I see love as being a one way act of giving. Love can exist without reciprocation, may remain unrequited for a short time, a long time or forever. As soon as the notion of ‘quid pro quo’ emerges it becomes a relationship – a state of transaction, a bargaining, an agreement but no longer a matter of pure giving. Relationships may exist based on mutual giving of love but my guess would be these are rarer than those based on more pragmatic currency – perhaps what you describe as collateral and commitment to repay?
I must stress that this is my personal view, most probably ineloquently put, since I also am trying to make sense of what love is and what it means. Thanks for this thought-provoking post.
In the last few days I’ve found myself thinking about or talking about love several times. One comment made should be a post.
For all I’ve done and seen and experienced, I do not know how to reconcile my thoughts against what the world professes as the meaning of love. If you asked 100 people you will probably get 114 answers. To me, love is the stuff that happens when you’re keeping a commitment to another person.
The commitment does not have to be marriage and the other person does not have to be your lover or spouse. Certainly you can make such commitments without love so it is not the commitment that is love, but I think it might be described as the ransom and tribute given to the other party as promissory note or collateral. It is not this act or that act as many people describe ‘true…
View original post 113 more words
Gogwit's Blog 
It is a difficult concept. Thanks for the reblog and further insight.
LikeLike