text:
Robin Allott
Love has always been a central preoccupation in individual human lives, but there has been little consideration of it by psychologists or other scientists and little attempt to explain it as an evolutionary phenomenon. There are various possible behavioral precursors of love: animal "love", empathy, group feeling, sexuality, the mother/infant bond. The principal candidates are sexuality and the mother/infant bond. Sexuality has been favored as an origin by those few writers who have discussed the issue but has characteristics which distinguish it sharply from love and make it an unlikely precursor. However, the mother/infant bond alone does not fully account for the characteristics of human love. Love evolved as the outcome of interaction between the genetic basis for mother/infant attachment and other capabilities of the evolving human manifested in and made possible by the increase in human brain- size: enlarged cognitive capacity, improved communication abilities and the evolution of language. The capacity for language led to the emergence of the conscious self, and with this the capability to recognise and empathise the selfhood of others. The deepening of the mother/infant attachment into love played, and still plays, an essential role in the transmission of culture from one generation to the next and in making possible the cohesion of the human group. This account fits well with recent research into the process and significance of the mother/infant relation.
Empathy and love develop and are expressed above all in the family, in love between parents, in love of parents for children, in the solidarity of the family, which can be seen as the nucleus round which wider group feeling develops. Empathy and love extend from the family group to wider social organizations and ultimately to the community as a whole, the people, the nation.
Empathy is evolutionarily prior to love. Animals display empathy and manifest it in social groupings and behavior. Human empathy is continuous in its development with animal empathy. The first task is to explain empathy as an evolutionary development in terms of its role in increasing fitness. The second task is to explain empathy more fundamentally in physiological or neurological terms as a bodily process operating between individuals. This involves consideration of the relation of empathy and gesture, empathy and facial expression, empathy and body language, empathy and posture. There has been little consideration of empathy from this more basic point of view. It clearly has a close relation to unsolved issues in the theoretical account of perception, imitation, the role of the body-image. A way forward in explaining the many aspects of empathy may lie in an integrated account of the relation of perception, postural set and motor patterning.
Beyond empathy, one looks for a parallel account of the evolutionary history of love. Love is not simply an aspect or an intensification of empathy nor is it to be identified with sexuality, which results in patterns of behavior nearly universal amongst all living creatures other than the most primitive. Though empathy and sexuality are apparent in the behavior of animals, by contrast there is little evidence of love in anything resembling the human sense in patterns of animal behavior.
Love appears to be an eminently human phenomenon. We need to consider the evolutionary role of love; the evolutionary potential of love; the significance of love for survival of the individual and of the group, including the prolongation of this evolution into historical development, for example, of the Christian conception of love. Love in its most developed form is to be seen not as a lucky accident, an undeserved blessing for humanity, but as an explanation of and a necessity for the course which human development has taken. There remains the need for a more rigorous "scientific" treatment of love in a much more basic sense which would explain love as a physiological/neurological pattern of interpersonal behavior or of individual experience.
This essay originated partly from my essay last year on "Objective Morality" (1991) which emphasized the importance of empathy but also from the perception that love is a most important feature of human experience which requires examination and explanation. The two issues, evolution of empathy and evolution of love, are separate but also related or relatable. Empathy is a total form of perception which is not something developed only in humans but also in animals. I doubt whether there has been much separate development in the human species of an empathetic capability which originated very far back, probably from the time of the existence of groups of perceptive animals. They needed to be able to interpret the appearance of other animals in order to predict their behavior and take appropriate action, running away, attacking, hiding, playing dead and so on. Empathy was a neutral mode of perception, in the sense that it could be used in relation to enemies or potential enemies, family or friends, or simply as a mode of obtaining information. Empathy is both in some sense a precursor of love and at the same time a major component of love, or essential precondition for love. The dividing line between empathy and love has to be examined. As a preliminary to considering in more depth the evolution of love, it may be useful to recall some of the points I made last year about empathy.
Empathy is a term with a broad meaning. There are a number of forms of behavior or experience which can be treated as aspects of empathy or as involving empathy: sympathy, liking, imitation, reflection, assimilation, identification, love. In particular, there is no very sharp distinction between empathy and sympathy, though writers have attempted to separate the two by arbitrary definition. Much of earlier discussion of sympathy related in fact to what we now would treat as empathy. The convenient practice is to use the term empathy to cover the whole range of similar capabilities by which one individual is able to appreciate the feelings and point of view of another, or of a group to which he or she belongs.
One of the earliest writers to discuss empathy was Edith Stein(1917/1970). She proposed that empathy is a kind of act of perceiving sui generis; the experience of foreign consciousness in general; the way in which "man grasps the psychic life of his fellow man". Others have described empathy as the act of "feeling into" another's affective experience; empathy is triggered by expressive signals and relies on processes such as motor mimicry. On this view empathy is a sensory-perceptual response. In the broad sense given to it, empathy is not separately acquired or the product of a particular evolutionary process. It appears to be a fundamental, primordial aspect of perception, part of the process by which one relates one's current perception to the already formed structure of one's experience.
The scientific exploration of the process of empathy has not got very far; some think it cannot be explained. Others think that motor mimicry is primitive empathy and if we could explain imitation we would be on the way to explaining empathy. There seems to be a close relation between bodily posture and action and the perception of the feelings of others. Apparently there is something more surprising and subtle about perception than has yet been realized -- something still to be discovered. We seem able to structure ourselves to reproduce the emotional and mental patterning of another, a transfer or transduction of the other.
Empathy clearly increases fitness, has a value for survival, insofar as it serves as a mode of communication between members of a family, between members of a group or even between hostile individuals or groups. If group behavior is to function in an organized way, there must be communication between members of the group. In particular there must be empathic signalling of emotional states so that survival-related actions can be taken in concert. Empathy is accepted as a widespread phenomenon in the animal world, manifested in such behaviors as flocking, schooling, and mobbing.
As a preliminary to examining possible evolutionary scenarios for love, it seems right to consider what has been said about love by other writers. Though systematic or scientific treatment of love as such by philosophers, psychologists, evolutionists, neurologists and even anthropologists has been sparse - it has been described as a taboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study, this does not mean that there is any lack of literature about love; there is in fact a bewildering variety. Quite recently, there has been, particularly in America, a growth of interest in recording love behavior and experience, as demonstrated, for example, in Sternberg and Barnes Psychology of Love(1988), from which the following remarks are drawn:
Without question the major preoccupation of Americans is love... Don't leave home without it... [rather than the American Express card].(Mursten, pp. 13, 37)... Love had always been the one thing - perhaps the only thing - beyond the research scientist's ever-extending grasp.... Dozens of love studies appear annually in the journals; dozens more are presented at regional and national conventions. There is even a Journal of Social and Personal Relationships that fills a large proportion of its pages with studies of love.... "How do I love thee?" - Elizabeth Barrett Browning might have written in the 1980's - "Let me count the articles". [Nevertheless]... the science of love is still in its infancy" (Rubin, pp. vii-viii).Love has attracted the rather spasmodic attention of major philosophers, starting of course with Plato, who in the Symposium treats of a fundamental issue, the relation between love and desire. Pascal before his renunciation of the world produced a Discours sur les passions de l'amour (pp. 251 ff.): Les passions qui sont les plus convenables à l'homme... sont l'amour et l'ambition... Qu'une vie est heureuse quand elle commence par l'amour et qu'elle finit par l'ambition! Qui doute... si nous sommes au monde pour autre chose que pour aimer? "les yeux sont les interprétes du coeur; Quand nous aimons, nous paraissons à nous- mêmes tout autres que nous n'étions auparavant.... l'on a de la vénération pour ce que l'on aime. il semble que l'on ait toute une autre âme quand on aime... Quand on aime fortement, c'est toujours une nouveauté de voir la personne aimée. Après un moment d'absence, on trouve de manque dans son coeur. Quelle joie de la retrouver! l'on sent aussitôt une céssation d'inquiétudes.
Schopenhauer, a philosopher not noted for his tender attitude to individual human beings, said that the subject had forced itself on him objectively and had become inseparable from his consideration of the world (pp. 169-170):
Instead of wondering why a philosopher for once in a way writes on this subject which has been constantly the theme of poets, should we be surprised that love which plays such an important role in a man's life, has scarcely ever been considered at all by philosophers... I have decided to spend my life in thinking about it.
Amongst psychologists, Stanley Hall (see Ross, 1972) in the United States attracted a good deal of opprobrium by making love a central topic. One of the few other psychologists to discuss love in depth, Erich Fromm, argues that any theory of love must begin with a theory of man, of human existence and the full answer to the problems of human existence, according to him, lies in the achievement of fusion with another person, in love; this desire for interpersonal fusion, he says, is the most powerful striving in man: "love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for his own sake"(Fromm, p. 28). Freud, with his jaundiced eye, could see nothing good, or indeed see nothing significant in love, an irrational part of human behavior; he long promised a book on the love life of humankind but never produced it, though he was assiduous in amending his published essays on sexuality; towards the end of his life he said that we know very little about love (Santas 1988). Some eminent authors have recognized the significance of love but not been able to contribute to its study. So J.Z. Young commented in Programs of the Brain(1978 p. 143)that "Attempting to define love is indeed a hazardous enterprise, more suitable for a poet than for a scientist.... [but he added] What would be the use of a neuroscience that cannot tell us anything about love?"
One of the most sustained accounts of love, surprisingly, was by a Jesuit, Martin D'Arcy(1952). He suggested that to produce a unified, and so to speak, scientific account of love would be of service, as it would enable one to pass from the poetry to the psychology of the matter. Love, he said, is as old as human nature, but long stretches of time have been needed for its significance to be taken as seriously as it deserves. And the difficulties are great: just finding something common in the variety of descriptions which have been given of love is hard enough. Love appears in all literature, not as a passing episode, but as the marrow. Love is such a vast subject that a writer would never reach an end if he did not make up his mind to concentrate on one aspect of it. Referring to Scheler's (1913/1954) discussion of love and sympathy, D'Arcy (p. 233) observes that while Scheler analyses what happens when we truly love, he does not explain why we should love in this manner; he gives us the fact but not the reason, and it is this final explanation which is so elusive and yet craved for by all.
If scientific treatment of love has been scarce, discussion of love as an evolutionary fact has been even less favored. One of the few exceptions was Mellen's The Evolution of Love (1981). Glynn Isaac pointed out in the preface that few have grappled with love as something central to human evolution but scientifically elusive; "a topic which in spite of its interest has no experts except in so far as we are all experts"(p. vii). Mellen says (p. 288) that apart from Darwin and a few other exceptions, self-respecting evolutionists have tended to shy away from love as a subject for study.
It is obviously important to start by defining or characterizing love. So what is love? Any women's magazine has descriptions of true love in terms of the relation of man and woman. There are other types of love, mother/infant, brother/brother, plus a scatter of other uses of the term: love of animals, love of the countryside, love of excitement, love of truth etc. The Oxford English Dictionary defines love as:
That state or feeling with regard to a person which arises from recognition of attractive qualities, from sympathy or from natural ties, and manifests itself in warm affection and attachment". This is not bad, though by using "affection" and "attachment" the definition in the end dodges the problem. For affection, the OED has, surprisingly, nothing very helpful referring to "affect': "affectionate" has "loving" as its most relevant meaning. For "attachment" the OED has "affection, devotion, fidelity" so as usual dictionary definitions go around in a circle. Perhaps the more useful ways of saying what love is are (1) to see how it has been described by a multitude of writers over the ages as a matter of personal experience, and (2) by examining one's own experience which will tell one when the state of "love" is experienced. In the end to say what "love" means is much the same as saying what "red" or "pleasant" means; we just know. Little progress has been made in the more fundamental approach of saying what the behavior and experience of love comprises and what the neurological/physiological substrates are.So we may have some idea of what love is as an experienced state though not much idea of what it is as a neurological/physiological condition, and we are ready to begin consideration of the question: How did human love evolve? There are a number of candidates if one assumes that love evolved from a previous behavior, state or condition:
- animal "love",
- empathy,
- group feeling,
- sexuality,
- mother/infant bond.
To suggest that animals "love" in much the same sense as humans is, of course, to say that there is no separate problem of the evolution of human love, though there would still be a transferred problem of the evolution of animal love. But we cannot know whether there is such a thing as "animal love'; there are behaviors which look similar, for example, to monogamy and fidelity in humans as Lorenz (1968, p. 187) points out, but since the essence of human love is not behavior but state or feeling, a cognitive as well as an emotional relation to another person, we would be mistaken to infer from animal behavior the existence of animal love. Such a thing seems unlikely.
Empathy is a more plausible candidate for the evolution of human love. It undoubtedly exists in animals. It is essentially a mode of perception which relies on the interpretation of bodily features of other animals, to guide response and behavior. Like other forms of perception, empathy, however, is neutral; it may establish a sympathetic i.e. favorable attitude towards the creature with which one empathizes, it may produce a hostile reaction, for we can empathise hatred as well as affection, danger as well as attraction, fear as much as aggression; or it may in emotional terms be neutral, simply a deeper way of gaining information about other animate creatures in the environment. Empathy then is not love -- but love can hardly start or continue without empathy, any more than it can start without visual perception. So empathy may be one of the precursors of love, one of the current components of love, but this by itself does not indicate how love evolved to make use of empathy. Group feeling is hardly an independent candidate as an evolutionary explanation of love; group feeling seems to depend heavily on empathy.
The most obvious candidate as the behavioral configuration from which love might have evolved is sexuality, sexual desire, sexual behavior. Because of the contemporary confusion of sexuality with love -- as in "making love" -- a number of authors have assumed that in some way love as a specifically human trait must constitute a continuum with sexual desire and sexual behavior. To see how plausible this is, one has to contrast the manifestations of sexuality with the state or experience of love. Amongst animals, there is certainly no necessary connection between sexuality and love; the praying mantis biting off the head of the male certainly does not display love as part of the sexual pattern, and for very many animals there can be no question of any feeling resembling love. Sexuality in most animals is more linked with aggression or hunger than with love; much of the behavior appears almost mechanical, a pre-set response to a complex of stimuli. Further, even in humans there is no necessary link between love and sexual desire or sexual behavior. Love where it exists modifies, even runs counter to the expression of sexual desire -- and sexuality can be seen often as destructive of love.
The remaining candidate as the evolutionary source of love is the mother/infant bond. This of course exists in higher animals -- see E.O. Wilson's(1975) discussion -- and many animals at every level show considerable degrees of parental care. But, if the mother/infant relation in animals is to be thought of as the source or at least one of the most important precursors and components in human love, is it enough by itself? This comes back to the question whether one should interpret parental care in animals as "love". The social insects display some of the most elaborate forms of care for the brood; this seems to be the result of complex instinctual patterning; there seem no grounds for assuming that ants are experiencing love for the brood as they look after it. The same goes for the activities of higher animals. Clearly in this mother/infant relation, parental care, there is interaction and coordination between mother and infant, carer and infant, and clearly amongst the higher animals, e.g. primates, this depends on perception by the parent of the behavior and state of the infant, making use of empathy as a specially searching form of perception. But we have already dismissed the idea of animal 'love" and so the question becomes: what additional elements went to form human love from the mother/infant relation? In terms of fitness, the mother/infant relation is central for many higher animals, the infants not surviving or not developing appropriately socially and emotionally without the mother/infant relation and interaction. The evolutionary justification for the mother/infant relation is obvious but why should there have been this further development in the human of "love" starting from or incorporating the mother/infant bond? Why was love for the human evolutionarily necessary? How was the capacity for love built into the human genome by the processes of selection? Or was love a side-effect of a number of other evolving processes and capacities in the evolving human?
What else was evolving in the human in parallel with the extended mother/infant relation? There was the enlarging brain, which indeed may have been a cause of the altricial nature of the human infant, of the extension of the period of infant dependence, of the extent to which brain development and maturation takes place after rather than before birth. Then there were the less easily measurable developments in cognitive capacity, in communication abilities, in foresight and planning, in analysis and control of the environment, in language, that also must have been associated with the enlarging human brain. There must as an accompaniment or consequence of these developments have been the growing ability to perceive one's own perceptions, to be aware of oneself as initiator of action, the development of thought processes, of consciousness, of modelling of the self and of the environment in the brain.
Human love as we experience it, as it is reported and manifested, is essentially a relation between one person and another -- not a bodily relation but a brain-relation, a neural relation. The existence and the structure of another person comes to be a prominent part of one's own structure, to alter the patterns of motivation, to alter the way the world and other people are perceived and of course to alter how the other person -- the object or subject of love -- is perceived. Without the development of the self, of self-consciousness, of conscious thought, human love would not exist, or would have a completely different character. But what contributed to or constituted the formation of the self, of consciousness, of thought? The most obvious candidate is the development of language, a new resource to enable the individuals to categorise their world, to manipulate their perceptions of the world, to put a distance between immediate experience and "themselves". Thus my contention is that the development of language played an essential role in allowing the development of human consciousness, of the self, of the person, and that this development of the self through language was an essential preliminary to, or concomitant with, interacting with, the development of human love as the experienced relation between one's self and the self of another human.
The conclusion then is that human love evolved on the basis of the mother/infant relation, dependent on empathy as a mode of perception of the infant's state and needs, with the primitive attachment manifested in many species of animals deepening into interpersonal love as, with the growth of self-awareness dependent in its turn on language, perception extended more and more profoundly into the self of the other. The survival value, the "fitness' function of the mother/infant relation for altricial creatures is already generally accepted - and the question then is what evolutionary mechanism made the deepening of this relation additionally valuable. Of course, if love consists in interaction between empathy, mother/infant attachment, language, self-awareness, consciousness, all advancing together under the impulse of the survival benefits each offers, then there would not be any need for a separate benefit flowing from love as such. The genetic complex leading to the advance of each of the separate components, which then interacted to constitute love, would not need a separate genetic basis for love. But there is no reason why the advantages flowing from this capacity for love manifested first in the mother/infant relation should not have generated additional survival benefits increasing even further the fitness of those in whom the complex operated most effectively.
In particular, as the social structure and interaction of human groups became more complex, the extended mother/infant relation would acquire a new importance as the stage at which the infant and then the child acquired the capabilities and the awareness necessary to be successful in the group. Most obviously the mother/infant relation would be the context in which the child acquired the communication abilities of the group, and the attitudes and patterns of behavior consistent with the needs of the group, if the group was to survive as such and be successful in competition with other groups or in dealing with the problems presented by the non-group environment more generally. Love then would become essential not only in increasing the fitness of the mother and of the child but also in increasing the fitness of the group as a whole, insofar as the success of the group, and thus of its individual members, depended on effective coherence of the group and on the pattern of its rituals, traditions, behaviors, skills, beliefs, and moralities. Contrast this with sexual behavior as a hypothetical basis for group activity: sexual behavior in humans and in many animals is self-regarding (for the individual), competitive, aggressive, possibly violent, random in the male, and divisive rather than co-operative. Though sexual selection in its crudest form may contribute in evolutionary terms to morphological change, bodily physical change, stronger, more powerful, more aggressive, more highly-charged individuals, it contributes nothing to the specifically human requirements in group cohesion, the acquisition and transmission of social and other skills. Rape, if that is the most effective way of promoting individual fitness for the male, does not require language, social graces, foresight, awareness of self, or cognitive capacities.
