Love as a linguistic misrepresentation

[EndParticipant 262]

The word ‘love’ is a commonly used word in the English language today. Unfortunately, like the air we breathe, we don’t question it til there is a problem. I thought I’d share my perspective on it since it’s served me well my entire life,,,, perhaps it might help someone else.

Generally the word is used to convey joyous feelings for another living thing. Sometimes it’s referenced relative to the hormonal/biochemical reaction occurring in the body. I look at it a bit differently though. I would suggest it doesn’t actually exist,,,,, can’t exist,,,,,and in fact is just a linguistic misrepresentation which society assigns to a particular behavioral pattern which must be vague by default in order to facilitate the continuation of the species. Let me explain.

My contention has always been that in the end the only thing you need to know to understand the world is the primary function of all living things is self preservation. Everything else is a subset of that. All living things doing what is in their better interest to survive. ‘Love’ between two people for example is simply ‘primary function in agreement’. I’m getting what I want while simultaneously your getting what you want.

Let’s take an example. A couple of 16 y.o. kids coming out of a movie or restaurant walking toward their car looking at each other all googly eyed.

oh hunny, I love you so much
I love you so much too hunny

yadda yadda, (we’ve all been there)…. kissing, fondling, etc. ensues. Well, why do we use the word love. Let’s try it again with the truth inserted.

oh hunny, I’m glad your primary function is in agreement with my primary function.
[insert screeching tire sound of car crashing into tree]

er, aah,,,,well that would go over like a lead balloon wouldn’t it. Definitely a mood killer.

The vagueness of a single term seems almost necessary otherwise we’ll see the lie we tell ourselves for what it is. So, in fact, no one can love anyone or anything. Love is just the placeholder name for the experience of getting what you want while the other is getting what they want. Primary function in agreement.

How many people love their animals? Well, you don’t. You simply enjoy getting what you want from the animal while the animal is getting what they want from you. Now I wouldn’t disagree that the probability of experiencing ‘love’ from your pet for the life of the animal is far greater than the probability of said lifelong experience from a human but that doesn’t mitigate the fundamental truth that it is simply only primary function in agreement. There is no love. How much would you love that animal if it was growling at you, showing it’s teeth, and bites you as you get closer? How much would it love you if you didn’t feed it, take it for walks, throw the ball with it?

It’s a hard pill to swallow for some but when you do I think it sets you free. You can approach each and every interaction as an opportunity to contribute and simultaneously receive. Of course we all know that the modern human female contributes roughly nothing relatively speaking. And a dog, for example, consistently contributes a joyous happy demeanor and companionship in return for food, shelter, and throwing the ball around. The better deal is certainly with the dog but knowing what’s going on behind the curtain of our minds is critical in my opinion to staying on the best life path where equal value is to be expressed at all times or interaction does not take place.

I know in the last 6 months, reading many of your posts sometimes gets me to see things in a different light, from a different perspective. Perhaps my view on love might help a few others.

[Anonymous 43]

I look at love as being the wrong word.

Man’s love for women and his own children is akin to having a duty to or cherishing, preserving, willing to sacrifice all to save the woman and children. Love comes from a man’s sense of honor.

Women’s love for man is tolerance to be with, willing to be with, accepting what man gives her, not duty bound, but rather preference to be here for now. women are without honor, and can not experience what I call love.

Woman’s love for children is close to duty, not an internal obligation to children but rather, it is external. The village puts pressure on women to take care of children…I don’t think it is an internal drive for many women. Women know having children instills a sense of duty within men to keep them close and providing for the family. Women know taking care of children when they are young will probably obligate the grown children to take care of her later.

My thoughts on this are incomplete, and have a sample size of 2, my own mother, and the mother of my children. No two women could be further apart in terms of love.

Love is a man’s word. When women use it, men assume the woman is using it the same way he uses the word.

Men should use cherish, and women should use prefer.
Cherish implies having a permanent connection, prefer is temporary.

French Language verb to love is Aimer…means like or love depending on context.

