Return Home

My Big Toe Forum

Discussion and Explanation of the Writings of Tom Campbell: The Paradigm Changes Here

To register for the forum, click here

It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:40 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:43 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 578
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Recently, I asked Tom:

"On Monogamy vs. Polygamy:

Is it wrong to want to connect with others and attempt to evolve the way that most humans presently define "exclusive relationships?" Isn't the idea of 'exclusivity' in a male-female relationship somewhat egotistical by its very nature in that it attempts to deny (and control) a natural human attraction to multiple others? Granted, not everyone who is in a loving, mutually beneficial relationship feels compelled to make other romantic connections- but is it so wrong to feel that inclination? (Is it simply PMR biology at work?) How is it different than having multiple friends or many 'best' friends' even? Maybe it really depends on the persons involved and how each person processes emotions (and defines male-female relationship), but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts Tom!"


Thomas Campbell (On 04/25/11) responds to the above:

Our culture has much fear, belief, ego, and expectation wrapped around sex. Monogamy and polygamy are primarily about relationship and commitment between consenting adults, not about sex. Our culture mostly ignores the relationship and commitment aspects of a union ( mono or poly) and redefines these terms as constraints on sexual relations. Sex and commitment to relationship are clearly related but the sex (what is allowed and not allowed) is a consensual result, as opposed to a logical requirement, of love, relationship, or commitment.

In other words, morality is defined in terms of right intent flowing into right action which executes choices that are based on love and caring for others – culminating in a net decrease in entropy for the system (all involved). Thus, almost any relationships and commitments made between freely consenting adults can be moral and useful to those individuals if they interact with each other with caring and love as opposed to fear and ego. If all interactions are based on love and caring about others (totally open, straightforward, honest, and caring more for other than self, then the outward structure (mono, poly, or something else) is not important. Open and honest communications among all involved is required to support successful relationships. Love is about other, not self. In relationship, whatever one does affects others and these effects are very important to one who cares about others – all involved in this loving relationship must try to optimize the growth opportunities of the others. When growth opportunities conflict (which should never happen since other is more important than self) then a mutual resolution/discussion based on complete openness and honesty is required. Ours is to do the best we can (growth wise) with whatever hand we are dealt. Love grows and flourishes in freedom not bondage – it is good to help each other gain the needed experience to grow...





-Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Don't forget that polygamy can be either polyandry or polygyny.

There have been studies done, just for reference, in which various species were rated on the scale of monogamy and also rated upon the relative weight of the males testicles, and presumably testosterone produced, versus their total body weight, as I remember it. There was an exact correspondence as I remember it. Biology is destiny in more ways than one.

I am in complete agreement with the post made from Tom's input. This is in no way to disagree.

Ted


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:43 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3676
Location: Florario/Ontorida
wow, great question and great answer!

having devoted 95% of my mental capacity since age 14 to trying to figure out a way to justify sleeping around and feasting on the delights of serial infatuation, this has led to several considerations when struggling with this issue

- these seven things are separate and mutually exclusive
1) the sexual impulse
2) the infatuation impulse
3) the impulse to build a life with someone
4) the impulse to have a wedding
5) the impulse to have children
6) the impulse to sleep around or form an extra curricular infatuation
7) the impulse to divorce

people are really effective at following this probable impulse vector

Also
- the marriage contract is what virtually all syntropic cultures have come to in order to impose some order on this area of life, and a great question is if this is still efficient
- the commitment and contract of marriage is completely separate to either of the above items
- not all commitments are explicit, some are implicit given the cultural context, and while you may be technically free from an obligation, you may not be ethically, at the heart level
- some explicit commitments or marriage itself have been re-interpreted as romantic gestures/impulses rather than contracts, leading to misunderstandings
- while men and women experience all elements, they weight the importance of each element differently

so, the optimal PMR egoic strategy for the male is to follow the impulse vector, which under the previous generation with the divorce taboo intact, looked like Jackie O's or Hillary's marriage, and in the current generation is serial monogamy as per Trump or Gingrich. Either way, there is the distinct appearance of a contract commitment being broken, and the victimization of women, when following the entropic impulse vector.

