We describe specific actions, but the described actions are not the same as the inferred love. We can only infer love with another premise, that such and such actions are indicators of love. But still the actions are not the love itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand your concessions, but I think there may be a confusion between "love" and will or the motivation within, that when you say one can produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out that these motions itself are the subjective inclinations that compel us to act. The activity itself is love, but the determining factor is one compelled by a "good will" - good and love work in unison to moral considerations stemming from reason and guide our subjective actions within the external world. Hence, love is moral consciousness since one cannot act lovingly neither authentically or accurately without the possession of this motivation. Without action, the subjective experience is merely a good will or morality itself and as love - like good - promotes feelings of happiness and euphoria, and as the action itself stems from this very part of ourselves, we confuse that love as an action is actually moral consciousness applied.

Are you saying that this claimed activity, which you call "love", is a type of pursuit? Are all activities of pursuit activities of love then? How is this any different from desire? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but not all activities are of love without first being compelled by a "good will" and the latter must motivate naturally in and of itself rather than solely by duty that lacks the consciousness of the reasoning behind moral demands. We act by being compelled through constraints such as external codes of conduct or regulations rather than an inherent and independent motivation. I think that when you say desire you may have meant 'passions' - desire is a motivation, but as one can be motivated by a desire to apply good will through acts of love (positive), one can also be motivated by a desire to apply irrational passions (ego, instinctual drives) that lacks the same consciousness and reasoning as does acting because that is what other people are doing or telling you to do.

The activity itself is love, but the determining factor is one compelled by a "good will" - good and love work in unison to moral considerations stemming from reason and guide our subjective actions within the external world. — TimeLine

You still don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Each particular activity has a description proper to itself. For instance, I gave my friend my car keys so he could borrow my car. That is an activity. We might conclude deductively that it is a loving activity, with the premise that this type of activity displays love. But there is absolutely no way that the activity itself "is" love, because the activity is identified by the description and is what it is according to the description. To conclude that it is a loving activity requires a further premise.. How do you justify such a claim that the activity itself is love?
It needs to be justified because you keep reasserting it, and building your argument on that unjustified claim.

Yes, but not all activities are of love... — TimeLine

Now you are saying that activities are "of love". This is inconsistent with "the activity itself is love", and demonstrates that you probably do not really believe in "the activity itself is love".

Now you are saying that activities are "of love". This is inconsistent with "the activity itself is love", and demonstrates that you probably do not really believe in "the activity itself is love". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your unrelated propositions make little sense with whatever your objective is; 'of' is to possess love or a description of this trait, while 'is' is the activity itself in the singular. What is your point?

You assert that the activity is itself love, but then you speak of activities as possessing love. Do you not see the difference? Your claim is that love is the activity itself, then you speak of love as a property of the activity. Which do you believe is the truth? Is love the activity itself or is love a property of the activity?

Isn't "love" more a verb than a noun?

I'd say it's a noun, but it's listed in my dictionary as both, and if I say "I love you" it's clearly being used as a verb. However, doesn't "I love you" mean that I have love for you, so the meaning of the verb is resolved by referring to the thing, "love", the noun? So I'd say it's more fundamentally a noun.

If there was an action being referred to when I say "I love you", we could describe the particulars of that action. We cannot though, because there are very many, very different, activities involved with love. Instead, we use "love" as a generality which refers to many different actions. So there are many particular activities which demonstrate the generality, "love". Since it's a generality it's existence as a thing, a noun, is as a concept. It is what we attribute to actions in predication, the action itself being the subject, and love being the predicate, the property, X act is an act of love.

Therefore, "I love you" doesn't really mean that I am engaged in the act of love, because there is no such particular act, which could be identified as the act of love, so this would be utterly meaningless. It means that I am engaged in many different acts, all of which are manifestations of the love which I have for you. Or in the terms of platonic participation, each act, participates in the Love which I have for you, giving that act its meaning, as an act of love. Plato's "The Symposium" provides a very good discussion of "what is love", and the fundamentals for the very important distinction between the passive and active elements of reality. I believe that if we lose track of this distinction, we lose our bearing on reality. We must apprehend the act as coming from the thing. In this case, the thing is the concept of love.

How worthwhile is love which does not have an effect in action? Whether it's filio, eros, storge, or agape, It exists as an action we wish to carry out or do carry out. I would say that the "thing of love" is action from which comes the noun "love".

We love by acting in a family, with erotic objects, or among community.

But whether noun or verb... I don't care.

How worthwhile is love which does not have an effect in action? Whether it's filio, eros, storge, or agape, It exists as an action we wish to carry out or do carry out. I would say that the "thing of love" is action from which comes the noun "love". — Bitter Crank

The effect of love is the action. But the cause, love, is something different from the action. We know that love is distinct from the action which it causes, because each action has a beginning and an ending while love persists, prior to, and after, the effects (the particular actions) which it causes.

We love by acting in a family, with erotic objects, or among community. — Bitter Crank

I agree, we love by acting, but this is to use "love" as a verb. And this fosters the utterly meaningless "I love you" which I referred to. Unless we qualify the act which we are calling "love", any act could be love. You've given numerous examples, but the possibilities are infinite unless we restrict what it means to love. When we enact this restriction, then only particular types of actions can be said to be acts of love. Now "love" does not refer to the act itself, it refers to a category, or class of actions. "Love" is now a noun, referring to a thing, a concept.

We could leave "love" as a verb, referring only to the act of loving. But this leaves "love" completely meaningless because absolutely any act could be said to be an act of loving. So in reality, we use "love" to classify a particular type of act, and this makes love something other than the act itself. Therefore it is more appropriate to say that "we express our love by acting", rather than to say "we love by acting". The latter being redundant, meaning "we act by acting" without the qualifying noun, the concept of what it means to love.