Red Pill TheoryThe Misunderstanding of Unconditional Love (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by red_philosopher

The Blue Pill of Love

Our entire lives, we are force-fed misunderstandings about the world. Shades of the truth that do not make us happy. We are told to sacrifice for the empty promise of the possibility of a woman's love, that we should be loved for who we are rather than what we are. It teaches that it is okay to be unactualized. That it is okay to be mediocre. That hard work isn't its own reward. "Unconditional" love has been corrupted in a similar fashion. Oneitis, an unhealthy obsession of a woman, is the manifestation of this corruption. Men engage in it because they do not know better. We teach abundance mentality to combat it, but not what the actualization of that mentality is.

What Unconditional Love Means

When you ask someone what this means, they'll give you a meaning something akin to being accepted for who they are. We, as men, want to be loved for who we are. I do. Everyone does. It is a comfortable shadow of belief that we all cling to. The unspoken assumption that goes along with that desire, is that we will be accepted for who we are regardless of what we do. We also, generally, love with the expectation that we will be loved in return. It is these unspoken and unrealized expectations that corrupt its meaning.

Unconditional love is loving without the expectation of return. When we divest ourselves of the expectation that others will treat us as we treat them, we are allowed to give of ourselves because it makes us happy. Not because we are expecting something in return that will make us happy.

It Is okay to Love Unconditionally

We are human. We cannot escape this fact. We have many facets, many idiosyncracies, and many strengths. We have our weaknesses and our vulnerabilities. Love, is one of those things that we cannot escape despite our attempts to avoid it. It is as much a part of ourselves as anything else. This aspect needs to be embraced and understood. Oneitis is not unconditional. People with oneitis want something from the person of their desire. They give their love conditionally, and in doing so, they create a void that needs to be filled with the affections of said person. And when that person, inevitably, doesn't uphold that unspoken, unrealized part of the contract, they get hurt. They seek to fill that void with that person by any means possible. They degenerate, hurt, and lose sight of themselves. They dont realize a fundamental truth of our existence: there are consequences for our choices; we do reap what we sow.

Loving unconditionally, however, is loving because we love to love. If we give of ourselves with the full understanding that we may get nothing in return, we do not feel loss. We do not create that void in ourselves that needs to be filled by that person. It is an abundance mentality.

Abundance and Integrity

Integrity is the actualization of a simple concept. That our "yes" means yes, and that our "no" means no. For us to achieve integrity in our every day interactions, we must understand the depths of the decisions we make. This includes the choice of loving unconditionally. We must understand what it means when we say yes to the giving of our love to another. We cannot say "yes but" when we choose to love. When we become capable of completely understanding what that is, we can begin to achieve true abundance.

Abundance mentality, at its core, is a method of achieving unconditional loving via the understanding that we do, and should, have options. When we have options, we become unafraid of losing the objects of our desire. It allows us, as men, to love freely and withdraw our love freely. We are fulfilled with or without that person. We love them because we chose to do so, not because we wanted their love. We can say "no" and move on.

Spinning plates is only the beginning of the path. It mimics abundance- however it is easy to believe it is abundance because it enables the avoidance of choice. Abundance isn't the avoidance of the choice to love. It is acceptance of the choice to love, and having the integrity to make that choice and mean it. A common misunderstanding is that a "yes" is not necessarily a yes forever. You do not have to continue to love when you no longer choose to do so. Loving is a choice, not a requirement.

Give and Love Unconditionally

You cannot have true abundance if you expect anything in return for the love you give. You must understand what integrity is in order to achieve the mindset required for abundance. You must mean yes when you choose to love. Do not set yourself up for misery by loving conditionally. Actualize yourself, love yourself, and when you can choose freely to love, do so.

Love boldy, without apology, and without fear. Withdraw that love boldly, without apology, and without fear.

Post-Post Edit

A lot of the confusion from my post comes from the multiple applications of the word(s) "(un)conditional" when applied to a concept like love. There is a duality of the word(s) (un)conditional when used:

I will give you love (without expectation[uncon.])/(for something[con.]), (for as long as you treat me well[con.])/(no matter how you treat me[uncon.]).

The most common example of "conditional love" (in my opinion) is quid pro quo, something for something, or the first part above. I will give you love in exchange for sex, for example. Unconditional love, however, is usually not the opposite of conditional love when conveyed, but applies to the second part of the above. I will give you love, regardless of your actions.

So my post was trying to communicate that unconditional love should be the opposite of the common understanding of conditional love, with the caveat that it can be withdrawn at anytime for any reason. That was what I was trying to convey here. If you give without expectation (unconditionally), it doesn't matter if the second one is conditional or not. (Ideally, you should be able to remove yourself from a bad situation.)

So conditional(for something) unconditional(regardless of how you treat me) love would be the worst blue-pill, conditional(for something) conditional(treating me well) love and unconditional(no expectation) unconditional(regardless of how you treat me) love would be "purple-pill", and unconditional(no expectation) conditional(as long as you treat me well) love would be red-pill.

I hope this clarifies.

[–]ThrowFader 148 points149 points  (2 children)

You have to have values, in order for your love to mean Anything.

If you love everything, your love is cheap, unless your value is high.

Attraction is non negotiable.

So is love.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)


[–]slumdog-millionaire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Had to come back and read this a second time, probably going to come back to it every so often for a reminder. This is truly, truly indispensable knowledge. You really have a profound insight here. Thank you.

[–]2chazthundergut 58 points59 points  (10 children)

This is a good post but there are some technical details I would add for TRP:

  1. Start with unconditional love for yourself. You must love yourself first and foremost. All other relationships depend on this. As the man, you are the wellspring of divine love, guidance, and validation. It trickles down from you. As has often been pointed out on TRP: men love women love children love pets. Respect the hierarchy. And that begins with the demand that you show yourself the love you deserve FIRST. You will never be satisfied if you are trying to get your love from a chick. Just like a mom cannot rely on her child's love to sustain her.

  2. Love unconditionally but be ruthless with your boundaries. There is a difference between not loving someone and setting boundaries. Some men think that if you love a chick you should capitulate to her or let her run all over you. That is not love. Think of the love you have for your child. You love them unconditionally, but in order to love them the most you must have boundaries and enforce them strictly. It is the same with chicks. Loving her means not letting her be abusive. Which means you need to take the lead and set your own boundaries with her.

[–]IWANTTOLIVEINACAVE 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Start with unconditional love for yourself.

Absolute gold.

If you've ever longed for someone to truly love you, i.e. to be devoted to your happiness, dreams and goals - forever, be that person to yourself.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Boundaries are a part of the wisdom of knowing what is okay and what isn't. Integrity is critical to maintaining good, solid, boundaries. This is a great addendum, thanks for adding this here.

[–]lfuactkher 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I really think there is no such thing as "love yourself". In my mind at least, sounds really confusing. Its like an endless loop. Cant explain it in other words but its like a knife that cuts itself. Ouroboros eating its own tail. Its impossible to love yourself and i think it is wrong advice.

You are only able to love someone that isn't you because you are the one who has this feeling for someone. Telling to love yourself is like telling yourself that you are 2 persons. This is the definition of Self-consciousness probably anxiety maybe even depression.

Your thoughts should be like a knife that can cut but not cut itself. You should not reflect to your double (ego,persona, fixed idea) because it doesn't exist anyway, its only grammar.

[–]SpaderAce 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I disagree. Love in one sense means giving of yourself to someone what they need. You can and definitely should love yourself. Love is an action as much as a feeling. If you love yourself, it means providing yourself with the things you need and putting yourself first. If you do not love yourself, you begin to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others in order to gain their love, thus belittling yourself and losing your own self respect more and more.

Love for yourself is an act of choosing to give yourself what you need.

[–]lfuactkher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what u are trying to communicate. what am trying to say is that when you are hungry you eat.When you are cold you put on your clothes. People always know what they have to do. Its not that u do them because u love of yourself.

When u are sad you try to fix what made u sad or do something to cheer you up, you dont try to fix yourself for being sad. (because who is the one who does the fixing and who is the one who is being fixed.. its ridiculous) You are the one who is sad how can u fix yourself like u are a second thing, a car or a device.. You are the one who does the thinking there is no other you that needs to be fixed. This is a mind error you cause, mind confusion because language and grammar permits us to think like that.

You always know what u have to do, you dont need ideas of what is right or wrong to do based on red pill ideas. Before your actions you should not reflect on if something is red pill or blue pill in order to have permission from the fake imaginary person you call "yourself" to do them. This is like and endless loop.

Its the advises we give here and man always gave that have created this problem on people. Again people always know what they have to do.

