They both lapsed into silence, each aware that they’d lost something which was building between them. Winter had set in around them, and there’ll be no spring.
Yet, just maybe, the rhythmic dance of communication is a substitute for and serves as a defence against intimacy. For as long as something happens, nothing can happen. The mutual acceptance of a period of transition then acquires new meaning, and once the vulnerability and uncertainty are overcome, lasting dialogue can flourish.
Or am I the fool?
3 comments
Foolishness only exists when there is no beneficial result. As long as no irrevocable loss has been sustained and the transaction not concluded, then it cannot be definitively foolish. Whether its foolish or not is dependent on your will to pursue and your judgment of the potential risks. If there is something you desire do not become complacent and do not settle for anything but what you demand. Foolishness is investing but then giving up and allowing the invested resources to be lost, dont you agree? Be dogged in your claim.
Sigh love is so complex. I hope everything works out.
Vonnegut laid out his poetry about love in Cat’s Cradle; “A lover’s a liar, to himself he lies, the truthful are loveless, like oysters their eyes.” In that way all who seek love are fools, and perhaps a bit deluded. It is a positive delusion though, with potential benefits, like the best of religions.
Perfect intimacy is an ideal that I’ve sought for years, perhaps not always within romantic relationships though. Early in my recovery an older man shared this wisdom; “She doesn’t need to know everything, she doesn’t want to either. You share with her what she asks and nothing more, that is the burden of the broken man.” People love the mystery, and can plead to unravel it, but when the means of the magic is made plain no one is amazed.