DGD: Figure 17 (clonografía), 2010 The bolero "Sabor a mi", written by Alvaro Carrillo, contains mysteries concentric
*
so long enjoyed this love, our souls
approached so much so that I keep
your taste, but you carry me also
flavor.*If deny my presence in your life,
enough to hold and talk;
much life I gave you, that will necessarily carry them
taste of me.* not pretend to be your master.
I'm nothing, I have no vanity. In my life I
good;
am so poor, what else I can give.*over a thousand years will pass, many more.
I do not know if eternity has love, but
there, as well as here in the mouth will carry
taste of me.
* In this song, the lover tells his beloved: "If you deny my presence in your life, / enough to hug and talk." Presence is important. These lines mean that if she denies the importance he had in his life, would be enough to hold her and talk show bearing his "taste", meaning that he was and is important in the life of the beloved. However, the lover should not be reinforcing both the "is" if it were not so painfully aware of "was", ie that has lost so unforgivable. Moreover, she has denied the importance of this relationship last .
* So the first verse has a clear taste of the past tense: "So long enjoyed this love / our souls came as well, / I keep your taste, but you also wear / taste of me ". The first line of the next verse uses a misleading tense: "If you deny my presence in your life." This line is actually a certainty: "You have denied my presence in your life." And to show that denial not only exists but is useless or false, "would suffice hug you and talk, / I gave you life so that you take by force and / flavor to me. "
*
The apparent serenity is contradicted by that other misleading line: "I gave so much life." The lover gave no "much" but "any" life: he feels dead. No choice but to state something that should happen necessarily "that you take by force and / flavor to me," this can not mean a mere "taste to me" but "my self", ie "take my life" . If "much" and not "all" is perhaps to be noted that very little life that remained it only serves to realize "so" that he is dead.
* Then comes an apparent self-affirmation: "I do not pretend to be your master. / I'm nothing, I have no vanity. " The lover is not the owner of the beloved: The freedom to get away while she leads the life of him, which means that he recognizes in her the freedom to kill. It remains to be determined whether this man has always been nothing or if it is precisely from the time he was "killed" by her (since she refused his presence in his life).
* However, he has vanity is undeniable and, indeed, at this level throughout the song love is just a celebration for the vanity: he voluntarily keeps the flavor of it, but it retains the flavor of it by fate, almost a curse. In his weeping content, suggests that the lover she takes the life of him, but is reversed, and it is "by force." She tries to forget the "flavor" of the relationship, he condemned not only to remember that "flavor" but can not forget.
* Vanity exists in the lover and the only thing that exists in it: if the addressee of the song would deny the intensity of this last group, the male you have only to look sing, talk to her and, as a last resort if the above fail-hug. Then she would have to accept 1) life he gave, 2) the fact that in rejecting this gift, she killed him. The song does not speak of a nostalgia, but a punishment.
* This man's vanity is primarily self-pity: "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give." And what is the life that he gave? First she says that her life is good, meaning that it is able to select the good and bad not to, but then says he can not give something else that good, since it is "so poor." No choice then, and therefore it is not self-select what is good to give, but it is good a priori all the way down.
*
may be noted also that this man offered as justification for being "poor", implying that if it were not, could give "something else": the regular and the bad. Is so poor that all you have is "good" precisely because he has nothing. If it were not poor, it would be good, and could be wrong. (At this level of love, might take revenge on the unfaithful lover, who denied the presence ie the importance "of him in her life.)
* And in a superb final blow, vanity is projected to eternity:" It will take more than a thousand years, many more. / I do not know if eternity has love, / But there, as well as here in the mouth will carry / taste to me. " Although I had no love of eternity, that is, but earthly love relationships stop making sense as unearthly, she will "taste to me," no matter what they become beings who ever lived. And it will take in the mouth, which is a part of the physicality that most likely cease to interfere in the other world.
* Speak, then, a vanity masked. The lover does not know if the other world will love, mouths or flavors, but condemns his beloved to be chained to those elements. In eternity it will bring the lover left me, one that makes the act of "giving so much life"-act whose significance was denied "in the act of being killed.
* However, once taken this song love this framework, the result of an overwhelming clarity. Considered not as a lover but as an individual, the ego of this song is for all those who deny its presence and, to deny, render "no" (Nobody). Hence the powerful strength of the line "I'm nothing, I have no vanity."
*
be "something" (someone) a question of vanity, and as this guy does it, quietly accept being anything ("no"). But that serenity is ambiguous. And it is because if anyone says always and forever (in which case it would be against a universal reference frame), or if it is precisely when others deny their presence (in which case it is from a mere framework social referencing).
* In the first case, no one with a capital letter (the No cosmic), the second, lower case (the social one). If the latter says "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," nothing remains but the "flavor" of a pitiful self-pity: what's good?, Who judges what is good and what is not? Like everything he has and gives is "good", could well retaliate-with varying degrees of malevolence, of all those who have denied their presence in the world. At this level, the song would be a grain of sand in the great universal praise of evil, ie the Revenge Against the World.
* However, the way is open to another level. So Therefore, it is only the cosmic Nobody who can say without lying: "In my life I good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," because then there is no misunderstanding, "lean" means nothing but "poor spirit "(in the sense that Meister Eckhardt gives this term, of whom nothing is and nothing you want:" The humble man does not need to ask God, may well send to God, because the elevation of the deity can not consider nothing except in the depths of humility. The humble man and God are one and not two "), which can only give good since that spiritual stage and know that evil is nothing but absence of good.
* *** *
[De Book No 5 , in preparation.]
* *
0 comments:
Post a Comment