The meaning of love...

[Rei]

Okay I figured... since we have a "the meaning of life", we might as well try to tackle a similarly... controversial idea.

I was doing one of these stupid surveys my friend has today, and there's always some stupid question asking something related to 'love'. So here I am, with my brain going on trying-to-make-sense-out-of-nothing overdrive...

I have yet heard a satisfactory explanation or definition of 'love' - a term that people throw around way too much, sometimes without even really knowing what it means to them.

The fine line between 'love and lust' - where do you draw it? The word 'love', anyone want to venture an attempt to explain/define it? Or do you think the word 'love' is essentially meaningless. Or that it simply means different things to different people? And if the latter is true, how do you know what your definition is? And is there a possibility the definition can change?

[OneBadMother]

Love is definitely one of those things that means different things to different people. For me it means liking and respecting someone a great deal, to the point that what other people would consider flaws in their character are trifles to you. You acknowledge they have flaws, but they are far from deal-breakers. It doesn't have to be romantic, and love seems to have to be combined with some sort of lust for there to be relationship potential. Lust is easy to define, so I won't bother. :P

[GOD]

Okay I figured... since we have a "the meaning of life", we might as well try to tackle a similarly... controversial idea.

I was doing one of these stupid surveys my friend has today, and there's always some stupid question asking something related to 'love'. *So here I am, with my brain going on trying-to-make-sense-out-of-nothing overdrive...

I have yet heard a satisfactory explanation or definition of 'love' - a term that people throw around way too much, sometimes without even really knowing what it means to them.

The fine line between 'love and lust' - where do you draw it? *The word 'love', anyone want to venture an attempt to explain/define it? *Or do you think the word 'love' is essentially meaningless. *Or that it simply means different things to different people? *And if the latter is true, how do you know what your definition is? *And is there a possibility the definition can change?

I'm not exactly sure of your age and sex, I'm thinking early twenties and female? Anyway, I'll answer this question from what I've seen of the world.

Firstly, I'll flip to my F side. I'm 88 on the T...

Well, love can encompass affection for a large range of people you know, whereas Lust is preserved for those that meet the gender/age etc range that you are physically interested in. Pretty obvious.

However, I guess you are talking lust/love in the similar gender/age category.

I actually believe that people have varying capacities to "love" and that "love" is effectively a dependency. Mostly based on emotions and I suspect "depressive" tendencies are a major part.

So, "love" is a function of the growth of the dependency primarily through time and disposition. The "I" is introverted with generally fewer social connections and perhaps more likely to be more depressive so I'd expect they could be more capable of the definition of "love" to a greater degree.

To me, I'd say the younger you are the more you're going to get the lust/love thing all messed up. Sheeze, that’s why being early twenties, is the best and worst time of your life. e.g., if you're under pressure with your courses away from home and everything else then you end up vulnerable to the notion of finding "true love". *I think College/University is more of a place of lust, love can be better observed by actions over an extended period of time (3 months +).

One thing though, you do have an advantage in that you are aware of different pysch profiles... think of all the intj's making horrendous errors with their understanding of the E,S & F people....

[Rei]

Love is definitely one of those things that means different things to different people. For me it means liking and respecting someone a great deal, to the point that what other people would consider flaws in their character are trifles to you. You acknowledge they have flaws, but they are far from deal-breakers. It doesn't have to be romantic, and love seems to have to be combined with some sort of lust for there to be relationship potential. Lust is easy to define, so I won't bother. :P
Respect, definitely one of the biggest factors imo; respecting someone enough to bend a little. It's almost, trusting the person enough to allow them to cross the line. Flaws... maybe this is idealistic, but I think you've hit the jackpot if you see the person's flaws as assets. My opinion on lust is not very high as I don't think it lasts very long. I'd readily switch it for devotion instead.

[hr]

Firstly, I'll flip to my F side. I'm 88 on the T...

On a recent scoring... I'm 100 (T), 8 (F). Frankly I don't think too much about this, so when asked (eg in a survey) I'm completely at a loss for words.

Anyway, I'll answer this question from what I've seen of the world.

...

