我幾乎從不說「我愛你」，因為我認為這毫無用處，以這種方式對某人表達複雜的情感，未免太過廉價。

聽到人們說「愛」、「恨」、「我愛你」、「我恨你」這樣的詞句，他們究竟想表達什麼呢？在我看來，如此貶損誤用「愛」這類詞語，其實只會讓它們變得瑣碎無聊，毫無意義。

我們真能狂妄地用「愛」這個單詞輕易指稱，定義，分類，量化極端複雜，質性的情緒光譜嗎？在我看來，這些詞語被頻繁濫用以形容人類最深層次的狀況。甚至，用幾個同樣的詞來描述動態的、不斷變化的情感，同時又期望不損害其存在和本質，這合理嗎？自然語言形式符號和個人內心世界的感官經驗之間，究竟如何聯結對應？

「愛」、「喜歡」、「恨」這些詞語往往含有許多預設，我希望自己的思想能克服超越其限制。在各種語言中，「愛」所指稱的是透過人類理解詮釋，極端複雜，廣大的放射型範疇。在這複雜無比的放射性範疇中，沒有單一的定義或充要條件能涵蓋「愛」所有的具體事例、感覺、或感官經驗。

像「我愛你」、「我恨你」這類語句是普同性的後設敘事，但強度和欲望是異質，暫時，片段的。因此，詞語不能涵蓋生命能量的自由流動—時而流動循環，時而增強的欲望之流。

基於本質上的限制，語言文字必然凍結、固定、麻痹欲望與感覺的流動和強度。有成千上萬難以察覺，微妙的強度和欲望，難以用書面/口頭的語言表達。一兩個詞語絕不能捕捉瞬間倍增逸散的欲望。

當人們隨意依自己的目的濫用「愛」字，預設前提是他們所傳達和溝通的欲望是單一，統一，客觀存在於世上的實體或現象。但我們所感受的，或以概念去理解的感情和欲望，絕不是統一，普遍，可量化的。世界獨立於我們的心智而存在。有些客觀存在的現象範疇，能以單一邏輯或幾組普同性詞語表徵及隱喻概念來定義，但任何感覺和情緒，皆不屬於這些單純現象範疇。換句話說，我們平常概念化理解內心感官經驗並表達的方式，和語言本身所能提供的方式，並不一致。

「愛」本身是個理想化的合成術語，是為了在符號系統裡指稱某種特定的感覺而定。當我們努力使別人體會我們的感覺時，預先假定對方是以同樣的方式用著這些詞。

但是沒有兩個人會對「愛」這個字詞有一致的見解，更不用說僅有自己才能真正知道自己是否有某特定感受，別人只能根據我說出的字詞來假定我的感受。一個特定詞指涉的概念，與在你腦中同一個詞的概念並不相同。

當我說到「愛」，這個詞從我口中吐出，拋進世界，而你把它跟腦海中的概念搭配起來。然而，儘管我們說著共同的語言，同一個詞，但我們只能膚淺地理解，「原則上」對該詞的意義達到共識。

我是這麼看的：感覺和感官經驗是類型上的不同，而不是程度上的不同。其性質可以表現出來，卻無以言說。就算「愛」或者對「愛」的理解可以傳達，也不能在字面語言中以與傳達科學知識或實證證據一樣的方式來達成。我們必須牢記：真正想說的，卻難以言喻。只能透過非語言的表現讓對方感受。

當我用「愛」、「喜歡」、「迷戀」這些詞來機械地表達我的感覺時，便預設了這些情緒只是量上的不同，是可測量的（「你愛他多少」？），而事實上並非如此。我們似乎傾向將情緒想像成靜態，獨立，不可改變的實體－在廣大的空間中存在著可分割的一連串「狀態」，像具有連續性的光譜，我們從並列的情緒中擷取出一種，由此產生出一種情緒。

但是從現象學來說，我們的內在現實和直覺現實具有不同的「類型」，內在現實本身即是流動和持續。但因為我們的思考模式習慣於系統劃分絕不可分的事物，以不連續的，序列性的心理機制來思考，我們往往依靠各個詞語，將詞分派對應到空間中不連續的物質上。彷彿我們內心世界的存在和改變需要語言的輔助才能感覺和理解。但我用這些詞的時候，始終提醒自己，人類經驗和感覺是一道廣大的光譜，我們總習慣用一些框架，依照差異和強度，用詞語來為經驗、感覺做分類。這些不同的詞語僅是一些人為的標籤。而經驗和感覺是不同的「類型」，它們總是不一致，並總在變化。

當我們用一個詞來指稱對應一種感覺時，就等於量化測量質性的感覺「類型」。感覺總在流變，我們卻假定感覺是客觀，機械，普同性的景物，能用序列性的書面符號，依邏輯再現。

以電信的比喻來說，在無形的內在寬頻行動光譜中，人們習於標注「定位點」，使思想和語詞得以依附。但在此過程中，我們也就此臣服，掉入語言規則、約束和限制的陷阱。人們用語言拼寫出字詞來量化，客體化，分類主觀的感覺，與此同時，也就貶低，失焦，喪失了未經修飾，原初的第一人稱觀點的私人直覺現實，而這觀點難以與代表世間事物的符號一一對應。

因此我認為，為了傳達個人的感覺，而用一個「愛」字把各種獨特，「分門別類」，不斷流變的感官經驗籠統概括進一大靜態範疇內，是一種暴力，是缺乏一致性，不夠妥切的態度。

I almost never say "I love you" because i think it's useless, and a cheap way to express a complex feeling to someone.

