It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Love Internal or External? A Scientific and Philosophical Look at Love.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Is love internal or external?

Love is defined by Helen Fisher of Rutgers University in New Jersey in three stages and with seven chemicals.

Stage One: Lust
Lust is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen. Lust is what will go after anything.

Stage Two: Attraction
The monoamine chemicals dopamine, norepinephrine (adrenalin), and serotonin, are involved in the attraction process.

Stage Three: Attachment
Oxytocin and vasopressin are the chemicals that keep people together.



According to dictionary.com, love is:

World English Dictionary love (lʌv) — vb
1. ( tr ) to have a great attachment to and affection for
2. ( tr ) to have passionate desire, longing, and feelings for
3. ( tr ) to like or desire (to do something) very much
4. ( tr ) to make love to
5. ( intr ) to be in love — n
6. a. an intense emotion of affection, warmth, fondness, and regard towards a person or thing b. ( as modifier ): love song ; love story
7. a deep feeling of sexual attraction and desire 8. wholehearted liking for or pleasure in something




What then must be done to actuate the chemical reaction necessary to feel love?


New American Standard Bible
1 Corinthians 13:
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


So, according to the Bible, if you want love in your life, you must adhere to these rules.

Also, note that love doesn't have to be just something that is felt in a relationship between two people. You can love anything.

My question is, and I'm sure it is the question several people have. Why is it that when you have love, you feel it as something that is external, like an all pervasive field?

Perhaps it is because what is observed as external is really taking place in the visual cortex of your brain. And the reason that it appears external is because the chemical reactions involved in the feeling of love send information to the part of your brain known as the visual association cortex to make love feel like an all pervasive field.

But why would our brains want to do that? Perhaps, for this most desirable feeling to be effectively established, it must be known that love is an unselfish effort.

Also, I believe it must be taken into consideration what we don't know about ourselves. We assume, since the greatest form of awareness we have observed is self-awareness, we assume that that is the greatest form of awareness. But what if there is something even greater, like collective awareness. It is true that by way of chemical reactions in our brain along with the actions required to bring about this reaction, we are a source of love. But consider that by being a source of love, we act like a beacon. The information generated by our loving selves is externally transmitted like a light to other people to help foster the chemical reactions in their brain.

By the chemical reactions sending information to the visual association cortex to let this emotion seem external and internal in two people, maybe the brain actually does become transparent, and actually does allow for collective awareness to permeate between the two established by love.

If you are one who will say that you have never felt love as external, I will venture out to say that you have never experienced true love, and you should work on that.

I would say that love is internally activated but shines outwards externally like the sun shines light.


edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I guess we know what this scientist does on the first date.

I don't believe there is a straight line (ever) when it comes to how you end up in love with some one.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Those are the explanations of the physical sensations of love - if I take a bullet for you, that, is love.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MzMorbid
I guess we know what this scientist does on the first date.

I don't believe there is a straight line (ever) when it comes to how you end up in love with some one.


I agree. You can become attached to someone w/o lusting over them.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



Why is it that when you have love, you feel it as something that is external, like an all pervasive field?

Maybe because we witness the effects in other living organisms in a reactionary form, as well as sometimes associate some physical connections like hugs or touch. You covered the chemical aspects which are indeed real also, and maybe the energy does create an outward field as well.
I like your bit about collective consc, which is something I feel is genuine and so I do think 'love' is both external and internal, which includes the 'greater' awareness. Sometimes I think love could be part of our survival mechanisms too, in that we strive for harmonious and productive relationships in order to better ourselves and community, which in turn may sustain our species.
Self awareness too, creates empathy in that we understand how others may feel, thus connecting us in a deeper way, and encouraging us to be considerate and compassionate. What separates us from the animal sense of love, although I would say it exists there too, is our greater level of though and experience.
IF there is a force of divinity, well that would surely support these notions too, and be an intrinsic part of our beings and purpose.


I would say that love is internally activated but shines outwards externally like the sun shines light.

Agreed


Peace,
spec



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SystemResistor
Those are the explanations of the physical sensations of love - if I take a bullet for you, that, is love.


When someone is heavily under the influence of the above mentioned chemicals, they may be willing to take a bullet for someone. I explained the physical sensations, the chemicals involved, and the actions that constitute a loving personality.
edit on 8-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You're confusing love and lust my friend...

Love is more then a chemical reaction in your brain, though lust is exactly that. Lust is a drive to procreate which is genetically fixed in our brains. Lust keeps our species alive...

On the other hand, love is not only what you feel for your partner/family/friends. Its a mutual respect for all... Live and let live so to speak.

The love thats spoken about in the bible is exactly that. Which is why many spiritualists tell you "we are all a part of one"... You can not "sin" against your fellow man if you have that love for him/her.

If the world actually held that belief, murder, theft, and all world attrocities would cease to exist because, simply put, you can not hurt those you truely love.

Love is the true path... and lust has nothing to do with it.




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You're confusing love and lust my friend...

Love is more then a chemical reaction in your brain, though lust is exactly that. Lust is a drive to procreate which is genetically fixed in our brains. Lust keeps our species alive...

On the other hand, love is not only what you feel for your partner/family/friends. Its a mutual respect for all... Live and let live so to speak.

The love thats spoken about in the bible is exactly that. Which is why many spiritualists tell you "we are all a part of one"... You can not "sin" against your fellow man if you have that love for him/her.

