[ElJefe]

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

[funkyzeit]

BABY DON'T HURT ME, DON'T HURT ME, NO MORE!!

I don't really believe there is love as they teach us. It's more a positive emotional reaction to someone who fulfills your needs. Once you stop needing them you lose your "chemistry". That's why players and other attractive people have an easy time skipping from relationship to relationship.

[Bill]

Nice articel though not much new.

[Don]

[Cr33pin]

[Apollo]

*Delete*

[ElJefe]

Well, clearly there is various levels of love.

Oxytocin is the feeling of love that your brain is engineered to create in order to maximize evolutionary fitness. That's what being in love means and why it's so ephemeral. It's designed to last just long enough to make one baby every five years.

That is love, the feeling.

To love, the verb, can reflect that - but in our society, especially in the Christian sense, it reflects a far more powerful imperative that we all behave altruistically towards each other. Love thy neighbor and so forth. The economically logical answer to the canonical prisoner's dilemma is to take the Faustian bargain rather than cooperate. Only a high level of trust can overcome that incentive, and a culture that endorses altruism/love of strangers can generate more socially optimal outcomes. A society that fosters cooperation outside of the clan will have a powerful competitive advantage over societies that don't. The Anglo-Saxon world vs. Southern Italy and the Middle East being famous examples.

[Icarus]

Love is like Bigfoot:

[Bill]

(04-23-2014 07:37 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Well, clearly there is various levels of love.

Oxytocin is the feeling of love that your brain is engineered to create in order to maximize evolutionary fitness. That's what being in love means and why it's so ephemeral. It's designed to last just long enough to make one baby every five years.

That is love, the feeling.

To love, the verb, can reflect that - but in our society, especially in the Christian sense, it reflects a far more powerful imperative that we all behave altruistically towards each other. Love thy neighbor and so forth. The economically logical answer to the canonical prisoner's dilemma is to take the Faustian bargain rather than cooperate. Only a high level of trust can overcome that incentive, and a culture that endorses altruism/love of strangers can generate more socially optimal outcomes. A society that fosters cooperation outside of the clan will have a powerful competitive advantage over societies that don't. The Anglo-Saxon world vs. Southern Italy and the Middle East being famous examples.

Yes it can be that the christian system had major benefits but we don´t know for shure. Many christian folks were destroyed by islam in the middle east. The romans were quite successful without christianity. Maybe it was even there demise.

Maybe the west was able to dominate later not because but in spite of christianity. But we will never know.

I don´t think europeans "loved" their neighbors in that sense. I would say quite the contrary. There strong point was their rationality imho. Northeren guys are more rational, southern guys more emotional.

[heatherkiernan]

there are different love at different situation and each people have their own view to that..

[Jackreacher]

"It starts at the beginning of the relationship: A man and a woman are initially separate, they meet, fall in love, feel totally accepted, appreciated and loved for being who they are ... everything is rosy. They want to spend all their time together, the sex is marvellous … until the love diminishes, the ‘honey-moon’ is over, and they start feeling their separation once more. This brings frustration, they blame each other for not being loving enough. ‘You never bring me flowers any more’, or ‘You are no longer the sexy woman you once were’.

One starts to become irritated by the other’s character traits – which one used to find so endearing when one were in love – one starts to niggle, one begins to pick fault, one attempts to hurt the other. One picks a fight, after which there is often a silent going your separate ways. One feels bad. The one who ostensibly started the fight begins to feel sorry: if there is sufficient remorse, the other will forgive. The love flows again, one makes promises, trust is restored – one has ‘made-up’ – until next time, that is. This entire process of love, hurting, anger, remorse, forgiveness and then love again is learned behaviour. And nobody seems to question the validity of this time-honoured process. Does it work? Does it produce a lasting intimacy? Does it produce perennial peace and harmony? Does it produce perfection? Is there something original, authentic, genuine, that will?

‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are in two separate camps; it is as if they are two different races. So they start from separation ... and love seems to promise to bring them together, to provide the intimacy they all long for. But my question is: why are humans separate to start of with? Is it an actual separation – apart from the physical differences – or have humans been trained into an artificial separation? Is one not conditioned to think – and feel – as a ‘man’ and as a ‘woman’? Has one not taken on a gender identity and think and feel it to be ‘me’? So is there not an artificial entity, an ‘I’, that one takes to be me as I actually am? One’s most intimate ‘being’ is a fiction anyway, so any gender identity overlaid is equally false. If ‘I’ am false, artificial, then any connection – a bridge – between two psychological entities can only be as artificial as the separation itself.

Love is this bridge. Love is artificial. Being artificial it needs constant stimulus to keep it ‘alive’. Therefore, the moment it starts to sag, the cycle automatically swings into action; frustration, niggles, fights, hurt, resentment, remorse, repentance, forgiveness, promises ... then back to love and trust again. Although everybody promises each time, in contrition, to forgive and forget, they never do. The promise to forgive and forget is never carried out. The hurt, frustration and anger is unconsciously stored away, adding to the already existing resentment that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ feel toward each other for being separative in the first place. This entire process has no chance of producing anything other than an artificial intimacy."

[void]

Fuck, you captured it. The only question is, can we love in a different way? I accepted that I can not change other people, and that they probably are who they seem to be.

[Jackreacher]

(05-06-2014 06:20 PM)void Wrote:  

Fuck, you captured it. The only question is, can we love in a different way? I accepted that I can not change other people, and that they probably are who they seem to be.

There is the much lauded Divine Love or what you could call unconditional love which although superior to normal love is still fatally flawed in delivering the goods. Either way you have a better chance of being a millionaire then you have of experiencing Love Agapé.

