Once I had a warm concept
of a pair of people
whose beings are intertwined in tandem.
Their moods and motions sing songs of union,
complementing each other in common life.
The dreams they share draw a dissimilar unit,
a masterpiece of semiotic alliterations.
In such a pair there exists no twain,
only stretches and embraces on the tether
that leaves them free, but tied.
There is no lack of liberty in this trust.

i like that

Wrong forum, I guess, but this'll be okay.

Coupledom is an illusion.

The natural state of a human being is to be singular.

SynthiaRose said:

Glad to know what you think. Moving on....

Are you one of thost artist who doesn't like to engage in debate about the concepts behind your art?

I love debate.

SynthiaRose said:

Not when I've thrown it out on the plate for the first time.

OK.

Very beautiful poem.

I like the tension between liberty and bonding.

My favorite line is "In such a pair there exists no twain,
only stretches and embraces on the tether"


Your poem recalls for me Marge Piercy's "To Have and Not to Hold", which is one of my favorite poems.








(Anyway, in theory I reject the idea of coupledom... but if you saw my "one that got away thread" you know I long for a union with that one person ... so the theme is not totally pukey )

***Ehem...Singularity...

Physically, yes, but there is the basic strive that we have to seek completeness and connection to others, and that is fulfilled by a mating relationship, and I don't mean just physically... commitment and unity of lives. Organically, we're singular.

I just read a book about the neuro science behind love, and love in connection to other people... we regulate one another's metabolisms by connections with other people in order to regulate our own metabolism and health and emotion. We don't need to them to do anything consciously, but we need them because our body and mind respond to other people. It's a mammalian thing.

Association with groups, play, interaction... physiological imbalance ensues when they're seperated. It doesn't even have to be the same species. Think about the benefits of a human having a pet dog, cat, etc.
[Edited 7/14/05 18:35pm]

Nero said:

You complete me.

















































You are "complete" on your own. It's all nice and good to have someone to hang out with and bone (even better if there's genuine love involved), but - if you don't - you are no less "complete".

Ace said:

Canadian savage.

Nero said:

It's really the kind of relationship that people would love to find, but fear at the same time. It's like having an emotional siamese twin, on the one hand the purest and most perfected form of love (which is what we're all looking for, right?) and on the other the ultimate form of vulnerability. Would we more often be brave enough to embrace this kind of love if there was no risk of heartbreak or is the dependancy enough to make it scary? I wonder that sometimes.

Very well-written, Nero. A lot of thought put into it. Watch out though, you don't want people to start expecting that from you; then you'll only be able to disappoint them.

retina said:

Expect nothing, then, darling.

Nero said:

Too late.