Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: dkv on 29/09/2007 13:23:48
-
Love in my understanding is an approach towards sustainable pleasure(which also means greater pleasure)
There can be rape or robotic union as well but Love survives due to nature of Life.
And life in my opinion moves towards sustainable pleasure.
Independent of what I said .
What is your opinion?
-
In simplest terms, I would regard love as an addiction one person has for another (this is why I believe humans are programmed to be susceptible to addiction).
-
You mean to say in a profession a person is addicted to boss becuase of love?
Or addicted to Broker becuase of love for him?
Or addicted to forum members out of love for members?
No.
You are not addicted to individuals unless they provide you pleasure for reasons assoicated with
greater pleasure in bed at home or bar or disc or your community.
What is love?
-
You mean to say in a profession a person is addicted to boss becuase of love?
Or addicted to Broker becuase of love for him?
Or addicted to forum members out of love for members?
No.
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
In what circumstances is a person addicted to their boss (unless they are in love with them, or have a platonic love for them, as a person)? They may be addicted to their work, but that is different to being addicted to their boss?
You are not addicted to individuals unless they provide you pleasure for reasons assoicated with
greater pleasure in bed at home or bar or disc or your community.
What is love?
Firstly, not all love is sexual - there is also familial or platonic love.
Secondly, many (possibly all) addictions have some sort of reward (some aspect of pleasure), at least in the early phase. The most easily obvious example of pleasure inducing addiction are narcotics, that will induce euphoria.
It does not follow that everybody who experiences pleasure will either fall in love, or will become addicted to the source of pleasure in another way.
-
Exactly all addictions are not due to love.
Experience of pleasure is not love.
The strategy to sustainable pleasure is love.
It is strategy which increases the joy of foreplay and therfore brings greater stability in relationship.Bringing constancy in Sexual pleasure.
-
i think that drug addictions have nothing to do with love, but with chemical reactions in the brain, or body that are triggered by the drug.
-
Yes. Drug addictions are sources of unsustainable pleasure. Some cultures allow natural stimulants.
Some cultures smoke ritually.
But overall this behaviour can not be sustained in a community.
-
i think that drug addictions have nothing to do with love, but with chemical reactions in the brain, or body that are triggered by the drug.
You think that love is in no way a chemical reaction in the brain?
-
it may be, but love in my opionion is a volentary chemical reaction, drugs aren't
-
it may be, but love in my opionion is a volentary chemical reaction, drugs aren't
Seems a strange view, in my opinion, to consider falling in love to be a more voluntary act than deliberately injecting oneself with heroin.
In any case, my point is not whether a particular act is voluntary or not, only that I believe they probably use similar mechanisms.
-
Yes. Drug addictions are sources of unsustainable pleasure. Some cultures allow natural stimulants.
Some cultures smoke ritually.
But overall this behaviour can not be sustained in a community.
Too much of anything is bad, but that is not to say it is not the same thing, only that one should not overdose on it.
-
Yes. Drug addictions are sources of unsustainable pleasure. Some cultures allow natural stimulants.
Some cultures smoke ritually.
But overall this behaviour can not be sustained in a community.
Too much of anything is bad, but that is not to say it is not the same thing, only that one should not overdose on it.
definantly too much of anything is bad, but for drugs, even a bit of it can be bad, the addictive ones like tobbaco and heroine, but i think that love is possible to avoid if you try, drugs that you inject yourself with, are very much harder to stop.
-
you dont know the facts and you are discussing with me.
1. the ritual allows too much of smoking.
2. the rituals are such that they can be adopted in real life style.
3. the chemical or synthetic or distilled drugs are too harmful.
The 1 and 2 runs from adulthood to the pinnacle of wisdom.And the followers are said to be living since ages.They are as healthy as we are. So we can not criticize them due to absence of counter evidence.
In the 3rd case the evidence is overwhelming against the use.
Be rational.
-
definantly too much of anything is bad, but for drugs, even a bit of it can be bad, the addictive ones like tobbaco and heroine, but i think that love is possible to avoid if you try, drugs that you inject yourself with, are very much harder to stop.
Morphine and diamorphine (the clinical name for heroin) are used extensively as a pain reliever. In some cases, as when used to relieve the pain of some cancers, addiction is not high on the list of priorities, as the patient is likely to die anyway. In other cases, when used to relieve the pain of trauma (e.g. road accident, of battlefield injury), its use is strictly short term (I have also heard some comments that the effects of the pain may mitigate the addictive quality of the drug).
Another morphine derivative, codeine, is milder and far more widely used.
But addiction does not need drugs. One can become addicted to exercise through the action of "runners high" (although the mechanism, which used to be mediated through endorphins (similar in effect to opiates such as heroin), is now more uncertain and may possibly be due to anandamide (which has an effect closer to cannabis)). And ofcourse one can become addicted to alcohol, or to gambling.
