The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic

Are you ready to challenge everything you think you know about Love?  In this episode, we navigate through the maze of common myths and misunderstandings surrounding the concept of Love.  Join us as we discuss what happens when we look at Love through the lens of reasoned thought and knowledge.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

Sources and notes:   Episode 2

*Do Good, Feel Good, Lisa Marshall, Dec. 2011

*The Technology of Love, (TOL) Charles E. Hansen, 2004, p. 82-84  The Human Main Menu

*TOL, p.231, “Love is a learned phenomenon.”  Leo Buscaglia

*The Technology of Love, Charles E. Hansen, ©2004   Chapter 1, page 19-30   Love:  Can We Define It?

*A small sample of referenced pioneers  who have influenced the history and study of love:  Confucius, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, Adam Smith, Pitirim A. Sorokin, Charles S. Pierce, Albert Schweitzer, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi,  Bernie S. Siegel, M. Scott Peck, Erich Fromm, Emmanuel Berl, Leo Buscaglia, Irving Singer, Alan Soble, Anthony Walsh,

*Gravity 

*The Laws Of Sexual Attraction  CNN

*Definition of science: Source Wikipedia

*Higgs/God Particle    (Physicist)

*Emily Post

*Blog post on etiquette 

*Justice: “The crucial role of Justice, properly understood, then, is not to encumber the domain of Love or primarily to ‘punish’’ offenders, but to protect Love’s domain from infringement. (…Love has no problem with appropriate punishment; if Justice used none, society would soon collapse much as [Adam] Smith held.)”  TOL, page 424

*Adam Smith  

*David Hume

6 Responses to The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic
  1. Lily
    July 13, 2012 | 4:38 pm

    Awesome episode! Thank you for your show, what a great topic!

  2. Cath Lamb
    July 13, 2012 | 4:46 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment, Lily!

  3. Penelope
    July 13, 2012 | 6:14 pm

    I’m glad to see someone starting to connect science and love. However, in the spirit of falsification, I’d like to challenge your definition of science. I have no problems starting research with Wikipedia, but I don’t accept this definition as being complete nor that one’s research actually reaches the level of science simply by repeating the definition. Many pseudoscientists can claim their work as being “scientific” simply by evoking the name of science, data, and objectivity. I’d like to see you make a few predictions, put them to the test, explain the results and theory behind them fully, and how your ideas build cumulatively upon what has already been tested and proven. Remembering, of course, that any good definition of science should also include the notion of tentativeness, here’s an article I often ask my students to read before beginning “scientific” research: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Evolution/Unit16CreationSci/Ruse.html. I hope these slight critiques are accepted in the spirit of love and science in which they were intended.

    • Cath Lamb
      July 13, 2012 | 7:23 pm

      Thank you Penelope! It’s wonderful to encounter a response on this level. We are forwarding your comment on to a member of our team who will be better able to explain and discuss the Technology of Love at this level of depth. Elaine and I are not scientists or teachers, but we are trying to get the essence of the work out to the world. On this website, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the information in the Technology of Love, which puts Love to a rigorous test, including “The Mathematics of Love” (Chapter 10), emerging with an invariant and related system. I think you would really enjoy the book! We are excited to discuss the predictions, tests, results and theory, as you have proposed. We look forward to this continuing conversation with you!

    • Cath Lamb
      July 14, 2012 | 7:07 pm

      Penelope,here is a response to your comment from our “science” team member:

      While The Technology of Love (TOL) itself is high quality scientific work, the end result is still only theory to the scientific community or person. As you correctly point out, to be a law of say physics, like ‘gravity” it has to be tested and proven. That is exactly what the TGC web site is all about. The first successful “test” was publishing Gimpy’s Secret (see link below) applying the theory advanced by Hansen. The public is encouraged to read the book and challenge or test his theory. For those who ask deeper questions or seem more knowledgeable will want to read TOL

      Hansen’s theory as presented in TOL and “tested” on TGC is best generalized as follows: Love is conveyed from one to another by a combination of 10 love vectors grouped as Care. The 10 specifically are Attentiveness, Listening, Thanking, Praising Encouraging, Comforting, Assisting, Sharing, Contributing, and Protecting. It is scientifically important to note Hansen’s research shows these 10 are common across all languages, cultures, and religion. So it is a good start for “testing” by applying it to our day-to-day lives not only spiritually but in leadership roles of business and community.

      For example, just try saying “thank you” with sincerity and observe the outstanding results (feed back loop)! It works like a charm. This should be a good test to satisfy those who are asking for proof. Testing the theory is easy when you specifically apply one or a combination of the 10 vectors.

      Here is the link to “Gimpy’s Secret” on Amazon, with all 5 star reviews…feedback. http://www.amazon.com/Gimpys-Secret-its-whats-missing/dp/0578048868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342310622&sr=8-1&keywords=gimpy%27s+secret

      We hope this response is helpful. Thank you for your interest!

      • Jim McLellan
        July 15, 2012 | 8:33 am

        A satisfactory, if not superb, reply from TGC’s
        “resident” scientist. There are those who want to
        know how a watch works. There are those who want to know IF a watch works. There are those who simply want to know what time it is.

        The ‘proof’ as to whether the information
        at TGC works or not, is valid or not, or practical or not, is easy. Just try it.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://tgconnection.org/podcast/the-great-connection-podcast-episode-2-the-maze-of-myths-vs-loves-logic/trackback/

The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic

Are you ready to challenge everything you think you know about Love?  In this episode, we navigate through the maze of common myths and misunderstandings surrounding the concept of Love.  Join us as we discuss what happens when we look at Love through the lens of reasoned thought and knowledge.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

Sources and notes:   Episode 2

*Do Good, Feel Good, Lisa Marshall, Dec. 2011

*The Technology of Love, (TOL) Charles E. Hansen, 2004, p. 82-84  The Human Main Menu

*TOL, p.231, “Love is a learned phenomenon.”  Leo Buscaglia

*The Technology of Love, Charles E. Hansen, ©2004   Chapter 1, page 19-30   Love:  Can We Define It?

*A small sample of referenced pioneers  who have influenced the history and study of love:  Confucius, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, Adam Smith, Pitirim A. Sorokin, Charles S. Pierce, Albert Schweitzer, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi,  Bernie S. Siegel, M. Scott Peck, Erich Fromm, Emmanuel Berl, Leo Buscaglia, Irving Singer, Alan Soble, Anthony Walsh,

*Gravity 

*The Laws Of Sexual Attraction  CNN

*Definition of science: Source Wikipedia

*Higgs/God Particle    (Physicist)

*Emily Post

*Blog post on etiquette 

*Justice: “The crucial role of Justice, properly understood, then, is not to encumber the domain of Love or primarily to ‘punish’’ offenders, but to protect Love’s domain from infringement. (…Love has no problem with appropriate punishment; if Justice used none, society would soon collapse much as [Adam] Smith held.)”  TOL, page 424

*Adam Smith  

*David Hume

6 Responses to The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic
  1. Lily
    July 13, 2012 | 4:38 pm

    Awesome episode! Thank you for your show, what a great topic!

  2. Cath Lamb
    July 13, 2012 | 4:46 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment, Lily!

  3. Penelope
    July 13, 2012 | 6:14 pm

    I’m glad to see someone starting to connect science and love. However, in the spirit of falsification, I’d like to challenge your definition of science. I have no problems starting research with Wikipedia, but I don’t accept this definition as being complete nor that one’s research actually reaches the level of science simply by repeating the definition. Many pseudoscientists can claim their work as being “scientific” simply by evoking the name of science, data, and objectivity. I’d like to see you make a few predictions, put them to the test, explain the results and theory behind them fully, and how your ideas build cumulatively upon what has already been tested and proven. Remembering, of course, that any good definition of science should also include the notion of tentativeness, here’s an article I often ask my students to read before beginning “scientific” research: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Evolution/Unit16CreationSci/Ruse.html. I hope these slight critiques are accepted in the spirit of love and science in which they were intended.

    • Cath Lamb
      July 13, 2012 | 7:23 pm

      Thank you Penelope! It’s wonderful to encounter a response on this level. We are forwarding your comment on to a member of our team who will be better able to explain and discuss the Technology of Love at this level of depth. Elaine and I are not scientists or teachers, but we are trying to get the essence of the work out to the world. On this website, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the information in the Technology of Love, which puts Love to a rigorous test, including “The Mathematics of Love” (Chapter 10), emerging with an invariant and related system. I think you would really enjoy the book! We are excited to discuss the predictions, tests, results and theory, as you have proposed. We look forward to this continuing conversation with you!

    • Cath Lamb
      July 14, 2012 | 7:07 pm

      Penelope,here is a response to your comment from our “science” team member:

      While The Technology of Love (TOL) itself is high quality scientific work, the end result is still only theory to the scientific community or person. As you correctly point out, to be a law of say physics, like ‘gravity” it has to be tested and proven. That is exactly what the TGC web site is all about. The first successful “test” was publishing Gimpy’s Secret (see link below) applying the theory advanced by Hansen. The public is encouraged to read the book and challenge or test his theory. For those who ask deeper questions or seem more knowledgeable will want to read TOL

      Hansen’s theory as presented in TOL and “tested” on TGC is best generalized as follows: Love is conveyed from one to another by a combination of 10 love vectors grouped as Care. The 10 specifically are Attentiveness, Listening, Thanking, Praising Encouraging, Comforting, Assisting, Sharing, Contributing, and Protecting. It is scientifically important to note Hansen’s research shows these 10 are common across all languages, cultures, and religion. So it is a good start for “testing” by applying it to our day-to-day lives not only spiritually but in leadership roles of business and community.

      For example, just try saying “thank you” with sincerity and observe the outstanding results (feed back loop)! It works like a charm. This should be a good test to satisfy those who are asking for proof. Testing the theory is easy when you specifically apply one or a combination of the 10 vectors.

      Here is the link to “Gimpy’s Secret” on Amazon, with all 5 star reviews…feedback. http://www.amazon.com/Gimpys-Secret-its-whats-missing/dp/0578048868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342310622&sr=8-1&keywords=gimpy%27s+secret

      We hope this response is helpful. Thank you for your interest!

      • Jim McLellan
        July 15, 2012 | 8:33 am

        A satisfactory, if not superb, reply from TGC’s
        “resident” scientist. There are those who want to
        know how a watch works. There are those who want to know IF a watch works. There are those who simply want to know what time it is.

        The ‘proof’ as to whether the information
        at TGC works or not, is valid or not, or practical or not, is easy. Just try it.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://tgconnection.org/podcast/the-great-connection-podcast-episode-2-the-maze-of-myths-vs-loves-logic/trackback/

The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic

Are you ready to challenge everything you think you know about Love?  In this episode, we navigate through the maze of common myths and misunderstandings surrounding the concept of Love.  Join us as we discuss what happens when we look at Love through the lens of reasoned thought and knowledge.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

Sources and notes:   Episode 2

*Do Good, Feel Good, Lisa Marshall, Dec. 2011

*The Technology of Love, (TOL) Charles E. Hansen, 2004, p. 82-84  The Human Main Menu

*TOL, p.231, “Love is a learned phenomenon.”  Leo Buscaglia

*The Technology of Love, Charles E. Hansen, ©2004   Chapter 1, page 19-30   Love:  Can We Define It?

*A small sample of referenced pioneers  who have influenced the history and study of love:  Confucius, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, Adam Smith, Pitirim A. Sorokin, Charles S. Pierce, Albert Schweitzer, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi,  Bernie S. Siegel, M. Scott Peck, Erich Fromm, Emmanuel Berl, Leo Buscaglia, Irving Singer, Alan Soble, Anthony Walsh,

*Gravity 

*The Laws Of Sexual Attraction  CNN

*Definition of science: Source Wikipedia

*Higgs/God Particle    (Physicist)

*Emily Post

*Blog post on etiquette 

*Justice: “The crucial role of Justice, properly understood, then, is not to encumber the domain of Love or primarily to ‘punish’’ offenders, but to protect Love’s domain from infringement. (…Love has no problem with appropriate punishment; if Justice used none, society would soon collapse much as [Adam] Smith held.)”  TOL, page 424

*Adam Smith  

*David Hume

6 Responses to The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic
  1. Lily
    July 13, 2012 | 4:38 pm

    Awesome episode! Thank you for your show, what a great topic!

  2. Cath Lamb
    July 13, 2012 | 4:46 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment, Lily!

  3. Penelope
    July 13, 2012 | 6:14 pm

    I’m glad to see someone starting to connect science and love. However, in the spirit of falsification, I’d like to challenge your definition of science. I have no problems starting research with Wikipedia, but I don’t accept this definition as being complete nor that one’s research actually reaches the level of science simply by repeating the definition. Many pseudoscientists can claim their work as being “scientific” simply by evoking the name of science, data, and objectivity. I’d like to see you make a few predictions, put them to the test, explain the results and theory behind them fully, and how your ideas build cumulatively upon what has already been tested and proven. Remembering, of course, that any good definition of science should also include the notion of tentativeness, here’s an article I often ask my students to read before beginning “scientific” research: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Evolution/Unit16CreationSci/Ruse.html. I hope these slight critiques are accepted in the spirit of love and science in which they were intended.

    • Cath Lamb
      July 13, 2012 | 7:23 pm

      Thank you Penelope! It’s wonderful to encounter a response on this level. We are forwarding your comment on to a member of our team who will be better able to explain and discuss the Technology of Love at this level of depth. Elaine and I are not scientists or teachers, but we are trying to get the essence of the work out to the world. On this website, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the information in the Technology of Love, which puts Love to a rigorous test, including “The Mathematics of Love” (Chapter 10), emerging with an invariant and related system. I think you would really enjoy the book! We are excited to discuss the predictions, tests, results and theory, as you have proposed. We look forward to this continuing conversation with you!

    • Cath Lamb
      July 14, 2012 | 7:07 pm

      Penelope,here is a response to your comment from our “science” team member:

      While The Technology of Love (TOL) itself is high quality scientific work, the end result is still only theory to the scientific community or person. As you correctly point out, to be a law of say physics, like ‘gravity” it has to be tested and proven. That is exactly what the TGC web site is all about. The first successful “test” was publishing Gimpy’s Secret (see link below) applying the theory advanced by Hansen. The public is encouraged to read the book and challenge or test his theory. For those who ask deeper questions or seem more knowledgeable will want to read TOL

      Hansen’s theory as presented in TOL and “tested” on TGC is best generalized as follows: Love is conveyed from one to another by a combination of 10 love vectors grouped as Care. The 10 specifically are Attentiveness, Listening, Thanking, Praising Encouraging, Comforting, Assisting, Sharing, Contributing, and Protecting. It is scientifically important to note Hansen’s research shows these 10 are common across all languages, cultures, and religion. So it is a good start for “testing” by applying it to our day-to-day lives not only spiritually but in leadership roles of business and community.

      For example, just try saying “thank you” with sincerity and observe the outstanding results (feed back loop)! It works like a charm. This should be a good test to satisfy those who are asking for proof. Testing the theory is easy when you specifically apply one or a combination of the 10 vectors.

      Here is the link to “Gimpy’s Secret” on Amazon, with all 5 star reviews…feedback. http://www.amazon.com/Gimpys-Secret-its-whats-missing/dp/0578048868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342310622&sr=8-1&keywords=gimpy%27s+secret

      We hope this response is helpful. Thank you for your interest!

      • Jim McLellan
        July 15, 2012 | 8:33 am

        A satisfactory, if not superb, reply from TGC’s
        “resident” scientist. There are those who want to
        know how a watch works. There are those who want to know IF a watch works. There are those who simply want to know what time it is.

        The ‘proof’ as to whether the information
        at TGC works or not, is valid or not, or practical or not, is easy. Just try it.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://tgconnection.org/podcast/the-great-connection-podcast-episode-2-the-maze-of-myths-vs-loves-logic/trackback/

The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic

Are you ready to challenge everything you think you know about Love?  In this episode, we navigate through the maze of common myths and misunderstandings surrounding the concept of Love.  Join us as we discuss what happens when we look at Love through the lens of reasoned thought and knowledge.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

Sources and notes:   Episode 2

*Do Good, Feel Good, Lisa Marshall, Dec. 2011

*The Technology of Love, (TOL) Charles E. Hansen, 2004, p. 82-84  The Human Main Menu

*TOL, p.231, “Love is a learned phenomenon.”  Leo Buscaglia

*The Technology of Love, Charles E. Hansen, ©2004   Chapter 1, page 19-30   Love:  Can We Define It?

*A small sample of referenced pioneers  who have influenced the history and study of love:  Confucius, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, Adam Smith, Pitirim A. Sorokin, Charles S. Pierce, Albert Schweitzer, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi,  Bernie S. Siegel, M. Scott Peck, Erich Fromm, Emmanuel Berl, Leo Buscaglia, Irving Singer, Alan Soble, Anthony Walsh,

*Gravity 

*The Laws Of Sexual Attraction  CNN

*Definition of science: Source Wikipedia

*Higgs/God Particle    (Physicist)

*Emily Post

*Blog post on etiquette 

*Justice: “The crucial role of Justice, properly understood, then, is not to encumber the domain of Love or primarily to ‘punish’’ offenders, but to protect Love’s domain from infringement. (…Love has no problem with appropriate punishment; if Justice used none, society would soon collapse much as [Adam] Smith held.)”  TOL, page 424

*Adam Smith  

*David Hume

6 Responses to The Great Connection Podcast: Episode 2 The Maze of Myths vs Love’s Logic
  1. Lily
    July 13, 2012 | 4:38 pm

    Awesome episode! Thank you for your show, what a great topic!

  2. Cath Lamb
    July 13, 2012 | 4:46 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment, Lily!

  3. Penelope
    July 13, 2012 | 6:14 pm

    I’m glad to see someone starting to connect science and love. However, in the spirit of falsification, I’d like to challenge your definition of science. I have no problems starting research with Wikipedia, but I don’t accept this definition as being complete nor that one’s research actually reaches the level of science simply by repeating the definition. Many pseudoscientists can claim their work as being “scientific” simply by evoking the name of science, data, and objectivity. I’d like to see you make a few predictions, put them to the test, explain the results and theory behind them fully, and how your ideas build cumulatively upon what has already been tested and proven. Remembering, of course, that any good definition of science should also include the notion of tentativeness, here’s an article I often ask my students to read before beginning “scientific” research: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Evolution/Unit16CreationSci/Ruse.html. I hope these slight critiques are accepted in the spirit of love and science in which they were intended.

    • Cath Lamb
      July 13, 2012 | 7:23 pm

      Thank you Penelope! It’s wonderful to encounter a response on this level. We are forwarding your comment on to a member of our team who will be better able to explain and discuss the Technology of Love at this level of depth. Elaine and I are not scientists or teachers, but we are trying to get the essence of the work out to the world. On this website, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the information in the Technology of Love, which puts Love to a rigorous test, including “The Mathematics of Love” (Chapter 10), emerging with an invariant and related system. I think you would really enjoy the book! We are excited to discuss the predictions, tests, results and theory, as you have proposed. We look forward to this continuing conversation with you!

    • Cath Lamb
      July 14, 2012 | 7:07 pm

      Penelope,here is a response to your comment from our “science” team member:

      While The Technology of Love (TOL) itself is high quality scientific work, the end result is still only theory to the scientific community or person. As you correctly point out, to be a law of say physics, like ‘gravity” it has to be tested and proven. That is exactly what the TGC web site is all about. The first successful “test” was publishing Gimpy’s Secret (see link below) applying the theory advanced by Hansen. The public is encouraged to read the book and challenge or test his theory. For those who ask deeper questions or seem more knowledgeable will want to read TOL

      Hansen’s theory as presented in TOL and “tested” on TGC is best generalized as follows: Love is conveyed from one to another by a combination of 10 love vectors grouped as Care. The 10 specifically are Attentiveness, Listening, Thanking, Praising Encouraging, Comforting, Assisting, Sharing, Contributing, and Protecting. It is scientifically important to note Hansen’s research shows these 10 are common across all languages, cultures, and religion. So it is a good start for “testing” by applying it to our day-to-day lives not only spiritually but in leadership roles of business and community.

      For example, just try saying “thank you” with sincerity and observe the outstanding results (feed back loop)! It works like a charm. This should be a good test to satisfy those who are asking for proof. Testing the theory is easy when you specifically apply one or a combination of the 10 vectors.

      Here is the link to “Gimpy’s Secret” on Amazon, with all 5 star reviews…feedback. http://www.amazon.com/Gimpys-Secret-its-whats-missing/dp/0578048868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342310622&sr=8-1&keywords=gimpy%27s+secret

      We hope this response is helpful. Thank you for your interest!

      • Jim McLellan
        July 15, 2012 | 8:33 am

        A satisfactory, if not superb, reply from TGC’s
        “resident” scientist. There are those who want to
        know how a watch works. There are those who want to know IF a watch works. There are those who simply want to know what time it is.

        The ‘proof’ as to whether the information
        at TGC works or not, is valid or not, or practical or not, is easy. Just try it.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://tgconnection.org/podcast/the-great-connection-podcast-episode-2-the-maze-of-myths-vs-loves-logic/trackback/