something about love


This comes from a discussion I was having with a friend, who is a strong scientific naturalist on all matters. The discussion was originally on morality but eventually settled on the extremes of inner human experience. Here is what I had to say about love to this scientist:

Something that occured to me a few weeks back; if love is to be explained as a neurochemical delusion expressing the genetic imperative to reproduce then why after a love affair does love often remain? Often in both parties, despite whatever wordly reasoning caused them to shit their relationship out the rectum of idiocy? It just doesnt make sense. Why would whatever neurochemical that is going on continue to be produced? Even if we accepted that long-term bonding was good for raising offspring, iit all came down to fucking then falling in love would be a reproductive disaster. Or rather the tendency to remain in whatever biological process we would be calling ‘love’ would be a reproductive disaster. I’m unwilling to posit that our genes would take such a high-risk gamble. The only conclusion for me is that love is something totally separate to sex and sex organs but which makes use of them to express itself…not the other way around. Maybe in scientific language we’d call it an emergent phenomena…but I’m happy to agree with Lacan that whoever talks about the nature of love inevitably sounds like an idiot. And with scientific discourse, a sterile idiot at that.


6 Responses to “something about love”

  1. 1 Virtual Sinner

    “neurochemical delusion”

    I think there is a problem in understanding science. To know the mechanism that causes some phenomenon is not to reduce the phenomenon to something lesser. It remains what it always was.

    My usual example is the declaration in Genesis that “God separated the dark from the light.” We understand about the Sun and the rotation of the earth, so we know how God separated the dark from light, but that doesn’t really change anything, does it.

    • 2 dronemodule

      The principle of irreduction is what sort of what I’m getting at against my friend’s eliminativism. The reduction to the purely physical is pretty common among naturalists (my friend being originally trained as a physicist, he tends to view things as reducible to their compositional parts). But I am with you in saying that such reductions are false.

  2. This is really fascinating. One of my life passions is to find out why we are the way we are.

    • 4 dronemodule

      Thanks for the kind words. The funny thing about love is that while its there we tend not to enquire much into its nature…only when its gone and the thing we felt was eternal reveals itself to be as ephemeral as anything else in creation do we ask the questions.

  3. 5 Virtual Sinner

    Another part of the problem is that only a small part of the mechanism is being observed. It’s like the only thing you know about summer vacations is the traffic. You think you may know a little about having a clam roll at the lobster pound, but you haven’t a clue about thinking about the claim roll during the winter months.

  4. 6 dronemodule

    Well yes… their is an absurd mesh of causation and conditions that could be traced back…again… the principle of irreduction is completely true. The interrelating constituents and conditions of any phenomena can never be eliminated and none can be elevated as more ‘real’ than any other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: