Originally Posted by River
... but I would add that I think (my opinion) that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way.
Looking at the words I actually uttered, I think it is clear that I never said anything about anyone "completing" anyone at all.
What I said was that few people compliment
one another in a complete way. But I see that there are two spellings, with somewhat divergent usages.
And now I see from looking at various online dictionaries that I perhaps didn't choose precisely the most apt term for what I meant to convey. What I did NOT mean to convey is the idea of one or more persons completing
one another. That would require that each person was not already whole in him-/herself. That
, I did not
So..., what did
i mean by "compliment" (which I clearly misused)?
I simply meant that it is unrealistic (as I see it) to presume that it may often occur that any two people will likely "meet" (encounter and understand one another) in every area of life, on all things and matters. This does perhaps happen every once in a while, but it is a severe disservice to many good relationships to presume that they are failed, broken, insufficient, wrong... because both (or more) parties aren't "meeting" on all levels, in every area of their existence.
Wanting to have a diversity of intimate relationships, it seems to me, is a natural way of acknowledging that no one can be all things for anyone. Acknowledging that this is so does not amount to just another version of a game of seeking "completeness".