C.S. Lewis in 1940...

Ook BDSM-ers halen wel eens de voorpagina
Plaats reactie
Gebruikersavatar
Ravelijne
Berichten: 5
Lid geworden op: 09 aug 2009, 11:43

C.S. Lewis in 1940...

Bericht door Ravelijne »

C.S. Lewis (ja, ook de auteur van Narnia) schrijft in 1940 in een Christelijke, theologische verhandeling over vrije wil en lijden dat pijn slecht is (of zelfs 'het kwade', afhankelijk van hoe je wil vertalen). Om zijn punt te bewijzen of illustreren zet hij uiteen dat zelfs een masochist weet dat 'echte' pijn slecht is:
Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt. The Masochist is no real exception. Sadism and Masochism respectively isolate, and then exaggerate, a ‘moment’ or ‘aspect’ in normal sexual passion. Sadism2 exaggerates the aspect of capture and domination to a point at which only ill-treatment of the beloved will sat- isfy the pervert—as though he said ‘I am so much master that I even torment you.’ Masochism exaggerates the complementary and opposite aspect, and says ‘I am so enthralled that I welcome even pain at your hands.’ Unless the pain were felt as evil—as an outrage underlining the complete mastery of the other party—it would cease, for the Masochist, to be an erotic stimulus.
De voetnoot bij 2
2 The modern tendency to mean by ‘sadistic cruelty’ simply ‘great cru- elty’, or cruelty specially condemned by the writer, is not useful.
Elders zegt hij ook dat mensen absoluut niet afgeleerd moet worden om zich 'van nature' te schamen (en al helemaal niet als kind), dus een echte voorstander van seksuele vrijheid lijkt hij me niet. Toch interessant dat hij naar dit voorbeeld grijpt en het onderscheid maakt tussen recreatieve pijn en wat een SM interactie dan anders maakt dan 'gewone' pijn.
Gebruikersavatar
Ravelijne
Berichten: 5
Lid geworden op: 09 aug 2009, 11:43

Re: C.S. Lewis in 1940...

Bericht door Ravelijne »

Gevonden: hij kwam op de universiteit als een losbandige jongen maar toen maakte hij 'nette' vrienden:
The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of infe- rior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standards—a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly with- out a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint dis- taste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach—of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as ‘white’ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but ‘as lords that are certainly expected’. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into soci- ety that one is unfit for.
Plaats reactie