Skip to main content

The Pain With No Name (The Difficulty)



In the movie Little Manhattan, a mother consoles her crying ten-year old son, Gabe, who, after falling in love for the first time--and for a while, finds himself losing out in the end. Exasperated and in anguish, Gabe provokes his fate by asking out loud, "Why did she have to walk into my life?" Why have a taste of what blissfully calls out, and intensifies, a desire, up till then unknown, only to leave yourself longing for it in the trail of its retreat and eventual absence? Why say hello when with it comes the eventual goodbye? Why love if only to lose it and be lost by its loss?

The mother, with good intention, answers her son thus:
Maybe not everything is supposed to last forever. Certain things are like sky writing, like a really beautiful thing, which only lasts for a few moments.

To this, Gabe replied, "Love sucks."

And love cannot but "suck." For when I profess to love the other, I expose myself to the rule of his or her alterity--without remainder, as well as without a guarantee that it be reciprocated. Unaware, I find myself seen by a gaze which crosses my own (and my own intentions and intuitions), thereby annulling my own gaze, making it impossible for me to see, while revealing myself to be seen. By loving, I transgress the order of economy and justice, where I do not love in exchange for another love and at a price, or, where I do not love in order to be awarded of what I see as my right and what I justly deserve; in love, I risk a stake--my own, my all, my self--in a deal which is no deal as it does not deal for a win, a gain or even a mere stand--it deals so as to give, and more, I award myself to an other whether or not he or she by right and justice deserves it or not. Or better: love sucks because love knows no other love but that which gives the gift of self, which, even if perfectly given, can just as easily be perfectly ignored or refused. Finally, and thus definitively: it promises eternity and gives infinitely to an other that cannot but fail under the weight of that gift if only because he or she is finite and limited.

Thus, knowing only that I could only give what I have (my love), I can never be assured by anything else other than the certainty that my decision to love provokes and entails. In loving, I am only certain of my love, and this certainty remains only when I continue to do it, that is, continually make love. Love then is its own cause and reason, its own ratio sui; it feeds itself by its decision to love, and grows the more I continue to love. I cannot have access to the other for an assurance or certainty; I only know what I know and what I know only comes from the certainty of my decision. I can never have recourse to the other as I have of the objects of the world; I can only reach the other by him or her remaining unreachable, forever vanishing in my advance, always slipping through my hands. This is why I can love infinitely--and no other love is expected from me--because my love can only pour itself to an other only in the measure which is able to measure up to what it will fulfill, that is, to what can never be filled in the other's unfathomable alterity, thus the necessity that I match it, or attempt to at my best, by loving infinitely as well. Thus, with my decision to love her infinitely and without remainder, I try to approach the beloved with a love that infinitely tries to reach the other without ever successfully touching her; that this love to be able to reach her matters little here, for the aim of my loving gaze finds itself drowned in the void of the face of the invisible other, but it is also such emptiness which allows me forever to approach the beloved with my love, as one approaches the horizon, seeing it but not seeing any thing, like loving her without ever loving enough.


To be continued.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Fields of Amorsolo

The first National Artist in Philippine history, referred to warmly as the “Grand Old Man of Philippine Art,” Fernando Amorsolo (1892–1972) still stands today as a looming figure in Philippine art responsible for being one of the artists who helped define what we up to now visually imagine as essentially Filipino. The images of rural life, of golden fields below clear blue, blue skies; the smiles of farmers which diminish their weariness as they plant, harvest, and winnow rice;most especially the iconic figure of the Filipina maiden working in the fields—the beloved dalagang bukid--; these, I believe, even after generations of Filipino painters since Amorsolo, have remained in our hearts and memory. Amorsolo did what great masters do for their country: bestow upon it its own icons, represent its native beauty, that is, to give its people and lands an identity and a face. There are, however, as many intentions for art as there are works of art. And these intentions will always remain in…

[Payapang Daigdig]

Written by Pat Nogoy, S.J.

Payapang Daigdig Felipe de Leon, Sr. 
Ang gabi'y payapa Lahat ay tahimik  Pati mga tala      Sa bughaw na langit 

Kay hinhin ng hangin Waring umiibig          Sa kapayapaan          Ng buong daigdig     
Payapang panahon    Ay diwa ng buhay Biyaya ng Diyos       Sa sangkatauhan
Ang gabi'y payapa Lahat ay tahimik Pati mga tala Sa bughaw na langit  
Pati mga tala           Sa bughaw na langit


The gift delivers Being/being Jean Luc Marion

There is something about the night.
The blanket of darkness hovering the other half of the day sparks ambivalence. Everything is the same in darkness—fear, joy, pain, triumph, doubt, glory, sorrow. Identities recede unto the vast anonymity. There is a pervading anxiety where existence slips into nothingness. One is never certain what to make out of darkness; maybe that is why the night shakes us because we never know. One cannot avoid imagining a something that is greater, higher, mightier, (even sinister) that lurks (hence the power of ghos…

Without Why (The Rose) II

Lifetime is a child at play; moving pieces in a game.
Kingship belongs to the child.

Heraclitus, Fragment 52


The child at play never asks itself why it plays. The child just plays; and if it could, it will play as long as possible, it will play throughout its life. See its delight and witness its smile.

If it would never go hungry or if the sun would never set it too will never leave its playmates and playthings. Time flies at play because it stops or suspends time. Time -- as we grownups only know too well -- is the culprit for order, schedules and priorities; yet for the child, there is no time, there is only bottomless play. It is we who impose that this or that should be done at this or that time. We stop the absurd and supposedly endless play ("He does nothing but play") because we insist that discipline, order and priorities be instilled in the child at an early age ("He needs to learn other things beside playing"). So that the child will become like us one da…