You're data seems to steer you towards seeing anything outside your Belief Systems preference as bad, to me, from what I take from the choice of metaphors you use.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

It seems to me, that sometimes it is more profitable do not fight the system and its rules, or try to swim against a current, but to attempt to understand them. It doesn't mean to become a puppet or live against your will. In a fight we tend to lose a perspective, and can see only what is right under our nose. Hippies had brought many changes into a life, but before that was WW II and Korean war, and these wars did create many changes, because a life itself had demanded to see a new perspective. Hippies came in the wake of changes brought up close to a suffice by previous generations. But many hippies became law abiding citizens, went to college, got married and send their children to Ivy League Schools. The system can and should be changed, but it takes more than one generation to accept new rules, as a natural part of life. The institution of marriage exists for millenniums in different forms and is not abolished yet. As long as society continues to be part of human life, marriage is going to stay. Utopian communities made attempts to abolish marriage and child would belong to everyone in this group. In USSR during its first decade this kind of communities were known as a future of humanity. It didn't work.

Marriage brings its limitations to both partners. Free will and decision space go together all the time. Sometimes a restricted decision space can provide more growth opportunities and as a result entropy reduction. As Tom said, our main goal here is not to have fun, but learning and entropy reduction.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

I think it's just a misunderstanding regarding the reference to living at the animal level and possibly some jumping to conclusions regarding my intent

I see it as a continuum between natural animal behavior all the way over to the complete neurotic negation of primal urges, and part of the game is being aware of the array of choices and then having the courage to try options outside your upbringing and comfort zone.

The same goes for ones practical life, zero to 100% continuum

The same goes for the higher ruleset

The monk lifestyle is as close as you get to 0 0 100, entirely devoted to the higher ruleset

It's not clear to me where Tom stands on this

33 33 33? Balance?

Someone in prison, might be 90 10 0, truly bad but ineffective dude

Or they equally could be 40 5 45, just little impulse control but heart of gold

It seems clear though that TOE is all about the higher ruleset score, which is what impacts your QoC and feedback

The only big picture importance of material or sexual concerns that we have been discussing is how they impact those you interact with or who are stakeholders in your decisions

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

See I don't see the monk life style as more devoted to "the higher rule set" which is the problem here. Your "higher rule set" is just your rules Randy, the ones that fit your belief systems, they aren't higher. A monk doesn't have much room for growth, and just as much need as anyone for real experiences they are lacking.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Right on Randy!

Of course, what immediately came to mind was that long haired radical bastard that the government finally executed... <snaps fingers trying to recall the name> oh, you know the one, born in a barn, life long odd-jobs drifter type, .....anti-establishment as they come! Never got married... lived in the woods with a bunch of other single guys, if you catch my drift.

What was that bastard's name???



Oh! Jesus!

I don't think it's fair or wise to make such generalities. Most of the "anti-establishmentarianists" of whom you speak, Randy, are dead now. You seem to be stuck in the past and basing your new beliefs on old beliefs as though they were absolute fact.

Randy, are you on a mission to "wake people up" and "correct" their "course". Isn't it up to other people to decide which course is right for them? Why do you get to judge? I think Montana's point here, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is that it's a good thing people like you were around when Jesus walked the earth, to let everyone know who he was and where he was going to end up. In his mother's basement or in jail. Maybe you should add "affixed to a t-shaped wooden structure, wearing thorns and not much else" to where they all end up.

Love,
Lynda

Uh oh Randy,

I think your outnumbered, LOL

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

As with most things, I think people's passionate responses to topics says more about them than it does about the actual topic.

For instance, there is some pretty serious anti-marriage rhetoric flying about here which is surprising. I think marriage (or at least monogamy for some duration) and attempting to make it work right (loving, devoted, respectful of each other's needs) is a pretty darn low entropy path to travel in my opinion. Avoiding taking on responsibility for other's by being involved with many others with minimal attachments doesn't seem too harmful if done properly but not much growth inducement either in my opinion. Too each his own but no need to slam someone who is of the other viewpoint with personal attacks on this or any issue.

Religion, marriage, equality between the sexes. Man, these can sure get people fired up! I think looking at one's own attitudes towards these topics and why you feel so passionately about it to begin with could be a productive effort. If you are anti-marriage, what experiences lead you to be against marriage and do they really apply to marriage in general, just a concept remember, or marriage as you have experienced it through self or those close to you? Why are Randy's words inciting so much venom? He has not once made a personal attack on anyone here that I recall. Why take it so personally?

Ramon

No Venom intended ... I tend to be very much (apparently it's hard-wired in) a 'belief system buster', and, by extension, question "The Establishment", especially so when it serves most people poorly. So when someone (not to mention a 20th century white American male) on THIS board, (of all boards!), sets to dissing people that find difficulties with that establishment, AND calls himself Catholic, or Christian, or whatever it may be, well.... I feel comfortable in doing what I might to help facilitate that person's model integration.

Venom is poison, not good, counter-productive, so no venom here.

Lord knows I'll kick some butt from time to time; Perhaps it's a fault....