Well, love can encompass affection for a large range of people you know, whereas Lust is preserved for those that meet the gender/age etc range that you are physically interested in. Pretty obvious.

However, I guess you are talking lust/love in the similar gender/age category.

I actually believe that people have varying capacities to "love" and that "love" is effectively a dependency. Mostly based on emotions and I suspect "depressive" tendencies are a major part.

So, "love" is a function of the growth of the dependency primarily through time and disposition. The "I" is introverted with generally fewer social connections and perhaps more likely to be more depressive so I'd expect they could be more capable of the definition of "love" to a greater degree.

The reason I posted this here was so I could see what a T's explanation/experiences would sound like. And the result is great. It's amazing how much more sense it seems to make.

I do wonder how love in family works too. The way it "exists" without explanation bugs me :-X
I suppose this is where words like affection, devotion and such fit.

To me, I'd say the younger you are the more you're going to get the lust/love thing all messed up. Sheeze, that’s why being early twenties, is the best and worst time of your life. e.g., if you're under pressure with your courses away from home and everything else then you end up vulnerable to the notion of finding "true love". I think College/University is more of a place of lust, love can be better observed by actions over an extended period of time (3 months +).

Anyway love/lust... Okay I guess I have that down pretty pat solid; maybe I meant more "obsession" rather than "lust" (I hate how my technical vocabulary is lacking here).

As for being in early twenties and mixing up love and lust. (any other testimonies?)

Because I'm not so sure about that... by my early twenties, I may be so fed up that I'll have decided to be an "old maid." I don't know if this has anything to do with MBTI type, but for me, the more uncertain I am, and the more pressure I'm under, the less I want to deal with the whole "find true love" quest. Because I don't want someone else to "making things better" for me. Similarly, I would be too busy with myself to be fair to my 'true love'.

I sound like I'm having a love affair with myself don't I? ::)

One thing though, you do have an advantage in that you are aware of different pysch profiles... think of all the intj's making horrendous errors with their understanding of the E,S & F people....

What do you mean by these "horrendous errors"?

[wolf]

There are better languages for this discussion. English and other western-european languages are notoriously-vague in this respect (in fact, most European languages). Greek is better, but still insufficient.

It doesn't have a uniform meaning so I have extreme difficulty with the concept or expressing it because it's so ambiguous.

[thegnat]

Noun

* S: (n) love (a strong positive emotion of regard and affection) "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love"
* S: (n) love, passion (any object of warm affection or devotion) "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for cock fighting";
* S: (n) beloved, dear, dearest, honey, love (a beloved person; used as terms of endearment)
* S: (n) love, sexual love, erotic love (a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction) "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love"
* S: (n) love (a score of zero in tennis or squash) "it was 40 love"
* S: (n) sexual love, lovemaking, making love, love, love life (sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people) "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life"

Verb

* S: (v) love (have a great affection or liking for) "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him"
* S: (v) love, enjoy (get pleasure from) "I love cooking"
* S: (v) love (be enamored or in love with) "She loves her husband deeply"
* S: (v) sleep together, roll in the hay, love, make out, make love, sleep with, get laid, have sex, know, do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away, have it off, screw, fuck, jazz, eff, hump, lie with, bed, have a go at it, bang, get it on, bonk (have sexual intercourse with) "This student sleeps with everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve"; "Were you ever intimate with this man?"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A dictionary definition. So it apparently has a definition ;)

[qwerty]

What is love?

From my point of view as a 24 year old male. Love is not focusing on the small things in a bad way (stopping worrying about the small details, don't fret over spilled milk). Accepting a person and putting your trust in them. Being completely irrational and letting go of the fears that hold you back (I guess this is why it's hard for rationals to fall in love).

Lust is different, there isn't ever any trust given that you don't want to give away. Giving a person this trust and not expecting anything in return is one of the hardest things I can imagine.

Love is mutual - there is no such thing as 1 way love.


But hey maybe I'm wrong and maybe that's me leaning to the feeling side. Maybe after all is said and done love is just a word we use to make lust sound better.

[OneBadMother]

Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

[qwerty]

Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

See this is where I draw the begining of irrational conclusions about love.

