So for her to say that "love" is or is not this or that doesn't make a huge amount of sense. But then that's because love is a broad and vague concept anyway. Of course, you can easily incorporate those other aspects of love (as I imagine she does in her book) with the micro-moment theory; those are the longings of the person built on them having experienced micro-moments of love. I'm just curious about the physicality thing; how to explain the growing numbers of people falling in love over the internet?You have to physically be with the person to experience the micro-moment. For example, if you and your significant other are not physically together—if you are reading this at work alone in your office—then you two are not in love. You may feel connected or bonded to your partner—you may long to be in his company—but your body is completely loveless.
This is interesting. I think Fredrickson's argument is pretty cool, but it seems to dispense with the connection/bond and the longing to be in another's company, which are generally part of the "love/romance" constellation.