? 
Liked by
Copycat,
Very interesting read, indeed.
I have some skepticism, though, particularly regarding the mathematics of the lowest and the hypothetical highest animals.
I think the lowest animal which do not show “attachment” do have binary reasoning (knowing presence and absence). So the author’s theory that “attachment” is a result of binary reasoning needs to be modified.
But my most serious skepticism is regarding the imaginary “acausal” love the author speculate about a hypothetical animal that can understand the value of “pi”. Since that was a hypothetical situation, there is not much to argue about. However, my doubt is this: how can an indiscriminately love be love in the first place? Presence of love can be distinguished only by the absence of love, bhaneko ni. An universal love, wherever and whenever exists, is just a basic state of general “being” and not a specific “love”.
In any case, it was a thought-provoking theory. Good one, Pushkar Dahal Ji !
*** ***
Lootejyu,
Developing compassion by the rejected lover to the rejecting beloved though understanding or over time or even cases where a person keeps “loving” even after being rejected are different issues than I was talking about. These are stories where the pain of being rejected is cured (in the first case) or keeps co-existing with the pleasure of loving (in the second case). So the pain of rejection is a reality and naturality. Mero bhanai tetti thiyo.
>There is only one truth about the type of love and that is:
>it has only one type. You either don't love the person or
>love the person and that is, love him/her selflessly --
>meaning not necessarily expecting anything in return
>(which, obviously is, really really scarce in practice).
>Loving someone for a reason is not love in the first place IMO.
There was a time when I used to think exactly this way. I used to think love is a switch. However, a more careful observation and reading whatever scientific studies have been done have changed my view.
Experts are pretty much in agreement that love is not a singular feeling, it has several components/variables. So, depending on the values of these variables, infinite types and grades of love is possible. You seem to be recognizing only the highest grade of love (for example, “Consumate” love, as described in the table in the earlier posting) as real love. That is fine. However, it will be injustice to deny the other kinds of love, for example, “Companionate” or “Fatuous” love, a status of love.
Then when you say “selfless” love, it is pretty much an emphasis on “commitment” (self-commitment) component of the triangular theory of love described above.
So, if we examine the table above, “Consumate love”, “Companionate love”, “Fatuos love” and even “empty love” (which has only commitment and nothing else) could be “selfless” love.
This is all to argue that love comes in various shades and shape and it is probably unfair to cut an artificial line in order to call some “real” and others not.
Now to confound the already so complex love thing, I have two more sub-variables to add to the triangular theory, making them having 3X2=6 variables.
A priori (मौलिक) and reciprocal (जवाफी) values for each three components.
I had shared my view about it and about the evolution of my own view on love in general in a thread exactly three years ago. Here is an excerpt:
Thread: Love
http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm.cfm?StartRow=61&PageNum=4&forum=2&threadid=24483
कुरा के भने, लामो समयसम्म म शंशयवादी (skeptic) थिएँ रुमानी पिरिमको हकमा, अझ नास्तिक नै भने पनि हुन्छ । पिरिम नै त नभनुम, पिरिमको प्रचलित, लोकप्रिय, सांस्कृतिक, साहित्यिक अवधारणासंग हो । यी लोकप्रिय अवधारणाहरुको चर्चा गरिरहन आवश्यक छैन, यो थ्रेडका विभिन्न पोस्टिङहरुलाई सर्सर्ती पढे पुग्छ ।
मेरो अवलोकनको वास्तविक जीवनका प्रेम र प्रेमका लोकप्रिय सिद्धान्त बिचको गहिरो खाडल (gap) नै मेरो शंशयको जन्मदाता थियो । (मलाई लाग्छ, म्याउटिस बुइनीको मामला पनि यस्तै हो ) ।
अधिकांशत: प्रियतमाको जुल्फीको छहारीमुनि बसेर (हिही) लामो ध्यान गरे पछि र केहि स्वाध्यायनमा माथा खियाए पछि मलाई प्राप्त भएको प्रेम-बोध संक्षिप्तमा यस्तो छ :
(१) रागात्मक प्रेम (passionate love) आधारभौतिक (distinct, fundamental) वा एकसरो (homogenous) भावना होईन, बरु अन्य विभिन्न आधारभौतिक भावनाहरुको मिश्रण (blend) हो । मनोवैज्ञानिकहरु यसको पुष्टि गर्छन्, त्यसैले व्याख्या नगरिराखम ।
(२) हरेक प्रेम-सम्बन्ध (relationaship) मा चारवटा स्वतन्त्र (separate) सम्बन्ध-सुत्र (bonds, channel) हुन्छन् । यी चार सुत्रले चार प्रेम-लोकको निर्माण गर्दछन् ।
यी चार प्रेम-लोकको अस्तित्वको अज्ञानता नै प्रेम-दु:खको (शंशय, मतिभ्रम, असन्तुष्टी आदिका कारणले उत्पन्न हुने दु:ख) कारण हो । यसैले प्रेमको चार सम्बन्ध-सुत्र र चार लोकबारे ज्ञान हुनु अतिआवश्यक छ ।
के के हुन् त यी चार च्यानल/लोकहरु ?
यी हुन्:
(i) A को B प्रतिको मौलिक (original) प्रेम
(ii) B को A प्रतिको मौलिक (original) प्रेम
(iii) A को B प्रतिको जबाफी (reciprocal) प्रेम
(iv) B को A प्रतिको जबाफी (reciprocal) प्रेम
यी केहि स्वतन्त्र र केहि अन्योन्याश्रित चार च्यानल/लोकहरुको सार्वभौमिक सत्तालाई स्वीकार र यथोचित सम्मान गर्न सक्नेले प्रेममा कहिले दु:ख भोगनु पर्दैन ।
प्रेमम् शरणं गच्छामि !
Nepe
>If you love someone, Set her free...
>If she comes back, she's yours,
>If she doesn't, she never was....
प्रेमको लोकप्रिय किन्तु अपूर्ण अवधारणाहरुको यो एउटा राम्रो उदाहरण हो । यो अवधारणा "मौलिक" उपखण्डको प्रेमभूमिमा सिमित छ र यसले "जवाफी" उपखण्डको प्रेमभूमिलाई चिन्न ईन्कार गर्छ ।
प्रेमीको हरेक क्रियाले "जवाफी प्रेम" लाई तत्काल, प्रत्यक्ष र बलियोसंग र "मौलिक प्रेम" लाई कालान्तरमा, अप्रत्यक्ष र कम बलपूर्वक प्रभाव पार्दछ भन्ने कुराप्रति माथिको कथन पूर्ण अनभिज्ञ रहेको छ ।
प्रेमीले आफ्नो प्रेमीद्वारा आफुलाई छोड्न सक्नु र छोड्न नसक्नुलाई अलग अलग अर्थमा बुझ्दछन् भन्ने कुराको ज्ञान छैन यसमा, यसैले अपूर्ण छ यो ।
परन्तु, Nepalipoonte ले पोस्ट गरेका ठट्यौलीहरुमा भने कतै कतै यो ज्ञान निहित छ र समग्रमा, प्रेमको यौगिक स्वरुपको पुष्टि भएको छ- ठट्टा नै सहि, प्रतिक्रियाको विविधताद्वारा ।
*** *** ***
Nepe