Using Love to Prove Self is Real

Loving Unconditionally

I became conscious of the word ‘love’ at about the age of 15. It was, of course, in the romantic sense of the word. Since then, during the past 45 years, I met thousands of people and have come across very few people who have not experienced the pain of love lost. Of being rejected by one whom we love. Interestingly, it hurts a lot less when we are the one rejecting the other. Be that as it may, the pain of such rejection by an object of our love is real.

It is common knowledge that love is wanted by and needed by human beings. It is also common knowledge that love can be given and received just like a gift; a little, a lot, or not at all. Whatever this love is. Just read the books from romantic novels to personal development, from psychology to spirituality, as they talk persistently about love. So, is this common knowledge that everyone talks about and writes about and believes, fact or fiction? Although the fact that love is wanted and needed by all, and can be given and received by all, the philosophy of psychology and clinical psychology have given little attention to. I have discovered that what our human experience indicates is absolutely, using logic and reason, true. As simple and basic as these two facts and others we will be discussing may sound to you, they are the foundation for a dramatic shift in our knowledge about human development, the self, and love. In this chapter I will prove this to you. The discoveries have implications in regard to our understanding of the nature of love. Along with the proofs and their surprising implications, this chapter will highlight all the applications and the profound impact of these new ideas on psychology, psychotherapy, parenting, education, relationships, etc., but especially on our views about the reality of ‘the Self.’

Not long ago it was common knowledge that the Earth is the center of the Universe. That was fiction. When Galileo proved the Copernican theory, the fact that the Earth revolved around the Sun, he was denounced and accused of heresy. Why such anger at a new idea, especially if it is a fact? Only a hundred and fifty years ago the greatest Universities on Earth were still teaching that ‘air, fire, water, and earth’, the 4 Elements, made up everything material in the Universe. Why were they still teaching this, you may ask yourself, when the concept of the atom was put forward 2500 years ago by the philosopher Democritus? The idea of atoms was considered foolishness. Invisible particles…please?! Just like the king’s new clothes…fairy tales are for children, not serious adults, certainly not scientists?! As we mull over the two examples above, consider what Thomas Kuhn, father of the modern philosophy of science, has to say about progress in scientific ideas. Kuhn says that ‘normal science’ has a built in resistance to revolutionary new ideas. And as we saw, Democritus and Galileo were, unfortunately, well ahead of their time.

The ideas I am presenting about the nature of love are similarly ahead of their time. I believe these ideas will have a dramatic impact on people’s quality of life. I believe science today is ready and willing to hear new ideas about love, especially an idea that will change the way the sciences approach human development which impacts human happiness. At the core of the new approach lies a new theory of the existence of the Self. As we have discovered in the past, just because science says something exists or that something doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it so. I do not mean to imply that science hasn’t made a tremendous contribution to the advancement of knowledge and the quality of life and it will continue to do so. But often our obsession with the observable, our comfort with what we think we know, and our fear of being wrong, makes us persist and insist on old, ineffective ideas, and hinders us from seeing what’s may be right in front of our nose.

As far as we know love, like Atomos, is not observable, not by x-rays, cathode chambers, certainly not by the human eye. Therefore, to science, it doesn’t exist and isn’t worthy of study. Yet it seems to me that the effects of love are very observable, and easily replicable in scientific studies. Although there is talk of love everywhere no scientific theory has ever been put forth regarding the nature of love. This has kept a universal confusion about what love is and how to love effectively in place. It is not surprising that one of the most commonly used sayings about love is, “We hurt the one we love the most”. Look at the high divorce rate between people who pledged eternal love and look at the lack of closeness in many parent/child relationships. It seems we do hurt the ones we love the most. If this is true, it is obvious that human beings don’t know, and aren’t being taught how to love and be loved. I know my theories of the self and the nature of love, which are parts of my Continuum Theory™ of human development will, in addition to impacting parenting, education, choosing career direction, etc., change that.