Unrequited love is technically not love in my books. You can't love someone without them loving you back, otherwise it's just lust. So love is formed from both partners at the same instance falling in love with each other. It's an impossible thought because how do 2 people share that bond at the same instance? If one is off then it's an illusion not a fact.

[GOD]

Love is definitely one of those things that means different things to different people. For me it means liking and respecting someone a great deal, to the point that what other people would consider flaws in their character are trifles to you. You acknowledge they have flaws, but they are far from deal-breakers. It doesn't have to be romantic, and love seems to have to be combined with some sort of lust for there to be relationship potential. Lust is easy to define, so I won't bother. :P
Respect, definitely one of the biggest factors imo; respecting someone enough to bend a little. *It's almost, trusting the person enough to allow them to cross the line. *Flaws... maybe this is idealistic, but I think you've hit the jackpot if you see the person's flaws as assets. *My opinion on lust is not very high as I don't think it lasts very long. *I'd readily switch it for devotion instead.

[hr]

Firstly, I'll flip to my F side. I'm 88 on the T...

On a recent scoring... I'm 100 (T), 8 (F). *Frankly I don't think too much about this, so when asked (eg in a survey) I'm completely at a loss for words.

Anyway, I'll answer this question from what I've seen of the world.

...

Well, love can encompass affection for a large range of people you know, whereas Lust is preserved for those that meet the gender/age etc range that you are physically interested in. Pretty obvious.

However, I guess you are talking lust/love in the similar gender/age category.

I actually believe that people have varying capacities to "love" and that "love" is effectively a dependency. Mostly based on emotions and I suspect "depressive" tendencies are a major part.

So, "love" is a function of the growth of the dependency primarily through time and disposition. The "I" is introverted with generally fewer social connections and perhaps more likely to be more depressive so I'd expect they could be more capable of the definition of "love" to a greater degree.

The reason I posted this here was so I could see what a T's explanation/experiences would sound like. *And the result is great. *It's amazing how much more sense it seems to make.

I do wonder how love in family works too. *The way it "exists" without explanation bugs me *:-X
I suppose this is where words like affection, devotion and such fit.

To me, I'd say the younger you are the more you're going to get the lust/love thing all messed up. Sheeze, that’s why being early twenties, is the best and worst time of your life. e.g., if you're under pressure with your courses away from home and everything else then you end up vulnerable to the notion of finding "true love". *I think College/University is more of a place of lust, love can be better observed by actions over an extended period of time (3 months +).

Anyway love/lust... Okay I guess I have that down pretty pat solid; maybe I meant more "obsession" rather than "lust" (I hate how my technical vocabulary is lacking here).

As for being in early twenties and mixing up love and lust. *(any other testimonies?)

Because I'm not so sure about that... by my early twenties, I may be so fed up that I'll have decided to be an "old maid." *I don't know if this has anything to do with MBTI type, but for me, the more uncertain I am, and the more pressure I'm under, the less I want to deal with the whole "find true love" quest. *Because I don't want someone else to "making things better" for me. *Similarly, I would be too busy with myself to be fair to my 'true love'.

I sound like I'm having a love affair with myself don't I? *::)

One thing though, you do have an advantage in that you are aware of different pysch profiles... think of all the intj's making horrendous errors with their understanding of the E,S & F people....

What do you mean by these "horrendous errors"?

Hmm... Reading everyone’s replies it seems most of you have experienced love in an admiration type of way. That’s good; it’s great to be naive. Like the people that spend their lives to acquire material trappings of wealth as some proxy of self worth... :-X

Obsession, well, I think that is more prevalent once again for the "younger" intj that perhaps has been more introverted and ends up with a g/f b/f that is say more E etc. Hence, you get a massive clash of styles. The intj is trying to keep the relationship close and personal, and the E is doing the outward circle of friend’s thing. If the INTJ is I because they are "emotionally introverted rather than socially excluded" then they can get obsessive as they run around trying to protect their emotions from the outward circle the E has. Worse still they try to logically work out their partner and if fries their brains. Pattern recognition is like seeing pictures in a relationship that don't exist... some people are simply random.

