The Marginalian
The Marginalian

Pablo Neruda on How to Hold Time

Pablo Neruda on How to Hold Time

“Time is a river that sweeps me along, but I am a river,” Borges wrote. “Time is a fire that consumes me, but I am the fire.”

Most of us are not Borges. Most of us are drowning in bewilderment at where the time goes, burning with the urgency of being alive while waiting to start living, wandering the labyrinth of life with wayward presence, wishing that time ran differently as the cult of productivity turns each minute into a blade pressed against the vein of our transience.

And all the while, our time is nested within our times — the epoch we are living through together, born into it with no more choice in the matter than the body and brain and family we have been born into. In his magnificent essay on Shakespeare, James Baldwin countered the commonplace lament of every epoch: “It is said that his time was easier than ours, but I doubt it — no time can be easy if one is living through it.” A century before him — a century of unrest and transformation — Emerson issued the ultimate antilamentation: “This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.”

Discus chronologicus — a German depiction of time from the early 1720s. (Available as a print and as a wall clock.)

Not knowing what to do with the time we have been given, not knowing how to hold time in our personal and political lives, is at bottom an act of forgetting how time hold us. Pablo Neruda (July 12, 1904–September 23, 1973) casts a spell against forgetting in the fourth canto of his long poem “Morning,”:

You will remember that whimsical ravine
where the vibrant aromas rose,
and from time to time a bird dressed
in water and languor: winter’s garment.

You will remember those gifts from the earth:
piquing fragrance, gold clay,
thickets of herbs, wild roots,
bewitching thorns like swords.

You will remember the bouquet you brought,
a bouquet of shadow and silent water,
a bouquet like foam-covered stone.

And that time was like never and always:
We go where nothing is expected
and find everything waiting there.

Pablo Neruda

If time is the fundamental problem of human life and poetry is our most precise technology for parsing the aching astonishment of being alive, then time is the prime subject of poetry. Neruda knew this — time is the subterranean current coursing beneath his vast and varied body of work, the substrate upon which all of his stunning love poems and his meditations on the inner life grow. He reverenced the stones for how they have “touched time,” reverenced the minute for how it is “bound to join the river of time that bears us,” reverenced “the inexhaustible springs of time,” longed for “a time complete as an ocean,” then made that ocean with his poetry.

In his poem “The Enigmas,” composed during WWII, he writes:

You’ve asked me what the crustacean spins
between its gold claws
and I reply: the sea knows.

You wonder what the sea squirt waits for in its transparent bell?
     What does it wait for?

I’ll tell you: it’s waiting for time like you.

A decade later, in one of his “Elemental Odes,” Neruda laid out his most explicit instruction for how to hold time:

Listen and learn.
Time
is divided
into two rivers:
one
flows backward, devouring
life already lived;
the other
moves forward with you
exposing
your life.
For a single second
they may be joined.
Now.
This is that moment,
the drop of an instant
that washes away the past.
It is the present.
It is in your hands.
Racing, slipping,
tumbling like a waterfall.
But it is yours.
Help it grow
with love, with firmness,
with stone and flight,
with resounding
rectitude,
with purest grains,
the most brilliant metal
from your heart,
walking
in the full light of day
without fear
of truth, goodness, justice,
companions of song,
time that flows
will have the shape
and sound
of a guitar,
and when you want
to bow to the past,
the singing spring of
transparent time
will reveal your wholeness.
Time is joy.

Couple with three poems for trusting time, then revisit Kahlil Gibran on how to befriend time.

BP

What Makes You Yourself: Earth’s Largest Living Organism and the Paradox of Personhood

Bigger than Manhattan, Earth’s largest living organism sways in the surf south of Australia: Posidonia australis — a species of seagrass that, unable to flower, clones itself. Older than mathematics and the written word, it has been cloning itself since before the pyramids were built — a kind of immortality. And while I kiss my lover on the fresh-cut grass under the Manhattan Bridge, it goes on cloning itself as we go on dying and passing between our lips the heat of our mortality.

An organism is a mortal unit of matter distinct from other organisms by its genome — the possibilities encoded in its particular genetic makeup — and its phenotype — the set of traits expressed, the actualities summoned by adaptation and chance from its possibilities. Human beings are organisms encased in the hardest yet most vulnerable exoskeleton in nature: a self. A self includes but surpasses the organism to encompass its environment and its social context, the psychological terrain of memory and desire, the fingerprints left on it by the touch of other selves. An organism ends at the physical boundary of its body, but a self does not — we spend our lives negotiating where we end and the world begins.

Card from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days.

