[Show all top banners]

jiban
Replies to this thread:

More by jiban
What people are reading
Subscribers
[Total Subscribers 0]
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Discussion Refresh page to view new replies
 Love for Sex or Sex for Love??

[Please view other pages to see the rest of the postings. Total posts: 55]
PAGE: <<  1 2 3  
[VIEWED 17336 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
The postings in this thread span 3 pages, go to PAGE 1.

This page is only showing last 20 replies
Posted on 11-11-08 6:52 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     3       ?         Liked by
 

Hey guys, I am confused with this statement"""""Love for Sex or Sex for Love"""""

Shoot your views


 
The postings in this thread span 3 pages, go to PAGE 1.

This page is only showing last 20 replies
Posted on 11-14-08 8:32 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

NS,

 

I do not see anybody here denying the link between sex and love. Linked but different- that’s what seems to be what most of the posters are saying. So there is no disagreement on that part. Disagreement is rather on how much different they are.

 

From Sternberg’s triangular theory and Helen Fisher’s research to Pushkar Dahal’s speculation, all are basically saying that love is sex and something more.

 

Their views can be roughly summarized this way:

 

Robert Sternberg:

Love = sex + intimacy + commitment

(Note: “passion” includes both sexual and non-sexual attraction, so the above is extreme approximation)

 

Helen Fisher:

Sex (lust)--> attraction --> attachment

 

Testosterone and oestrogen --------------> Lust

Adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin -----> Attraction

Oxytocin and vasopressin ----------------> Attachment

 

By the way, Helen Fisher is my neighbor. Incidentally, the other day, I was having a discussion with a student from her university and my friend on Fisher’s work and Sternberg’s ‘triangular theory’. After hearing about the three components of love that Sternberg identifies, she said to me that he has missed another important component of love. She calls it “value”. I thought that was a striking observation. I suggested her to write to Sternberg. He will now have to modify his theory to include the fourth component.

 

On other points, the genetic basis of homosexuality is really interesting. However, my impression was that that was found only in limited cases. I am citing here Savolainen and Lehmann (Nature 445, 158-159, 11 January 2007):

 

“No predisposing gene for homosexual behaviour has been identified, but there is evidence that genetic controls are involved: for example, human twins are more likely both to be gay compared with non-identical brothers; and male homosexuality is more often inherited maternally, indicating that heritable maternal effects and/or genes linked to the X chromosome are in operation”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/445158b.html

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

Guest4 Ji,

 

Some of your questions are explained by Nails-ji. On other questions, I think love is not a constant; it is a dependent variable. It can change, fluctuate, even die or revive depending on the beloved’s action/behaviors and circumstances, including one’s own mental condition (for example, depression affects all components of love).

 

So a genuine change in a genuine love is not unnatural.

 

As for what I mean by what our cave-dwelling ancestors passed onto us, I was talking about the natural state of love. Let me illustrate it by the example of the cultural institution/contract called ‘marriage’. Once one is in this kind of cultural contract (marriage, engagement or even simple relationship), he/she would be in a social/cultural/political/moral pressure to declare love, often the deepest one, the highest one, no matter what the reality is. So I thought it is necessary to distinguish between natural love and cultural love (one conditioned by the cultural pressure) to understand it more accurately. Tetti kura ho.

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

Nails,

 

Thanks for your elaboration on our points. I agree with them.

 

And as for your thoughts on genderwise difference in the perception regarding infidelity, it makes sense, I think, from socio-cultural and evolutionary perspective as well. In fact the socio-cultural perspective in this particular case may have an evolutionary explanation.

 

As for translating what I wrote in Nepali, the first thing was basically Sternberg’s theory rephrased. In the second point, I talked about four possible channels/domains in a love relationship:

 

1. A’s original “love” for B

2. B’s original “love” for A

3. A’s reciprocal “love” to B

4. B’s reciprocal “love” to A

 

These four channel/domains are partially interdependent. I was, therefore, suggesting that when relationship goes bad (which naturally would make us sad/worried/hurt), we have to examine each of these channels separately, instead of thinking that love might have gone holistically bad.

 

If we examine all channels meticulously, we might often diagnose that only one or two channels have gone wrong and all others are still intact. Such meticulous diagnosis shall help us to locate the problem precisely, hopefully solve it and even if otherwise, help us to appreciate and cherish what still are intact and remain unscared of falling in love again, no matter how uncertain that might be too.

 

Hope I could explain it well in my poor English.

 

Nepe

 

     


 
Posted on 11-14-08 8:47 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

What is consumate love in Nepali?

