Greenshade,

I appreciate that you reach out to share this article link. This would be a subject for conversation over a cup of coffee or tea! It is a worthwhile exploration, to be sure. I feel the author has presented a partial view based on a fairly narrow interpretation of love. The article says,

“Using both data from her own lab and ample citations of other studies, Fredrickson dissects the mechanisms of love to reveal both its mythologies and its practical mechanics.

“First and foremost, love is an emotion, a momentary state that arises to infuse your mind and body alike. Love, like all emotions, surfaces like a distinct and fast-moving weather pattern, a subtle and ever-shifting force.”

For me, it is not mere semantics to gain a clear understanding of the word love. I would called the emotion described above arousal, passion, excitement, attraction — but not love. I like to keep the word love in its pure form as the constant, self-existing energy of creation that it is universally. Humans have rarely caught glimpses of love, except in transcendent moments of experiencing pure consciousness. It is well beyond emotion. But of course that is my perspective.

I agree that love expands the sense of self and blurs the boundaries by you and not-you. Just disagree that it is an emotion. Emotions get stirred when the universal energy of love is felt, but they are a side product and not love itself.

How do you feel about this?