>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>RICK:
I just wanted to add one more thing. Bowlby never claimed that attachment =
love but I think this contact comfort went further than you are making it
sound. It is not just that the towl was a cushy place for the monkey's bum.
It was a security thing.
Think of all the children that get attached to their "blanky". I think the
attachment to that blanky is very similar to the attachment of the caregiver,
it provides a sense of security, well-being.
When Gary Zukav talks about the good kind of love he talks about it being the
opposite of fear. I liked that a lot. I think romantic love and love for mummy
are really fear-based (at least partly). This kind of love fades when the
"fear" is gone. Although many of "love" relationships are about security and
stem from fear there is a higher love (I don't think of myself as a
cold-hearted cynic) but I think it is very different from the attachment love
you see commonly described as love.
Sorry to offend anyone who still carries their blanky with them,
Erin
>
>Rick:
> I think you've really taken Bowlby's work far out of its context.
>Bowlby's study was designed to respond to a then-common scientific belief
>that 'attachment' was a secondary drive derived from more primary drives
>like hunger ---ie. an infant becomes attached to its mother only because she
>supplies food. He felt that 'attachment' to the mother was itself a
>primary, innate drive and set out to prove so. He eventually concluded that
>while feeding was important component of forming a mother/child bond,
>contact comfort was more important. As far I can tell, he never claimed
>that his work had any implications for the concept of Love (you know...
>Love... the 'amore' of the troubadours). Are you suggesting that romance is
>based on contact comfort and regular feeding?
> Lorenz also tried to impress that his work was only moderately
>generalizable to humans--- See his 1966 work 'On Aggression' for thoughts on
>how animal behavior is purely based on survival while human behavior is
>capable of being 'channeled' and modified.
>
>ERIN:
>So I think I agree with you if you are defining love as attachment...
>
>Rick:
> Love = Attachment? Kind of takes all the fun out of it, don't you
>think? I pity the fool who proposes with the line, "Oh baby, I'm so
>attached to you... let's get married." And to think it's been suggested
>that romance is dead.... Sure 'love' has its biological meanings (ie. the
>way Phaedrus and Lila 'love' each other one night below deck)... but tis a
>cold-hearted cynic who claims it ends there.
>
>Always 'attached' to talking with you,
>rick
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST