Crow's Paradise

The next moment, he heard the eyeball making a sound.

It's a female voice.

Then, his eyes fell on the spirit body that looked like a "pirate captain".

The opponent is missing an eyeball.

He found in his memory a theoretical perspective on the genetic mechanism of eros.

People often talk about "love".

However, has anyone ever accurately analyzed what "love" is?

From the perspective of depth of observation and targeting objects, it can be divided into love, family affection, friendship, etc.

If you dig deeper and dissect these emotions, you will find love.

Just like most cognitions and judgments, the judgment related to love is itself a synthetic judgment.

Love can be said to be the synthesis of one individual to another individual at the level of consciousness and desire.

Companionship, communication, possession, control, etc.

Using a simpler and rougher description, it can be understood that various desires in different proportions can synthesize different emotions.

Human beings themselves are animals that live in groups. Before entering the stage where they can influence cognition and interfere with reproduction, they have experienced screening again and again.

Group creatures have a strong "desire for companionship" and "desire for communication."

If a person does not have contact and communication with others of his own kind through any means, a strong sense of loneliness will arise.

This kind of contact and communication, before the advent of the electronic and network era, was generally based on direct communication and contact, but it was not completely direct.

How should I put it? Creatures such as ants and bees communicate with their companions through pheromones.

By releasing and retaining a certain substance to the outside, information is released, and another individual contacts this information and then "translates" it into information that he understands.

This is a kind of communication.

There is a difference between communication and companionship, but the relationship is very close.

In other words, human beings have reached a point where communication can replace companionship.

There is no need to directly ingest or come into contact with substances. You only need to observe "traces of the same kind" and conclude "I have the same kind" to complete the initial satisfaction of the desire for communication and companionship.

Creatures with vision often have similar situations, but humans, as creatures with highly developed information processing organs, are different from other creatures.

The highly developed cognitive ability gives humans a stronger "brain supplement" ability.

A little bit of "communication" can satisfy humans.

From this point of view, even if there is only one person left in the world, as long as that person has not confirmed this fact and still has "hope", he will not be completely trapped in loneliness.

But because of this, his desire for direct companionship and direct communication with his companions will continue to rise.

But this rarely happens.

During his lifetime, people were able to communicate with others of their kind through electronic networks.

It doesn't even matter whether they are "the same kind" or not.

As long as people think it is.

From this perspective, other creatures are still at the stage of "this medium was left by a companion, and I have companions", while humans have reached the stage of "this trace was left by a companion, and I have companions."

It doesn't matter if it's not a human being, as long as it's someone who can communicate, and can exchange information.

like

Spiritual creatures at the level of phenomena and laws?

Thoughts flashed by.

Even if they are not in the same era, even if the "object" that people can clearly recognize has "died", as long as people can observe the things left by the other party, it is okay.

This is the general expression of "desire for companionship" and "desire for communication".

The same goes for several other desires, such as possessiveness.

Possessiveness is not just the possession and competition for real materials. From a genetic perspective, it originates from a very ancient level and still remains at the cellular level. The behavior of "absorbing" and "eating" external materials .

Those who have this function will survive and live better.

This is to find the reasons from the perspective of evolutionary psychology and to explore the reasons from the perspective of genetics.

Emotionally, the manifestation of this desire is even more common.

Children will be unhappy because their friends get along well with others, and may even feel uneasy or rebellious.

If you have raised animals, especially carnivorous animals, such as chickens or cats and dogs, you will also find that they have more or less food-protecting behaviors.

From the perspective of its mechanism, human possessiveness is an extension of this food-protecting behavior.

There is also the desire for control, which often comes from insecurity——

There is a lack of security, so we need to control and dominate to prevent insecurity from becoming a reality.

It can be said to be a manifestation of inner fear.

In group organisms, this desire will be strengthened.

Control over oneself and peers.

To sum up, genetically speaking, this behavioral mechanism derived from various ancient biological behaviors and engraved in DNA is the source of various emotions.

If the desire for companionship and communication account for a large proportion, it will be reflected in the form of friendship.

If there is a lack of sense of security and the desire for safety increases, then the desire for control will become greater and the desire for possessiveness may also increase.

After exploring the principles of various emotions and desires, this view believes that love, friendship, family affection, etc. are actually composites formed by different proportions of various desires.

What, even if this is the case, there should also be a desire for a partner in the component of love?

Indeed, but why do you think that there is no desire for "J match" in other relationships?

In other words, what makes you anchor this desire as the desire to "match".

Or, why don't you think this desire is not a synthetic product?

There is a very classic theory that is considered outdated.

In this theory, there is a character whose name was known to many people during Yao Yan's lifetime.

Freud.

Some people say that his theory is pseudoscience, some people say that his theory cannot be true or false, some people think that his theory should be classified as continental philosophy, some people think that he has a huge impact on psychology, some people think that his theory The impact is not that big.

To describe it briefly, Mr. Freud can be roughly described as "pansexuality".

When he talks about most issues, he inevitably turns back to the desire for sex.

What kind of dream did you have? What kind of sexual desire did this dream reflect?

And so on.

But here's the thing.

Is "sexual" desire a synthetic thing?

Genetology, evolutionary psychology, etc., have all discussed this issue more or less.

Are "sex" and its related desires related to the function of promoting the combination and exchange of DNA double helices?

As mentioned just now, possessiveness comes from the behaviors related to eating and ensuring food of ancient creatures. It can be traced back to the function of ancient creatures to absorb, obtain and combine external substances.

At this time, distinctions such as "gender" themselves did not exist.

How much connection does the so-called "sexual" desire have with the mechanism of DNA double helix binding and exchange after dissection?

PS: Well, if you have learned about the economics of love and desire, you can probably get a little bit of it, right?

Although I strive to explain it in a simple and understandable way, I am not sure whether my "translation" will cause misunderstanding, so please don't worry too much.

This is closer to the field of psychoanalysis.

If you are interested, you can learn about Lacan’s content about “desire”.

In short, from the perspective of this theory, the desire for "match" originates from the substances in the body and from the combination and exchange mechanism of genes.

Of course, although it is most common in the relationship between the sexes, it itself has nothing to do with the sexes.

How to make an analogy? Let's put it this way, steel is often used to make pots and pans, but steel itself does not exist to be turned into pots and pans. At most, pots and pans are made for eating and serving food. came out, but steel is still widely present in other substances.

To paraphrase, the formation of both sexes is derived from the structural mechanism of gene combination and exchange, but it does not only exist between the two sexes. Family and friendship itself are also affected by this mechanism.

Of course, this explanation is very superficial and crude, and it has not been finished yet. You can go and understand the relevant content.