For Tom it was a learned concept coupled with what learned from his physical life.
This is one of my favorite posts from Ted on Love:
One thing that you must keep in mind to understand 'love' is that there is more to it than the single 4 letter word in English implies in our normal cultural usage. If you look in an English thesaurus for synonyms you find words like: affection, attachment, devotedness, devotion, fondness, passion and we frequently add distinctions by linking love with another descriptive adjective. If you go back to ancient Greek, such a root source in our society and culture, you find the following list: philia (dispassionate virtuous love which includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity - compare to filial love), eros (love in all of it's sexual flavors - compare to erotic love), agape (thought of as a more pure and idealized form of love, divorced from the physical but in modern times developing that meaning also - a concept of love often used in religious contexts - perhaps compare to pure love), storge (the affection of a parent for a child - parental love), and xenia (an almost ritualized friendship and caring for, formed between a host and his guest - perhaps caring love). This could be carried on into outer languages and cultures. You can pursue this on your own at the library or on the Internet and go on for quite some time. The English word love simply does not have simple equivalents within other languages and cultures and its biases simply produce difficulties in understanding this usage. The simplest way to approach a single better word is the ancient Greek agape, in my opinion.
Let me describe the context of love within which Tom, in my understanding, uses it and equates it with very low entropy. This context is that our existence within Consciousness Space where we exist as IUOCs and as such are integral parts of The One Consciousness as we communicate over the RWW and thus are The One Consciousness. Thus we in concert are and create and are the driving force or Mind behind Consciousness Space in all of its features and functionality. Simultaneously, we are time sharing our beings as IUOCs as virtual selves in order to participate independently within virtual realities such as NPMR and PMR. Tom has spoken of this as an alternate way to view our selves and The One as one integral fractal thing that is in fact every thing and the only thing that exists. When we as individual IUOCs reach the point at which we can comprehend this fractal existence as integral parts of The One Mind/Consciousness and simultaneously as Individuated Units Of Consciousness, engaged in the mutual expression of our existence, developing our individual selves through interaction and simultaneously The One into every more complete expressions of individuality and yet the expression of the power of this One Thing as ever more complete understanding of Itself, reduced entropy. This is the context of 'love' as it is used by Tom. Love of the Whole, this Union, for its constituent parts and of the constituent parts for each other and of this Union, in recognition of this Union, this integral and mutual relationship.
So is it any wonder that you have difficulty with these fiddly little details when you start to apply love and develop an understanding of love in our PMR social context and what 'people' do with each other and to each other. This is frankly why I am leery of the bald use of the word love without putting more into the context to clarify what is meant. This is not a criticism of Tom's choice of usage of love for this so all encompassing concept. I can understand why he chose this approach, having basically no choice in a PMR reality within which there is in fact no word for what he needed to convey. So he uses a word that is no less difficult to understand than alternatives that he might have chosen. This is just as he chose a more linear, discrete object based conception embedded within PMR concepts of his model within My Big TOE. To approach this from the direction of science and within a society speaking English, what choice did he have? Things and relationships and interactions and rule sets are the nature of the scientific world view and must be expressed in the language of our society. But once you go so far with this world view, you come up against the need for some of the imagery of the mystical viewpoint in order to further approach to the truth in the comparison, the conflict of these two points of view. Thus it was not that long ago that he first spoke of a fractal Union as all one thing as the need arose.
http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewto ... er#p14350