“Give me your unconditional love.” Is a common phrase, or philosophy, that the-World stipulates globally: Perhaps, the need to express that there must be at least one thing that can make one feel somewhat, genuine freedom, was the need to conjure the illusion that the figurative heart (love) should be, “unconditional.” But would such a belief (feeling) be rational? Is it possible that some aspect, within a human being, can be unconditional within his/her own conditional biological containment? The unanimous acceptance that emotions are without reason and logic, makes it easy for one to accept that something within us can be, after all, irrationally unconditional: That, however, may not be feasible at all; for my being has witnessed that those who stand by such an unconditional philosophy, are the very ones who wind up conditioning their unconditional hearts in the end. One way or another, without some form of certain conditions, certain physical environments, social and psychological arrangements will never be possible. So what exactly then is unconditional? Better yet, is it possible to make conditions unconditional since after all, everything is already conditioned by innate biological settings? If so, what does it mean?
Naturally, everything and everyone are limited; and since everything and everybody are limited, everything then that exist must be conditioned. The only possible way that anything can be unlimited is if something is without utter conditions. Even freedom itself must be conditioned, or such a concept in the form of applicable arrangements, cannot be described as freedom. Without conditions, nothing can be described as a description: Something that is unconditional simply cannot literally exist, not even in a figurative/metaphorical manner; at least not for long since such figurative unconditional circumstances don’t last.
The etymology of the word condition derives from the Latin noun root, condicionem (nominative, condicio), which means, an agreeable situation, arrangement or environment: in the form as, condicere, it means to come together, and to speak with; stemming from the prefix, com- (together), plus the suffix, -dicere (to speak). Therefore, as a verb, the meeting of the minds must also be conditioned (agreed upon); thus, an indication that the needs, as well as the desires, must be met with conditions that can be agreed upon if manifestations are to be made possible (or, desirable). Why is this so imperative? Because since the needs and desires of one’s own is already endogenously conditioned by innate, without any agreeable meetings of the minds, such sole conditions of one’s own, will not be fruitful outside of itself; at least, not with someone else: Unless, however, the meeting of the minds accept that such innate conditional requests, can only be shared in an unconditional arrangement with someone else: In a situation like this, as a pair, only one party is conditioned, while the other party’s conditions are null. But even in such an arrangement, the “unconditional” status is nothing more but an illusion, because the fact is that such like-unconditional arrangements are still conditioned in of themselves.
The fact remains that nothing starts without conditions (i.e., conditions are inherently ingrained; whereas “unconditional” is not). The unconditional concept is just a mental disposition that enables one to somehow believe (feel) that he/she can “uncondition” conditions. The matter of the fact is that, the etymology of the adjective unconditional concept, stems from the application of surrendering, succumbing and yielding one-self entirely to someone else’s conditions; in other words, such an unconditional disposition requires one to abandon one-self entirely to the wishes and captivity of someone else: And therefore, the translucence of an unconditional status is purely enslavement, and coerced/self-coerced.
Most people don’t realize that what determines freedom is its’ very own shape and description(s); and that the only way that something can be described is by first analyzing its’ conditions (shapes). As a matter of fact, freedom is solely based on its’ own conditions. Take for example the biological structure of an animal’s physical soul, in comparison to the structure of a human’s physical soul, we as human species have more freedom than the species of animals. The very structure of your own hands gives you the freedom of power (the full capacity to create); and based on that condition, you have the freedom to manifest your ideas in cynreality. Let’s say that if your biological containment was structured like that of a snail, and as such, if you had a mind to all of a sudden think about building a state of the art computer, what good would that idea be if your current physical snailed condition doesn’t give you the freedom to manifest it? You would then realize that you need a more advanced and superb condition to allow you the freedom to manifest your ideas: Hence, based on your current physical structure, you now have the freedom to create and manifest your inventions; and you’re able to do that solely based on your humanoid condition; and so this freedom, that you now have, is conditioned. Without any form or shape of conditions, there would be no freedom whatsoever. Therefore, an “unconditional” arrangement strips and deprives one’s own freedom.
Our own existences are solely based on exact conditions (e.g., the exact conditional position of the earth from the sun sustains life in our planet; but also the exact conditional shape and size of the earth itself is crucial; and the natural conditions in the earth is vital for our survival as well: and that’s just to mention a few out of the endless conditions that sustains your very soul breathing, and animating with life): And based on these conditions, so far, you have the freedom to exist and live.
The etymology of the word ‘freedom’ is somewhat ambiguous. it stems from the Old English noun word, freodom, a concept that indicates “power of self-determination, or state of free will; also, emancipation from slavery, or deliverance:” which most are all subjectives. With these descriptions, freedom can be debated without end. But most curiously, freedom is a derivation of the word ‘free.’ And the etymology of the adjective word ‘free’ is of the Proto-Germanic root, frija, stemming from the concept of being freely cognate (connatural) in agility, capability, flexibility and dexterity: In other words, our literal freedom is mostly inborn, biologically conditioned so well, that it allow us to animate freely with power, creation, satisfaction and expression. It’s to no wonder that coerced physical and psychological enslavement, as well as oppression, counteracts our inborn conditional freedoms; hence, emancipation is then mandatory. So it seems that even though one can also try to make one’s own certain conditions as unconditional, he/she could be enslaving one-self from one’s own birthright conditional freedom. We can now appreciate in understanding that enslavement is then forcing your conditional freedoms to become “unconditional” (null/oppressed). With all this in mind, giving and receiving “unconditional love” is now seeming not so attractive, after all. An “unconditional” arrangement, literally or figuratively, then robs us from our very nature of our cognate freedom.
The need to intimately connect is definitely connatural: a biological automaton to preserve species by procreation; and the fact that such process is meant to “euphoriate” humans in sexual encounters, the more so that we need to express ourselves in that conditional freedom. The fact is, that as human species, we don’t really need to feel great sexual gratification in order to procreate and preserve our-selves: We could’ve been created to procreate asexually, and feel nothing at all, and it would’ve still worked in the preservation of our kind; but, for some reason, as the only sentient species that we are, our biological containment is innately structured for us to express our-selves in the transport of sexual freedom; that is, other than just procreating in unawareness as all animal and insect species do, solely as just an automatic biological preserving activity. And it is in these intimate aware exertions that we let our-selves go in the freedom of natural euphoria transport, in our intrinsic sexual conditions. Some even relate self-identity and self-personification within such conditions. So our genitalia inborn conditions, allows us to be free in eroticism, sensuality, intimacy; and even perhaps enjoy in bestial-animalistic sexual behaviors: Giving us the full freedom to delight our-selves in carnal pleasures; while being totally sentient (aware) in the ecstasy, exhilaration and intoxication of taste, touch, sound and scent. This kind of freedom is not based on “self-determination,” or, “self-willed;” and it is neither philosophical or idealistic; it is solely based on an innate conditional status; and that condition is purely based on an innate reproductive state.
The majority of people usually tend to seek an intimate partner (or for a desired husband/wife), within mind, that the person they’re going to be sexually and intimately involved with is segregated from others; hence, the need for monogamy. In an intimate/marital conditional arrangement, both parties are in expectation that together, they will mutually reciprocate with each other, and bring about freedom within their carnal conditions, and for some, the desire to have children in order to raise a family. In such arrangements, agreements must be initiated to come together at a balanced point (that would mostly include everything; e.g., coming into terms of how many sexual activities should be done a week, in case one of the parties have a very voracious sexual appetite, as opposed to the other). Monogamy to many, is of importance, for protection against sexual diseases. This is the reason why many actually find real freedom in a monogamous intimate relationship/marriage setting, for fear of possible physical ailments and contamination. An individual who’s single, and gets to chose who to sleep with, outside of a restraint martial arrangement, may assume that such a lifestyle is more freedom than monogamy: that however, is still not safe although the risk of contamination has been decreased: Even with protected devices (such as condoms), you can’t still be protected from other oral and contagious contaminates. And even though a monogamous relationship does not guarantee that your partner’s fidelity is assured, it is still far better than living in “unconditional” encounters, in promiscuity sexual activities with strangers, in which one does not even have any knowledge of their possible unruly habits. Such a lifestyle robs one’s freedom in maintaining a good and fair physical and mental health; causing confusions, and making one live as though living through a web of fear and distrusts: In this manner, the freedom to be elated is unconditionally robbed, as opposed to being conditionally achieved and maintained.
Still, many witnesses that are, or were, part of marital or intimate monogamy, stipulate that such arrangements does not guarantee conditional freedom. Many devoted intimate and marital partners admit that the freedom of their conditional sexual activities eventually came to a total halt; evidently, causing uncertainties and distrusts within the partners. This kind of change depends upon numerous reasons as to why the two parties got monogamously involved to begin with. Some marry, or get together, for financial and security reasons, others for transient carnal urges, while others for love: That is why it is imperative that one takes his/her own time before engaging in a lifetime arrangement with someone else. But what if the monogamous intimate arrangement is genuine, and still, the conditional freedom of sexual encounters suddenly end, what does one then do or consider? In a situation, such as this, there are two factors to consider if either the arrangement has been changed conditionally, or, unconditionally? What exactly does this even mean?
A sudden change to anything, within a monogamous intimate or marital arrangement, that can avoid a partner’s physical conditional freedom, can still be, conditional. It isn’t always an “unconditional” suggestion or coercion that impedes us from our conditional freedoms: Indeed, conditions too can deprive us from our freedom. Let’s just say that a wife’s husband has been sexually active for five to ten years, and all of a sudden, it has gradually decreased to zero performance; there could be a physical factor to this unexpected change. The husband might be suffering from severe erectile dysfunction. And perhaps he’ll try dealing with sexual enhancing prescriptions, or herbal aphrodisiac tonics, to try to solve the issue in order to restore the balance in sexual freedom: Let’s just say that they did work for a while, but eventually, in the end, even those medicine and herbs could not cure him, the wife’s need to find freedom in her sexual conditions will be challenging. Perhaps there might be other remedial sexual activities and toys that can still enable the husband to maintain sexual freedom between them both. In either way, as long as the husband is still sexually concerned about his wife’s sexual freedom, he’ll try anything possible to maintain that freedom. In a situation such like this one, although the wife’s sexual conditional freedom was at stake, her husband may have found a way to deal with the conditional changes. The wife in turn may also minimize sexual encounters so as not to put too much stress on her husband’s effort and concern in maintaining sexual freedom together. Either way, if nothing else works, the wife’s freedom was not really robbed, but automatically deprived due to unavoidable and uncontrolled biological conditional changes: a condition that is restraining her own conditional freedom. At this point, love may come to save the changed conditions within their arrangement, but only because the new conditions are not “unconditional.”
An “unconditional” unexpected change, however, differs than one that is conditional. Let’s just say that a wife’s husband has been sexually active for about five years, and all of a sudden, it has decreased to zero performance, rapidly; one should then, again, first consider if such a change is due to a biological impeding factor: If it is, the change is conditioned; but if it’s not, the change is unconditioned. This could be confusing since the term “unconditional” is mostly seen in a favorable manner.
Some sexual partners (some husbands), within a monogamous intimate or marital arrangement, all of a sudden, just loses interest in sexual activities even though there is no erectile dysfunction whatsoever (i.e., the pipe still fully works). All of a sudden, a husband can instantly stop being sexually interested with his wife, and vice versa too. This is a very difficult situation to deal with, causing a lot of confusions, distrusts and uncertainties. And it might even become worse if the disinterested partner seeks sexual activities, outside of a monogamous setting, with strangers. In a situation like this, love comes into question, and disheartening contempt arises. In this stratum, since there is no physical ailment that can prevent a husband to perform sexual activities with his wife, no matter what the reason may be, the change is intentional and decisive: Hence, the change, in this situation, is “unconditional,” because his actions are resolute and forceful; in other words, he caused his wife’s conditional sexual freedom to be changed unconditionally, forcing her to accept the imperative unconditional requests (suggesting that she relinquishes her conditional sexual needs towards him, or to seek it outside of their arrangement with someone else; while yet, still remaining together, “unconditionally:” perhaps, for the sake of love, security, conscionable promises, or financial stability). Either way, his conclusive unconditional finals, in this manner, has robbed his wife of her conditional sexual freedom. The monogamous intimate or marital arrangement, to this point, may have first started out conditionally (in full freedom), but eventually, ended up unconditionally (without freedom). This is where a wife comes in, and considers contemplating the “unconditional” definitive request from her husband, as to whether or not she’ll accept it by succumbing and surrendering her freedom to him, unconditionally. It seems evident, that “unconditional” situations are truly not freedom at all. Freedom, as we learned, is truly preserved and allowed in conditioned aspects. Without conditions, freedom cannot, and will not, be exercised and expressed without encompassing constitutions. Conditions are here to protect, to conserve and to preserve our freedoms.
