Ideas such as this, speaking of a "unified field" or a "unified consciousness" appeal to me as a sound explanation of what is. They contain a comforting coalescence of mathematics and physics with Buddhist thought and even Jungian psychology. However, I depart from the author's analysis (because I find no imperical basis for it) in its presentation idea that this "field" is "love." Certainly one is free to believe that, or one is free to assume it and act in accordance with it, but I simply don't see anything in my experience or in the author's reasoning that makes it so.
So--I find it plausible that there's an elementary base force at work in all matter and energy that we know of, and that that force is likely not entirely random, but in some measure directed (for example, from organization to entropy). More than that, I know not, except that I can choose to make of that fact whatever I wish. If I wish to call it "love," I may do so, and act accordingly. If I wish to call it "horsefeathers," I may do that, and act accordingly. This, to me, better explains the presence in the universe of people like George Bush or Adolph Hitler, because their existence--and the power they've wielded--are inexplicable if the notion of "love" is imputed to the universal force. These people, and many too many others in human history, have proven to me the absence, not the presence, of any abiding concept of love in the universe.