Hi! This was once one of the most interesting and edutaining boards on IMDb, but is now, since long, in deep coma. You just sparkled some new life into it! Thanks!
I hope you don't think I'm being too analytical.
Not at all! Actually I don’t think that you’re analytical at all, at least not in the proper sense of the word, since you dismiss lots of well-known facts in your analysis. You say: ”[---]love is a strong, chemical induced high that motivates reproduction [---]. Since you’re not expounding on this remarkable statement, I take it that you’re also saying that love is nothing
more than this. But surely you must be aware of well-established facts like that most mothers love their kids, and that most people living with pets really love them. This has of course absolutely
nothing to do with sex and reproduction, but it’s still definitely
love. With your definition of love, a mother’s love for her child/children means incest, and you can’t mean that. I think that your definition is way too narrow.
I’m totally convinced that love and sex are two very different domains in our minds and souls. Sometimes they can work in tandem, which most of us find very pleasant, and sometimes there is only sex and no love, which most females, and some of us males, find not so pleasant. Most of the time there is love, and no sex (see above), which most of those involved find very pleasant. The borders between sex, love and friendship are too misty and too complicated to be handled by science alone; for the time being, art works better. Here are two films which take on this enigma in an excellent way: “Lost in Translation”, and “Tian mi mi”.
If you think that is a sterile way of thinking of it and would dismiss it for that reason, I think you are not being intellectually honest with yourself.
Ooops! You say that dismissing your definition of “love” equals “not being intellectually honest” with oneself? Well … let’s hope that that was just a slip of the pen, because if it wasn’t, you definitely suffer severely from Delusion of Grandeur . But I like your way of phrasing it: “Not being intellectually honest with yourself”, sounds a lot more educated and refined than the straight forward: “You are stupid”! But that’s only what it
sounds like, of course.
Between lines in your interesting post I think I see some hardcore scientific attitude to life: Life is nothing but coal, traces of minerals, water and incredibly complicated chemistry. If I’m reading you right on this, I totally agree with you; that’s precisely what life basically is. I just disagree with the conclusions you draw from it. Sex is (among many other things), as you say, a “strong, chemical induced high”, but so are also love and
every other human awareness and emotions – high, or not so high. It’s all about biochemistry. Me, writing this, and you reading it: Biochemistry, and nothing else!
I am fascinated by lesbian relationships
So am I, but for very different reasons. I happen to know pretty well the reasons for my fascination: Females are much less aggressive, and much more emphatic than males, and this is a fact. To me, empathy (and I mean the proper psychological definition) is at the core and kernel of love, and aggression is the opposite to love (but not to sex), and this is just my personal opinion – not a fact. Consequently, most of us males are excluded from love, but not from sex.
Patricia Rozema has created a vivid and very convincing artistic demonstration of this difference between love/sex between females, and love/sex between males and females, in her excellent film “When Night is Falling”. Only in a female same-sex relation can love and sex coexist in perfect harmony. OTOH, nature is not meant to be in ‘perfect harmony’: Conflict – not harmony – is the primus motor of life. Alas!
Now, like you said, homosexuality excludes reproduction, and should therefore be a threat to the survival of the human race. So this could be a problem. But it’s actually a problem, which was solved a long time ago, and the answer is still “Redundancy”. Mother Nature doesn’t work with surgical precision; e.g. she failed to design the perfect sperm, so instead she uses millions of them in one ejaculation, hoping for that at least one of them can fulfill its mission. And sometimes it works, and a new life is born. Life is basically very much a hit-and-miss affair.
Life will go on and on, even if not every single woman and man contributes to procreation. Actually, if they
did so, that would most probably pretty fast be the end (by starvation) of us humans! So, IRL, homosexuality is not a threat to human survival, maybe it’s quite the opposite. If nothing else it’s at least a very strong and solid proof of the existence of the complex and ambiguous feeling of “love”.
Mother Nature moves in dark and mysterious ways.
****************
Nice to meet you!
cine
"Why is it that men are so much more interested in women than women in men?"
Virginia Woolf
reply
share
Ruthbasilisk-1
15 years ago
I can describe a rainbow in physical terms. It doesn't make it less beautiful.
I am paraplegic and get no information from my lower half of the body. I recently found the love of my life. Can it be motivated by sexual drives?
Animal kingdom; I'd like to know your opinions: Do animal couples like ducks love?
Gruß, Ruth
reply
share
cine40
15 years ago
Ruth! Liebste!
Long time, no see!
You say:
I can describe a rainbow in physical terms. It doesn't make it less beautiful.
So can I, and absolutely yes; it does indeed
not make it less beautiful!