After I theorized that life span was a three-part developmental process – body – mind – and finally self - the first question I asked was -

“What if the ‘Self’ was a ‘real’ entity, just like the body and mind/brain?”

That led me to the second question, which was, “If the ‘Self’ was ‘real’ what kind of questions would that lead me to ask?”
Which led me to ask questions I hadn’t heard before, like, “If the ‘Self’ were ‘real’” -
· What would nourish it? It must need nourishment exactly like the body and mind/brain do.
· How would we develop it? It must need to be developed just like the body and brain/mind do.
· How would it interact with the body and mind/brain? We discovered how the body and mind/brain interact with each other.
· What would its role be in the living of daily life and in a person’s decision making processes.

It was questions like this that took me on a 20 year quest that ended when my theory, The Continuum Theory™ of Human Development finally had all the pieces of the puzzle in place.

Out of asking some simple questions, which I don’t believe I ever heard asked before, came more questions, then answers, one by one. One of the hardest answers to come up with, one that took years to discover, was to the question, “If self is real, it must need nourishment, so what is nourishment for the self?? I knew it wasn’t air, food and water, the nourishments for body and mind, but I couldn’t see beyond this. When I finally realized what the answer was, I not only had a handle on the true nature of love, but a functional definition of love, and proof that love, as well as the ‘Self’, were real. Love (loving energy) is the nourishment for the ‘Self’.

It is my strongly held belief, and I plan to prove it to you, that love is one of the basic nourishing energies of life, just like air, food and water, and not some romantic notion. One that science has yet to “discover”. Just like Democritus’ “Atomos”, which today we know as atoms, those tiny, invisible particles he postulated that make up the universe, we have never been able to see love - loving energy. Just as atoms existed even though we could not see or measure them only 200 years ago, not being able to see or measure the ‘atomic-energy-waves’ that love is composed of does not make their existence, the energy I call love, any less real.

We have certainly all experienced the reality of love, such as when our mother smiled at us, when Dad praised us, when we got a great big hug, when a friend wanted to play, when our date really liked us, when our partner said “I will” and “I do”, when our child said “I love you Mommy, or Daddy”. All of these experiences affected us in a very tangible, physical way. They served us (our body-mind-self) as beneficially as air, food and water and made us feel wonderful. These positive experiences gave us the nourishing ‘nutrients’ for our ‘Self’ that we all need. How do we know that for sure? We know that for sure because some part of us, I believe it is our ‘self’, feels “nourished” after having these experiences! The fact is that we feel nourished when receiving love just like we feel nourished when we breathe in clean, fresh air, have a nourishing meal and drink fresh water. I believe that what we call ‘love’ is nothing more or less then the nourishment, the nutrient, our ‘Self’ needs. Love when received and ingested behaves in the same way in our system as do all other nutrients. Love may not be tangible or visible, just like atoms aren’t, but the way our body-mind-self reacts to both getting love and being deprived of love proves that love is real. As you will see, this simple, practical analogy will help us understand my proof that love is real and is needed as a nutrient for ‘Self’!

We would never discourage an infant, or a child, or a teenager, or even an adult from asking for, demanding, air, food, and water, if she or he was thirsting, suffocating, or starving to death. Life depends on them. We are all very committed to physical survival and understand and encourage it. When it comes to emotional survival, which depends on having the nutrient called ‘love’, it’s quiet a different story. By the time we’re adults we have become ‘poor beggars on the bread line of life’ when it comes to love. We’re afraid to ask for, and often unable to get the love we need and want and deserve. And we’re not much better at giving it to the ones we want to.

We all have felt warm and fuzzy and special and secure and energized and happy. Sometimes we call it being ‘loved’. The ‘warm and fuzzys’ are what we all want and need. But there are really painful feelings associated with love, too, and we have all experienced those, as well. What is love if it can nourish us, make us feel warm and fuzzy and yet also cause us to be in pain? How does this ‘fact’, one of the facts regarding our experiences with love, impact our understanding of the nature of love? What are the implications of this for psychology, psychotherapy, parenting, marriage, education, work, relationships, etc.?

