Hello All,
In a preliminary and, to me, quite thorough/comprehensive (though also, as the authors readily/flexibly note, needing of further elaboration and precision) attempt to define “love” as a middle level (functional) term, Kanter, Holman, and Wilson (2014) suggested the following:
“Specifically, love as a middlelevel term may represent a functionally complex set of stimulus relations and behaviors around a core, adaptive respondent reaction, all concerning the fundamental importance of deep and meaningful moments of human connection and emotion that feel ‘loving’” (p. 71). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.02.001
Though (to me) an admirable and important initial attempt was provided by these authors, I am writing this now in an attempt for further precision/elaboration of “love” as a middle level functional term (as suggested). Towards these efforts, I believe that it might likely be useful to distinguish (i.e., view them as separate “things”) between respondent (i.e., interoceptive; feelings; emotions) and operant (i.e., what one actually does, or intends to do, with their mouth, hands, and legs/feet) “loving”/“love-consistent” types/qualities of action/s.
…
"Love" as respondent
“Love”, as respondent behavior, to me, can be fundamentally seen as relatively pleasurable/desirable experience in much the same way that “happiness” can (i.e., they are both members of a relatively desirable/functional class of being/feeling/experiencing). And, also like “happiness”, “love” (as respondent behavior/qualitative experience) might also likely be a “trap” when pursued in fleeting, physical sensations-based forms (i.e., pursuing momentary/fleeting feelings/experiences of “love” [e.g., sex] even when those qualities of actions are not in accordance with meaningful/chosen values [e.g., being a faithful/trustworthy spouse]).
I do think, however, that “love”, just as “happiness” (i.e., as respondent behavior/feelings), may be usefully understood (perhaps not by “clients” but likely by contextualists pursuing evermore effective interventions) as the type/s of relatively desirable/functional experience/s that relatively effective qualities of action/s (e.g., values) might likely/ideally function to produce (in longer term, sustainable, durable ways) as (likely) important element/s of “better outcomes”.
…
Love as operant
Looking now at “love” as operant behavior (i.e., qualities of operant action/s; a “value”) means that we are now looking at “it” is type/quality of action/s that can be engaged in without having to “feel” a certain type of way in order to do so (i.e., one doesn’t have to “feel” “love”/“lovingly” towards another/self in order to engage in “loving”/“love-consistent” types/qualities of actions).
Question #1: What is LIKELY “love” as a type/quality of one’s (operant) action/s?
Consider for a moment three different examples of behavior that one might be likely to tact as fundamentally “loving” in quality/nature: (1) a soldier who throws their body onto a live grenade in an attempt to save the lives/pain/suffering of fellow soldiers, (2) newlyweds “making love” for the first time as a married couple, and (3) a parent who works hard for many years at a job they hate to ensure that they and their family members do not ever experience the harm/pain/suffering of being homeless/hungry/without human basic necessities.
From these examples, one can see a basic (functional) pattern in “loving” type/qualities of actions in that there seems to be a common basic element of (likely/directly) functioning to increase the relative pleasure/desirable experience/s of others/self (the “loved”).
Similarly, in viewing “loving” types/qualities of action/s from this perspective , a parent who comes to punish (or even hit) their child for misbehaving may be seen to be engaging in fundamentally “loving” type/quality of actions to the extent that those punishing behaviors are performed with the intent of increasing the overall probability of “better outcomes” for that child (especially if that parent knows of no other ways to accomplish that goal).
Question #2: What is UNLIKELY to be “love” as a type/quality of one’s action/s (i.e., what are types/qualities of action/s likely to be relatively “unloving”/“love-inconsistent”)?
Consider for a moment three examples of behavior/s that one might be likely consider fundamentally “unloving” in quality/nature: (1) a person who kills, assaults, robs, lies, steals, and/or cheats another/self, (2) a person who verbally encourages others to kill, assault, rob, lie, steal, and/or cheat others/self, or (3) a person who attempts to make others feel “less than” by use of words/ideas.
From these examples, one can see a basic (functional) pattern in (likely) “unloving” types/qualities of actions in that there seems to be a common basic element of (likely/directly) functioning to increase the relative harm/pain/suffering of others/self.
Certainly, I would think, any person being (for example) killed, assaulted, robbed, cheated, lied to, or verbally assaulted would be unlikely to experience or describe those types/qualities of action/s/experiences as fundamentally “loving” or “love-consistent” and would actually/probably be more likely to say the opposite (i.e., they would likely be experienced/perceived as relatively “unloving”/hateful actions).
…
Conclusions:
From this basic analysis of “love” as an operant/functional type/quality of action/s, here are my (current) conclusions on the matter:
1. Qualities of actions that (likely/directly) function to increase the relative pleasure/desirable experience/s (current/ongoing/and/or future) of others/self (i.e., the “loved”) are more likely than other type/qualities of action/s to be (perceived/experienced as) relatively “loving”.
2. Qualities of action that do not (likely/directly) function to increase the relative pleasure/desirable experience of others/self but also (likely/directly) do not function to increase the relative harm/pain/suffering experience of others/self may not themselves likely be (perceived/experienced as) “loving” in nature/quality but are also relatively unlikely to be (perceived/experienced as) “unloving”/hateful (i.e., they are likely relatively neutral; relatively “love-consistent” type/qualities of action/s).
3. Qualities of actions that (likely/directly) function to increase the relative harm/pain/suffering experience of others/self are more likely than other types/qualities of action/s to be (perceived/experienced as) relatively “unloving”/hateful.
From this view/perspective, it would seem/appear that the continuous pursuance of relatively “loving” type/qualities of action/doing/being across contexts (i.e., as a general life “value” or desired/chosen quality of “being”) is likely to be most effectively pursued/achieved by (fundamentally/continuously attempting to) avoid engaging in (to the best of ones abilities in any given moment) types/qualities of actions that (likely/directly) function to increase the relative harm/pain/suffering of others/self (the “loved”).
In other words, “love” as “being” (i.e., as a “value”; middle level functional term) is, to me, likely to be most effectively perceived/pursued as (fundamentally/continuously/functionally) not “other than” relatively “moral” qualities of action (i.e., continuously attempting/striving to abstain from engaging in pre-determined qualities of actions relatively more likely than other types/qualities to cause harm/pain/suffering in others/self; e.g., killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.).
…
Morality as the foundation/base of “love” as operant
More on “morality” as a (likely) functional value (likely essential to maintaining love-consistent actions) can be found among my blog posts on this website (look for “The Value of Morality”)…
In that blog post on “morality”, a case is attempted to be made for relatively “moral” type/quality of action/s as a LIKELY functional value, meaning that it is a value that can be seen as more likely than others/most to function to increase the probability of relatively (qualitatively) “better outcomes”. Specifically, it is suggested that engagement in relatively “immoral” type/quality of actions likely function to condition relatively aversive/undesirable states of being/feeling (i.e., hate/ill will/pain/suffering) that themselves likely function to decrease the probability of relatively pleasurable/desirable (current/ongoing/future) outcomes/conditions.
Thus, it seems to me that continuous engagement in “loving” type/qualities of action/s (that fundamentally/functionally include a “morality” base) are likely to increase the probability of relatively pleasurable/desirable experiences/outcomes (which makes “love” itself a likely functional “value”)… which likely includes (as a natural aspect of its outcomes) relatively more/deeper/durable experiences of (relative) “love” as respondent behavior.
…
Relatively concise summary of conclusion/s: The (likely) effective pursuit of “love” as an ongoing/continuous quality of one’s actions (i.e., as a context-spanning “value”) likely (for best results) involves not only the (occasional/often) engagement in behaviors that (likely/directly) function to increase the relative pleasure/desirable experience/s of others/self (i.e., relatively “loving” type/quality of actions; compassionate, generous, kind, protective, etc.) BUT ALSO the (likely) continuous (general) avoidance of engaging in (qualities of) behaviors that (likely/directly) function to increase the relative harm/pain/suffering experience/s of others/self (i.e., avoiding relatively “unloving”/“blameworthy” type types/qualities of actions which likely function to keep one’s actions as relatively “love-consistent” across contexts).
…
Thank you for reading! I’d love to hear your thoughts =)
Jesse