Love

[Ghogiel]

Even though I can appreciate science and the science of love in all aspects, That view isn't entirely shared. Just saying, it doesn't actually matter, love conquers all. (which might be up for debate)

I found it becomes trivial to share the same explanation, what matter is actually sharing love itself.

 

Of course saying that my explanation of it, as yet I don't have a definitive one, is not the one you share is fine. But I will not in a bigoted fashion dismiss science and devalue people inclined to view it under such light. And not to harp on about this, Aurielius, narrow mindedness, in particular about love, might be bad thing. If anything, love is about opening up, sharing.. I could go on.

 

Basically, neither is incompatible. I know why the sky is blue. But it is still a beautiful thing to behold. :cool:

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel

[ginnyfizz]

I say not that there is no scientific, chemical/biological/physiological cause involved in love whatsoever. But it cannot be all that there is to it, otherwise how do you explain how post menopausal old bags like me can both fall in love and attract a partner, if it is just down to hormones and the reproductive urge? I also find this "science is king attitude" at once both droll and disturbing, for scientists change their thinking about as often as I change my undies (more than once a day, since you ask).

 

I believe some dude called Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus)was responsible for the killer quote on love vs knowledge, but since it is a religious text I won't go there.

[draconix]

@ Aurielius

Your statement bugs me. I know there are probably some who would object to you assuming to know the person of Marharth's affection is a "young lady", and more who might object to the phrase that implies his possession of that person. Additionally you describe this person as unique, which is pretty vague and neutral. Maybe what bugs me the most is that you didn't really say anything in your post, but you thought that it needed to be said. Previous posts bugged me too, when you generously "accepted his word at face-value," your verbose wording serves only to cast doubt, implying that for most people his word isn't good.

 

I just wanted to offer this critique, in case you weren't intentionally trying to convey these sentiments between the lines of what you were writing. It sounds like you may be unintentionally poisoning the well.

Edited August 24, 2011 by draconix

[ginnyfizz]

Aherrmmm...marharth has done nothing to deny it.

 

Draconix, I think you are straying off topic into territory that you really do not want to go.

[Ghogiel]

But it cannot be all that there is to it, otherwise how do you explain how post menopausal old bags like me can both fall in love and attract a partner, if it is just down to hormones and the reproductive urge? I also find this "science is king attitude" at once both droll and disturbing, for scientists change their thinking about as often as I change my undies (more than once a day, since you ask).

 

I believe some dude called Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus)was responsible for the killer quote on love vs knowledge, but since it is a religious text I won't go there.

Perhaps science does in fact offer a reasonable explanation. I'm not saying I know what that might be, or where to investigate that. Your circumstance isn't entirely uncommon, seeing a pattern in that behaviour does suggest a pattern. I'm sure a cause for that pattern has been investigated. Actually it could be the pattern itself that is the cause, we are highly prone to pattern based recognition and pattern adoption. I'll stop because I am speculating above my pay grade. Even if science cannot explain why you have partnered up leads nicely to your next point...

 

The fact that science is evolving and proves itself wrong and later contradicts itself is probably why it is never droll. further more not remaining static gives it potential to actually explain things in the future that it currently can not. I appologise for obviousness of all that, you stated it yourself more or less.

 

@ Aurielius

Your statement bugs me. I know there are probably some who would object to you assuming to know the person of Marharth's affection is a "young lady", and more who might object to the phrase that implies his possession of that person. Additionally you describe this person as unique, which is pretty vague and neutral. Maybe what bugs me the most is that you didn't really say anything in your post, but you thought that it needed to be said. Previous posts bugged me too, when you generously "accepted his word at face-value," your verbose wording serves only to cast doubt, implying that for most people his word isn't good.

 

I just wanted to offer this critique, in case you weren't intentionally trying to convey these sentiments between the lines of what you were writing. It sounds like you may be unintentionally poisoning the well.