Humans are the only animals, save perhaps the bowerbird, who can alter their phenotype by means of their own making — grow, cut, and dye their hair, tattoo and tan their skin, increase and decrease the size of various body parts with scalpel and silicone. We are also the only animal who can radically alter both its environment and its social context, building elaborate homes on faraway landmasses, reconstituting our families and friend groups, changing the labors by which we put food on our table. Our selves are not like our cells, replacing themselves with clones in the course of living, but like Russian nesting dolls, each prior self outgrown but contained by the next. (“We are well advised to keep on nodding terms with the people we used to be, whether we find them attractive company or not,” Joan Didion wrote.) Our lives a relay race, running from the selves we have outgrown or wish to outgrow towards the selves we try to become to or are unconsciously becoming, the baton of personhood passed from one to the next along the arrow of time, the track of our mortality.

This puts us in a peculiar predicament: Each human lifetime is lived by a single organism that contains a multitude of selves, genetically continuous and psychologically discontinuous, making it impossible to define where and what the person is. What, then, makes you yourself across all those replaced cells and reconfigured selves?

Organisms like Posidonia australis, which both conceal and reveal the nature of the self, may give us the best hint at an answer — one which evolutionary biologist Rowan Hooper articulates beautifully in his book Togetherness: Symbiosis and the Hidden Story of Life’s Greatest Collaborations (public library). Considering Earth’s largest living tree, he writes:

The Pando aspen grove in Utah comprises 47,000 trees, all genetically identical, connected by a vast root system. Language immediately becomes limiting when trying to describe Pando. Do we call the forest an organism? An entity? It has been estimated to weigh nearly 6 million kilograms, or 6,000 tonnes. If it helps, that’s about thirty-five blue whales or 1,000 elephants. It is one of the oldest organisms on Earth. Its cells are living and dying over time, but the DNA remains pretty much unchanged. That is, the entity lives on, even as its parts die.

Art by Meredith Nemirov

With an eye to the Ship of Theseus — Plutarch’s timeless thought experiment about the nature of the self — he reflects:

Pando is biology’s Ship of Theseus — is it the same tree as when it first sprouted? I think not. It’s more like a continuation of the idea of Pando… The 47,000 stems of Pando start off genetically the same, but grow phenotypically different; a forest, but also a mass of individuals.

“The word for world is forest,” Ursula K. Le Guin wrote in her subtle insistence that symbiosis — the ultimate unselfing of the organism — is what made this rocky planet a living world. Rustling through the canopy of the Pando is the whisper of an answer to the unnerving question of what makes a body a person: You are not your roots, not the stem of your circumstance, not your branching choices. You are the idea of you, the forest of your selves in constant conviviality with other selves, called again and again to unself into who you really are.

BP

Carl Sagan on How to Live with the Unknown

Carl Sagan on How to Live with the Unknown

In our recent On Being conversation, NASA astrophysicist and exoplanet researcher Natalie Batalha said something that stopped me up short: as sentient beings endowed with awareness, we are “the universe itself becoming aware.” Echoing poet Diane Ackerman’s lovely notion of “the plain everythingness of everything, in cahoots with the everythingness of everything else,” Dr. Batalha added: “It took 13.7 billion years for the atoms to come together to create the portal to the universe which is my physical self. So in that statement is this idea, or the fluidity of time and space. And I kind of see it all at once. And I don’t know what ‘me’ is. I just feel part of everything. And I feel such deep gratitude for being able to take this conscious look at the universe — at myself as being part of the universe.”

The sentiment reminded me of a beautiful interview Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934–December 20, 1996) gave shortly after the premiere of his epoch-making documentary Cosmos, later included in Conversations with Carl Sagan (public library).

In late August of 1980 — two years after he conducted Susan Sontag’s most dimensional interview and nine years before his magnificent conversation with Leonard Bernstein — interlocutor extraordinaire Jonathan Cott visited Sagan’s home in Los Angeles to interview him for Rolling Stone. In the soaring the conversation that followed, Sagan stepped into his native nexus of the scientific and the poetic to contemplate our understanding of the universe and of ourselves, the nature of reality and of human knowledge, and how to live with the unknown.

Carl Sagan

Sagan tells Cott:

It’s a critical moment in the history of the world… We are the representatives of the cosmos; we are an example of what hydrogen atoms can do, given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. And we resonate to these questions. We start with the origin of every human being, and then the origin of our community, our nation, the human species, who our ancestors were and then the riddle of the origin of life. And the questions: where did the Earth and Solar System come from? Where did the galaxies come from?

Every one of those questions is deep and significant. They are the subject of folklore, myth, superstition, and religion in every human culture. But for the first time we are on the verge of answering many of them. I don’t mean to suggest that we have the final answers; we are bathing in mystery and confusion on many subjects, and I think that will always be our destiny. The universe will always be much richer than our ability to understand it.

