Let’s next examine the concept of “Love” in the context of how it exists and defines the human experience today, as well as what it might mean in creating a better life for everyone. Love is a word which refers to a variety of different emotional states, feelings or attitudes which range from those of simple personal pleasures or desires to those characterizing interpersonal affection and many forms of profound kindness, compassion, and benevolent concern for the good of others. In today’s modern western societies, this state of being is arguably the most sought after condition a person could exist in, yet there’s still much confusion within these cultures of precisely what it defines. Other societies with a more ancient orientation, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Hindu vary somewhat from the Western romanticized interpretation to a more stoic suppressed traditional expression. Nevertheless, it consumes countless moments of human conscious thought. The idea of being emotionally connected to other humans in a fashion, that fills our minds with such joy, as well as pain, is the fundamental aspect of the modern human existence. It’s the emotional cornerstone of a socially vital unit, the family. But exactly what is love, given the fact it has no physical properties? You can’t extract from the human body to study it separate from our biological self. It emanates from the brain, releasing chemicals, that effect the entire body, yet we haven’t identified a love molecule, or cellular structure. Imagine, if you will, the number of manuscripts, poems, passages, and even letters written over the course of humankind about this very topic. While it may vary in context from culture to culture, it is the emotional essence of the human condition. So how does all this relate to my work, you might ask? Very simply, it needs to be better cultivated across the human species in order to stimulate more generosity, and interconnection among all societies and cultures. For its the ideological barriers that separate people, not biological differences. Race and culture stand in the way of unity among our species. Love vanquishes those discriminating behaviors, but people need to better understand precisely how to share their hearts, and not fear the rejection, or heartache that accompanies putting yourself out there to be identified as vulnerable, to be embraced by the connection to another’s love. How do we transform what we experience so naturally, yet awkwardly into a more functional overall experience for everyone? Let’s start by how we obtain our understandings of love in the first place. My own personal experiences are as good a place as any to start. I knew from my very first understanding of my own sense of self, that I was loved. It was a feeling of comfort, that overwhelmed any other feeling I could identify. A state of contentment like nothing else. It was always promoted as a preferred behavior by everyone in my family, but it wasn’t cultivated as a specific component of who I would become as I grew and matured. It made me feel amazing to know I was loved, and I was encouraged to share that with others, but I was never prepared for how vital it becomes to us as adults, in that my ego would create a conflict within me at times of satisfying my wants verses placing others feelings on the same level as mine. Somehow, identifying with exactly how important being truly connected was replaced by the ego’s relentless need to fit in. Acceptance without judgement is one of life’s biggest lessons to learn. Many people go an entire lifetime without ever attaining this vital attribute of connectivity. My parents weren’t at fault, they simply didn’t know this within themselves, they were attached, not connected by real love….


4 thoughts on ““Win/Win”

  1. In my opinion, from what I’ve researched anyway, I believe that love can be scientifically explained on the quantum level by electromagnetism and electrostatic. Every human body has one: an electromagnetic field. So when you talk of concepts like Universal Love, this is such a very powerful thing if we can achieve it.

    I prefer to fall in step with eastern thought but I still think western thought has a huge part and the two really should converge because I think they’re two sides of a very important coin in understanding such things.

    Then it can explain things like quantum entanglement. How you can feel a change in state from long distances between two people who love each other? Or two identical twins who share a telepathic bond?

    Two atomic particles caring an opposing electric charge attract to each other and they are willing to share electrons. Electrons basically make up the electromagnetic field of an object. If you see them, in what they call an electron “cloud” they are simply zooming so fast around the nucleus and protons that you can’t pinpoint their exact location leading people to think they’re several places at once. Our solar system could be one huge electron cloud with protons and a nucleus. We don’t think we’re orbiting that fast but considering space time and relativity we are.

    I’m not sure if I believe that electrons can be several places at once. I think we’re too big and we don’t measure time in small enough increments to slow it down and see it… As, time, I believe is relative to size and ability to see something that small and because it is so fast relative to us, it gives the illusion of it being solid because we are touching atoms that have this zooming electric field around it faster than we can probably comprehend. Anyway…

    So, similarly how a balloon sticks to a wool shirt if you cause enough friction between the balloon and the wool? They begin to willingly share electrons with each other via static charge. Perhaps we process this experience as Fleeting Love, Concern, or Care but not a permanent bond because they are in one way or another slightly a part of us momentarily.

    They “are” an attachment in a sense but they can easily be removed an because they are too different from one another they can’t stay together forever in a lasting bond.

    The charge is hard to break, pulling the balloon away from the sweater the balloon wants to cling to the wool and vice versa and each is resistant to let go of the other.

    It’s the only logical way I’ve seen to scientifically look at and explain Love.
    Perhaps that is all it is. Yet it is so much more.

    Two objects willingly sharing their electrons, or electromagnetic field with another person and hopefully becoming “one thing” as you would when you think of something such as your other half, or your twin. That’s when the chemicals come in to play.

    You can see more eastern examinations of this field by studying the aura of the human body, etc… You can even seen the earth and the sun that carry their own electromagnetic fields. You could even say that a molecular or chemical compound or a even a crystallized bond is the same kind of bond as “real” love. I think all that stuff is relative. Or atleast valid to use as a quantum metaphor… Well, at least until we can scientifically “see” and study love.

    What you’re speaking of I feel is more comparable to the willingness of the human being to share that field with another human being because of the painfulness and the after affects of breaking such a bond.

    The vulnerability factor, though, I feel is absolutely necessary I feel in order to create love… for two people to merge into a true loving union.
    I feel that once this “true” bond happens you’re completely unable to pull them apart without adding more chemical compounds in the mix to break them down. Not even distance can alter it via quantum entanglement.

    The balloon and the wool are both vulnerable objects…. Their bond is rather superficial. They share enough of a similar electron field to stick to each other but do they bond? No.

    I mean, the word vulnerable sounds bad and just carries a bad connotation, however I think we are all vulnerable and do our best to repel others who are vulnerable in order to maintain our emotional homeostasis (Which could be the whole ego thing you speak of) or to protect already existing bonds that are active but not currently present due to entanglement.

    But I believe this defines attachment and bonding although the research isn’t there to prove my theory of love as true or false. It’d be interesting if someone did some work on it but I haven’t seen any as of yet.

    Anyway. Not trying to get all theory of relativity on you. I’m drifting. But your article made me think of all these things. So, great article! I love things that make me think.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I concur with your line of thought on this aspect of what material components construct love. The Heart Math Institute has done some amazing research along those very same theories proposed in your reply. My quest is not necessarily to objectively identify the emotion of love, I’ll leave that to smarter, more qualified people, but rather to capture its effect on humans in a more mutually beneficial manner. The capacity, resources, and innovation already exists to provide each and every person a better quality of life. My hope is to indent icy the emotional mechanism that overrides the ego, so as to facilitate such distribution of harmony, and possibly love! Your reply was very thought provoking, and greatly appreciated 😊

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Now that is definitely harder. Perhaps we should love something so much it has no choice but to be consumed by love. Otherwise you’d have to make each person convinced to defy their ego in favor of vulnerability and selflessness.
        The whole free will thingy would be in the way. Don’t you think? I think it’s a all a waiting game. Love has the capacity to wait… The ego does not. I’ll have to look this Heart Math Institute thing up. 🙂 Thank you for your response!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Overcoming the ego is indeed the challenge, yet cast against the economic reality of wealth distribution, not nearly as many people need to be convinced of the concept. Bill Gates has dedicated his life to dispersing his wealth to “sustainable” philanthropic entities. This has attracted Warren Buffet to donate the vast majority of his to said cause as well. Over half of the wealth in the U.S. is possessed by only 400 families. The vast majority of our society exist by believing they too can have that, if they just position themselves properly. Reality is, luck plays a much bigger role in that outcome, than effort. Convincing these people to drift away from materialism, while convincing those 400 families to collaborate, touches on the idea that humans are inherently loving creatures, capable of co-operating in much more meaningful ways? Crazy idea…huh?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s