This would pertain to some religions, that speak of how such a love can be seen, after death. Or, such would refer to the “quitting of life”, to how love can replace the continual stream of life’s desire to replace materialism with materialism. As in, to heal a wound of the flesh, such as the breaking of a woman’s virginity. Replacing flesh with flesh, is a lot like a person replacing brokenness with something else easily able to break. How hard is it for a person to replace who they love with someone else to love? How cruel is it to even suggest it?
As it is, a relationship is as unpredictable as not fully realizing the self. One cannot “prefer” whoever it is they indeed fall in love with, same as one cannot predict such a person before them. There could be many happily married couples, who have said, repeatedly to themselves, “The one I love was not who I ever expected. However, I love them, because there is no one else.”
No one else to love, because there is no one else to prefer. Love eternally satisfies a person, unlike how materialism soothes one in the mere short-term. There is no science that can study love, without relying on material evidence. Such evidence would only inevitably prove itself as counter-productive to understanding love. For that is because we, as humans, cannot understand love, divine of an emotion as it is. It is beyond the mere study, in comprehension.
Quote – “Why Perfection does not Exist” – 1/22/2021
“If a person’s salvation lies upon understanding who they are, then to the concept of perfection, we should immediately know it cannot be identified with. For at the heart of all beings, we are alike. Imperfect to know each other, and never perfect enough to withstand each other.”
– Modern Romanticism
Chapter Four – Part IV – “As Science Replaces Subtlety with Shock Value” – Philosophy – 1/20/2021
“For the sake of love, or even for the love of God, science only questions what can be questioned, again afterwards. Never-ending question comes from unceasing confusion and the same lack of clarity that love nor responsibility had never touched. Such would make of itself belonging in the same comparison to a psychopath, that through their heinous acts, only ever lead to eternal imprisonment or slavery.”
– Peter A.W. Wyatt
Within the future, uncertainty makes us feeble to walk the road where steps should remain so clear. As they should, though with fear, a person perhaps cannot find even the strength to move. Fear is the paralyzing emotion for which only love can remedy, to create of them the future that becomes certain. As love can only ever be externally applied, makes of fear the emotion of loneliness. To science’s understanding, it is “progress” that yields the result for the future’s awareness. Though, for what science stands for is always the ability to reason. Where reason relates to excuse, makes of a person more inclined to wish for a choice, something of a coward to the future. It is not ever a thing related to unity, while the vein of progress continues to stretch.
To cling to the survivalist nature of ourselves, the people who walk the roads of our lives on towards where we can be sure, is not to cling to what would bring clarity. For of what brings about clarity, marks itself as love. Stability in the current moment, reveals clarity for the future. This makes of reason, being of what science adores, the very instability that is related to chaos. If events unfold to which makes a person unable to unify with another for control over the outcome, is always to science for its endless desire to discover. In this sense, a discovery is nothing more than an example for how the end result of a creation, being the future, is never met with clarity.
It is science’s true opposition, being of love, that makes of the future the clarity for which neither a scientific mind nor one for progress would find agreeable. Progress cannot align with love, for the former’s train of discoveries is endless. As for love, it is a discovery, on its own. It is a discovery that cannot be dissected for the simple scientific sake of more discoveries. For a person discovers of love what they vow to belong in their lives, for eternity. However, through the ability to reason, would make a person able to commit the infidelity that steers away from such a vow or responsibility meant to be upheld. It is to wonder how futurism can be something that considers progress or development, when it opposes the necessity of love? How does a human develop without this concoction of differing emotions? Science does not question this, because it would result in progress coming to a complete halt. Progress relies on its endless continuance. If not for that endless pathway for progress, it might discover love, along with the satisfaction that comes from it.
To people’s dissatisfaction, is how a person reasons, is how a person makes an excuse, is how perhaps a criminal might wriggle themselves out of a predicament in which they were caught for their acts. It would make science, itself, align with criminal behaviors, simply from the beginning of its inception. To how a person is dissatisfied, is how they are yearning for more. Though, to how a person loves, is by not ever wanting more. To a person’s love for another, by who is before them, makes of them the necessity to settle down with that discovery. As well, such a discovery was never deliberate. It is not a deliberation to love. What would be deliberate is to commit that infidelity upon one’s spouse, so that trust is betrayed.
People makes excuses, because they desire a choice. In having a choice, a person is now free from what confined them, being that of prison or a marriage. A choice is simply what sides with reason, because everything that relates to such freedom, is what also compares itself to a lack of responsibility. To what the future stands for, is to immediately comprehend what such responsibility understands. That, to the objective mistakes a person has made, such as of someone who committed that infidelity against their spouse, or of a person who committed a crime, responsibility would be to embrace a clear future. Though, a “clear future” is always decided upon their guilt to the matter. Whenever a criminal is decided of guilt through their trial, would benefit the collective of society. It is to the criminal’s declared guilt by a Judge, that makes them able to benefit and continue the development of that society. Though, should such a criminal be able to understand, for themselves, the guilt to be felt on what was enacted upon as a crime, breeds the personal development for a clear future.
We are clear upon that responsibility. We comprehend the actions in which must be taken, for that responsibility. Though, does science ever comprehend the necessity for being responsible, when all it cares for is its endless discoveries in the name of either personal or societal dissatisfaction? To be mistaken, would make a person needed to uphold their own individual responsibility. Individual responsibility would be for the betterment of a future, so that such a mistake is not repeated. Is for science to hold its foundation upon reason, upon the basis to which responsibility cannot be realized due to a craving for choice, makes of itself the only essence in the world that is never wrong?
For science to base itself upon excuse, to say that it was “in the name of science” to have caused such a travesty, will always be in the same mentality as a psychopath who committed their chosen crime. For that psychopath could not fathom responsibility. They did it to satisfy a craving that was born out of always being dissatisfied. Would any serial killer ever be content with just one victim?
For the sake of love, or even for the love of God, science only questions what can be questioned, again afterwards. Never-ending question comes from unceasing confusion and the same lack of clarity that love nor responsibility had never touched. Such would make of itself belonging in the same comparison to a psychopath, that through their heinous acts, only ever lead to eternal imprisonment or slavery.
Quote – “What is God?” – 1/9/2021
“To explain the concept as the ‘Big Bang’ might be the same as to wonder how something comes from nowhere. To this extent, one should then go to explain how love works. If God is love, then He holds not a creator of His own. If something can arrive from nowhere, being of love, being also of science’s explanation to the ‘Big Bang’, then both sides can agree on the same point.”
– Modern Romanticism
Quote – “Science is…” – 12/8/2020
“Science is not the encouragement of wisdom, in terms of teaching all to learn from their mistakes. Rather, science teaches us to learn from someone else’s mistakes, to gain benefits from someone else’s misfortune.”
– Modern Romanticism
Modern Romanticism 