The Insolence of Time

When I was a young boy I was playing football with a group of friends on a lush lawn covered with leaves one autumn afternoon.  I was experiencing such immense joy.  As the light began to fade, I wanted so badly to keep playing and to somehow have time suspended so that this incredibly fun game would not have to end.  But of course it did end . . .

Time is the merciless master of our lives.  Omar Khayam, the Persian poet, expresses the painful fact in a beautiful way:

“The moving finger writes, and having writ,

moves on, nor all thy piety nor wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it”

Sometimes I want to cry out in frustration at the relentless nature of time.  Each moment experienced, then gone, never to be re-captured.  We are told to live life in the present or the moment, but the moment goes so quickly, often before we can even understand its import.  We are left with a memory, which then also proceeds to slowly fade away.

Of course sometimes the passage of time is of comfort – a trauma or a sadness that becomes less acute, less painful as the memory of it ebbs.  If time did not pass and memories fade, then the heartache and tragedies of this world would be unbearable.

When I am trying to rein in my eating and become more disciplined, I play a game and remind myself that the act of eating will only last a few moments and then the taste and the pleasure will only be a memory - hardly worth all the calories!  I am often successful in this little trick, but it has the nasty side effect of making me rather depressed.

Most human beings don’t focus on this transitory aspect of our lives other than to vaguely acknowledge it.  To dissect time too fervently is a philosopher’s habit and it can only lead to an unsettling malaise.

We speak in abstract terms about time as a fourth dimension, and of the space-time continuum.  Movies and books depict time travel and we are allowed to envision time as a kind of real-life video, with rewind, fast-forward and pause functions at our fingertips.  Would it be pleasurable to re-experience our lives whenever we wished to do so; to go back to wonderful moments and savor the emotions and the feelings exactly as they first occurred?  Not to change them, but simply to enjoy the experience again?  I don’t know.  The repeated re-living of an event might backfire, make it mundane.

Memories are interesting.  At first they are so vivid – almost as if one is experiencing the moment rather than simply observing it in one’s mind.  But as time goes on it becomes more difficult to summon that same feeling.  In the end, a memory becomes a story, and we are not entirely certain whether something actually happened or we have just been telling ourselves the story for so long that it seems real!  We can no longer ‘envision’ the event itself or see it in our mind’s eye.

The reason people identify with the ‘live in the moment’ adage is the sad fact that we spend so much of our lives either reminiscing or looking forward to something that will happen in the future.  But living in the moment is not easy!  The mind is a restless nomad.  If one’s mind is idle for even a few seconds, it will wander to the past or the future.  It takes great discipline to focus on the ‘moment’ unless one is busily invested in some activity that prevents one’s mind from wandering.  And if the mind is busy in that pursuit, is it really consciously living in the ‘moment’ – aware of its pleasurable state?  Tis a paradox!

The unyielding, forward-moving nature of time is particularly distressing for those of us whose lives are more than half spent and hurtling inexorably toward the great abyss!  And to make matters worse, time accelerates in a most unpleasant matter with age.  We want to scream out “SLOW DOWN!”, but we know it is futile.  So we try to derive what pleasure we can from fading memories and limited anticipations, as our bodies decay in a most undignified manner.  Well, I guess that is a bit melodramatic.

I will confess that overall my life has been quite joyful.  I am grateful beyond words for the majority of what I have experienced and hopeful for the years I have remaining.  But I will say that TIME is confusing and a bit frustrating, and, when I think deeply upon it, downright unsettling.

Sex

Is it just me becoming more conservative with age, or does it seem somewhat absurd to describe a film or play or TV show that probes ever deeper into our sexual lives as ‘courageous’ or ‘groundbreaking’?  Hasn't the ground been pretty much broken, pulverized even?  Is there really any risk in the entertainment industry these days in creating a sexually provocative work?