To wait and think before u do an action if it is something that will inspire respect or not is ridiculous because who are u asking? U are the one who does the asking there is not other you who will answer. Language and what grammar permits to us to communicate has forced us to think like that. To have sentences in our mind of what we should or should not do.

When people are hungry they eat, when they are angry they fight, when they are jealous they steal. Doing some of these actions can get you hurt its up to your fears to be protected or not. Fears are okay. You soon develop and soon u always know what to do. There is nothing wrong with anything. People will like you and people will not.

[–]odaklanan_insan -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

The only unconditional love should be for the one who gave you everything you have. The rest don't matter much.

-Your existance,

-Your body,

-Your emotions,

-Your family,

-The ability to feel joy and pain,

-Free will,


-Everything that pushed you here,

-Being a person in a whole society,

-your ability to make the "default you" to a better or a worse person,

-Your courages and fears,

-The chance to meet everyone you have ever met and the ones yet to...

-The chance to posses whatever you posses

-The ability to love

The one who gave you all of the things above and and most of all the ability to give your love, wants you to love him, even if he has the power to force you to do anything, he lets you to make the choice. He is the one who is ultimately suitable for your unconditional love.

" Hearts can only find peace by commemorating God" -Quran 13:28

[–]2chazthundergut 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Holy Shit! At first I thought you were an evangelical Christian trying to preach the Bible to me.

But it turns out you're a Muslim trying to preach me the quran.

This is not religious. This isn't some spiritual mumbo jumbo. When I use love I'm talking about a very pragmatic set of principles.

In order to receive love from a woman, a man must fundamentally love himself more than the woman. Love flows down from Man to Woman to Child to Pet.

Dont come into TRP with some quranic bible scriptures. Save that for mosque my imam.

[–]odaklanan_insan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't preach quran at trp. For a long time love was not being discussed at least in this way in this subreddit. Maybe it's the first time, idk, I wasn't here when trp was founded.

Everyone here is trying to find who to provide their unconditional love if it's not a female, bit miserably failing to see the obvious answer.

I'm just saying that if you're gonna give your heart to someone, and if that someone is someone you don't have to hold frame. Someone you can remove your mask in front of and don't have to look strong, don't have to prove anything,

it would be the God. The rest are weak, emotional creatures with half evil, half good nature.

[–]2chazthundergut 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"It would be God"

What you dont realize is that the way to get there is by loving yourself

Give your heart to yourself. Remove your mask to yourself. Be honest with yourself. Be compassionate with yourself. Be kind to yourself. And put your own happiness first.

That is what your God wants.

[–]NeoDoji 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is very true. Have to love yourself first. The Bible even says so in one of the most preached verses when it comes to dating and marriage:

Ephesians 5:28-29

28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

^have to love yourself first before you can love your wife.

[–]Pezotecom 78 points79 points  (2 children)

This right here is a beautiful post man. Many people will say TRP is full of egocentric and selfish thoughts and ideas, and here you are, explaining love to me better than my fathers, teachers, or friends have on my entire life. And as the beatles said... "all you need is love".

[–]red_philosopher[S] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

TRP is the first step on the path. It is devastating and mind-breaking to accept, but if you stick to it eventually we move out of the anger phase and start contemplating on the things that caused us anguish under the lens and tutelage of people who have been there before.

This is the culmination of a very, very long path of mine. Reading, self-reflection, a friend's confession of what he considered to be a supernatural experience, and my own recovery from one of the most devastating oneitis experiences of my life. I hope it guides you as it has guided me.

[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But "too much love will kill you and will make your life a lie".

[–]yodas_cat 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I needed to hear today. Thank you.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (6 children)

I fundamentally believe that humans are incapable of unconditional love.

Everyone loves things, yes. But to say it's unconditional is false. The things we mistake as unconditional are, in fact, reciprocal. You love your dog "unconditionally" because it is unable to do anything but love you back. You are getting a continued good feeling from a dog, and love it for that feeling. If the dog was capable of rejecting you, you wouldn't love it anymore. Thus the love is not unconditional. The things you love "unconditionally" are just things that only make you feel good. Your pets, your stuff, your kids (up until the age where they can leave and reject you). They only give positive, so you say you love them without anything in return.

Thus, loving a human unconditionally is impossible. Because people are flawed in that no one can only give positive feelings to others. You can come close (cough Bob Ross cough), but only if there's limited interaction.

When you love a girl "unconditionally", even if she reciprocates and it's not just Oneitis, there is one condition. The condition is "you will never stop loving me." And when that condition fails, the love is gone.

