Loving lovely Love
Orthogonally speaking (an almost mellifluous word, destined for overuse.. though 'cellar door' beats it ;-) --
What this now bridge-cable of a thread is really talking around IMO is - the very Huge word 'love' or 'Love' and all metaphysical as well as pop-psych definitions, myths, Wishes and dissembling: as this culture uses a single word for all the Greek (and most other languages') variants. (Then proceeds to sell Product! by making as much allusion to 'It' as an ad can manage in 10 seconds or 10 minutes).
Escaping the definitions, the ideas of 'filial', Platonic etc. such as most here, I expect are well-enough acquainted with by now -- the 'Highest' usage I've encountered of the concept ~ relates {This Idea} to the entire Universe(s) !! its/their operation and basic energy (forget F=MA, dark, light or medium-rare 'energy' etc. 'Spiritual' has too many mere religio- associations to be useful. So What to *Call* 'It' ??)
Anyway, even re psych ideas, maybe Jung captures as much flavour as common language will sustain. Meanwhile, a mere 'parent' would realize that such nuance is utterly untransmissible from one person to another, let alone to a fledgling. In words.
I suspect that certain individuals have a natural propensity for acquiring the (quite more than verbal) comprehension of "how this or that form 'feels'", while at another end of the Gaussian.. reside the real Troglodytes in any culture. Most of us fall where the curve suggests.
Lastly, I think that the most difficult of communications \ufffdconceivable - involve efforts between polarized outliers of that Gaussian. This may be most evident in the particular vehemence of words chosen re certain 'political' propositions and the responses of the 'jury'. Other outlier examples: serial killers, torturers of animals, visionaries of infinite lakes of burning oil for sinners, etc.
\ufffd So very much more difficult with outlier-people than re animals! And anyone who imagines that 'love' is not a force operative between/among the species is a Puritan throwback or has never Noticed anything but gravity. (Not that mere instinctive reflexes seeking food cannot be misinterpreted, yada. There's always room for dumbth)
Meanwhile.. the example of parents who happen to be among those who Love, is said to be the first and maybe most effective transmitters of that Interest which leads to fruition. You can't talk about 'It' directly; you can't logically 'train' for 'It' and (as with wisdom) you can't properly even claim to 'Have' 'It' == only someone else might see It in Action.
Such an enigma is almost always Proof of a kind of cosmic humour. :-\ufffd
Being quite Certain that it is .. I haven't the slightest intention of laughably embarking upon a Proof. as in
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
(Sounds as if your kids are apt to 'make it', though - just a thoroughly-informed Guess, of course ;-)
I'm not a complete fool. Some parts are missing.
Thanks, Giovanni!
Edit - add animals
