Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: merely neurochemistry?

Expand Messages
  • Wordist
    I don t mean to explain love away with a simplistic chemical equation; it is indeed far more complicated. But I do believe that far too much of the pure
    Message 1 of 867 , Jan 31, 2000
      I don't mean to explain love away with a
      simplistic chemical equation; it is indeed far more
      complicated. But I do believe that far too much of the pure
      mechanics of it (neurochemicals) have been ignored by the
      lay public in favor of romantic mysticism--probably
      because it is easy to understand in terms of fairy tales
      and nursery rhymes.<br><br>Nor would I short-change
      the power of mythology to affect the mind. Simplistic
      mythic perceptions have launched armadas and won wars. I
      wouldn't even hazard a guess whether the net balance (of
      mythic influence on mankind) has been good or
      bad.<br><br>The tug of war between reason and emotion goes
      on.<br><br>But going into the 21st century and beyond, we are in
      need of more finite answers to human mysteries such as
      love. As the world population rises, so do the stakes
      for not getting it right.<br><br>Neurochemistry only
      explains the mechanics of the mind; that is not
      everything, but it is a very great deal.<br><br>The mind is
      only another specialized organ, similar in some
      aspects to the liver, the spleen, the lungs. The mind is
      inseparable to the body, even now, with head transplants
      looming on the horizon. Take away the "magic" that has
      traditionally been attached to the mind, and you have just a
      very highly developed and specialized organ. Without
      neurochemistry it would be so much useless putty. The mind
      resides in the brain. When the brain ceases to function,
      off goes the mind like the snuffing of a
      candle.<br><br>The brain has two primary functions (ignoring the
      autonomic): a) recording and b) reasoning. Indeed, some of
      this activity goes on in the subconscious state,
      making these functions somewhat a 24/7
      activity.<br><br>So where does love fit in? Love, like philosophy and
      the meaing of life, is different things to different
      people, but it is still a marriage between biology and
      logic. A man would be a ill-advised to make long term
      decisions about serious issues when he is "in love",
      because his ability to reason is seriously
      impaired.<br><br>So the state of being "in love", though explainable
      in terms of neurochemistry, is rooted in the
      biological mating urge generating that arousal. The degree
      of stimulus and the causative elements vary by
      individual according to his or her mental conceptions of
      romantic attraction, which are in turn rooted in social
      conditioning. One would expect a Hindu farmer to have a
      different concept of amorous value than a Wall Street
      banker.<br><br>For most people the "magic" of love is explained away
      by biology and social conditioning. For the advanced
      thinker, the social conditioning is simply more
      sophisticated.<br><br>And what Plato describes as Forms, can be explained
      by social/cultural conditioning. We have concepts of
      the model or ideal, but we weren't born with them.
      They became ingrained as we developed from infant to
      child to adult, and we don't notice them until the day
      when we begin to examine our thoughts.
    • zooink
      Hey, that s cool. It ain t my cup of tea, but as long as the sky ain t falling, nothing is wrong with looking up.
      Message 867 of 867 , Jun 26, 2000
        Hey, that's cool. It ain't my cup of tea, but as long as the sky ain't falling, nothing is wrong with looking up.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.