So don't love unconditionally. Love realistically. Love knowing it might be the last time you do. And when it is, move on. I won't even say love yourself unconditionally because as someone with genuine, diagnosed depression, I know that's not possible. But also don't be afraid to love because it might kick you in the heart. Everything is temporary, and that's what makes it beautiful.

Now excuse me as I down a bottle of whiskey and punch someone in the face to wash out the lovey dovey bullshit I'm feeling.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You missed the point here. But you are right. It's not love on a condition, it's to love without expectation. :)

[–]MarinTaranu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Any relationship involves reciprocating. Knowing that all is relative and attachment to anything that feels good involves pain, sooner or later, due to separation or death or withdrawal, makes me think that love is a poisonous concept. To love forever is a trap. We would be able to love fully if what we are presented with would be constant, never changing and revealed in totality. The second point I'd like to make is that you can't give the totality of your love to anyone. A woman for sure can't do that either, because if she becomes a mother, is she expected to not love her child? Clearly not. The point is that a person does not have a finite amount of love to give. Love comes in different shapes and forms, so to vow someone's entire love forever is utter nonsense.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm really not sure where you are deriving 99% of the of this argument. Who said anything about loving forever? Nobody.

[–]FinancierGuru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was on the spot. What we assumed was unconditional it never was.

Back to myself, I love put my dog first before the gf.

[–]saltyCounselor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Your post reminded me about thought experiment I had - is it possible for someone to be truly nice without expecting any kind of reward, anything that benefits you?

Though it's a bit off topic, I feel it relates. My conclusion was that it's impossible and every nice thing a person does leads to some kind of expectation, sometimes on a deeper and subconscious level, eg. giving homeless person money would make them feel good about themselves for being so generous, therefore still a selfish action.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the fundamental philosophical argument behind Egoism vs. Altruism.

There's an anecdote about Lincoln arguing this with someone on a train, and he stops the train to help some pigs out of he mud. His opponent uses this to say Lincoln was being Altruistic, because he helped the pigs for no reward. Lincoln responded by saying "No, because if the pigs were left in the mud, I'd feel bad. So I helped them just to make myself feel better."

[–]Disobedient_Citizen1 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I find that the definition of love is deliberately blurred in favour of what is known today as romantic love. Romantic love is both temporary and conditional, period. it is also the most potent and intoxicating form of love. There are minor exceptions to this as there are to every reality, the SJW will tell you that the exception disproves the reality, that the minority disproves the majority. This as we all know is nonsense.

Familial love can be unconditional, eternal, even self sacrificial and constant. Notice that i do not assert that it is, but that it can be, and far more so than romantic love.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would agree that many of the terms we use these days have many meanings, and it just so happens that many of the meanings that are widely understood societally these days are destructive.

[–]expansion101 8 points9 points  (1 child)

There was a post about a month ago called 'How to write a damn good TRP post.' The author explained that one needs to write their post how they would normally speak or write. Your writing flows in such a way I can tell you did. And because of that, I can also tell you are not only teaching, but giving to the people here at TRP unconditionally. Thank you.

Did you mean to make your post exemplify what you're teaching?

[–]red_philosopher[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I always try to write as I speak. Most everything I write is rough draft and from the heart (so to speak). I put mind to paper and my thoughts usually flow. Sometimes I have to rearrange parts to have it be more cogent, but that's simple editing. Other times I have entire sections I delete because my thought process went down a divergent path and it doesn't fit with my intent anymore.

[–]1MrTheFalcon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was just reading about Casanova in Laws of Power, about how he would give himself fully to a woman. - The object of his desire. It struck me as truth that a man who loves himself fully is able to extend himself fully to a woman, and still retain his identity and agency.

From Casanova's Wiki:

As William Bolitho points out in Twelve Against the Gods, the secret of Casanova's success with women "had nothing more esoteric in it than [offering] what every woman who respects herself must demand: all that he had, all that he was, with (to set off the lack of legality) the dazzling attraction of the lump sum over what is more regularly doled out in a lifetime of installments."

[–]riggedved 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Great post. This is sidebar material.

[–]RobotAntidote 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I do not think it's about creating a void, rather leaving yourself completely open little by little, to the very core, while continuously being scared you will get hurt by the lies of the one you're opening yourself to. It's an intrinsic need to open yourself because we live in a world of no answers and the only closeness to an answer is along the person you have chosen to open yourself to. I would go as far as calling it a perverted pleasure, because you either know the answer or you don't.

