The vole study seems to suggest otherwise
Not really. What the vole study suggests is that the body/brain uses a specific chemical to communicate certain ideas with itself, and that when you mess with the operation of that chemical you mess with the brain’s response to its own triggers, the same way that mugging the mailman will make an employee annoyed that they’re not getting their paychecks. This doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t specifically recognize the value of the employee, it’s that the employee doesn’t know it and changes its reactions accordingly.
When a vole discovers that it loves its honey (through the mechanistic act of mating because voles are simple folk who haven’t invented swiping left), part of their brain decides that they really really really like their honey and want nobody else. This part of the brain informs the rest of the brain that nirvana has been reached by opening their oxytocin floodgate, which the brain in general know that this particular honey is the bee’s knees. But going on after that it’s still the analytical process of regular brain function that allows the brain to recognize which lovely vole lady is their honey and thus trigger subsequent torrents of oxytocin in response to that vole and that vole alone.
Oxytocin is but one cog in the clockwork of the vole brain - it’s not the only one, and it’s not the only important one. Yes, mucking with it will change vole behavior, in the same way that slapping a magnet on the side of your PC will effect program behavior. But it’s not like oxytocin alone is magic love juice; it’s just part of the system as a whole.
Also it’s worth noting that it’s not the case that oxytocin alone is magical love juice. A bottle full of oxytocin doesn’t love you, and if you drink that bottle you won’t suddenly start loving the first thing you see (which will inevitably be the hind end of a vole). It’s only when applied to a functioning brain that it has its emotion-altering effect, specifically by altering the electrochemical operations within that functioning brain.
It’s still the brain doing the loving; it’s just that the oxytocin is present and interactive in the brain’s physical processing of the emotions. As should be clear in the fact that in the simple statement “I love you”, the oxytocin might be able to lubricate the ‘love’ part, but it doesn’t know jack about the “I” and “you” parts - and without a source and a target it’s not what humans think of as “love”.
*I’m so angry I could kill.
The green eyed monster.
Scared to death.
Peed my pants laughing.
So lonesome I could cry.*
All common expressions built around emotions that aren’t love. To say nothing of literature and movies about anger, jealousy, fear/horror, loneliness, etc…
Care to try again to demonstrate how/why love is different?
Ok then, since the chemical part and the feeling is real then what about the person?
I read that common things we love about someone is what they do or the traits they exhibit. Like if they are masculine (roll with it just for arguments sake) it could be said that you like masculinity but not really the person. You love a concept or idea not the human, without getting into too many questions about the self.
I’m reminded of what Buddhism says in regards to oceans and waves. Like the mind is the ocean and these little behaviors and thoughts are the waves and that we mistake the wave as something of its own but it’s just a fleeting vision. I’m also reminded of actors who play a role on stage and people love it, but are they loving the perfomance itself? Which then gets me to thinking if “I love you” is really just referring to the “role” that someone does and plays (ie self). Not meaning like they are deliberately leading on and deceiving, that’s not what I mean. But that what we love might not be that different from an actor’s performance on stage. In the case of Buddhism it would be loving the waves and not the ocean.
I know I keep citing the OP from the closed thread, but it’s just been buzzing in my head and I don’t have a good counter for it, the more I mull it over the more it seems true.
As a Buddhist I do wish you’d stop referencing Buddhism as it’s clear you have not the slightest understanding of it’s fundamental concepts or beliefs. Your are broadcasting a staggering ignorance of its complexity, depth and beauty.
I am not a buddhist, but it seems to me – no ocean, no waves. If there is no person to love, there is no combination of physical and behavioral characteristics on which one can develop/build feelings of affection.
To wit, has anyone ever developed actual feelings of affection for a fictional/literary character?
It’s a great big wild wild world and it’s entirely possible there is a handful of such cases. Just as there are cases of people having feelings of love for inanimate objects like cars and trees, etc. But those are very rare exceptions, certainly well outside the mainstream human experience of romantic love.
You still haven’t answered my question about your personal experience with being loved or feeling love for another person. Have you experienced anything like that in your life? If so, would you find it easy to transfer those feelings of love to another person who has the same attributes/qualifications but with whom you have not developed a deep personal connection (feeling)?
I’m asking because I am uncertain with what love is, I have felt strong attraction but I don’t think that is love.
Isn’t buddhism focused on “nonduality” and that by practicing nonduality you realize that love does not exist?
Again, NOT what Buddhism is focused on, and not a titch of real comprehension of the Buddhist concept of non duality.
True, attraction or infatuation is not love, but it’s a feeling of affection, so a potential segue to love. Have you tried to pursue your feelings of “strong attraction”? They might have turned into deeper feelings of love. When freely reciprocated by the object of your attraction love is often the result. I still continue to feel a strong attraction for my wife after being together for 12+ years. Rolling with your ocean/wave analogy, there are waves of different sizes in the vast ocean. There are ebbs & flows, calms & storms, and everything in between. That’s love.
Told you, not a buddhist. I defer to elbows to correct your misunderstandings on the subject.
That’s even more confusing. If that strong attraction isn’t love then what is it? What about the whole analogy about roles that we put on and that we just love the act but not the actor?
I remember the time I was in a relationship but after the attraction it just felt like a burden. The texts that you can’t ignore, always spending time together. I eventually grew bored and felt guilty because of it.
Seems to me like it is. Nonduality suggests there is no I or me or you, and without that love cannot take place since it requires a recipient of that love. Same with compassion. Either Buddhism has a major cognitive dissonance or they aren’t nondual like they preach.
I think I remember someone saying it doesn’t kill love but shows that love never existed in the first place.
Crush. Infatuation. Lust. Obsession. Idolization. Fantasy. Projection. Transference. Pick one, or more. Each as plausible as the next.
If it never becomes love then it was probably one of the above. Otherwise known as an unhealthy relationship.
Okay, good; so you do have some idea about relationships. Now, it’s important to know that not all relationships that start out well, continue to go well or indeed, end well. For most individuals, the majority do not lead to love. Most end despite having experienced an extended period of love, or what seem like it anyway. That’s okay. This is how people learn about relationships and about themselves, and most importantly about what they do or do not want/need out of a relationship. Some learn it faster than others. Some never learn it at all. Whatever the combination of events and experiences, love is no less real than any other feeling or emotion.
That sort of leaves me confused as to what it is. Most I ask simply say you’ll know one day or that you know when It happens. Yet that’s kind of vague
Here’s a higher-level view of it: Love is an emergent property of a complex system that aids in pair bonding. Love enables trust, which is important in a close lifetime relationship. Romantic love incentivizes us to pair bond, and agape love helps maintain our pair bond over the time necessary to raise children and care for each other in old age.
The rest is just mechanics.
What other human emotions or behaviors leave you feeling confused and vague?
Well, at a guess, I’d figure it’s . . . strong attraction.
Imagine you go to a restaurant and order a hot dog with no mustard. Imagine they bring you no hot dog, but instead just give you a handful of mustard. Imagine, too, that I then say, uh, that’s not a hot dog; that’s just some mustard. Would you reply that, hey, if that mustard isn’t a hot dog then what is it?
Or would you realize that, oh, right; it is what I just said, isn’t it?
Putting aside how difficult it is to predict the future and determine how a relationship will grow or whether you’ll get bored with it and consider it a burden…
I am not a buddhist and know nothing about buddhism, but when it comes to people, the waves are the ocean. People act how they do because of who they are. Generally speaking people act like themselves, so if you fall in love with how they act, you’re falling in love with them. Pretty straightforward.
That’s not really accurate, the way they put it is that the wave is part of the ocean but isn’t the ocean. What you fall in love with is just the fleeting act (the wave) and not the ocean.
The other ones are pretty simple: anger, sadness, depression, joy, envy, jealousy. Those I understand. Things like love, friendships, and romance are a mystery so much so that I ask is love even does exist.