Is love a momentary or enduring state? Love is not passion -- it may even not even be correctly described as an emotion in the sense that an emotion is a response, most probably a motor and physiological response, to a particular situation, a particular set of events. Love on the view just presented is a capacity derived from neural interaction of a number of components, with the decisive event being a neural restructuring to accommodate the idea of another's self with and into the idea of one's own self. Love thus is something that can endure and unlike sexual desire cannot be satisfied or dissipated by any behavioral response. Sexual desire is certainly a powerful drive, but as indicate above, it is one which is more likely to conflict with love than strengthen it; indeed, sexual desire, when its object is achieved, may eliminate the particular love relation. Questions
Is love unitary or multiple? The capacity for love comes into existence from the combination of the other capacities already described. The decisive event is the "falling in love" which happens almost automatically in the mother/infant relation but needs to be explained in other forms of love. Apart from the mother/infant relation, this capacity to love exists whether or not an object of the love currently has been found. It alters social relationships, deepens the awareness of the character, attitudes, tendencies of others, and so has a general effect within the community. When this capacity finds its object -- the other person -- then the neural structuring of the loving individual undergoes a massive change, with the self-centre, the centre of gravity, changing as a result of continuous awareness of the other, sensitivity to the other's needs, emotions, physical condition, happiness, and response etc. At this moment then love is unitary, and two objects of love are not likely to exist at the same time. This contrasts with the case for sexuality or sexual desire, where, certainly for the male, there can be many objects simultaneously.
Can there be degrees of love? For the individual, the force of love depends on his/her own neural structure. In the same way as self-awareness may vary between individuals, perceptiveness may vary, empathetic awareness may vary. So between individuals, the degree of love may vary. The question remains whether for the same individual there can be degrees of love. Can we love someone a little, rather more, very much? If love is a restructuring to incorporate a model of the other's self with one's own self, then love is all or nothing, and other relations, attachments, and the like call for another description -- such as affection, kindness etc.
Can love be mistaken in its object? There can clearly can be mistakes in the perception of the character, attitudes, etc. of another as there can be mistakes in all forms of perception. But if love establishes itself despite the mistaken perception, then the love is not mistaken, though expectations as to what may follow from the love may be mistaken. In particular, the belief that the other experiences love in the same way as one does oneself may be mistaken. But experiencing love does not require that love should be returned. We can love those who do not love us.
What does love actually do? There are the objective or external effects of love and the internal or subjective effects. As regards objective or external effects, in the mother/infant case love helps survival of the child and its emotional and social maturation. In an adult relation, the objective effect of love is to promote the interests, security and happiness of the loved person, creating a willingness to sacrifice everything, even life, for the loved person. As regards the subjective or internal effects, in the case of the mother/child relation love makes possible a heightened degree of perception, attention, concentration in the mother, organizes her responses for the benefit of the child, creates endurance of the stress of care for the infant. In the case of adult love, the internal subjective effect is the creation of a new directedness in the one who loves, an overflow of energy, a reduction in concentration on the self.
Is love genetic or cultural or a mixed product? Since the capacity for love is the resultant of a number of other evolving capacities -- language, empathy, self-awareness, consciousness, the question reduces itself to how far each of these capacities is genetic or cultural. Empathy is genetic not cultural; the capacity for language evolved genetically with the structure of language evolving culturally; self-awareness flows from language. The conclusion perhaps is that the distinction between what is genetic and what is cultural is one which it is not easy to make. Insofar as humans thrive, indeed can only exist, in groups, and "culture" is a group-related concept, and insofar as the fortunes of the group and the behavior of members of the group have directly genetic consequences, the tangle cannot be straightened out.
Are infant-love and adult-love related?The capacity for love evolved in the context of the mother/infant relation and love derived its first evolutionary importance from this. But the infant in the mother/infant relation was in due course the adult; the infant participated in the love-relationship as much as the mother; the infant in due course became the mother of the future; the child of a loving mother would be more likely to inherit the capacity to love of the mother and to have experienced development of that capacity as an infant. If love s an evolutionarily successful process, then it would increasingly be a constituent of adult behavior; adult love and mother/infant love on this view are expressions of one and the same capacity.
Are the phylogeny and ontogeny of love related? The previous paragraph suggests that they must be. For the individual, the first experience of love is as an infant. The genetic capacity for love depends on the parents of the infant and the complex of genes bearing on the congeries of abilities etc. which make possible the capacity for love. Assume that an infant inherits the complex of genes which will make love possible: if the infant experiences love in the mother/infant relation, then the capacity for love can mature and the existence of this capacity will be manifest in the adult. If, however, as a result of the illness or death of the mother, separation, institutional upbringing, the process of maturation of the capacity for love is interrupted or crippled, the child may grow up into an adult without the neural structuring, behavioral structuring, necessary for the expression of the capacity to love. In earlier times an infant experiencing these situations might not have survived at all.
What is the physiological or neurological basis of love? Love may have all sorts of physiological effects: sharpening of perception, increase of energy, increase of purposefulness, improvement of health, complexion, brightness etc. This represents as yet difficult to identify changes in neural structure, neural functioning. Perhaps the most important will be the greater neural integration, the reduction of energy-sapping conflicts, of self-centered worry etc.
What is the nature of the "resonance" of love? Since love depends on perception and particularly on empathy, then the "resonance" of love is an effect of the potential "resonance" of perception and of empathy. If I can empathise your emotional state, attitude, then this empathy alters me, alters my state. You can empathise the change in my state and this in turn alters your state and so on -- a kind of continuous reflection between mirrors back and forth, except in this case each mirror changes as it reflects back the other. Hence the liebesglanz, the eyelock.
Has love a future? The capacity to love already exists in the human genome, insofar as the genome encodes, epigenetically, the capacities for consciousness, self-awareness, empathy, and language. But we are now in a quite different evolutionary situation. Failures of love are not necessarily penalized by the death of unloved children. Failures of love at the adult level are not penalized by the exclusion of the unloved or the unloving from the ability to reproduce. The existence of adult love does not necessarily lead to the production of loved children (contraception, abortion etc.) The use of drugs may destroy the mother/infant relation without destroying the infant. The current problem is the relation of sexuality and love. Sexuality is not love but it is confused with love. The technology of sexuality has advanced, to stimulate, prevent, and distort the outcome of sexuality. One might say that, in the present evolutionary period, sexuality has no very important positive consequences whereas love has, and has had, many positive consequences for human individuals and human societies.
Without love, what happens? The use of drugs is an important case. Drugs constitute a going into oneself, away from others, a reduction in the capacity for relation to another person or other persons, including the infant as well as the adult. If in this way, the mother/infant relation fails or is distorted or inadequate, then the physical health of the child may be damaged -- the mother may even transmit disease and addiction to the child -- and even more importantly the child's maturation into a sociable, potentially loving adult is damaged. For adults, there is always a confrontation between the capacity for love and sexuality, the other-centred and the self-centred structure. The family, the group, the nation, ultimately depend for their strength on prevalence of an other-centred structure. If love is weakened or absent or replaced by drugs and sexuality, then the family, the group and ultimately the nation are weakened, on a path towards disintegration as the number of those who lack the capacity to love or replace it by drugs and sexuality increases. The mother/infant relation, mother/infant love, is an evolutionarily virtuous circle; and the ontogenetic mother/infant relation, mother/infant love is a socially virtuous circle. The more adequate the mother/infant relation in developing the capacity for love, in serving the transmission of social and cultural structures to help the child to fit into the community in which it finds itself, the better able the future adult is to transfer the acquisitions both to participation in the community and to the relation with his/her own children and so on. Without love, there is an evolutionary and ontogenetic vicious circle. The distortion or absence of mother/infant love damages the capacity not only for normal adult love but also for all good empathetic relationships within the group, and then reduces the chances of an adequate future mother/infant, parent/infant relationship; sexuality and drugs in the absence of love in this generation lead to more sexuality and drugs without love in the next generation, and to the progressive disintegration of family, society and nation.
Offshoots of love? Insofar as love involves concern for the other rather than only for oneself, and softens and strengthens relations within the family, the group and the nation, then it tends to produce lasting beneficial changes, advances, which enrich the family, the group and the nation. Many of the cultural achievements of humanity derive from love or have been closely associated with love: poetry, song, music, painting, intellectual achievements of many kinds. There remains one special attribution of love, religious love. Can there be religious love? This is said in the Western Christian tradition to take two forms: love thy neighbor and love God. Other religions have developed intense practices of the "mystical" love of God, or of gods, though non-Christian religions place less or no emphasis on love of one's fellow-human as such. Love of one's neighbor, that is, love of those near to us, those who associate with us, can be seen as a plausible extension of love as a human capacity -- in other terms, it would be extension to the group of love for another individual person, an overspill or offshoot of that love, related to the role of love as a socializing force described above in the mother/infant relation, though one would not expect the same intensity as in interpersonal love. The love of God is a more difficult idea. If love is a transfer of the self-centre, the centre of gravity of oneself, with the incorporation of a model of the other along with or in the model of one's self, then how can a model of God be said to be incorporated in or introduced alongside the model of one's self? What can we know about God or how can we empathetically perceive God? This remains a puzzle despite the voluminous writings of the mystics, both Christian and non-Christian.
Other Views
There have of course been other views on the relation of love and sexuality and on the significance of the mother/infant relation in the evolution of love.
