Joan Ball is a business professor at St. John’s University in New York and the author of Flirting with Faith: My Spiritual Journey from Atheism to a Faith-Filled Life.
Ah love. Love with the capital L. It’s great, isn’t it –the natural high, the bliss, the warmth that comes from finding someone to
love. Until you experience the lows – the breakups, the heartbreak, trusting your
happiness in someone else’s hands. Well, what if you could anticipate and
defend against those lows? What if you could find your “perfect” match
scientifically? One writer, A.J. Jacobs, chronicles his part of an intriguing
experiment aimed at dissecting that very human emotion called love.
The article, “Do I Love My Wife? An Investigative Report,” takes
you through the 3 systems that supposedly intertwine to form the feeling of
love: the Sex Drive, the Romance System, and the Attachment System. Oh, and it turns out Jacobs does love his wife — just not in a “she makes me tremble” kind of way.
The study of love also looks at the chemicals that make us more or less faithful. That would be handy, wouldn’t it? It would be nice if they could create an injection to help the Mark Sanford’s of the world find their soulmate and stick with her.
As fascinating
as I find the idea, I have to wonder if we’re meant to dissect a force so
powerful. Love drives us in so many things that are essentially human. By
dissecting it are we taking away its essence?
It’s not that I’m against scientific exploration; but I do agree with Jacobs’ friends who told him, “Nothing good can come of
this.” Part of our addiction to love comes from the unknown, and while
we’ve all experienced the heartache that makes us wish we had just known
better, I don’t believe humanity is better off planning for love the same we
plan for retirement.
Must admit though, my awkward 12-year-old self was all about Sandra Bullock’s love potion no. 9.
posted July 4, 2009 at 10:03 am
I agree, we are so constantly taking things (food, emotions, bodies, faith) to parts and then concluding that they are nothing but their parts, we miss the fact that the parts are not themselves either explanations or the entirety of that which we hope to explain. So, fine, now we “know” the three systems that go together to constitute love, but that does not mean we have explained it. Also, “explaining” things in this way often implies that they are somehow controllable, and yet, is it actually love if we are in control?
posted July 4, 2009 at 10:03 am
I agree, we are so constantly taking things (food, emotions, bodies, faith) to parts and then concluding that they are nothing but their parts, we miss the fact that the parts are not themselves either explanations or the entirety of that which we hope to explain. So, fine, now we “know” the three systems that go together to constitute love, but that does not mean we have explained it. Also, “explaining” things in this way often implies that they are somehow controllable, and yet, is it actually love if we are in control?