Though many concepts yield to fairly orderly breakdowns, others lead to more chaotic, in terms of apparent randomness, avenues of understanding.  Emotion and, therefore, love tread such a path, one which can be modeled as a knot. 

Regardless, the idea of love is well-ingrained in minds and lives.  It is desired, craved, “what life is all about”, yet lacks a concrete definition.  It is a feeling, it is a choice, it is immediate, it takes time to develop and mature – with so many conflicting ideas surrounding it, it is a wonder we allow ourselves to be so consumed by it.  Or is it?  Perhaps, in part, it is that remaining mystery which draws us to it, its very essence of being indefinable that catches us up in our own attempts to latch onto it.  Either way, we place so much pressure on this elusive concept, needlessly shackling ourselves to it.

Many relationships curiously hinge on the word “love” itself while neglecting its definition, or rather the lack thereof.  With no shortage of conflicting understandings of the concept, does not it follow that each party may have his or her own idea of love? 

Say, as an example, a relationship were in stages of 1-10.  Person A may believe “love” comes in at stage 3 while Person B believes it to come in at stage 6.  Both A and B may be at an equal stage in their relationship, say stage 4, but Person A believes “love” is already and should already be a factor, while Person B does not.  Here enters the “I love you” conflict: Person A is comfortable saying the words and desires it from Person B, while Person B is not yet comfortable with it, believing it to be too early in the relationship; the relationship becomes strained because they do not realize they actually feel the same way, only label it differently.  For this reason, it would benefit both parties to rely less on the word itself and more on personally defined expressions of feeling and affection.

In the same vein, other concepts have also strayed from their initial labels, whether due to the natural evolution of language, ignorance, or manipulation.  Though the first occurs, it is and must be divorced in the mind from the second: Change should not depend upon the willfully ignorant, whether for their benefit or even simply their accommodation.  If it is, what incentive would there be to learn and understand?  Unfortunately, integrity cannot be relied upon here, as not everyone has it.  Words mean little without precision.  They translate ideas, and if they mean one idea here and another there, communication fails.  We cannot thoroughly explore ideas, hold proper debates, and press forward ideologically when plagued by conflicting definitions.

So much is lost in the translation of paragraphs or even pages of information into one short word or line, especially when designed or simply wielded to evoke emotion rather than to inform: manipulation – the third and most reprehensible catalyst for linguistic change.  Inaccurate or superficial ideas are intentionally attached to words or phrases for malignant purposes of personal gain.  Why not?  Experience has shown that enough do not bother reading past the headlines, do not bother looking up the definition before passing on the word.  The question is how long it will be allowed to continue.  Some concepts cannot be ordered, but those which can should be.  Nothing should be taken at face value, and no one is above questioning.