Love/Hate

[DivineIntercourse]

What are some good reasons for believing in this: if there's love, then there must be hate - in order to banish one, the other must go as well. That sounds counterintuitive. Wouldn't love create more love rather than the other way around?

[Cory Duchesne]

What are some good reasons for believing in this: if there's love, then there must be hate - in order to banish one, the other must go as well. That sounds counterintuitive. Wouldn't love create more love rather than the other way around?

Well, what's your theory on why people feel hatred?

[DivineIntercourse]

A lack of love (definitely). If love, all of a sudden, vanished, then would hatred be gone as well (thinking about the coin concept - two sides of the same coin...)? Or would it not be (moreso) reasonable to assume that hatred would not only exist, but run rampant!?

It also depends on how one defines love. For instance: if some unhealthy experience is mistaken for genuine love, then I can see how that would be a problem - leading to further suffering which could lead to more hatred - However, that's part of that, love creates more love and hatred creates more hatred, theory. I think it makes sense, that's why I don't understand why someone would want to discredit something as innocent (not to mention: good, useful, pleasurable, inspiring, and so on) as love.

Btw, it's "hatred", not hate, right? (thanks for correcting me)

[Cory Duchesne]

If love, all of a sudden, vanished, then would hatred be gone as well?

By your definition of hatred (a lack of love), then no, hatred would not be gone.

It also depends on how one defines love. For instance: if some unhealthy experience is mistaken for genuine love [snip]

How do you tell the difference between experiencing genuine love and experiencing some unhealthy substitute for love?

Btw, it's "hatred", not hate, right? (thanks for correcting me)

The two words mean the same thing, as far as I know.

[Dan Rowden]

A lack of love (definitely).

What disposition do we generally have towards that which seeks or tends by its nature to destroy the objects of our love, or love itself (i.e. our attachments)?

[brokenhead]

A lack of love (definitely).

What disposition do we generally have towards that which seeks or tends by its nature to destroy the objects of our love, or love itself (i.e. our attachments)?

That's a good definition of hatred.

I do not think hatred is the opposite of love as many people seem to surmise. If love had an opposite, I suggest it would be fear.

[Dan Rowden]

I think fear is merely concomitant with hatred. It's not really a good substitute for it. Fear is more nebulous and automatically accompanies any attachment, at least in those moments when one not is completely bound up in them and their ephemeral nature appears to us. fear is the perception of potential loss or harm. Hatred is a little different than that. It's a more active response, whilst, as I say, involving fear.

Perhaps we could say hatred is directed fear; the "fight" rather than flight response to fear.

[DivineIntercourse]

What disposition do we generally have towards that which seeks or tends by its nature to destroy the objects of our love, or love itself (i.e. our attachments)?

I still don't see how one can lead to the other. In any case, it's an inability to make the appropriate choice selection during a confused state.

That's a good definition of hatred.

Not really. Just because there is no love, doesn't automatically mean that there is hatred. With that said, there is evidence to suggest that with one gone, the other may have a much greater impact/influence. Anyway, I have a slightly better definition in mind; Love is acceptance.


Fear has its usefulness, but it seems to be a poor response for the most part. I mean, on the one hand it's a handy natural security system, but on the other, ... it can act as a prison or barrier.

[DivineIntercourse]

I rest my case! ...And conclude that love can and does exist without hatred.

[divine focus]

That's a good definition of hatred.

Not really. Just because there is no love, doesn't automatically mean that there is hatred. With that said, there is evidence to suggest that with one gone, the other may have a much greater impact/influence. Anyway, I have a slightly better definition in mind; Love is acceptance.

Love is acceptance and also knowing what you are accepting. Acceptance is not something that is but something you do, as in honesty. Honesty needs a verb form.

Fear has its usefulness, but it seems to be a poor response for the most part. I mean, on the one hand it's a handy natural security system, but on the other, ... it can act as a prison or barrier.

