Compromise, meeting midway, give and take, adjustment: all words associated with, among many other things, relationships. As much as it seems paramount, maybe because of all the psychobabble around it, this idea of giving in to the point that you don't lose yourself, is it really necessary?
Picture it, in a tangible sense.
A line with a definitive start and end will have a middle, but just close your eyes and imagine something. Likely, it's difficult to picture the start and end because the thought is an abstraction. You define the start and end in some random manner, without being able to pinpoint accurately. So how do you find the middle?
Now, think about this in the context of relationships.
When and why did a relationship start? Can you actually put a date to it, even though there might be a legal date? More importantly, why did it start? Was it the spontaneity? Was it the 'off-the-beaten-path' approach to life? Was it just one thing or many? Can they be quantified or brought within a boundary in their entirety? If they can't, then how can a midpoint be calculated, especially when it's two sets of 'whys' that need to be understood and explained?
So then, is there a need for a middle?
Can there not be just a whole? One that does away with the arrogance of a left or a right, that demands that there be a middle. A nebulous composition of thoughts, ideas, opinions and everything else.
A whole that can possibly explain much more than a middle can.
Picture it, in a tangible sense.
A line with a definitive start and end will have a middle, but just close your eyes and imagine something. Likely, it's difficult to picture the start and end because the thought is an abstraction. You define the start and end in some random manner, without being able to pinpoint accurately. So how do you find the middle?
Now, think about this in the context of relationships.
When and why did a relationship start? Can you actually put a date to it, even though there might be a legal date? More importantly, why did it start? Was it the spontaneity? Was it the 'off-the-beaten-path' approach to life? Was it just one thing or many? Can they be quantified or brought within a boundary in their entirety? If they can't, then how can a midpoint be calculated, especially when it's two sets of 'whys' that need to be understood and explained?
So then, is there a need for a middle?
Can there not be just a whole? One that does away with the arrogance of a left or a right, that demands that there be a middle. A nebulous composition of thoughts, ideas, opinions and everything else.
A whole that can possibly explain much more than a middle can.
