Love & Hate

I hate when you use the word hate in conversation, and someone replies, “You shouldn’t say ‘hate,’ it’s such a strong word.”

The respondee is trying to be dryly clever, attempting to boast kindness in a minuscule way, but the issue in that response is that it actually strengthens the meaning of hate and devalues the meaning of love.

Love is strong because hate is strong. Hate is strong because love is strong.

Love doesn’t exist without hate. Hate doesn’t exist without love. It is a natural balance.

This natural balance occurs when the respective meaning of these words hold the same weight.

Therefore, if someone says hate is such a strong word, implying that you shouldn’t use it, then they are inadvertently, and adversely, giving hate more weight and importance than love. This devalues love, as does the overuse of claims regarding intense affection.

Similar to currency, if you overuse something, its value diminishes. If a government prints more money to get out of debt, it is devaluing the strength of its dollar. When people say (or “print” on social media) they love an acquaintance, an area, an object, or the food they ate, then they are devaluing love. Do you really have an intense affection for those things you claim you do, or do you merely like them?

The more the value of love decreases and hate strengthens by way of social significance (as in too strong to use), the natural balance becomes less stable. Similar to what we’re seeing today with societal differences. Do we love all the hate that has been distributed recently? One is certainly outweighing the other, or at least the media leads us to believe such.

To bring in pop culture as an example: Voldermort became pretty powerful because many characters in the Harry Potter universe believed that his name should not have been spoken.

Therefore, if love exists because of hate and hate exists because of love, and the natural balance relies on each holding the same weight in regard to their respective meanings, then it is OK to use the word hate as much as one uses the word love.

To bring in another pop culture reference, Ali Wong’s character in Netflix’s 2023 dark comedy Beef, Amy Lau, says in episode three, “I hate pretending I don’t hate things.”

Don’t let the hate build up inside, or it just becomes stronger and more dangerous.


Does universal perfection exist?

In a strange way, it could be our imperfections that make up universal perfection, for if life is balanced, anything that exists must have an opposite that exists, or a counterbalance.

Perfection is freedom from all flaws and defects. Yet, all humans, being of the same species, are flawed. We are all imperfect.

Imperfection is a fault or blemish.

Contentment, a state of satisfaction, combats societal perfection but defines individual perfection. While one person believes a situation to be perfect, another is not satisfied with the same outcome. This means perfection is subjective, almost arbitrary at times, because the standard changes from one individual to the next. If there is no concrete level of perfection, then how can true perfection be defined or even exist? Contentment allows people to believe in the literal definition of perfection, but perfection can always be more “perfect.”

Therefore, if something can always be more “perfect” than perfection, universal perfection cannot exist. It is rather situational.

Sport is an excellent example of varying ideas of perfection. In baseball and softball, a pitcher can throw a “perfect game,” which means no runs, hits, errors, or walks were recorded. It is an amazing feat. However, would an even more perfect game be if the pitcher struck out all 27 batters they faced? Not just striking out all batters faced, but with no balls or foul balls recorded. Or, even more so, 81 pitches with no swings taken. Or, would a perfect game only require 27 total pitches, each batter putting the first pitch they respectively face in play for an out?

Another example in sport is events that use the services of judges: gymnastics, diving, figure skating, etc. If a panel of judges unanimously gives an athlete all “10” ratings after a performance, then it is considered perfect. However, what if one judge was replaced and viewed the performance as only a 9.9? Perfection is only perfection in the minds of that specific grouping of judges. There are technical standards set as a foundation in these situations, so the aim to decide perfection is actually calculated. But, what if one judge viewed a flaw or defect as more technically unsound than another judge? That fraction, or blemish, though only deciphered by one mind, prevents perfection.

As with intention, perfection only exists in the individual through their personal level of contentment. So, if an individual considers something perfect they must recognize that another individual considers something perfect, but perhaps on a different level.

Therefore, if all humans are the same species, and all humans have an idea of perfection, then universal perfection does exist. It just happens to be externally displayed as imperfections in the eyes of others.

Nobody’s perfect, as the old saying goes, but everyone is imperfect. Therefore, if imperfection exists, then perfection must exist as a counterbalance. Universal perfection exists through a collection of imperfections.

Human Existence

To further on the intention post

It is a truth versus trust, fact versus belief, conundrum, teetering on the possibility of dualism, but never fully disconnecting body and mind.

If all acts, which occur in the physical world and are objective and proven, derive from a subjective decision in the non-physical world, then would that mean that individuals do not fully exist in either world?

From an outsider’s view, then no, an individual does not fully exist through another’s eyes because there is no proof of 100% truth. However, an individual fully exists within themselves because they alone know the truth.

Therefore, full human existence is individualistic.

All humans are the same species.

If an individual is human, and they know they fully exist, then they must recognize that another human is aware that they themselves fully exist. If we exist the same, we must respect each other’s individualism.

Therefore, if all humans are the same species, and all humans fully exist individualistically, then all humans fully exist.

Since each fully-existing human has an effect on every other human, that is how we are connected and become a fully-existing society. Just like the physical and non-physical worlds are balanced through objectivity and subjectivity, the same applies to humans as a whole and as one. Society is the physical, objective world, while individuals are the non-physical subjective world.

Everything is balanced, and balance leads to full human existence.


Existence is objective.

An objection is a fact.

A fact is proven to be true.

Trust is a belief.

Trust does not equal proof and, therefore, does not equal fact.

Intention cannot be proven, only trusted. Acts happen in the physical world (body) while intent happens in the non-physical world (mind).

As the old expression goes, actions speak louder than words. An act, whether positive or negative can be proven, for the act exists in the physical world. However, the intention behind the act only fully exists within the individual committing the act and does not exist in the physical world. We can trust that the intention was objective, but we cannot prove such.

If an individual gives a homeless person an offering, was it to help the homeless person or gratify the individual’s conscience? We can only believe what the individual says was their intent. And since there are multiple intents to consider, the action cannot be viewed as objective and therefore, it cannot fully exist.

Therefore, what the individual says was the basis of the act, true or untrue, can only be trusted.

That creates the questions: Can any non-physical substance, of the mind, be proven? It can exist, but can it fully exist?

In addition, if objective acts are derived from subjective decisions, do the acts even fully exist?

Yes and no. It is a balance.