Orenholt wrote:Oh I see. I merely meant that the body's experience of agape love was caused.
Love is not an experience of the body as such! Certainly not "agape", at least in the traditional usage this is metaphysical. Perhaps it would be interesting to call it: the love connected to "no-experience" and therefore "no-expectation". But is that still "love"? It probably won't be recognized that way very often. Simply because there would be expectations in place.
And I mean well being for as many as possible for as long as possible.
Like love, this kind of well being only exists because of
selection. You pick a being and when it has to happen: your particular "framing". Some way broader stroke here seems delusional and denies even
logically the possibility of "wellness" or "love". Unless it would involve "no-being" - for obvious reasons.
Yes, I am saying that undesired behavior is caused by a lack and yes, I agree that it is due to our genetics.
You appear as having a hard time accepting the utter randomness of occurrences we can see every day around us. One "shock to the system" and resulting behavior could be undesired for those surrounding the affected person. But is it a lack in the "shocked" brain or is the environment lacking in possibilities to accommodate the change? Sometimes neurons just fire because they can; structures collapsing because of multitude of "causes". Or sometimes problems arise out of
surplus and not of some lack. There appears to be some kind of nervousness, some upset in place even in the most "satisfied" being which could lead to destruction again. The idea of decadence is a nice illustration of this.