I think being an old maid, if it’s a conscious decision may be more indicative of protecting yourself. It just depends if it’s set against having numerous potential of other interested "parties".
Plenty of people at college/university simply keep away from the r/ship lust/love thing simply because they know it can throw them off their studies into failing the course.

[Rei]

Being completely irrational and letting go of the fears that hold you back (I guess this is why it's hard for rationals to fall in love).
I think it's why it's hard for rationals to believe they are in "love"
How can you diagnose something that you can't find the definite symptoms for?

Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

See this is where I draw the begining of irrational conclusions about love.

Unrequited love is technically not love in my books. You can't love someone without them loving you back, otherwise it's just lust. So love is formed from both partners at the same instance falling in love with each other. It's an impossible thought because how do 2 people share that bond at the same instance? If one is off then it's an illusion not a fact.
So do you believe altruistic acts toward someone who doesn't share the same feeling is just lust?
My definition of lust is more like a purely physical desire/need.

If the INTJ is I because they are "emotionally introverted rather than socially excluded" then they can get obsessive as they run around trying to protect their emotions from the outward circle the E has. Worse still they try to logically work out their partner and if fries their brains. Pattern recognition is like seeing pictures in a relationship that don't exist... some people are simply random.

I think being an old maid, if it’s a conscious decision may be more indicative of protecting yourself. It just depends if it’s set against having numerous potential of other interested "parties".
Plenty of people at college/university simply keep away from the r/ship lust/love thing simply because they know it can throw them off their studies into failing the course.
Randomness is not an INTJ's strong point. :-/

As for the idea of protecting oneself.
I can't really agree with, nor object to this. It's been mentioned that to be in love is almost to have a weakness. To reject this weakness is a way of protection. At the same time, it could also just be a decision that is better off for both parties. There are people out there who 'love' each other, but are inherently completely incompatible. In that case, to be seperated is a move for the betterment of both parties.

[Firelie]

Heh, the only way I can tell I love someone is if I don't want them to go away after a few hours. [smiley=wacky.gif]

[OneBadMother]

Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

See this is where I draw the begining of irrational conclusions about love.

Unrequited love is technically not love in my books. You can't love someone without them loving you back, otherwise it's just lust. So love is formed from both partners at the same instance falling in love with each other. It's an impossible thought because how do 2 people share that bond at the same instance? If one is off then it's an illusion not a fact.

Sure you can. A parent can love a child without the child automatically loving them back. Not all parents do, but it's quite possible. You're thinking of love too much in the romantic sense. You can hold someone in the utmost affection and esteem, still acknowledging their flaws and not really caring, without being attracted to them. You can love someone in the sex you're not even attracted to. Granted, there does need to be that connection, but that respect is the basis of that connection, and as long as you still feel that, it is a continuation of that connection. The only way I can see your argument is if you say that they don't really know that person they love well enough, in which case it's not lust, so much as silly impulsive love. We INTs don't give away our affections that easily, however, so we might not understand it well enough. :P

[qwerty]

Being completely irrational and letting go of the fears that hold you back (I guess this is why it's hard for rationals to fall in love).
I think it's why it's hard for rationals to believe they are in "love"
How can you diagnose something that you can't find the definite symptoms for?

Symptoms include: Runny nose, aching joints and involuntary spasms.

Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

See this is where I draw the begining of irrational conclusions about love.

Unrequited love is technically not love in my books. You can't love someone without them loving you back, otherwise it's just lust. So love is formed from both partners at the same instance falling in love with each other. It's an impossible thought because how do 2 people share that bond at the same instance? If one is off then it's an illusion not a fact.
So do you believe altruistic acts toward someone who doesn't share the same feeling is just lust?
My definition of lust is more like a purely physical desire/need.

Well it's more infatuation(I couldn't think of the word yesterday). But same concept - it's a trick of the mind that makes you think you're in love to satisfy your natural instinct to rear offspring with a strong partner.


Hmm, depends on whether you mean love as a verb or a noun. You can love someone without them loving you back. Love as a noun could perhaps be something that can only be shared.

See this is where I draw the begining of irrational conclusions about love.

Unrequited love is technically not love in my books. You can't love someone without them loving you back, otherwise it's just lust. So love is formed from both partners at the same instance falling in love with each other. It's an impossible thought because how do 2 people share that bond at the same instance? If one is off then it's an illusion not a fact.

Sure you can. A parent can love a child without the child automatically loving them back. Not all parents do, but it's quite possible. You're thinking of love too much in the romantic sense. You can hold someone in the utmost affection and esteem, still acknowledging their flaws and not really caring, without being attracted to them. You can love someone in the sex you're not even attracted to. Granted, there does need to be that connection, but that respect is the basis of that connection, and as long as you still feel that, it is a continuation of that connection. The only way I can see your argument is if you say that they don't really know that person they love well enough, in which case it's not lust, so much as silly impulsive love. We INTs don't give away our affections that easily, however, so we might not understand it well enough. :P

Yes I guess I am talking about romantic love, but see that's the point. See this is where emotions get messy :), a parent and child are weird to describe because whereas it is love it's more of an instinct, the parent has an emotion about a child because the child is carrying on their bloodline, and the child can love the parent because it requires protection. So even though I'm going to cop allot of flack for this : family love is love that is instinctual at a different level of romantic love.

Next same sex love.... Yeah you see respect and love still don't exist in the same dimension. They can both have the same level of emotional sway on a person but the 'feelings' you get around a really good friend and someone you 'love' are completely different.

So right about now reading through that it's clear that the definition of love is weird.

To me every emotion exists on a plane that can affect other emotions however in it's pureness can exist alone. Now don't think of a plane as having an inverse in the negative domain.
Hate <---------> love, is not the plane I'm talking about
the plane is ^-^-^-^-^-^ love in points in states. It's possible for me to have love for a person that equates at a certain point in space and time (there is no hate on a love scale).

So in order to describe love we consider the love planes of 2 people - Jack and Jill.

In the beginning Jill has jack on her lust and infatuation scales
----^---- Infatuation Scale
-------^- Lust Scale
^-------- Love Scale (you'll note is zero).
Jack doesn't notice Jill at first or is unsure of her so he plots her on his lust scale based on her looks
---^----- Lust Scale
^-------- Love Scale (you'll note is zero).

Jack and Jill start dating a some point and both of their scales begin to align (the process of love)
Jill
--------^ Infatuation scale
--------^ Lust scale
Jack
--------^ Infatuation scale
--------^ Lust scale.
However both of the love scales are at zero
^-------- Love Scales of Jack and Jill.

Then when all of the trigger scales of Jack and Jill align completely then love happens :)
Love Scale Jack and Jill
---------^ Love happens.

So in the example there is only the maximum of the love scale - and I believe that over time this can rise and fall, it happens the same with both Jack and Jill, and any inconsistency they feel is based on the increase in one of their other scales say infatuation.

So back to the parent child.

Love scale should be Zero for both
^--------- Love Scale
For the parent on birth
----------^ Protection scale
----------^ Instinct to extend the bloodline
----------^ Nurturing
----------^ Infatuation (not in a bad way people).
The higher the rest of your scales are the more you feel you are in love. However only the love scale control actual love.

[Rei]

Well it's more infatuation(I couldn't think of the word yesterday). But same concept - it's a trick of the mind that makes you think you're in love to satisfy your natural instinct to rear offspring with a strong partner.
Then essentially, there's no such thing as love because everything is just a natural instinct to rear offspring? *:suspicious:


Nice love/lust/infatuation scale/explanation though.

[OneBadMother]

But what about with adoption? Then they obviously don't have incentive to nurture what isn't their bloodline, according to your argument. :P

[Iannus Quirinus]

Heh, the only way I can tell I love someone is if I don't want them to go away after a few hours. [smiley=wacky.gif]

QFT. ;D

[qwerty]

Well it's more infatuation(I couldn't think of the word yesterday). But same concept - it's a trick of the mind that makes you think you're in love to satisfy your natural instinct to rear offspring with a strong partner.
Then essentially, there's no such thing as love because everything is just a natural instinct to rear offspring? :suspicious:


Nice love/lust/infatuation scale/explanation though.