Way back when, when I studied the history of science and ideas, I always had a very hard time to understand my teachers and fellow students, who stubbornly meant that the scientific description of life and emotions diminished the wonder and glory of it. In my opinion they do in
no way interfere. To me, the precise description of the various physical phenomena, which produce the rainbow, are just as beautiful as the visual perception of it. And if someone some day can show the precise neuronal firing order, which is ‘love’, it will be fine! But the
perception of love will still be just as wonderful/horrible as ever. To the best of my knowledge (and you know this much better than I do, Ruth), some of the chemistry causing depression is known. That does in no way make the
perception of depression any worse or better (I happen to know this first hand, alas!). Only medicine, based on this knowledge, can change this perception. So – in the future – could medicine change the perception of love in a controllable way? And if so – what would that mean socially?
I am paraplegic and get no information from my lower half of the body. I recently found the love of my life. Can it be motivated by sexual drives?
Certainly not! You just confirmed my idea that love and sex are two totally different emotions. When they work in tandem, it’s fine. But when ‘only’ love is present, that’s definitely very fine too! I’ve found that it’s much more simple to find sex, than to find love, which makes love so much more precious. And I’m still as happy for your newly found love, as I am for Zam and Nora. May the Force be with all of you!
Animal kingdom; I'd like to know your opinions: Do animal couples like ducks love?
Now, this is a
very tricky question! Can we make a deal, Ruth? I’ll try to explain my opinion of it, and you promise to come back to me and tell me about yours, regardless of if we agree or not? I mean that you and I have disagreed before, but are still on speaking terms! Deal?
OK, here goes. The simple answer is that I don’t know. But of course I’ve always been thinking about it. I’ve lived with cats for the most part of my long life, and they always intrigued me. They very often behaved as
if they could feel and react as us humans. Cats can say very much the same as a human with their eyes and body language. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they
perceive the same thing as we do. I think that your question shifts the focus from the domain of chemistry of emotions (love, hate, depression, rage, and so on and on) to the much more complicated domain of languages. Only us humans have a highly articulate, and rapidly changing language. All other life forms have to do with slowly developing signal systems. So, to me, your question has shifted the focus from brain chemistry to languages. Yes, yes, I know that languages too are basically about brain chemistry, but it still cuts a very, very deep divide between us humans, and all other forms of life (plants, lavas, and viruses included).
Sometimes an honest answer must be “I don’t know”, and that’s also my honest answer to your question. As long as we can not
ask (a matter of languages) the ducks if they love (a matter of emotions) each other, we will never know.
Anyhow, it’s so nice to hear from you again, Ruth!
Gruß, cine
"Why is it that men are so much more interested in women than women in men?"
Virginia Woolf
reply
share
Ruthbasilisk-1
15 years ago
Cine. Lieber!
Let's cut a different deal: Instead of sneaking away with an "I don't know" you tell me how you FEEL about this question (rather yes I suppose from your latest post) and then I'll give you my opinion!
Gruß, Ruth
reply
share
cine40
15 years ago
Ruth, Liebste!
Du sagst:
[---]Instead of sneaking away with an "I don't know" [---]
Aber was nun, Ruth!? Was
hast Du!? Warum bist Du so feindlich gesinnt? I’m definitely
not the kind of person who “sneaks away”. People who ‘sneak away’ are dishonest and cowardly persons. That’s not me. You asked for my opinion, and I honestly gave it to you: I simply do not know! And, as far as I know, no one else knows either. So I’m not really ashamed of my lack of knowledge about this issue. And that’s certainly not “sneaking away”!!
Maybe we have another language problem here again: “sneaking away” is a
very, very bad thing to do. Those who do it are way below even pariah. I sincerely hope that you don’t think that I’m that kind of person.
Now you have narrowed your question down to emotions (“… how you FEEL …”), and that’s quite another question. And yes, I accept your deal, and I will try to explain, to both you and me what I
feel about it. But first I want to point out that I’m fully aware of the annoying fact that the border between knowledge and emotions is sometimes blurred and hard to handle in a logical way.
I have absolutely no knowledge of ducks, but if you can accept that what goes for cats goes for ducks as well, here’s my answer to your new question:
My guts (=‘feelings’) tell me that yes, they can love, and they can also be extremely emotionally attached to things and other living creatures. But of course I do not
know this.
My most beloved cat ever, was a totally black, very tiny, and extremely neurotic female. Once she fell down in the rainwater barrel, and when I rescued her she looked exactly like an anorexic squirrel! She was pathologically scared of everything, and I mean
everything . Yet, her favorite sleeping place was on my lap. No one else but me could ever get near her without getting clawed and hissed at. Not even the woman I lived with at the time, although it was often she who fed her, and took her to the vet, when necessary (and that was always a minor civil war!). When a car eventually killed her, I decided to never have a cat again. I don’t want to go through that horrible pain and sorrow again. Now, some fifteen years later, I
still miss her very much. Love? From me: absolutely so! From her: Hmm …?
There is, however, a very interesting fact deeply connected to this issue: homosexuality occurs among many other species as well. Which I think hints at the conclusion that more species than Homo sapiens can experience love (and other feelings), and that love is much more complicated than just a genetically preprogrammed urge to reproduce. I don’t think that homosexuality is a biological malfunction, I think that it’s just another jewel among many others in the ‘golden chain’ of life. But that’s just a ‘feeling’ and a hunch, of course.
But, there actually
is an instance where my emotions really kick in at full force, and that’s when animals are mistreated, and/or treated as if they could not feel the same as us humans. As long as we don’t know for sure if they can feel as we do, we should of course act as if they can. But we don’t, and that makes me angry. For the very same reason I’m constantly angry with myself because I lack the mental power and stamina to go totally vegetarian. I’ve tried many times, but I just can’t do it. Our mutual friend Zam shares my experience. Once she said something like: “I tried and failed; it was the bacon which did me in”. True! I can of course live without bacon, but I don’t
want to live without bacon. But apart from that I have managed to get all other red meat off my menu.
So, now: what’s
your opinion on these issues, Ruth? What do you know about it, and what do you feel about it? If I remember it right, you live with both cats and dogs. Tell me about your experiences! And your newly found love: do you discuss the concept of ‘Love’ with her, or do you just live and enjoy it? Or both? I’m curious.
Your friend and adversary and sparring partner, cine
"Why is it that men are so much more interested in women than women in men?"
Virginia Woolf
reply
share
Ruthbasilisk-1
15 years ago
Cine, Lieber!
I'll try to always put a wink in future, when I want to banter a bit. In my culture it is polite to tease a friend a little bit. It would be rather an offense not to do it.
I was even so mean to plan to admit later that my answer would be the same as yours: I don't know.
Now we know that we have the cats in common (no dogs on my side). I lost 4 to the very rare traffic here and love the only survivor, who is 8 years old now like you must have loved your black cat.
If mammals use the same hormones and transmitters like humans there should be an equal emotional palette. I am not sure about birds, but I had an experience with a dying mouse, which led to my conviction that the mammalia at least have a complete "soul" like we do. Different sizes perhaps but perfect like a sphere all in all.
Have some renters for my flat here at present...
bye bye, Ruth
reply
share
Jamo57
15 years ago
Hi Ruth and Cine!
I have only had time to skim this as I have an old friend in town visiting and I am just about to run out and spend the day with him and his wife in lovely Seattle, so I am not sure if my intitial quandry to this subject has been addressed:
My guts (=‘feelings’) tell me that yes, they can love, and they can also be extremely emotionally attached to things and other living creatures. But of course I do not know this.
My most beloved cat ever, was a totally black, very tiny, and extremely neurotic female. Once she fell down in the rainwater barrel, and when I rescued her she looked exactly like an anorexic squirrel! She was pathologically scared of everything, and I mean everything . Yet, her favorite sleeping place was on my lap. No one else but me could ever get near her without getting clawed and hissed at. Not even the woman I lived with at the time, although it was often she who fed her, and took her to the vet, when necessary (and that was always a minor civil war!). When a car eventually killed her, I decided to never have a cat again. I don’t want to go through that horrible pain and sorrow again. Now, some fifteen years later, I still miss her very much. Love? From me: absolutely so! From her: Hmm …?
Ironically my current little feline love 'Lucy' is totally charcoal gray (a beautiful and not too common shade it seems) and is very undersized as well. I am convinced she 'loves' me as she can be very affectionate towards me, and seems very grounded in the patterns and rituals of daily life between us. And when that pattern becomes disrupted due to work and other time pressures, she quickly becomes 'out of sorts' and somewhat 'neurotic' as well. And when another female becomes too close to me, she reacts with what I would identify as 'jealousy'. But the bottom line is she is very loving at times and misses that 'loving time' very quickly when it is not there.
Now here is the quandry: I know she has had at least one litter of kittens and probably two when my son was looking after her before he asked me to adopt her permanently. So, two sets of off-spring. I would strongly suspect that she did not 'love' her mates in the procreation of her species. I wonder if they were the same cat and if and how often that may have encountered each other outside of the mating process.
So, is it possible she 'loves' me yet does not 'love' any of the others from her own species???
Soon back!
Let's never come here again because it would never be as much fun.
reply
share
Ruthbasilisk-1
15 years ago
Reading your stories reminded me strongly of my undersized "Weasel". I got her, an orphan, from my vet. She was then the size of a chestnut, sat in front of my wheelchair and looked up to my face. Her look said:"Cuddling, playing, food - you are my new mama." I had to carry her under my pullover for months.Then I left her with my neighbours to spend a week with my family, had a stroke and my parents came home without me. They reported, both of my cats permanently went to the entrance-door to look for the missing me. When the ambulance brought me home from hospital, Weasele appeared between the feet of my Dad, purred her welcome and jumped up the stretcher. From then on she sat on my chest in bed and only switched to the nearby wheelchair, when I gave her a signal that I was exhausted.
