Isn't that the whole "love is not a feeling......" stuff? I read it back in school and remember it explaining alot to me....Okay, I just dug it out from my old college texts, it's highlighted and all. I agree with his definition of love - the will to extend oneself for the purpose of one's own or another's spiritual growth and that love is effortful and an action. He dispels the myths of infatuation but don't agree with him about "romance". He says the traditional idea of romance is an illusion. I say a couple that mutually accepts each other's individuality and plans to grow together spiritually can (and should) still have romance in their relationship. His focus on the discipline of a loving individual and the effort one should put into a relationship sometimes seems a little dry and blah though. I guess maybe his point is to not get carried away with one's emotions. Anyway, I feel I'm rambling, why do you ask? What do you think?