Love is a nominalisation or “nouning” of a verbal phenomenon. Love is active, acting. There is “loving” but not a crystalized “love”. This is why it is difficult to define as a noun: it never should have been a noun except to the ancient Greeks, who had gods for it.

Love is a nominalisation or “nouning” of a verbal phenomenon.

Love is active, acting. There is “loving” but not a crystalized “love”. This is why it is difficult to define as a noun: it never should have been a noun except to the ancient Greeks, who had gods for it.

t No. I’m not introducing ambiguity: I’m starting by moving it away from the wrong category and putting it into the proper category.
Now that we are talking about the activity or process of loving, it is possible to give examples of loving as an acting thing and not as a thing that sits
==
 Love is a catch-all word to describe a number of different activities which each demonstrate what loving is.
To love is experiencing certain biochemicals.
To love is also hugging. To love is doing good things for others such as giving from what you have without needing reciprocation. To love is sharing. These are a very few examples. But loving is active, it is not passive. Even to sit and do nothing else but love, is experiencing a feeling which is an active process which involves the brain and body and environment
===
I don’t know. Do you mean the depression then hope cycle?
“I am disappointed in myself”. Goes through process of grief.
“Now I have gone through process of grief. Things are looking more hopeful” Maybe I can improve if I am inspired”. Gets inspired.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 × one =

Leave a Reply