Thanks, scales are true because they look mathematical.
But see that's the point I'm trying to make. Love in it's purest form is irrational, hence no amount of graph proof can logically summerise it.

It's one of those things we believe exists because we think it does. Or at least that's how I see it.

But what about with adoption? Then they obviously don't have incentive to nurture what isn't their bloodline, according to your argument. :P

Ahh but Adoption fills another human desire and that is to feel useful. When a mother can't have her own children or isn't directed by her instincts to rear a child herself, she can replace the nurturing side of her instincts by caring for another child.

Remember the greatest strength that humans have is that we are a collective. We have difficulty seeing ourselves this way and our desire to 'protect the hive' as it were isn't as strong as a bee because whereas instincts drive us, we are ourselves able to disregard it at certain points in time.

[GOD]

Well it's more infatuation(I couldn't think of the word yesterday). But same concept - it's a trick of the mind that makes you think you're in love to satisfy your natural instinct to rear offspring with a strong partner.
Then essentially, there's no such thing as love because everything is just a natural instinct to rear offspring? *:suspicious:
Nice love/lust/infatuation scale/explanation though.

Wouldn't agree entirely, I saw a girl on the tube on Friday evening as I came back from work and she looked really down. I really thought I should almost go over and put my arm around her and just say, it'll be ok.

I think it is possible to love people simply because they are good and just.

Not everything is about sex.

[Rei]

Thanks, scales are true because they look mathematical.
But see that's the point I'm trying to make. Love in it's purest form is irrational, hence no amount of graph proof can logically summerise it.

It's one of those things we believe exists because we think it does. Or at least that's how I see it.

Yeah, leave it to a rational to see love as a mathematical pattern of scales.

Wouldn't agree entirely, I saw a girl on the tube on Friday evening as I came back from work and she looked really down. I really thought I should almost go over and put my arm around her and just say, it'll be ok.

I think it is possible to love people simply because they are good and just.

Not everything is about sex.
That's my point exactly. Not everything is about sex, that is why I actually think love is technically different from lust, though the difference from infatuation is a little harder to draw. There's something that makes every person - even certain animals - 'feel' the need to make people feel better. (There are statements about how pets comfort their owners when they feel down.)

Which makes me wonder - again - what love really is.
What the behaviour is caused by.
Whether it extends into the rest of the animal world. We know that feelings of affection and loyalty come from the cerebral cortex, which means it probably restricts this 'feeling' generally to mammals...

[Elizabeth9999]

love is the opposite of hate ;)

[OneBadMother]

Hehe, some would argue that love and hate are seperated by a very thin line. Those are the people you avoid getting into relationships with. :P

[Rei]

Hehe, some would argue that love and hate are seperated by a very thin line. Those are the people you avoid getting into relationships with. :P
Pride and Prejudice...
A strong emotion like hate can easily be flipped 180 into another strong emotion on the other end of the spectrum. All it takes is something good about the person to shock/move you into seeing things you were too stubborn to see before.

[qwerty]

Hehe, some would argue that love and hate are seperated by a very thin line. Those are the people you avoid getting into relationships with. :P
Pride and Prejudice...
A strong emotion like hate can easily be flipped 180 into another strong emotion on the other end of the spectrum. All it takes is something good about the person to shock/move you into seeing things you were too stubborn to see before.

It's interesting you say this as it is something I observe everyday except on the opposite side, when a couple breaks up and it's not mutual then you'll find that the person who's been dumped will generally express the love in a hateful way.
E.g. Girl gets dumped - the guy who dumped her becomes a jerk and she will try anything even negatives to get his attention back. Whereas guy who dumps girl is like 'oh well, seeya' and doesn't do anything about the girl.

[deicruxified]

to be honest... this is some thing i still can't grasp.

[Rei]

to be honest... this is some thing i still can't grasp.
YEah... well me neither.
That's what I'm here trying to figure out.
Though I'm quite sure 'figuring out' is not the way to... grasp it, I still try lol...

