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

reply to post by smithjustinb


Great thread! S&F.

I can't think of anything to add, but just wanted to thank you for the great thread

Originally posted by Open2Truth
I didn't recognize Love in that description at all. Maybe Want, Desire. Whole different concept in my mind.

Well I edited the thread in order to reduce any misconceptions about what I think love is. I understand how love as defined by the scientist lady is an incomplete definition, but is used primarily to explain the chemical reactions involved in all forms of love.

Originally posted by mossme89
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Great thread! S&F.

I can't think of anything to add, but just wanted to thank you for the great thread

edit on 8-8-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)

Thank you, glad I could entertain you.

We become obsessed with a lover, we think we are in love, feeling love. Really we are in love with love. The other person is not the object of our love. We are comsumed by the feeling.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

A certain opinion about love.
What is love?
Look at nature and you will be close to know love.
Love isn't attachment, love isn't possession, love isn't sexual or asexual, love isn't intellectual ...and yet love give and ask nothing in return.
Like a wise man said before; look at a tree that give shade to the one that will bring it's end with the an axe....the tree give shade without any discrimination. (maybe Jesus was a tree...).
And the very difficult thing to understand is the very rare property of love which is that love is blissfully unaware of it's self ....look at a child!
And the best of the quality of love is freedom...the moment attachment , control or conflict enter the equation then love is gone...when all this adjective above disappear then love comes again like it never left.
See you...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
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.

...really hung up on the lust thang, huh?... dont worry, it'll slowly morph into a vague memory over the next 30-40yrs - maybe sooner if you raise a bunch of kids...

...testosterone fueled vs estrogen fueled is like comparing a peterbilt to a freightliner - purty much pointless unless vanity counts...

...more often than not, the type of adult a child becomes has more to do with their environment than their brain chemistry but thats jmo...

I think the initial hormones of lust lead the start of love forming...Then the long term hormones of love take over.
I honestly think some people have trouble making or retaining these hormones. I have a friend who can't maintain a long term relationship to save her life! She always cheats at about that 1 1/2 to 2 year mark. She craves the rush hormones of an early relationship.....she cant "feel" long term love with anyone! She also has no desire to have children.
Babies and mothers brains and bodies are washed in oxytocin after birth, raised by nursing and skin to skin contact. That helps build the long term connection, completely bypassing lust and sexual hormones...
Mothers who are kept away from their infants may lack that true bond.
This happened to my mother and her mother. My grandmother had a brain bleed shortly after my mothers birth and was in rehab and not around my infant mother....as a result their mother daughter bond was strange and odd. Almost like she had to force herself to "love" my mom. Very sad!
It doesnt even have to be your own baby though, adoptive mothers and babies have the same rush!

However I think of sociopaths like casey anthony (baby killers) for instance or chronic cheaters (who throw away good relationships for the rush of an affair)..maybe they just have an inability to truly love anyone, child or mate for a lack of hormones. If there was someway to boost these hormones, could they be stable loving people? Is it some form of brain damage to hormone producers, or to hormone receptors
Anyway, I have thought about this for a long time...its interesting.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
We become obsessed with a lover, we think we are in love, feeling love. Really we are in love with love. The other person is not the object of our love. We are comsumed by the feeling.

So love becomes a mission. When we limit ourselves to who or what we can love, we are limiting our interactions with love itself and thereby limiting how much we can love.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by smithjustinb
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.

...really hung up on the lust thang, huh?... dont worry, it'll slowly morph into a vague memory over the next 30-40yrs - maybe sooner if you raise a bunch of kids...

...testosterone fueled vs estrogen fueled is like comparing a peterbilt to a freightliner - purty much pointless unless vanity counts...

I don't think that's a really good analogy. Testosterone provides masculine tendencies while estrogen provides feminine tendencies.

...more often than not, the type of adult a child becomes has more to do with their environment than their brain chemistry but thats jmo...

The brain chemistry of its parents is the child's environment. The child's own brain chemistry will bias that child especially depending on its gender in regards to how it respond to its environment.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
We become obsessed with a lover, we think we are in love, feeling love. Really we are in love with love. The other person is not the object of our love. We are comsumed by the feeling.

So love becomes a mission. When we limit ourselves to who or what we can love, we are limiting our interactions with love itself.

...i think what they meant is that lots of people fall in love with the idea of being in love and its a narcissistic kind of thang that has little to do with the person they focus their obsession on...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
We become obsessed with a lover, we think we are in love, feeling love. Really we are in love with love. The other person is not the object of our love. We are comsumed by the feeling.

So love becomes a mission. When we limit ourselves to who or what we can love, we are limiting our interactions with love itself.

...i think what they meant is that lots of people fall in love with the idea of being in love and its a narcissistic kind of thang that has little to do with the person they focus their obsession on...

Perhaps, but also perhaps this is what is required for love to be effective in the first place. I'm saying the relationship between you and the emotion is proportional to the relationship between you and the object.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...testosterone fueled vs estrogen fueled is like comparing a peterbilt to a freightliner - purty much pointless unless vanity counts...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I don't think that's a really good analogy.

...how about a blue car vs a pink car?...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Testosterone provides masculine tendencies while estrogen provides feminine tendencies.

...i dont see it that way... i believe we all have feminine and masculine aspects and that gender-specific tendencies are a construct of society...

...ie: a male who likes to always dress nice and enjoys doing his own housework is considered "feminine" - and - a female who hates to dress up and enjoys getting greasy working on her own vehicles is considered masculine - but - thats just learned prejudice...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...more often than not, the type of adult a child becomes has more to do with their environment than their brain chemistry

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The brain chemistry of its parents is the child's environment.

