Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

A General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis

A General Theory of Love

by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini (Author), Richard Lannon (Author)

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
519319,506 (4.1)3



Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 3 mentions

Showing 3 of 3
Outstanding; it's groundbreaking in that in just 230 pages it connects all the dots from early childhood (attachment theory plus much more), brain physiology to modern therapy that gradually & positively alters the old mental/emotional harmful wiring in we humans through the therapeutic emotional sharing between therapist & client! This book is a required read for many psychology students & graduate students that go to CIIS (California Institute of Integral Studies) here in San Francisco. It could be just a tad more accessible to everyone by using simpler language but overall it is definitely NOT bogged down by psychology jargon. ( )
  AmaroqDeQuebrazas | Jul 30, 2015 |
This book touts itself as a scientific look at the mechanism of love in the human animal. It's a little fruity at the beginning and end, but there was some good stuff in the middle. I give it 4/5 for its theories about limbic resonance, which I found very interesting (from a poetic perspective if nothing else). ( )
  wirehead | Jul 9, 2013 |
This is the third book on the psychology of love which I picked up when I was back in the UK April-June earlier this year. For the others, see my reviews of The Art of Loving and Conditions of Love. I have to say that this was the book I was looking forward to getting into most but which, in the end, delivered least. Nevertheless, it was a worthwhile read. It just had a high standard to live up to set by the other two.

This book is more about the science behind love, the “biological reality of romance.” It’s written by people with more letters after their name than Jimmy Saville and it shows. Occasionally, they quote poetry to make you think that they are well-rounded people but it’s a thin veneer which is easy to see through Winking smile.

In the preface, they say

Every book, if it is anything at all, is an argument: an articulate arrow of words, fledged and notched and newly anointed with sharpened stone, speeding through paragraphs to its shimmering target.

but somehow, although their book was entertaining and even informative, I missed what their argument, if they indeed had one, was in fact. On rereading the introduction, I discovered it, hidden under a flowering metaphor: an argument for love. As if to say that there is some movement out there which is arguing so strongly against it that it requires them to pool their intellectual resources to defend it. Even Hitler knew something of love. Just ask any of his dogs…. or perhaps Eva Braun. In any case, it seemed to me that saying we needed love was as straightforward as saying we need air or food. As I delved deeper into the book though, I could see that there are areas of our society where we allow economic or social pressures to prevent it altogether and that just such an argument is in fact needed.

In terms of style, that quote from the preface was also a sign of things to come. I’m not sure which of the three authors is responsible for it (it couldn’t be all three of them could it?) but there was a distinct tendency towards verbosity. Speaking of therapy, they write

the longer a patient depends, the more his stability swells, expanding infinitesimally with every session as length is added to a woven cloth with each pass of the shuttle, each contraction of the loom. And after he weaves enough of it, the day comes when the patient will unfurl his independence like a pair of spread wings. Free at last, he catches a wind and rides into other lands.


Laying stylistic features aside, there’s more in the content. Did you know that mammals removed from their mothers at birth and provided with every physical nutrient simply die or at the very best go insane? Reptilian infants do not. Mammals like us require limbic resonance or the presence of other beings, even if not of our own species, in order to grow up sane. This, they say, is the basis on which love cannot be denied a human being.

What’s more, long-term relationships between humans actually re-write the neuron structure of each other’s brains (limbic revision) to the extent where severe emotionally trauma results in being deprived the presence of that familiar other. They make a very strong case for at least one parent to remain at home and they focus on the mother because biologically, a child experiences far more limbic resonance with its mother than father, at least in the early years. And they are withering in their criticism of the medical profession who, without love, reduce patients to only their illness in their rush to cure the body alone.

They give one-night stands short shrift:

Loving is limbically distant from in love.

And there is a warning to those who think Mills & Boon have somehow captured any reality at all:

in love merely brings the players together, and the end of that prelude is as inevitable as it is desirable… loving is synchronous attunement and modulation. As such, adult love depends critically upon knowing the other. In love demands only the brief acquaintance necessary to establish an emotional genre but does not demand that the book of the beloved’s soul be perused from preface to epilogue. Loving derives from intimacy, the prolonged and detailed surveillance of a foreign soul.

And I can relate to this. It was a real breakthrough for me some years back to realise that my wife was a foreign culture for me to discover and learn about in all its fascinating and bewildering richness, accepting that I would always be a welcome stranger, but a stranger to her world nonetheless.

So, while this book is aimed at society as a whole rather than individual and spends at least 75% of its time building a biological rationale as the basis for an argument for love, I found some titbits to take away. My verdict though is that this comes in third behind Fromm’s Art of Loving while Armstrong’s Conditions of Love takes Arukiyomi’s Love Book of 2011 prize. ( )
  arukiyomi | Nov 25, 2011 |
Showing 3 of 3
no reviews | add a review

» Add other authors

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
Thomas Lewisprimary authorall editionsconfirmed
Amini, FariAuthormain authorall editionsconfirmed
Lannon, RichardAuthormain authorall editionsconfirmed
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
First words
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Book description
Haiku summary

Amazon.com Amazon.com Review (ISBN 0375709223, Paperback)

Poor, poor science--it gets blamed for everything. While it might be true that some of our alienation and unhappiness stem from a too-rational misunderstanding of emotion, it's also true that science is its own remedy. A General Theory of Love, by San Francisco psychiatrists Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon, is a powerfully humanistic look at the natural history of our deepest feelings, and why a simple hug is often more important than a portfolio full of stock options. Their grasp of neural science is topnotch, but the book is more about humans as social animals and how we relate to others--for once, the brain plays second fiddle to the heart.

Though some of their social analysis is less than fully thought out--surely e-mail isn't a truly unique form of communication, as they suggest--the work as a whole is strong and merits attention. Science, it turns out, does have much to say about our messy feelings and relationships. While much of it could be filed under "common sense," it's nice to know that common sense is replicable. Hard-science types will probably be exasperated with the constant shifts between data and appeals to emotional truths, but the rest of us will see in A General Theory of Love a new synthesis of research and poetry. --Rob Lightner

(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:24:20 -0400)

(see all 2 descriptions)

"A primordial area of the brain creates both the capacity and the need for emotional intimacy that all humans share. A General Theory of Love describes the workings of this ancient, pivotal urge and reveals that our nervous systems are not self-contained. Instead, our brains link with those of the people close to us, in a silent rhythm that makes up the very life force of the body. These wordless and powerful ties determine our moods, stabilize and maintain our health and well-being, and change the structure of our brains." "A General Theory of Love applies these and other insights to some of the issues we face in our lives. Its authors explain how relationships function and where love goes wrong, how parents shape a child's developing self, how psychotherapy really works, what curbs and what fosters violent aggression in our children, and how modern society regularly courts disaster by flouting emotional laws it does not yet recognize."--BOOK JACKET.… (more)

Quick Links

Swap Ebooks Audio
44 wanted2 pay

Popular covers


Average: (4.1)
2 1
2.5 1
3 15
3.5 6
4 25
4.5 2
5 28

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Store | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 100,872,000 books! | Top bar: Always visible