Love and sexuality Love's inseparability from sexuality has been taken for granted by many writers. Voltaire with typical finesse suggested: "C'est l'étoffe de la nature que l'imagination a brodée"(p. 16). More brutally Schopenhauer declared that "love is based on an illusion and represents what is an advantage to the species as an advantage to the individual. If Petrarch's passion had been gratified his song would have become silent from that moment... Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex."(Schopenhauer, pp. 171, 203) Whether Schopenhauer himself ever experienced love, as distinct from sexual desire, is not clear. The translator of the above remarks commented: "Plainly Schopenhauer was not the person to sacrifice the individual to the will of the species"(p. xxx). One of his longest enduring relations with the opposite sex was with the woman whom he had to compensate financially after he threw her downstairs when he was annoyed by the noise she was making, Years later she died and Schopenhauer made the celebrated comment: "Obit anus, abit onus".(Hollingdale, pp. 24-25)
One would have expected a considered view from Sigmund Freud on the relation of love and sexuality but he never directly tackled the issue. His theory of sexuality bizarrely assumed that abnormal sexuality was, in a sense, normal, and normal sexuality was almost an "aberration" which developed from the abnormal sexuality:
The innumerable peculiarities of the erotic life of human beings as well as the compulsive character of the process of falling in love itself are quite unintelligible except by reference back to childhood and as being residual effects of childhood.... [I am] driven to the conclusion that a disposition to perversions is an original and universal disposition of the human sexual instinct and that normal sexual behavior is developed out of it as a result of organic changes and psychical inhibitions occurring in the course of maturation.This was qualified byThe unsatisfactory conclusion... that we know far too little of the biological processes constituting the essence of sexuality to be able to construct from our fragmentary information a theory adequate to the understanding alike of normal and of pathological conditions.In the Preface, he emphasized that "the present work is characterized... by being deliberately independent of the findings of biology".(Freud, 1862 pp. xv, 95, 97, 168)Symons' (1979) study of the evolution of human sexuality, although it has a good discussion of many wider issues, e.g. altruism and morality, has little to say about love and its relation to sexuality other than the curious observation that a Maori tribe found the European use of the term "love' puzzling, apparently because the concept did not exist in their culture(p. 112).Graham Bell's book (1982) on the evolution and genetics of sexuality also has little to say about love: "Sex is the queen of problems in biology... Sex... does not merely reduce fitness, but ... halves it... There can be only one answer... sex will be powerfully selected against and rapidly eliminated wherever it occurs. And yet this has not happened".(pp. 46, 71) He goes on to deal with this by the rather tangled "Tangled Bank" hypothesis (which suggests that sex might have evolved in an environment that consisted of many non-uniform niches, like a tangled bank on which many plants grow in competition -- in such an environment, Bell argued, a diverse sexually replicating population would do better than a non-sexual one, even if the non-sexual population was better adapted to any particular niche).
Roger Scruton(1985) in a remarkably sustained and wide-reaching study Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation effectively denies the evolution of love from animal sexuality by the rather paradoxical claim that human sexuality is totally different from animal sexuality (pp. 15-16, 34-35) :
I shall consider the three basic phenomena of human sexual feeling: arousal, desire and love. I shall contend that all are purely human phenomena... sexual desire, like the human person, is a social artefact... the problem that worried Plato does not exist: there is no conflict or contradiction of the kind that he envisaged between sexual desire and erotic love... only a rational being can experience desire... sentiments that no mere animal ever felt.On the other side, he quotes(p. 83) Kant: "sexual love makes of the loved person an object of appetite... as soon as the appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside... Sexual love can, of course, be combined with human love and so carry with it the characteristics of the latter, but taken by itself and for itself, it is nothing more than appetite" -- or essentially back to Plato's distinction between Aphrodite Uranios and Aphrodite Pandemos.
Scheler's work published in 1913 under the title The Phenomenology and Theory of Sympathy and of Love and Hate, rejected the idea that love might be derived from "fellow- feeling" and also the relation between love and sexuality as the origin of "every kind of social instinct" -- "a very questionable conclusion, for the very fact that bisexual animals possess the sexual instinct but do not all have the social instinct indicates their independence of one another"(Scheler 1913/1954, p. 175)
Mellen(1981) in his book on the evolution of love seems to support the evolution of love from sexuality though he linked it closely with the mother/infant relation (pp. 269, 278).
The sexual interaction of protohuman males and females had evolved towards durable attachments of an emotional character, the beginnings of love. This... was strongly favored by natural selection because it increased the chances that the exceptionally vulnerable and long- dependent young would survive until reproductive age.... The average human being of today inherits tendencies to love others... because in the evolutionary past such tendencies were as a general rule highly advantageous to individual protohumans possessing them and to their children and incidentally to their groups. And the general advantage to those individuals, in terms of reproductive success, was on average so great that it outweighed the costs to them, even though a few of them were lost through rare acts of self-sacrifice. Putting it very crudely, what I suggest is not a gene for altruism -- but a gene for love or, slightly less crudely, a complex of many genes for various kinds and degrees of human affection.
Mother/Infant Relation Several authors touch on the idea that the mother/infant relation may be of special importance for the development of love. The psychologist Stanley Hall turned away from a first enthusiasm for Freud to concentrate on the development of love as an aspect of genetic psychology; "altruistic love", he suggested, developed in the course of evolution from the necessities of maternity(Ross, p. 281 ff.). Fisher(1990) has suggested that the different kinds of love might all be derived from one source: "the most plausible way this could happen would be if we all learned in infancy to love our parent and other kinds of love developed from that"(Fisher, p. 11). Konner(1984) discussing the biological aspects of the mother-infant relation has stressed its long evolutionary history, with the mother-infant bond as a universal characteristic of the higher primates of the Old World; the relation evolved under severe selection pressure which took the form at first of culling through predation and later of impairment of normal subsistence and reproductive behavior of those young that failed to experience the mother-infant bond.
More recently, attention has focused on what the infant comes equipped to contribute to the mother/infant relation and the significance of this in terms of early postnatal brain development. In the first year after birth, when the mother/infant relation is intense, there is rapid growth in the size and complexity of the brain. The rapid increase continues for one and a half years. Between birth and one year, the brain more than doubles, reaching 60% of the final adult size. At the same time there is rapid growth in neural complexity: proliferation of synapses, the branching of dendrites, changes in the density of dendritic spines, The main population of cortical synapses for life is formed about the middle of the first year (Trevarthen, 1984, 1990: Konner, 1982).
Trevarthen describes how the infant brings to the relation with the mother a number of preformed capabilities; when the environment starts to have a major effect on the selection of neural patterning, "its input infiltrates an already active and highly structured nervous system; shaping of the brain by the pattern of stimuli is conditioned by the prior genetic coding of acceptable circuits" (1990, p. 338). A different view of infant intelligence from the stages suggested by Piaget has come from study of early spontaneous reactions to persons rather than problem-solving. Before a baby gains postural stability, he or she has refined awareness of other persons and their emotions. Infants do learn by imitation but the structural foundations for the imitative movements cannot be learned; it is necessary to assume an innate structure that at least partly matches the structure of the adult models to explain both imitation and more complex reciprocal or complementary interactions characteristic of communication between child and adult from immediately after birth. The neural basis for empathic response underlies imitation in both directions. By the end of the first month, a full-term infant can join in a "protoconversation" looking at the mother intently.(Trevarthen, 1990, p. 343)
The intrinsic regulators of brain growth in the infant are specially adapted to be coupled, by emotional communication, to the regulators of adult brains of people who know more. This seems to be the key genetic brain strategy for cultural learning; it offers the possibility that transmission of concepts and skills from one generation to the next is facilitated by direct co-ordination between the motivations generated in a child and the feelings of adults; the theory would explain transmission of culture in terms of a specific and highly active epigenetic program for brain growth that needs brain-brain interaction in the context of an intimate affectionate relationship between infant and mother.
Trevarthen's(1984, 1990) approach summarized in the two preceding paragraphs can be set against the account given by Penelope Leach, a social psychologist who has researched for the Medical Research Council and is author of one of the most successful books(1979) advizing mothers on care of the new-born child(pp. 21, 34, 122):
Nobody else in the world including your partner, however devoted, is ever going to love you as much as he [the infant] will in these first years if you will let him... Loving a baby or child is a circular business, a kind of feedback loop. The more you give the more you get and the more you get the more you feel like giving.... However you define the word [love] it must have something to do with interaction between people who know each other, who like what they know and want to know more. If there is love, there must be a sharing, a giving and taking of affection and support. He has a built-in interest in you because your loving care is essential to his survival. He will see to it that love comes.... It is through this first love relationship that he will learn about people and about the world. It is through it that he will experience emotions and learn to cope with them. And it is through this baby-love that he will become capable of more grown-up kinds of love; capable, one far-distant day, of giving his own children the same kind of devotion he asks for himself now.... The more he is allowed to attach himself to you, the more he will be able to respond affectionately to others. Love creates love. Conclusion
Love has had a very good press for thousands of years (as the quotations in the Appendix show). A Martian might judge, and he would not be far wrong, that love is the principal concern of humans. Nowadays perhaps one may start to feel a growing disgust (or contempt) for this preoccupation of humanity with the unceasing flow of popular songs, magazine and tabloid newspaper articles on the theme of love (mostly what Fromm would call "pseudo-love'). Nevertheless we cannot ignore love as an experience, as a fact; we cannot treat it as trivial, familiar and so well understood. The power of love can tell us something about our natures. Love is treated as an exciting mystery; Herbert Spencer said that mind can be understood only by observing how mind evolved; one might say similarly that love can be understood only by finding out how love evolved. This paper is an essay towards this: it suggests that love resulted from a combination based on what the Greeks called STORGÊ - love between parents and children extended to apply to all forms of other-regarding love; it depended on the growth, through language, of the sense of one's own self and the self of others; empathy made possible the visible, or visual, conversation between two persons, mirroring each other, most obviously demonstrated in the smile reflected, back and forth, by which the essence of love, the change in the neural representation of oneself to incorporate a model of the other takes place.
