tenchi muyo 
the never-ending story
Dear Jun,
I am heartened by the fact that you wrote so much to counter my arguments for the simple reason that you were worried about me, and all you intended was to give me a hug. You are truly a great friend; most people I know wouldn't bother. The number of people I know who would can be counted with one hand. For that, I thank you. I am eternally grateful to these people, of which you are one of them.
The reason I wrote what I wrote was not because I was on the fence regarding the matter; my mind was already made up before I started writing it. There was no dilemma to begin with, hence I did not create a false dilemma. I was merely asking the reader to which camp they thought they belonged to, after much deliberation on the topic at hand. Much of which was biological.
How else can you explain a concept as abstract as love? Can anyone explain where love comes from, apart from what I have described? Does love even exist, or is it just a cute little name for something that is inherent in our genetic make-up, including that of animals? Sure, science doesn't always explain everything that occurs in this universe. Science is not perfect. Yet. And that is only due to the shortcomings of the human mind; I am sure in time, as science and the human mind progress in tandem, we will unravel the theory of everything.
For now, though, science is still the best we have. And in trying to understand this concept called love, many hypotheses have been formulated. Some true, some speculative, the rest merely apocryphal. But there is no denying what happens on the biological level. The chemical reactions are there, whether we choose to accept it or not. No matter how high the human brain has climbed the evolutionary ladder, the 'reptilian brain' is still dead set in the centre of it, whether we like or not.
Besides controlling our breathing, heart rate, and fight or flight instincts, the reptilian brain establishes the fundamental needs of all evolved life -- that of survival, physical maintenance, hoarding, dominance, preening and mating. The principal ruling emotions of love, hate, fear, anger, lust, and contentment emerge from this first stage of the brain.
Indeed, thick layers of the rational brain that surround the reptilian brain theoretically puts us humans above all other animals, but think about it: the rational brain is built on the foundation of the reptilian brain. No matter how complex and sophisticated we get, in the larger picture we are all ruled by the instincts and primary functions of life that stem from the reptilian brain.
Love is a fundamental need, is it not? How then can you posit the idea that the rational brain takes precedence? No matter how much the rational brain sometimes tries to pretend it isn't true -- that we don't all need love, that we don't need to be loved -- we all want to be loved. Whether at home, or at the workplace, or in the eyes of our lovers.
If hate can be dismissed as an irrational, instinctual, reptilian emotion, then why not love? Hate can occur in an instant, just like love. Hate can be cultivated, just like love. Hate can take over our minds, just like love. Hate can build slowly through time, just like love. Hate can lead to disaster, just like love. Can we truly depend on an emotion that is just as irrational, instinctual and reptilian as hate?
Just because we can rationalize our thoughts and feelings does not mean love is a uniquely human phenomenon; here, the only uniquely human phenomenon is that we can concoct reasons and excuses to do the things we do. As well, we can describe love in paintings and poetry, we can regard love as a wholly-exclusive human emotion, we can place love on a pedestal and contemplate it with reverence -- this is what separates us from animals, the fact that we can lie to ourselves with such grand eloquence that we perceive it to be the truth. (Oh, the humanity!) Yet, the basic principle remains the same.
Whether an animal depends on smell or sight is not the issue here; I assume you are well aware of that. Robert Stenberg's attempt at explaining love as a combination of intimacy, passion and commitment does not disagree with my explanations as to where intimacy, passion and commitment originate from -- the chemical reactions in the brain.
Indeed, just like hate, love can start slowly. Did you know, there is a type of bird whose courtship ritual involves building a home from scratch (usually, the silly males do it to attract the females), after which it is presented to a potential mate for approval. If all goes swimmingly well, the couple goes on to reproduce young of their own. Upon rejection, on the other hand, the potential mate completely destroys the carefully-made home and flies off to search for a worthier soul to mate with.
I call it a 'home' because it looks exactly like a house; with a neat lawn, an entrance to the den, and a roof. The entire thing is made of twigs, shoots, branches and the like. Tiny, glittering things that could be mistaken for jewels are placed neatly on the lawn at the foot of the doorway. Ornithologists who have observed this natural phenomenon were astounded by the perfect symmetry of this bird's creation, from the doorway to the semi-circle lawn; from the precise weaving of every single element to produce an intricate whole that is a thing of beauty.
Imagine the passion and commitment needed for such a task. The bird faces the prospect of being rejected for the duration of its entire life, but doesn't give up. Compelled by its reptilian brain? Almost certainly. Can that be called love, the desire to do anything for its mate? Hard to tell, especially from the point of view of a human being. The courtship ritual could take time it doesn't have in its relatively short lifespan; proportionally, some human beings go through courtship, then mating, and into marriage in less time. Are we really any different when it comes to such things?
I am not saying that love only leads to disaster. There is no discounting the sacrifices that people like Mother Theresa have made out of love. Love can lead to a great many things. The Taj Mahal was borne out of love. Love is the basic tenet of religion, whether through the teachings of Buddha, or Muhammad, or Jesus, or whoever.
I was merely criticizing the idea that love is the be-all and end-all; that we shouldn't be blinded by love the way we are almost every single time we fall in love even after past experiences have taught us to tread with caution, to think otherwise; that we shouldn't get caught up in the web of paralyzing emotion; that we shouldn't put too much stock and faith in something that cannot withstand the scrutinizing light of science; that we should see and understand it from a different perspective; that we should probably not regard it as anything more than it really is.
And after professing the claim that I committed a fallacy by calling the opposing camp as "hopelessly, carelessly trusting in blind love, in love-at-first-sight," I see no attempt on your part to correct my wording and substitute them with the right ones, or to explain how love works and where it comes from, or to clarify why exactly you disagree with me.
Or maybe you have. Love is magic, you say. Magic, you call it. Magic? I can see the appeal; Einstein himself couldn't support the notion that there is no such thing as magic. It's hard to imagine life without some mysteries in it, without magic. But I am seeking for the truth, not for some vague, unfounded, unquantifiable flight of fantasy. I am not looking for an unreliable abstraction, which was what made me question the concept of love in the first place. You have basically offered me the same thing -- believing in something that cannot be proven. Who is using the rational mind now?
Believing in magic is comforting. Believing in God is comforting. Believing in heaven is comforting. Believing I am always right would be comforting. Believing in eugenics was comforting to the people who believed in them. Believing in racial superiority was comforting to the people who believed in them. Does that make it true? Does that make it real? Perhaps I wasn't mistaken at all when I described the opposing camp as "hopelessly, carelessly trusting in blind love, at love-at-first-sight." But hey, that's just me.
I am heartened by the fact that you wrote so much to counter my arguments for the simple reason that you were worried about me, and all you intended was to give me a hug. You are truly a great friend; most people I know wouldn't bother. The number of people I know who would can be counted with one hand. For that, I thank you. I am eternally grateful to these people, of which you are one of them.
The reason I wrote what I wrote was not because I was on the fence regarding the matter; my mind was already made up before I started writing it. There was no dilemma to begin with, hence I did not create a false dilemma. I was merely asking the reader to which camp they thought they belonged to, after much deliberation on the topic at hand. Much of which was biological.
How else can you explain a concept as abstract as love? Can anyone explain where love comes from, apart from what I have described? Does love even exist, or is it just a cute little name for something that is inherent in our genetic make-up, including that of animals? Sure, science doesn't always explain everything that occurs in this universe. Science is not perfect. Yet. And that is only due to the shortcomings of the human mind; I am sure in time, as science and the human mind progress in tandem, we will unravel the theory of everything.
For now, though, science is still the best we have. And in trying to understand this concept called love, many hypotheses have been formulated. Some true, some speculative, the rest merely apocryphal. But there is no denying what happens on the biological level. The chemical reactions are there, whether we choose to accept it or not. No matter how high the human brain has climbed the evolutionary ladder, the 'reptilian brain' is still dead set in the centre of it, whether we like or not.
Besides controlling our breathing, heart rate, and fight or flight instincts, the reptilian brain establishes the fundamental needs of all evolved life -- that of survival, physical maintenance, hoarding, dominance, preening and mating. The principal ruling emotions of love, hate, fear, anger, lust, and contentment emerge from this first stage of the brain.
Indeed, thick layers of the rational brain that surround the reptilian brain theoretically puts us humans above all other animals, but think about it: the rational brain is built on the foundation of the reptilian brain. No matter how complex and sophisticated we get, in the larger picture we are all ruled by the instincts and primary functions of life that stem from the reptilian brain.
Love is a fundamental need, is it not? How then can you posit the idea that the rational brain takes precedence? No matter how much the rational brain sometimes tries to pretend it isn't true -- that we don't all need love, that we don't need to be loved -- we all want to be loved. Whether at home, or at the workplace, or in the eyes of our lovers.
If hate can be dismissed as an irrational, instinctual, reptilian emotion, then why not love? Hate can occur in an instant, just like love. Hate can be cultivated, just like love. Hate can take over our minds, just like love. Hate can build slowly through time, just like love. Hate can lead to disaster, just like love. Can we truly depend on an emotion that is just as irrational, instinctual and reptilian as hate?
Just because we can rationalize our thoughts and feelings does not mean love is a uniquely human phenomenon; here, the only uniquely human phenomenon is that we can concoct reasons and excuses to do the things we do. As well, we can describe love in paintings and poetry, we can regard love as a wholly-exclusive human emotion, we can place love on a pedestal and contemplate it with reverence -- this is what separates us from animals, the fact that we can lie to ourselves with such grand eloquence that we perceive it to be the truth. (Oh, the humanity!) Yet, the basic principle remains the same.
Whether an animal depends on smell or sight is not the issue here; I assume you are well aware of that. Robert Stenberg's attempt at explaining love as a combination of intimacy, passion and commitment does not disagree with my explanations as to where intimacy, passion and commitment originate from -- the chemical reactions in the brain.
Indeed, just like hate, love can start slowly. Did you know, there is a type of bird whose courtship ritual involves building a home from scratch (usually, the silly males do it to attract the females), after which it is presented to a potential mate for approval. If all goes swimmingly well, the couple goes on to reproduce young of their own. Upon rejection, on the other hand, the potential mate completely destroys the carefully-made home and flies off to search for a worthier soul to mate with.
I call it a 'home' because it looks exactly like a house; with a neat lawn, an entrance to the den, and a roof. The entire thing is made of twigs, shoots, branches and the like. Tiny, glittering things that could be mistaken for jewels are placed neatly on the lawn at the foot of the doorway. Ornithologists who have observed this natural phenomenon were astounded by the perfect symmetry of this bird's creation, from the doorway to the semi-circle lawn; from the precise weaving of every single element to produce an intricate whole that is a thing of beauty.
Imagine the passion and commitment needed for such a task. The bird faces the prospect of being rejected for the duration of its entire life, but doesn't give up. Compelled by its reptilian brain? Almost certainly. Can that be called love, the desire to do anything for its mate? Hard to tell, especially from the point of view of a human being. The courtship ritual could take time it doesn't have in its relatively short lifespan; proportionally, some human beings go through courtship, then mating, and into marriage in less time. Are we really any different when it comes to such things?
I am not saying that love only leads to disaster. There is no discounting the sacrifices that people like Mother Theresa have made out of love. Love can lead to a great many things. The Taj Mahal was borne out of love. Love is the basic tenet of religion, whether through the teachings of Buddha, or Muhammad, or Jesus, or whoever.
I was merely criticizing the idea that love is the be-all and end-all; that we shouldn't be blinded by love the way we are almost every single time we fall in love even after past experiences have taught us to tread with caution, to think otherwise; that we shouldn't get caught up in the web of paralyzing emotion; that we shouldn't put too much stock and faith in something that cannot withstand the scrutinizing light of science; that we should see and understand it from a different perspective; that we should probably not regard it as anything more than it really is.
And after professing the claim that I committed a fallacy by calling the opposing camp as "hopelessly, carelessly trusting in blind love, in love-at-first-sight," I see no attempt on your part to correct my wording and substitute them with the right ones, or to explain how love works and where it comes from, or to clarify why exactly you disagree with me.
Or maybe you have. Love is magic, you say. Magic, you call it. Magic? I can see the appeal; Einstein himself couldn't support the notion that there is no such thing as magic. It's hard to imagine life without some mysteries in it, without magic. But I am seeking for the truth, not for some vague, unfounded, unquantifiable flight of fantasy. I am not looking for an unreliable abstraction, which was what made me question the concept of love in the first place. You have basically offered me the same thing -- believing in something that cannot be proven. Who is using the rational mind now?
Believing in magic is comforting. Believing in God is comforting. Believing in heaven is comforting. Believing I am always right would be comforting. Believing in eugenics was comforting to the people who believed in them. Believing in racial superiority was comforting to the people who believed in them. Does that make it true? Does that make it real? Perhaps I wasn't mistaken at all when I described the opposing camp as "hopelessly, carelessly trusting in blind love, at love-at-first-sight." But hey, that's just me.
PLAYLIST
I Predict A Riot -- Kaiser Chiefs
Well That Was Easy -- Franz Ferdinand
Accidents Will Happen -- Elvis Costello
The Seer's Tower -- Sufjan Stevens
What I'm Trying To Say -- Stars
*
posted by the narcissist at 12:21:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home