Witness, then, is neither martyrdom nor the saying of a juridical truth, but the owning of one’s infinite responsibility for the other one (l’autrui). It is not to be mistaken for politicized confessionalism. The confessional is the mode of the subjective, and the representational that of the objective… In the poetry of witness, the poem makes present to us the experience of the other, the poem is the experience, rather than a symbolic representation. When we read the poem as witness, we are marked by it and become ourselves witnesses to what it has made present before us. Language incises the page, wounding it with testimonial presence, and the reader is marked by encounter with that presence. Witness begets witness. The text we read becomes a living archive.

Carolyn Forché, “Reading the Living Archives: The Witness of Literary Art” (via ecrituria)

I understand how this sounds, but I do not remember always being so aware that love involved another person. The people I’m referring to were, in large part, unconscious instruments for my own development. I still stressed out plenty over the contents of their minds, very quickly forgetting my own. But I was not consistently so interested, maybe, in the real mechanisms of those minds except in so far as they fulfilled or denied my desires, and I understand how that sounds, too. 

The total fulfillment of desires is our primary cultural expectation for relationships, which is a problem given that our desires are often vague, confused, ever changing. I didn’t until recently comprehend that a genuine interest in another person’s mind necessitates interest in the parts that may occasionally run counter to your own desires. This feels a fuller way of knowing someone, more exciting, and hard, too, though curiously with much less of the anxiety that romantic narcissism brought. To empathize with a person’s perspective is, among other things, a relief in that it takes you out of your own. 

Some time ago my best friend shrugged at me over video chat and this has stuck in my mind with the traction of both revelation and agreement: “Seems interesting to explore what it’s like to grow along with someone else,” she said. The emphasis is mine, I believe. 

Almost exactly five years ago I described a burgeoning relationship to Cat as “like when a tornado meets a volcano,” and I thought I was being clever, not just true. She wrote me, recently arrived in China, “Just get here,” and I was grateful to comply. But in those days, making bad decisions provided a brand of certainty: they ensured a failure rate of 100%, a statistic whose fullness at least invited admiration. Being “bad” was a good thing then. Men liked it when you said you weren’t “good at relationships” (as though relationships are a monolith) or “great at monogamy” (when the only real measure is “capable” or “not”). To insist on a low bar was to gain the upper hand, and the idea was you couldn’t be blamed for things later, though that’s never how it worked out. The secret hope was that not showing investment could prevent it; invariably it did not. 

I’ve been spending a longer period than advisable at my mom’s house, waiting for my visa to be processed and for tourist season to end in a beautiful city in a messy country across the world. It was inevitable that I would regress, but the part that most alarmed me was the romantic regression: the anxieties that suddenly returned, the uncertainty, the sureness that it was all hanging by a thread and I was powerless to stop it. Powerlessness cultivates awkwardness, excessive sensitivity, self-obsession that erases all the quality aspects of interest in another mind—you start to see in it only what assuages or exacerbates your worry, not its many other dimensions. I could see it happening and yet not prevent it

“Every Long Letter Is A Love Letter” by Lucy Morris

I love you: body shared, undivided. Neither you nor I severed. There is no need for blood spilt between us. No need for a wound to remind us that blood exists. It flows within us, from us. It is familiar, close. You are quite red, and stillso white. Both at once. You don’t lose your candor as you become ardent. You are pure because you have stayed close to the blood. Because we are both white and red, we give birth to all the colors: pinks, browns, blonds, greens, blues …. For this whiteness is no sham, it is neither dead blood nor black blood. Sham is black: it absorbs everything, closes up and tries to come alive, but in vain… The whiteness of this red appropriates nothing. It gives back as much as it receives, in luminous mutuality.

Luce Irigaray, “When Our Lips Speak Together” (via repetition-is-holy)