Fear is control. The need for control is unending; only the realization of absolute control presently can quench it. The goal is had on faith, as it is given up.

[Leyla Shen]

fear is the perception of potential loss or harm.

I think it’s a little more dramatic than that. If I were to imagine a scale for “potential loss or harm,” apprehension would certainly be in there, yet apprehension is apprehension and not fear.

Fear, rather, is the definite perception of imminent danger; it is itself, actually, a temporary paralysis (contrasted with the more deeper set paralysis of apathy)—and that’s the subtle distinction between fear and hatred.

Hatred is a little different than that. It's a more active response, whilst, as I say, involving fear.

Fighting and fleeing both involve action—just in different directions!

Perhaps we could say hatred is directed fear; the "fight" rather than flight response to fear.

That’s true, but only from the bottom up—and in the chronic rather than acute case. Downwards, the “flee” action is toward apathy, rather like when an animal plays dead to protect itself from danger (even its vital signs change).

Sometimes, the fight comes from love, then hate, and, maybe but not necessarily to (at some point) an acute fear.

If one hates, one can fight and if one can fight, one can win and if one wins—well…

When one loves, say, truth but finds himself bombarded by lies, it is his love for truth that, in direct proportion, becomes a hatred of lies. Of course, the opposite is also true; viz when one loves attachment over and above truth, etc…

The moment he becomes afraid is basically the moment he realizes he’s been overpowered. It truly takes a madman to fight from fear.

[Dan Rowden]

fear is the perception of potential loss or harm.

I think it’s a little more dramatic than that. If I were to imagine a scale for “potential loss or harm,” apprehension would certainly be in there, yet apprehension is apprehension and not fear.

Fear, rather, is the definite perception of imminent danger; it is itself, actually, a temporary paralysis (contrasted with the more deeper set paralysis of apathy)—and that’s the subtle distinction between fear and hatred.

You make a decent point, though I'm not sure I agree entirely. Perhaps we could place a bunch of things on a sliding "fear scale", ranging from mild apprehension to blind faced, Snakes on a Plane terror, where each is a variety and degree of fear that produces slightly different outcomes. I think apprehension is simply fear in a different temporal context. Sort of "fear of the future" rather than of the present. It's less dramatic merely because it's more conceptual than visceral.

If someone told me I was having my balls cut off, sans anesthetic, with a serrated knife at noon tomorrow, would I be apprehensive or fearful?

[Jason]

It truly takes a madman to fight from fear.

Or a corner.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs]

Well, I wasn't quite thinking of attachment to body parts! But, yeah...

Still, though. You'd probably suffer a range of emotions, including disbelief, until the time came and you managed to present yourself. I still think it would be more apprehensive because, until the very moment the knife is coming down on your crown jewels, you at least appear to have some time. Do you think anticipation is the same as the moment of actual threat in the environment? I don't.

[Leyla Shen]

Sort of "fear of the future"

I'm sure there's a clinical term for that... :)

[Jason]

If someone told me I was having my balls cut off, sans anesthetic, with a serrated knife at noon tomorrow, would I be apprehensive or fearful?

After the removal, would you or would you not be testy?

[Dan Rowden]

[laughs]

Well, I wasn't quite thinking of attachment to body parts! But, yeah...

Still, though. You'd probably suffer a range of emotions, including disbelief, until the time came and you managed to present yourself. I still think it would be more apprehensive because, until the very moment the knife is coming down on your crown jewels, you at least appear to have some time. Do you think anticipation is the same as themoment of actual threat in the environment? I don't.

No, I don't either - one is conceptual, the other visceral. Can we agree that apprehension is fear in the conceptual realm, then? i.e. apprehension is anticipatory fear.

[Leyla Shen]

Sure, sounds reasonable.

[Animus]

Well I can tell you the neurotransmitters involved in Love and Hate are very different combinations and act on different brain regions.

For that matter the neurotransmitters involved in Romantic Love are more numerous than those involved in any other form of love or lust.

