things you swore to be true

can we assign ourself to the fringes of someone's life? can we elect to remove ourselves from the day to day of a person? from the things that effect them, and change them? can we be a constant influence from the sidelines?

and how fulfilling can a relationship be when the only reference you have of a person is isolated? are you then getting the whole person or merely the part that they project as desirable? and is it wrong to be okay with taking that removed part?

can you escape to person . . use a person as a way to be yourself and discard insecurity and love them for that? no, but you can love them for the function in your life .. 

is that selfish? of course .. but is it even more selfish to like that spot .. and to realize that because you have been placed in that role the other person also places himself in the same role. and is it ok to be that to each other and live your lives? 

or does it back fire. . can you really be all of yourself to someone else when you have a part of yourself you can only be with another person?

and isn't all of this wildly unhealthy to begin with? especially after 6 years .. 

 

things that didn't burn

do people enter our lives at points of significance? or do the construct themselves in order to set up comparisons? 

can people who have nothing to do with each other and still function to enhance the others function in our lives? 

of course .. because our subconscious is the common denominator . . so do we perceive people as foils to one another in order to process our relationships? or does this hinder our knowledge of the people we surround ourselves with?

and if so how do we see someone clearly? without transference? without hind sight? 

are we supposed to? 

or do we look different to every person close to us because they are also perceiving us with the same calloused eye? how can we ever know the field we are playing on if we don't know who we're playing against? 

how can we develop as individuals in another's narrative unless we know who the characters are that are effecting how we are perceived?

are we really just supposed to depend on the dialog? . . take all confrontation at face value? where is the perspective in the analysis? 

can we truly have that? or does that cheapen experience? 

and after all this what is there cheapen if we can't gain full perspective to being with?      

mended by who

split . . 

on the losing end

no choice 

in staying 

consistent, connected, comfortable. 

controlling your need with passive action. 

passive emotion in the face of knowing

the every now and then of wanting, 

   admitting to a need.

distance suffocating prospect, 

indiscretion. 

something devoid of ritual .. 

someone without the need for consistency

not me 

not in the i'm seen 

by you. 

stillness together

is it so much to ask that someone own up to their emotions? 

is it so weak to be decisive? vulnerable? 

or is it that once people have pin pointed an emotion there is not challenge and therefore no purpose? must we always be searching for something to justify our feelings? what if they just exist, mutually? does emotion lose purchase when there is no reason to prove it? if it is just known between two people that there is a connection is it not enough?

and if emotional fulfillment is not enough then what are we looking for?

are we looking for someone to hear us? and when we know we are being herd do we then have to project our doubt or indecision onto that persons understanding so that the picture is not so clear? 

is this over complication nothing more than a defense mechanism? or is it cyclical? things can't make sense for too long? or if they do make sense consistently how do we justify not wanting it, or not letting ourselves want it?

can we trust someone with everything that makes us hole accept ourselves? is it possible that those whom we trust are the most dangerous to us at our most vulnerable? 

or maybe it is that strong emotional connections are built on a comfort in unknowing rather than strength in internalizing the details.