I was talking about love, charting ideas, exploring concepts at a client meeting; this was today — the notion of being connected, let’s say for now, spiritually, in a powerful and compelling way – that way of “in” being “in” — being connected to someone in a manner that is psychic, aligned, linked — synchronous, at the nexus. During that presentation — there was that attachment, the idea of enchantment, engagement, and enthrallment.

Being — in the state of thrall, that idea of being fascinated in the witching sense — enchanted and enlivened in the passion — that could be, too: surrender — it’s the reflexive of giving, and giving back. So close, that the giving and the give back — they are the same, they are in.

I look at these two words, questioning:
intimate: from the Latin intimus “inmost” (adj.), “close friend” (n.), superl. of in “in.”
surrender: “to give (something) up,” from the Old French surrendre “give up, deliver over” (13c.), from sur– “over” + rendre “give back” (explore, for reference: render).

Love, intimate — love in, be in love, be enthralled — in that state of thrall, enchantment and trance, drawn to the fire.

In thinking about relationships — whether human, brand, human brand or empire of the senses — the relating is too, the carrying back.

Surrender to love — be in(timate).

Just thinking about it, for a moment.

T | the old Queen Anne Hill
the concept of the love brand: