To be –
System;
To be
Anything,
One thing,
Everything
About which circle
May be drawn.
Circle or square,
Triangulation;
Network,
Patchwork,
Share.
Give or give in
Concentration
Give out,
Take part,
Song –
Each or any of all
Or none
Points through which
More points chart;
My love,
In this wide-flung plane
No parallel lines,
Apart.
I am a skeptic towards the idea of “epic love.” Or at least, towards the human capacity for such; this became apparent when faced with a writing prompt of “relationships – larger than life or epic love” as given by Lisa Ann Markuson in her weekly SocietyX Therapeutic Poetry Workshop. The “one soul, two bodies” business (as it was predicated) seems to me to make light of all the other internal and external processes which make the idea of “ONE” relationship possible.
Relationship, of course, can take in anything from cellular systems to nuclear forces. Is this relevant to the person sitting across the room from me? Is this good first (or twentieth) date conversation? I have no idea; that is why this is poetry and not relationship advice.
But insofar as I have found it useful to consider my personal relationships as dynamic states of growth influenced by more than I pay attention to – rather than static states defined by the snapshot-perfect essence of one plus one person, pinned in time – this is some sort of love letter to something.
And insofar as the person sitting across the room from me constantly pushes me to be more than my habits, routines, and preconceptions – I suppose, after all, a relationship between two is always about becoming larger than one life.
Beautiful 🙂 and welcome back! I am glad to be reading your words and thoughts again.
LikeLike
“I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together”
I find that the more we evaluate individualism and the ideas that we attach to our individualism i.e. love – we learn that we are more of a system and a component of one single galactically complex body. I don’t mean from a theologically perspective either, but that isn’t removed but it is just not relevant to the proof of the concept. Not to get to cliche, but it is the ideology of absolute determinism on a micro scale further falling domino to domino in to the macro.
LikeLike