Love always is not for sex in my opinion, depends on time. Sometimes you can love someone wihtout physically involved in sex (but mentally I am not sure).

Sex ca ben be a channel  for love, a fulfilling moment can release all those domapine, epinephrine and love harmone from next time.

 


 
Posted on 11-14-08 9:29 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Consummate love  = चुर्लुम्म माया

Companionate love =  साथी माया

Romantic love = झिल्के माया

Fatuous love = एकतर्फी माया

Infatuated love = मोहनी माया

 

:-)

 

Nepe


 
Posted on 11-14-08 11:54 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

>Sex ca ben be a channel  for love, a fulfilling moment can release

>all those domapine, epinephrine and love harmone from next time.

 

Haawaajyu,

 

That is more or less what Fisher and other experts are saying.

 

That brings to an important distinction we have to make to understand these issues accurately. The distinction is about the cause and effect.

 

Say, are these love chemicals effect or cause of love ?

 

It will require a careful reading of all scientific works to summarize them accurately. However, from the design of some of the researches I know of (for example, studying the brain activity of the subjects already in love !), I speculate that most of these (chemicals or brain activity) are effects of love, some might contribute to cause and others might be involved in both cause and effect. Such complicated molecular scheme are very common in biology.

 

Nepe

Last edited: 14-Nov-08 11:59 AM

 
Posted on 11-14-08 11:56 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Nepe - your additions are very interesting and i do see where you are getting it from. I have to say that makes a lot of sense!
also just adding to the different theorists, one other main theory is by Hatfield. She is basically saying that there are only two types of love ( passionate and companionate love) compared to sternberg's eight types. I feel like a lot of individuals experience these two kinds more than the other types and it has a lot to do with reciprocity in terms of self disclosure for companionate love and the concept of excitation transfer for passionate love. (excitation transfer is basically stating that people associate a certain type of physical arousal with someone or something in their situtiaon rather than what first caused the physical arousal to occur). These two types are very common for example among friend in terms of companionate love and infatuation for someone in terms of passionate love.
just adding to nepe's list of theories! :)

 
Posted on 11-14-08 12:43 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

((((((((((((((( YAWNS))))))))))
 
Posted on 11-14-08 2:45 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Nepe bro,
First off, with due respect, can we get over this seemingly exaggerated formality of addressing each other by jyu and ji :P...

My opinion on love is based merely upon observations so it may sound immature when pitted against your take which is based upon a more thorough research and study as I see.I must have overlooked some of your references before, but after skimming through them and reading your elaboration; I have some skepticism,  questions and comments. I will put them on the table when/if time permits.

(sometimes I wish if there was an option on sajha for oral discussion rather than just written :P)

On a note of levity, I hope this discussion would not push an average person, aspiring to be a lover, out of the boundary of his/her intellectual ability and eventually end up heaving his guts out by the already petrifying (sorta) thing called LOVE  hahaha :P

***********
Nails!
Aye aye....what's up yo? Bollywood movie naherya/herna na paa dherai bhayo...but geet chahin suninchha bhanu na tyam tyam ma :P.

***********
Captain,
I can almost see your poker face trying to act too naive to opine HAHAHA

"Do you have some time?"
"For YOU, I have a lifetime!!! " HAHAHAHA :P...

all in jest (as mostly :P)



 
Posted on 11-14-08 5:09 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Loote,

 

My apology for discomforting salutation. However, I must tell that I keep using it (often forgetting the displeasure already expressed) because I have a mixed experience among Nepalis about it.

 

I have found both Jyu/Ji and plain salutation striking differently to different folks. That has probably to do with the different individual level of cultural transition. And that’s what always fails me.

 

So I am also apologizing in advance for any failure in future  ;-) re kya.

 

On love, as I said, I had a devastating confusion/skepticism/atheism about it during my formative years. So I could have been reversely biased to learn and understand things along the way. Je bhayepani, the subject of love has been a strong passion of mine. (My other passions, some known in Sajha, includes 3G. Ganatantra, Ghazal and God. :-) )

 

On love, I have found that almost everybody (except the scientists) has highly idealized form of love in their perception and most thinking ones find it quite elusive, incomprehensible and even unattainable.

 

The problem is obviously with the idealized form of love.

 

I would like to share a conversation from mysansar on this very issue.

 

Some interesting excerpts from the conversation between Alark Siromani and Premekalavya.

 

Prem Ke Ho ?

Alark Shiromani

http://www.m y s a n s a r.com/?p=3225

 

अलर्क शिरोमणी उवाच:

 

प्रेमको बारेमा मेरो मनमा उब्जेको जिज्ञासा जस्ताको तस्तै छ। प्रेमको साश्वततालाई मृत्युले पुष्टि गर्छ कि जीवनले? प्रेम आदिसत्य हो कि अन्तिम सत्य हो? कि प्रेम, माया जस्ता कुरा प्राणीहरूलाई संसारमा अल्मल्याउने एउटा भ्रम मात्र हो? अद्वैत वेदान्तीहरूलाई सोध्दा हो भन्लान्। तर सबै मानिस अद्वैत वेदान्ती हुन पनि सक्दैनन्। सबै वेदान्ती भए यो सृष्टि यहाँसम्म आइपुग्ने पनि थिएन। अनि यो प्रश्न पनि प्रश्न हुँदैनथ्यो होला। गन्थन जति गरे पनि म घुम्दै फिर्दै फेरि प्रारम्भमै पुगेको छु। प्रश्नहरूको कुचक्र मा घुमिरहेको छु।

 

आखिर प्रेम के हो?

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेमेकालव्य उवाच:

 

तपाईको अन्तिम टिप्पणी पढेपछि मलाई दुईवटा कुरा लाग्यो । एक, तपाई वास्तविक (real) प्रेम लाई होईन कि कल्पित (fictional) प्रेम लाई बुझ्न खोज्दै हुनुहुँदो रहेछ । दुई, त्यो कल्पित प्रेमको भावनात्मक अस्तित्व तपाईको मनमा गहिरोसंग जरा गाडेर बसेको रहेछ । पूर्वधारणा भनम् न । बौद्धमार्गीहरु त्यसलाई केजाती भन्छन् । खैर, यी दुई कारणले गर्दा नै तपाईको (र यहाँका कैयौं टिप्पणीकारहरुको समेत) लागि यो प्रेम भन्ने

वस्तु elusive/incomprehensible हुन पुगेको हो भन्ने म एक स्वयंप्रशिक्षित प्रेमविदको ठहर छ ।

 

 प्रेम के हो भनेर बुझ्न चाहनु हुन्छ भने दुई काम गर्नुपर्‍यो । एक, मनबाट प्रेमबारेका पूर्वकल्पनाहरु हटाएर यसलाई पूर्णरिक्त र पूर्ण स्वतन्त्र राख्नुहोस् । त्यसपछि, कल्पित प्रेम (पुराण देखि लिएर आधुनिक गीत सम्ममा वर्णित) लाई विश्वास नगर्नुस् वा थाती राख्नुस् ।त्यसपछि कुनै वास्तविक रुपमै घटित प्रेम (तपाईको आफ्नै वा अरु कसैको) लाई लिनुहोस् र यसको यथासक्य गहिरो शोध गर्नुहोस् ।

 

म अहिल्यै बाजी थाप्न तयार छु, तपाई छक्क पर्नुहुनेछ । प्रेममा यसका अनेक सामान्य लाग्ने झिनामसिना components, modules, आयामहरु देखेर, यसको नित्यता र अनित्यता निर्धारण गर्ने अनेक हिसाबकिताबका चलायमान समिकरणहरु देखेर, र आखिरमा आफ्नै आँखा अगाडि यो demystify भएकोमा ।

 

धेत्, पहाड खनें, मुसो निक्ल्यो चाही नभन्नुहोला ।

 

जे होस्, प्रेम के हो भनेर सोध्नेलाई मेरो पहिलो प्रश्न सधै हुनेछ- fictional प्रेम कि real प्रेम ?

 

Real प्रेम खासै रहस्यमयी छैन । खासै महान पनि छैन । खासमा त्यही भएर नै हामी

कल्पित प्रेमप्रति जिज्ञासु, आकर्षित र ईच्छुक हुन्छौं । कुरा बुझ्या हो  रे क्या ।

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

मैले प्रेमको जनप्रिय संकथन (narrative) र संभाषण (discourse) मा कल्पित प्रेम (fictional love) को एकलौटी हालीमुहाली रहेको तर्फ जो संकेत गरें, त्यो साच्चै हो के ।

 

यहाँ चलिरहेको छलफलमै हेरम्, गोर्खेबाबा र एक्का दुक्का टिप्पणीकार बाहेक सप्पैले चिन्तनमनन र व्याख्या गरिरहेको प्रेम कल्पित नै हो । कसैले मलाई यस्तो भाथ्यो अथवा मैले चिनेको फलानोलाई यस्तो भाथ्यो भनेर लेखेका छन् ? अहँ छैनन् । सबैले आफुले भोग्दै नभोगेको, आफुलाई केवल सिकाईएको प्रेमको बारेमा घागडान घागडान कुरा गरिरहेका छन्, हो कि होईन ?

