Putting together a review this morn, I keep returning to a definition of love from one of the books:
For Alaya Dawn Johnson, love is radical honesty, radical trust, and radical vulnerability.
Now, "radical" isn't the same as "absolute", even if it shows up as similar. To me, "radical" suggests a deliberate choice to lean into honesty, trust, & vulnerability when alternatives exist.
But this tall order needs a super healthy ecosystem in which to thrive.
Do we do enough to cultivate all three?
@MLClark Pretty much the same.
Ours? Yes. But the original from my post seems process-driven. It's the kind of definition of love one has when one is still centred in it. Love, for that author, is in the choices a person makes *for themself* - to be more honest, to trust more, to be more vulnerable.
Meanwhile, our definitions are consequentialist: we start with outcome and work from there. 🤷🏻♂️ Whatever it takes, self-abnegating or not.
(Won't go into it here, if our definitions are as healthy as the other! 🙃)
@WordsmithFL
My definition is "when someone else's happiness matters more than my own".
The definition I cited above is definitely grounded in less either/or soil than our own.