Can love be for one person and not for another as well? I mean: can i say that i love, if that love is for one person and not for another, as well? is love, then, both love and not-love? it appears that this must be true. i shall elaborate before this opens for debate. can love be said to be transient, fleeting... changing with the whims of the mind? can we really attribute love to such a state, or shall we attach a more suitable term, such as desire, lust, longing, dependance. Do we really love the person or do we find pleasure in the way that they make us feel. is love so perverted? perhaps there is a sense of security... but is that love, or is that comfort (perhaps of familiarity... or safety) Or maybe it is the need for that, that we call love. can either of these be what love truly is? it seems that 'to not love' is the disease of particular minds... meaning, two feelings of love, had by two different minds, can interact conflictingly. can love be in conflict with itself? logic and intuition says, no. can the interaction of two love's produce a subsequent state that is other than love? not unless the feeling was obscured by the ignorance that is the product of particularized mind identification. identification with names and values and divisions and seperateness. (these are the germs of isolationism; ie. ego-development) please comment if you find that it pleases you.