Thomas Lewis (5)

For years, Erich Fromm's [b:The Art of Loving|14142|The Art of Loving|Erich Fromm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1438550243l/14142._SY75_.jpg|1561022] was a book that informed my views on love. From it, I carried along general postulates which axed naivety and turned self-growth into the love's centrifuge. Having vowed to read it once again, I found myself diverging from the straight path into the curved mazes of contemporary theories. While Fromm appeared somewhere in the sky still, though gently pushing me from the seventh heaven, this book placed me steady on the ground.

This book is not a how-to - there is no advice on sex life or household chores. It's also no personal reflection - some books, while baring a title general enough to appear inviting, turn out to be memoirs, which doesn't necessarily makes them a poor fit - but barely extends beyond the licking of certain leaking wounds.

Both of those things I couldn't have guessed when I started reading from colourful, self-helpy language - that cannot be a general theory of anything if it uses a metaphor or an epithet once every page! As I read on, I haven't found myself particularly annoyed or enamoured by it - on the overall, it appeared appropriate for the subject, considering the authors' attempt to breathe life into the commoditized topic.

To say that the book hypnotised me into incessant reading is to say nothing at all. The last three chapters were a numbing injection which prevented unwilling separation - the controversial topics, while not necessarily alien to me, ventured out of the family and into the world, turning the discussion less personal and, by that virtue, less engulfing.
All the chapters preceding were, perhaps, the one thing I looked for over the years of reading on love - it wasn't dogmatically scientific nor romantically psychological, but a loving mixture of both. There were some long- and short-winded incentive speeches of varying levels of tediousness - some of them utterly delightful (say, on how the future is in our children's hand) - but they served rather as the squeaking of closing chapter-curtains.

It would be hard to put into words the degree of comforting knowledge the book has given me. Throughout the book, the centrepiece is family, upbringing and togetherness. The exploration, with some shimmers and glimmers of research and poetry, focused on three brains - reptilian, limbic and neocortical - and three limbic processes involved in a relationship - resonance, regulation and revision. Along the way came attachment styles.
With the theoretical apparatus stable and sturdy, the discussion unravelled in an understandable, cohesive manner, and didn't seem to stray from the primary focus - coming up with a theory, a motley theory of not just love, but of importance of familial love and its life-changing power.

This book ruffled many inner discussions - on relationships gone and coming, on families of the past and future, on the nature of attachments before and now, and on motherhood. Being driven to a sob only by the latter made that book one of the formative readings of this year.… (mais)

A General Theory of Love has really made me question the use, or really for which intent, starred reads on Goodreads are of use. This book contains elegant prose and the authors have a clear, well-rounded integration of literature, philosophy and neuroscience. Ultimately an enjoyable read I found it hard to follow the path laid where the discussion of childhood attachment includes no reference to Judith Harris's research in The Nurture Assumption or really squares much of any claim with scientific data. I found some great insights into the practice and purpose of therapy, and relatedness and general, but a large erroneous claims about culture and society that were unnecessary and outdated. I wouldn't start the study of emotions and neuroscience with this book but I would recommend it on a reading list, especially when considering the limits of rational inquiry and the significant impact of relationships for general well-being.… (mais)

This is what I got out of it: all our lives, our feeling mammal limbic brains are (hopefully) seeking out others in order to help us survive and/or prosper. Therefore we better learn to love and care for each other, and especially for our young, otherwise human future will be irreparably damaged at an early stage, and the healing will be difficult, if possible at all.
Must say I was slightly disappointed by this... thesis, which does not sound very new to me, quite the opposite. It sounds almost conservative, like an idea from the 50s, and whoever is bringing it up wants to confirm it by pointing out the physiological side of it. This is what we are born with... these should be our instincts. As a result, for example, mothers are put right back in their realm of motherhood, with its responsibilities of love and caring and... terrible mistakes, should they fail. (Parents as a couple are mentioned rarely and other parenting models are not dwelled on.) This may all well be so, however, what was lacking, was some kind of support or proof that this, indeed, is the case. The opinions in the book seemed tome to me just that - opinions and observations. And these were juxtaposed to poetry and... other observations. I hope more scientific research has been performed to confirm all this since. Obviously, should this really be the case, it would be essential to develop societies that understand and also meet and respond to these needs. And perhaps we should then teach the findings in schools - trying to develop emotional intelligence along other skills. I am giving it 3 stars because of the importance of the topic and my interest for it.… (mais)