As Caputo explains, in deconstruction everything is trapped in khoral play between being and not being. Therefore, the fact that love is both true and yet impossible should not be surprising to the student of Derrida. Caputo argues that despite knowing full well of the impossibility of love and the cunning ruses employed in the name of love, one must surrender, se render, to the name of love, or to the other of love, without actually expecting love to ever make an appearance. Thus, always saving the possibility of love for the future. Love, like all truth, is a coming-about or more accurately a call that is never actually here. This is how Caputo resolves the contradiction of deconstructive love.
Likewise, he takes the risk of affirming love sous rature. He leaves love in the text but puts a line through it, in order to signify its imperfection as a signifier for the promise imbedded within love. He takes the risk of denying the existence of love in order to save the promise of love. (Save, is here used in both the sense of preservation, and in the sense of setting aside for the future.)
I love this argument. I love the indecision and khoral play of deconstruction. Its like a balm to the frenzy of a skeptical, yet hopeful mind. Never fear to challenge every concept, and every faith, because this is the only way to save these concepts, and to save the possibility of faith for the future.