One could of course compose a panegyric of love, and many have done so. For example, love is the dissolution of the obsession of one's self; love is the road to understanding and the grasp of reality, the sympathy for existence; by loving we sense and know the reality and independence and beauty of others; intellect needs love to avoid losing itself in the dry desert; love needs intellect to escape drowning. We float with intellect; we quench our thirst with love. Love is a total state of organization, Love is as specific for humanity as language. "Love", as a principle of human existence, was a great discovery, a great gift. Love allows us to go beyond ourselves, overleap body, brain, mind, reach a Here-Now which is not our private Here-Now, a new dimension in which we can travel. Bertrand Russell in Marriage and Morals(1929) said that love was something far more than desire for sexual intercourse: it was the principal means of escape from the loneliness which afflicts most men and women throughout the greater part of their lives. Love, the capacity to love and be loved, was an evolutionary step forward in man -- a civilizing, elevating experience.
Such is the kind of panegyric one could produce which could be criticized as ignoring the problems, the griefs, also associated with love. With it one might contrast the unsentimental possibility that if we come to understand better the process and state of love, through seeing how love may have developed phylogenetically and ontogenetically, then at some time in the future we may be able to produce a computer analog of love as the mutual interaction of two continually complexifying programs. A sad prospect!
Appendix: Quotations
- What is life, what delight is there, without golden Aphrodite? Mimnermus 600 BC
- To love a thing means wanting it to live. Confucius 500 BC
- Love is the joy of the good, the wonder of the wise, the amazement of the gods. Plato 400 BC
- One word/ Frees us of all the weight and pain of life/ That word is love. Sophocles
- Amantes amentes
- Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris. Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior. Catullus 50 BC
- Me tamen urit amor
- A new commandment I give unto you That ye love one another
- Ardet amor cordis in antro. 10th century
- This sweet little love which is fixed in the cloud of unknowing. The Cloud of Unknowing
- Though a man excels in everything, unless he has been a lover his life is lonely... a jewelled cup which can contain no wine. Yoshida Kenko c. 1330
- Words have no language which can utter the secrets of love. Hafiz 14th century
- Love is a great thing, a great good in every wise; it alone makes light every heavy thing and beareth evenly every uneven thing. Thomas A Kempis 1380-1471
- Love is ane fervent fire Kindled without desire. Alexander Scott 1525-84
- If a man urge me to tell wherefore I loved him... Because it was he, because it was my selfe. Montaigne 1533-1594
- You are my all the world. Shakespeare 1564-1616
- Love is a spirit all compact of fire.
- Tell me where is fancy bred Or in the heart or in the head? How begot, how nourished? Reply, reply. It is engender'd in the eyes With gazing fed.
- Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind.
- True love is a durable fire
- Love is not love/ which alters where it alteration finds.
- We conceal it from ourselves in vain - we must always love something. Pascal 1623-1662
- Il semble qu'on ait une toute autre àme quand on aime - on devient toute grandeur; dans l'amour on oubliait sa fortune, ses parents et ses amis.
- Celle qu'on aime, elle entre en vous, dans le regard et dans le coeur, par sa voix, par tous ses gestes, on l'absorbe. On la dévine dans toutes les intentions de son sourire et de sa parole. Alliance by blood or marriage is a frequent cause of war between Princes, and the nearer the kindred is, the greater is their disposition to quarrel. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
- Love has features which pierce all hearts. Voltaire 1694-1778
- C'est l'étoffe de la nature que l'imagination a brodée.
- Was ist das leben ohne Liebesglanz? Schiller 1759-1805
- A life without love, without the presence of the beloved, is nothing but a mere magic-lantern show. Goethe 1749-1832
- Das leben ist die Liebe.
- Was du liebst, das lebst du. Fichte 1762-1814
- Each strives to be the other and both together make up one whole. Coleridge 1772-1834
- Liebe wintert nicht. Tieck 1773-1853
- Lovers are traitors secretly striving to perpetuate all this misery and turmoil that otherwise would come to a timely end. Schopenhauer
- Love is the only gold. Tennyson
- There is always some madness in love. But there is always some reason in madness. Nietzsche
- Love is the foundation of everything desirable or good. Peirce
- Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and border and salute each other. Rilke
- Near the end of his life he [Freud] said that we know very little about love.
- Love is something far more than desire for sexual intercourse; it is the principal means of escape from the loneliness which afflicts most men and women throughout the greater part of their lives. Bertrand Russell
- Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things. E.M.Forster
- One cannot be strong without love. For love is not an irrelevant emotion; it is the blood of life, the power of reunion of the separated. Tillich
- Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own. Heinlein
- Love is the pearl of life. Wittgenstein
- This recognition of the other as a person, as another "I" and lover is the decisive moment in the human experience of love. Martin D'Arcy
- Love is union with somebody, or something, outside oneself, under the condition of retaining the separateness and integrity of one's own self. Fromm
- Whatever anthropologists may say I believe that falling in love is a real phenomenon. J.Z. Young
- What would be the use of a neuroscience that cannot tell us anything about love?
Bell, G. (1982) The masterpiece of nature: The evolution and genetics of sexuality. London: Croom Helm.
D'Arcy, M.C. (1952) The Mind and Heart of Love. 2nd ed. London: Faber and Faber.
Emde, R.M. and Harmon, R.J., eds. (1982) The Development of Attachment and Affiliation Systems. New York: Plenum.
Fisher, M. (1990) Personal Love. London: Duckworth.
Freud, S. (1962) Three Essays in the Theory of Sexuality. Trans. and ed. by J. Strachey. London: Hogarth Press.
Fromm, E. (1957) The Art of Loving. London: Allen and Unwin.
Hollingdale, R.J. (1970) Introduction to Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Konner, M. (1982) Biological Aspects of the Mother-Infant Bond. In Emde, R.M. and Harmon, R.J., eds. The Development of Attachment and Affiliation Systems. New York: Plenum, pp. 137- 159.
Leach, P. (1979) Baby and Child. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lorenz, Konrad. (1966) On Aggression. Translated by Marjorie Latzke. London: Methuen.
Mellen, S.L.W. (1981) The Evolution of Love. Oxford and San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Mursten, B.L. 1988. "A Taxonomy of Love," in Sternberg, R.J. and Barnes, M.L. eds. (1988) Psychology of Love. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 13-37.
Pascal (1652/1866) "Discours sur les passions de l'amour," in Pensées. ed. with Introduction and Notes by E.Havet. Paris: Ch. Delagrave, pp. 251-263.
Ross, D. (1972) R. Stanley Hall: The Psychologist as Prophet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Russell, B. (1929) Marriage and Morals. London: Allen and Unwin.
Santas, G. (1988) Plato and Freud: Two theories of love. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Scheler, M. (1913) [1954] The Nature of Sympathy. Heath, P. trans. with Introduction by W. Stark. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schopenhauer, A. (1970) Essays and Aphorisms. Selected and translated by R.J. Hollingdale. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Scruton, R. (1986) Sexual desire A Philosophical Investigation. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Stein, Edith. (1970) On the Problem of Empathy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Trans. by Waltraut Stein of Zum Problem der Einfühlung [Originally published (1917)
Sternberg, R.J. and Barnes, M.L., eds. (1988) Psychology of Love. New Haven: Yale UP.
Symons, D. (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: OUP.
Trevarthen, C. (1984) How control of movement develops.In Human motor actions: Bernstein reassessed. ed. by H. Whiting, pp. 223-261. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Trevarthen, C. (1990) Growth and education in the hemispheres. In Trevarthen, C., ed. Brain circuits and functions. CUP, pp. 334-363.
Voltaire 1764. [1967] Dictionnaire Philosophique: Amour. Paris: Editions Garnier.
Wilson, Edward O. (1975) Sociobiology The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Young, J.Z. (1978) Programs of the Brain. London: OUP.


text:
The Flip Side
Part One, Side B
BB: Jason Giambi hasn't been embraced by New Yorkers in spite of two impressive offensive campaigns in pinstripes. Has the criticism been unfair? How much pressure do you think Giambi is facing going into the 2004 season? Does he get a pass now that Rodriguez and Sheffield are here to help? Short of the Yanks winning a championship, what will it take for him to be accepted by Yankee fans?
Larry Mahnken: Of course the criticism of Giambi is unfair. The man was one of the top ten hitters in baseball last season despite being injured all year, and is the best hitter the Yankees have had since Mickey Mantle. He hit two home runs off of Pedro in Game Seven, for goodness sake! Giambi will have a lot of outside pressures applied to him, but I don't think he'll let it get to him. How he plays in 2004 depends a lot more on his knee than his response to pressure. I don't think having A-Rod and Sheffield here help take pressure off. With the added offensive punch, Giambi will be looked up to put up even bigger numbers, because he'll be "protected".
Tim Marchman: Giambi symbolizes the moment when the Yankees went completely overboard, and so heíll never get any love from New York. I never think criticism of a player (as opposed to his play, a big distinction) is fair so long as he gives his best effort, which Giambi seems to have done. Pressure or no, heís ageing and frequently injured, and I see no reason to think heíll be more than a hitter with a .900 OPS. Without defense or speed thatís not an MVP candidate, which is what he was sold as. The expectation that he would continue to have seasons like he did his last two years in Oakland was unrealistic, but he doesnít need to perform like that to be an asset to the team.
Buster Olney: I think Giambi will be helped out greatly by the addition of A-Rod and Sheffield, because it will take some heat off him. But in the end, he'll be targeted again, because of his defense (which is terrible) and his growing problems on offense, which are exacerbated by the fact that he's not a very good athlete and he has physical problems. I don't think he'll ever be really loved by Yankees fans, because now, if they win another title, Alex will get much of the credit.
