It is so amazing that in this age of "enlightenment", a phenomenon 'love' upon which so much depends, still cannot be defined. Something upon which so much depends I insist has to be knowable i.e it must have constituttive elements assuming a certain form rendering it identifiable - a disposition - that which is observable - that which can neither be hidden nor denied.
What the notion of "falling in love" really postulates to me is 'acting on the desire' caused by instictive attraction to what is seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted, pressuposing the object of attraction to be 'the right thing' informed by pre-determined definition of what is right, which could be true or false. By this, one is tempted to conclude that understanding 'love' is tied to what may be truthfully defined as right. No one expects their lover to deliberately do them wrong. What if the "loved one"'s perception of 'right' is the direct antithesis of the "lover"'s.
Given the above, in my attempt to seize the power to define, love can be understood to be an act consisting in doing what is right to and for one another. So, love is the action, bonding is the emotion. I think love is not that which one "is fallin in" but rather, with the right knowledge of it, that for which one has to rise.
LOVE IS MIGHTY!