Is not a sentence such as L'amour véritable est impersonnel (true love is impersonal) semantically very pure nonsense?
'Love' cannot have any conceptual existence other than as the interdependent counterpart of 'hate', experienced by A for B, the one a positive, the other a negative, reaction. Their resolution by mutual negation, the mutual negation of positive and negative superimposed, which 'impersonality' requires, leaves a conceptual inexistence which cannot be designated by the term for either counterpart.
Whatever is manifesting them dualistically cannot be any objectifiable 'thing', cannot be anything conceivable, since whatever it could be supposed to be, being noumenal, cannot have any objective or phenomenal quality whatever, and so should not even be referred to as 'it'.
What is thereby suggested noumenally can only be represented by the pronoun 'I', and any phenomenal expression or manifestation thereof other than 'love-hate' must need other terms. Nor can words such as 'bliss', 'felicity', 'benediction' and their counterparts, or even Sanscrit words such as sat-chit-ananda or karuna, be adequate, even if preferable.
The conceptual expression of what is meant, which is an attempt to conceptualise an intuition, would need not a positive affective noun of any kind but, in an abstract intellectual context, an indicative verbal formulation suggesting non-objective relation. That, 'love-hate' could never achieve since it would constitute, manifestly, a contradiction in terms: what is impersonal could never be expressed by what is by definition personal. All this is an attempt to reach positivity by means of a positive - which is an example of self-elevation by means of one's own boot-straps.
Any attempt to express the non-objective in words other than the pronoun 'I', is inevitably impossible and so inevitably absurd. What we are seeking to express can only be what we are: being what we are, we can know it, but, being it, we cannot define it objectively, since 'I' can never define what I am, for I have no objective and so no objectivisable quality whatever.
If we absolutely must chatter about it, by pretending that 'it' is something objective, that is by making an image of it in order to shy coconuts or compliments at it, or if we cannot resist worshipping ourselves by worshipping it - which is what normally is the need we satisfy when we make high-falutin statements about pure, true, or divine love - would we not perhaps be better-advised to use some unpretentious technical term that is less flattering to our ego?
All that can be in question is relation devoid of objectivity, whether it be applied to God or to the phenomenal universe - God here being necessarily objective and so phenomenal. There is no other 'impersonal' relation possible. But being non-objective it must necessarily be non-subjective also, i.e. if the object is not such, is abolished as such, the subject simultaneously ceases to be. What remains is 'I'.
The Christian St. John states that 'God is love:* since there can be no descriptive noun for it, it could hardly be said better, but does that mean that we are entitled to say it about ourselves? The experience itself reminds us of 'love'? Does is not remind us also of 'joy', of 'bliss', of Heaven only knows what else? But all are inadequate and wrong.
Why must we prattle about it at all? Cannot we be content to know it - when we can? Or are we so pleased with ourselves for having experienced it that we must at all costs let everyone know we have had it? If we have experienced it let us at least remember that all experience is necessarily phenomenal and therefore that what we are talking about cannot be 'it'. Love, however ecstatic, is just affectivity. Love-hate can have no existence outside the dualistic universe of sense-perception and personal experience, and to seek positivity via a positive is indeed great folly.
*St. John explains the expression as follows, 'God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.' That is an indirect but quite inescapable way of saying that 'he' and 'God' have no objective relation. The Saint was also a Sage, and he knew what he was saying.