So what to do as a young man trying to incorporate the higher ruleset, with all these cultural pressures and animal impulses.

The alternate direction to go in is Bill Maher or other celebrities who openly sleep around and are very public about remaining single. I believe the only way to apply this strategy is to be fully transparent as Tom says, and BEFORE you form a romantic attachment or start having sex, you are very clear about your commitment against monogamy and marriage. Try that pudding and see how that goes. Otherwise I say you are grifting (conning). I think that for a relatively low entropic FWAU, this would be pretty thin soup, an adolescent fantasy.

Now, unless you are a really superficial person, just sex will be pretty unsatisfying (been there, got the T-shirt), almost impossible to constrain, and you will rather experience the ongoing impulse to experience falling in love, infatuation.

And then you get the problem of the male female emotional vector differential. A couple of years (or a couple of months) into a sexual/emotional exclusive relationship, the emotional high starts to wear off for the male and you can do one of several things.

The committed anti-monogamist (who wants more than just sex) will look for another "falling in love" hit, just at the moment the female is building an even deeper emotional bond, not to mention a kid or two possibly being in the picture..."sorry babe...you knew up front that I am not into this monogamist ego crap. " Walk through that pudding a few times and enjoy the feedback.

What to do.

Now, there is nothing more interesting, attractive and delicious than the sight and experience of all these lovely women out there. The assault on the senses and emotions is overwhelming, makes your knees bend and intensifies the happier and healthier and more successful you are. And it does not get easier over time.

I can only conclude that this is the greatest and ultimate challenge of being male in PMR.

What to do what to do what to do

These were my personal findings, which I believe are consistent with Tom's words, looking back on a long bachelor-hood, many naive and fearless adventures, a few regrets, and now a couple of decades of marriage and having witnessed many train-wrecks of friends and collegues

1) start early and sow your wild oats intensely and fearlessly and harmlessly, and gather as much sexual and emotional data as you can preceding the period and age of female husband seeking
2) take extreme caution to avoid putting yourself in a technical situation of generating an unintentional FWAU
3) be mindful of commitments, do not make explicit commitments you cannot keep, be mindful of unstated or implied commitments - keep reality and communication clear to avoid misunderstandings
4) be mindful that the female you are interacting with is likely to be interpreting and responding to circumstances differently than you (an issue that is not as much a consideration for non-straight interactions)
5) there is some value in spending your twenties building your PMR credentials and market value, and avoiding women of the marriage-seeking age cohort, not marrying too early.
6) as you approach later twenties and have started to establish professional or material credentials that permit you play at levels you aspire to, interact with quality husband seeking females decisively, briefly (ie. 2 months), make a decision, and move on quickly if your internal answer is no to avoid robbing them of decision space.
7) be fearless, do not self-limit, aim high, marry up, lock down, be worthy.

Along this path, and early in the game, you may form an attachment that feels eternal, which removes your problem, though, the earlier you settle down, the harder it may be to keep your commitment through the decades of marriage. There are positives and negatives to any intent/decision, and walking away from a promising bond because it comes too early, is a dangerous game.

Part of locking down is no female friends outside of your wife's friends, not even lunch or coffee, and certainly not with your wife's friends without her being there. The magnetic pull toward emotional attachment and consequently sexual impulse is just too strong to risk...but this is a different topic. If you can convince your partner to a different deal, power to you, but then there is the third party to consider and victimizing her...or her husband. It gets complex. Swinging copes with the sex problem, but does not address the infatuation impulse.

All this to say, for most, marriage is not a walk in the park, it is the beginning of challenges and reducing entropy, not the end, so you can't say you were not warned - and the higher the personal entropy, the greater the challenge.

the purpose here is not to create a big guilt trip for the divorced or soon to be...just sharing my data. We try, we fall, we fail, then we try harder next time, and try to be as good as we can to the female currently under our protection, forgive ourselves for what has passed, as AUM forgives us as we go along.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:50 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:32 pm
Posts: 827
Location: Statesville, NC
Great post Randy.

I had come back to this post because I think it would be easy for someone to read into Tom's reply what they wanted to hear. It in no way was a resounding endorsement for polygamy but, if anything, Tom is consistent and it was basically a reiteration of what Tom always says: if it's about other, it's ok.