As a MGTOW, I do not have a connection with women, I avoid connections with women, therefore I avoid having someone to love. Things get tricky with my children, and I don’t know what to do with them, yet. I feel a yearning to be with my kids, but they have been absent from my life, and no longer require my time, my effort, my love. Yet is some way they are my obligation, I helped to produce them I helped raise them I educated them. So what do I feel? I think it is nostalgia, for the good old days. In my mind, my older daughter is 16, the last time I saw her we were learning how to drive a stick shift car in a forest preserve, My other daughter will be forever almost 14, telling me to go away in a Starbucks coffee shop. I feel like I walked out of a movie…I don’t know what has happened up to this time.

So is my love for my kids this nostalgia, and this missing the action feeling. Seems kinda shallow. House was one of my favorite shows, and I stopped watching at the beginning of the last season, I don’t know how the show ended…that’s where I am with the kids. I had 15 seasons, we are now in season 18 for my older daughter.

ok sure deep thoughts here, and my thoughts are incomplete…can ya help a brother out?

[ABParticipant 762]

I’ve always thought of the definition of love akin to describing pain.

You can’t describe it; it’s subjective.

As you say vague by definition.

Anonymous wrote:

Men should use cherish. Cherish implies having a permanent connection, prefer is temporary.

I agree most men would consider cherish as synonymous with the idea of love.

No-one's yet explained to me exactly what's so great // About slaving fifty years away on something that you hate // About meekly shuffling down the path of mediocrity // Well if that's your road then take it, but it's not the road for me.

[bladeParticipant]

Men love there children .
Women love there children as weapons

THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .

[TuneoutParticipant]

End wrote:

I’m glad your primary function is in agreement with my primary function.

On Vulcan this would work,lol,but are we mistaking love for just simple lust – like nature has programmed us in order to perpetuate our species?

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[EndParticipant 262]

Anonymous wrote:

So what do I feel? I think it is nostalgia, for the good old days. In my mind, my older daughter is 16, the last time I saw her we were learning how to drive a stick shift car in a forest preserve, My other daughter will be forever almost 14, telling me to go away in a Starbucks coffee shop. I feel like I walked out of a movie…I don’t know what has happened up to this time.

So is my love for my kids this nostalgia, and this missing the action feeling. Seems kinda shallow. House was one of my favorite shows, and I stopped watching at the beginning of the last season, I don’t know how the show ended…that’s where I am with the kids. I had 15 seasons, we are now in season 18 for my older daughter.

ok sure deep thoughts here, and my thoughts are incomplete…can ya help a brother out?

Well, I think you brought up an important point referencing nostalgia. What is nostalgia? It’s when the mind recalls a previous time when primary function was in agreement. You contribute, for example, showing your daughter how to drive while she contributes a big hug and a kiss for dad. Both people are getting something they’re happy with so we put the label of love on it. Your mind recalls that past enjoyable experience (which may not be able to be replicated through no fault of your own) which we call nostalgia. I would suggest there’s significant value in living in the present moment as hard as it is sometimes. Nostalgia is extremely powerful especially when you have a lot invested. Regardless, staying in the present is the only thing that propels you forward. Thinking about past times when primary function was in agreement doesn’t reflect the current reality. If a person currently lives in a environment where they have to give to others (by law) but no one gives anything to them then you not in a place of ‘love’ if we’re going by the definition of ‘primary function in agreement’. I know for myself, when I was 17 I had my ‘unicorn’ and after things fell apart I was nostalgic for a long time, wanting to re-experience previous times of primary function in agreement. In my experience nostalgia just traps you with thinking about what isn’t, instead of dealing with what is. That’s why I use the term ‘primary function in agreement’ instead of ‘love’ as it helps me focus my mind on what I need to address in the present moment instead of something in the past that I can do nothing about.

I think sometimes the cruelest joke played on men is the societal meme of love. If society keeps up the charade they get to keep the plow horse on the plantation. When men realize there is no love, they walk away. In fact your signature says it all….She’s not your wife or girlfriend, it’s just your turn. She’s just there to get what she wants,,, there is no love,,, just primary function.

Keep your head up brother. Stay in the present moment.

