blazeofglory
01-18-2009, 10:00 AM
I have heard love is nothing but infatuation
When some chemical sub stances levels up within our biological corpus, we may feel like loving and when that age passes we will lose that substance and we will turn out to be less loving. I do not know this fact. I am not a student of science and the intricacy of this science or idea is incomprehensible to me. But the curiosity to know more about it does not die out.
Love must be something more than the sum total of what we know of it or the chemistry of it. It transcends this periphery of definition or disambiguation. Maybe what we call infatuation is a single or one dimensional approach and this is a multidimensional idea. Striking at one root we cannot claim that we came to know about the rest of roots, not to mention the main root.
Let us share our ideas. I do not want to support one idea and oppose another just because something preoccupies my mind. When we are students of science we are moulded or conditioned to oppose sets of ideas. This is called obsession. We go to the extent of completely disregarding all wisdom.
Now people started to define love within scientific or chemical dimensions. Of course its scope transcends the limit set by us.
Love is oftentimes tied up with something godliness. Something supreme, something beyond a state of materiality or mundane reality. We simply pivot around definitions, logical propositions, syllogistic ideas, philosophical inferences, scientific methods, experiments, observations and empirical evidences. But truth cannot be arrived at easily. We cannot completely decline ancient wisdom.
Man is a just dust, a cosmic dust and his knowledge of this universe is likened to the attempt of a mole to scale Mt. Everest. There are a hundreds of mountains one has to scale before forwarding steps to summiting Mt. Everest.
I am not opposing science. All that I am accentuating is we must have an integral approach to truth. We can be close to truth if we look at it from a multidimensional lens.
When some chemical sub stances levels up within our biological corpus, we may feel like loving and when that age passes we will lose that substance and we will turn out to be less loving. I do not know this fact. I am not a student of science and the intricacy of this science or idea is incomprehensible to me. But the curiosity to know more about it does not die out.
Love must be something more than the sum total of what we know of it or the chemistry of it. It transcends this periphery of definition or disambiguation. Maybe what we call infatuation is a single or one dimensional approach and this is a multidimensional idea. Striking at one root we cannot claim that we came to know about the rest of roots, not to mention the main root.
Let us share our ideas. I do not want to support one idea and oppose another just because something preoccupies my mind. When we are students of science we are moulded or conditioned to oppose sets of ideas. This is called obsession. We go to the extent of completely disregarding all wisdom.
Now people started to define love within scientific or chemical dimensions. Of course its scope transcends the limit set by us.
Love is oftentimes tied up with something godliness. Something supreme, something beyond a state of materiality or mundane reality. We simply pivot around definitions, logical propositions, syllogistic ideas, philosophical inferences, scientific methods, experiments, observations and empirical evidences. But truth cannot be arrived at easily. We cannot completely decline ancient wisdom.
Man is a just dust, a cosmic dust and his knowledge of this universe is likened to the attempt of a mole to scale Mt. Everest. There are a hundreds of mountains one has to scale before forwarding steps to summiting Mt. Everest.
I am not opposing science. All that I am accentuating is we must have an integral approach to truth. We can be close to truth if we look at it from a multidimensional lens.