Separately, concerning marriage, It makes good sense to have couples somewhat committed (that is, have it made difficult to dissolve the union) where kids are involved. In general, legal associations help firm up the stability of societies in general, but they can also get to be burdensome when taken to extreme. But I have known any number of legal unattached couples that were in every sense of the word stable, successful, members of their communities.

-Montana

Marriage with children is different than marriage without children. I am in a marriage without children and I find it very stifling. I want to share my love with more than one man, can't that be allowed? And I would prefer sexual freedom to stagnation.

I agree this is a hot topic Ramon, and I hope Cole doesn't get any backlash for starting it or take anything any of us say personally. Cole, you are young but very mature, and I certainly do not want to dissuade you from ever following your heart or your emotions.

I for one am very happy you opened this discussion up to the board, Cole, thank you.

Polyandry is one woman taking several husbands. Thank you Ted for inspiring to add a brand new addition to my existing English vocabulary.

Love,
Lynda

The "legal" contract, and it is a symptom that we "need" one at all, would be well used between the child and each parent separately. Not being a "cheater" is a great concept, but that has NOTHING to do with marriage as our current legal/religious contract is viewed, obviously. Marriage is an illogical promise to feel a specific emotion for a set amount of time for one person at the exclusion of all others. I don't make promises, and marriage while one might think has always been a knee-jerk "bad" thing for me has actually "just" been something I have always said IF I ever did it, it would only be once. Nothing, no one, has made me crazy enough to make that promise too. Oh wait, that's right, that's the guys part...ha. The three times marriage came up in the three long term relationships I have had it has been manipulative, and with each experience it made my understanding of it grow. My daughter is getting married on 11/11/11, and she wants me to walk her down the isle even though their father will probably be out of prison by then, because she says I have been her dad, too.

Marriage licenses "should" expire, and be renewable, and potential parents should have to get a license "meaning" they have this contract in place, and get eduamacated on fetal nutrition, etc. :D
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

In some societies, and some portions of many societies, seem to get along pretty well, STDs aside, with what amounts to 'open relationships'. It is entirely possible to be 'true' to one's spouse and yet have other connections as well.

Really, Tom said it all: It's about where your intent is at. If you are servicing one of your sub-systems to someone else's detriment, then, maybe that's not so good~ ...as arguably as would be to remain in an established relationship that serves neither well, simply because social belief systems demand that it be so.... till a few decades ago, to divorce at all was considered scandalous in many areas.

-Montana

Ramon,

you said: "... Avoiding taking on responsibility for other's by being involved with many others with minimal attachments doesn't seem too harmful if done properly but not much growth inducement either in my opinion."

Why do you assume there is minimal attachment, and no responsibility when involved with more people? More relationships generally mean more opinions, more feelings, and more complications (from my experience). So, if pain is a motivator for growth, and experience is the best teacher, then more growth opportunity may come from multiple relationships rather than a monogamous relationship.

The Budha said: "If you have 50 loves you have 50 woes" lol

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Patrick! I think you have just reversed my thinking on this. You are absolutely right. lol.

So, it could definitely give one an incredible opportunity to work on entropy reduction although I would question the intelligence of purposely inducing such a situation. Seems more the recipe for creating pain and fear rather than creating love. Anyways, I guess what lead me to write the above about minimal attachments was Cole's line:

"I meant something more like 'multiple relational partners' in an open and free type of arrangement. No strings attached other than the ones we decide on for ourselves."

Perhaps I read something else into it that's not intended? I really am not arguing for or against marriage specifically. I have no issue with those who choose not to marry or those who want multiple partners. My initial thoughts were that it would be hard to consistently find partners willing to go along with that arrangement long term with no strings attached and it not end at some point with someone crying their eyes out over a bottle of scotch. After reading this thread, I may have to rethink that position. It seems there are plenty of folks that would be fine with this arrangement. ; )

Montana: "Really, Tom said it all: It's about where your intent is at. If you are servicing one of your sub-systems to someone else's detriment, then, maybe that's not so good~ ...as arguably as would be to remain in an established relationship that serves neither well, simply because social belief systems demand that it be so.... till a few decades ago, to divorce at all was considered scandalous in many areas."

Exactly. That's the key point in this, and most, issues. Yet, Tom is also quick to point out that loving intent is about "other" so even if it isn't to someone's detriment that doesn't mean it is loving intent, possibly only neutral. Pursuing multiple partners is not about "other" no matter how you slice it although I'm sure there are exceptions to this, as every rule. I definitely could see it being a non-issue with many. Or if you really were "God's gift to women/men" and just felt a moral obligation to treat as many as possible to such a gift before you die. :D

And I agree completely with you about not staying in a relationship just because of societal pressure. There certainly can come a point where enough is enough.

Entropy reduction isn't always about freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do in PMR and follow every urge to it's sticky end. It's about improving the quality of your consciousness, spiritual growth, becoming love, etc. If you can do both, more power to you. Sounds like fun.

Ramon

Yeah, letting my dad just stay was probably due to the "single parent" stigma more than any divorce one, although my parents never did actually divorce even after he left when I was 19 in 1978, and he won his court case against his former employer, took his money, and left.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.