What is love?

A-WL-Pic.1

Don’t ask science!

Falling in love and love, plays such an important role in our life that it’s reasonable to assume that deeper underlying principle are involved with it.

We therefore ponder:

‘What precisely is love and falling in love’?

Here we have entered difficult grounds, since ‘love’ means different things to different people.

Although we all know what feelings ‘love’ and ‘falling in love’ can bring with it, feelings are personal.
Expressing love in such terms makes it difficult to define it objectively.

In addition to that, philosophers, poets, musicians, and religious zealots alike, have all tried to describe love in varying terms, and so, the word ‘love’ has lost all its meaning, because when too many things are associated with a word, then the word loses its true meaning.

To avoid semantic claptrap and emotional pitfalls, the gladiators of secular science have been called to the coliseum to slaughter, for once and for all, à la Carpophorus the Bestiarius, this multi-legged fossilosaur called ‘love’.

A-WL-Pic. 2

To decide how to kill that beast it was agreed upon that:

“love” is an emotional condition, (in this case attraction towards someone), that result from complex bio-neurochemical processes within the body and brain that are incited through environmental conditions, while

“falling in love” is referred to as the process where an entity steps over from neutrality towards someone to a feeling of love.

With this in view, brain scanners were declared as the weapon of choice to strike this multi-legged fossilosaur straight in its heart.

A-WL-Pic. 3

Dr. Helen Fisher and Co (so-called world leading experts on the biology of love and attraction) putted 37 people (man and women) into brain scanners.

During these experiments it was shown that:

• testosterone and estrogen are largely involved with lust (sex-drive)
• dopamine, norepinephrine and serotine with romantic love (attraction), and
• oxytocin and vasopressin are largely involved with attachment or commitment.

According to Fisher’s expertise:

• Lust evolved for the purpose of mating with a range of appropriate partners.
• Romantic love evolved to allow the partners to focus their mating energy at one at the time, thereby conserving courtship time and energy.
• Attachment evolved to allow entities to tolerate each other long enough to rise at least a single child together while they’re a couple.

Dr. Fisher, after having inspected the results, and motivated by secular predisposition states, I quote:

“We believe romantic love is a developed form of one of three primary brain networks that evolved to direct mammalian reproduction.”

Thus, ‘love’ according to secular science, came about through blind Darwinian processes, and triggers biological clocks within the higher mammalian entities to engage them in the act of sophisticated sexual reproduction.

In fact, to them, love is nothing more than a clever trick of Mother Nature to ensure the survival of the higher mammalian species.

Of course, Godinci neither denies that on the instrumental level much electro-biochemistry is involved with the process of ‘falling in love’ and ‘love’, nor reject the notion that for the perpetuation of species (be it through self-duplication or reproduction) several work-mechanisms must be present in the animate entities to allow for the fructification of it all.

We also admit that studying the work-mechanisms that are involved with feelings we associate with love and falling in love, as dr. fisher soundly outlines, can give us good insights of how love-associated feelings are produced, and chemical make-up largely influences our relational preferences and attitudes.

Nevertheless ‘Godinci’, on Verolative grounds, can easily demonstrate that love precedes the principle of (self)-perpetuation, hence, is certainly not an evolutionary by-product of it.

Although, love-associables, such as: pair-bonding, kinship, and self-perpetuation, can all result from love and be beneficial for the survival of the species, those things can all happen in the absence of love – e.g., through enforcement.

In brief, reducing love to a perpetuation-mechanism is a tactical fraud.

Godinci therefore kindly advise all horny stallions and mares of the secular science community to be more cautious in their claims, after all.

After all, even a hardened cowboy can sometimes get his act wrong.