This one isn't your battle. I would rather him selectivey reply about his position on my posts, than this sort of opinion based O/T crap. No offence. try not to pull logical fallacies out your ass either.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel

[marharth]

I say not that there is no scientific, chemical/biological/physiological cause involved in love whatsoever. But it cannot be all that there is to it, otherwise how do you explain how post menopausal old bags like me can both fall in love and attract a partner, if it is just down to hormones and the reproductive urge? I also find this "science is king attitude" at once both droll and disturbing, for scientists change their thinking about as often as I change my undies (more than once a day, since you ask).

 

I believe some dude called Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus)was responsible for the killer quote on love vs knowledge, but since it is a religious text I won't go there.

Because the science is not just hormones and reproductive urge.

 

There is more to it, but it is still part of science.

[ginnyfizz]

The fact that science is evolving and proves itself wrong and later contradicts itself is probably why it is never droll. further more not remaining static gives it potential to actually explain things in the future that it currently can not. I appologise for obviousness of all that, you stated it yourself more or less.

 

Please don't be so condescending - you have actually missed the point, as opposed to scoring one. Which was that since scientists never agree between one and another, and that science is constantly evolving, I find it both droll and disturbing that some people take it as holy writ rather than with a good pinch of salt. The climate change debate, anyone? The "OMG eggs are lethal"..."Oh no they're not"..."Oh yes they are"... fiasco that we had in Britain?

[Ghogiel]

The fact that science is evolving and proves itself wrong and later contradicts itself is probably why it is never droll. further more not remaining static gives it potential to actually explain things in the future that it currently can not. I appologise for obviousness of all that, you stated it yourself more or less.

 

Please don't be so condescending - you have actually missed the point, as opposed to scoring one. Which was that since scientists never agree between one and another, and that science is constantly evolving, I find it both droll and disturbing that some people take it as holy writ rather than with a good pinch of salt. The climate change debate, anyone? The "OMG eggs are lethal"..."Oh no they're not"..."Oh yes they are"... fiasco that we had in Britain?

 

Oh no, I agree very much so. Pinch of salt is essential kit

Those that do not carry it, do so at their own peril.

Dismissing science altogether as a means to explain something is imo mistake. It does sadden me that science is a much abused thing, and is some times used to actually cover a hidden agenda.

 

I hold no condescension towards you nor was it meant to be conveyed. You read something that wasn't there.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

@Draconix

I could care less what bugs you, your emotional state doesn't even register with what I deem important or mundane. If Marharth is dating a guy, then so be it.. Your rather inept attempt to paint me as a homophobe won't wash either, a person's sexual orientation is their affair not mine. As for the rest of your little rant..get over it ..or use the ignore function. Click..and your gone ..truly a very easy process.

 

 

@Ghogiel

Your post actually deserves a rational reply so I will attempt one. I think that the blind obeisance of a current 'theory' as proof of fact is erroneous, science and theories evolve, there is rarely a final view. Granted they are mapping the brain and might be able to pinpoint the exact centers of neural activity that is associated with emotion but that does not reduce love to a scientific experiment that can be endlessly reproduced in any lab. My contention is that love is a subjective emotional response that is unique to each individual and must be experienced to be truly understood. Now I dismissed in general the quasi scientific assertions of those that have not had the experience waxing on about something that is foreign to them, as if they had possession of the the ultimate truth to a question that has been a mystery since Adam and Eve. To his credit Marharth proved me wrong in doing so in 'his case', evidently he and his significant other share the same point of view. Assuming that individual is a she and given the view most women have about Love, reduction of the concept to neural input is not something that most ladies would find the least bit romantic, hence the comment about being unique. You did want to discuss the topic I presume, so I stayed within those confines.... if not then we are just moving towards thread lock.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Aurielius

[draconix]

All you are is a brain, all emotion takes place physically in the brain, and science can and will determine exactly what physical conditions are present when love is experienced. The end.