These questions puzzled me for years. Finally the light bulb went on as I asked myself the following questions. Try answering them for yourself. Does food, a nutrient, cause us to be happy and in pain? Does water, a nutrient, cause us to be happy and in pain? Does air, a nutrient, cause us to be happy and in pain? Well, having food, water and air does certainly make us feel better than when we are without them. That is a fact because we need them for our well-being, for our very survival. Air, food, and water are vital nourishments for our body-mind. So, it is not air, food and water themselves that causes pain, but only the absence of air, food, and water, the deprivation of vital nourishments for body-mind, which causes pain. Again, this may be a simple fact that we all know about air, food and water, the nutrients our bodies need, but it has powerful implications for the proof about the nature of love. We react exactly the same way to the absence of love, its deprivation, as we do to being deprived of air, food, and water. Think…is it love that causes us to feel pain or is it the absence of love that causes pain? You see my point, I am sure!

When we don’t receive any of the vital nourishments we need like air, food and water, we experience pain! When we don’t receive love we also experience pain. Is it possible that love is a vital nourishment, just like air, food, and water? Is it love that causes you happiness and pain? A lot of people would answer, “Yes”, to both. Think of when the absence of love, as a child or an adult, hurt you, made you feel badly. I bet they were times like these: When Mom looked at you angrily, when Dad yelled, when a little friend did not want to play with you, when a family member made fun of you, when someone you liked ignored you. Today it may be when a spouse gets impatient, when siblings don’t call, when a co-worker gossips, when a neighbor is inconsiderate, when your children don’t appreciate your efforts, that you feel badly. These situations all cause you pain because they are all examples of wanting to feel love present and instead love is absent. These are all people you love but it is not love itself that caused you pain. It was the absence of the love that you wanted from them that caused you pain. When love is present you feel warm, energized, happy and content. When love is withdrawn, not available, you feel emptiness and pain. Therefore, love is something we need and when we don’t have it, when we are deprived of it, we suffer.

I told you earlier that I believe love is a real, vibrating energy, which can be generated by a human being and ‘gifted’ to another, as well as graciously accepted or rejected. Please follow my thoughts. If love’s presence or absence can cause extreme sensations like happiness and sadness, energy and weakness, it must be present or absent to have the power to effectuate this. If love is at times present and at other times absent it must be a thing. If love is a thing, love must be real. Finally, as I have mentioned in earlier paragraphs love behaves in the human being exactly like the known nutrients of air, food and water. Therefore love is real and a nutrient.

Now that we have established that love is a nutrient, a nourishing energy, the absence of which causes us pain, the next question we must answer is, “What hurts when we are deprived of loving energy?” It is clear to me that it is not my elbow, kidney, or any other body part. Although we continually refer to our heart, as in “when our heart ‘is broken’” we seldom go to a heart specialist, like we do when we have a heart attach or a real pain in our heart muscle, nor is there ever a bypass operation performed for a ‘broken heart’. SO, what hurts so much that some people have chosen suicide, many have gone into deep depression, and almost all of us have suffered sadness for months? Again, I believe that the part of us that hurts and feels the painful absence of loving energy is ‘the Self’.

I believe this is a strong, logical, and experiential proof that 1) love, synonymous with loving energy, is real, and therefore 2) ‘the Self’, which is nourished with loving energy, is also real.


Let’s review the proof that love is real. Love is a needed, necessary nutrient. Love, this necessary nutrient is either present or absent. The presence and absence of love causes the following: an increase or decrease of energy, a sense of well-being or lethargy, a feeling of joy or sadness. For all of these to occur in a human being it takes either the presence or absence of real energy. These do occur in human beings, therefore love is a real energy.

Now that you have proof that love is an energy you probably realize how logical it is that it is the absence of love that causes you pain, not love itself.’ With these explanations and proofs you are now at the heart of discovering the “nature of love.” That it is the absence of love that causes pain may seem obvious, but in fact it leads us to a revolutionary new way of giving and receiving love.

