Balzac and the little chinese seamstress. A couple... maybe?

The supreme being. What a titling for a process that is so much - consciously - developmental, ready for action, reaction and learning, for constructive dealing with intercommunication, rather than interference.

Love and love. Two words, not meaning the same?

When we were kind to each other, to understand, as much as we could, the other. To understand him so far, at least so far, that we would not have to give up - what? And what, if we gave it up? And what, if we gave it up?

Now, that our souls got used to each other .. (here is, what is really deep) .. we see that a togetherness does mean change. How much would an intimacy in (whatsoever form of) communication change the standards that we more or less consciously/carefully developed as single beings?

Could it mean love, not to know, what we do, when we give in to the other? Or is this just the loss - for both, or one of us - to give in, in the loss of a freedom, a highly educated standard of personal importances.

If I suppose that there is something mutual - in spite of warm energies we both carry, for each other, and ourselves within the "us" - the doubt of maybe being able to "come over" this strange feeling of a potential, rather than a real togetherness seems to want to be touched. What can touch him? In the dreams and fantasies of the upper levels of existence, such mind pictures are moving and stepping soft steps as tender minding within the pure agreement. Agreement with the key thoughts and feelings of such a being that seems to be not understood. So, to expand agreement, we might have to search for a point from that we agree, to expand the feeling of agreement. How far can we reach out together? Can we finally reach each other, and in the new time reach out in togetherness?

The doubt is in the room, not as a doubt, but as an intense wish to develop. To educate, to self-educate in subjects such as "the released relationship", "sharing truth with your partner" and "being ready to give up the secret burdens". What a kind of school is this?

Oh, all that we know, how important is it, if we do not recognize it healingly in those spaces where our worries show ... (maybe even creatively ;-) ...) ?

Thoughts are having a certain gravity. And if not gravity, they at least show a certain liking to attach to specific others of their kind. To express them brings something new. Not to express them - brings what?

In our relationship, what has not been expressed? What has not been expressed in that form that it could be named communication? And finally, if it could be communication, hopefully, the essence was not lost?

Without that the essence gets lost, communication must be there. We should have the feeling to love the other, not our picture of him, or the picture that we get through mistakeful approach and communication.

When we don't understand each other, what do we do? We easily draw back to our positions and compare the others behavior with what we would like to happen from there.. are these not our standards? If both are ready to search for the other, cannot both most easily find each other "in the middle"?

How would it feel like, this "middle", for you, ... for me?
For us?

In what nature does relationship appear for you, and can it be close to my nature? In what nature does relationship appear for me, and can it be close to your nature? Let's say, nature is the skin we will never get out of, and flexibility the resources we have to still find together, are we flexible enough to bridge our natural differences to reach ... some truth, beauty and goodness? Some more than some, maybe?