Now - do they love us as parents or as spouses? Concerning this I remembered that couple-forming animals often choose "false" partners like for example boats. I saw an interview with a man, who a swan-Lady fell in love with and behaved towards him and suspected rivals just like a jealous wife.
But I wondered about the behaviour of my cats as mothers towards the kittens. First they permanently counted them in motherly care, but when I began to give them away (I had 8) they didn't seen to miss them at all.
Strange world Gruß, Ruth
reply
share
cine40
15 years ago
Ruth and Jamo!
Jamo, you say:
So, is it possible she 'loves' me yet does not 'love' any of the others from her own species???
I definitely think so, yes! I think that is a clear case of what Ruth called ‘trans-species love’. The more I think and read about this, the more convinced I get that love and sex are really two
totally different domains in our souls/brains; related, but still very different. Yes, I know I’m repeating myself now, and I will continue repeating myself, because this is such an all-important issue!
Ruth, you say:
Now - do they love us as parents or as spouses? Concerning this I remembered that couple-forming animals often choose "false" partners like for example boats. I saw an interview with a man, who a swan-Lady fell in love with and behaved towards him and suspected rivals just like a jealous wife.
But I wondered about the behaviour of my cats as mothers towards the kittens. First they permanently counted them in motherly care, but when I began to give them away (I had 8) they didn't seen to miss them at all.
I don’t think that love per se is target specific, like loving someone as a parent, or as a spouse. I think that love can encompass anything and anyone. I also think that sex/reproduction, as biochemistry, is much more ‘simple’ (but of course it’s still extremely complicated) than love. Love is not a prerequisite for reproduction, only sex is. I don’t think that animals ‘love’ their offspring – they just take care of them just as long as needed to maintain the survival of that species. I’ve seen the same behavior of my own female cats versus their kittens, as you have seen, Ruth. When kittens are gone they are gone; no mourning or feelings of loss. Life goes on and on.
The reason for that only Homo sapiens females love their offspring is probably a consequence of the simple fact that human newborns are so extremely vulnerable and helpless. I think that love is the reward needed to motivate the mother to go through it all, during so long time. But that is just my guesswork of course. If you know of any species with offspring as helpless as Homo sapiens, please tell me.
Ruth, I think your concept of trans-species love is very important. Because it, like homosexuality, sort of ‘proves’, or at least hints at, that love, sex and reproduction are three very different things. Yes, obviously most homosexuals also enjoy sex, but
not in order to reproduce. And I also think that when, for various reasons, there is no sex involved, love becomes even stronger and much more nuanced and articulate. Sex can be great indeed, but still: in the long run, love trumps sex!
Your mentioning of the ‘jealous’ swan (BTW, was the man Conrad Lorenz?) reminds me of this wonderful and intriguing story, which I read somewhere a while ago. A single man lives with his pet, a female cat, but has no permanent human partner. Together they had developed a well functioning ‘daily routine’, and enjoyed each other’s company very much. In fact, I think that they sincerely ‘loved’ each other.
But then, one day he met a woman and started to invite her to his apartment. Feelings were mutual, so soon she also stayed the night, and then his beloved little cat started to act up. Not like Drama `a la Grande, but just misbehaving in small things. She did
not like the new situation at all!
Now, and here comes the marvelous part of it: One night the little cat saw that the woman had left her bracelet on the side table next to the bed. She very silently pinched it and took it away to another room, and there she started to trash it with teeth and claws. She actually wrecked it completely! The cat had never ever shown any desire to wreck things before. To me, it’s pretty clear that the cat was simply jealous. Which I think presupposes this:
#1 The cat was aware of the fact that the bracelet belonged to the woman.
#2 The cat was aware of the fact that the woman liked her belongings.
#3 The cat was aware of the fact that the woman would be sad if she lost her bracelet.
#4 The cat wanted to hurt the woman since she had taken her ‘lover’ away from her.
#5 The cat assumed that humans feel and think like cats.
I sincerely believe that each one of the above five statements (especially #1 and #5) is
way too complicated to be explained away as just ‘simple’ reflexes or conditioning à la Pavlov, Skinner or Lorenz. I also firmly believe that the truth will someday be found about halfway between Skinner and Reich (Freud? Freud? … eeh …what Freud?? ).
Cats, and most other animals, are most probably much more than ‘simple’ stimulus-response machines. Check out this serious feline ‘colleague’ of mine, having trouble with the beeping printer (the title “Printeren virker ikke” is Norwegian and means “The printer is malfunctioning”):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix_SvitjXMUSeeyasoon!
cine
"Why is it that men are so much more interested in women than women in men?"
Virginia Woolf
reply
share