there are moments in our everyday conversation when you let out a silent utterance of disbelief.
sometimes, believe that disbelief.

i gasp for air as I speak. I fear of being breathless. What if my words rob my air away and fly away as a fleeting impression? once it escapes you cannot capture them. God knows where they fly to.

words stalk you in the night.
words trap you in your room.

to believe in that disbelief is not to say that everything we say are lies, but that there are always elements of subjectivity and departures from the entirety of the uttered and its roots. I may be relating a factual event but my expression of it may differ from what actually happened, only in terms of how i expressed the event. Hence, the question is not to ask about the plausibility and the truth of its existence but that how do we negotiate (or merely accept) the expression of truth as always believing the disbelief -- bridging the gap that traces of truth inevitable creates.

that gaping hole is always obliterated by our faith to believe. Or should I say ignore? or just unacknowledged; negligible?

but nothing must be negligible if it is part of the what constitutes the truth. but what is truth?


I shall not answer that because I would lie if I said I knew.

but the matter of this observation is never on what to believe or not...but to overcome our disbelief into the belief of disbelief; yes...even the apparent paradoxes of life and death.

bring it on.

I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.
I love you.

say it a million times and still each repetition does not reaffirm that emotion embedded within the 'love' word.

I can say it in a million tonal differences, injecting different stresses on the words or it may just be a question of my conviction to those words.
But without doubt, such a statement has its clear rules. Subject-object and action verb. But is it really an action verb? What makes "love" an action? Ok, love is not an action. It is an emotion. So? It is narcissistic emotion projected from the self to an object.
To make things worse, "you" is an object, devoid of expression and forced to be the object of my expression of a desire (i prefer to call it that). It is the receiving end of "I's" emotion of love.
But the focus remains to be the "I" in the equation. "I" love. and "you" is incapable to love because I am conventionally told to read from left to right.

doesn't it give you a sense that it's futile to say such a word?
therefore, (it's a leap) I don't love.
To love, or rather, to say I love (someone) is to begin the negation of the living person into a dead being, incapable of a response. At least, with the sentence that I utter: I love you. -- The action or emotion is trapped within the linguistic structure. j'taime is more cruel. It entraps further with the intimate '.

But in a opposite perspective, to say 'I love you' is precisely the greatest expression to someone who does not offer the same emotion back, or rather, cannot and will not allow her/him-self to suit your sentiment.
In other words, "I love you" is such a lonely statement; love that is not reciprocated.

hahaha!
such a deconstruction of love! at the end of the day, I only have to say:

that there are some misery in this world that are not initiated by the lack of love, but by the investment of love from the "I" subject. Don't say "I love you".

say "we love"

we love
we love
we love
we love
we love
we love
we love
we love
we love
we love

somehow it works better.
maybe not. who constitutes the "we"?

why do I even care?