Joe Sheehan: I'm not sure exactly what Giambi would have to have done for the criticism to *not* be unfair. The guy has been one of the top players in the league in every year as a Yankee. I think, to a certain extent, the pressure's off him, as pressure tends to shift to new guys. (Caveat: I don't think Giambi has been on steroids, but if that turns out the be the case, all bets are off.) So yes, Rodriguez, Sheffield, Brown, Vazquez…all these guys deflect the pressure.
By the way, isn't this an old conversation? Wasn't Giambi accepted when he hit the grand slam against the Twins in the rain? Maybe he should have been accepted when he hit two home runs off Pedro Martinez to keep the Yankees in a game they were well on their way to losing. I don't know. Maybe he has to build the Jets a new stadium by hand, craft and present the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics, and use his wealth to subsidize free rides on the C, D and 4 lines for the next 15 years.Joel Sherman: I think Giambi is the poster child – in many ways – for the fight between strict adherence to statistical analysis and factoring in non-quantative issues. There is no doubt that Giambi still has great value as an offensive player due to his patient/power combo. But he has been a lesser player with the Yankees than he was in his final three seasons with Oakland. The dramatic increase in strikeouts should worry the Yankees. So should the knee problem. This is an injury that has been likened to the one that forced Mark McGwire's retirement and the Yankees do have five years left on this contract. His ties to McGwire, his bulked-up body, his insistence on having a personal trainer accompany him at all times and his summoning to testify for the Balco grand jury also puts him in a dubious light when it comes to illegal performance enhancers. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but we would just all have our heads in the sand to not notice this accumulation of information and the potential distractions and detractions to Giambi's game.
Giambi also was brought here with the idea he had leadership skills. That is just not the case. He is often an island or simply missing in action. That does not mean he is hurting the team, simply that he has shunned an opening to step forward and do more. In all these regards, I think no Yankee benefits more from having Alex Rodriguez on the team than Giambi. It is a distraction away from the Balco story, at least until more stuff hits the fan. It lessens Giambi's need to hurry into the batting order if his knee is not ready and no longer is his unwillingness to step forward as leader/spokesman as great a factor.
Glenn Stout: If he was really hurting, then of course the criticism isnít fairif he was jaking it, the criticism was deserved. Weíll never know. Of course the wild-card with him is the whole steroid issue. A-Rod and Sheffield should help him, but no one is going to be happy if he hits .250 again. Iíd rather see him hit over .300 with 25 HRs and 40-50 doubles and strike out less. Last year it looked as if he got totally homer happy, but then again, no one else but Posada was hitting home runs.
BB: Who will have the better season: Pettitte or Vasquez? Clemens or Brown.
Larry Mahnken: If you're trying to ask who'll have the better ERA, I think it's very tight, and it's tough to pick one over the other. However, the question behind the question is whether the Yankees would have been better
off with Pettitte and Clemens or Vazquez and Brown. If you put it into that context, I think there's no question that Vazquez and Brown will outperform their
predecessors. The Yankees' defense will hurt them, and the Astros' defense will help Clemens and Pettitte, so the numbers might not reflect that.Tim Marchman: Vasquez will easily have a better season than Pettitte. I think Brown will be better per inning than Clemens, but pitch a lot fewer innings.
Buster Olney: Vazquez will thrive, more than Pettitte. Clemens will stay healthier than Brown and win a few more games.
Alan Schwarz: I think they're all pretty darned even, Pettitte and Clemens moving to Minute Maid of course poses questions. Brown, if healthy, a huge if, will be the best of the bunch.
Joe Sheehan: Vazquez over Pettitte is an easy call. Deciding which old pitcher will stay healthier isn't. I'll say Clemens, but without much conviction.
Joel Sherman: This is a real good question, and probably one that will more determine if the Yanks do great things this year than anything involving A-Rod. Whether Vasquez and Brown outdo the men they are replacing is not as significant as them simply having very good years. I, for one, believe the switch from NL to AL is a dramatic one. There are just less outs in the lineup and I think it takes a toll on starters mentally and physically. I keep hearing Vasquez is a tough-minded guy. Well, we are going to find out. We know Brown is tough-minded, the question is whether he is tough body. If you absolutely forced me to guess – and it is a totally a guess – I would say Pettitte will outdo Vasquez and Brown will outdo Clemens.
Glenn Stout: I think "better season" needs defined. Ballpark and league differences could result in Pettitte/Clemens having better raw numbers, but in general I think Vasquez/Brown will do better for the Yankees in 2005 than a combo of Pettitte and Clemens would. I donít think the Astros will be all that good, reallytheir younger players and vets arenít really dove-tailing.
BB: Will Mike Mussina win 20 games? If not, will he at least win 15 games again? How close is Mussina to being a Hall of Famer?
Larry Mahnken: In a just world, Mike Mussina would win 20 games. He's one of the top 15 pitchers in baseball, and he's supported by one of the best offenses. Hopefully, Kenny Lofton will take over for Bernie in center, which should lower Mussina's ERA. I think there's a 50/50 chance he'll win 20, and a 99% chance he'll win 15, barring injury. As for the Hall, I think Mussina is 51 victories, or three seasons away from becoming a lock for Cooperstown. 250 victories isn't impressive on it's own, but with only 110 losses so far, Mussina is one of the most consistent winners of the past 10 years. He won't get shafted like Blyelven, because he's not going to lose 250 games, too.
Tim Marchman: I think heíll win from 15 to 20 games like he does every year. To my mind, heís already a Hall of Famer of the Jim Bunning class if he retires tomorrow; itís not his fault that heís been overshadowed by some of the greatest pitchers to ever live, or that heís pitched in a DH league in an extreme hitterís era. To my mind the question is whether he can get up into the Jim Palmer class of the Hall.
Buster Olney: Two more great seasons, where he starts to approach 240 wins, and I think Mussina will get into serious Hall of Fame range. He'll win 20 this year.
Joe Sheehan: Yes, because he's probably due for a lucky year in which he gets run support. I'm picking him for AL Cy Young (not news, I pick him about every other year) and could see him go nuts, 25-3 or something. By merit, that year would probably push Mussina into the Hall. In reality, the standards for starting pitchers have become a little weird, so it's not clear what they need to do to be Hall of Famers going forward. Mussina is going to look a lot like Tom Glavine, with a bit more value but less shiny things on the resume. Not good.
Joel Sherman: I think Mike Mussina rolls out of bed with 15 wins. He should have been a 20-game winner a few times in his career. As far as stuff goes, there are few pitchers that combine his arsenal and intellect. When he fails, I believe, he is just thinking too darn much. The Hall of Fame question is an intriguing one because, of course, many voters are going to look for 20-win seasons. But he does have eight top six finishes in Cy Young voting. I think he is going to need many more people who do statistical analysis to come into the electorate who honor how much better than league average he has been throughout his career. Without that, I think he falls into the Bert Blyleven netherworld.
Glenn Stout: If heís ever going to win twenty, this should be the year. He sort of needs that to move out of the longevity HoF group of pitcher, but then I think the HoF is rather meaningless anyway. Tom Yawkey is in the Hall of Fame, for crying out loud.
BB: Do you see Jose Contreras as the x-factor in the Yankees starting rotation?
Larry Mahnken: Contreras isn't just the pivot of the rotation, he's one of the crucial factors in the AL East race. If Contreras is the ace the Yankees hope he is, then they'll be dancing with the Red Sox for the division title right down to the wire. If he's inconsistent and rarely dominant, then the Yankees have to hope that Brown and Lieber stay healthy and pitch their best. If he's hurt or mediocre at best, then they'll be eating Boston's dust and fighting it out with Oakland and Anaheim for the last playoff spot.
Tim Marchman: I see Randy Johnson as the x-factor in the rotation. Contreras can, I think, be reasonably expected to pitch from 150-200 innings of league average ball. He might well do better than that, but thatís all the club needs him to do.
Buster Olney: I think Lieber is the X-factor, whereas Contreras will be like Hideki Irabu in '98 and '99: He'll dominate mediocre and bad teams and get frazzled against good teams.
Joel Sherman: I think just about everyone in the Yankee rotation is an X-factor, accept perhaps their near sure thing in Mussina. But, yes, Contreras is vital. I am still wondering if he is not a set-up man. I wonder if he has the endurance to make 30 starts. He has very good stuff. But we will have to see that he can apply that over a full season.
Glenn Stout: I still think, in the long run, heíll prove to be a more important player for NY than Matsui.
BB: How do you think Bernie Williams will adapt to being a designated hitter? Will Kenny Lofton's presence distract him or inspire him? How close is Williams to being a Hall of Famer? What does he need to do to qualify?
Larry Mahnken: Bernie has undoubtedly been underappreciated by the Yankees in his career, but I think he's somewhat used to it now. Proud as he is, I don't think he is upset at how the move from center was handled, and Torre's decision to let him fight to keep his job will probably help smooth the transistion for him. I think Bernie Williams needs to get at least 500 more hits and 60 HRs while staying over .300 for his career to get serious consideration for Cooperstown. Four rings, and maybe more before he's done certainly help his case, but I think he's borderline at best.
Tim Marchman: Whether he adapts well to being a DH has to do, I think, with whether his injury problems are solved by moving him out of the field. Heís quite capable of having a 7-year run where heís a hitter of near-Edgar Martinez quality. No idea how upset he is about being moved, but heís been a great hitter for a long time and Iíd expect him to hit as well as heís physically able; his seasonal numbers were, until last year, incredibly consistent for someone with such a reputation for being a flake. His numbers are in the grey area for the Hall, and the 6 pennants and 4 rings are a significant argument for his inclusion. I think heíll eventually get in, probably as a Veteranís Committee selection.
