Hello people,

I'm a great believer and advocator of SOGR but I've just downloaded this minibook (re love) from the update page and I'm amazed at how vehemently I disagree with Wally's view in this area.
The declaration that we are under a moral obligation to win love seems absurd. If our life's goal is primarily to serve others to make ourselves attractive - in order that they love us, then our emotions and mental state surely become as fragile as a cobweb; ready to blow away at a gust of criticism or even the slightest breeze of apathy.

On the one hand he appears to be saying that we can't control how others feel or think - concerning wealth, but then here he seems to be contradicting himself and making love a competition of winners and losers. The idea of making the most of ourselves to win (another's) love seems preposterous. Surely we make the most of ourselves for feelings of self-fulfilment and personal gratification?

Plus he says nothing of loving ourselves first and foremost.

I understand true love as the sensation of a dynamic force vibrating in our souls (the centre of our beings). We have it (this force) buzzing within us all the time but because of so much outside stimulation, we're not often aware of it. It's only when we see something lovely - the element of love, in someone else that our consciousness is raised and we fall 'in love', i.e. we realise that we're resonating together.
'Being in love', I believe, is when we feel our own body / soul vibrating at the same velocity as another's - we are 'in tune' with one another, or living on the same wave length.

Eternal love is remaining on that same wavelength (through thick and thin) but when things like pride, envy etc. (emotions born from strong personalities) become involved, we are unable and unwilling to feel the vibrations of another, which leads to misunderstandings and friction because we're no longer in harmony.

People who are willing to open their hearts more often find it easier to communicate with others - and surely this should be our goal?

Our only obligation as I see it, is to see that 'something lovely' inside everybody - and love them for it, even if you don't like their personality, not because of the shell they have (personality in some cases is just inflated ego and thus prone to burst).

I'm not propagating the 'freelove' / libertarian behaviour of the '60s - we must still act with some discrimination but it wouldn't be based on who makes us love them more (which I believe can lead to resentment) but instead, we'd be with whomsoever we enjoyed bestowing our loving energy upon.

Wally says that the unconditional love of mother child etc. is different,'instinctive'. But I think all love is instinctual; we love our children because we see them thrive on it, we love our partners because it makes them feel good - which in turn makes us feel good (making us love ourselves more?).

The only time we feel better by stopping loving someone is when that person hasn't received our love willingly or reciprocated with loving energy (as happens in the case of unrequited love or abusive relationships).

Anyway, as you are by well aware now, this is a subject dear to my heart (if you'll excuse the pun!), so forgive me if I've droned on but I'd be very interested to hear about your comments after reading this particular book.

With best wishes
and love to all ;0)
Faye

I must say that I was very surprised by your reaction to this and I seem to have come away after reading the ebook with a different message, although I can see where you're coming from on a few points.

I really loved the book. I thought it was right on the money.

"If you wish to be loved, you must live your own life. And the more full and complete the life, the more love you will win".

"The fact that other people do not love us is not a cause for complaint against them. They cannot help it; if we were lovely, they could not help loving us".

"If love is waning in your home it is because courtship has ceased".

"You will be loved for what you are, not for what you do".

I don't have enough time to elaborate much further tonight but those are a few of sentences that resonated with me.

The message I got out of it is that if we want to be loved then it is our responsibility to be "lovely", to be our best self. Isn't that what we're trying to be anyway? Our best self?

Stephanie

I think my reaction was somewhere in between. I do think that we should become the love we desire to receive. I've learned that the hard way. Thinking out loud here, so I hope this makes sense: Self-love and becoming our best, connecting to our core attracts love and prosperity. As we think and hold the CMI of our desires, we connect to the formless and become a part of that desire. The part of the article that has niggled at me is I do believe that love is unconditional, and that even in our imperfections we are loved.

AFaye, I do think part of what bothers is the language from the era, especially being pre-women's rights, though he doesn't seem to expect women to be slaves to the house.

Okay, I'm rambling and need to spend more time reflecting on this, but I'm posting anyway!

Wishing love and abundance to all,
Teresa

Greetings!

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

I was also somewhat concerned about the idea of "winning" what should be unconditional love. I agree that this may be from a difference in language from Mr. Wattle's time to our time, especially give what he says later in the work (Items quoted in other posts).

Interpreting with SOGR, perhaps we can think of loving ourselves unconditionally as a way of acting on the CMI of desiring to be loved unconditionally.

Loving ourselves unconditionally would naturally mean taking care of ourselves and believing in ourselves and our dreams. When we take the appropriate actions, we cannot help but become even more attractive than we already are.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

SpiritArtist

Here's my take on it: Kiwigirl is right on the money, and if you read the book and thought it was about being something other than who you truly are or doing anything manipulative to "win" love, it would be a good idea to check your attitude and reread the book because you've DEFINITELY misread it.

I would also just personally add that any kind of "love" that is any kind of "obligation" isn't really love in my book, and that the words "should" and "unconditional love" don't really make sense to me in the same sentence.

Thanks Rebecca. I did make an unfortunate choice of words. What I meant was that love is a gift. I most certainly did not mean to imply an obligation. I did re-read the book and focused more on the word "attract" than "win". That helped my interpretation quite a bit.

SpiritArtist

Thanks for your responses,

I'm definately more comfortable accepting the idea of 'attracting love', than I am with winning it or encouraging others to win mine - as if it were something to be bartered over.

I realise my tone was more emphatic than usual, so apologies if anyone feels offended but I was afraid that we were being told to work with a hidden agenda; almost like giving a donation and expecting a reward.

