Luhluhluh wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I really do wish people would stop romanticizing the concept of 'love'. I mean, humans are little more than poo-flinging apes that have evolved enough intellect to have both spoken and written langue, to use fire, and to create a global communications network. In spite of all of this progress, there are still people who believe that there is but one person out of 7.6 billion other who was specifically born to be their "soul-mate" -- the one-and-only person who is destined to fulfill their every need, and who can inspire them to the greatest heights of creativity and self-expression.
The flaw in this concept is that there is no guaranty that any one person will ever find his or her "soul-mate". Given the opportunity to pick one person out of 7.6 billion people, and to have that one person to be your "soul-mate" is roughly 0.00000001316 percent -- there is a greater chance of winning the next Powerball lottery (about 0.000000342 percent) or of being struck by lightning (about 0.0001 percent).
And, yes, that "dizzy, dancing way you feel" when you've found your "soul-mate" really is nothing more than a surge and flood of endorphins and hormones causing euphoria and releasing other chemicals, like oxytocin -- the "love drug" -- it's what new mothers feel when they nurse their babies for the first time. It emotionally 'bonds' them to their babies.
So, while the most accurate definition for the term "soul-mate" may be "The one-and-only person whose very existence induces feelings of euphoria", it all comes down to a simple matter of brain chemistry.
Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, all this.
It's easy to ascribe magic to something you don't understand. If someone doesn't understand what's happening in their body, the literal chemicals that make up the soup that is their brain, I can see why they may believe in things like soul mates or other such mystical beliefs. And anyone who has ever experienced the effects of Ecstasy can tell you that the "love" feelings can be manipulated artificially.
The truth is - I don't know - more functional and mundane I guess. It takes away that magic that people seem to crave in their lives.
Meh...
There are two forms of “magic”:
1. Mortal attempts at manipulating the supernatural.
2. Illusion.
I don’t believe the first to even be possible. To believe that it can be done and to act on it is the worst kind of evil there is.
The second form is real—“real” fakery. Smoke is real, mirrors are real. What flashing lights, etc. do is provoke a response within the perceiver. Even knowing that it’s fake won't diminish our response to it.
This “magic” is the illusion of love. It’s enjoyable, yes. It’s a lot of fun. But it’s just a feeling that can come and go, and fade as quickly as it sparked.
It’s not a bad thing. I just think it’s important to keep it in perspective.
For love to be real, it has to be tangible. Which is why I measure love out in the action it produces. You can be completely emotionless and still love someone any time you act towards their benefit.
The feelings of love are a result of a stimulus feeding through our own predispositions towards those causes. A welcome touch as opposed to an unwelcome touch, for example. Your mind is mostly already made up about how you’ll respond to most things, and you have some choice in the matter. So I don’t buy the whole “love is a chemical reaction” bit. There has to be some underlying cause, otherwise you’d expect to see some uniformity in responses to stimuli.
12 Jul 2018, 9:04 am
