In a message dated 3/22/01 2:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:
<< > > You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on
actors!
I would rather say that we are socially conditioned :)-- and repeat that
I'm
not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related to the propagation of genes....
As I said above, not 'purely', because genes can't work directly. They
have to hoodwink us with other satisfactions peripheral to their purpose.>>
Falling in love, either with an actor or a person in your life, is a biological condition triggered by chemicals. As coldly scientific as that sounds, the condition of leverance has been proven in the lab. It can have many different degrees, but it follows a prescribed biological pattern, and has perpetuated in the genes of our species (and probably in other species) as a means of continuing the species. One can fall into the emotional condition known now as 'leverance' under a host of circumstances, including weekly exposure to an attractive television character we have come to feel close to and care about. This displacement is a modern phenomenon, but chemically, it's every bit as real as meeting someone you come to regard as 'the one' (someone you wish to mate with). We are rational, thinking creatures--but only recently. We still dwell in a biological engine that can't rely on rational thought for survival, and isn't taking any chances. A few thousand years of self-awareness and civilization structure isn't going to change that.
Leah
----- Original Message ----- From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Falling in love, either with an actor or a person in your life, is a biological condition triggered by chemicals.
Um, as Neil and I have been saying, not entirely. The evidence from meme theory, cybernetic theory and anthropological kinship studies suggests that, while there is a biogenetic component to "love," this is compounded by social and psychological factors.
As coldly scientific as that sounds, the condition of leverance has been proven in the lab.
Can you cite me a reference for this study? Also, if you can, let me know a) the date of the study and b) who was sponsoring it. Even scientific research operates to an agenda these days, and I'm more likely to believe an independent research project than one, say, funded by a perfume company.
It can have many different degrees, but it follows a prescribed biological pattern,
and
has perpetuated in the genes of our species (and probably in other
species)
as a means of continuing the species.
This would again seem to be something of an overly deterministic oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. To argue that "love" simply exists for the perpetuation of the species ignores, first of all, the nonsexual forms of love, and second of all, cases of sexual and quasisexual love which seem to operate in counterbiological fashions. E.g., homosexuality, and numerous religious cults in which the devotees encourage sexual or quasisexual feelings towards the divine figure. And, also, the celebrity crush, which in fact in some cases *prevents* the crushee from selecting a more accessable sexual partner. I prefer Neil's meme theory as an explanation myself, if I have to prefer any sort of biological theory.
One can fall into the emotional condition known now as 'leverance' under a host of circumstances,
including
weekly exposure to an attractive television character we have come to feel close to and care about.
Hm, by that analysis I should be falling in love with the newsreader on BBC Southeast :).
This displacement is a modern phenomenon, but chemically, it's every bit as real as meeting someone you come to regard
as
'the one' (someone you wish to mate with).
I'm not sure how modern it is, in fact. While on holiday in Portsmouth recently I happened across an exhibit on the "Cult of Nelson," which suggests that hero-worship (and conceivably lusting after said hero), without actually meeting one's hero, is rather older than that. I'm not up on my classics but I seem to recall gladiators and charioteers incurring followings among people who had never met them. Of course, if you're using "modern" in the historical sense... but that would still exclude the Romans.
We are rational, thinking creatures
I would strongly disagree with this. Thinking yes, but the balance of evidence is that Rational Action Theory (or RAT as it is aptly known) is false (see Burns, Tom, *Erving Goffman,* 1992, and Bourdieu, Pierre, *Outline of a Theory of Practice,* 1979).
--but only recently. We still dwell in a biological engine that can't rely on rational thought for survival, and isn't taking any chances.
A
few thousand years of self-awareness and civilization structure isn't
going
to change that
More than "a few thousand," actually. Evidence from modern primate studies (Smuts) and from paleontological studies (Diamond, Tobias, etc.) suggest, first, that "culture" is not unique to humans, and second, that social organisation similar to the modern actually dates back tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (or even further, depending on what you infer from the development of fire and stone tools about social organisation).
Once again, can you cite me a few articles/books/working studies to support your perspective, Leah? I'm interested in knowing where you're coming from in making your argument for a purely biological function for "love."
ObB7: As far as I can tell, all this is coming down to is the question of whether or not Avon's popularity hinges on people wanting to bear Paul Darrow's children (which I would strongly disagree with).
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Leah wrote:
Falling in love, either with an actor or a person in your life, is a biological condition triggered by chemicals. As coldly scientific as that sounds, the condition of leverance has been proven in the lab.
Everything that happens to human beings happens, in some sense, on a chemical level. After all, we're made of chemicals. But the question is whether the biological processes dominate and control the psychological and sociological things that we do or whether there is a degree of feedback between the various hierarchies of systems from the molecular to the psychological and the social.
It can have many different degrees, but it follows a prescribed biological pattern, and has perpetuated in the genes of our species (and probably in other species) as a means of continuing the species. One can fall into the emotional condition known now as 'leverance' under a host of circumstances, including weekly exposure to an attractive television character we have come to feel close to and care about. This displacement is a modern phenomenon, but chemically, it's every bit as real as meeting someone you come to regard as 'the one' (someone you wish to mate with).
Is it ? I had better tread carefully here but I would have thought that the feelings one has for Avon, or whoever, who we know are fictional characters are going to be different to the feelings we have for our significant others. Assuming that identical physiolgical changes occur when someone undergoing a crush sees Avon and when someone who is in love with a real person sees their beloved we are, none the less, identifying two discrete phenomenon.
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Fiona Moore -
Stephen Date