[EndParticipant 262]

Tuneout wrote:

On Vulcan this would work,lol,but are we mistaking love for just simple lust – like nature has programmed us in order to perpetuate our species?

Vulcan,LOL, well I have been accused of being too analytical before :).

I don’t think love and lust are being confused. Anything in nature that isn’t symbiotic is gone in short order. Sometimes it’s difficult to observe though as it’s dilated with time

We vulcan’s have been known to be wrong before though 🙂

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

The feeling that men call “love” is the willingness to sacrifice your own good for the sake of someone else. The greater the willingness to sacrifice, the greater the love. Few women are worth sacrificing anything for (if there are any at all, I’ve never met one), so it’s not common for men to experience real love, except maybe when they’re being deceived.

As for women, I believe you may be right. All the evidence suggests that by their nature they’re not capable of love. They’re programmed for self-preservation first and foremost, which is why they’re okay with creating laws that completely screw over men for their own benefit. I’m hesitant to make it a universal law, but I’m nodding.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[Anonymous 25]

The word ‘love’ is a nominalisation. That’s when you take a verb and turn it into a noun.

‘Love’ does not exist as a tangible item, you can’t pick it up and put it in a wheelbarrow. ‘Love’ is a verb. It is the actions of being loving and kind towards someone. That’s not how women behave in relationship with their sense of entitlement and demanding their right while giving little or nothing in return, then making false accusations and divorce raping

‘money’ is another nominalisation. that’s a tricky one because paper money exists, but money is also a verb. money is a universal translator of experience, you take your skills and abilities and convert it into money

This is why feminism is a mental illness. It leads to women being out of touch with reality and mentally ill. And the feminists deliberately do it by using wilfully obscure language like ‘patriarchy’ and ‘control’

[EndParticipant 262]

Can’t Stump Trump wrote:

The feeling that men call “love” is the willingness to sacrifice your own good for the sake of someone else

Well, although I don’t disagree, I don’t think that examines things thoroughly enough. Why do men sacrifice for someone else? Because there is a perceived or real benefit to them. Perhaps it’s respect in their community or hope of continued access to sex with a woman. There are plenty of reasons to cite but at the heart of it all is the fact that all living things are only facilitating primary function. Certainly there is a chasm between male and female behavior. Women only give when they have been given to, and generally only do so contributing something of much less value. Men contribute initially and of greater value BUT MOST NOTABLY with only the HOPE of something of benefit in return. That’s where the term sacrifice comes from. Men are expected to give of themselves with no guarantee of benefit where as women only give when benefit is guaranteed if they even give at all. Hence the rise of mgtow,,, with the environment of women being given everything (by law) with men only getting the ‘hope’ of something in return is not structurally sound and men eventually walk away.

All living things will self preserve (do what’s in their better interest), it’s just that men are ‘accepting payment’ if you will, in intangible terms such as ‘hope’ or ‘respect’ etc. It’s certainly more noble of men to act in this way but we all know doing so is detrimental which is why I suggest looking at ‘love’ as ‘primary function in agreement’ which seems to help the mind think in terms of receiving immediate payment as opposed to intangible rewards like hope or respect. I don’t interact with women any longer but paying attention to getting what’s in your better interest facilitates an equally balanced environment whether your interacting with women, other men, animals etc. I think that’s one of the reasons we see society degrade from a hard patriarchy to matriarchy (Turd Flinging Monkey had a good series on this), because men slowly begin accepting intangible rewards like hope/respect while women continue only accepting real tangible benefits.

Thoughts?

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

End wrote:

Why do men sacrifice for someone else? Because there is a perceived or real benefit to them.

Correct. All actions are necessarily motivated by self-interest at some level. Morally good actions perfect you as an individual, and men instinctively pursue their own perfection. However, if you don’t believe in absolute morality, God, or an afterlife, then this means nothing, and there’s quite simply no reason to try to perfect yourself. I view God’s existence, the immortality of the soul, the absolute nature of morality, and the afterlife as logically provable, so naturally I’m concerned with perfecting myself as an individual.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[Author]

Posts