When we hear people speak of the words "love" and "hate", or the phrase, "I love you" or "I hate you", what do they really mean? It seems to me that the word "love" is so beaten down upon, corrupted, and misused that it really makes the word trivial; and ultimately meaningless.

But can we really use a single word like "love" to define, categorize, and quantify a hugely complex spectrum of qualitative emotions that we arrogantly dub the word "love" to? The way I see it, words are abused too often and are too arbitrary to describe human conditions at their deepest levels. Is it even justifiable to use a couple of the same words to describe emotions that are dynamic and are constantly in flux without undermining their presence and essence? What exactly is the relation between formal symbols in natural language and the private sensations of inner life?

Words like "love", "like", and "hate" carry many presuppositions that I want to try to overcome and think beyond. The word "love" is a word in language that designates a humanly construed, radial category of immense complexity. In this extraordinary complicated radial category, there is no single definition or of necessary and sufficient conditions that covers and defines all the cases, feelings, and sensations of love. 

Phrases like "I love you", or "I hate you" are universal and meta-narrated, where intensities and desires are heterogeneous, temporal, and fragmented. Therefore, words cannot contain the free flowing of life energy - energetics of desire that is circulating, flowing, drifting, and intensifying.

Words and language consequently freeze, immobilize, and paralyze the flow and intensities of desire and feelings due to their physicality. There are thousands of imperceptible and micro-intensities and desires that escape and overflow out of the physicality of written/spoken words in language. A word or two can never capture the break-flow of desires that multiplies in lines of escape.

When people throw around the word "love", and abuse it to meet their means, they are presupposing that the desire they are trying to convey and communicate is a single, unified entity or phenomenon existing objectively in the world. But desires like "love" [or any other types of feelings] that we conceptualize and feel, is anything but unified, universal, or quantifiable. Sensations and emotions of any kinds do not simply designate an objectifying existing category of phenomena, defined by conditions that operate within a single logic or sets of universal representation of words and metaphorical concepts in our mind-independent world. In other words, the way we normally conceptualize and express the sensations in our inner lives is inconsistent with what language itself can provide.

"Love", in itself is an idealized and synthetic terminology within a sign system that we point to in order to match a particular sensation with when we try to make other people feel what we feel while presupposing that the person we are speaking to has also agreed to use it that way. 

But no two people can ever come to an agreement of what the word "love" feels like to the person speaking the word. Not to mention that only I can really know whether or not I feel a particular sensation, the other person can only assume to know how I feel based on a word I utter out. The concepts that are connected to a particular word are distinct from the concept of that same word in your head. When I speak of the word "love", I am pointing to and throwing a word out there into the world so that you can match it with the concepts that exist in your mind. However, even though we share the same language and can both speak of the same word, we can only superficially understand and agree upon the meaning of that word "by principle". 

The way I look at it, feelings and sensations are different in kinds, not in degrees. Sensations and feelings are qualities that can be shown, but they cannot be said. If love or the understanding of love is to be conveyed, it cannot be done in literal language in the same way that scientific knowledge or empirical evidence is conveyed. We have to keep in mind that what we really want to say or stated is ineffable, therefore, it has to be conveyed another way: it has to be shown and felt. 

When I mechanically express my sensations using the words "love", "like", and "infatuated", I am presupposing that these emotions are quantitatively different in degree that is measurable ("how much do you love him?), when in fact, it is not. We tend to think that we can produce a particular sensation in succession of spatially divisible "states" that can be truncated from a larger spatial spectrum of immobile, distinct, and juxtaposed sensations that is still and could never be modified. 

But phenomenologically speaking, our inner and intuitive realities are distinct in 'kinds', in a mobile and indivisible habit and effort that is constantly modified and becoming. Mobility and duration is inner reality itself. But because it is the habit of the minds to methodically divide the absolutely indivisible and think in a discontinuous series of psychological efforts, we tend to dwell on individual words by corresponding them to a discontinuous spatial substance; as if the presence or the change of our inner life needs a linguistic support to be felt and understood. But I always have to keep in mind when I use these words that these different words are merely artificial tags within sets of framework that we use to categorize degrees of differences and intensity of a vast spectrum of human experiences and sensations. That experiences and sensations are different in 'kinds', and are inconsistent and always changing. 

By dubbing and matching a word to quantify a qualitative 'kind' of feeling that is always in flux, we are assuming that feelings are universal spectacles that are objective, mechanical, and could be logically represented using sequences of written symbols. 

Again, people are used to assigning "fixed points" to their mobile spectrum of indivisible inner broadband to which they can attach thought and words. And by doing so, we are simply giving in and falling into the trap of linguistic rules, constraints and limitations. When people use language to quantify, objectify and categorize subjective feelings by spelling them out, they are in one way or another, undermining, distracting and subtracting from the rawness and authenticity of the private intuitive realities of the first person perspective that could hardly correspond to symbols or things in the world. 

That's why I think to take a single word "love" in order to try to communicate your feelings by lumping together all "kinds" of idiosyncratic sensations that are in states of constant flux into one big and static category is a violent, inconsistent, and inadequate gesture.