Earthrise (December 24, 1968)
Earthrise (December 24, 1968)

To be sure, understanding the whole of the universe seems like too grandiose an aspiration when we are continually struggling to understand the tiny subset of the universe that is ourselves. Three summers before this interview, Sagan had spearheaded The Golden Record — a poetic attempt at such self-comprehension, mirroring humanity back to itself. Now, with an eye to another landmark triumph of self-reflection made possible by scientific progress — the iconic Earthrise photograph taken by the astronauts of Apollo 8 in 1968 — Sagan considers the immense and paradoxical gift of cosmic perspective:

You saw [Earth] for the first time as a tiny blue ball floating in space. You realized that there were other, similar worlds far away, of different size, different color and constitution. You got the idea that our planet was just one in a multitude. I think there are two apparently contradictory and still very powerful benefits of that cosmic perspective — the sense of our planet as one in a vast number and the sense of our planet as a place whose destiny depends upon us.

In this awareness resides a humbling and disquieting reminder of our creaturely limitations. We navigate the world by our common-sense perception, but that perception has blinded us to reality again and again. We have mistaken our sensorial intuitions for facts of the universe — for millennia, we held wrong beliefs about Earth’s shape, motion, and position, because it feels flat and static beneath our feet, and central to the order of the cosmos. We have mistrusted processes and phenomena beyond the boundaries of what we can touch and feel with our limited senses — from evolution, which unfolds on scales of time too vast to be visible within a human lifetime, to quantum mechanics, which operates on subatomic scales imperceptible and almost inconceivable to the human observer. Long before Sagan equipped us with an antidote to the “common pitfalls of common sense” in his timeless Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking, he tells Cott:

Common sense works fine for the universe we’re used to, for time scales of decades, for a space between a tenth of a millimeter and a few thousand kilometers, and for speeds much less than the speed of light. Once we leave those domains of human experience, there’s no reason to expect the laws of nature to continue to obey our expectations, since our expectations are dependent on a limited set of experiences.

[…]

We have to be very careful not to impose our hopes and desires on the cosmos, but instead, in the scientific tradition and with the most open mind possible, see what the cosmos is saying to us.

Sagan points to one particularly blatant obfuscation of reality driven by our self-centered hopes, desires, and delusions — astrology:

[Astrology is] like racism or sexism: you have twelve little pigeonholes, and as soon as you type someone as a member of that particular group, as long as someone is an Aquarius, Virgo or Scorpio, you know his characteristics. It saves you the effort of getting to know him individually.

Sagan ends by considering the nature of human knowledge itself. Drawing on its past, he projects its future:

Human knowledge is a set of successive approximations… There are all sorts of things that we’ve gotten wrong, and all sorts of mind-boggling things that we can’t even glimpse that will be the established fact in a century or two.

[…]

There are two extremes to worry about. One is the extreme in which everything is known and there’s nothing left to do. The other is where everything is so complicated you can never begin to do anything. We are lucky to live in a universe were there are laws of nature and things to discover, but they’re not impossibly difficult, so we can understand them to some extent. But they’re also difficult enough so that we’re nowhere near understanding them all. There are exhilarating discoveries yet to be made. It’s the best possible world.

Complement with Diane Ackerman — a favorite poet of Sagan’s, who was her doctoral advisor — on our longing to know the universe beyond ourselves and Primo Levi on the spiritual value of space exploration, then revisit Sagan on the value of uncertainty, the enchantment of chemistry, and the most important perspective in the human world.

BP

Wendell Berry on Where Our Loved Ones Gone Go

To love is to sign a contract with loss. To love anyway is both the great tragedy and the great triumph of life.

When two people have loved one another, each has become embedded in the marrow of the other’s being and both have had a profound experience that cannot be unhad even when the slender thread of grace between them is severed, by death or disenchantment. “No one you love is ever dead,” Hemingway wrote in his moving meditation on death and the meaning of life disguised as a letter of consolation to a bereaved friend.

Art from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days.

Death, of course, is only one species of loss, one way our loved ones can leave us. We can also be left in life, left behind, left wondering where love goes when it goes. At its most discomposing, abandonment can feel like a living death.

All deep loss has one thing in common: It opens an absence so acutely felt it kidnaps us from presence, takes us away from our own lives and their insistent, inconvenient, sacred ongoingness. In memory or in fantasy, we end up refugees from reality, ceding the only thing that is ever ours for the keeping: the living moment. In all missing, we miss life.

That is what the achingly missed Wendell Berry (August 5, 1934–August 31, 2026) explores in this gasp of a poem, originally published in the November 17, 2025 issue of The New Yorker:

THE LOVED ONES
by Wendell Berry

The loved ones we call the dead
depart from us and for a while are absent. And then as if
called back by our love, they come
near us again. They enter our dreams.
We feel they have been near us
when we have not thought of them.
They are simply here, simply waiting
while we are distracted among
our obligations. At last
it comes to us: They live now
in the permanent world.
We are the absent ones.

Couple with physicist Richard Feynman’s extraordinary love letter to his wife written long after her untimely death, then revisit Wendell Berry on creativity and love and his timeless antidote to despair.

BP

View Full Site

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy. (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)