Love does not define * 2/1/12

For all the terms

there are for love,

for all the symbols

of the appearance of love,

for all of the gestures

and communiqués of love,

none of them are,

that love.

The notice of love,

even genuinely

or most auspiciously,

is a vacation from but possibly

an innocent audience to it.

Love is deeply within

a concealed state

of fluid generative animation,

before experience acknowledges

or the knowingness

of this space verifies.

Love is a supreme dancer

within a state

of ongoing ever-flow permission.

Love is evocative

without the prompting from it.

Love is expansive

without any expression in space.

Love is unboundaried

without a declaration.

Love is energetically conversant

without any say.

Love is living code

yet undecipherable

into something else.

Love fills everything

but is not a substitute

for any of it.

Any thing or any state

that is called love,

is being handled

by a second party,

an agent for, no doubt,

the cause-worthiness

but not of the ‘causessence’.

Even in the most sincere

of these cases

of announced handling,

love is still once removed

from being

that uncontainable emanation.

Love does not define,

or has ever been defined

in or from its selfless self’s

feel-filling existence.