 

मैले भनें नि, प्रेम के हो भनेर जान्न अर्थोक केही गर्न पर्दैन, बस् आफ्नै, आफु परेको वा पर्न पर्न खोजेको, अलिकति परेर मरेको वा मर्‍यो भनेर सोचेको त फेरि ब्युँतेर तमाश गरेको, खास समयमा ह्वात्त बढेको, फेरि अरु बेला जेनतेन चलेको, एक चरणमा एक र अर्को चरणमा अर्कै रुप र प्रकृतिको भएको यस्तो अनेक रुपको, गतिशिल र वैविध्यपूर्ण पिरेम र पिरेम-यात्रा सो यात्रा सकिएपछि निरपेक्ष भएर (dispassionately) केलाउनुपर्छ, सब बुझिन्छ ।

लु मैले मार्ग बताईदिएँ, अब अन्वेषण गर्ने काम जिज्ञासुजनकै हो । 

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

गोर्खेबाबा उवाच:

 

म एउटा मस्तिस्क र ब्यवहाँर बिसय् मा अनुसन्धान गर्ने मान्छे को नाता

ले । degree of encephalization अनुसार हामी primates हरु को दिमाग को अगाडि को भाग

ज्यादा बिकसित छ अरु जनवर भन्दा। तेसैले प्रेम, दया, माया, जस्ता कुरा हरु को

सन्तुलित आचरण् ब्यवहाँर मा देखिन्छ । ईतिहास का पात्र हरु जस्ले असन्तुलित रुप मा

ब्यवहाँर देखये तिनिहरु को दिमाग को एउटा भाग जस्लाई limbic cortex भनिन्छ , त्यो

या त ठुलो थियो , या तेस्मा कुनै कारण ले hyperexcitation भयो ( स्नयु बिज्ञान को

आधार मा ) । limbic cortex सामान्यताय प्राय nonhuman primates र मुख्य तया rodents

जस्तै मुशा हरु म हुन्छ। यो दिमाग को भाग को काम sexual behavior मा देखिन्छ ।

माया, प्रेम, पनि sexual behavior को एउटा भाग हो। जनवर हरु ले गर्ने sexual

behavior mating ,reproduction को लाई मात्रै होइन भन्ने कुरा प्रमाणित भईसकेको

छ। र प्रेम गर्दा, सम्भोग गर्दा, सन्तान लाई माया गर्दा, आदी मा यि दिमाग का

बिभिन्न भाग हरु कृयासिल हुन्छन । कृयासिल हुँदा र कृयासिल भये पछी केही समय सम्म र

अझ पहिले पहिले अनुभव छ् भने लामो समय सम्म इस्नायु बाट chemical हरु जस्तो

dopamine, Oxytocin, vasopressin हरु निस्कन्छन फल्स्वरुप हामीलाई आनन्द आउछ।

विश्वाश, प्रेम, मा मुक्ख्यतया Oxytocin निस्कान्छ, अरु काम जस्तो, धुम्रापन, मादक्

पढार्थ सेवन जस्ता बेला मा dopamine को प्रमुख भूमिका हुन्छ । जहाँ सम्म बुवा अथवा

male ले आफ्नो सन्तान को माया गर्दा vasopressin निस्कन्छ। यो अहिले को बिज्ञान को

उत्तर हो। हुन सक्छ अरु पनि करण ।।।। तेसैले प्रेम भनेको Oxytocin को अशर हो ,

विश्वाश र माया सबै नै तेही हो, mainly female जाती मा र केही हद सम्म male मा

पनि।।।।

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेमेकालव्य उवाच:

 

प्रेमको स्नायुशास्त्रिय अध्ययनको एउटा ठूलो सिमितता (limitation), कमसेकम अहिलेसम्म गरिएका अध्ययन र अध्ययनविधीको, के हो भने यसले प्रेमको effect को अध्ययन गर्छ, cause को होईन ।

 

अलर्कजीको लेख र लगभग सबै टिप्पणीकारको उद्देश्य प्रेमको कारण, यसको मुहान र fuel को खोजी गर्नु देखिन्छ । यस अर्थमा गोर्खेबाबाले प्रस्तुत गर्नु भएको विषय (प्रेम परिसकेपछि हाम्रो मस्तिष्कको कुन कुन एरिया बढी सक्रिय हुन्छन् र कुन कुन रसायनको बढी उत्पादन र प्रवाह हुन्छ) झण्डै अलग विषय भयो, भएन र ?

