L¤ve a(s)/a(nd) Curr(e)nts-(e)

Though tangible and likely even downright scientific in nature, it feels as though in order to grasp the fullness of these topics at hand The Bard must be called out, or at least called on, to weave the appropriate level of nonsense into a topic seemingly so jarring yet also like it makes perfect sense (subconsciously) because it must, from all those refracted angles and faded echoes we have seen.

"The topic is love as currency; would you say you've seen, such trades of flesh or blood for the comforts the working of flesh can bring? Why toil with longsuffering every possession from cold void, when an exchange might be made better suited? We haven't all the skill to be the best of all kinds of fields, and we certainly have not here the time. 

The exchange of value along hypothetical lines or placeholding markers is nothing new, but what do these lines represent? 

Currencies show currents, see? Channels set to direct the flow. They can be roots to bring life, or a web to entrap, often in the current sea, they are both. Also in the currents eep, working much like wired machine, voltage throws the spark when a coin is flipped, though these become a matter of perspective, from said perspectives. Still, the bitter coins of the current seas are as e-currents- though electricity and magnetism are always along perpendicular lines, neither coincide with the dimensions where these currents convey power. If one used Euler's e to mark the imaginary circle's breadth, one would find such hypothetical structures were not in fact fanciful, but just out of depth. It is not that coins do not coincide with current, voltage, and power, it is that we cannot see. Do the nodes on a motherboard know they are part of the machine? Does this answer change when the switch is thrown and the spark runs through them?

So the laws of this land are the laws of your mind, just at angles differently aligned. If a coin can be a currency then why not love? I speak not of base exchanges, but if an item as currency is an item who's value has been determined and agreed upon, is counting love as not in this pool not the same as saying it is worthless? Is it not sung in your Song of Songs that 'If one were to give all the wealth of one’s house for love,

    it would be utterly scorned.'? (8:7). Links left dangling aside and aloft, would this not mean once love in true form were minted, perhaps even forged, that all value we can conceive of now would be as shadow and mist? Such a concept is hard to hold, love as currency as is love alone, but while the near infinite and near non-existent, when left uncalculated, may appear as one, this does not make an atom the sun. 

What would we look like, with voltage lines clearly drawn? If we measured this as that correctly, then put true love on the same scales, could we weigh more than a pair of love's 'particles' this way, or would even all other value in this place be scorned as outweighed? It would make sense why so many would fight true love's inception. If it were found one played Monopoly but hadn't a real dollar to their name, how might they fight to keep playing the game? The subconscious mind minds the wallet and in part chooses the game, though the conscious mind must choose to play. It feels folly to fight love's overwhelming boon forever, with but a few fakeish bills to one's name, but when weighing folly's fate it seems only the fool could or would say for certain.

So The Bard ceases his soliloquy, on love as currents and currencies; the river delta and the spark; the voltage between soulmates until the wires of eep are fully strung and the shine of Christmas lights once the switch has been flipped."

So The Bard ceases his soliloquy on love.