Best wishes
Faye

The word WIN, of course, has more than one meaning. For example, here are a couple of meanings --

To gain the affection or loyalty of.
To achieve success.

So since this was WALLY writing this after all and using this word, it doesn´t (to me anyway) make sense to jump to the conclusion that he´s using the word in any kind of competitive or manipulative meaning.

Dear Faye,

Isn't it strange that two people can read the same words and come to diametrically opposite conclusions!

I found the article on love by Wattles to be insightful and consistent with his other works!

E.g. the sentence "If you wish to be loved, you must live your own life. And the more full and complete the life, the more love you win." This seems to me to be totally at cross purposes with what Faye says below:

Quote by Faye: "...If our life's goal is primarily to serve others to make ourselves attractive - in order that they love us, then our emotions and mental state surely become as fragile as a cobweb; ready to blow away at a gust of criticism or even the slightest breeze of apathy."

Wally seems to be saying just the opposite: as in the following: "When you sacrifice yourself, you lose the very thing which would attract others to you...."

Personally I found his article very enlightening and I realized that my `problems' with my wife was not in her but myself- my lack of living my own life. I had been always trying to live for others - worrying about what they think etc. And since I did that, I also expected my wife to live for my sake - which I now see is the cause of all the friction!

This aha-moment instantly caused me to stop feeling competitive and instead become more loving to my wife!

Well that's my take on this! I look forward to the differing views of others.

Thank you for this opportunity to share.

Cheers!

Faye--
I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the article, also--but I recalled that I did with SOGR, too, so I just reread it a couple of times. Sometimes I think the language he chose was deliberately provocative--to encourage the reader to think, to challenge.

The message I got was that if you focus on making the absolute most of yourself, rather than focusing on someone else, love will find you. And I found that to be most true in my own life. It was only when I became absolutely happy with who I was and absolutely did not NEED a partner--that the perfect partner showed up! (We've been together 10+ years now, still nuts about each other.)

Sorry, dumb question -- where can this book be downloaded??

I didn't react badly to the article -- it was very much in line with what I've learned in my own life.

Regarding unconditonal love: A person can have unconditional love for someone else, yet still walk away from the relationship because of how they're being treated. This is common sense -- for an extreme example, abused people *should* leave no matter how deeply they love the other person. Love can be unconditional, but the choice to be romantically involved definitely *is* (and should be!) conditional.

What if you had some rare disease that caused you to radiate skunk odor for 10 feet in every direction? Someone might love you unconditionally (from afar!) but who's gonna decide to marry you??? Okay, I'm being a little silly, but it's true! -- there are a lot of personal qualities and behaviors that effectively make a person smell like skunk to everyone nearby... (And if someone has turned into a "stinker" a few months or years into a relationship, who can blame their significant other for pulling away -- even if they still love them at heart?)

So it does no good to rely on entitlement to unconditional love -- you still need to be a certain kind of person to attract the romantic involvement you want from others. But as Wattles says, these are not *superficial* changes -- they are changes in *character* and *personality*. Instead of changing your haircut and your hobbies, become someone you respect and enjoy being! Then allow yourself to naturally attract the people who are naturally & sincerely interested in the "new and improved" you.

The only thing caution I would add to what Wattles said -- he said it's fine to address yourself to winning the love of a particular person. But if someone focuses too much on a particular person, he's in danger of coming from a position of scarcity -- imagining that this one person is a source of "good stuff" he can't get anywhere else. It's not true! There are *lots* of potential workable relationships for every individual (just as there are many sources of wealth). Granted, if you're already married, you'd better focus on your spouse (!!!), but still, don't think that if you lose this relationship you'll never find love again. There's more love than that in the world.

Stevie, it's on this page : http://www.scienceofgettingrich.net/update.html

quote:

Originally posted by Skyling:
Stevie, it's on this page : http://www.scienceofgettingrich.net/update.html

Thank you, Skyling!

What an interesting debate! Faye I enjoyed your critical view of Wally's writing on love.

What struck me as most poignant in the whole work, and what resonated absolutely with me, like many of you, is the fact that we as human beings are to live as well as possible. We should make ourselves happy and be our own persons, not slaves to love or to anyone else for any reason. This central message spoke to me most clearly. Being a wife and mother got to me most when I tried to give up things that were important to me in order to give more of myself to my family. This had the opposite effect. Instead I gave them less, because I lessened the self that was worth giving.

Faye, I don't think you offended anyone. I for one enjoy being open to the ideas of others. This helps us make up our own minds about what we read and hear. So thanks for your writing, and everyone's responses on this topic.

Cathi

Thanks for reading my post you dear people, I appreciate your engagement.

I had a bit of a break and calmed down and have been taking the medicine sip by sip (because I've chosen to believe it's good for me), i.e. I'm working with faith on Wally's words and reading the book slowly.

I've also been conducting an experiment by putting it's teachings into practise and to be absolutely honest I'm pretty bowled over by what appears to be happening...though I'm not sure if I'm just imagining it all so I'll have to post again when I can see more clearly.

Best wishes
Faye

Hello again,

Just a quick one as you don't need details, I just want to say that I've become very very grateful for the situation that has been created for me.
From being somewhat frustrated with the circumstances of love in my life, I have become immensely fulfilled by them.

I know what has happened is just a small step towards achieving my goal (which is a fundamental part of my CMI) yet I also know it's a tremendously postive one, which, incidentally, wouldn't have occurred so successfully without having faithfully accepted the message scribed by Mr.Wattles.

So I guess my faith is strengthened further! To any doubters - the teaching is on the money ;0) and I thank Rebecca for bringing it to us, and every one of you for taking part in our discussions.

Best wishes always
Faye