The psyche is the life of neurons, recorded in the language of neurons—a book that constantly rewrites and republishes itself, authored by a vast collective. The number of neurons in the brain is enormous but finite; they can be counted. However, the number of meanings cannot be counted. This number rivals the largest numbers in the universe.

The reproduction of meanings is an inevitable consequence and manifestation of psychic activity – a mechanism of its self-sustainment. It is as much a mystery as the mystery of life itself. The intuitive insight of Christians in the apostolic age elevated love to one of the highest religious values and identified it with God. Even today, it is impossible to imagine psychic activity without love. Yet, defining its significance, or its very essence, remains elusive when trying to achieve a consensual definition.

Perhaps only an analogy can help illustrate its nature – an analogy with gravity. Gravity may be perceived as a force, but it is more accurately understood as a property of curved space-time. Similarly, love is not a force but a property – a property of the continuum in which the laws of psychic activity operate.

Additionally, love might be defined as an anti-entropic force or as the law of attraction for meanings.

Love, understood as the life activity of meanings – with their affinity, complementarity, and reproduction – is revealed to us daily at the personal level of organization. Personality is the external side of the organism of meanings. In the interaction of these organisms, we perceive love.

This kind of connection extends beyond interactions between individual thoughts – it also shapes other forms of meaningful relationships, such as love for one’s homeland, for God, or for a scientific idea. All of this is love – a value for humanity that surpasses life itself. One cannot help but recall the words of the Apostle Paul about love, with their many forms of beauty: the beauty of prophecy, of mathematical formulas, of poetic expression, and of moral sentiment.

It is, of course, possible to try to exclude love as a term when describing the affinity of meanings by applying terminology from information theory, especially since, when discussing meanings, such an approach naturally suggests itself. In this case, one could describe the interaction of meanings using terms like semantic connections, signal connections, or informational connections. Love could then be assigned a specific field within the theory of meanings – perhaps as a particular manifestation of meaningful activity within the framework of psychic activity, characterized by its inherent emotional reactions.

It is also possible to exclude love entirely from the realm of meaningful activity, to psychologize this feeling and classify it as a subjective entity, leaving unresolved the question of why this feeling, among the many experienced by humans, remains the most important. Why are most human aspirations tied to it?

Alternatively, one could biologize or psychologize the term, interpreting it within existing physiological or humanitarian frameworks or cultural traditions (such as literature or art). However, this would likely ignore the fact that love pertains specifically to human activity – it is fundamentally a rational activity.

Describing love as a particular case of informational interactions is, in my view, not entirely accurate, though it is occasionally appropriate. It could be interpreted as a conscious affinity of meanings, or the experience of information – a combination of signals integrated into the structure of the self, transforming external stimuli into internal experience, and so on. Other, more or less precise formulations could also be found, reflecting important properties of love or significant consequences arising from it.