Hi, I've been wanting to write again, since last night, since it seems I can write you this way and, while we don't talk about these, still they may help--(me at least, to move on from a thought).
Mainly I was thinking: I _so_ don't want to pass up loving you physically (beyond the way we help/love each other by kata'ing/walking/etc) if we could do so gracefully--
[I] suppose I'm only mentioning this because I have the sense or body hope that it still is possible--
It's (sex is?) such a devastating power though--after that checkers night. . . well, partly because I'm not more busy, it was perhaps two days of: thinking about the possibility, what it meant, arousal. (From when I first asked you to walk and you said yes, it's been that way [when I get stuck on the possibility].)
---
so since I'm still feeling it may be possible, what might graceful be?
(-) Us not smiling, laughing (not the whole time. . . but maybe you'll see:)--just a somewhat serious and calm being present--letting us look at each other
--a mutual being present / gazing without submissive, escaping mask (a mask reflexive to us and most everyone?).
(I seem to think we have to go slow and work with/appreciate ugliness, inadequacy, who knows what else--I feel these things [ugliness, inadequacy] in me and want them accepted--feel that you sometimes feel them in yourself and I want to accept yours[?? something like that]--a sort of being patient and being there with whatever is there and not withdrawing
{(}--there's not really anything possible to idealize about most people's faces during orgasm, just as one example [well, I'm not an expert--I bet it can be done--a dancer could serenely smile--a (whatever the expression at that moment is) could be loved. An art project? A photo gallery?]. But still, one can be with that face.)
(-) Some beforehand discussion of how we'd do it [ugh], what it would mean, results hoped for, if any. . . Probably at your place, but what else? I still have condoms I took to Mt Laguna--(, plain, no lube, no anti-sperm) [and we don't need to have intercourse--but be clear: sleep and no sex; or mutual touching, masturbation?; or?]
(-) it means more of a connection between us, if we do it well--and where would that lead:
a lot more time together [how much?], if I spent the night, eating together more [a challenge for me?], shower?, so on
(-) I also seem to think if we were together a night, I might still want to stay away for a week afterwards [or else be too overcome by desire to be able to stay away happily though you might want a break]--[']ideally['] I wouldn't, but that seems to be what we do:
any greater intimacy seems to cause a recoiling, and then, so far, a gradual continuing on, closer, maybe?, than before, perhaps because we've accepted more of the other over a longer period of time and may feel more secure [at least if you still want to hang out after this/the last interaction].
---
--- I think we could do this well.
I don't know where it could take us. I don't know how we'd relate long term if I'm off wandering around somewhere[, or if you are]. I do think whatever we'd learn could help us better be with whoever's next [whatever the relationship--not just referring to lovers]. At the same time, it seems possible the more we're with each other, the more of a home we'll feel in the other.
But I'd like to think that a good home gives us more ability to be at home with more people in more places. To challenge ourselves more[, to love more generally (not only partner-intimacy--type care?)], whatever that means.
who knows--
'end transmission' (as one of my friends wrote)
peace,
and love,
and thanks for this chance to think about love. Let it go, fade, if you like.
I don't quite know how we could get started. I did try to kiss you once a long time ago, foolish me--you'd need to accept the hard-on, be patient with my lack of [, and perhaps need to practice,] control--I swear sometimes it has seemed you could touch my arm and I'd come[; does this relate to writing?]
Yeah, or just let this be--I'm happy with that, happy to walk and be a companion, and do the exercise and not think about this.
this is more meaningful--meaning less peaceful, more intense, more joyful[, energizing], but probably also more disturbing[, disruptive], maybe more sad--I doubt that [sad] though.
whatever way's best, if we go slow [or not at all], aware, may avoid crash
and I'm happy [well my DNA isn't, but we want to foil that anyhow(?)] should you apply this with another--it may apply there-- [sometimes I believe my main role for you--for anyone really--is to help you be more confident, more able, to create the kind of relationships good for you--perhaps to find a person to be a more traditional partner with. And vice-versa: you help me clarify how odd I wish to be, strengthen me in that? Who knows.]
[seems also, at some point, we may need to address something about the other that disturbs us--we are somewhat untraditional(, uncommitted?, not duty-bound?), . . . Count (,then,) only on what we know we already like to do, don't expect more? We seem to deal with getting too much of the other by just not stopping by, until time and proximity draw us together again--a cycle. Elegant?]
My betrayal is I'm publishing this [just shot the . . . foot?]. You stay more or less anonymous, I think you'll agree--whatever I say or write reflects more on the view from here than on that from anywhere else. But if that's too much, keep me at the right distance. Or?? Could I act differently?
Publishing it is a way of leaving it behind, saying, "I'm not there any more, now I'm somewhere else."
Am I saying 'I don't care'?
Muse, I've written you before (only once? about something covered here: serious gazing, in "love, trick"), and by the end felt no need to send it. . . published it instead. Moved beyond caring about it.
Now I've been affected by [Lie--I've been affected by what you said, and the feeling, somewhat frightening, around that moment. And that I wrote before, and that we walked again.] Thomas Mann's Settembrini character's ~"only keep talking--that is contact, in contact there is life", as a counterbalance to a buddhist reserve. And now Melville comes in with: ~"throw both heads overboard and float right and light."
I think you can receive this, read it or not, and I'll probably (or may?) get to spend time with you again--(and we can ignore it, or attempt to kiss passionately ['meaningfully{, thoughtfully, with consideration}' it would have to be, and after brushing teeth?], or something else).
Well, I see that after beginning with a calm gaze, I've got to laughing and distancing, masking a bit.
how much is required for--is this what the brain is for?
Don't think I can keep this up. But I respect that you may not want any more-- though I question that shame, consideration. Is any violence done here? Is any of this harmful? Yeah, there are some emails I'd rather not get (Only mass emails are coming to mind?--as long as I can be content as Buddha in not replying, in not accepting harm.). Based on my sense of you, you're at least not harmed by this, but maybe the publishing part could bother. I know I may be wrong.
To whom am I talking?
What is this for?
---
What about the (often?) rather brutal post-coital vision of lover and of everything else? Of the feeling you've been had by the DNA's drive? Of the fear it may have won, you have been 03ZED(sp?)? Your life belongs to something else now. That, following Franklin, you paid too dearly for your whistle.
---
Let's end with John Heron and his partner's "principles of dyadic inquiry / cookbook of dyadic inquiry"(?), wherein is described a practice of a kind of reverence for that moment and source and that physical origin of all of us. Source of consciousness, source of mind, I forget his words--there our instance started--
peace,
Colin
No comments:
Post a Comment