I think it would have to be agreed upon from the beginning OR initiated by your partner for it to truly be about other. If you are in the middle of a committed relationship and suddenly decide you want to sleep with others but your partner doesn't agree and you break it off over the issue, HOW is that about other? It's completely about you, your wants, your needs/desires. Fine. You have free will and can do as you please but I don't think you will be winning any awards for entropy reducer of the year.

Ramon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:24 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:11 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Greenville SC
Yes, Indeed a great post Randy and I surely don't get the idea that Tom is promoting Polygamy, but its nice to know it could work for certain people and still not raise entropy. I have rarely if ever been able to hit that stride. I reach a point in a relationship where I think it might not be a bad idea to branch out a bit, but it never quite works out if I want to maintain any aspect of my relationship. I guess its a trade off and perhaps it really is all about the other. I like this discussion.

_________________
"All the world's a Stage and all the men and women merely players, They have their exits and their entrances and ONE man in his time plays many parts, his acts beings Heaven ages"---Shakespeare


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 12:03 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 578
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I think this boils down (in many ways) to issues of attachment, control and possessiveness. I don't buy the notion that one comes to a point in a serious relationship where one can no longer have female friends aside from friends that are the significant other's friends. I'm sorry if that 'pull' or attraction on both a physical and emotional level is too much for you to handle, but that is certainly not the case for everyone. If we are being pulled toward a particular person, for reasons beyond the physical (and even for physical reasons) there may be a significant reason for that. We should not have to restrict ourselves as to who we will come into contact with out of fear that we may be too weak not to betray 'contracts' (of the male-female relationship variety) that we hold with others. If one truly cannot handle the idea of one's significant other interacting with other's of one's own gender, that is an ego-issue. That is an area where further growth is needed (in my view) and should be welcomed.

How many relationships come to a point of stagnation with the current system that most of us are implementing? Over half of all marriages end in divorce. What is the missing factor? What changes over time in that relationship that causes people to feel the need to 'branch out' as Beau said. To me: if love is there- then no amount of "branching out" will ever tarnish that. Sure, egoic feelings on both sides with be there, as well as reasonable "feedback-signal" (not necessarily "egoic") type of emotions- but the love will remain. Maybe the urge to branch out has more to do with the underlying issue of consciousness evolution and our inherent need to explore all parts of ourselves. AUM has clearly invested in variety, has it not? Every person we make a connection with teaches us something about ourselves and in turn, we are able to offer that person something that the person would have never gotten anywhere else. The "drive" to variety, novelty and making new connections seems to have a much deeper purpose than:

1) the sexual impulse
2) the infatuation impulse
3) the impulse to build a life with someone
4) the impulse to have a wedding
5) the impulse to have children
6) the impulse to sleep around or form an extra curricular infatuation
7) the impulse to divorce


Do you not think that if we all actually realized that we are in fact One system/being/thing that our notions of exclusivity in relationships would be drastically affected? This isn't just about sex, infatuation, children, weddings, sex or relationship dissolution. It is about exploring consciousness - exploring the way that consciousness (OUR AWARENESS) manifests in both self and other. What is it within us (to view it from the flip side) that makes us so darned 'hurt' or afraid or offended or devestated when a signigicant other forms a relationship (physical, emotional or otherwise) with another individual? Is it not the tug of our ego and its need for control, predictability, the Known and possession? Why cannot we not embrace the feelings of love between ANY human beings as our own?
Try some compersion on for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compersion ... I'm just saying. There are a lot of aspects to this issue.

Also bear in mind something from Tom in a private correspondence between he and I:

Cole: is it possible that we would be 'nudged' toward this person by means of their "attractiveness"

Tom: yes, one may be preprogrammed to find specific characteristic attractive in preparation for some pre-planned meeting of someone who has those characteristics.


I'm not saying Tom does or does not "endorse" anything, because I don't really think that's the point here. But the fact is: there are forces that are pulling people together beyond the factors Randy described above...

Great points all around though, and I appreciate the long response Randy. You've clearly been around the block a few times and have given this a lot of consideration. Thanks.


LOVE YA'LL! :) (ALL in good FUN)
-Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 12:56 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
If our intent is to make a choice that is based on love, then this is a good choice (relative to our current level of being). There is a catch though. We have to look at our intent and motivation with as much humility and honesty as we can muster. If after doing this we still see our choice as being based on love, then we can rest assured that we are doing the best that we can from our current level of being. In terms of growth, there are A's for effort.

So the point is that many things have the potential to be "right" relative to the being(s) in question.

What we, as limited chunks of the whole, understand to be right and wrong will of course slowly approach universal right and wrong (AUM's right and wrong) as we reduce our entropy. We can't know what we don't know, so we do our best :)

This is the hard work of PMR; always trying to make those choices that are just a little bit better (more loving) than our current level of being in spite of our ego, fear, and various limitations. This is as true for the gang member as it is for the guru.

So really one thing, topic, or action is not right or wrong so much as one's intent is right or wrong... relative to their current understanding and level of being. If you know better, it will "count against you" (potential devolution).

We must also consider that our current PMR experience packet may be intentionally leading us (based on probability) down a bumpy path of lessons for the purpose of experience and growth. If one has chosen to experience the grips of drug addiction for example, then it becomes hard to say if using meth for the first time is right or wrong for this person. This is when I find it necessary to once again accept uncertainty and move forward with my own probable truths... and just keep doing my best at seeing my intent honestly and making more love based choices.

Anyway, just sort of talking out loud here. Great posts as always everybody.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Last edited by Justin on Sun May 01, 2011 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 12:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10471
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
How does Gerta feel about it?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 578
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Greta and I are on the same page for the most part. We see eye to eye on this issue but it has been hard being honest with ourselves about the topics at hand. They are (clearly) touchy subjects and there are a lot of emotions involved. There are many layers to work out. No straightforward answer.

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:35 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2182
I remember reading an interview with 70 or 80 year old man, who just celebrated his 50-60? wedding anniversary. He said, that he was faithful to his wife all those year, and she was only one woman in his all entire life. According to him, he loved her and never had any regrets, that his sex life was so unadventurous.

I think, as in many other things in life, there is no right or wrong, as long, as this is about feelings and emotions of others.

Lena

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 2:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2182
PMR love has tendency to change, because partners in any relationship are changing constantly. Thinking that in 10 or 20 years love will have the same flavor, taste, color, sound and melody between two people is a mistake. It has to change, and it will change. Is it going to be a good or bad change? This is up to two of you.

Physical attraction with age becomes secondary to friendship and tenderness, that was build between partners/spouses. Lack of friendship and caring for each other later in a life cannot be substituted by fabulous sex. Marriage is a convenient form of relationship in a society, and a lack of marriage certificate can be a real problem, when one of partners doesn't have access to a health insurance. Marriage with or without certificate is a commitment to work together through misunderstandings, unhappiness with each other, raising children, caring for each other in many different ways, and much more.

Nobody can hurt you so much, and care for you so much as your partner, a person that you love, and you think, loves you too. You are facing a human being with all possible mistakes, hopes, wishes, unkept promises, and on, and on, and on... And your partner is looking at a human being also. Another one will have his/her mistakes, hopes, wishes, unkept promises, and on, and on, and on...

Any advice from anybody should be taken with a grain of salt, discarded and a decision has to be only your personal decision, or two of you decide. What is good for me is not good for many other people, and vice versa.

Lena

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3676
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Beau wrote:
Yes, Indeed a great post Randy and I surely don't get the idea that Tom is promoting Polygamy, but its nice to know it could work for certain people and still not raise entropy..


Actually, I was ignoring the Polygamy title and was addressing the content of the question, as I don't think Cole is actually interested in group marriage, which is an extension of the marriage contract.

As far as real polygamy, I believe this is more anthropologically correct than monogamy and if all parties are going into this by choice, and the dude can afford 5 wives, I don't see any issue.

But, like animal sacrifice, some of us have moved beyond simply living out our animal impulses.

reminds me...outside of Syracuse there a tour you can take of Mansion House, which was a cult that practised group marriage, I think a hundred years ago.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Randy,

I thought that you meant Charles Manson at first, but that was in California.