That said, I agree with "no" being "no" and "yes", "yes" however that is never a certainty. As with anything it's a matter of belief; and more to the point, the "no" or "yes" is not a single value, it's actually exiting as true at the same time, I.E. blue pill / red pill; where, in blue pill the "no" would mean - "yes" in red pill and vice versa. Don't take that literally, think deep, they're just two very different outlooks on life and you can't really "call it" on which side the interlocutor is on; But to think we're only red pill or only blue pill is fooling yourselves. Yin yang already has the concept down and, on the next level, I think "awakening" is basically realizing that life is in motion due to the contradictory pull of these two forces. The eye on the Illuminati sign sends me in that direction.

[–]Boeijen666 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean the fact that generally todays women have checklists in terms of status, job, money, etc is because they can only love when they feel they are looked after whereas a man might need a woman who has a hot body, maintains the house/kids, cooks etc. Todays "love" is purely conditional.

Having said that, Ive only been in love when that girl has become my best friend, we happen to share the same opinions about life and were happy just being around each other. Thats unconditional love but its also a romantic/fantastical idea of love that does not survive in todays world of ego.

[–]PR0JECT_XIII 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Since adopting the red pill, I have noticed the following statement as a reoccurring theme.

A woman will never love a man, the same way a man loves a woman.

The questions I would propose to you is:

  • Under what conditions do you choose to stop loving?

  • if there is such conditions that would allow you stop loving unconditionally, wouldn't that mean "loving" (even unconditionally) is counter productive?

AKA a waste of time.

I do understand the point you are making, I disagree on the idea of "investing emotions" with the forethought of removing at any moment. It seems impractical, irrational and frankly a waste of time.

It sounds like a combination of cat string theory and a covert contract.

"It's ok Dave, I will love Samantha unconditionally (after all, that's what Samantha really wants) as long as she stays in line. If she doesn't, I am willing to walk away"

[–]red_philosopher[S] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Unconditionally means with no expectation of return. Not that you love them regardless of their flaws.

Under what conditions do you choose to stop loving?

That's for every person to truly decide for themselves. If they feel like they have to change their partner to make it work, or that they have to change themselves in a way they don't want to, then you should probably walk away. Ultimately when that is, is if you want to talk about it is up to you. There isn't a hard and fast set of rules unfortunately.

if there is such conditions that would allow you stop loving unconditionally,

The conditions are not external. They are internal. If you can't choose to love with integrity and of your own volition, then you never started in the first place.

[–]PR0JECT_XIII 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My understanding is that you are exchanging values between two people, with the goal to be higher value as the other.

The one who does not need the other the is the one the most, is the one with the power

The idea of loving unconditionally with nothing in return is irrational because it holds no value to exchange. We know it holds know value because a woman does not love a man the same way a man loves a woman.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is most definitely an exchange. But it's not about getting nothing in return. It's about expecting to get nothing in return. If you always expect to get something, you are outcome dependent.

[–]_Last_Man_Standing_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much... you gave me a lot to think about...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brilliant post. It really changed my perception of love

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good post.

My highlights:

Unconditional love is loving without the expectation of return. When we divest ourselves of the expectation that others will treat us as we treat them, we are allowed to give of ourselves because it makes us happy. Not because we are expecting something in return that will make us happy.

You cannot have true abundance if you expect anything in return for the love you give. You must understand what integrity is in order to achieve the mindset required for abundance. You must mean yes when you choose to love. Do not set yourself up for misery by loving conditionally. Actualize yourself, love yourself, and when you can choose freely to love, do so.

Love boldy, without apology, and without fear. Withdraw that love boldly, without apology, and without fear.

[–]sciroccomindrape0087 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's quite simple if she isn't giving you blowjobs on tap, tell the bitch to fuck off. It's 2018 there's plentiful amounts of thots.

[–]burneraccount4574 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very good stuff! I needed to read this this morning.

[–]apoloa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I loved your post OP! I think that you have to establish your boundaries firmly, and nobody never ever can pass this, you have to be clear in this.

The quote that I think to resume: "The love for anything or anyone, exept the love for the truth, can be dangerous"

[–]proxima_tenebre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I came to a conclusion that love is a social instinct, which primary function is to take care of certain individuals in a tribe. It helps to create unconditional altruistic connections with one specific feature - the willingness to sacrifice for a loved one. In a way, it's almost the same as bonding (this word is missing in my language, but it looks like that).

