Look at the two people walking along the shore. We say married people "become one." How is that possible. (No, don't think that literally — that's not what I mean, though that's a part of it.) If separated, would they be half of one (half of a couple)? Or would they be "back to [square] one"?
Cut a lemon in half. Would you say you now have two lemons? Or are the two pieces halves of one?
Confused? Delighted? Having fun? Please tell me what you're thinking by posting a comment.
Just for Ginnie (see the comments, below): Is this a better example, Ginnie?
3 comments:
I think this is a good time to debunk the myth of "either/or". So often we are presented with a dilemma, "shall I do this? or that?" "Is the lemonade sweet? or sour?"
Whenever confronted with an either/or choice, I look for a "both/and" answer.
So yes, one is half of two, and two are halves of one.
As for the marriage thing - I think it is a mistake to think that each person is half the marriage. In my experience, where marriages work, each partner is contributing much more than 50% apiece.
It is also a mistake to think that a person without their marital partner is anything less than whole. If two people come together in marriage, needing the other person to complete them, they are both bringing a damaging level of emptiness and neediness. Instead of making a whole person between them, they end up magnifying the emptiness.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
I wasn't thinking of oneness as one person COMPLETING the other, but of two people so in synch that if they were separated they would MISS each other. Not so much a NEED as a JOY to be together. Kind of the way I feel when I get to enjoy the company of an especially close friend who thinks the way I do. When I am with a friend like that, I have a smile on my face and joy in my heart. What fun!
I agree with e. e. cummings. Once a relationship has formed, the thread can never be broken. There is always a connection, no matter how thin circumstances have made it.
---AuntyDon
Post a Comment