GAHD Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Love.An interesting concept. What is called love I tend to call familiarity, and sometimes dependance. Monogamy aside, love can also be dangerous. (I'm waiting for the "you haven't been in love..." retort)"Love" can be many things, and very few are beutiful. Women use 'love' as a tool or weapon quite often. If you don't agree and have a significant other, I ask you to think of any time you've thought different from said other and brought the subject to words. The end results are usually; A) The female 'wins'[correct or not] because the male doesn't want her to stop loving him B) Neither 'wins' the conflict is postponed but will likely be revisited by one party at a later date C) the male 'wins' and the female becomes vengeful and conflict oriented until she has regained 'control' D) the male 'wins', female acts as per C and the relationship ends.All of the above are placed and made fun of in various novels, plays, sitcoms, movies...it's ingrained in our culture and history. Now I'm not saying men won't use 'love' in the same way, just that men do it less often than women. In my personal experience platonic love(family, interspecies, friends) Is more of a security and familiarity thing. I am familiar with the above, they are part of my routine, I know where they stand and respect them(usually). Any thoughts of 'something more' on my part I would attribute to psychosis The relationship is in existence, but not as it's own entity. The interactions herein are stimuli that change who I am and how I act in small ways weather or not I realize it at the time. Again personal experience; the intense variant of the above transcends platonic and moves to romance. IN the romantic case comes the dangerous variant of love, the stimuli herein are far greater and change who I am in larger ways weather or not I realize it at the time. This is the kind of love that has led people to coin phrases like "love is blind". Intimate familiarity occurs, each comes to know and predict the other's actions and while together they tend to act in tandem. Flaws of character, mind, body, all come to be known and 'accepted'. Sometimes these flaws are changed and 'fixed', but most often they are forgotten and ignored until physical proximity is removed and the mind stops working in that way. Even at this point the flaws seem insignificant unless they have caused an unresolved conflict, or an outside person(s) make note of or mention it.This comes down to the way people, even animals change their actions based on stimuli; memory exerts itself on the conscious mind most when it has been triggered by stimulus, also known as conditioning. A person who has wronged you will bring up that idea on sight or mention, someone you love comes to mind the same way. A simple mind exercise; close your eyes(after reading the steps), picture a person you 'love'. make note of where in your mental vision this picture is placed. Now picture a person you dislike or hate(ex; bush) make note of where they are. now think of both pictures, there is likely a 'distance' between them. Try to switch their positions with your mind, you will find this difficult to do if you can do it at all. Now think of your father, a 'hot' celebrity, your boss.... you'll notice each has their own place which is difficult to move, and if you do succeed in moving it will snap back to it's original place unless you make continuous mental effort. In my case; people I care about are on the left, those I dislike are on the right, with indeterminations in between. The people I fell strongly about are on the bottom, those I only vaguely think of move up. At this point I'll point out how, in myself and many others I've spoken to, this system makes little differentiation between 'care' and 'lust' unless there are other mitigating circumstances. Other things to notice; the detail of the picture(if it's a picture for the person in question), the angle(is it straight on, universal, can you rotate the angle, etc...), what is detailed(head, face, hair, eyebrows, chin, neck, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinThis is not limited to Homo Sapiens. Canada geese are known to be monogomous and usually have only one mate, for life. Actually, recent research using DNA has shown that what appreared to be monogomous mating in animals such as Geese, does not turn out to be the case. What we find is that they pair SOCIALLY, but not sexually exclusivily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, that is a valid statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Now, I'm really confounded. Maybe no animal is monogomous, even pinguins? Are they paired socially for childrearing purposes? Jealousy could be a strictly human (and learned) trait. Pandora Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteJealousy could be a strictly human (and learned) trait. Pandora"Jealousy" requires certain knowledge. Until DNA, outside of major physical features, there was no way to know, so jealousy is reduced. At the next level, the concept of "being cheated on" has to enter the picture. Are other members of the animal world that sentient? Or perhaps it is intentional? Perhaps we are the moral outcasts in the animal kingdom because we can't accept responsibility for other's children? Is it a matter of evolutionary advantage? The genetic pool is protected by the alpha male regardless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts