Why is it that one falls in love ….
….. at the point love is impossible with the other ………”always” is better as “often enough to make me wonder”
Yes, there is that ….
….. but the origins of the patterns I find fascinating …. firstly the attraction to opposites and secondly the cascade of the neuro-chemistry at the point of leaving ….
….. if they are what I think they are then recognition has little to do with things.
All good of course. Idle speculation … some forces are meant to be bigger than us puny mortals.
Here’s my take on it …
…. evolutionary neuro-chemistry, it’s not pie in the sky stuff.
It is advantageous to survival that different mates since their offspring will be stronger, smarter, etc. … spin that around, and the behaviour of being kicked in the back side to go chase that way different partner will have more success and survival and so that trait is a fact.
The second survival kicker is the need to not see a potential mate depart … obviously again, people with the trait to run after the departing partner had more offspring … hence that trait too, is perpetuated.
These are hard wired …. society and its nice ways and manners is very very recent.
And so we have the idea that the heart rules …. this is saying that there is the hard wired needs of our survival heritage that will not take no for an answer …. long may it reign!!!
It’s just that kind of a Saturday morning. As you were. Have a coffee, talk smonsgt yourselves, that sort of thing ….
Yep … I think the closer one is to
being relaxed and letting the truth that is the heart speak, the more fortunate one is.
To try and dictate to the heart … fail.
All I’m saying in this thread is that the heart has some necessary ideas that make a lot of sense and which it reinforces whether we will or not, and rewards us with the massive benefit that love is, in all respects ….. but that heart may not be that conducive to debate.
… my objection lies in the inability
to derive “opposite” ….. in my own experience the neuro-chemical cascade kicks in at “highly unlikely”, where highly unlikely is defined by the individual themselves …. the kicker happens where the person has said to themselves, no way, not going there …. and yet …
Opposites are social states if that … and do not figure.
But the heart is entirely logical ….
….. it rules for the survival of the species. That’s all that love is … except for the so-called “romantics” who read Mills and Boon of course ….
The issues of love triggers
in later stages are entirely explicable and no less wonderful.
Happy guys will finish last
usually because they arent that interested in the race.
Stress brings out the primal behaviour … flree, fight, feed, fcuk …. so where a person is happy, they are abiding by contentment rules … where a person is stressed (nicotine, caffeine, lifestyle, ill health, etc.,) then they wont think, they’ll react … in either of the primal directions.
The fact of these primal directions, and the awareness of stress as a factor, supports the neuro-chemical evolutionary condition exactly. The fact being that social niceties will triumph over the heart in “happy” states where as the “natural” will be unconsciously accepted, without thought of consequence by the stressed, the so called “scoundrels” et al.
Social conventions (and words are social conventions)
… can prevent awareness … in fact they always do unless the stimulus is stronger … like the need to run from a fire, etc.
Social conventions are always “group” identity concerns.
More than that ….
… when love hits, you cant speak, probably have difficulty standing up even … but certainly trying to string a coherent sentence together is not part of anything possible.
There are physiological benefits within this particular event of course … neuron growth has been noted … the male anyway, becomes stronger, smarter, faster, etc., and is besotted. It’s great.
Not as I see it ….
… the neuro chemical event blinds the male to any other female …. this lasts around 12 to 18 months more or less … roughly one and a half times gestation.
It’s just that for me the term “infatuation” is applicable where the other partner is not necessarily within the bond. The love effect I would rather consider is the bond event.
Some say the “limerence” term applies to this event but I call it the cupid event myself. It happens as mischief because it not only defies social niceties but insists that the individual take notice.
I find it best to discard the term …
… it includes hatred for example … while intense feelings may be also called emotions, I dont see any need to. Far better to state which intense feeling is the point of the discussion.
Love is not different for everyone …
… what might be different is the state they call love, or that another considers true of them.
yes there are all kinds of love ….
…. any number … can invent them easy enough …. tangential love …. why not?
For me they must fit one criteria … regardless of adjective, that the person using the term can dispense with the adjective and still hold the statement as true …. it is parental love, would become simply … it is love.
I hold love to be an absolute within language.