This definition makes it clear why do we use "love" for so many cases - we love parents, kids, romantic partners, friends, pets etc. It can be applied even to the objects with a clear difference from "liking" - he loves his car (keeps it shiny and well maintained) vs he likes his car (feels excited/proud about it).

What I want to say is that the love is not the same as romantic relationships while it may include the love for some periods (romantic passion, pregnancy). But reproduction instincts MUST be conditional to perform better and what we see is just an outcome of evolution.

And the final conclusion is that love in a romantic relationships should always be considered conditional and we, men, should never forget about keeping the frame regardless of our feelings and fantasies.

From the other side it's important to understand that the expression of our love(care) doesn't work as a guarantee of anything, because instincts take into account many other factors. It also means that that we are free to express it when we feel like that - it won't hurt anyone. And having some expectations here actually helps to avoid a friendzone (wasting your time on someone not interested). But this expectations should not come before the train and shouldn't cause feeling loss.

P.S. Sorry for my English, doing my best.

[–]michaelkc03 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unconditional love by 2pac

[–]yammyha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great post OP, so much more value to TRP when I read deep intellectual threads full of wisdom and guidance. TRP needs a convention lol and an enlightenment session

[–]whatdidshewrite 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This post really threw me for a loop.

I assume like most guys here, I found TRP after searching for answers/solutions to deal with a rejection from a oneitis. Reading this post helped me recognize that I did it to myself by giving out my love on the unspoken condition that she has to love me back.

When I think about loving unconditionally the way you describe it, it sounds to me like someone who gives but never takes - kind of like a pushover. Then I realized that the reason this feels this way is because I don't think loving someone is a reward in and of itself. I think being loved is the reward. That was/is kind of my intention of using TRP, and I feel like this will resonate with a lot of newcomers here like myself. I don't necessarily want to love; I want to reap the reward of being loved. In this sense, I don't really want to care about women, but I want them to care about me; hitting me up on a regular basis, etc. Whether I return the feelings to them or not is irrelevant to me.

What's strange is even though you seem to think about love almost directly contrary to the way I think about it, you're living the kind of love life I want to live and I'm not. So clearly I'm doing something wrong. However, I'd like to understand what's wrong with the way I'm conceptualizing love.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Personally, I kept catching feelings and getting frustrated with it. If it's so natural to catch feelings, then why is it so bad to do so? Just as fucking is natural, and we shouldn't feel bad for fucking, the feels are a normal and pleasant part of a sexual relationship with a woman. I love every last part of it.

So I got to thinking about the stoics, and how it's not the experience, it's what we think about the experience. We have a quid-pro-quo mentality, and appreciating and enjoying the people around you should be a given. But when you (un) intentionally poison that experience with expectation, all of a sudden you care about the outcome of your effort instead of just enjoying your effort.

That doesn't mean that you should always give regardless of circumstance, that's dangerous (time is our most valuable asset). But when the situation is right, you should give of yourself freely, and if/when they lose their shit, you can withdraw that gift at anytime because you don't care about the outcome.

You provide, and in turn, you can withdraw that provision.

[–]whatdidshewrite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean just because something is natural doesn't mean it isn't bad. I think the issue with catching feelings is not having them returned. At least personally, I would have never had an issue with fostering feelings for a women if they always felt the same way towards me. Its when the feelings aren't reciprocated that it starts to suck.

I'm having difficulty understanding how loving someone can be enjoyable irrespective of the sentiment being returned. As far as I understand, loving/being in love is only enjoyable when its reciprocal.

Catching feelings is kind of like investing in a stock to me. When things look up and the stock appreciates, it feels great. But when thing start looking down, it feels shitty. Given that the experience in this case over time will tend towards net neutral, its difficult to justify entering into the investment without some sort of benefit on the other end.

[–]gbdoragnic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

and when you can choose freely to love, do so.

If you're choosing than it's conditional , so your theory is feel good bullshit.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you choose to love with the expectation of return, IE: not freely, then you are outcome dependent. If you choose without expectation, IE: freely then you are outcome independent.

That is what unconditional means in this use case.

[–]gbdoragnic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are making a choice it's conditional, besides most people want reciprocation , this is not a expectation but hope , now that I'm more red I realize I can have expectation, it seems feminist criticize men for having hope and expectation now the word is dirty and we must because zen monks who love freely.

