Hey Tremaine L. Loadholt, this slipped but I caught it somehow. So, first picking the brain is not a good thing because it leaves out context and even worse, depth. I do it too, because I want to know what people think and I am not telepathic and I don’t always have cookies to offer in exchange for thoughts. I swear confectioners could rule the world, but they got all the cookies so they don’t care. Now,
We can offer much, we can offer little, but to offer anything to anyone, love is there.
But but but! Offerings are our ancient exchange of good will. For example, bribe is an offering and we bribed anyone from the mayor to Zeus, from Judas to our mothers. Should we lower love so low, to a filed of action built on interest? See, I think not, and this is another one of those examples showing that too broad conceptualizations sweep many declinations under the rug.
It’s easy to dismiss someone, to be cruel, to hate, but to set out and provide someone with that one some thing or fill a need, love has to be there.
Is it easy to dismiss someone? How come then so very few people do it? I mean there are cascades of tutorials on how to say no. And sure thing, providing fillings for needs has a built in reward, think of how many women forego an orgasm as long as they felt useful, and how many men are scarred psychologically for not giving those orgasms.
In my opinion, we cannot name one single thing where love HAS to be for it to exist, but there are so many things that HAVE to be for love to exist. Why else are we searching for love, if were it to be found in common actions?
As I said, we can be in a state of love and this state will change every single action we make. It will then seem that we have always been like that, which is, of course, not the case. We are swiping left and right on states depending on circumstances, and the most vertical, stoic and moral of us make the same swipes on the same circumstances.
You can be in a state of love automatically or by choice. By choice is not the good option this time.