-
just wondering if this is the right section of the forum, for this topic?
-
just wondering if this is the right section of the forum, for this topic?
Agreed - could be physiology, or even chat (although that has its problems), or general science.
-
just wondering if this is the right section of the forum, for this topic?
Agreed - could be physiology, or even chat (although that has its problems), or general science.
i would say chat, but i know myself i would not like that. So physiology looks good...
-
Sorry,
I was getting more and more convinced that love is a viral disease...
ikoD [;D]
-
Love helps to stablize the relationships which in turn leads greater sustainability of pleasure.
-
Love helps to stablize the relationships which in turn leads greater sustainability of pleasure.
I do not dispute that love stabilises relationship, but that does not contradict the hypothesis that that stability derives from an addiction between the persons involved, and that people with a less addictive personality have greater difficulty sustaining love.
-
addictive in what sense.If the answer is behavioural then I can be addictive towards my boss.
But that may or may not gurantee pleasure. And the relationship has no meaning other than defined by law. This addiction can not be called love.
However the general interest in money may be cause of addiction. Money might be of interest for reasons found at home. Money is not earned to create heaven. Money is used to create sustainble pleasure.
Greater the money more partners you can sustain.
Addictiveness to certain abstract concepts which actually manifest due to pleasure can lead to pelasure. Addictiveness with respect to abstract is not real and can not be called a biological idea but a matter of strategy.If it is a strategy then it is part of Towards Sustainable Pleasure picture.
Behavioural addictiveness is not love. Emotional addictiveness which works towards pleasure is .
-
addictive in what sense.If the answer is behavioural then I can be addictive towards my boss.
Addiction is a behavioural trait (even if it is chemically mediated).
I am not sure what you mean by being addicted to your boss (unless you are saying you are in love with, or obsessed by, him/her)?
But that may or may not gurantee pleasure.
There is never a guarantee of anything - but the question rather is whether there is a promise of positive emotional reward (whether you regard that as pleasure, or some other emotional reward is up to you).
And the relationship has no meaning other than defined by law.
If your relationship with your boss is merely that defined by law, then I would scarcely call it an addiction.
This addiction can not be called love.
What do you mean by this addiction? I am not at all sure that the relationship you are speaking of is one I would even call an addiction.
However the general interest in money may be cause of addiction. Money might be of interest for reasons found at home. Money is not earned to create heaven. Money is used to create sustainble pleasure.
Greater the money more partners you can sustain.
It may surprise you to learn that there are people who do not actively seek sexual partners, and would use what money they have for other pleasures.
-
It may surprise you to learn that there are people who do not actively seek sexual partners, and would use what money they have for other pleasures.
The term addiction is a wrong word.It indicates abnormally strong cravings for something or somebody.
This can not be the definition of love.
In love sometimes lover leaves his or her love.
MONEY is an derived object to which we associate pleasure becuase it leads to sustainable pleasure.
The sexual pleasure is the supreme but there are other forms of pleasure as well. I have already discussed this. I am not surprised.
-
The term addiction is a wrong word.It indicates abnormally strong cravings for something or somebody.
This can not be the definition of love.
Concepts of normality are relative, and often subjective.
Regarding love simply as being a strong craving (without reference to whether you regard it as normal or not) would seem to me to be an adequate description of love.
In love sometimes lover leaves his or her love.
And addicts sometimes overcome their addiction.
The most common reasons for a lover to leave his love is either because they realise the relationship is becoming dangerous to them (the same reason why addicts sometimes give up their addiction), or because they have found a new love (in other words, a new addiction has supplanted an old addiction).
But then, we also know that some people are more resistant to addiction than others, and those who are more resistant may well also be more easily able to reject their lovers.
The sexual pleasure is the supreme but there are other forms of pleasure as well.
But, as I said, there are people who will voluntarily abstain from sexual pleasure - so please explain that in your theory. Does that not imply that for them sexual pleasure is by no means supreme.
-
Can anyone tell how or what is the taste of sweet, sour,... and/or what the smell of a flower like or what the pain will be like? I guess Never. One have to feel it, realize deep inside the mind, the brain. If you have no taste buds, you can't taste anything. Likewise, if one has no sensory organs, he/she never loves any one, its just a dead body. Love is not only meant for sex but also for friends, parents, relatives, plants, animals. It's just a desire. If I like sweet taste, my brain signals me to taste it. Its a need that we named as LOVE.
-
.....baby don't hurt me
no more.....
-
Love creeps up your back and knocks your hat off.
No seriously, love and attraction is all about finding a genetically perfect partner to have good strong children with. It is a primevil urge to continue genetically so having strong offspring is important. Love is your brains way of telling you that you have found someone that would be a good match. Natural endorphins are released when you see them. I had the love at first sight experience with my husband. I also think we choose people that remind us of our parents or are opposite to us. This topic is far to important to be placed in chat. It is multidisciplined.