I'm looking for something in return, therefore my love can renew naturally

[–]SocratesOnPot -1 points0 points  (4 children)

There is a difficulty in reading through the writing. It passes back and forth between (what I'm assuming) two different forms of love without maintaining a clear distinction of either. This could be a symptom of the common problem with idealists, to pass between how things are and how things should or could be, without keeping the two camps completely separate.

A common misunderstanding is that a "yes" is not necessarily a yes forever. You do not have to continue to love when you no longer choose to do so. Loving is a choice, not a requirement

For example, is this in reference to unconditional love or conditional love? If it's unconditional love it has conditions - because that's what can be infered when love is withdrawn. It was withdrawn for a reason. Otherwise without reasons, unconditional love is just random, without any conscious deliberation on the part of the mind. This would contradict the idea that love is a volitional act. Is unconditional love fleeting, temporary, random, forever in a state of flux?

Love boldy, without apology, and without fear. Withdraw that love boldly, without apology, and without fear.

What love is being described here again? It sounds like conditional love to me. Unconditional love can't just be forever at the mercy of someones fancy. Is unconditional love that fragile that it can be revoked at any given time?

Abundance mentality, at its core, is a method of achieving unconditional loving via the understanding that we do, and should, have options. When we have options, we become unafraid of losing the objects of our desire.

It also looks like unconditional love was predicated on "abundance mentality". Which begs the question that it's not truly unconditional if that love is dependent on the conditions of having an abundance. How can unconditional love have conditions which have to be continually met?

Another point is that there is an absurdity in how unconditional love is defined here and elsewhere in culture. If you aren't getting anything out of it, what compelled or brought one to that love in the first place? It would be like the famous Zen example of "the thief entering the empty house". There is no reason for him to break in to begin with, nothing of value that interests him, so he had no reason to be there in the first place, outside of chance and probability.

[–]red_philosopher[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

For example, is this in reference to unconditional love or conditional love? If it's unconditional love it has conditions

All I had to read was this here to know you missed the point.

Unconditional Love is loving without expectation (of return). That is to say, outcome independence.

Conditional love, is loving with the expectation of return. That is to say, outcome dependence.

Saying unconditional loving is conditional because it can be withdrawn is a misapplication.

"Love" is either given outcome independently (unconditionally), or outcome dependently (conditionally). The fact that it can be withdrawn, doesn't change that fact.

To make the pot worse for.your comprehension, you should strive for conditional unconditional love, and not conditional conditional love. Since you like blurring my explanation.

[–]SocratesOnPot 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No I know exactly what your were trying to do and your point. You set out to redefine unconditional love usinging a mixture of red and blue pill ideas. What I'm saying is that the definition can't be divorced from all the other baggage we associate with it, and these two schools of thought are antithetical to eachother. It can't be reduced to just "not expecting anything in return". When we say "conditional" in conditional love we know it has a series of dependences and predicates associated with it. Words don't mean whatever we want them to.

To make the pot worse for.your comprehension, you should strive for conditional unconditional love, and not conditional conditional love.

My comprehension is strong enough to know this is violating the law of non - contradiction. Something can't both be and not be at the same time.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something can't both be and not be at the same time.

You mean like quantum superposition?

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted an edit containing some clarifying thoughts. I'd appreciate your feedback if you get the chance.

[–]omega_dawg93 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

i don't agree.

the ONLY unconditional love a man will receive in his lifetime will come from his mother. for EVERY other woman on this planet, he just can't show-up and be himself... he has to 'perform, produce, & protect.'

rollo has an essay on it called, 'burden of performance.' men are born with that burden, and you'd better be ready to perform for all women (except mom).

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are using the blue-pill version of the definition here. Of course you wouldn't agree.

[–]omega_dawg93 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

i think your version is the blue pill version. i go into EVERY relationship knowing i just can't show-up with a heartbeat and a penis and be loved, unconditionally.

[–]red_philosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My post has literally nothing to say about that. At all. It describes the difference between choosing outcome Independence and outcome dependence with the application of YOU loving. Not getting it from someone else.

[–]NormalAndy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Love is pain. Your ability to live a life of love is also your ability to endure a world of hurt.

edit: to clarify. If you love unconditionally you leave yourself open to experience the pain of love not returned. This is not to be confused with 'Nice Guy' syndrome where the love professed is only because you expect to get it paid back and is not really love at all.