Solovjev and rational love

That each people develops particular ways of understanding, associations and equivalences that do enrich custom and general wisdom through logics that are frequently not even explicated, does become clear through the singular example of the Russian philosopher Solovjev.
Solovjev is a rare case. Living during the 19th Century, he went to
Germany to study philosophy. Contrary to the German language, the Russian is not a logical or rationally organized language, so that the interaction of both will have as a result one of the strangest philosophical works ever written, ‘The meaning of love’. For an occidental mind the demonstration of the validity of love as such without proper realization (marriage or generation of children) through a somewhat bizarre argument (enrichment of the whole through example, argument in aesthetical and moral finality) that allows to include this particular case into a whole, seems somewhat incongruous: the validation of the particular through the insertion into a whole is a logical empirical argument, and is hardly used for moral argumentation. This surprising crash between two different mentalities does though give an interesting light on the usually not explicated Russian mentality. The Russian likes the silence, because silence conveys: the explication of fundamental logics of functioning of soul is suspicious to him because he knows that understanding may quickly deform the meaning of words and possibly destroy the inner logic. Solovjev, who ‘does not share the common Russian spirit’ (a contemporary says), seems to admire the German ability to abstract concepts and put them into impressive structures of demonstration, but does not betray the Russian: he concentrates his thought on something Germans have never thought about, love, and although his procedure may seem not adequate to most eyes, he reveals in the effort of abstraction fundamental structures of Russian thought and psychic functioning.
Solovjev is so deeply a Russian that he thinks as if he were painting icons. The submission to tradition is the equivalent to the submission to the very severe rules governing icon paintings, allowing very little individual expressions. This main way of ordering the frame of thought does allow to defend the theses of his expressing a more general way of thinking without extreme difficulty. The constant references to orthodox tradition for the explication of thought, shocking to an occidental mind, is though perfectly embedded in Russian tradition.
It is him who does almost accidentally make reference to a curious equivalence: he compares marriage without love to necrophilia. Although his demonstration of the equivalence is extremely clear, the frame allowing it is not given, so that it is almost shocking for a non alerted reader. How does Solovjev operate such a comparison? Or, said otherwise, which general modes of apprehension do allow him to mention it without him being for the slightest confused in his attempt, as if he were just using common modes of procedure instead of inventing something new or original?
It seems quickly, that Solovjev does assimilate love to life without much thought, as if it were evident. On the other hand, law seems to be some kind of source of life, too, as given in the general rule of the bounding word in marriage. It is obvious that the broken word or submission to law without the conditio sine qua non, love in the case of marriage, does provoke to his understanding some kind of inner contradiction (logical death), which allows this extremely rare equivalence in his way of thinking.
It is not only this: he seems to take the resources of his comparison from a probably much more general way of proceeding, that does allow to make equivalences between a certain way of thinking and/or disposition and a determined sexual expression. Point of departure of a whole series of reflections (shortly synthesized in ‘Wo man das Erotische vom Pornographischen zu unterscheiden versucht’, ‘Where the attempt was made to differentiate the erotic from the pornographic, in http://eskayzwei.wordpress.com), it will end up being the source of a whole lot of theories allowing even to understand the psychopathetic logic.
It is not difficult this way to learn a language even without speaking a word of it. The attentive analysis of singular procedures as transmitted by main works in literature does allow the reconstruction of a mentality or particular apprehension of reality as usually conveyed by language. A language is not only a series of words: it does transmit a vision of reality through associations and implicit definitions, through grammatical constructions and intonations conveying value and meaning. Literature does often explicate these commonly inherent procedures, reason why writers are often taken for mad: there are things that are simply not to be said, but just, if ever, understood. Sometimes though, when these extremely complicated modes of functioning are at risk to be lost, it is of importance to have the ability to bring them to the surface in order to hint out their value and importance. Is there anyone who may want to understand what is commonly talked about by making reference to the ‘Russian soul’, he just has to try to comprehend the feeling as resulting from interactions as described by Dostoyevskij, Gorkij, or others.
Is it possible to talk about a proof of equivalence so as to give a rational foundation to the above mentioned procedure and other similar? It is certainly possible, but very complicated. It is more interesting to use in this case the argument through finality, or justification through efficacy. If it is true that the human has a sexual behavior somehow linked to a way of thinking, the equivalence takes its validity from an empirical evidence and needs no further demonstration.
The equivalence does seem to repose on an intuitive model of functioning of understanding. It does assimilate a certain number of characteristics to words belonging to different spheres of reality, so as to be able to find an equivalence between those. Thus, man seems to be represented by word, and woman by meaning or conveyed meaning, and this because of the characteristic of ‘outer phenomenon’ or ‘inner phenomenon’. Consequently the first is situated in the realm of space, while the second is in the realm of time, and this does much later allow to think the possibility that the very identity of each be situated on a different level and related to the other in a determined way (logic of interaction).
If things are considered this way, appears that there is certainly a strange coincidence between possible man/woman interactions and possibilities of understanding in variables of value given to the very word or meaning. It is not the same to understand by giving interpretation to what is conveyed by tones by doing as if nothing be really said, than to fix the attention on what is said and deriving the meaning through definition, omitting the possibly conveyed meaning.
If this is true, than it must be possible to produce a referential model of what could be said ‘conveying rationality’, which on the other hand though, seems to induce the possibility of establishing reasonable parameters of behavior in sexual relationship, as if it could be thought, that behavior may back a certain way of proceeding in understanding through the repetition in fulfilled image in reality. On the other hand, hypothesis may be put, trying to determine how far a deviated sexual behavior, if this can be identified as such, may affect fundamentally the very process of generation of rational thought or even destroy it.