Fear involves a different combination of neurotransmitters that neither hatred nor love do. So these are all really different things, but without any one of them our species may have gone extinct.

[Leyla Shen]

Of course, when you define them in terms of neurotransmitters, they are different things. They are, however, still different things as abstract and/or linguistic "emotions," too. Do you think that there should be some congruence between the respective differences, or did I miss your point?

[Animus]

Of course, when you define them in terms of neurotransmitters, they are different things. They are, however, still different things as abstract and/or linguistic "emotions," too. Do you think that there should be some congruence between the respective differences, or did I miss your point?

Well I think to properly define "Love" and "Hate" and determine whether or not their existence shares an interdependancy a uniform model of "Love" and "Hate" needs to be attained on all levels of inquiry. Psychoanalytic, as well as neurochemical.

[DivineIntercourse]

When one loves, say, truth but finds himself bombarded by lies, it is his love for truth that, in direct proportion, becomes a hatred of lies. Of course, the opposite is also true; viz when one loves attachment over and above truth, etc…

The bold bit: I don't buy it. I think you've accepted the concept of love/hate without really giving it some thought, and that's why you think the two go together. Nothing in your writing indicates that you can't have one without the other.

Sometimes, the fight comes from love, then hate, and, maybe but not necessarily to (at some point) an acute fear.

Sure, we don't want to lose the things we love, but that doesn't mean that the fear of loss will turn into hate. And furthermore, we don't need to hate in order to fight, rather we could use a good dose of anger -- and this isn't necessarily a byproduct (or whatever) of hate. Or maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, take professional fighters as an example, getting angry would be counterproductive.

[Leyla Shen]

OK. Stepping back:

Well I can tell you the neurotransmitters involved in Love and Hate are very different combinations and act on different brain regions.

But they are still love and hate.

For that matter the neurotransmitters involved in Romantic Love are more numerous than those involved in any other form of love or lust.

OK.

Fear involves a different combination of neurotransmitters that neither hatred nor love do.

OK. So, what in your mind follows from these in terms of conclusions or questions in relation to interdependency?

For instance, the first thing that comes to my mind is, what might one look for in neuroscience to demonstrate the simple complete idea that one feels "hatred toward a particular person because they have physically hurt someone they loved"?

[Leyla Shen]

Nothing in your writing indicates that you can't have one without the other.

That's because I never intended it to.

Why did you reverse the order of the quotes?

[Animus]

They are not strictly interdepenant. They are somewhat different. There is withdrawl of dopaminergic reward associated with aggressive behaviour. So if someone hurts someone another loves that might caused dopaminergic withrawl, hatred may ensue after which entails the release of noepineprhin/noradrenaline. But the hatred itself is different than the dopaminergic withdrawl symptoms. In cases of Prefrontal Cortical damage, say for example the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, one may be diagnosed as Psychopathic or Antisocial Personality Disorder. Infact most convicted murderers have been found to have PFC damage of some sort. Characteristic of APD/Psychopathy/Sociopathy they lack empathic abilities and genuine love for another individual, yet they are prone to animosity and violence. It implies to me there is no interdependancy of the actual neurological basis of Love/Hate. But in psychoanalytic terms they seem to be mutually exclusive and interdependant. I don't think they are in light of neuroscience.

OK. Stepping back:

Well I can tell you the neurotransmitters involved in Love and Hate are very different combinations and act on different brain regions.

But they are still love and hate.

For that matter the neurotransmitters involved in Romantic Love are more numerous than those involved in any other form of love or lust.

OK.

Fear involves a different combination of neurotransmitters that neither hatred nor love do.

OK. So, what in your mind follows from these in terms of conclusions or questions in relation to interdependency?

For instance, the first thing that comes to my mind is, what might one look for in neuroscience to demonstrate the simple complete idea that one feels "hatred toward a particular person because they have physically hurt someone they loved"?