When there is the negation of what order and love are not, perhaps love will be there. There is no “you” that wills that negation, for the very self itself (i.e., the “I” or the “me”) must be part of that negation… not merely controlling it from (or “as”) a distance. Of course, we are not suggesting harm to the body in any way; such harm would not entail love. Love is not merely measurable (i.e., not merely of measure), so one cannot merely “know” that one has it. Thinking and time are of measure and a mind that is merely caught up in thinking and measurement (in and “as” time) cannot love deeply (though it can easily think that it can). Clinging to an isolated concept of “me” (apart from all of life) requires distance and a measurement of opposites. Psychological distance and measurement create the “I” and the “I” would not exist without such psychological distance and measurement.
A lot of people say “I love you” very easily (as if one knows that one “has” it… as if it entails an absolute separate subject and object). Is there really an “I” that is separate from what the whole world is? Is there really an isolated “you” — that is looking from a (learned) distance, an accumulated psychological space — that is separate from what the whole world is? Psychological separation, isolation, and conflict depend upon limited thought/thinking, and without limited thought/thinking, such separation wouldn’t exist.
Our minds are often so very distorted and not whole. The grocery stores, these days, are chock-full of fragmented, over-processed, pseudo-foods. And, in the United States, for example, there is more obesity and more cancer (and strange, deleterious syndromes popping up) than ever before. Too few of us eat real, whole foods like our grandparents did; we assimilate garbage both mentally and gustatorily, and we don’t mind being normal (and swallowing it all) one bit.