The question I'm trying to reflect on is the nature of love and, ultimately, that of human perception - love that is invoked by and yet independent of its object, while it can never be perceived apart from it, and perception operating within a system of images or archetypes that are, like any canon of 'systematized' notions, illusory and yet not without truth, in that its truth lies in its necessity. Every word, in its core, is a symbol, and this is true even of thought in its pre-verbal stage at the moment when it becomes a system, a fixed code, which then gives rise to the signs and symbols of language. As such, it assumes a reality that is functional in that is does indeed perceive, communicate, respond and shape. But it always retains a certain limitation. Its code cannot grasp and describe reality one to one. Hence there always remains, at the very heart of our thought and speech, a dimension beyond. In this sense, love, which I consider the deepest form of cognition, has got a name (and an image, namely that of lover and beloved), which is, however, unable to express it fully, and hence, it also has none. This is of course true of any form of inspiration or revelation, also in the spiritual or religious sense. Reality can be perceived only when reflected by an eye that sees beyond itself, a mirror that leads out of and beyond its reflection.

You've expressed some beautiful words that conjure up all kinds of thoughts, but I, like your concern about a name, with my feeble faculties, have failed to understand your meaning.

Ron

This is a most thought-inciting poem, Mahdi. Thank you for sharing it. Love and peace to you,

Regis