Thanks for the blog, Brian. A few things I disagree with:

To describe Love as the "constant evolution of egoism, thus altruism" would be a fallacious label of its own. It was described it as a 'constant evolution', while, having both egoism and altruism existing simultaneously. This is a problem, since, altruism is considered to be the anti-thesis of egoism--altruism: the state of selflessness. If you re-define Love being the 'final product' or 'outcome' of evolution via egoism, then, your statement of "constant evolution" collapses. Moreover, I agree that love--in absolute form--may not be described as an emotion, but, following that logic, one would be inconsistent to describe it as a "feeling". Following these two fundamental definitions, I find the rest of the article encountering the same problems.

Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your innovative ideas on such a profound subject.
 

I removed the word constant.

But, you didnt read this correctly. I didn't write it to say that they coincide.
Because it is an evolution, one becomes the next.
 

Also, I didn't want to really say it isn't an emotion, but instead, I just wanted it to be redefined, "relabeled", as a feeling.... to get the reader into a different state of mind.
 

You guys use a lot of $25 words.........

love, J