Theory of love

[Symbology]

Do animals love, or is it instinct? Some animals will defend their newborn to the death, but after gaining maturity, the progeny is abandoned to live on its own. The expression ''thrown out of the nest'' relates to the fact that birds will not permit the young to linger too long at the parents home. A good idea for humans! A new lion pride leader will kill the offspring of the previous leader to have his own way with the females.

 

Sounds like the 5th Ward of most cities. :cup: We are just animals too. Maybe a little smarter than your average bear. Then again you can look at how fundamentalists treat their fellow humans (bombing abortion clinics, witch hunts, inquisitions, burning crosses, internment camps, etc) and think otherwise.

 

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

~Voltaire

 

If instead you youtube up on "Pet unconditional love" you will see lots of examples of animals treating us much better than we treat ourselves.

 

They do not grieve, when the next estrus comes, they are ready to go again. The idea is to make room for the next brood, since one great instinct in animals is reproduction. Only man can fully appreciate the emotions we describe as love and fit the meaning of your sentence.

 

Have you ever had a pet? Everyone I know who has one, knows that they grieve the loss of their loved ones. There are many stories of dogs and cats that guard their owners graves etc. They are depressed for equal periods of time as humans.

 

I would also assume you have missed those episodes on the Discovery channel where they document that Elephants grieve the loss of their loved ones. They make pilgrimages each year to the bones of their deceased and spend one or more hours going over the bones in great sad detail. Communicating to their young ones in the low rumbles that shake the ground.

 

Whales and dolphins have similar behavior. But personally I think that most all pack/herd animals experience similar emotions, its just that their language is not as easily detectable as Elephants/whales/dolphins/chimps.

 

If a tree falls in the the forest and we lack the ability to hear it, doesn't mean it did so silently. Someday when we gain the ability to "hear" the language that animals speak I'm sure we will get an ear full.

[questor]

Sym, I have to agree with you that some animals at some times perform acts that one might call grieving or acts that appear thoughtful. Since we don't really know why the animal reacts the way it does, or has the ability to be emotional like a human, I wouldn't bet that he is performing much more than instinctive behavior. Can a dog love more than 1 human? It depends on where the food comes from. Roy of Siegfried and Roy probably won't depend upon the love of his tiger anymore. Animals seem to live more in the moment rather than have long term loving relationships with people who no longer feed them.

[Symbology]

Roy of Siegfried and Roy probably won't depend upon the love of his tiger anymore. Animals seem to live more in the moment rather than have long term loving relationships with people who no longer feed them.

 

True. And Mr. Bobbitt won't depend on Lorena, nor Nicole Simpson on O.J., nor the Jewish people on a poet named Adolf. I expect each of them were acting on instinct as well.

 

 

Btw just for point of reference: my pets came up for play and affection for many years before I was ever old enough to feed them. What do you figure that came from?

[Symbology]

Sym, I have to agree with you that some animals at some times perform acts that one might call grieving or acts that appear thoughtful. Since we don't really know why the animal reacts the way it does, or has the ability to be emotional like a human, I wouldn't bet that he is performing much more than instinctive behavior. Can a dog love more than 1 human? It depends on where the food comes from. Roy of Siegfried and Roy probably won't depend upon the love of his tiger anymore. Animals seem to live more in the moment rather than have long term loving relationships with people who no longer feed them.

 

That reminds me of one of my favorite stories to come across the web:

 

An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:

 

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil -- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity,

guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.

 

The other is good -- he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

 

This same fight is going on inside you -- and inside every other person, too."

 

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

 

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."

[nutronjon]

Coberst, I will agree with your theory of love, however, it is not the whole explanation of love, nor, will everyone experience feelings of love associated with learning. I would be the happiest person in the world, if my own children enjoyed learning from me, but that is not the case. In fact, my children make fun of my passion for learning and their children think it is a joke to reject all my efforts to convey information.

 

I have had men tell me, I have to give up my books if I want a man in my life.

I can not imagine what would make a man so attractive, I would be willing to give up my books for him, but my X objected so strongly to my reading, my friend told me I should give it up, rather than displease my husband. I came home one day, just in time to stop him setting on books on fire. He had piled them on the front lawn and was about to burn them when I drove into the driveway. I conclude, few of us experience feelings of love associated with learning. However, since passing the hormoral rush of my younger years, I exerience I feel no attraction for another human being, unless there is an intellectual pay off.

 

My guess, this experience of love associated with learning, is unique and not something experienced by everyone. I do not know if it can be stimulated in early childhood, but do know teachers would love to know how to awaken a love for learning in children.

 

My dog doesn't love me because he learns from me. Mammals do establish special bonds, but it is based on smell, and relationship behaviors, other than the learning of which Plato spoke, and that was his attraction to Socrates. This learning is unique to humans, and obviously not all of us. :doh:

[coberst]

nutron

 

I think that anti-intellectualism is the prevailing bias in the US. I think that this negative attitude toward all things intellectual is promoted by the ideologies of religion and capitalism. No body likes an independent critcal thinking individual. I suspect that is especially true regarding women. I suspect most men are very intimidated by a critical thinking woman.

[nutronjon]

nutron

 

I think that anti-intellectualism is the prevailing bias in the US. I think that this negative attitude toward all things intellectual is promoted by the ideologies of religion and capitalism. No body likes an independent critcal thinking individual. I suspect that is especially true regarding women. I suspect most men are very intimidated by a critical thinking woman.

 

The subject of anti-intellectualism is a different one. It will be interesting to see how things progress in the next few years and when the number of long lived people swells, and dramatically change our demographics. As you and I are experiencing, being useful because of our knowledge is something we can build on and in so doing, retain our self esteem, although we may have withdrawn from other ways of having self esteem, such as advancing with a career and through material gain.

 

This is no longer just a matter of self esteem, but it is hoped that by keeping physically and mentally active, we can delay or prevent dementia. This is a powerful motivating force for those who know what dementia does to a person. This is a darn good reason to keep mentally active and learn something new every day.

 

Also the more we know, the more we can learn. :friday: And the more we know, the more we know of what we don't know. I find this very motivating. Back to that pyramid of consciousness you mentioned, by increasing the base, we can build higher and have a greater volumn of knowledge.

 

I think we live in very exciting times, to have this technology that connects all of us, and the free time for learning and thinking. While at the same time our age means, we are accutely aware that we are coming to end of our lives, and what matters now is not accumulating possessions, but what we leave behind. Now we have come full circle, back to love. What do we love and want to be sure future generations have?

 

Plato loved Socrates and Socrates loved stretching the boundaries of knowledge, and I am sure he also loved Plato. Here is the love of which you first wrote. It is something other animals can not enjoy. This is the human quality that separates from animals. :)

[nutronjon]

That reminds me of one of my favorite stories to come across the web:

 

An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:

 

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil -- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity,

guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.

 

The other is good -- he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

 

This same fight is going on inside you -- and inside every other person, too."

 

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

 

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."

 

I like that parable.

 

However, I have mentioned dementia, and something frightening that concerns me, is when some people suffer dementia, they become paranoid and possibly violent. That wolve that is all the bad things can dominate us when loose mental abilities. I want to be sure to feed the right wolf, so I can be as older Indian I see once a week. He has lost much of his thinking ability, but he so pleasant I look forward to seeing him.

 

The other side is a sad, as their are people who have thought of themselves as good people, but whom I avoid, because now that they don't think so well, they are not pleasant to be around.

 

Is there a better justice than the reality of the wolves?

[Pyrotex]

Remember there are THREE entities in the parable of the Two Wolves:

 

There is the evil wolf.

There is the good wolf.

 

And there is YOU. And YOU choose to feed one or the other.

 

Don't forget that YOU are also a player, the most important player, in that parable.

 

The wolves don't get to choose.

 

YOU DO. :)

[Michaelangelica]

I think love is bonding (due to sex act & other sharing) with a dash of poetry and fallacious beliefs. Designed to make you pool all your efforts into providing for the new bit of DNA you make together.

Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love”.

This sounds like what psychologists and psychiatrists would call "transference."

But if you are not a pro-shrink it could also result in "love."

LUST -now there's the fun word.

[coberst]

I think love is bonding (due to sex act & other sharing) with a dash of poetry and fallacious beliefs. Designed to make you pool all your efforts into providing for the new bit of DNA you make together.

