2 Responses to “Sorry for the outage”

1. neha on March 30th, 2008

   Hey Mohan,
   A certain blog of yours on IIST led me here and to this poem…its a great one…though that probably is the least effective adjective I can ascribe to it!
   I think that Lawrence hasn’t really deviated from the traditional concept of love as eternal or magnificent. On the contrary I feel he’s grasped the true essence of love which is its mystique. Can one ever define love? Or point out its physical form? Love, I feel, is abstract, unnameable (if thats a word), you can’t describe it and you sure as hell can’t understand it. Love is straightforward and simple really, like Beenthoven’s fifth symphony if you listen to it with your eyes closed…you understand the music, its simple, its right, it fits! But if you go about dissecting your reaction and what led to it, if you study the notes and the exact hormanal reactions they trigger in your brain, you’re trying to put something that is abstract into words…and its hard to do so, you lose the romance of it all. I don’t know if you’ve read LM Montgomery but its like turning a romatic poem into harsh, unromantic prose.
   I guess what I’m trying to say is that the romance of love lies in its mystique, in its undescribable nature. And so long as you are in love, you are not bothered with who or what or why. But the second you try to put love down in words, that’s the moment you’ve lost it.
   “The moment the mind interferes with love, or the will fixes on it,
   Or the personality assumes it as an attribute, or the ego takes possession of it,
   It is not love any more, it’s just a mess.”
   Its not love anymore its all messed up because its not simple anymore, its a complex problem woven by the brain.

   But let me know what you think about it.

   Neha

2. neha on March 30th, 2008

   Oops! I left a comment under the wrong topic!

Leave a Reply