 

रागात्मक प्रेम (romantic/passonate love) बारे हाल चलिरहेका वैज्ञानिक अध्ययनका शोधपत्र पढ्न नचाहने तर जिज्ञासु जनहरुका लागि National Geographic को एक अलिक पुरानो लेख सिफारिश गर्न चाहन्छु ।

 

Love, The Thing Called Love

National Geographic

February 2006

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेमबारे मेरो धारणा राख्नुभन्दा पहिले यो स्पष्ट गरिहालम् - हामी स्त्री र पुरुष बिचको (समलिङ्गीका हकमा भने partners बिचको) रागात्मक प्रेम (romantic/passionate love) को कुरा गरिरहेका छौं है । कतिपय बहसमा सबैखाले प्रेम लाई एउटै डालोमा हालेर छ्यासमिसे प्रेमको कुरा गरिन्छ र यो झन नबुझिने (confusing) बनाईन्छ । त्यसैले यो distinction गराईहालेको हुँ । जस्तो पारिवारिक वा वंशज प्रेम (bond), वस्तुप्रेम (addiction) र हुँदा हुँदा देशप्रेम (allegiance) सम्म तमाम कुरालाई रागात्मक प्रेमकै डालोमा हालेर प्रेम भन्ने वस्तु कुनै परम (ultimate), सर्वव्यापी, अविभाज्य, सार्वभौम, स्वतन्त्र आधारभूत तत्व होला भनेर कल्पना र illusion उत्पन्न गरिन्छ ।

 

रागात्मक प्रेममा निश्चय नै bond, addiction, allegiance वा तिनका समकक्षी (equivalent) तत्वहरु र तिनलाई निर्माण गर्ने लगायत/वा अन्य अनेक आधारभूत वा व्युत्पन्न (derived) तत्वहरु छन् नै, किन्तु रागात्मक प्रेम स्वयं नै एकल (single) आधारमूत तत्व होईन ।

 

अर्थात् यो अनेक तत्वहरु मिलेर बनेको blend, mixture, compound वस्तु हो भन्न खोजेको हुँ ।

 

Relationship counseling गर्नेहरु एउटा अर्को एकदम उपयोगी distinction पनि गर्ने गर्छन, “प्रेम प्रेम सम्बन्ध अलग्गै कुरा हो भनेर । किन्तु प्रेम-सम्बन्ध आखिर प्रेम मै आधारित हुने हुनाले (वा हुनै पर्ने हुनाले) ती दुबैलाई एकसाथ हेर्न सकिन्छ

यति भनेपछि अब रागात्मक प्रेमको सर्दामहरु (ingredients) को बारेमा कुरा गरम् ।रागात्मक प्रेमको पहिलो सर्दाम हो आकर्षण, आसक्ति, राग वा “passion” ।कतिपय अवस्थामा यस तत्वलाई रागात्मक प्रेमको सर्दाम होईन कि सिङ्गै आफै एक्लै स्वय् रागात्मक प्रेमको रुपमा बुझिन्छ वा त्यस रुपमा रहेको हुन्छ । तर अरु सर्दामका कुरा गरेपछि स्पष्ट होला रागात्मक प्रेमलाई असर गर्ने वा निर्माण गर्ने अन्य तत्वहरु पनि

छन् ।

 

विभिन्न विशेषज्ञहरुले ती तत्वहरुलाइ विभिन्न तरिकाले वा विभिन्न पोकामा राखेका छन्, तर केही मनोवैज्ञानिकहरुको रागात्मक प्रेमको त्रिकोणिय सिद्धान्त (triangular theory of love) भनेर चिनिने एउटा लोकप्रिय मोडेलमा प्रेमका तीन सर्दामको पहिचान गरिएको छ । ति हुन्:

 

1. Passion (आसक्ति)

2. Intimacy (विश्वास/घनिष्टता)

3. Commitment (प्रतिवद्धता)

 

म यो मोडेललाई मोटामोटी मोडेलको रुपमा देख्छु/पाउँछु । यसमा केही मोटामोटीपन भए पनि प्रेमलाई विभिन्न तत्वको मिश्रणको रुपमा देख्न, ती तत्वहरुबिचको अन्तर्सम्बन्ध

(closed or open pathway को रुपमा) अनुमान गर्न भने यो बडा सहयोगी छ ।

 

Triangular theory of love को व्याख्या र चर्चा सामाग्री सार्वजनिक डोमेनमा टन्नै भएकोले त्यसबारे धेरै लेख्न चाहन्न । त्यो सिद्धान्तले छोएका र नछोएका एकदुई प्रश्नहरु राखेर यो खेप यहीं टुङग्याउन चाहन्छु ।

 

पहिलो, आसक्तिको आधार के हो ? यसमा mating instinct, libido जस्ता सर्वसाझा तत्वहरु �

 
Posted on 11-14-08 5:14 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

contd from the previous posting..

