Why is Radical Romanticism avoided in Public Discourse?

Nature has a way to be romantic and realistic at the same moment, because romance is no strange phenomenon, instead it is a possibility to avoid 'official love' (Derrida, Of Grammatology), an insignia of 'Humean Emotivity' ('Emotivity' here means the translocation of epistemology to the emotion as David Hume suggests in his treatise on human understanding). Romance in its ouvre is the first law of nature and there is none which I may call second one. Universe in its spreading horizon is the manifestations of fine balance, whereas each dimension is romantically attached to other one. Here I'm not pretending to show the representative character of philosophy, neither I'm trying to romanticize what we know as tragedy. But nature in its tragedic character is more romantic than in its creative role. For example, creation could be understood in three diverge dimensions; creativity, created, and structural grammar of creation. These dimensions reduce creation in its conformist limitations. Like some of the qualities and physical structures of our ancestors are inherited through natural process, and some of them are cultivated in a cultural set up, which have been preserved and imposed to a new comer in form of custom and of course a conformist education. This is called, to refer Michel Foucault, 'Sovereignty of Consciousness' (Foucault, Archeology of Knowledge). On the other dimension, nature appears as a destructive force, ruptures, delimits, and puts a full stop to a known existence, or consciousness.

Destruction is usually disrespected by human wisdom, condemned as an evil force, feared by most of the wisest humans, inspite of the fact that destruction comes as a possibility, a romance between creative and disruptive forces, a non-conformist force which brings the fresh air, a new fragrance of life tree and rotten smells disappear. Nature is fond of radical romanticism but humans are afraid of! History of ideas have, in its 'technological reasonings', produced 'certainty syndrome'. As if we're same every day, so is the law of everything which governs us and cosmos. In fact, certainty of uncertainty is the truth we should not forget. This syndrome is cultivating and creating conformist minds, like fixed algorithm of artificial intelligence, which are being used as a machine in various powerful factories, generating intellectual and moral pollutions, endangering the very possibility of life. This 'dynamic normalisation', to refer Michel Foucault again (Foucault, Power/Knowledge), yields unromantic possibilities of human conditions, something like living at the cost of love and loving at the cost of life. Radical romanticism is the first law of nature, the first love of nature's nature (Peter Fitzpatrick, Modernism and the Grounds of Law), what about humans and their possibilities of freedom without critical inquiries, without self-questioning of their dogmas, without radical romanticism?