Alt Text

Show parent replies
i think i'm a bit misunderstood on this point, or at least the stress i have in mind isn't clear. i use “not purely” rather intentionally to negate without positively identifying with assumed opposite
triangles are not my strongest shape. i kinda suck at geometry in general. the attractive part of the concept is the connections and overlap i can observe relatively independently, almost this one-sided non-dyadicism. there’s a reason i also made this post, and don’t see them as contradictory:
i’m still being confusing, so i think an example might help. i am comforted by the continual overlap in music for *o and *, despite them never being in direct contact. the affinities i note are this sprawling and blooming thing, and the density is gratifying and lovely.
i really mean to say that my loves are contextualized with all my other loves, and yes this often means i want to share those noticings and reflections with the beloveds! nonetheless there is some preferred separation there, at least for the satisfaction of this specific type of desire to flourish.

sometimes i like not fleshing all this out, because i feel locked in to a specific interpretation once i articulate it, and it has the ability to imply too one-dimensional a view. but i have been leaning on that too much for quite some time, and occasionally it’s nice to put the effort in to
figure out what i mean, try to put myself together. i usually learn a lot in the process, new things come into focus, it’s then generative material to bounce off of and engage with, contrary to this (tongue-in-cheek) post:
i often don’t know what i mean yet, and sometimes it’s not the right season for me to know. but i believe my current season is one of grasping the knowledge i previously discovered