Canadian born, U.S. legal resident... happily romantic and poetic and intellectual and I dare say a bit of a nerd, though I'd never admit to it...
Goals in professional life like in engineering and architecture, otherwise I want to get a book published and widely recognized, and I'm half way there. A female counterpart would be nice too.
Here is a little exerpt in relation to that love-loss deal that entails relationships that happened to write but a short while ago during an engaging discussion on a web board:
The emotions - if that is what we may call them, not entities or creatures or sentient beings, but emotions - which I consider to be most pure are, Love, Sorrow, Birth, and Death. Perhaps pure is not the term I search for, though I can find nothing better... they are the emotions most definite and most mystical.
How can I deem sorrow and tradgedy as evil, when I feel I benefit from them, when it is my pseudo duty to record those feelings which I shall endeavor to experience? When I broke up with my latest 'fascination', I dare say I produced as many poems, and just as beatiful, as those written in her love.
How can I deny myself the fact that it is better to be left with only half of the pure emotions, than to be able to expereince all of them? My cousin once said that he never trusts a driver until they have been in accident. Is it wise to trust a woman, or a man, if they have never suffered tradgedy?
Do I give up peace, tranquility, and safety for excitement? I would I rather live in peace because of apathetic ignorance to the joys of the world?
What is the difference between carnal love and divine love? Sacred and Carnal desire, two recurring themes in late rennaisance art, often pictured as two women side by side, one clothed and the other nude. Why should one be placed above the other? Why should love of this earth be inferior to this pervading peace? Love of God and love of a woman hold no distinction between the two - neither love can be explained, neither love can be rationalized, and neither love can be controlled. It doesn't matter if one love is to a woman, and one is to all-powerful God - sure, the object is different... but can't we say that the love *itself* is the same? And with the love of God, do we feel sorrow because of loss? I say no, for, as we say, God does not desert, and that is why we choose God as our prime love - because God offers us the choice of love without loss, the choice of no pain. Humans don't want the pain, most of them. I do. I need to feel that carnal emptiness, just as I desire to feel that carnal desire. As a poet I yearn to experience all, as a romantic soul I yearn to encompass all.
To deny this pain is to deny myself of life, not death. True, love is to life as the loss is to death, but if we deny death to a man, can we say that man has a life? Does he not live in an eternal limbo, an inanimate object thinking and breathing and living? So how can we deny ourselves the loss, when it provides closure to that which we crave so desperatly, to that which provides closure to our deepest feelings.
That's it for now, and of course this is subject to change... I wonder if I could node that without getting voted down?
"How peaceful life would be without love... how tranquil, how safe... and how dull." -Umberto Eco.
I post a lot of art history nodes, and all the information included in them that does not come from my personal knowledge most likely comes from one of these books. If there are any issues I will be happy to specifically site which piece of information I obtained from which book:
Janson, H.W.; Janson, Anthony F. History of Art 6th ed. Harry N. Abrams Inc Publishers, 2001.
Topper, Barbara; Stukenbrock, Christiane. 1000 Masterpieces of European Painting from 1300 to 1850. Konemann, 2000.
Cecchi, Allessandro; Contini, Roberto; Natali, Antonio; Tofani, Annamaria Petrioli. Ed by Tofani, Annamria Petrioli. Italian Painting The Uffizi, Florence. Taschen GmBH, 2000.