august 2nd, 2022

two definitions of love that seem to conflict (in a way that evokes that old pedantic
question of whether a selfless act is really selfless if it feels good for one to be selfless):

one. you have to give to someone but it is an extremely merciful phenomenon where you feel their joy & relief in
equal measure because you love them, so it wasn't really your loss in any sense because it was love, it was equalizing

two. the commitment of giving to them even if there is something more self-serving that you could be doing - something that
really still calls to you - isn't blown away by the equalizing joy of the first definition. maybe you don't feel viscerally good
but antsy to be tending to something else as you hold & comfort the person in question. the willingness to still care for
them even in the absence of a visceral emotional return shows that it is love - setting yourself aside for them

i guess the actual definition may be a sequence of experiences that alternates between these two forms

i guess definition two is equalized by the assurance that they'll be there when you need them
too, even if they have to set themselves aside. but i have never felt like i needed anyone.
so if definition two were definitive then i would not be able to love maybe