 

This sounds like what psychologists and psychiatrists would call "transference."

But if you are not a pro-shrink it could also result in "love."

LUST -now there's the fun word.

 

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

 

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

 

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

 

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

 

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

 

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

 

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

[nutronjon]

Remember there are THREE entities in the parable of the Two Wolves:

 

There is the evil wolf.

There is the good wolf.

 

And there is YOU. And YOU choose to feed one or the other.

 

Don't forget that YOU are also a player, the most important player, in that parable.

 

The wolves don't get to choose.

 

YOU DO. :eek:

 

Thank you for stressing the point. I needed that. This may not be the place for it, but what you said leads to a question of our soul and possible immortality, our possible incarnations. What or who is the "you"? What is the reality?

[Symbology]

Plato loved Socrates and Socrates loved stretching the boundaries of knowledge, and I am sure he also loved Plato. Here is the love of which you first wrote. It is something other animals can not enjoy. This is the human quality that separates from animals.

 

I still disagree with the view that animals cannot feel or express love. But thanks to Pyrotex' quote, I do think that Alfred Korzybski did a good job of identifying what truly separates us from animals. Although we have documented that animals have their own languages, the language doesn't seem to help them to the degree that is does us in passing on knowledge from generation to generation.

 

In Korzybski's Time-binding concept he talks about how our knowledge sharing is at an exponential rate. For example animals don't grow their own food, with a few exceptions such as ant's.

 

Really I think that for those of us that live in cities, we share more behavior in common with tiny-brained ants than wolves, deer, dolphins, or other social creatures. We seem to be so mindlessly driven to build build build. I really never see an ant out sunning himself or stopping to smell the flowers. Instead he just marks his territory with chemicals and moves on, or chews it down and takes it home to add to the collection.

 

I watched the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy" again this weekend. I hadn't seen it in about 25 years. It does a nice job of pointing out Korzybski's concept of General Semantics that we need to step back from all the assumptions that we have in our daily lives and language. For a good laugh at ourselves click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paUJfeoIEPk.

[freeztar]

I love that movie!

 

So what does Mr. Korzybski tell us about love?

 

It seems that map/territory would translate this way:

If the perception/feeling (map) of love (territory) is inherently flawed, then how can we truly know love? And from that, how can we ever judge another's map of love?

 

Animals might have love, but I can't find it on our map.

[Symbology]

I love that movie!

 

Animals might have love, but I can't find it on our map.

 

Try these on for size (Thanks to NYNerd.com)

 

[nutronjon]

That reminds me of one of my favorite stories to come across the web:

 

An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:

 

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil -- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity,

guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.

 

The other is good -- he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

 

This same fight is going on inside you -- and inside every other person, too."

 

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

 

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."

 

I had to come back to your story, because I was reading this morning how the brain centers for happiness and saddness are different, and the one for anger is different again. We know neural paths grow and become stronger the more we use them. So the Indian parable is expressing a scientific truth. How we react we to stimuli, our actually experience of it, is determined by how we channel stimulus to different brain centers. It is about which wolf we choose to feed.

[nutronjon]

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

 

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

 

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

 

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

 

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

 

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

 

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

 

:eek: So that is what the Greek philosophers meant when they held we are political by nature. Thank you so much for that explanation. :eek:

 

I can see in this next coming election the conflict will likely be between those who are united politically and those who are united religiously. Since we stopped transmitting democratic principles and values, and an understanding of natural law, we are no longer united by the ideology of democracy, and therefore is a serious danger of those religiously united, being the majority that selects our next president.

 

This is taking your question of love to a new level? Government as parent verses God as parent. For what are we willing to live and die? Will the US become a theocracy? Will we continue to move in the direction of authority over the people, as is necessary to protect them from themselves, because their condition of sin? :shrug: Is this the death of our liberty or rebirth of it? Christians supported democracy as a result of the enlightenment, but are they enlightened today?

 

What did Freud mean, that we live in delusion and deny reality? Science has given us a wonderful new reality, and we live in relative comfort and safety. Believing in ourselves seems like a pretty good thing to me, but so much depends on our education and we have not been educating for enlightenment.