Skip to main content

Perspectivism in Love

       






Love is blind not because lovers do not see, but because those who are not lovers do not see. They do not see what two lovers, for instance, see most clearly in one another. The woman may be just plain ugly, and the man an obnoxious jerk, but they are only so from a spectator's perspective. Lovers have three eyes: they see more than the visible world we all perceive with only two eyes. They are like those who see ghosts or see the future. It is a plain fact that other people do not just have the organs to see those things: you either see it or you don't--you can't even imagine it. The same in love.

And when it comes to love, its truth above all is exclusive. Never mind if they may be mistaken in the end, never mind if what they see are merely projections of themselves--these are possibilities that lovers never feel or know in the heat of passion and in the vision of beauty. There may be a consciousness or a fear that they may be mistaken, but that is of no importance to them because they can only be mistakes when they are compared to what other people see as correct or the ideal. What is important is what they see, the pure phenomenon of the other above all, one which discloses itself never to many but to you alone.

Who cares if others do not understand? It is not them after all who is at stake. They may be right--but so what? First of all who is to judge what correct is? I alone am responsible for my choices, I alone know what is "right." Let them find their own beloved, I say. Saying that I am mistaken in choosing my beloved is like saying I shouldn't have pizza when I want to, that I should order pasta because it is what you like. Like saying I wore the wrong tie to work, or my belt does not match my shoes. Or that I bought the wrong book, saw the wrong movie, believed in the wrong God. That you are God.--


        
       

Comments

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…