पहिलो, आसक्तिको आधार के हो ? यसमा mating instinct, libido जस्ता सर्वसाझा तत्वहरु र प्राकृतिक वा सांस्कृतिक कारकहरुले निर्माण गरेका वैयक्तिक (individual) चाख र स्वादका कुराहरु पर्दछन् भनेर सहजै अनुमान गर्न सकिईहालिन्छ । यसबारे यत्ति नै ।दोश्रो, माथि उल्लेखित त्रितत्वमा तहगत सम्बन्ध छ कि ? जस्तो कुन अगाडि आउँछ, कुन पछाडि आउँछ ? Passion लाई igniter को रुपमा र commitment intimacy लाई fuel को रुपमा हेर्न सकिन्न ? Depends. जस्तो, कसैकसैको intimacy बाट शुरु भएर passion मा पुग्छ नि, हैन र ?

 

अर्को प्रश्न हो, प्रेमांशको हिसाबकिताबमा एकतर्फी साउँ (original) मात्रा र जवाफी (reciprocated) मात्रा । ती अलगअलग हुन्छन् र तीनको समिकरण सुत्र पनि फरक फरक हुन्छन् भन्ने कुरा बुझ्नुपर्छ ।

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेम हुने (discovered ?) कुरा मात्र हो कि गरिने (invented ?) कुरा पनि हो ?

 

एउटा pop doctrine ले त यसो भन्छ,

 

प्यार किया नही जाता, हो जाता है

दिल दिया नही जाता, खो जाता है

 

वास्तविकता के हो त ? वास्तविक दुनियाँमा हुने प्रेम गरिने प्रेम सरोबर र अक्सर छुट्याउनै नसकिने गरी रहेको कुरामा शायद दुईमत नहोला । तर अब प्रश्न उठ्छ, कतै हुने प्रेम चाही साच्चीको प्रेम र गरिने प्रेम चाही ख्यालख्यालको प्रेम त होईन ?

 

यस विषयको आधिकारिक उत्तरको लागि शायद गोर्खेबाबाजीको शोधक्षेत्रमा जानुपर्छ ।

 

हुने प्रेम गरिने प्रेम को स्नायुरासायनिक mechanism मा अन्तर छ भने, अन्तर छ, छैन भने छैन ।

 

तर समस्या कहाँनेर देखिन्छ भने, ‘हुने प्रेम गरिने प्रेम भनेर पहिल्यै छुट्याउने कसरी ?

 

मैले भने नि वास्तविक दुनियाँमा त हुने प्रेम गरिने प्रेम छुट्याउनै नसकिने

अवस्थामा (मिश्रणको रुपमा मात्र होईन duality को रुपमा समेत) रहेको हुन्छ जस्तो

मान्छु म ।

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

गोर्खेबाबा उवाच:

 

प्रेम र माया को पनि cause छ् । प्रेम, affection , attraction जस्ता कुरा हरु

मान्छे र अरु non primate human मा चै तिनिहरु को cognitive ability ले गर्दा हो

किनभने यिनिहरु मा neocortex को volume ठुलो भएर हो । कारण - continuity of life

बाँच्न को लागि हो । अब किन continuity of life हो चै म भन्न सक्दिन , its not my

field । जनवर मा पनि कारण एही हो । र primates non primates मा हुने र

पत्तालागेको reward center stimulation भएर हुन्छ । र एउटा अनुसन्धान को finding

भन्छु ।। १ बर्षा अगाडि हामी ले एउटा कुकुर म परिछ्यण् गरेका थियौ , जस्मा त्यो

कुकुर ले आफ्नो घर को male (he is caretaker ) सग चै कैले happy नहुने र टोक्ने

गर्थ्यो र female सग चै जैले happy र नटोक्ने गर्थ्यो , त्यो कुकुर लाई हामी ले

nasal spray गरेउ , oxytocin hormone को, पारीणम सकारत्मक् आयो । मैले भन्न खोजेको

चै क् भने लभ को scientific cause छ र अरु पनि धेरै अनुसन्धान ले प्रमाणित गर्दै छन

। र यो कुरा पनि खासै अचम्म र रहस्यमय् हो जस्तो लाग्दैन ।

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेमेकालव्य उवाच:

 

प्रेम सम्बन्धी मामलाहरुमा हुँदै गरेका स्नायुशास्त्रिय र व्युहाणुशास्त्रिय (molecular) अनुसन्धानहरुले प्रेमका आधारभुत तत्व र स्वरुपको रहस्योदघाटन गर्दैछ नै, किन्तु समान्य जनका लागि प्रेमको मुल प्रश्न भने पनि, समस्या भने पनि, सौन्दर्य भने पनि के हो भने ती आधारभुत तत्वहरुले social context मा कसरी काम तमाम गर्छन् ।

 

जीवनलाई नै धन्य र आनन्दमय बनाईने प्रियतमलाई कहाँ पाउने, कसरी पाउने र कसरी नगुमाउने भन्ने सनातन चिन्ता र प्रश्नको जवाफ आधुनिक स्नायुशास्त्रले मात्र दिन पक्कै सक्दैन ।

 

स्नायुशास्त्र, मन-विज्ञान बाहेक प्रमाणपत्रविहिन प्रेम-गुरुहरुदेखि लिएर र हरेक मानिसको जीवन-अनुभवको उत्तिकै महत्व रहिरहनेछ अनन्तसम्म ।तपाईले ल्याउनुभएको जानकारीहरु चाखलाग्दा (र डरलाग्दा पनि) र informative छन् भन्नु बाहेक अर्थोक टिप्पणी गर्न मेरो क्षेत्रगत भिन्नता/सिमितताले दिदैन ।कुकुरमाथीको प्रयोग कति डरलाग्दो ! भरे मान्छेले पनि न्युरोकेमिकल अत्तर छर्केर मान्छेलाई लठ्याई प्रेम दुहुन थाले भने खत्तम भएन सभ्यता ?

 

Neocortex reward center stimulation बारे जानकारीको लागि धन्यवाद । यस्तै

जानकारी थप्दै जानुहोला ।

 

मस्तिष्कमा प्रेमको कारखाना कहाँ छ र त्यसले कसरी काम गर्छ भन्ने कुरा विस्मयकारी हो । तर यी findings हरु भर्खर भर्खरका र सिमित भएका र मुख्य कुरा त प्रेममा biological मात्र होईन सामाजिक र सांस्कृतिक कच्चा पदार्थहरु र पूर्वसोधन समेत आवश्यक हुने कुरा स्वीकार गर्नै पर्दछ भन्छु म ।

 

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेम भनेको कुरा सक्कली आसक्ति, दिने ईच्छा, माया पाउने लालसा, नपाईएला भन्ने पीर, पाएकोमा अपार आनन्द, कसैले खोस्न खोज्यो भने ईर्श्या, खोस्यो भने क्रोध र पीडा, सुरक्षा, विश्वास, प्रतिवद्धता जस्ता अनेक भावना र अवस्थाको मिश्रणबाट बनेको महाभावना हो ।

 

माया पाए पुरस्कृत भएको अपार आनन्द आउँछ, नपाए तिरस्कृत भएको ठूलो चोट लाग्छ । र यो पुरस्कारको चाहना र तिरस्कारको भय बिच हामीले जानी नजानी अनेकौं रणनीति र खेल खेलिरहेका हुन्छम् ।

 

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 

प्रेम गरेर हुने हो र?”

 

प्रेम केही परेर हुने हो, केही गरेर हुने हो । यसमा दुवै कुरा हुन्छ ।

 

 प्रेमका त्रितत्व भनेर चिनिने आसक्ति(passion), “घनिष्टता(intimacy) प्रतिवद्धता (commitment) मध्ये आसक्ति मूलत: आफै हुने (अर्थात् हाम्रो दिमागले हामीलाई थाहै नदिई गर्ने ) कुरा हो तापनि यसमा गर्नेले केही गरेर यसलाई केही manipulate गर्न सक्छन् । त्यसलाई त्यो हदसम्म गरेर भएको भन्दा हुन्छ ।

 

जहाँसम्म घनिष्टता प्रतिवद्धता को कुरा छ यी दुवै मुलत: गरेर हुने कुरा हो, यद्यपि केही हदसम्म यो आफै हुने कुरा पनि हो ।

 

निस्कर्षमा, पूर्ण प्रेम (तीनै तत्व भएको) केही परेर हुने, केही गरेर हुने कुरा हो

अपूर्ण वा काल्पनिक प्रेमको कुरा बेग्लै हो ।

 

अस्तु

 

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 

Nepe

 


 
Posted on 11-14-08 11:50 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Nepe & Loote

 

Thanks for your postings and arguments.