It's so annoying that it doesn't make sense *sigh*

[qwerty]

I guess another way to view it is like Schrödinger's cat. It doesn't exist and neither does it not exist until you open the box.

[Nomad]

How about love is a chemical reaction in the brain caused by hormones. This is an evolutionary strategy designed to produce a feeling of well being and concern for a fellow living thing, because humans survive best, as pointed out, as a collective or herd species. We survive better in groups, and with adjunct to several domesticated species. This chemical reaction has several effects of which helps guarantee the species will continue. If a person has this reaction on a regular ongoing basis, it has a number of physiological benefits, ie, lower stress, longer life span, better immune functions, etc.

In the absence or sudden cessation of said chemical reactions, like a breakup, the differences in response can be attributed to gender reproduction strategies. If a female is dropped, her status drops. She has made a significant investment in time and resources in catching the male and keeping him, because her reproductive strategy is a long term commitment. She is (usually) smaller, physically weaker (but more able to handle pain) and she will be hindered for nine months while gestating, and many of her resources will be devoted to raising a small child. She needs the safety, security, status and calories the male can provide. If she loses that commitment, her chances if successfully passing her genes on are greatly reduced.

The males strategy is short term. His best strategy is to spread his genes as far and as wide as possible. In theory, a woman can produce as many as twenty children her life. Most women can't, it's just too much, and if stressed excessively, a woman will die in childbirth. A male can produce literally thousands of children, mostly it depends on opportunity.

That chemical reaction helps keep these tendencies in check, at least a little. Ever hear of the seven year itch? Funny coincidence that it takes about seven years for a human to be self sufficient enough to contribute to it's own existence, and the adult male is no longer so necessary.

We tend to think of these things in modern, empirical terms, but it's really just biology, because we are really just animals. Smart animals, but animals just the same.

That being said, love is grand, best thing we have in life, wouldn't trade it for all the logic in the universe. Girls are cool. [smiley=love.gif]



-Nomad

[qwerty]

Chemicals can cause false love too like dopamine...

Studies have shown that if 2 people share a traumatic experience their dopamine levels are heightened and attraction is stimulated. So if I want a girl to love me I just have to take them skydiving or take them out of their comfort zone.


Dopamine is commonly associated with the pleasure system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities. Dopamine is released (particularly in areas such as the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area) by naturally rewarding experiences such as food, sex,[4][5] use of certain drugs and neutral stimuli that become associated with them. This theory is often discussed in terms of drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines, which seem to directly or indirectly lead to the increase of dopamine in these areas, and in relation to neurobiological theories of chemical addiction, arguing that these dopamine pathways are pathologically altered in addicted persons.
Wikipedia Reference (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[deicruxified]

Chemicals can cause false love too like dopamine...

Studies have shown that if 2 people share a traumatic experience their dopamine levels are heightened and attraction is stimulated. So if I want a girl to love me I just have to take them skydiving or take them out of their comfort zone.


Dopamine is commonly associated with the pleasure system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities. Dopamine is released (particularly in areas such as the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area) by naturally rewarding experiences such as food, sex,[4][5] use of certain drugs and neutral stimuli that become associated with them. This theory is often discussed in terms of drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines, which seem to directly or indirectly lead to the increase of dopamine in these areas, and in relation to neurobiological theories of chemical addiction, arguing that these dopamine pathways are pathologically altered in addicted persons.
Wikipedia Reference (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
hold some girl hostage lol...

[Rei]

Chemicals can cause false love too like dopamine...

Studies have shown that if 2 people share a traumatic experience their dopamine levels are heightened and attraction is stimulated. So if I want a girl to love me I just have to take them skydiving or take them out of their comfort zone.