This thing we call ‘love’ is a real energy – quantum, molecular, vibrating. Yes, it is invisible, and it is a necessary nourishment human beings consistently need. Love is uniquely the only nutrient that human beings themselves generate- rather than it coming from the environment, like do air, food, and water.

Love, this unique, vibrating, alive energy, is something that we can give and receive in many different forms, and in varying amounts, such as;

A hello, or a great, big hug

A smile, or a big kiss

Encouragement or mentoring













A touch

Graciously receiving

Being thankful

Being available


These and many more behaviors all send forth a certain amount of this positive energy we call love. We thrive on it and need an endless supply of it, just as much as the oxygen we continuously breathe in.

Human Innate Abilities

Human beings have a number of innate abilities. As you know having an innate ability means that nature has equipped us to do something without thought and without being taught. One innate ability we all have is the ability to learn how to walk. Watching the relentless efforts of an infant to stand and walk is enough to convince us of that. Yet, just as much as an infant strives to stand and walk, adults can interrupt, inhibit or even damage that ability. Let’s for example take an over-protective mother who decides to carry her child until they are two or three years old because she is afraid of germs or her baby falling. This behavior would interrupt and inhibit the development of the child’s innate ability to walk normally. Imagine this same mother carrying the child until 10 or 15 years old. That would damage their ability to walk, and only painful rehabilitation could correct it. The Chinese bound female children’s feet for centuries, believing that dainty feet are more feminine. They did not damage these children’s ability to walk completely, but made walking practically disabling for a lifetime. That is why it is outlawed in China today.

Another innate ability among the many we have is to talk. Even a century ago, the commonly held belief was that because infants couldn’t talk they were unintelligent, couldn’t think yet. We didn’t realize how developed their brain was for absorbing and retaining knowledge. The only thing that wasn’t yet developed were the muscles of the tongue, that would enable them to form intelligible sounds. This belief led people to using baby talk, imitating infant’s sounds rather then teaching them, and in general not talk to their ‘unintelligent’ children until much later. Although ultimately children did learn the language, the use of ‘baby talk’ and lack of communication hindered the development of their brain, their language. Of course, we now know better. Infants are intelligent and capable of learning so today every attempt is made to fully develop an infant’s ability to talk and think as early as possible.

All children are born with the innate ability to love. Infants instinctively reach for, smile at, and hug their mothers, thereby giving and receiving loving energy. The ability to love is there at birth, however it must be nurtured and fully developed. It is developed by a combination of imitation and guidance. Just as the innate abilities to talk and walk require. Children learn to talk by imitation, the more we talk to them in complete, adult like sentences the more they will be able to express their thoughts in complete, adult like sentences. The loving of others and the loving of oneself needs to be modeled the same way, consistently, so that a child can learn to imitate that behavior. As infants need for us to point to things and name them, loving behavior need to be taught by modeling, and by pointing to loving behaviors and naming them. Just like we correct a child when he misuses a word or falls trying to walk lovingly, we must correct their unloving, conditional behavior, lovingly. Most importantly we need to model loving behavior, in a consistent way. We want people to love us even when we make mistakes. Wouldn’t it be nice for them, if we loved them when they are less then perfect. I believe most of us love to love. We want to love. We are never happier then when we love. We need to love for our health and happiness.

As I said in the introduction, although the innate ability to love is there in every human being for most of us it is damaged. Although some adults may be able to be consistent in the giving of love, most are not. My father wasn’t, my mother was. As a child watches parents walk and talk and wants to imitate them, a child watches and experiences how parents give, ask for, or withhold love. They end up imitating their parent’s loving behavior. As adults, they love in the same style they witnessed love being exchanged by family members (parent-to-parent, parent-to-child, sibling-to-sibling, parent-to-grandparent, and visa versa, etc.) The innate ability of Loving, rather then being fully developed in a child is most often diminished and damaged in many families. When parents don’t know how to love in a healthy, compassionate way, they cannot model it for their children. Even though they want only the best for their children, they cannot give to them something they have not learned themselves how to do.

Even though an adult may have promised themselves not to love in many of the damaging ways they might have witnessed in their family as a child, they still did not have the right modeling to learn how to love unconditionally. It is not going to happen by itself. For most adults this ability to love unconditionally has to be rehabilitated, relearned and fully developed.

Here is a brief summary of the nature of love’s core beliefs. This clear-cut review of the theory’s main points will help you to connect the dots and gain a deeper understanding of the nature of ”love.”

1st - Love is an invisible energetic nutrient, just like air, food, and water

2nd - Air, food, and water are visible and nourish the body-mind (brain) whereas love is as yet invisible to our eyes and our technology and nourishes the self

3rd - The self, the invisible, consciously motivating part of the human being, needs the nourishment that we call love for its full, healthy development. –

3A - The self, like Freud’s ego, id, superego – Jung’s 12 archetypes, and all other theories about personhood that use the concept of self, is invisible

4th – Love, although invisible, is experienced as a thing that can be given and received – in smaller and larger amounts, or not at all

5th – Love’s absence is experienced by the self as deprivation and is extremely painful, exactly like the way the body-mind(brain) experience the deprivation of air, food, and water

6th – Love can be given conditionally, meaning when we approve of another’s behavior we give it and when we don’t approve of another’s behavior we can simply withhold it, depriving them of our love – this disconnect, pulling the plug on another, cause another hurt and pain

7th- We don’t believe we are actually causing another pain when we are conditional because we don’t see any black and blue marks on them. This, in spite of the fact that we hurt and are in pain when another withholds their love from us.

8th – Love can also be given unconditionally, remaining connected under all circumstances and not depriving another of our love. Being unconditional is often confused with approving someone’s behavior no matter how abusive, disrespectful, inconsiderate, etc..

9th – Being unconditionally loving is the healthiest way of being for a person’s mind-body-self, and receives the best response from those we’re in any kind of relationship with.

10th – Every human being has the innate ability to love, that is to give and receive loving energy. Although we ask for love naturally, because we are loved conditionally, our ability and courage to ask for it is damaged..

11th – Being raised in a conditional environment, which pretty much describes what most children experience, damages our ability to love, and be unconditional.

12th - Our ability to love and be unconditional can be rehabilitated and fully developed, and our self, which has been deprived of it nourishment and therefore has been injured, perhaps ‘broken’, can be healed with love.

13th - Parenting is about teaching self-sufficiency to a human being - to acquire their own air, food, and water. Unfortunately, this self-sufficiency is not taught when it comes to loving self. This must change in order for individuals to develop to their full potential.

Books on Love –


A General Theory of Love
Random House

What is love, and why are some people unable to find it? What is loneliness, and why does it hurt? What are relationships, and how and why do they work the way they do?

Answering these questions, laying bare the heart's deepest secrets, is this book's aim. Since the dawn of our species, human beings in every time and place have contended with an unruly emotional core that behaves in unpredicted and confusing ways. Science has been unable to help them. The Western world's first physician, Hippocrates, proposed in 450 B.C. that emotions emanate from the brain. He was right-but for the next twenty-five hundred years, medicine could offer nothing further about the details of emotional life. Matters of the heart were matters only for the arts-literature, song, poetry, painting, sculpture, dance. Until now.

The past decade has seen an explosion of scientific discoveries about the brain, the leading edge of a revolution that promises to change the way we think about ourselves, our relationships, our children, and our society. Science can at last turn its penetrating gaze on humanity's oldest questions. Its revelations stand poised to shatter more than a few modern assumptions about the inner workings of love.

Traditional versions of the mind hold that Passion is a troublesome remnant from humanity's savage past, and the intellectual subjugation of emotion is civilization's triumph. Logical but dubious derivations follow: emotional maturity is synonymous with emotional restraint. Schools can teach children missing emotional skills just as they impart the facts of geometry or history. To feel better, outthink your stubborn and recalcitrant heart. So says convention.

