THE LOVE LAB

I first learned about “aporia” in my ‘Hermeneutics and Deconstruction’ class. It is a Greek terminology denoting an impasse or a state of doubt, but it was resurrected by the late Jacques Derrida and left an impression on me since it came up at a time when Democratic candidate John Kerry was running against George Bush in 2004. Many people praised Bush for his decisiveness and John Kerry’s critics used this to their advantage by dubbing Kerry the wishy-washy candidate.

In the context of what I was learning about aporia in my philosophy class, as well as my other critical thinking and logic classes, I was perplexed how having skepticism about such a complex issue as declaring war was seen as a weakness. Even the scientific method praised the search for disconfirming evidence.

The reason I find aporia to be so important is that I believe it to be a staple of a thoughtful mind. The youtube clip below illustrates my point:

“In Plato’s Meno (84), Socrates describes the purgative effect of reducing someone to aporia: it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instills in him a desire to investigate it.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia

This is not to say that Bill O’Reilly will go and investigate this matter further; the aporia is exhibited only by Dave Letterman of the two debaters. This brings me to my next point.

The reason that doubting oneself is important, as I mentioned earlier, is that it is a crucial part of the critical thinking process. If you are open minded to the possibility of contrary evidence to your present schemas, then you will thoroughly examine this evidence and give it the weight it deserves. This further allows a person to actually modify their set beliefs in order to accept the incoming contrary evidence. Jean Piaget called this accommodation, which combined with assimilation to form the adaptation process (in other words – learning).

However, it sure seems some people are better at this than others. I consider the political equivalent of this to be liberalism. The word has become somewhat perverted in our time due to constant political propaganda of equating this viewpoint with big government, loose morals, and the recent weakness of the Democratic party. It is no such thing.

Interestingly enough, Nature Neuroscience just came out with an article which correlates liberalism and conservatism with neuronal activity in the brain. An area called the anterior cingulate shows differences in liberals vs conservatives.

“Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”

source: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html

In other words, liberals are better at the accommodation part of learning than conservatives. When faced with evidence that is contrary to their established beliefs they are more likely, due to genetic differences, to modify their representations of reality in order to accept the new data.

It is no wonder why conservatives, more than liberals, represent the religious viewpoint. It seems to me that religion relies on adherence to dogma, sometimes contrary to new information which disproves the very principles on which these beliefs are based. It is also no wonder that liberals are known for their social perspective of egalitarianism (gay, minority, and women’s rights movements) despite a history which is dominated by suppression of these ideas.

I should add that I am not trying to disparage the conservative political viewpoint. I have made it known in my previous posts that I ardently support Ron Paul for presidency, who considers himself a libertarian conservative. I understand people’s qualms with abortion (although I do not agree with them pushing this opinion to be expressed in legislation); I also think some other conservative perspectives, like on immigration and welfare, warrant consideration.

I am simply denouncing “the conservative mind”, which does not allow itself to adapt.

…leads us to the Neuron.

A friend of mine recently heard the Dalai Llama give a speech in Barcelona, Spain.  Mr. Llama emphasized that the way to achieve happiness and inner tranquility is through love and compassion.  I have written about love before, particularly the sort of love that the Dalai Llama would very much approve of: the kind of love which focuses on giving; it is a love that is composed of knowledge, respect, care, and effort.  I mentioned that I would touch upon care and effort at some point and I think it is important to note that care and effort combine to form passion, whereas knowledge and respect combine to form friendship.

care + effort = passion

Without genuine care, our hard effort becomes more of a chore.  Have you ever had a dead-end job that you worked very hard at, yet it never gave you any sort of fulfillment? Without effort, care is simply the attention we give to an object/subject.  We can have affection for it, an interest in it, but without effort there is no energy exerted and nothing sacrificed.

knowledge + respect = friendship

For the purposes of discussing the search for happiness, I’d like to focus on compassion as an integral part of contentment. Compassion is simply empathy that is coupled with the desire to help the other.

empathy + effort = compassion

This makes a lot of sense when we look at our previous equation of care and affort.  When we have empathy for someone, we care about them in addition to identifying with them in a vicarious way.  We feel what they feel.  Since empathy encompasses care, then we can agree that compassion encompasses passion.  In addition, I do not believe you need to identify with someone in order to CARE about them.  This would explain how psychopaths can love just like the rest of us, although how they express this love can be somewhat different and may lack the understanding of the object’s needs.

Empathy, like love, is a product of evolution.  These are both necessary aspects of our survival.  Love is essential in the sense that it secures reproduction and the raising of a dependent young.  Empathy is essential for many reasons.  It occurs through the action of mirror neurons which are capable of initiating a response in us by firing away from mere observation of an event.  For example,  watching a person scratching their head, we actually initiate a similar scratching of the head response in our minds (as if we were doing it).  In this way we are able to anticipate another’s actions, as well as sympathize with their pain.  Both skills are important for basic survival, as well as for social success.  Appropriately, these mirror cells gained the nickname of “The Dalai Llama neurons”.

It is important to note that neither passion nor compassion can occur without the addition of EFFORT.

Effort occurs anytime we exert our physical or mental energy and it seems to be the common thread in the two equations.  I am a firm believer that happiness cannot be achieved without diligent effort and that hard work always pays off. All the technicalities aside, I strongly agree that directing our efforts toward others through care and empathy  will lead to a certain fulfillment.  I don’t think this is the only way to be fulfilled, though.  Directing our efforts and care towards an idea can be very fulfilling, as well.  For instance, having passion for what you do can be very exciting and brings much satisfaction to men in particular.  However, I do believe that ultimate happiness lies in the personal exchange of love.

In my quest to find out the formula for the ultimate romantic partnership, I have yet to come up with better descriptions of the necessary components. Note these are necessary but not sufficient and they apply more to the relationships which have lasted past the initial period of passionate romantic love.

I am still working out the kinks of the entire formula (lovelab – get it?).

Knowledge = In order to have open communication, there has to be knowledge of the other individual and understanding of their needs and intentions.

Respect = How can you trust someone if you do not believe in the integrity of their word? How can there be idealization without admiration? How can you view the other as an equal and treat them as such when you do not respect their goals, opinions, and beliefs? Some may think that trust is its own category, but I am still debating that. At this time, I’ll have to say that trust is embedded in respect. If you respect your partner’s word that they will be loyal to you, then you should be able to trust them. Vice versa, if you respect your partner then you will not be careless with their feelings or humiliate them through infidelity.

More to come on Care and Effort…

I really appreciate all the comments people made to me on this subject personally, and also the individuals who responded to the blog post.

First off, I completely agree with you Marlajayne…love does take effort. You mentioned Dr. Scott Peck’s theory that the act of falling in love takes volition and I think that is precisely the problem with the way many people look at love in our society. It is something they expect to occur to them. Once it does, they believe it will perpetuate on its own and they understand it in terms of what they receive, as opposed to what they give.

The thoughts you mentioned are very much along the lines of Eric Fromm’s theories whom I mentioned in my post. He believed that to truly love someone there has to be knowledge, respect, care, and effort. Knowledge is important in order to foster understanding. Respect (which really cannot come without knowledge) is important for trust. I think care and effort are self explanatory, but it is completely in line with Marlajayne’s comments about how one can say that they love someone but unless they show it through some sort of care and effort it is just noise.

I believe (and absolutely agree with Eric Fromm on this one) that love has to be an ACT. I wanted to stress that as the point I was making when I was speaking of goals.

What is driving us to produce these actions? That is the question I ask. Is it the feeling that one remembers when they initially fall in love? Or are we guided by other drives that are even more potent.

And as for my culinary and sanitary duties….I can’t say I’ve acquired a greater affinity for either one, but I recently learned how to make blinchiki (Russian for crepes). Baby steps.

You rarely hear that a relationship ends due to a lack of love. People speak of diminished satisfaction, a lack of communication, broken promises, an inability to commit or the lack of desire to do so. However, although there are cases, I rarely hear of people saying they have fallen out of love. There are those who were never in love to begin with or relationships where love did not have a chance to fully blossom. But time and time again, a disenchanted lover will profess that although they still feel love for you, the relationship cannot go on (or vice versa).

But how can that be? How can the same feeling that brought you together against all odds fail to sustain your union? Why do we no longer feel compelled to make the same compromises or sacrifices?

Is it a change of heart or a change of goals?

Many people see love as a FEELING. I agree that love is an amalgamation of many feelings, and it certainly incites particularly strong ones when it is threatened. However, the concept of LOVE is a motivational construct. This is not a novel idea. It was proposed by Helen Fisher (an anthropologist at Rutgers University) and scientific research of the brain has shown that several brain areas are active when we experience love. Some of these brain areas are responsible for GOAL ORIENTED behavior. I certainly prescribe to this description.

Even as long ago as the 1950’s, Eric Fromm (a German humanistic philosopher/psychologist) stated that love is an “act of will” in his book The Art of Loving. Fromm posited that it is this active commitment that makes the marriage of two individuals continue in liu of diminished passion or changing circumstances. Of course, not everyone honors their commitments. Certainly, in our modern world where most people are programmed with what Fromm describes as the “Marketing Orientation” – or the mentality that focuses on packaging, advertising, and selling yourself – we are prone to view love as a TRANSACTION and marriage as a contract like any other, one which can be voided if violated.

Perhaps many would argue that we cannot control when and whom we love, but the act of love need not be an act of will of which we are aware. When I speak of changing goals in the dissolution of a relationship I am referring to both conscious and subconscious desires and motivations. I think women in particular are constantly evaluating their mates to decide whether they will become sufficient and stable providers for their offspring (commitment, ambition, perseverance, intelligence, loyalty) and will increase the quality of the woman’s lifestyle and those of her children (status, power, wealth, resources). Men, on the other hand, are programmed to evaluate the fertility of a woman and her ability to give birth to healthy children that will carry on the man’s genes and resources (youth and physical attractiveness). These are, of course, only the most basic points of value for both men and women.

Depending on the individuals’ background and upbringing, other factors may drive the ultimate decision to stay or leave a partner. Some men will also evaluate whether the woman will be an emotional pillar in times of stress (understanding and emotionally stable); it may be important the woman can cook and clean and be a nurturer in times of physical need such as ailment…basically the traditional notions of a good mother and wife. Women may look for a man who has a sense of humor (often associated with intelligence and perceptiveness), someone who is honest and responsive, considerate, thoughtful, sensitive, social, and other qualities which will help create the embodiment of what that woman may consider to be a good lifestyle.

I believe the basic points of value are important in the initial attraction and passion that results when two people fall in love. Throughout the relationship, both men and women are evaluating their partner (whether they know it or not) and deciding whether they will result in the satisfaction of their long term goals and desires; they are also constantly re-evaluating their current levels of satisfaction based on these assessments.

This theory certainly worked against me a couple of times when my lack of affinity for cooking and cleaning rendered me a less valuable future partner. Something most of my partners disregarded in the beginning (I made no attempt to hide it) became relevant only as time went by and my partners began to evaluate what I can bring into the relationship. This is very in line with the modernist social contract. The “what have you done for ME lately” that Eddie Murphy joked about in his stand up.

So when a person says that they “love you but are not happy in the relationship”, it may seem confusing. If love is a feeling then how can someone feel love (a good thing) and unhappiness (a bad thing) at the same time? This contradiction can be resolved if we view love in terms of goal oriented behavior, one that has many different feelings at different times and is accompanied by different behaviors. It is the goal of wanting a particular woman to bear a man’s child that may drive a man to want to marry her and ensure that they will raise these children together. It is the realization that a particular man may not be a persevering enough in the little things that may make a woman feel that he may not be persevering enough in the big things which can make a woman decide that this man is not for her.

In conclusion, it is not the change of the feeling that makes us want to end the union, but the change of goals for that particular union.