It occurs to me now that maybe you are irritated because I have told you that I love you, and now, talking about unconditional love as a state of being, you're thinking that means that when I said "I love you" to you, it was meaningless and empty, because if I love everyone, then so what if I love you? You're just one non-special part of the humanity soup that I love. Could that be right?
And when I was unavailable to you when you needed some love, maybe that is reminding you of the "love doesn't mean you have to have dinner with someone" feeling -- like, who cares if you love me if you won't be there for me when I need you? That's a nothing sort of love, Angela, and you're full of crap! Is that resonating at all?
Just so you know, when I have told you that I love you, I may have been being unconditional love or not, but the love I feel for you that I was expressing is ordinary love -- that is, I was recognizing qualities in you that were beautiful, and they inspired me, and make me feel good, and who becomes special to me. I love you because you are special to me, aside from generating love because I choose to generate love. My love for you is not conditional, there's nothing you can do to make me not love you; but spending time with you (the dinner thing) is conditional, just as it is with anyone else in my life. If I'm at a point where my well-being is taking every ounce of my attention, that's one condition that would certainly preclude me from spending time with you (or anyone else). If I don't feel I have access to the resources to effectively deal with your angry feelings toward me, that would be a condition, too. I don't think I'm doing you any favors if I get reactive about your reactivity. It would be great, I think, if we could find a way to interrupt the reactivity and get back to love, as Erin says, don't you think?
It would mean a lot to me, anyway.
|