It was pointed out to me after class that based on our discussion - not to mention cultural use - the word "love" could mean just about anything. Our class discussion yesterday was a good reflection of this.
- Parental love - seems to have some enduring quality that overlooks even heinous behaviors like murder
- Spousal love - some difference of opinion here, but the sense is that there are conditions
- Love doesn't require liking
- Liking is not the same as loving
- Love/Hate relationship - How is it that love can turn to an obsessive hatred? Is this a different species of "love"?
The question is, no matter what your understanding of love, how does it correlate with Love 2.0?
BF's definition for Love 2.0 includes:
- Love is connection
- Love is marked by physiological moments of synchronicity
- Love is willingness to invest in the well-being of the other.
In other words:
- I love the one that I would grieve were something unfortunate to happen to them.
- I want to invest in the well-being of the one I love.
This is the subject of the class, this "Love 2.0" which does not require intimacy, and does not require history. We each get to explore whether or not BF's research on "vagal tone," which she has found to be correlated with practices of "Love 2.0," resonates with us.
Next week, we will return to the questions that I've distributed over the past couple of weeks.
In particular, let's think this week about if we love ourselves. For example, what would it mean for us to invest in our own well-being? That is, what constitutes our own well-being?
I invite you to comment on this and other blogs!