From: Phil Goetz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 17:07:03 MDT
--- Martin Striz <email@example.com> wrote:
> Love is a literary invention of the Renaissance.
That's an appealing claim, but I don't believe it.
We have stories about lovers going back a very long way,
back to the first myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Also, you don't mean the Renaissance - you mean the 12th
century, at the start of the "middle ages". What
happened was more of a social legitimization of romantic
It is true that the vast majority of stories before the
century did not actually involve what I would call
romantic love, but more a Romeo-and-Juliet-type
Few of those stories give any reason why the man loves
the woman other than her great beauty. But that's true
after the 12th century, and the Renaissance, as well,
down until about the 19th century.
> love at different times is at least three separate
> infatuation (phenethylamine), bonding (oxytocin) and lust
> (testosterone). The way you "love" your mother (bonding)
> is different
> from the way you "love" your girlfriend (infuation,
> probably lust),
The oxytocin system in the woman that is activated by
a baby suckling at the breast, is the same system that
is activated by having sex. So these things are less
separable for women than for men.
> Emotional stability is achieved in the early 20s
> following a drop in
> hormone levels.
Also, the complete maturation of myelin in the frontal
> > I would conclude that the Friendliness of a strongly
> transhuman mind would
> > benifit from the love of a good transwoman
I would take that further - we might all be safer if
only females were allowed to transcend.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT