|Re: way OT|
Message #18 Posted by Oliver Unter Ecker on 17 Nov 2011, 7:03 p.m.,
in response to message #17 by Don Shepherd
Ok, I'd buy that, if it weren't for what comes before and after:
"once the word signified a quite explicit thing"
This suggests that the word was once well-defined, and, to a lesser extent, universally so. I must doubt both very much, and would resent the authoritative tone.
"a desire to..."
No matter what comes after the "to", "a desire" is something that hasn't run its course, whereas more common beginnings "a feeling", "a state of mind", etc. certainly have. Love already "is"; it's not merely something anticipated, as "desire" would imply. Its weighty version is "final", too, which is certainly not something you'd associate with "desire". It feels very tentative, and reduces the complexity of that feeling (called love) unduly, I think.
Here the scope of love is narrowed to humans. What about causes, religions & other ideas, books, animals, and other common, non-trivialized objects of love.
But, hey, let's not forget this is a *character* of Mr. Updike's. It's not Mr. Updike's shot at explaining what love is.
Edited: 17 Nov 2011, 7:37 p.m. after one or more responses were posted