Philosophy – “The Danger of Interpreting Justice” – 4/22/2021

“We interpret what we mean to divide, in the departure of its original meaning. Where meaning has its place, is in origin. Origin is the finding of what means itself, even currently. To interpret it, means to spark continual change in the current time, so that it is the meaning that is randomized in how it is altered.”

– Modern Romanticism

Change is a course of division. Repetition, by way of this word, known as change, is a separation from origin. Justice is a word to reference itself upon the term “order”. To the comprehension of order is not to interpret what has been judged. One accepts. One deals with consequence.

Though, even by way of the accuser, their interpretation of what it means to bring about Justice, can be divided from origin. Despite them wanting to breed consequence atop the accused’s shoulders, their reference to order might be interpreted enough, by the prosecutor, to make it personal. Neutrality is the governing aspect of Justice. Its dealings should involve not the opinion of outside displays of wrath. Justice is blind to the sins of the public, ever only comprehensive of what occurs in the specific, unfolding space.

To free the objective understanding of a word, such as Justice, is not so much different from freeing the sentenced convict. It is to make manifold occasions of the crime to the perpetrator, when it is understood of the criminal that their eyes are always open. Escapism is the way for crime. Their many more occasions will be dealt, by the continual interpretations of Justice, when life opens its doors for the crime-doer. As life is the place of competition, interpretation is the same with its battle and debate.

Justice is blind, and not emotional. A debate is emotional, and much too personal. Interpretation is a deathly strain for Justice, in how to make such personal, is to breed its opposite form. Vengeance.

Vengeance is the place of the personal. If Justice is blind, then it is loving. If its opposite form is not so much, then we were ignorant. Ignorance is not a blindness, whereas it is more-so a simple absence of what is, from awareness. Love has no quarrel with absence, pertaining to ignorance, though will in fact fill the void with itself, that presence will be in its stead.

Do we interpret what should not separate itself, referencing order, as Justice? If to interpret means to separate of different opinions to the subject, as Justice holds its definition upon order and togetherness, then is to divide such viewpoints at all a necessity? And, if Justice is by way of responsibility unto the dealer of crime upon the innocent, then is to interpret such a term the error that breeds more criminals?

Quote – “Fires of Vengeance, Waters of Justice” – 9/1/2020

“Grief compels the fool to act out, from it. Grief compels the fool to raise a fire against those who wronged them. They are consumed, blinded, by the need for Vengeance. The blood boils up to their eyes, and they see nothing more than their own carnage.

A common human element is hunger. Hunger is the most fundamental of human desires. Though, when we give into it, we are corrupted. And, we share that corruption with others who also ache from hunger.

Yet, water will relate to Justice. Water will douse the fires of Vengeance. Justice will forgive. Justice will stay calm. Justice will quench thirst, instead of satiating hunger. Hunger is endless. Thirst limits us, for our stomachs do not expand, as we do not grow larger, from water. Water purifies us from corruption.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “People of Vengeance are Termites” – 9/1/2020

“Deconstructionists are termites. They require extermination. They are pests, who live to tear down development. What had a business done to raise itself, only for a termite wandering in the streets to pull it down? What does ignorance do, of the same? It breaks. People will speak of the power of knowledge. Though, the power of ignorance will tear the structure apart in a fraction of the time it took to be built. ‘Raise’ a child for 18 years, with all the required knowledge. Kill the 18-year-old child after their birthday, and one was merely ignorant of that knowledge.

All structure, built through knowledge. All structure, destroyed through ignorance.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Objective and Inarguable Difference Between Justice & Vengeance” – 9/1/2020

“Justice does not steer us in a direction, nor does it conform to the emotion of anger. One is calm, through Justice. One is decisive and planning, through Justice. One does not maneuver with a blade or gun to the target of oppression, and call it Justice. For Justice is never personal.”

– Modern Romanticism

The objective fool will call “Justice” to be a thing based around anger. It is not, factually so. How is anger an element to Justice, when Justice can only represent order? When Vengeance would destroy, how does Justice have its mention in destruction? How is anger an element to Justice, when anger will only breed fire? Fire wastes. It wastes and relives that destruction, over again. It causes a cycle that does not end, until forgiveness is placed in the middle of it.

Anger is only a reaction. It must be suppressed. With anger, fumes from smoke are caused.

Nothing about Justice relates to anger. This is a fact. Anger is on the side of Vengeance, not Justice. When a fool will state that Justice must be “dealt”, through his or her anger, they are speaking of Vengeance. Vengeance tears down. Vengeance does not raise. Justice would repair. Justice would forgive. Only a fool whose grief and anger has gotten the better of them, has flooded their mind, cannot see that it is Vengeance, not Justice, that makes hatred known.

Fires bleed through the streets, as it holds the same coloring as blood and innards. We rip, tear, and yank in Vengeance, as Justice would only be gentle. It is Justice, too, that remains stagnant.

There is no movement that can claim Justice to be its strength. A movement moves. Justice does not.

Justice stays within.

Vengeance would seek to kill. Justice would seek to live.

Emptiness blots out life, in the Vengeance that had killed the beating heart. What animals of the streets must be tamed by the leash, so that they do not use their anger, when they cannot be calmed, on their own? It is pitiful.

Speak of truth, through Justice. Speak of lies, through Vengeance. To call your Vengeance as Justice, is to be the epitome of all liars. One is the untamed animal, deconstructing the building to make the wood and leaves, once again. They are now in the wild, with their primal instincts, disgusted at development, grinning at downfall. What a sad story.

Philosophy – “Why Racism is not an Act of Hate” – 7/24/2020

“When focus of fear occurs, it is knowledge that is gained of a broken people. Someone pulls the strings of fear, in the conquering of false competition and needless battle. Some puppeteer makes the dolls fight, in their trivial fights to be weakened.”

– Modern Romanticism

How often has a person been intimate with their “acts of racism”? Close in contact? They’d not be, unless they knew that person beyond the color of their skin.

For to know a person would mean to either love or to hate.

Hatred might blind the person. Though, so does love, to the individual who has a lover or a mother, or whoever else.

Do we know every dark secret? No. Though we must know something to enforce true hatred. Therefore, racism is impossible under the banner of actual hatred. It is true also that hatred cannot be of a collective. It is an emotion of loneliness, kept hidden, and only revealed at the mention of the specific individual. The fool who believes that racism is part of hatred, must deny that this suffocating emotion is a personal vendetta from individual to individual.

Whether love or hate, it is close, intimate, and understood. It goes beyond the shallowness of only noticing the skin color, to the heart of a person.

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.