"Please, do not confuse what I am talking of, which is an actual intimacy, with True intimacy. True intimacy lies in the delusory nature of Love Agapé, with its Divine Bliss. One can become lost in the Eternal Mystery, the Great Unknown. Beguiled and bewitched by the promise of Glory and Glamour and Glitz, one has every reason to be afraid ... one will have fallen under a Divine spell, intoxicated by The Sublime. Actual intimacy is innocence personified; a self-less experience characterized by blitheness and gaiety because of the marked lack of separation. There is no distance, psychologically speaking, between me and these birds, these flowers, these trees ... and between me and you. Actual intimacy has nothing to do with love ... love is a bridge between two separate social identities, creating the illusion of intimacy. And Love – Love Agapé or Divine Love – gives one a feeling of Oneness, a feeling of Unity ... an intuitive sense of ‘Being’. Then we are back to ‘being’ again, this time ‘Being’ with a capital to denote Divinity. ‘Being’, in whatever form, is the root-cause of all the ills of humankind."

There are perks to Lova Agapé though sure. It's probably the strongest aphrodisiac in the world.

[The PerSev]

It's not that I necessarily believe in the sappy, romantic notions of True Love or whatever but I think the efforts scientists always make to explain love(and other human traits such as morality, altruism etc.) through an evolutionary/biological perspective are misguided. To put it bluntly it's like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

[Icarus]

Schopenhauer on the metaphysics of love:

Quote:

Rochefoucauld says that love may be compared to a ghost since it is something we talk about but have never seen, and Lichtenberg, in his essay Über die Macht der Liebe, disputes and denies its reality and naturalness — but both are in the wrong. For if it were foreign to and contradicted human nature — in other words, if it were merely an imaginary caricature, it would not have been depicted with such zeal by the poets of all ages, or accepted by mankind with an unaltered interest; for anything artistically beautiful cannot exist without truth.

[DJ-Matt]

[Samseau]

The feeling of love is no more artificial than the feeling of hunger. Those who do not feel hunger die from starvation, and those who do not feel love most likely fail to reproduce and spread their genes.

[Jackreacher]

(05-07-2014 06:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The feeling of love is no more artificial than the feeling of hunger. Those who do not feel hunger die from starvation, and those who do not feel love most likely fail to reproduce and spread their genes.

Actually the feeling of hunger is as artificial as the feeling of love. When the body is truly hungry there are physical sensations, stomach growling for example. The feeling of hunger is different, it is a craving for some food, cake, pizza, etc.

Love is man made, sharks aren't very loving for example. It too is a craving, the normal type of love is anyway.

[iknowexactly]

(05-07-2014 04:03 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Schopenhauer on the metaphysics of love:

Quote:

Rochefoucauld says that love may be compared to a ghost since it is something we talk about but have never seen, and Lichtenberg, in his essay Über die Macht der Liebe, disputes and denies its reality and naturalness — but both are in the wrong. For if it were foreign to and contradicted human nature — in other words, if it were merely an imaginary caricature, it would not have been depicted with such zeal by the poets of all ages, or accepted by mankind with an unaltered interest; for anything artistically beautiful cannot exist without truth.

There's no God, and people believe in that.

Jung addressed that well (both his father and grandfather were pastors) when he argued that if many people believe something and you ignore it, you ignore the psychological reality of the situation.

So although there is pretty obviously no Holy Caretaker who gives a shit except to torture many living things to the cruelest degree possible, it makes sense to take account of the idea of "God" in one's examination of psychology.

A similar situation exists with love, although I would guess most atheists still feel they have been in love.

My favorite verse on this is from Bob Dylan:

Love is all there is, it makes the world go around
Love and only love, it can't be denied
No matter what you think about it
You just won't be able to live without it
Take a tip from one who's tried.

The way I feel about from experience as someone with strong pair-bonding circuitry, is that if love doesn't exist it might as well, because it feels real.

[kosko]

You give off vibrations. Everybody does. Sometimes those frequencies mesh and match with a mate. Nobody says that vibration match lasts forever or entirety but its there.

When your deep into your mind trance after draining your balls and you have taking energy out of a woman there is some cosmic shit at play. Sometimes you have to crack it open but there is a spell that gets cast on me for a short time and its not something I can just dismiss.

Love and hunger is a good analogy. It only really persists until its satisfied. I can love deeply until I feel that that love has been satisfied and then I no longer will be in love. I am not a cold cynic to say that love doesn't exist. Half of us wouldn't be around if those cosmic forces didn't dupe are fathers into our mothers and attempting to keep them around (if you grew up with them both) to raise you.

Even minus the church and other artificial institutions the basic raw premise of love exists. Its all part of the forces of energy and vibrations we can't really comprehend. Its there but few can really describe what it is, but denying it is juvenile and naive IMO.

Love is forever is bullshit.
But love being there is real.

[The Beast1]

(04-17-2014 06:57 AM)funkyzeit Wrote:  

BABY DON'T HURT ME, DON'T HURT ME, NO MORE!!

I don't really believe there is love as they teach us. It's more a positive emotional reaction to someone who fulfills your needs. Once you stop needing them you lose your "chemistry". That's why players and other attractive people have an easy time skipping from relationship to relationship.

UGH ass I wanted to post that!!

[The PerSev]

(05-08-2014 04:11 AM)kosko Wrote:  

When your deep into your mind trance after draining your balls and you have taking energy out of a woman there is some cosmic shit at play. Sometimes you have to crack it open but there is a spell that gets cast on me for a short time and its not something I can just dismiss.

I think it's called post-nut clarity.

[goldensilveronline]

Love is a force of nature.