Ted


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10471
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
kroeran wrote:
But, like animal sacrifice, some of us have moved beyond simply living out our animal impulses.
You are so cute Randy, and square. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 9:10 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3676
Location: Florario/Ontorida
ColeRandall wrote:
I think this boils down (in many ways) to issues of attachment, control and possessiveness.


yes indeed, and none of the above is applicable to couples who are egoless ; - )

ColeRandall wrote:
I don't buy the notion that one comes to a point in a serious relationship where one can no longer have female friends aside from friends that are the significant other's friends.


yes, you will have to collect your own data and come to your own conclusions. How this usually works is you begin these associations with innocent intent, but they often lead to a conversation with your wife along the lines of "I have fallen in love with someone else, I didn't mean for this to happen".

ColeRandall wrote:
I'm sorry if that 'pull' or attraction on both a physical and emotional level is too much for you to handle, but that is certainly not the case for everyone.


Ha. Actually, as fidelity is kinda baked into the cake on this side, I would have to become a completely different person for there to be any problem or temptation in this regard, and at worst, it is a nuisance to be managed.

The problem I have when I permit any kind of association in this regard, is misinterpretation on the part of the female. When you start to step outside of the normal male ego paradigm, the behavior is so startling to your average female, they get very very interested, it messes with their decision space, and this becomes a problem.

ColeRandall wrote:
If we are being pulled toward a particular person, for reasons beyond the physical (and even for physical reasons) there may be a significant reason for that.


usually it just your DNA working toward creating as many FWAUs as possible - and your DNA does not care about your longer term comfort, happiness or quality of consciousness as it goes about its business

ColeRandall wrote:
We should not have to restrict ourselves as to who we will come into contact with out of fear that we may be too weak not to betray 'contracts' (of the male-female relationship variety) that we hold with others.


we must work with the world as it is, not how we wish it to be or how we think it "should" be

random contact is not the issue, the issue is the intent and choice to encourage friendships with the opposite sex without the offsetting constraints of transparency and spousal supervision and loyalty between the females of your social circle.

ColeRandall wrote:
If one truly cannot handle the idea of one's significant other interacting with other's of one's own gender, that is an ego-issue.


sure, if you are looking at it from the egoic level. In the early days, when I discussed this with my wife, I had to explain to her that these friendships would lead to pain and distress because of the natural propensity of the body and heart to form attachment, not only for her, but likely more for the male "friend"...as she was and remains irresistable.

ColeRandall wrote:
How many relationships come to a point of stagnation with the current system that most of us are implementing?


there is a natural evolution through sexual and romantic obsession towards friendship...well, super-friendship, the shared life. This "super-friendship" is enabled by two things, the divorce taboo, or sufficiently low entropy to the point that you are willing to give more than you receive.

you are free to and should have many friendships with the opposite sex within the structure that evolved over thousands of years...which means doing it in the open and under the supervision of said spouse and family.

there is another issue to consider, which is the problem of the male who cannot form friendships with other males, or more precisely, cannot form friendships without a sexual element, buts that another issue.

ColeRandall wrote:
Over half of all marriages end in divorce. What is the missing factor?


the divorce taboo and sufficiently low entropy - capacity for self-less love

another factor is limited decision space and fear - when bored or stressed in the ruleset of marriage, leaving or starting again appears to be the best solution, whereas there may be much more efficient alternatives

ColeRandall wrote:
What changes over time in that relationship that causes people to feel the need to 'branch out' as Beau said. To me: if love is there- then no amount of "branching out" will ever tarnish that.


I guess you have to be clearer on what precise contract is in place, what behavior is being proposed, and what is the attitude of the spouse to this proposed behavior.

If you don't have a contract now, well, your decision space is not constrained and you are free to take up with whoever you like, including barnyard animals in most states.

ColeRandall wrote:
Sure, egoic feelings on both sides with be there, as well as reasonable "feedback-signal" (not necessarily "egoic") type of emotions- but the love will remain.


well, if you are stepping out and your spouse perceives this as a violation of the contract, there may be egoic attachment (one way the word love is used), but it is not love in the entropy sense.