...no, lol... a child cannot / does not live within the confines of its parents brain chemistry...

...if you had worded it as "the physical manifestations of the parents' brain chemistry" that wouldve been somewhat realistic but very rare because a child would have to be reared in a sequestered lifestyle that prevents any other humans from interacting with the child...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The child's own brain chemistry will bias that child especially depending on its gender in regards to how it respond to its environment.

...yep, brain chemistry is a factor - but - it is not the only factor nor is it always the dominate factor... gender has nothing to do with it... society's biased opinions of gender can affect response but not gender itself...

The internal voltage that produces a current in the material of spacetime, which builds a bridging device toward other animates (and inanimate objects as well so be carefull not to "love" "things") that are also being impacted by and within spacetime. Hate also peforms the same bridging. Love is an energy that builds across the bridging mechinsm. Spherical multiplication and addition. Hate is an energy that destroys across the bridging mechanism. Spherical division and subtraction.

This bridging mechism permits LIKE FORMATS OF ENERGY to travel in both directions, both into the host generator as we as the obvious out from the host generator, with equal ease. So be careful what bridges you build.

reply to post by smithjustinb


First, there are different kinds of love-- at least philosophically, religiously and etymologically.

Second, the quote from the Letter of Paul as list of "rules:" I'm curious, from where does that originate? I am under the impression that there is general agreement that Paul writes of a descriptive ideal, but not of rules.

Originally posted by tkwasny
The internal voltage that produces a current in the material of spacetime, which builds a bridging device toward other animates (and inanimate objects as well so be carefull not to "love" "things") that are also being impacted by and within spacetime. Hate also peforms the same bridging. Love is an energy that builds across the bridging mechinsm. Spherical multiplication and addition. Hate is an energy that destroys across the bridging mechanism. Spherical division and subtraction.

This bridging mechism permits LIKE FORMATS OF ENERGY to travel in both directions, both into the host generator as we as the obvious out from the host generator, with equal ease. So be careful what bridges you build.

The current MATERIAL of time is the recording medium (much like the disk or tape material for digital recordings) into which all spacetime displacements, kinetics of those displacement and voltage presence of those displacements are induced all the while this spacetime recording medium spherically floods down and inward, from everywhere, toward everywhere (originating out from the infinite expanse) toward the one infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal singularity.

It is where YOU exist forever and where you go to once your recording term completes (death). It is the "underworld", down and inside spherically toward the ONE singularity. It is your goal to place into that recording the open Door out of that recording, established by the bridging mechanism of THE Love, already reaching out to each of us.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Perhaps, but also perhaps this is what is required for love to be effective in the first place.

...you're referring to - being in love with the idea of being in love?...

...i dont know how a successful relationship can evolve from a selfish fantasy but theres all kinds of folks in the world, so theres bound to be some that THAT works for...

...theres a lyle lovett song that says "i married her because she reminds me of you"...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm saying the relationship between you and the emotion is proportional to the relationship between you and the object.

...not always... a psychopath can believe that they love you and that you share an amazingly fulfilling relationship - and - on the other side of the coin, you dont even know they exist...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...testosterone fueled vs estrogen fueled is like comparing a peterbilt to a freightliner - purty much pointless unless vanity counts...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I don't think that's a really good analogy.

...how about a blue car vs a pink car?...

That's better.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Testosterone provides masculine tendencies while estrogen provides feminine tendencies.

...i dont see it that way... i believe we all have feminine and masculine aspects and that gender-specific tendencies are a construct of society...

...ie: a male who likes to always dress nice and enjoys doing his own housework is considered "feminine" - and - a female who hates to dress up and enjoys getting greasy working on her own vehicles is considered masculine - but - thats just learned prejudice...

I see what you mean, and I agree to an extent. A male is still, by his nature, prone to more hard physical labor to provide for the family while a female is responsible for and more capable of taking care of the child.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...more often than not, the type of adult a child becomes has more to do with their environment than their brain chemistry

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The brain chemistry of its parents is the child's environment.

...no, lol... a child cannot / does not live within the confines of its parents brain chemistry...

...if you had worded it as "the physical manifestations of the parents' brain chemistry" that wouldve been somewhat realistic but very rare because a child would have to be reared in a sequestered lifestyle that prevents any other humans from interacting with the child...

Well that's basically what I meant. Let's not get into semantics here. People react to people's emotions, so if a parent is angry, that will bring about a different reaction that if a parent was happy. So the child can either be in an angry environment or a happy environment.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The child's own brain chemistry will bias that child especially depending on its gender in regards to how it respond to its environment.

...yep, brain chemistry is a factor - but - it is not the only factor nor is it always the dominate factor... gender has nothing to do with it... society's biased opinions of gender can affect response but not gender itself...

Like i said, to an extent gender does have something to do with it. It's obvious that the physical characteristics of a man and of a female determine to an extent the kind of life they will live.

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

First, there are different kinds of love-- at least philosophically, religiously and etymologically.

Second, the quote from the Letter of Paul as list of "rules:" I'm curious, from where does that originate? I am under the impression that there is general agreement that Paul writes of a descriptive ideal, but not of rules.

Of course they aren't rules in the context of the bible. But if used as rules, they will have the same desirable effect. Like if you accept it as a rule to be patient and kind, etc. you will come to love fast.

reply to post by tkwasny


Very good. Are you an electrician by chance? I'm going to school to become an industrial electronics technician, and I've used the term voltage and current on here to describe things like this before.

That was a very interesting perspective you have there, I don't think I've ever heard it put that way. But it really is very interesting.