In this book, we demonstrate that where intellect and emotion clash, the heart often has the greater wisdom. In a pleasing turnabout, science-Reason's right hand-is proving this so. The brain's ancient emotional architecture is not a bothersome animal encumbrance. Instead, it is nothing less than the key to our lives. We live immersed in unseen forces and silent messages that shape our destinies. As individuals and as a culture, our chance for happiness depends on our ability to decipher a hidden world that revolves-invisibly, improbably, inexorably-around love.

From birth to death, love is not just the focus of human experience but also the life force of the mind, determining our moods, stabilizing our bodily rhythms, and changing the structure of our brains. The body's physiology ensures that relationships determine and fix our identities. Love makes us who we are, and who we can become. In these pages, we explain how and why this is so.

During the long centuries when science slumbered, humanity relied on the arts to chronicle the heart's mysterious ways. That accumulated wisdom is not to be disdained. This book, while traveling deep into the realm of science, keeps close at hand the humanism that renders such a journey meaningful. The thoughts of researchers and empiricists join those of poets, philosophers, and kings. Their respective starting points may be disparate in space, time, and temperament, but the voices in this volume rise and converge toward a common goal.

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. This book-as it elucidates the shaping power of parental devotion, the biological reality of romance, the healing force of communal connection-argues for love. Turn the page, and the arrow is loosed. The heart it seeks is your own.

(C) 2000 Thomas Lewis, M.D., Fari Amini, M.D., and Richard Lannon, M.D. All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-375-50389-7

Reviews - Editorial Reviews Review

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 --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

The Beatles may have sounded naive when they assured us that "all you need is love," but they may not have been far off the mark. New research in brain function has proven that love is a human necessity; its absence damages not only individuals, but our whole society. In this stimulating work, psychiatrists Lewis, Amini and Lannon explain how and why our brains have evolved to require consistent bonding and nurturing. They contend that close emotional connections actually change neural patterns in those who engage in them, affecting our sense of self and making empathy and socialization possible. Indeed, the authors insist, "in some important ways, people cannot be stable on their own." Yet American society is structured to frustrate emotional health, they contend: self-sufficiency and materialistic goals are seen as great virtues, while emotional dependence is considered a weakness. Because our culture does not sufficiently value interpersonal relationships, we are plagued by anxiety and depression, narcissism and superficiality, which can lead to violence and self-destructive behaviors. It is futile to try to think our way out of such behaviors, the authors believe, because emotions are not within the intellect's domain. What is needed is healthy bonding from infancy; when this does not occur, the therapist must model it. The authors' utopian vision of emotional health may strike some as vague or conservative to a fault, and the clarity of their thesis is marred by indirect and precious writing. Yet their claim that "what we do inside relationships matters more than any other aspect of human life" is a powerful one. Agent, Carol Mann. 9-city author tour.

Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc

They wrote the book of love. The scope of the task undertaken by these authors is vast: explaining love. To unlock the secrets of the (metaphorical) human heart, they begin by educating us in biological fundamentals, explaining the three layers of the brain (reptilian=basic function, limbic=emotion, neocortical=facility to reason) and postulating on why our evolutionary path did not involve a cleaner convergence of our emotions and our rational mind. They go on to pour over several studies demonstrating our emotional dependence on others. All of the science is delivered masterfully, and this section of the book is one of the more literate non-fiction pieces I've read recently. Building on the underlying scientific knowledge collected, the authors then go on to explain their theories of limbic resonance (how we interact emotionally with others), limbic regulation, etc. While these theories may not seem absolutely convincing, they do make intuitive sense, though one is justified in remaining skeptical. Regardless, their theories are well presented and are certainly filling food for thought. Finally, we are left knowing much more about the biology behind our emotions, and should be more secure knowing that our emotions are a valid part of us, and not something that must be conquered by the rational mind. This is a different point of view then I've held, and it is a welcome outlook. Highly recommended

