Skip to main content

Time and Love

a



My friend's remark last night struck me. He said that maybe in another lifetime the one he loved--from a distance and in silence--and who couldn't love him back, maybe in that other life, imagined and in no way certain, they could be what they could never be in this life: together.

"Maybe in another lifetime": this means a hope which doubles itself as it hopes for a chance and at the same time that chance is hoped against a possible time otherwise than the present present and the present future. The "maybe" hopes but at the same time consigns that it is still not certain that it could still be in another possible time. Or again, this means that one resigns himself in being given a chance to gamble in another possible game, knowing well that he cannot even attempt to play at this time.

The "maybe" here is ignorant on two counts: it hopes for a possible love and only in another possible life. And at bottom, it no longer points to a wish, and finally not even to a hope, as "maybe" marks the uncertainty of uncertainty, that is, this hope eventually fails to finally imagine the real at the end, and in doing so, disqualifies itself as hope. For hope always knows even when it is ignorant for what it is hoping for. But this "maybe in another lifetime" does not even know if it would still be able to have the chance--the time--to hope because it cannot even hope now. Thus it resigns itself to that most terrible of signs: I simply sigh, turn and walk away head bowed.

Yet the ignorant "maybe" still knows one thing: that it will gamble if it is given a chance to play the game that cannot be played at the moment and to the last. How can it know this? Because it knows with certainty what it loves, with a certainty which cannot be negated or forgotten even if it is a love which cannot be, even if it has no hope of becoming real in time. The "maybe" is only founded on a knowledge of knowing that it shall love, the knowledge of an imperative, even if such an imperative could not be done at the present and to the last.

"I must love you": this means that I will love you even if I couldn't love you now, that I will love you even if you couldn't love me now, that I will nevertheless love you even if we cannot love each other now or in our futures. This is what it means to hope against hope: that I shall nevertheless know by my absolute decision that I shall love you even if it is also absolutely impossible to love you.

It must be asked, however, why do I defer a certain love for the uncertain, other lifetime? Why must I defer a certain love, a love that was born here and now, to a place which is no place, or at least cannot be seen now? Why do I, finally, suspend my certain love to an uncertain future which is no longer a real future for me, that is, no longer a real possibility as it is already canceled from all the other possibilities of my real future before me? In a word, why cannot I just love you now in order to save myself from the future that is no future--from the "another lifetime"?

Simply because I cannot. The imperative which tells me to love you now and always is only formal; it does not tell me when my love should be deployed unto the real. Even if the "I must love you" says that I should love you always, it does not tell me when I could really love in any particular time. Finally, it merely tells me that I love you yesterday, today and tomorrow; or what comes to the same, a love which loves all the time, but by being so, it paradoxically becomes a love which does not have time, or more precisely, a love which dispenses with time. For love is--without needing a time when it could be.

What could a timeless love then possibly mean? It means a love which does not need a chance to gamble its stakes; a love, like a song, which does not even have to be played; a love which finally does not need to love.

What we initially and for the most part know of love is that it can only be temporal or in time: sometimes I love, sometimes I do not love. Yet this is already a reversed love for certain love does not need to decide when it should love. By that thundering decision to love once and for all, it already has decided that it shall still love even if it can never love, that it will love even in the never. For timelessness is precisely that which has no time, the never, which is precisely what the "another lifetime" announces and at the same time hides. Yet as love still loves even in the never, the "maybe" still gives birth to a miraculous blade of grass in the wasteland of eternity.

30

Comments

  1. Anonymous11/03/2008

    I could hold on for a hundred years
    When all else is gone
    I would still be here
    In a memory of things yet unseen
    I’d remember all that we’ve never been
    And I cannot wait to see
    What life has in store for me

    [chorus]
    In another lifetime
    It would be forever
    In another world
    Where you and I
    Could be together
    In another set of chances
    I’d take the one’s I’d missed
    And make you mine
    If only for a time
    My life would matter
    In another life

    And I’d stay as strong and I’d stay as true
    And you’d have forever now to think it through
    Coz I believe what wasn’t meant to be
    Wasn’t meant for now and
    Someday you’ll see
    In a place and time we never know
    I’d be standing there waiting for you
    [Repeat Chorus]

    [Bridge]
    You would be mine
    But until that time is now
    I’d be holding on somehow
    [Repeat Chorus]

    [Coda]
    But until that time
    I’ll be holding onto forever
    Until another life

    - Gary Valenciano

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…