Ramble mode…
On a purely cold level of thought, love is the act of harmony, an expressed willingness of one thing to fully give of itself in creative harmony with another thing for the betterment of all (the act is not singular, it is the creation of several elements in creative harmony, a concept, not tangible, but very real, as real as the Conceptual Reality). No thing possesses love, love only exists when freely given away, and the human act of loving is synonymous with the creative harmony that Reality is founded upon. A well known fellow who lives in Europe, his science books repeat similar thoughts, but many of his peers world-wide reject him because they do not possess the understanding of what love is since they have not experienced it to understand.
For over twenty five hundred years, quality was as elusive of being defined as were terms ethics, morals, virtue, and knowledge. “Quality exists as a state of elements in creative harmony” (from one of my scribblings). No thing exists alone in the Universe, all things are in motion and change, all things relatively influence and are influenced by all other things, no singular linear definition can apply to any thing in motion and change, and the understanding of quality must be born of the conceptually created combination of experiencing and understanding things relative to the thing in question. Creativity self-nascents when two or more elements are in harmony (1+1=3), and the nature of the union defines that which we with inherent logic weigh and relate to the thing’s environment whether it is of quality or disquality. (Sorry about the word “logic”, I do not like it at all, but it is the best English term for signifying the inward act of the intellectual association and weighing of memories).One theory is that we don't need anything else, because qualities are just the brains subjective view. the people who hold that view have no way of explaining it directly. So science describes the mechanisms and describes it beautifully, but it can't explain qualities. It cannot explain this rich perceptual world that we live in.
While Jeffery Iverson and Dr Peter Fenwick’s thoughts are generally correct, that it was difficult to explain the rich perceptual world, the thoughts missed the possibility that some individual might in time explain the how and why. To a master of Zen, there is no need to explain the experience, the experience is the explanation itself, and to understand a thing, each person must experience it; external symbolic words will never define what is inwardly real. Science can only speak of what is observed externally from a distance, science cannot (or chooses not to) define what is observed as being the thing itself.
That is exactly the failing of science, the act of attempting to measure that which the scientists refuse to empirically observe and therefore cannot possibly understand. Of what value is the attempt to measure and define what is not first known? Scientists should first experience the perception of red as a master, and then devise words to describe what is real. Life is beautiful, wonderful, filled with awe and perceptions; life is not a cold lifeless element measured in cubits by men with a fear of exerting the effort to investigate life itself by experiencing life.We cannot talk about redness because this is non-scientific and there is no theory. So we talk about movement and chemical change but not the subjective experience of redness'.
The general consensus by some is that a NDE, enlightenment, or other form of enhanced perception may not be valid unless it is accompanied with strong comments by the individual of perceiving what is interpreted to be love. The ‘ether’s polarity’ may not be ‘love’ per se, but is of the similar tone and coloring as what the body feels while in the state of loving. Untold millions of individuals have experienced the sensation of Universal Love, the Source, especially the masters, and it is deemed wise to suspect there is a reason why all known masters repeat the same perceptions. The answer will likely be something different than is currently believed, but within unselfish harmony of elements there is a specific resonance of giving and reciprocal influence, and it is that specific resonance that all the very best non-conformed scientific books I know of refer to as being love, the foundation of all of Creation, of the holy trinity of science.We certainly need a new science to understand the true nature of the universe. The mechanical aspects of the universe we've now got nearly tied-up. In terms of the nature of man and his subjective experience we haven't even begun. We cannot say what man's place is in this mechanical universe, ther is no proper definition of consciousness, nor explanation of why in mystical experience and in Near Death Experience we see the universe as composed of love.
(Big smiles at this keyboard). A new book will be on the market tomorrow that generally covers what Iverson spoke of, and is directly aimed at academics. The laws of Nature are correct in the correctness of being the laws that Reality uses to create Creation, the laws are logical (correct) relative to Reality, and if a thing is of quality, then it is in creative harmony with its environment, which are the laws of Nature, which are correct/logical to Nature, and logical to all things created. The ‘new’ science is not new, it is but a detailing of what the masters have known for thousands of years, but put into words that will appear ‘logical’ to those who prefer the angle of view.We need a science of values and with that will come a much better appreciation of man's place in the universe. So morality and experience come into science where they are not at the moment.
In my most cold-hearted frontal lobe structuring of a definition, it is logical to love, it is logical to be in harmony with the Universe, and what is deemed ‘good’ is that which is logical/correct relative to the laws of Creation. All things good, whether they be ethics, morals, virtue, patience, compassion, empathy, love, kindness, fairness, or justness, all are founded on the original source of Creation, that of love, and it is logical, smart, and of good behavior to give all for the betterment of all. A group of ten elements giving all unselfishly, reciprocate ten times more back (the creation of a substance greater than the sum of the individuals).
In my heart-felt definition, life only has meaning while loving, and no quantity of money or fame or power or intelligence or physical good looks has meaning next to love. A good heart is in harmony with Nature, and what is in best harmony with the Universe, is naturally the smartest behavior, and the most beautiful.
Hogwash I say!The exciting thing is this new science is almost here. Physics is already pointing the way and I think psychology will also start to go along that line. Then we will have the beginnings of a science of mind'.
The fellows just finished saying that science was missing the mark, yet the fellows turn and once again lean upon the crutch of science with the expectation of finding new answers from using old ways. “Insanity: repeating the same thing over and over while expecting different results” (Einstein).Gaz’s topic is as important to the understanding of one’s self as it is to science. Without love, nothing is possible.
Love is like a flashlight in a dark closet. When it is turned off, it sees nothing, but when turned on it can see all things, but it is really only seeing its own light reflecting back. All forms of observation color perception (subjective coloring) unless the perception is done through unselfish unbiased sensing. Only love in its pure form is capable of observing a thing without bias, and no scientific observation is valid nor correct without love.
Much can be explained to have originated within ‘logic’, but logic requires information to weigh logically, information can only be achieved through personal first-hand experience, to possess information a person must sensorially perceive a thing, and to correctly sense a thing it must be done with love. Love is correct behavior, and yep, logical too.
Best,
Toouk
)
toouk I wonder what it is doing to the foods we eat ouch 
Another stupid idea might be as a possible substitute for holy water? 