aurum

Okay. But then if it's not philosophy, what are you defining as a "meaningful conversation"? What is actually "interesting"? And why would she need to be into self-development for that to happen?

I actually think we're quite similar. My mind is also very active. I need analytical, philosophical depth. I need to be working on a bigger vision. The difference between you and I is that I'm not expecting those things from a romantic partner. Those are mostly things I do when I'm alone. As yes, it does require that I prioritize alone time even in a relationship. Which can be challenging. But then that allows me to authentically feel engaged when I'm with her, just in a different way. It's allocation of needs. As far as values, I don't really care what she values in the abstract. I would never ask her "what are your values?" when screening for a relationship. Instead, I look for the end result of how we operate together. How is our chemistry? Is there polarity? Is there intimacy? Do we both feel like our needs are being met? If so, that's what matters. This is a felt experience, not a narrative based one.

But what is a meaningful conversation exactly? Talking about spirituality and philosophy? If so, I do not find that is where intimacy comes from in a polarity relationship. I like when she pulls me out of my head, not into it.

I visited there years ago. Lovely people, but the project itself essentially died with Jacque. It was more like a museum of his work when I was there.

I use the word "God" because I grew up catholic. It's also the word that came to me during one of my first awakening experiences. Otherwise I don't care at all. I'm also fond of Pure Consciousness, Infinity or Source.

Polarity, intimacy and someone who could be the mother of my kids. Everything else is negotiable.

That's where you and I differ. I don't think like that at all. I've not found that to be the case either. As long as she is not actively restricting my growth, I'm able to grow just fine. Whether she deeply understands my growth is not essential for me. I'm looking for polarity, intimacy and someone who could be the mother of my kids. Development-wise, I think SD Green is a reasonable ask.

I think it boils down to what role you expect a woman to play in your life, and at what cost. What is actually essential?

You find what you seek because you're God.

Give up the need for a self-development girlfriend.

There's nothing wrong with being open to her perspective. The issue is that the documentary is likely to just be glorified marketing. So what exactly are you going to learn by watching?

Good example of Green Christianity.

She's got some guts staying up there to finish.

Jed McKenna right now

You're never going to fully reform that image. Your image was naive to begin with. Of course women will cheat on their boyfriends. It's true, but you should not let that make you so bitter that you cannot get in a relationship. That's where you are messing up. You have a couple solutions: 1) Focus on yourself first. The more you grow yourself as a man, the less incentive there will be for her to cheat. 2) Realize that your experience is limited and skewed. You saw the women who were willing to cheat, but not all the women who weren't 3) Date women who are more mature and stable 4) If none of the above is enough, consider ethical non-monogamy

Do you have male friends to go out with? Trying to go solo is a recipe for failure, especially when you're just getting started. Solo is brutally hard. It's more appropriate once you already have a lot of momentum.

You're make some good points. It's possible we will see more multi-generational living as we exit SD Orange.

Now we are talking about two different things. I've not been commenting on what your vision of what multi-generational living would look like. I've been commenting on recent events and how I see their effects.

It's different but not too different. They mostly just get some good vibes from you. Most won't even notice unless you directly interact with them.

There may be some western bias towards independence. But that does not prove your solution is correct either. Your solution must stand on its own merits, not simply because the west resists it.

I don't think communists in charge will solve that problem. They will simply become the new bourgeois. Communism promises to abolish class, private property and the state. But in actuality, they will never achieve this. Even if they succeed in overthrowing the capitalists, all these dynamics will be recreated in a different way. There will always be, and should be, some social hierarchy. And that within the classes of this hierarchy, there will always be some tension. The proletariat will advocate for the proletariat. And the bourgeois will advocate for the bourgeois. What's necessary then is not some proletariat revolution, but a dynamic systems balancing. No class gets to dominate the other. It's fine to advocate for the proletariat. That's why most people become communists. But the downside is they often lack this systems view.

There will always be bourgeois. What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

I hope you understand the consequences of what you're asking for.

I understand that's what you're arguing for. It's fine to want those things, but the question is how do you actually achieve it? You cannot just assume kids moving back in with parents = solving atomization. Because in this case, that's not what is happening.

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.