I am no advocate for censorship or a return to the repressive times of yesteryear.  And I recognize that much good has come from the sexual revolution of the past fifty years.  Open discussion and awareness of sexual issues, techniques and feelings have contributed to a much healthier approach to sexuality.  The pendulum has indeed swung dramatically from the conservative mores of the post-WW2 era and even more from those of the Victorian age.

But perhaps the pendulum swing has now lingered at the extreme of sexual obsession.  From Freud to Madison Avenue, sex has been elevated to a dominant place in our lives. There is almost nothing in our cultural landscape that does not rely heavily on bold references to sex.    What are the implications of that saturation, and how do we regard sex in the 21^st century?

For most cultures through the ages, sex was viewed as closely related to procreation and marriage.  Both religious and cultural mores regarded sexual promiscuity as dangerous and immoral, and strongly prohibited adultery, often applying capital punishment to violations.  Sexual desire was acknowledged, but seen as a weakness of the flesh.  Of course there was always a contradictory and often hypocritical approach to sexuality by religious leaders and other authority figures.  Even today we find that many who strongly lament the degradation of societal morality end up in the news because of a lurid affair.

But then came the sexual revolution, launched in part by the availability of much better birth control methods and the woman’s liberation movement.  It shattered some of the more repressive taboos and allowed a healthier and more open dialogue on sexuality.  With men and women putting off marriage until their twenties or later, the notion of pre-marital celibacy seems antiquated and a recipe for mass frustration.  It also makes sense for a couple to test their sexual compatibility before committing to a long term relationship.

Recent polls have indicated that abstinence before marriage is a rare thing, with most men and women averaging 8 or more sexual partners before settling on a single partner. 

But like many things, once an absolute is abandoned, the question of where to draw the line is a tricky one.  If one believes that some sort of a relationship is a pre-requisite for physical intimacy, then what criteria make sense?  Is ten dates a relationship, or will one really good date suffice!  There is no easy formula, and it seems that for most people the level of relationship required diminishes rapidly as they notch more conquests on their belts!

After all, sex is pleasurable, even when there is no love or commitment or trust or slow buildup of a relationship. And it is an amazingly strong impulse. So in the last 50 years since the sexual revolution started one might claim that it has become acceptable to view sex as a recreational activity, like any other pleasurable activity.

It is an interesting question to ask oneself: Can sex be viewed as a purely physical activity and enjoyed without worrying about feelings or relationships or commitment?  Is the association of sex and love a relic of the repressive past?  Or can sex be both things – an amusing act of whimsy for purely physical stimulation in one instance, and a passionate, deeply felt act of intimacy in another?

If we accept the idea that sex can be purely a recreational activity, then is it not a logical next step to continue to have sexual encounters with other people even when one is in a relationship?  It is interesting that despite what appears to be a relentless move toward more indiscriminate pre-marital intimacies, there is still a prevailing rejection of the open relationship or marriage. Couples seem to be willing to ignore the past peccadilloes of their partners, even while often having to socialize with some of their mate’s prior bedfellows, but they draw the line at new improprieties once they are married or in a serious relationship.

Is this last restriction a legacy of the repressive sexual mores of the past, likely to be swept aside by a final wave of erotic emancipation?  Or is there some deeply embedded awareness in us that our sexual freedom has limitations, and that sex is not quite the same as playing a spirited game of tennis?  I have done no research, but I have seen anecdotal reports on communes and other attempts at open marriage, and they seem to have generally self-destructed.

Thus, like so many of the issues that we wrestle with in our human condition, sex is probably best handled (so to speak) with a fine degree of balance.  The Apollonian and Dionysian impulses are antithetical, but a certain harmony or synthesis can be constructed.

A number of years ago there was a pop song ‘Kiss Me’ with the chorus:

Oh, kiss me beneath the milky twilight
Lead me out on the moonlit floor, lift your open hand
Strike up the band and make the fireflies dance
Silver moon's sparkling
So kiss me

At a time when lyrics are portraying love in increasingly raw sexual terms and images, I find the romance and simplicity of this song about a kiss enchanting.  I guess I have become a bit sentimental!