Buster Olney: Bernie needs some more volume to go into Hall of Fame consideration, and whatever Lofton's role, Bernie will figure it out and be at peace with it. A more serious question is how his shoulders will hold up — and whether they will hold up. He's got a lot of mileage.
Joe Sheehan: I don't think Lofton's presence will matter at all. This is largely speculation, but Williams strikes me as a very self-aware man. I can't imagine he doesn't understand that he's better off not playing center field at this point in his career, and his body's age. If Williams isn't a Hall of Famer, I propose that the pile of bricks out by Glimmerglass Lake with the plaques be converted into low-cost housing. Or maybe a Wal-Mart.
Joel Sherman: I think Bernie will end up playing the majority of his games in center field. Joe Torre is going to need his clubhouse lieutenants more than ever this year and he is not going to disrespect Bernie if Bernie shows Torre in spring that his knee is fine. Kenny Lofton is going to end up on the bench a lot if Travis Lee plays first base. I see Lofton getting traded in July as part of a deal for a player of some money that the Yankees need.
BB: Theo Epstein and Billy Beane are the two most celebrated general managers in the game right now. Is there any doubt that Brian Cashman belongs in their company?
Larry Mahnken: Yes, there certainly is doubt. Cashman is a very good general manager, but the Yankees have made some questionable moves under his watch. You can blame all of those moves on Steinbrenner, but one has to ask why Cashman didn't find alternate, superior solutions to the problems that led George to make those moves before it ever came to that. I don't think the Yankees should fire Cashman on his own merit, but if Billy Beane was willing to work in The Bronx, I'd dump Cashman in a second. He's good, but he's not THAT good.in the elevator.
Tim Marchman: Epstein and Beane have no world championships between them, and I think they would say that means the question is whether they belong in his company. As for Cashman, the obvious problems appraising him are that the Yankees are run by committee, and that he can go out and get Alex Rodriguez if his third baseman tears up his knee. Weíll have to see Cashman in full charge of a team other than the Yankees to fairly judge his ability. For what itís worth I find John Schuerholz to be by far the most impressive GM in baseball, the only clear Hall of Famer currently running a team.
Buster Olney: Cashman has four rings. Theo has done a great job, and so has Billy, and between them, their teams have won one postseason series, let alone a World Series. The question should be whether those guys belong in the same breath as Cashman.
Alan Schwarz: "Celebrated" basically means media hype. The jobs each of them have are vastly different, and I don't think it's truly reasonable to compare them. And Epstein has only been on the job for a little over a year.
Joe Sheehan: Sure. Why the hell would you let the guys with no rings–and one with a year on the job–hang with the guy trying to catch one for the thumb? In all seriousness, it's hard to know how much of the Yankees' success is due to Cashman's work. He inherited the core developed by Bill Livesey and Stick Michael, and a chunk of the additions along the way are hard to credit to one person, given the Kremlin-like state of the Yankee front office. ("Mark Newman was sitting on Steinbrenner's right. This must mean frost in Leningrad, and an attempt on the life of Koyastkov!") Cashman knows what he's doing, but it'll take his next job until we know just how strong a GM he is. My guess is he's top-tier, in the discussion with Beane, Epstein, et al.
Joel Sherman: There will always be doubt about Brian until he goes to a team that does not spend as freely as the Yankees and proves that on a more reasonable budget that he could assemble a consistent winner. But among his peers, Brian has a great admiration society.
Glenn Stout: Well, I think both Beane and Epstein, in particular, are celebrated more because they are celebrated rather than for anything else. Cashman has been good for this team, for entirely different reasons that the supposed "genius" of Beane and Epstein. You manage according to your team and resources and you general manage according to your team and resources. Cashman has been most valuable for his ability to negotiate the mine fields of that position under Steinbrenner.
But I think the A-Rod deal was savvy in that they were able to move in Bostonís wake and put together a deal that didnít expand the boundaries that had already been staked out, thus giving Selig no reason to block it under the "best interests" clausewhich I think he would have done had he not allowed Boston so much latitude earlier. Cashman has also always sensed that you have to play to the back page in NY, and deals like the one for Clemens and A-Rod recognize that.
BB: The Yankees have a gruff edge this season with the additions of Kevin Brown, Sheffield and Kenny Lofton. Some observers look at this team as a far cry from the Paul O'Neil Yankees. Will the new attitude help or hurt the team?
Larry Mahnken: A lot of guys have come into New York in past years with a bad reputation, and turned out to be fine teammates. Joe Torre is excellent at keeping the clubhouse professional, and making sure everyone's focused on their goal. I don't think the new personalities will have any effect on the Yankees' performance on the field.
Buster Olney: Even if you assume that these guys are benign, rather than cancerous, it won't be the same; those guys of the dynasty all had shared history, they played for each other. The Yankees of 2004 are a lot of islands loosely connected by the color of their uniform.
Joe Sheehan: Um…what? You know the difference between Paul O'Neill and Kevin Brown? Paul O'Neill played for the Yankees. Same actions, same attitude, but Yankees fans liked their guy. Seriously. Calling Kevin Brown a "far cry" from Paul O'Neill is ridiculous.
Joel Sherman: I think too often this becomes about the media not getting along with a player, which at times could impact a team if other players feel they are having to talk too much in their teammate's behalf. But I think Kevin Brown is a different animal. His teammates have not liked him at his various stops. That could cause problems. Kenny Lofton long had that reputation, as well. But in the past two years with the Giants and Cubs, he actually has been hailed as a good teammate on teams that made the playoffs.
Glenn Stout: That will be totally determined by their W/L record. Attitude only matters when you lose.
BB: From a writer's viewpoint, is this the most interesting Yankee team since the Bronx Zoo days of the late seventies?
Larry Mahnken: I thought the early-90's Yankees were much more interesting, because they were an underdog team coming out of the cellar, and collecting, for the most part, underappreciated players. This certainly is an interesting team, with some new personalities, but New York has tended to suck the personality out of players in recent years. I thought Jason Giambi would be a lot of fun as a Yankee, but he's been all business. What a letdown.
Tim Marchman: Controversial excellence interests me much less than quiet excellence.
Buster Olney: No, I much prefer a functional team to a dysfunctional team. Then you can write more about baseball than catfights.
Joel Sherman: I think A-Rod and the heat of the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry make this the most fascinating team I have ever been around.
Glenn Stout: I donít think sotodayís writers donít have nearly the same access as then, and the contemporary player is much, much more guarded. Thereís nothing really inherently interesting about a group of rich guys with no perspective, whether they are ballplayers or CEOís.
BB: What are you looking forward to about the 2004 Yankees? And what are you dreading about them?
Larry Mahnken: I'm looking forward to seeing Gary Sheffield rip doubles into the outfield gaps. I'm looking forward to seeing Javier Vazquez and Kevin Brown on their best days. I'm looking forward to seeing if Hideki Matsui
can HIT THE DAMN BALL IN THE AIR!!! I'm dreading injuries, or seeing Bernie Williams in center field again. But most of all, I'm dreading seeing the Red Sox win it all–or, at least, the aftermath of that.Tim Marchman: I look forward to seeing Alex Rodriguez play every day; Iíve always gone out of my way to watch him, but this is the first time Iíll be able to see him play every day, and that should be a treat. I dread that instead of putting a team in Brooklyn to counter the Yankeesí revenue advantage, MLB will seek to thwart them by foolishly instigating a longer strike than the one we saw in 1994 by insisting (again) on a salary cap the players will never, ever agree to.
Buster Olney: They are a fascinating collection of Rotisserie Gods, playing under extraordinary expectations — win the World Series or be deemed losers — and it'll be fascinating to see how they react. I dread being around the team in important series, because the media pack will extend into Manhattan.
Alan Schwarz: What I dread is their heading into the season as favorites again. Before the Rodriguez trade, it was reasonable to see the Red Sox as favorites for a change. Now we're back to the same old, boring storylines.
Joe Sheehan: They could score an obscene number of runs, especially if they get lucky at second base. I love the idea of watching Rodriguez play for the Yankees. I think this is the year Mike Mussina gets his close-up, too. Dreading? The Carnival of Denial. Any four-game losing streak, because of the potential for an ownership meltdown. Whiny fans in places like Kansas City staging impotent "protests" over payroll figures, as David Glass gets ever richer by whittling away at an entire class of Americans.
Joel Sherman: I am looking forward to the 19 games against the Red Sox. I can't think of anything I am dreading.
Glenn Stout: Iím looking forward to the nineteen games with Boston. Iím dreading all the stupid crap that will be written before and after those games, or said by broadcasters, particularly references to the specious and tired "curse."
BB: Do you think the Yankees will get into a bench-clearing brawl during the regular season?
Larry Mahnken: Without a doubt. Another team might be involved, too, but that's less likely.
Tim Marchman: Iíll be very disappointed if they donít.
Buster Olney: Yes; with the Red Sox. And Pedro will be involved. It's all but inevitable. (It's a lock that either Posada or Sheffield will be the Yankee charging the mound…)
Joe Sheehan: Yes.
Joel Sherman: The Yanks and Red Sox play 19 times. Enough said.
Glenn Stout: You mean with each other? 3-1 vs the Red Sox, 5-1 vs. Tampa, 10-1 vs anyone else or each other.
Tune in on Monday when a second group of writers tackle the same set of questions.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A former nurse who accepted thousands of dollars, gifts and inheritance from two elderly patients she looked after will pay for her misdeeds.
Laurie Jeanne Tinkham of Nanaimo was ordered to pay more than $30,000 in fines and legal fees after an investigation by the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia concluded that she financially exploited an infirm elderly couple.
According to a recently published decision by the CRNBC, Tinkham cared for an elderly couple, known only as M.W. and P.W., from 2010 until 2013. Between 2012 and 2013, Tinkham received more than $11,000 in cashed cheques from M.W.'s bank account, became power of attorney in relation to the couple's financial matters, became a joint owner in the mobile home that she was living in with the couple and when the elderly couple died, the title of the mobile home was transferred to Tinkham, who retained ownership of it, according to the CRNBC decision.
The nurses' college became aware of Tinkham's actions in January 2013 from a Vancouver Island Health Authority employee, who had also been providing services to M.W. and P.W. and discovered what was happening. Shortly afterward, the college began conducting its own investigation and a series of hearings spanning until 2017.
According to the decision, Tinkham sent the nurses' college a letter admitting to having power of attorney for M.W. as well as having a "very unusual" agreement with M.W. and P.W., which resulted in the elderly couple paying her $800 a month in return for services. The letter also stated that she received benefits through the "use of a trailer" as well as having her dental, optical and rent expenses paid for by the couple. M.W. also paid for prescription drugs for the nurse. Tinkham later told a CRNBC investigator that she considered M.W. a "very close" friend and that she received extra payments from him because she was "a few hundred dollars short" each month, the decision said. M.W.
The CRNBC's decision said Tinkham failed to maintain proper boundaries with her clients and that her actions severely violate professional nursing standards. Tinkham was ordered to pay a $17,500 fine, plus pay the CRNBC's court costs, which amounted to $16,535. Tinkham is also banned from reapplying to become a registered nurse in British Columbia for five years. The CRNBC stated the penalties imposed are intended to send a "strong message" to nurses and the public that such conduct will not be tolerated.
Tinkham has not been a registered nurse since 2013.


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Low Price Leader on all Transmission Marine Couplings. Largest inventory of Transmission Marine Couplings, save big on all Transmission Marine Couplings.
Model Number: 50475B1500
Transmission Types: Twin Disc & Capitol
Coupling Type: Split
Shaft Size: 1-1/2 inch
Flange Diameter: 4-3/4 inch
Number of Bolts: 6
Bolt Diameter: 7/16 inch
Bolt Circle: 3-7/8 inch
Pilot: 2-1/2 inch x 3/16 inch Female
Overall Length: 4 inch
Buy your Buck 50475B1500 Split Buck Algonquin Marine Motor Coupling at Propeller Depot and save. All Buck Algonquin marine hardware parts are backed by their one year warranty, and made in the United States of America.


text:
In music, there's constant pressure to recreate the past, especially when your previous work was critically acclaimed or lauded by fans. Braids' 2011 debut, Native Speaker, was a stealthy success that introduced the Calgary collective's modest brand of dream pop. There were accessible elements, yet ...Speaker was far more cerebral: Just when it veered toward a narrow path, Braids re-shifted to something experimental, its airy aesthetic layered with distorted guitars and breezy ambience. As a result, Braids are comfortably alternative, their music resonating with texture or delivered straight up.
On Flourish/Perish, the band opts for something lighter and a bit more deliberate. For one, the album doesn't have any guitars on it except for 'In Kind', the closing track. For almost an hour, the album slowly reveals itself through sporadic electronic bursts and vibrant bass drums. It begins modestly and trickles from the speakers in captivating fashion, calmly drawing you into its enveloping glow. Flourish... doesn't proceed, per sé. It swells, each song is similar in scope, yet somewhat different from the next. And don't listen for clear-cut singles: Flourish/Perish is to be experienced from beginning to end, its oceanic tranquility a nice respite from the hurried abrasiveness of everyday life.
Still, Braids came to this release under sullen circumstances. Before Flourish... was completed, keyboardist Katie Lee left the band. 'We didn't have an easy falling out,' Braids vocalist Raphaelle Standell-Preston told Huffington Post Canada in an interview. '"Amends" [from Flourish...] was all about Katie and I fighting, having huge ego battles and me realizing how hot my ego can get." On the song, though, Standell-Preston sounds content, her haunting falsetto echoes within the hollow dance track. 'Together' carries the same scant vibe, though Standell-Preston is a bit more audible here. Much like Native Speaker, Standell-Preston plays a vital role on the new album, as her vocal dexterity and nimble chord changes serve as Flourish's binding agent.
However, her importance is lessened a bit due to the album's impressive electronic sound, which stands out stronger than anything Standell-Preston sings here. She mostly acts as a supplement to the music's scant instrumentals, her voice hidden behind lush synthesizers and warped chimes. Often times, it's unclear what's she saying and what she's singing about. It was probably done on purpose, given the band's ethereal approach. Like on 'Fruend', for instance: above wafting synths and bouncy percussion, the singer's ambient wails add lingering effects to the song's nocturnal feel.
It all adds up to a stellar recording. With all these sonic elements in play, Flourish... assembles into a cohesive set of woozy dream pop, slightly removed from Native Speaker, but closely aligned to Braids' artistic core. Despite the lineup change and the turmoil surrounding the trio, Flourish // Perish builds upon Braids equally striking debut without retreading old work. Though like before, the group skews dark electro-pop into something surreal. While other bands register in real life, Braids have a strong footing in the supernatural, their hypnotic mix a visceral soundtrack for that space between fantasy and reality.
8Marcus J. Moore's Score
6User Score


text:
Sammy Hagar on Eddie Van Halen: 'I Don't Hate the Guy. I Love the Guy'
Sammy Hagar has shared his true feelings about his former bandmate, Eddie Van Halen. Even though the Red Rocker's split with Van Halen was a rather difficult one, he contends that he doesn't hate the guitarist, nor does he wish him ill. It's more of a case of hating the sin, not the sinner.
"I don't think I ever slowed down and stopped trying to prove something in that damn band 'til the reunion in '04, but by then it was too late," Hagar recalled to LA Weekly. "Eddie was shot at that point, though I heard he's great now, and I'm really happy that he's supposedly sober and playing great and doing good. People think, 'Oh you hate the guy.' I don't hate the guy, I love the guy. I hate what he did in '04 to me on the reunion tour, but other than that I still love the guy."
There you have it. Hagar was bummed about the way things went down, not at the guitarist himself. He maintains that he has not taken a listen to 'A Different Kind of Truth,' but says he is glad the band he once fronted is active with the singer he initially replaced. He said, "The fact that they're out right now, that's so great; I'm so happy that they're out doing it -- but look how long it took."
Despite no hard feelings, Hagar is glad to be out of that environment, finishing, "It's so dysfunctional and who knows how long it will last like this and I just can't be part of something like that."
If there is one thing Sammy Hagar does, it's tell you how he feels. He also said that while he was incredibly frank and candid in his book 'Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock,' which was released last year, he doesn't regret pulling back the curtain so much, even if it meant exposing people who didn't want to be exposed.
He admitted, "There were a lot of times where I said, 'I really shouldn't say this.' But I felt that my fans, who've been with me all this time, deserved the real story; they need to hear why and understand why I am who I am and why I've become what I've become and how I did it and what I went through for it."
It always comes back to Van Halen, doesn't it? They are the body around which many people who were once in their inner circle continue to orbit. The paperback version of Sammy's book 'Red,' with a new chapter all about the reaction to the first release of the book, comes out March 13.


text:
A true-to-life automotive journey featuring the most prestigious cars!
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience is a true-to-life automotive journey featuring the most prestigious cars in the world!
The best-selling franchise is back for free and it's designed to offer an unprecedented level of driving enjoyment, whether playing solo or multiplayer.
• The richest handheld racing simulation game this year: 71 licensed cars on 13 tracks, including the real Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca.
• A superb collection of real cars from over 30 manufacturers: Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari, Dodge, Nissan, Audi, Ford, and more.
• Test your driving skills by completing 1,400 events, including Classic Races, Duels, Knockouts and Overtakes.
• 28 new challenges each week: improve your driving skills & maybe win a new car for free!
• The new physics model offers the most realistic car dynamics ever offered in a handheld game.
• The sun is not always shining in GT Racing 2: Our tracks have different times of day and weather conditions.
• Race your way by choosing from among 4 different cameras, including a breathtaking interior view, and feast your eyes on real car designs!
• No repair times or repair costs! We won't make you wait or pay to race in an event again.
• Compete with your friends or with real players from all over the world. Earn the fastest time on each race in multiplayer!
• Join teams to play with other drivers and accomplish common goals.
• New racer? Turn on Steering & Braking Assistance to get up to speed in a flash!
• Veteran driver? Tweak your performance in the garage with tons of custom options!
No other games could offer you better realistic racing simulation than GTR2. Download it for free and enjoy the most authentic racing game on the market!
For fans of racing games, racing simulation games, rally games, and everything related to cars! This game is free to play.
Visit our official site at http://www.gameloft.com
Follow us on Twitter at http://glft.co/GameloftonTwitter or like us on Facebook at http://facebook.com/Gameloft to get more info about all our upcoming games.
Check out our videos and game trailers on http://www.youtube.com/Gameloft
Discover our blog at http://glft.co/Gameloft_Official_Blog for the inside scoop on everything Gameloft.
This app allows you to purchase virtual items within the app and may contain third-party advertisements that may redirect you to a third-party site.
Privacy Policy : http://www.gameloft.com/privacy-notice/
Terms of Use : http://www.gameloft.com/conditions/
End User License Agreement : http://www.gameloft.com/eula/
Part of Gameloft's Asphalt franchise, Asphalt 8 has 300+ licensed cars and...
CSR2 is a real driving simulator that delivers hyper-real drag racing to...
Take control of luxury licensed cars, such as the Ferrari LaFerrari or...
Play the best-selling drag racing game on Android for FREE!*** The best-selling...
In Asphalt 9: Legends, take the wheel of real cars from high-end...
Race, mod, and tune dozens of real licensed cars! Start a team,...
Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)
Created with AppPage.net
Similar Apps - visible in preview.