On How Romanticization is the Only Morally Acceptable Framework of Deception in the Contemporary Era

This was originally intended to be about the particular discongruity between pop romance, as portrayed by TV shows and mainstream media, and natural romance—romance that occurs in real life, organically. However, what I found in not just writing, but even thinking about the topic was [redacted].

More than that, was that the logic of the arguments I was using were poised at delivering conclusions on a larger level. In other words, I was using the smaller argument of the romanticization evident in media’s relationships to demonstrate its inherent general benefit. Truthfully, growing up on learning my sense of romance from these shows, their “happy ever after” has come to inform my overarching life’s perspective. So instead of focusing on the specific instance of natural romance, I wanted to discuss what that perspective is like and why I am actually rather proud of it. In making this pivot, I believe I’ve captured the true essence of my thought process: romanticizing life, and thus all things, experiences, and interpersonal connections which are principally part of it, while emotionally demanding leads to higher-yield happiness.

First, if we are to place the romanticizer on a spectrum of practiced life philosophies, it would stand polar opposite from the realist---person who sees things as they are or even the worst they could be. A romanticizer, by essence of the contemporary usage of the word is one who idealizes. However, while the idealist is painted as someone who sees a silver lining because one always exists and thus can always be sought out, the romantic only sees the best, the truest of potential. In this way, the meaning of “love at first sight” is interpreted differently. As opposed to its popular definition, “love at first sight” isn’t about attraction, it’s about a deeply intrinsic connection that expands beyond what is present now in the visual field to what will be (in the future). To elaborate, the romantic sees things not as good or bad as the idealist would, hence the “need” for and very presence of a silver lining, but as wondrous in their own right. In the romantic’s world, absolute’s do not exist. A cherry blossom that is beautiful to the idealist because of the petals it shall one day bloom from the buds splotched on it now, is also a petulant child to the realist who sees it now as but a sprawl of untamed brambles in need of trimming and, in the near future, someone to pick up after the fallen flowers. However, to the romantic, the cherry blossom is wondrous: everything from its invisible cells, and the slow expansion of its buds to the way it paints the green canvas below with infinitely different shades of its effervescent pink. The now, the tomorrow, and the potential all form the sight of the romantic.

The eye of the romantic, thus, exists in the liminal space between known and unknown. It is able to see not just as I said earlier, what is now and what could be, but, most importantly, it is able to see as if it’s never seen before. In essence, the eye of the romantic is the eye of the newborn baby. Innocence, utter dumbfoundedness, magic, these are the romantic’s core perspectives. The romantic is the permanent tourist, traveling the world and finding refreshing youth in even the most routine and old visages. Now, obviously the romantic doesn’t possess a set of eyes that physically work differently from the rest of society. No. Instead, the romantic possesses an internal process which reverses preexisting learning and familiarity. Essentially, the romantic is able to create a mental moshpit, a vacuum of knowledge, in which the eyes can load information into for the first time and the brain can interpret independent from previous heuristics. Insanity was once described as repeating a sequence of inputs and expecting a different output. By this definition, the romantic is insane for they may look upon the same building, walk the same path, and find wonder, interest, fascination, but most importantly, new meaning each and every time. Meaning before logic is one of the romantics many mottos.

Now I can go on and on about the absolutely riveting intersection between self-deception and rediscovery, or I can get into the really interesting stuff—relationships. I’ve tried to assess Chuck, The Office, and Friends for any meaningful conception of what I believe is the presiding theme of media-portrayed romance: soulmates. But instead of finding support for this idea of a predetermined soulmate, I actually found the opposite, and it couldn’t have made more sense. At the beginning of these shows, let’s use Chuck for example, which is an amazing show, and I highly recommend watching it after getting amnesia-inducing surgery to forget these spoilers, we are introduced to a nerdy, heart-broken Chuck. Eventually we see him at his rather lackluster job which is where he meets Sarah. The typical hair blowing back scene ensues and both he and we have to pick our jaws up from the floor. While we don’t develop on the spot a sense that they are to be soulmates, we do eventually begin to pick up on a tension that seems destined to converge the two of them. And while throughout the show we are rooting for them, believing that they are to be together, we never know for certain. What I mean by this is that although we can predict the outcome, we can’t know why it should or will come about until the near-end of the show. Once the pieces finally click together, and we see that they do complete each other; it makes overwhelming sense, not just because the plot was always destined to arrive here, but because we can see all the events and moments which make the pair. In other words, soulmates are actually decided in hindsight.

Wrapping my head around this and the significance of it has been a challenge for much of my conscious life, defined as age 15 and older. [redacted], rather, the challenge has been understanding who and what conditions should rightfully lead to one. To elaborate, my whole life I had dialed in on that predictive element of media romance; the moment when the audience sees “love at first sight” and just knows that Chuck and Sarah or Jim and Pam will end up together. And while that led younger Ariyan to [redacted], it wasn’t conducive to allowing a small connection to grow into a relationship. There was this constant pressure on every interaction I had, “could this girl be the one,” and “if it wasn’t her who was it?” Ultimately, it was a very unhealthy mindset that assumed I could skip the riff raff if I was observant enough and jump straight to that soulmate. In practice, this just isn’t true, however. Part of what makes someone a soulmate is that there is this longstanding history behind the title. I believe a true romantic understands and appreciates the value in that history. For lack of a better analogy, a true student of the great rom-coms and romance TV shows knows that while you can predict the end of the plot, what makes the story worth following, the relationship intriguing, is the trials that the characters go through and the gestures, grand and small, that prove, not just their love for each other, but their inevitable compatibility. In the same sense that the romantic lives in that liminal space and in the same way that they see the potential for all things around them, the romantic tries to in each moment, make it special through action. Whereas an average joe couple may grow into a routine of affection and develop a sense of unconsciousness in the way they express care or take their partner’s love for granted, a romantic reminds himself constantly “this is love, this is love,” and it is something to not just cherish but nurture in its entirety. And in that sense, it takes a degree of deception to constantly not just see but believe in the different meanings of the word love. To, as Nietzsche, who would never know he’d be quoted for but, would, in fact, say, dissimulate outside of a fixed conception of partnership, to see its now, its tomorrow, its potential, and reinvent it. The romanticizer of life is always able to see and imbibe age with vitality.

Now I’m sure you’re wondering: this is supposed to be a creative non-fiction piece, but Ariyan has written some abstract, esoteric, most-likely completely unintelligible philosophy. But now, this was creative nonfiction. All these “points” I made stem entirely from the way I view life, which I have found on many occasions to be irreplicable in anyone I’ve met. And while I am prepared to “defend” them against someone who tries to characterize them in any other sense than I have here, I understand, but, moreover, am grateful for the fact that my thoughts should even come across as provoking. Without justification, I like the notion of someone reading my thoughts and thinking anything. Isn’t that just so beautiful? That we could acknowledge something beyond the “truth” of the moment and what it demands and just consider, if but only for the tail-end of that fleeting moment, what if it weren’t a romantasy?