|
Marts 16., 2003
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif) honeybee | 05:11 - kas ir mīlestība, D.H.Lorensa versija
Defining love as "the mysterious vital attraction which draws thing together," he saw the sex act as the "crisis of love," because in sexual union the two blood systems of male and female come into the closest possible contact, "the merest film," as he puts it, separating the two. A breaking of this film would prove destructive. Lawrence is thinking here in biological terms, but I believe the implication is more psychological. He's trying to emphasize that lovers ought not to try to become one another, not lose their separate identities, in short, that there's a limit to love.
Additionally, Lawrence points out, organisms only survive through contact with other organisms, which means communication and assimilation of nonmaterial vibrations. Man not only feels but also thinks and communicates with his fellow man through various forms of language — body language, sign language, words. As Lawrence says, "He takes into him the life of his fellow men, with whom he comes into contact, and he gives back life to them. This contact draws nearer and nearer, as the intimacy increases. When it is a whole contact, we call it love."
Here we have the bases of the two kinds of love there are: physical and mental. Lawrence calls the latter type "nervous love." They have traditionally been referred to as sensual and spiritual, or earthly and heavenly, or sacred and profane. At any rate, whether it be physical or mental, man ought not to try to live by love. If "men live by love," says Lawrence, "they die, or cause death, if they love too much." Thus conflict arises and the question: where should we draw the line in human relationships?
"Love and the Idea of Madness in Poe's Fiction" by Richard P. Benton
|
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sviesta Ciba |