The word love appeared about ten times in the book Destiny. In each instance, the reference was generalized to identify love as an attribute in some type of relationship, but at no point was the concept of love specifically addressed. There was a good reason why that was so, namely, that indiscriminate use of the word love without a clear understanding of what it means leads only to confusion and misuse. The coming discussion attempts to clarify the meaning of love to avoid future misunderstanding or misapplication in any printed Destiny topics or conversations about Destiny.

Love is focused altruism, to the extent that it is unselfish promotion of the wellbeing of another sentient being or possibly the furtherance of a profound concept. It is the suspension of self-adoration on behalf of idolizing one or more aspects of another life or concept. When we love, we attach our self-value to something outside ourselves and experience a sense of wonderment and belief in the inherent goodness of that something. We decide to define part of ourselves as individuals as fundamentally, strongly linked to that something, based on some attribute or attributes of that something that we value very highly. Our beliefs and positive actions then enhance and solidify our concept of ourselves. So we have closed-loop, focused altruism, with either one-way or two-way adoration.

Historical attempts to differentiate kinds or types of love were foolish. There is only one kind of love, and it was defined in the last paragraph. Agape, Philia and Eros are all the same, in that the connection of creator to created or created to creator, parent to child or child to parent, brother or sister to brother or sister, or man to woman or woman to man, are all focused altruism. All further use of the word love is to be understood from that viewpoint.

Differentiating the depth of love across the different types of relationships is also foolish. Love does not have a variable depth. Either it is or it is not. One simply senses their love in the circumstance and manner appropriate to the loved sentient being or concept. One difficulty with historical attempts to differentiate love by type and depth is that all of those attempts failed to consider the impact of pre-programming of the primitive human mind. For example, the sacrificial behaviors of female mammals on behalf of protecting their young have been differentiated wrongly as evidence of depth of love. The love of parent for child, where it does exist, is quite real, but it is completely unrelated to pre-programmed or, if you will, instinctual protectiveness, whose purpose is to maintain the existence of the species.

The biblical, New Testament statement about the greatest form of love being that where an individual gives up their very life for a friend is truly a perversion of the concept of love. Love cannot include the willful complete destruction of self, for that action is inherently irrational. It destroys one of the two mandatory components that constitute the basis for the love. What one can do is attempt every thing within one's power to preserve the life and wellbeing of another and self. That is rational.

Various religions have perverted the use of the word love to support sacrifice of life, and governments have taken advantage of that perversion to convince people to risk death in war, with the promise of rewards in an afterlife. Consider the old saw about risking life in war for love of Mom, God and Country. Note that it is likely that one will love their Mom. Love of God as an entity or as a well understood concept is irrational, for God is, yet, unknown. It is rational, however, to love the concept of God as the creator of what we know as the gift of life. Love of Country is utterly irrational in the same sense as giving up one's life for a friend. Ultimately, love cannot be the basis for any premeditated destruction, even on behalf of Mom. This is the first example of the confusion of passion for love.

Relationships between humans, and between a human and a concept, are not static. At any moment in life, the type of relationship that exists will be determined by the individual's net understanding of the loved, liked or detested sentient being or concept. This means that acquisition of knowledge and other personal experiences as time passes can and will modify our understanding and, potentially, our overall experience of love. This means that love is not necessarily a constant in any relationship. Nor should it be so, for we expect and rightfully demand the freedom to grow through experience. That experience can affect our sense of love in negative or positive ways.

Thus, we also confuse our expectations of love with contractual agreements. Human relationships of all kinds are continuously renewable, not static, whereas contracts may have a specifically defined duration. This means it is perfectly reasonable to expect presence or absence of love to follow the experiences of life that either support renewal or it's opposite, whatever form that may take. We do start out in romantic situations with need, opportunity, physical passion and potentially the formation of love, if our experiences with another person support the expansion of passion into love. But it is unwise to confuse passion with love, for physical passion is simply one more example of our pre-programming regarding continuing the species. This is the reason why people can honestly maintain passion or sexual desire for other people outside an existing marital relationship. It is simply pre-programming. It is not an unethical or immoral response to be attracted to others.

Our actionable behaviors, however, are related to ethics and morality. For example, the old standard marriage vows in which a person would promise to love, honor and obey are demonstrably foolish, for one cannot contractually demand love, as it cannot be rationally promised as a constant, regardless of the wording of the contract. Conversely, one can rationally promise to honor and obey within the overall terms and understandings of the contract or vow. One can also promise to try to enhance the experience of shared love, provided future life experiences allow that to continue.

If I am overwhelmed by my perception of the innate goodness of a concept, I can decide to dedicate myself to the furthering of that concept. I am not absolutely convinced, however, that the word love applies, for I may adore, provided I do not self-destruct. It is a situational event, in which love may or may not be an actual component.

Finally, sacrifice of one's life in the name of love must be seen as wrong, in any form. Love can exist only with both parties intact. Love cannot be the impetus of self-destruction. Our deep grief in losing someone we love cannot be other than our personal pain in existing without the love or companionship we had. The desire to end one's life upon accepting the truth of a terminal and painful illness is the recognition that one's love of life is completed.