Dopamine is commonly associated with the pleasure system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities. Dopamine is released (particularly in areas such as the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area) by naturally rewarding experiences such as food, sex,[4][5] use of certain drugs and neutral stimuli that become associated with them. This theory is often discussed in terms of drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines, which seem to directly or indirectly lead to the increase of dopamine in these areas, and in relation to neurobiological theories of chemical addiction, arguing that these dopamine pathways are pathologically altered in addicted persons.
Wikipedia Reference (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Yeah, that would probably be why in all the movies, all these people in crises fall in love. =/

The thing about Nomad's post though.
Do you think animals need to love to continue the species then? I mean, it's perfectly possible for humans to hae sexual intercourse without the presence of "love".
So essentially, imho, you didn't define love, you've defined lust.

[Nomad]

No, I've defined both. Both love and lust are products of hormones. The hormones that cause the feeling of what we call love exist to provide a positive feedback to aiding and assisting another, hence we have families and people and animals we care about, because mutual help helps assure survival.It's been shown that constant interaction and close contact strengthens these bonds. it's in an individuals best interest to aid those who can help him. So chemical reactions in the brain provide positive feedback to mutual assistance.

Lust is related and intertwined. Studies have shown that some strong sexual attractions have there basis in pheromones and complementary immune systems. It gives subconscious signals through your olfactory system that if you mate with this person, you will produce a strong child with a good immune system, That's what that "BAM, into bed do not pass go" desire comes from. It does not mean they will be a good mate or parent, it means the child will be strong. In a perfect world, you get both. But sometimes you just get an asshole.

Do animals need love? Animals have shown loyalty to mates beyond what we would call reasonable. If you isolate individuals in certain species, they tend to lethargy, lack of appetite, and can even die. Swans rarely survive the death of a mate. It seems clear to me that if you isolate an individual, and it shows clear signs of what we would call depression, and even hasten it's own death by not eating, well, they are feeling something.

-Nomad

[ThisTimeAround9]

"To love is to value." -Ayn Rand

Yes I created a profile just to say that. =)

Cheers.

[Solaris]

Just an observation here: NT's, especially NTJ's seem prone to overthinking everything. This is especially funny when overthinking emotion. We spend all this time trying to make sense of something that does not operate on logic, nor fit into any system we can create.

I've observed, also, that NTJ's (particularly INTJ's -- but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) seem to have to make all these little tests before ever approaching somebody for a romantic relationship. I do it. I am pretty sure my INTJ friends do it, but they are private with it, so I can't know for sure. I analyze everything, and then extrapolate. I extrapolate to the furtherest time I can, and see whether I think the relationship would succeed or fail. This stops me from actually acting, which is odd, because I am usually all about acting. However, acting upon an emotion is...like trying to figure out how to function on Pluto. I'm not afraid, usually, to just tell a guy I like him. But if I decide I like a male friend....well that's much more complicated and I can't seem to get moving forward ever on that.

To me, the meaning of love is more about helping each other reach full potential, explaining the bits of the world to each other that you don't get, communicating in a meaningful way, and shared core values and some overlapping interests.

[Rohsiph]

To me, the meaning of love is more about helping each other reach full potential, explaining the bits of the world to each other that you don't get, communicating in a meaningful way, and shared core values and some overlapping interests.

I agree.

I would like to expand a little on your observation, as I think I also agree with most of what you claim there. Particularly, I've found that immediately after the rare instance of acting upon an emotion, I tend to find myself trying to distance myself from the particular action as much as possible, such that I look for some form of escape for several hours during those hours in which processing (overthinking) the situation would be easiest/most effective.

It's annoying, the tendency in general, especially when witnessing the absence of this problem in "common" folk. It seems to be a deficiency, yet I am consistently compelled to try justifying it as a strength peculiar to my (our?) kind: the laissez-faire attitude towards relationships looks entirely destructive when approached theoretically, yet the overthinking method almost never seems to pan out (thus far, actually never in my personal experience).

[GOD]

Love... yeah.

Thats natures signal to procreate. Love seems to wear off after 7 years which coincides with child self sufficiency.

I could say love is extended infatuation... and is only maintained by closing down potential other mates...

But that would be hard to swallow even for the most ardent INTJ's..... ;D ;D ;D

[jtskinner]

"Biological models of love tend to see it as a mammalian drive, just like hunger or thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. There are probably elements of truth in both views — certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin) and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by their conceptions of love." From Wikipedia's entry on love.