If the world actually held that belief, murder, theft, and all world attrocities would cease to exist because, simply put, you can not hurt those you truely love.

Love is the true path... and lust has nothing to do with it.



Lust in this sense is being defined as the driving force which causes the desire for love. It's not necessarily referring to being horny.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Love is the true path... and lust has nothing to do with it.

I think they sometimes share the same pathways, but I agree there is a difference and I guess it depends on the definition of lust. Part of love can be desiring the physical connection with someone, and of course when we split hairs, there could be a difference between 'lustfulness' and 'making love'. Like wanting to blank the heck out of someone verses sharing a unity of blissful connectedness. This is coming from a romanticist though.


spec
edit on 8-8-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


As you mentioned, love is purely physiological. Any perceived external feelings are still generated internally. Of course these feelings can be affected by any and all external information and is completely relative to the situation.

In my opinion, walking around as a “love beacon” will not work in all situations as other people's perceptions of you will differ. It isn't physically possible to share love through proximity. The best you can hope to do is inspire love by exuding it in your actions, personality and behaviours.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


In my opinion, walking around as a “love beacon” will not work in all situations as other people's perceptions of you will differ. It isn't physically possible to share love through proximity.



What I was trying to convey was that if love was established between two individuals separately by each individual, then there might be some way for awareness to permeate between and connect the two individuals.

Then the information would be freely flowing and perhaps could be shared in the knowing of this commonality to a point where you feel as one person.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Akragon
 



Love is the true path... and lust has nothing to do with it.

I think they sometimes share the same pathways, but I agree there is a difference and I guess it depends on the definition of lust. Part of love can be desiring the physical connection with someone, and of course when we split hairs, there could be a difference between 'lustfulness' and 'making love'. Like wanting to blank the heck out of someone verses sharing a unity of blissful connectedness. This is coming from a romanticist though.


spec
edit on 8-8-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)


Believe me my friend, im a 32yr old guy... i know exactly what you're talking about. Though again, romatic love is not the same as the love that is spoken about in the bible.

Romantic love is nothing even close to rational, and most times its not even logical. We've all done stupid things that we know is going to get us in trouble in the long run, but because of your feelings towards a certian individual, our rational/logical mind is tossed out the window.

Let me put it this way... If you see a homeless man asking for change.... do you..

A) Ignore him and assume hes looking for change to buy booze...

Or

B) Give him what he asks for regardless of what he wants it for...

This is a small example of Love... there is a correct answer... but how many people will chose the correct one?

look here...

Deuteronomy 15:10
10 You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.

Luke 6:30
30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back


Get the idea?




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Get the idea?

Indeed brother, and yes, that love does trump the romantic kind, whether it is considered 'religious' love or not, it is the kind of love that is the most powerful and effective in making the world a better place, imo.
Thanks for moving the definition beyond love between just two people.

spec



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Although couples do feel connected as one entity, they still remain as individuals with their own purpose. Every feeling of love is generated internally and is not shared. Of course this is opinion only.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


That seems more like pity than love. To pity someone is to suffer along with them. It's nihilistic.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
...the problem with attempting to explain what love is - is that there are countless applications and definitions...

...ie: a narcissist's concept of love is very different from the concept of someone who truly strives to be altrustic... loving your children (which should have nothing to do with lust) is totally different than loving a partner... loving someone who is alive and can reciprocate is totally different than continuing to love someone who is no longer living...

...imo, there is a lot more to love than just that report's very limited views...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
Although couples do feel connected as one entity, they still remain as individuals with their own purpose. Every feeling of love is generated internally and is not shared. Of course this is opinion only.


True, unless they decide to unite in a common purpose. They would be individually carrying out this common purpose, but the purpose itself and the attitude about it would be loving and united.

Love is generated internally and can only be generated internally. But once established, it is my opinion that people become open to each other in such a way as to magnify the feeling of love and to establish more effective communication.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Akragon
 


That seems more like pity than love. To pity someone is to suffer along with them. It's nihilistic.


You're confusing pity with empathy...




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the problem with attempting to explain what love is - is that there are countless applications and definitions...

...ie: a narcissist's concept of love is very different from the concept of someone who truly strives to be altrustic... loving your children (which should have nothing to do with lust) is totally different than loving a partner... loving someone who is alive and can reciprocate is totally different than continuing to love someone who is no longer living...

...imo, there is a lot more to love than just that report's very limited views...


According to the aforementioned scientific definition of love, the love you have between a parent and a child and between a husband and wife aren't that much different.


PARENT-INFANT ATTACHMENT. One of the most important aspects of infant psychosocial development is the infant's attachment to parents. Attachment is a sense of belonging to or connection with a particular other. This significant bond between infant and parent is critical to the infant's survival and development. Started immediately after birth, attachment is strengthened by mutually satisfying interaction between the parents and the infant throughout the first months of life, called bonding. By the end of the first year, most infants have formed an attachment relationship, usually with the primary caretaker. Read more: www.answers.com...


As you mentioned, the only difference between the two might just be the lust factor. However, I would say that in a child's development, the testosterone fueled way of life or the estrogen fueled way of life set an example of what that child is to become. Testosterone and estrogen being the two primary chemicals involved in lust.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I didn't recognize Love in that description at all. Maybe Want, Desire. Whole different concept in my mind.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join