Love?

Etu Malku

Mercuræn
Messages
1,439
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is the feeling of sexual desire; romantic attraction determines what partners mates find attractive and pursue, conserving time and energy by choosing; and attachment involves sharing a home, parental duties, mutual defense, and in humans involves feelings of safety and security. Three distinct neural circuits, including neurotransmitters, and also three behavioral patterns, are associated with these three romantic styles.
Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.
Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals Oxycontin and Vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have.
 
The Greeks had many words ... eros, agape, philia ... quite distinct.

Thomas
 
In my opinion, such a view of love (as psycho-chemical driven emotional response) misses some of the more important kinds of love Thomas refers to. Love from G!d or love for G!d just does not relate well. We may want to call it something else or qualify Fisher's notion of love as "romantic love".
 
Interesting, EtuMalku.
Thanks for sharing this.

I wonder if all 3 types of love are cyclical besides also being progressive.
Obviously, we mature & don't stay limited to one, but possibly as we progress in stages, we occasionally feel lust & attraction, besides attachment.
 
Love is like happiness; it does not exist. It happens. As happiness is made up of happy moments, love is expressed when the emotions are flared up into the cathartic state of physiological achievement. Since love is an emotion it cannot be commanded. The word "love" is called for to embellish respect, mercy, charity and many other feelings that do not translate our good deeds to satisfaction.
 
I don't think much of this particular 'expert'. Very consumerist.
 
G!d is love....if love does not exist...neither does G!d...

Yes, God is love, but we are talking about man to whom some of the divine attributes were granted for man to have, not to be. Hence, man is not love as God is love. The concept of love is eternal; hence God Who is eternal is love.
 
Man is not love....Man loves, eros, agape, familial....

But in post #5 you said Love does not exist.... now you agree that it does? Is this correct?
 
What a load of jaded, confusing, self-contradicting hogwash. Why bother even posting such nonsense? No one is getting anything out of it, I'm fairly certain. Yes, it is true that some people can have a Ph.D. or a lifetime of education, and still have no real conception of love, because of a childhood full of traumatic experiences, or molestation, or abuse. But to say that love is just a cathartic experience, an emotion or an orgasm ... is, otherwise, an immediate indicator of the relatively low degree of spiritual evolution of the person evincing such views. Here again, the proof is in the pudding. We're dealing with someone educated far beyond his innate capacity - and IT SHOWS.

I don't think anyone here is missing this, nor do I know of anyone so confused about life, death, God, Love, or apparently, their own Purpose and role in things. Please, man, GET HELP, and get it FAST.
 
Man is not love....Man loves, eros, agape, familial....

But in post #5 you said Love does not exist.... now you agree that it does? Is this correct?

In man it does not exist. Didn't I say I was talking about man and not God? God is love but what man has is embellished with the word "Love" but it is not love. It could be respect, mercy, charity, but not love. Love is so much more that it can be attributed only to God without any embellishment of it.
 
What a load of jaded, confusing, self-contradicting hogwash. Why bother even posting such nonsense? No one is getting anything out of it, I'm fairly certain. Yes, it is true that some people can have a Ph.D. or a lifetime of education, and still have no real conception of love, because of a childhood full of traumatic experiences, or molestation, or abuse. But to say that love is just a cathartic experience, an emotion or an orgasm ... is, otherwise, an immediate indicator of the relatively low degree of spiritual evolution of the person evincing such views. Here again, the proof is in the pudding. We're dealing with someone educated far beyond his innate capacity - and IT SHOWS.

I don't think anyone here is missing this, nor do I know of anyone so confused about life, death, God, Love, or apparently, their own Purpose and role in things. Please, man, GET HELP, and get it FAST.

If you are trying to impress some one, he or she must be a Hindu person. A Jew won't pay for balderdash. Why don't you become a Christian to make your frustration a little easier to bear?
 
In man it does not exist. Didn't I say I was talking about man and not God? God is love but what man has is embellished with the word "Love" but it is not love. It could be respect, mercy, charity, but not love. Love is so much more that it can be attributed only to God without any embellishment of it.

If you are trying to impress some one, he or she must be a Hindu person. A Jew won't pay for balderdash. Why don't you become a Christian to make your frustration a little easier to bear?

Who is frustrated?

I don't lack love, nor do I lack the ability to love. So sorry you are missing out.
 
Who is frustrated?

I don't lack love, nor do I lack the ability to love. So sorry you are missing out.

God is love; man is not. Man might have love but as an embellishment of other virtues. What one has it can be taken away if not by any other motif, by death. What one is he is no matter what. Only God is Love.
 
Back
Top