reminds me of onions. smelly at times, uncomftorable, makes you want to cry, tastes good, many colors, shapes and sizes.. and onions are like ogres, which is all there really is to say.
***Under the Responsibility of S.P.E.W.*** (Sadistic Perplexion of Everyone's Wits)
Medieval Lit! Come here to find out who Chaucer plagiarized and translated - and why and how it worked in the late 1300s.
Love is an inadequate word for the vast array of feelings and experiences that the word is supposed to sum up. There is love for your fellow human, platonic friend love, love for your family, love for your pets, love for ice-cream. Even assuming that you mean romantic love only here, the word is simply inadequate. For for my ex meant: passion, discovery, guilt, obligation, forgiveness. For another it meant: need, longing, reunions and parting, regret, guilt. For my husband it is: growing, connected, passion, trust, comfort and so much more. So, the single word is all of the things in the poll and millions of others. It is a word to describe that ineffable, indescribable array of thoughts and emotions.
I don't know. My perception of love changes with every relationship (which reminds me, I was going to post an observation in my blog...) so I can't really stick a definition on it yet. It's painful when you love someone and can't help them or can't be with them. Yet it's wonderful when you CAN help them and CAN be with them...
Desire is an endless circuit around objet petit a; we should, first and foremost, turn to literature for an explanation. In Homer's Odyssey, book XI, lines 606-607, we see Heracles, who continually shoots an arrow from his bow. He completes the act again and again, but in spite of this incessant activity on his part, the arrow remains motionless. It is almost superfluous to recall how this resembles the well-known dream experience of "moving immobility": in spite of all our frenetic activity, we are stuck in the same place. The crucial characteristic of this scene with Heracles is its location -- the infernal world in which Odysseus encounters a series of suffering figures -- among them Tentalus and Sisyphus -- condemned to repeath the same act indefinitely. The libidinal economy of Tantalus's torments is notable: they clearly exemplify the Lacanian distinction between need, demand, and desire, i.e., the way an everyday object destined to satisfy some of our needs undergoes a kind of transubstantiation as soon as it is caught in the dialectic of demand and ends up producing desire. The poor Tantalus thus pays for his greed when every object he obtains loses its "use value" and changes into a pure, useless embodiment of "exchange value": the moment he bites into food, it changes to gold.
It is Sisyphus, however, who bears on our interest here. His continuous pushing of the stone up the holl only to have it roll down again served, according to literary historians, as the literary model for the third of Zeno's paradoxes: we never can cover a given distance X, because, to do so, we must first cover half this distance, and to cover half, we must first cover a quarter of it, and so on, ad infinitum. A goal, once reached, thus always returns anewed. Can we not recognize in this paradox the very nature of the Lacanian notion of desire, or more properly the distinction between its aim and its goal? We should instantly note that desire's aim is to reproduce itself, and its goal is the object-cause of desire. To obtain the object-cause is to breed desire. In this sense, Love is a Desire, and the only reason marriages that last, last, is because the Desire of the two lovers is constantly replenished and (re)met by the Other.
Gender:
Points: 11417
Reviews: 425