The late Disco Queen singer (Donna Summer: December 31, 1948 – May 17, 2012: who died at just the age of 63) once sang the hit song, “Unconditional Love:” released in the Gregorian year of 1983. It was during that early decade in whereas people began to adopt such a philosophy as a trend. But such a way of life fell short, and has caused numerous disheartening emotional pain and distress. Those who embraced such a metaphorical belief eventually wind up conditioning the relationships in the end. As much as many try to make application of such a philosophy, the realization in finding true intimate and sexual freedom with someone else, is only possible under conditional terms. Anything that is applied with the ideology of “unconditional” status, doesn’t only rob’s someone else’s conditional freedom, but also from the one suggesting to be loved unconditionally. But what if both agree to be sexual with each other, unconditionally; is it possible then that such an arrangement can be genuinely unconditionally real since it’s coming from both parties instead of one? That’s absurd, because if it’s coming from both parties, there are then no conditions to begin with, to make as unconditional. So the lyrics of Donna Summer’s hit song, “Give me your unconditional love…the kind of love I deserve…the kind I want to return,” is purely nonsense. Such a so-called unconditional two parties arrangement is imminent to cause chaos and confusions in between them: It ends as soon as it starts. Such a philosophical concept/suggestion is purely fantastical: a wishful fantasy that robs people of their actual conditional freedoms. Although my being is devoid of the figurative heart (emotions), IT can still see that real love, to exist, must be conditioned if the person that you truly love with all of your heart, need/want to protect, secure and cared for as a sequester from the rest of the dangers in the-World(s).
Although the term “unconditional love” is understood and applied in a figurative favorable manner, the actuality of it all, is that such a concept is still requesting a responding/self-willed disposition that defrauds one from his/her own inborn innate conditions: Even though that such an “unconditional outlook” is suggested with the best spiritual and figurative intent, it does not, however, amend the underlying reality that such an application will still rob one’s own conditional freedom. The concept of any “unconditional situation” is purely philosophical; a form of suggestion that is quasi: In whereas literal conditional statuses are not philosophical, for they are not an opinion, or a proposal. Even though people find literal physical ways of altering their conditional freedom (e.g., transsexuals), that doesn’t mean that such changes are actual.
Take for example a man going through a literal physical sex-change: He may find it very emancipating to transform the physical look of his penis into a vagina, taking in estrogen shots for the enhancement of his effeminate appeal, and implanting foreign objects that will give him seemingly breasts; and all along, hoping that by such an alteration process, he can genuinely transform his cognate (innate) male conditions, into one of connatural female: It may seem that he did actually changed his inborn male conditions; that however, is counterfeited and pretentious because although he appears as a woman, he can’t still experience what is like to be an innate woman (e.g., as in innate female experiences with menstruation, pregnancy and birthing, as well as menopause: all the actual innate conditional experiences that only a cognate conditional woman goes through). So as it stands, it seems that his feminine alterations can then only help him to achieve in becoming a pseudo-woman (or better yet, to become a cogitated unconditional woman), because what he has actually done is made his intrinsic male conditional freedom “unconditional:” He did not amend actual intrinsic conditions; if he did, his physical transformations would’ve worked exactly the same as an innate woman, through and through (ovaries to bones): But because such transformation is not intrinsically actual, but only seemingly, he robbed his conditional male freedom from him-self, and has instead cogitated in becoming deprived of him-self as an unconditional woman, permanently, with no way to recover it: His idea of becoming a woman was just purely idealistic (philosophical) that can’t beget actual fruition, for he is now unable to experience the genuine cognate conditional freedom of a woman, even after his literal sex-change: a freedom then only existing in idea. Hence, as already indicated, freedom is then inborn, because freedom is a birthright condition, so transforming inborn conditions must also then be an inborn agility (e.g., the metamorphose agility of a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly: Or the transmutation dexterity of certain frogs transforming their genitals into the opposite, in order to automatically survive as a species, in case their environment becomes over populated by one sex). Therefore, to change innate biological constructs, one must also be innate with the agility in making those alterations, in order to then make the metamorphosis, conditionally legit.
We can now see the reality and the actuality that our freedom is based on inborn conditions, and that is why we base our freedom on our current conditions. Freedom is never free from conditions: Freedom instead is found within conditions. Therefore, there is no such a thing as an “absolute freedom.”
To even suggest someone to reciprocate you in any manner, “unconditionally,” is not fair, and very unrealistic when every single animating human creature is born with innate conditional freedoms; it’s not even fair to you as well. Therefore, an “unconditional anything” commitment, agreed or coerced, is unjust, even when it’s self-determined by choice/agreement: Just because you may self-will your-self to find freedom in surrendering to unconditional terms by someone else, it doesn’t mean that you’ll be genuinely happy because, in the long run, you’ll begin to realize that your freedom is/was sacrificed in ideology, not reality. Hence, any unconditional status, circumstance and arrangement deprives and strips us from our conditional freedoms. It is very clear then that an unconditional actuation is really a disposition, with an intent, to rob/deprive/enslave conditions that rightfully provides freedom to someone else, or to your-self.
True freedom is conditional, because the conditions must be just right to bring about needful/desirable freedom.
[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Writing & Concept by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Aspaty/Space: Pentaspace, Dormicycle 19, 10 R.M. E.C. (Solar North)]