Love.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What is (romantic) love? A neurochemical reaction that ensures our genes will pass on and our offspring will have two providers? An union of two kindred souls who have found each other amongst thousands of others? Friendship with sex? A recognizion in the other of a wonderful similarity, yet also enough difference to keep things interesting? A construct of the Western society born with the individualism and the humanism of the Enlightenment? All of the above? Something else?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:43 (twenty years ago)

http://www.stars-on-7-inch.com/index_j/jones_howard/what_is_love.jpg

Tuomas having a good old think, yesterday.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:47 (twenty years ago)

Love crops up quite a lot as something to sing about,
Cos most groups make most of their songs about falling in love
Or how happy they are to be in love,
You occasionally wonder why these groups do sing about it all the time -
It’s because these groups think there’s something very special about it
Either that or else it’s because everybody else sings about it and always has,
You know to burst into song you have to be inspired
And nothing inspires quite like love.

These groups and singers think that they appeal to everyone
By singing about love because apparently everyone has or can love
Or so they would have you believe anyway
But these groups seem to go along with what, the belief
That love is deep in everyone’s personality.
I don’t think we’re saying there’s anything wrong with love,
We just don’t think that what goes on between two people
Should be shrouded with mystery

― Flower King of Flies (noodle vague), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:50 (twenty years ago)

It's a construct of the Western society born with the individualism and the humanism of the Enlightenment.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:51 (twenty years ago)

haha

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:52 (twenty years ago)

More like this:

http://gero-schmidt.de/bilder/haddaway.jpg

(xx-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:52 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas and Foreigner, sitting in a tree.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:53 (twenty years ago)

Of course, even if it's a construct, that doesn't mean it isn't real in people's minds and doesn't cause genuine feelings in them.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:55 (twenty years ago)

A recognizion in the other of a wonderful similarity, yet also enough difference to keep things interesting

Aww. That sounds nice :)

― C J (C J), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:57 (twenty years ago)

A chemical reaction, nothing more, a physical and then psychological addiction to the presence of the neurotransmitter Oxytocin triggered by the sexual stimulus of the "beloved".

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 13:58 (twenty years ago)

That doesn't explain the historical and cultural variations in love (or the lack thereof), though.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:01 (twenty years ago)

That makes it sound horribly clinical, Kate.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:01 (twenty years ago)

Cultural interpretations of the psychological/neurochemical processes.

Of course this is all horribly clinical, I'm not "in love" am I?

(I assume that you are talking of Eros and not Agape)

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

every thought in one's mind can be described as chemical reactions really.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, eros.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:05 (twenty years ago)

but that's looking at it at a machine code level, rather than as a higher-level view

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:05 (twenty years ago)

love =

http://d21c.com/walpurgis9/lurid9/0030.jpg

― johnny cash (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:07 (twenty years ago)

love =

http://www.lasvegassun.com/from.ed/2005/jul/01/photos/P000070613.jpg

― aberfeldy (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:08 (twenty years ago)

It's too depressing to think of on any other level.

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:08 (twenty years ago)

What exactly do you mean by a "higher-level view ", Ken? Do you mean that only sophisticated beings are capable of feeling love?

― C J (C J), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:10 (twenty years ago)

love =

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/images/balloonspace.jpg

― the magnetic fields (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:11 (twenty years ago)

Do you mean that only sophisticated beings are capable of feeling love?

The way we see love, most likely yes.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:12 (twenty years ago)

http://www.addictionnetwork.co.uk/images/Gin%20bottle.jpg

― The Magnetic Fields (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:12 (twenty years ago)

What exactly do you mean by a "higher-level view ", Ken? Do you mean that only sophisticated beings are capable of feeling love?

nope! it was an analogy to computer programming, where the same thing can be described in various levels/layers of detail/complexity, and it's sometimes more helpful/unhelpful to view things in the different levels of details

e.g. in a hypothetical case of 'love' as a computer program

you can describe it in a specification level..

program love()
input: people1, people2, situation, attraction
output: dates, snogging, shagging, tears

but you can of course explore it further into the actual mechanics
love(people1, people2, situation, attraction) {

if situation = correct and attraction = exists then
date( people1, people2)
if attractionincreased = true then
snog( people1, people2)
if itwasgood = true then
shag( people1, people2)
if nowyouhateeachother or argument or emotional then
tears = true
}

but then you can also look at how it compiles into machine code (akin to chemical reactions)

01010000101001010010010101111100000000111111111111111100000000001
01111101001010100101001010011010010100101010101001010100000011111
01010100101010100101010011111111111111111000000000000000000000000

which, isn't really so good for us humans to understand and for discussions like in this thread!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:21 (twenty years ago)

10 PRINT "U R ALL GAY";
20 GOTO 10

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:24 (twenty years ago)

i guess what i'm saying is that, even though they're merely chemical reactions doesn't necessarily mean love does not exist. love is merely a notion that encapsulates the complex patterns of neurological/chemical/whatever stuff that goes on.

like how you can drive a car, even though a car is just lots of motors and gears.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:33 (twenty years ago)

haha ste hax0r3d my code

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:34 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas, ma rakastan sua.

― Guymauve (Guymauve), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:35 (twenty years ago)

Kiitos.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:35 (twenty years ago)

Vaikka mä en voikaan varauksetta sanoa samaa.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:38 (twenty years ago)

You had me at "Kiitos."

― Guymauve (Guymauve), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

Kun en tunne sua tarpeeksi hyvin.

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

diu lai lo mo

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

painu vittuum...

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:48 (twenty years ago)

gung hei fat choi

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Haha, do you know what that means? "Vittuun" should end with an n, not an m, though.

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Damn, I even misspell Finnish. There is no hope for me. I believe I just told you all to fornicate off (I hope).

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:51 (twenty years ago)

(I hope it means f*ck off, or our Finn has been telling us all terrible lies!)

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, it's the Finnish way of saying "Fuck off!" (literally: "Go to a pussy!").

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, back to love...

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:53 (twenty years ago)

"Go to a pussy" ?!?!? Really?!?!? Oh, that's even better than I was hoping.

Anyway, erm, sorry. Love. Stuff and nonsense.

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:55 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, the basic Finnish swear word (kinda like "fuck" in English) is "vittu", which translates to pussy/cunt. "Painu vittuun!" is sorta like "Go to hell!", only with pussy replacing hell.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 14:59 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, to derail. I was expressing my love for Tuomas, but my heart now belongs to another. Finicky thing this.

― Guymauve (Guymauve), Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:11 (twenty years ago)

Finnicky

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:12 (twenty years ago)

god how depressingly apt. i have been thinking of very little else for the past X days/weeks.

i wish i knew though.

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:39 (twenty years ago)

I have come to think of Love the way that atheists think of god.

Lots of people act under the delusion that it is real, and plan their lives accordingly, but it makes no sense to me, as I have no experience of it in my life.

― Beauty and the Beastliness (kate), Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:43 (twenty years ago)

I didn't get the meaning of the picture of the balloons, so the clearly meaningful picture of the gin helped reorient me.

― the bellefox, Thursday, 12 January 2006 16:59 (twenty years ago)

B-b-but Kate, if love is only "cultural interpretations of the psychological/neurochemical processes", surely you've experienced it, judging by what you'ev posted here in the past? I guess love is sorta like god in the sense that it's almost impossible to prove it doesn't exist to someone who believes in it. And likewise, if you feel it yourself, no rational explanations will make you feel otherwise.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 12 January 2006 17:15 (twenty years ago)

Love can turn to hate...can it change back again?

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Thursday, 12 January 2006 17:17 (twenty years ago)

I don't think so :(

― C J (C J), Thursday, 12 January 2006 17:47 (twenty years ago)

Romantic Love started being openly acknowledged sometime at the beginning or just before the Renaissance? the mechanics were well in place by _Romeo & Juliet_, at least...

Joseph Campbell wrote a good deal about this, but I've forgotten most of it due to beer destroying my brain. Something about getting married due to love as opposing the Church since you weren't doing it for arrangement, Amor being the direct contradiction of Roma, etc.

― kingfish russian bigamist (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 12 January 2006 17:56 (twenty years ago)

Romantic Love pre-dates the Renaissance. Medieval Chivalry is full of that shit; the point there being that it doesn't have anything to do with marriage and usually takes place between two people married to somebody else. I'm trying to think of stuff earlier which must've been the case, Greek or Latin literature, maybe even the Bible reference Lurrrrrve. (Old Testament, not New.) The turning point - the assumption that Romantic Love was the most important reason for marriage - must have happened at some point after the Renaissance, maybe as late as 17th Century-ish in Western Europe. But that all only really applies to the Rich, since they had land and property to take into account when marrying. I guess the plebs were always more or less free to shack up with whoever floated their boat.

― Flower King of Flies (noodle vague), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

the assumption that Romantic Love was the most important reason for marriage

yeah, there ya go. that's a better way to get at what I was trying to talk about.

― kingfish russian bigamist (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:05 (twenty years ago)

http://img28.exs.cx/img28/2987/cumback.jpg

― melton mowbray (adr), Thursday, 12 January 2006 18:15 (twenty years ago)

four years pass...

"I have come to think of Love the way that atheists think of god.

Lots of people act under the delusion that it is real, and plan their lives accordingly, but it makes no sense to me, as I have no experience of it in my life."

Imagine someone else who witnesses this expression and feels the same way. Some of their most personal feelings would be stirred at the sight of someone else who grapples with this type of absence. Potentially these two could, in one another, find enough fulfillment of inner-desire to form new beliefs about "love" and to refill that shared absence in their own unique (artistic?) ways.

No? Yes? Maybe?

― bi(g_n)arbbran, Sunday, 7 February 2010 04:26 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.