ColeRandall wrote:
Maybe the urge to branch out has more to do with the underlying issue of consciousness evolution and our inherent need to explore all parts of ourselves.


more likely mental gymnastics to justify being a jerk

ColeRandall wrote:
AUM has clearly invested in variety, has it not?


I think its more along the lines of conflicting utilities between the reptilian sensor platform, the short term pain long term gain continuum, and the higher ruleset.

The primal drive to spread the genetic wealth must compete with the practical implications of divorce law and the eternal implications of the higher ruleset.

ColeRandall wrote:
Every person we make a connection with teaches us something about ourselves and in turn, we are able to offer that person something that the person would have never gotten anywhere else.


sure, just make sure you are honoring your contracts, not doing bait and switch, not messing up other peoples marraiges and the consequential relationships between kids and their dads, not messing up a young woman's vision of making a lifetime contract...and so on. Figure that out and you are off to the races.

ColeRandall wrote:
The "drive" to variety, novelty and making new connections seems to have a much deeper purpose than:

1) the sexual impulse
2) the infatuation impulse
3) the impulse to build a life with someone
4) the impulse to have a wedding
5) the impulse to have children
6) the impulse to sleep around or form an extra curricular infatuation
7) the impulse to divorce


well, lets be clear about your meaning. Are we talking sleeping with married women? Are we talking about platonic relationships? Hookers?

the drive for novelty is huge...but we need to take care not to look for novelty in all the wrong places, which ends up constraining our decision space (alimony).

rather, you do something creative, like writing a book called MBTOE and spend your time travelling around the world talking to people about it. Much more real novelty than working on wife #n.

that being said, there are example of cultures and couples with unique arrangements, but you can't coerce it

it would be interesting to try to redefine marriage, and the wedding ceremony, according to MBTOE principles.

ColeRandall wrote:
Do you not think that if we all actually realized that we are in fact One system/being/thing that our notions of exclusivity in relationships would be drastically affected?


as long as women are left for younger women, and that fear is in the culture, we got a problem.

as far as sex, I could imagine convincing a wife to permit use of prostitutes, and use of prostitutes is likely the least damaging as far as the higher ruleset, as far as avoiding collatoral damage

I don't know how you can mitigate the problem of emotional emfatuation, and avoid it leading to separation and divorce.

ColeRandall wrote:
This isn't just about sex, infatuation, children, weddings, sex or relationship dissolution. It is about exploring consciousness - exploring the way that consciousness (OUR AWARENESS) manifests in both self and other.


figure out how to do this without pissing off your wife, and you are fine. Whatever justification you cook up, if there is a girl in tears at the end of it, you are increasing your entropy, not reducing it.

ColeRandall wrote:
What is it within us (to view it from the flip side) that makes us so darned 'hurt' or afraid or offended or devestated when a signigicant other forms a relationship (physical, emotional or otherwise) with another individual? Is it not the tug of our ego and its need for control, predictability, the Known and possession? Why cannot we not embrace the feelings of love between ANY human beings as our own?


for dudes such as you and I who think we are very advanced ; - ), probably not an issue, the issue is thinking our spouse should be more evolved and less hung up on ego issues

ColeRandall wrote:

Cole: is it possible that we would be 'nudged' toward this person by means of their "attractiveness"

Tom: yes, one may be preprogrammed to find specific characteristic attractive in preparation for some pre-planned meeting of someone who has those characteristics.


I'm not saying Tom does or does not "endorse" anything, because I don't really think that's the point here. But the fact is: there are forces that are pulling people together beyond the factors Randy described above...


I hope you are not interpreting Tom's words as endorsing this as being a justification for wounding your partner. Physical or mystical attraction to another female could just as easily be a test of your quality of consciousness, of your honor.

PMR is this ongoing tension between animal instincts and practical objectives, increasingly subject to the higher ruleset as we evolve, , becoming love.

The system might get some interesting data from you being a cad, but I don't think you are going to enjoy the feedback.

There is only one measure to this...which is the smile or look of contempt on your partner's face.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group