Good morning! - and a question about love

[Minyatur]

The confounding thing about this question is that it might be better formulated as "what isn't love?"

I agree that this is a good place—if not the only place—to start, if one is inclined to define love. But that's the paradox right there. Love (as is referred to in this discussion—not human conditional love) is out the 3D realm of definition with human words.

The first thing one might say love isn't, is conditional. So it follows that words, being limited, and each word having conditions, wouldn't work. And so goes the hamster wheel of the mind.

One might explore the idea of love as effect rather than definition, as is utilized with subatomic particles. Subatomic particles cannot be observed directly, but their effects can be observed.

So we may understand what love is through light, seems like we're repeating the Logoic pattern. Now I'm back at contemplating human drama to better understand the effect of love in what it is.

Edit : Seems like the unity of love simply is that all responses are rightful to be and should be understood as such to be in perception of this unity. Beliefs in non-unity trap love into being focused in separately-understood aspects of itself, and which yet come to signify all the other aspects once understood to be them all reflected.