Okay, off the hip, and mad dashes for spelling on Google. For this 'self' the self is not that of the 'self' of Freud's definition of Ego. I prefer and fall along the lines of the symbolic interactionist view. Presented initially with William James with general psychology and then later developed by others like George Herbert Mead. The self is reflexive and malleable. It is comprised of the self as object (the Me) and the self as subject ( the I). These two elements of 'self' interact as a 'self' and of a 'self' within social interactions with anything. Even talking to a rock is an interaction, since the 'I' of Self and the 'Me' of self interact with each other.
For Love I use the treatise of the 'Four Loves' of C.S. Lewis as a guide. Although it parallels the theology of the Christian mindset what is discussed is universal and discovered within other forms of theology and/or religions. And, too, philosophies both of / with gods and without.
Again, for this 'self' it is a matter of acknowledgment, acceptance, and belief of a truth, yet with the same emphasis there is not a circle, more so the fashion of a spinning top that expands with time. Time has only a significance with a point of reference, perception, sensations, and contrast while comparing. Or, both the rational and the empirical are sought while pondering the chicken and the egg.
Back to the future or Love is of Four. Each is different while being of a nature of being universal. Nurture is the key of development. I am going to work from a memory of decay.
Storge - affection
Philia - friendship
Eros - romantic for a word
Agape - unconditional or charity
Lewis explains these with brevity since most understand these as concepts through social learning and association with memory or past 'self' structures.
Storge - pet, another or others, objects, and etc
Philia - occurs with association and interactions with likeness while accepting differences with usually forgiveness, although does not have to condone
Eros - hot topic of debate, yet beyond the human, yet fueled by the sub-human seeking the sensory for perceptions projected as dream, fantasy, connectedness, and the essence of the non-material. Times up
The contrast and consideration of Freud's Ego is it is not intended from this 'self's' understanding to be a social too. It is for analysis or diagnosis of 'another' within a one-on-one setting. My feelings is it can be dangerous of the wrong minded. The Ego structures 'self' as singular.