From Kirkus Reviews

An engrossing argument that emotion plays a profound and perhaps prevailing role in a human being's ability to develop and find happiness. So what else is new? What's new here is a careful explication by three professors of psychiatry at UC/SF that love is the answer, and that love stems from clear and powerful connections in the limbic brain, the middle layer between the neocortex, site of so-called higher-order thinking, and the so-called ``reptilian'' brain, responsible for the lowest levels of survival. Chapters on emotion and relationships argue convincingly that from infancy, all mammals, but human beings in particular, depend on reading and adapting to the emotional signals of others to develop and make their way safely in the world. Those signals are read in the context of what the authors call ``attractors,'' neural networks that classify incoming information, rightly or wrongly, as ``if it conformed to past experience.'' If past experience has been good, the exchange of signals is mutual and reciprocal, that is, loving; if the experience has been bad, emotional signals are blocked or distorted, leading to adults who may be anxious, depressed, or addicted. Changing and developing new attractors, whether in relationships or in therapy, requires years of close contact; drugs can help, but self-help is a ``hoax'' and vaunted psychological insights are ``the popcorn of therapy.'' For reason is for the most part blind to the limbic edifice, and only when science partners with art will people reach their full potential. Taking their own advice, the authors pack the text with examples and similes drawn from music, literature, and film. Eloquent writing gives weight to a simple, albeit New Age-ish message: feelings count more than intellect in fashioning a healthy psyche. (Charts and illustrations, most not seen) (Author tour) -- Copyright ©2000, Kirkus Associates, LP

Lee Lipsenthal, M.D. – Based on his years of studying the most cutting edge research in the fields of cardiology, brain research, stress management Dr. Lipsenthal concluded (paraphrasing) – ‘I believe love is a real energy’.

Lee Lipsenthal - CEO & Co-Founder

Finding Balance was co-founded by Lee Lipsenthal, M.D., a recognized leader, teacher and pioneer in the field of provider wellness. He is internationally known for his research work with Dr. Dean Ornish, in preventive cardiology. He is also well known in the field of Integrative Medicine and past President of the American Board of Holistic Medicine. Dr. Lipsenthal is a member of the American Medical Association's "Physician Wellness Committee" and has authored many professional and popular publications on healthcare provider wellness medicine. He is a frequent invited workshop presenter and speaker at healthcare conferences and media engagements, both in the U.S. and overseas. He speaks to over 5,000 physicians annually in keynote addresses, workshops and other formats. He is also the author of Finding Balance in a Medical Life.

He received his BS from George Washington University and his M.D. from Howard University, both in Washington, D.C.. He completed his internship and residency at the Medical College of Pennsylvania. During his residency he developed the first multi-disciplinary cardiac rehabilitation in Philadelphia. This program involved stress reduction, exercise and nutrition teaching.

He then went on to become Director of Cardio-Vascular Services for the Benjamin Franklin Clinic in Philadelphia as well as a staff physician at The Pennsylvania Hospital. In this role, he developed treatment programs for patients with heart disease or risk of heart disease; he developed corporate wellness programs for national companies and consulted on patients with cholesterol disorders at the hospital.

Through his years in the profession, Dr. Lipsenthal observed that the health, morale, and work satisfaction of many physicians were often worse than that of their patients. Inspired by this realization, he developed the "Finding Balance in a Medical Life" program. The program is based on Dr. Lipsenthal's wealth of personal and professional experience. He has traveled the world as a lecturer/consultant and has developed and implemented nationwide research projects in disease prevention. Dr. Lipsenthal's programs have been adapted by major medical groups and his curriculum is being delivered at medical schools and residency programs nation wide.

Dr. Lipsenthal serves on the American Medical Association's "Physician Wellness Committee" and is Past President of The American Board of Holistic Medicine. He is the father of two children and married to a physician, giving him a unique understanding of balancing a medical life.

Continuum Theory home