A new book argues that the emotion happens in "micro-moments of positivity resonance."
So for her to say that "love" is or is not this or that doesn't make a huge amount of sense. But then that's because love is a broad and vague concept anyway. Of course, you can easily incorporate those other aspects of love (as I imagine she does in her book) with the micro-moment theory; those are the longings of the person built on them having experienced micro-moments of love. I'm just curious about the physicality thing; how to explain the growing numbers of people falling in love over the internet?You have to physically be with the person to experience the micro-moment. For example, if you and your significant other are not physically together—if you are reading this at work alone in your office—then you two are not in love. You may feel connected or bonded to your partner—you may long to be in his company—but your body is completely loveless.
This is interesting. I think Fredrickson's argument is pretty cool, but it seems to dispense with the connection/bond and the longing to be in another's company, which are generally part of the "love/romance" constellation.
I agree. "Love" seems so much more complicated than various chemical reactions. the longing to be in another's company
and in the case of love for one's children, it seems different from the empathy developed in loving-kindness meditation. growing numbers of people falling in love over the internet?
exactly. Perhaps within a chemical definition of love, there can be a formula, but because of memory and consciousness more might be going on. For example, my cat climbs up on me as soon as I sit on the sofa. But when I'm not in her company, no love. Memory and consciousness must affect the chemistry, you think?
Yes. Micro-moments of love (which are neurochemical in nature) might be the fundamental basis of love, but then there's a whole lot of memory, history and consciousness mixed in - not to mention cultural attitudes and ideals. Ideals such as the "true love" one that Fredrickson is trying to debunk.
The article tells you what love is not: It is not a long-lasting, continually present emotion that sustains a marriage; it is not the yearning and passion that characterizes young love; and it is not the blood-tie of kinship.
If you are willing to keep reading after that, and if you are willing to believe the the chemical composition of love, you will find Fredrickson likes to call love a nutrient. If you are getting enough of the nutrient, then the health benefits of love can dramatically alter your biochemistry in ways that perpetuate more micro-moments of love in your life, and which ultimately contribute to your health, well-being, and longevity.
Describing love as a "micro-moment of positivity resonance" seems like a buzz-kill.
Yup, a dash of realism. But the article is interesting. If you find that you only "fall in love" in bed (that is the initial sense that love might be happening, the falling part) then this article might be interesting.