 
Posted on 11-14-08 11:50 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Nepe & Loote

 

Thanks for your postings and arguments.


 
Posted on 11-15-08 2:29 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

Jiban,

 

Thank you. I suppose that is a signal that we have had sufficient discussion. I hope it was a helpful one to your original question and for general interest.

 

I will just make a quick a thankyou note and comment on Nails’s last note on additional theories of love and also a pointer to one aspect of love we have not particularly talked about. The dynamics of love.

 

Until now we have treated love pretty much statically, as if there is a fixed equation for every pair.

 

The fact is that each person can be manipulated by circumstances and therefore the likelihood of a person to love (or fall in love) another person can also be a function of the circumstance.

 

Saying right thing at a right time makes all the difference in the pursuit of love. There are also circumstances when a person is more competent/vulnerable to love than he/she is in a normal time.

 

Finally, thank you, Nails, for adding very interesting and important information to this discussion.

 

I would like to summarize Hatfield’s and other theories for myself and Sajha readers here.

 

 

A. Zick Rubin

(Liking vs loving)

 

· Liking and loving can be distinguished and measured

· love = attachment + caring + intimacy

 

 

B. Elaine Hatfield

(Compassionate vs. Passionate Love)

 

· Compassionate love = mutual respect, attachment, affection, and trust

· Passionate love = intense emotions, sexual attraction, anxiety, and affection

 

· Ideally, passionate love ---> compassionate love

· Rarely, passionate love + compassionate love

 

C. John Lee

Color wheel model

(6 Styles of Loving)

 

 

Three primary styles:

1. Eros – Loving an ideal person

2. Ludos – Love as a game

3. Storge – Love as friendship

 

Three secondary styles:

1. Mania (Eros + Ludos) – Obsessive love

2. Pragma (Ludos + Storge) – Realistic and practical love

3. Agape (Eros + Storge) – Selfless love

 

For more:

Theories of Love

http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/theoriesoflove.htm

 

 

Happy weekend and fulfilling love life to all !

 

Nepe

 

 


 
Posted on 11-15-08 6:03 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 
 
Posted on 11-15-08 10:12 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

love is platform for sex, first show love then make love" pasyo maayaa basyo""
 
Posted on 11-16-08 12:16 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 
 
Posted on 11-16-08 10:06 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     1       ?         Liked by
 

metalgal,

r ya hot?

or ya are feelin' extraordinarily horny?

could'u stop that 'love sex thread'?

come2me i'll show ya love4sex=sex4love.


 
Posted on 11-17-08 9:49 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     1       ?         Liked by
 

LOVE is a Name, SEX is a GAME, Just forget the Name and Play the Game !! 
 
Posted on 11-17-08 8:05 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

swap you are funny
 
Posted on 11-17-08 9:39 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     1       ?         Liked by
 

ZeePa what in the world makes you think shes going to come to YOU? hehe

Let the girl have her opinion you narrow minded cricket.

 
Posted on 11-19-08 9:52 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 

So, are we ready to wrap up this thread? or just want to go ahead??
 



PAGE: <<  1 2 3  
Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 30 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
TRUMP 2016!!! Here is why?
Anyone questioning vaccines are getting banned
टि.पी.एस. को बारे खुशीको खबर
Why you can't trust the vaccines 100%
K diyo ta USA LE sathi haru hami lai ..
Finally tps extended (18 months) ( full statement)
Amway Work and benefit
37 lies Americans tell themselves to avoid confronting reality
Gemstones in Nepal
What does established doctor say about vaccination?
Diversity Visa DALLAS FO
USPS services
Savings i have now..when to return Nepal
TPS waasi haru lai 👍👍🤞🤞
न्यु हम्प्शाइरका दर्पण किरात राइ बालिका यौन शोषणमा पक्राउ
Dream and Promise Act chances in Senate
होलीको नाममा यस्तो अश्लिलता देखियो
TPS अब यसरि automatic extension हुदा नेपाल गएर आउन मिल्छ कि मिल्दैन ?
TPS NOT ENDING BUT MY DRIVERS LICENSE IS !!!!
Nepali food becoming last popular in Texas
Finally tps extended (18 months) ( full statement)
Why you can't trust the vaccines 100%
TRUMP 2016!!! Here is why?
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters