Polygamy- does it work

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It was the lack of labels and clear distinctions... and him having a belief that labels are unnecessary and are purely unimportant bits of social construction that shouldn't mean anything to anyone.

But for me, if a guy doesn't want to put a label on the relationship and move towards marriage, it's just not a good fit for me. 

And I will never feel comfortable and satisfied with the relationship, as it feels like the level of depth has been permanently capped in a meaningful way.

Now it becomes clear.   Yes. Absolutely.   That's something I am trying to learn.   Certain things need to glow by their own right.  Like the relationship.  It needs to glow, Separate from everything else. It needs to be it's own entity.  To identify it as such should not be necessary if he is doing it right. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Now it becomes clear.   Yes. Absolutely.   That's something I am trying to learn.   Certain things need to glow by their own right.  Like the relationship.  It needs to glow, Separate from everything else. It needs to be it's own entity.  To identify it as such should not be necessary if he is doing it right. 

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. 

I suspect that my friend has this view partially because of some avoidant tendencies. So, he could definitely do some examination with that... as I don't think it's serving him.

But it also connects back to his views about connections and relationships, given his background in a traditional environment where everything was governed by labels and roles. So, he has a strong value regarding liberation from oppressive religious and traditional structures.

And he sees marriage and the labels in relationship as part of those. And he really believed that no one should find them meaningful, as he found them to be oppressive and arbitrary.

So, it makes sense to me that he'd be aversive to them. 

It's more of a matter of incompatibility.

I'm the type of person who is very oriented towards devotion to a specific person who is mutually devoted to me. And I want the milestones and labels to reflect that mutual devotion.

This is, of course, a common orientation to relationships. But it definitively isn't the only one. It's just the only one that's compatible with me.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. 

I suspect that my friend has this view partially because of some avoidant tendencies. So, he could definitely do some examination with that... as I don't think it's serving him.

But it also connects back to his views about connections and relationships, given his background in a traditional environment where everything was governed by labels and roles. So, he has a strong value regarding liberation from oppressive religious and traditional structures.

And he sees marriage and the labels in relationship as part of those. And he really believed that no one should find them meaningful, as he found them to be oppressive and arbitrary.

So, it makes sense to me that he'd be aversive to them. 

It's more of a matter of incompatibility.

I'm the type of person who is very oriented towards devotion to a specific person who is mutually devoted to me. And I want the milestones and labels to reflect that mutual devotion.

This is, of course, a common orientation to relationships. But it definitively isn't the only one. It's just the only one that's compatible with me.

Well that's what I'm saying. Women need these things. The simple things that we idiots take for granted. You understand them and you understand how to value and cherish them. While we just piss our lives away waiting for the next lay. You have your hands full. That is all i can say.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

What women need is not polygamy. Lol

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well that's what I'm saying. Women need these things. The simple things that we idiots take for granted. You understand them and you understand how to value and cherish them. While we just piss our lives away waiting for the next lay. You have your hands full. That is all i can say.

It is common for women to want these things... but definitely isn't something that ALL women want.

And it's not difficult to find a man who wants the same things. Probably about half of guys are looking for the same thing.

The only real difficulty from my past-self's perspective, is to be able to end (or avoid starting) relationships with men whose vision for their life is incompatible with my own.

So, it's definitely not a "hands full" situation, as it's not difficult to find.

And if I were single, I wouldn't need to convince anyone to operate the way I do.

It's just a matter of finding someone who already wants to operate that way and is actively taking looking to take steps towards those milestones.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

It is common for women to want these things... but definitely isn't something that ALL women want.

And it's not difficult to find a man who wants the same things. Probably about half of guys are looking for the same thing.

The only real difficulty from my past-self's perspective, is to be able to end (or avoid starting) relationships with men whose vision for their life is incompatible with my own.

So, it's definitely not a "hands full" situation, as it's not difficult to find.

And if I were single, I wouldn't need to convince anyone to operate the way I do.

It's just a matter of finding someone who already wants to operate that way and is actively taking looking to take steps towards those milestones.

Yeah. What's your vision? I think maybe you should lower the bar a little.  Not every guy is gonna share your vision but he still might be a good fit.

[Yimpa]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What women need is not polygamy. Lol

INFINITY

[Emerald]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

Yeah. What's your vision? I think maybe you should lower the bar a little.  Not every guy is gonna share your vision but he still might be a good fit.

First off, I'm not single. So, that's a non-concern for me.

But if I were single... guys who aren't interested in driving the relationship towards those labels and milestones are not a good fit for me. I

And if I lowered my bar, I would just end up in an incompatible relationships that are an anti-nutrient to my life and that make me feel anxious and put me through a lot of pain at the inevitability of needing to end the relationship when things predictably don't work for me.

So, it would be a big waste of time and energy.

And I need my energy to be going towards my children and life's purpose... and not towards doing a ton of fruitless legwork trying to make an unworkable relationship work.

The reality is that I know myself and I know what I need. And what I'm looking for is reasonable and not too difficult to find, because I am great at sorting.

So, I have no reason to relax my standards.

And a woman who relaxes her standards to widen the pool of guys who she will accept affection from, will invite all kinds of unnecessary mayhem into her life.

Bear in mind, women are always actively being pursued by a lot of spam guys. So, relaxing compatibility standards or quality standards is like taking down a spam firewall in your inbox... and your inbox comes flooding through with 90% spam messages.

The main thing, is to know yourself and be very clear about your own needs and dealbreakers before choosing to get into a relationships with a man.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

First off, I'm not single. So, that's a non-concern for me.

But if I were single... guys who aren't interested in driving the relationship towards those labels and milestones are not a good fit for me. I

And if I lowered my bar, I would just end up in an incompatible relationships that are an anti-nutrient to my life and that make me feel anxious and put me through a lot of pain at the inevitability of needing to end the relationship when things predictably don't work for me.

So, it would be a big waste of time and energy.

And I need my energy to be going towards my children and life's purpose... and not towards doing a ton of fruitless legwork trying to make an unworkable relationship work.

The reality is that I know myself and I know what I need. And what I'm looking for is reasonable and not too difficult to find, because I am great at sorting.

So, I have no reason to relax my standards.

And a woman who relaxes her standards to widen the pool of guys who she will accept affection from, will invite all kinds of unnecessary mayhem into her life.

Bear in mind, women are always actively being pursued by a lot of spam guys. So, relaxing compatibility standards or quality standards is like taking down a spam firewall in your inbox... and your inbox comes flooding through with 90% spam messages.

The main thing, is to know yourself and be very clear about your own needs and dealbreakers before choosing to get into a relationships with a man.

See..but you almost ruin it by putting labels on it. They should want to move towards it without the labels. When you do that you could scare us off.  We don't like to necessarily put everything in clear boxes.  I think we like the chaos. But we do come around to it.  So let us.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

See..but you almost ruin it by putting labels on it. They should want to move towards it without the labels. When you do that you could scare us off.  We don't like to necessarily put everything in clear boxes.  I think we like the chaos. But we do come around to it.  So let us.

I scare off the wrong ones for me... and attract the right ones for me by being clear about what I want.

That's always been my experience.

Edit: The only problem is if a woman knows when she wants and expects it from a specific guy who isn't the type of person who wants to give it.

Meaning... If you know you want pears, get a pear tree. Don't get an apple tree and expect pears from it.

Edited 2 hours ago by Emerald

[Jordan of the Shire]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

A monk is going through a hard-core process of renouncing all elements of worldly life.

So, they won't be engaging in romantic relationships, and therefore they do not need to consider compatibility.

Of course, they may be deeply repressing their own needs in the process of trying to transcend the Maya. But that's for the monk to work through.

But I'm NOT talking about monks. I'm talking about householders who want to have romantic and filial relationships but who are lying to themselves that they are in "monk mode". 

It's honestly unrealistic for a householder to think they're just going to choose to transcend their needs... and simply go beyond their own humanity whilst engaging fully in human life.

Instead, they will almost certainty be repressing their needs to maintain their identity of "the super-human person who has no needs" or "the stoic monk-mode guy"... and then get resentful at their partner or distant from them when the partner doesn't meet their needs.

I just don't take householders seriously when they make the claim that they're operating like a monk does. 

And even highly dedicated monks will struggle tremendously to transcend their attachment to their humanity without going into denial and repressing their humanity.

It seems like you're pointing at the challenge of a house holders lifestyle and how that lifestyle is incompatible with some of the results of monkhood. But even lay people can practice to transform themselves

 it is possible to lessen the power of the things that we need by observing the causes. 

It is the hardest thing but it can be done. 

The most common thing is to go with our desires.

Edited 1 hour ago by Jordan of the Shire

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I scare off the wrong ones for me... and attract the right ones for me by being clear about what I want.

That's always been my experience.

Well then you live happily ever after.  I really feel that any couple that does is very blessed.  It is hard to find. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[AerisVahnEphelia]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

That statement doesn't make any sense... as no one has control over compatibility.

Also, I've had both compatible and incompatible relationships.

And in incompatible relationships, it's very anxiety-inducing.

It's like, "How can I make this relationships work out and maintain this connection to this person that I care about without feeling terrible and starved of my needs?" And then, it's lots of arguments and nagging to try to get it to work... and getting very anxiously attached because I can sense the relationship's days are numbered.

And it's not a good place to be.

But with compatible relationships, that anxiety doesn't exist and I can relax. And I don't feel like I need to spin my wheels to make the unworkable work out. And it feels comfortable having a bit more space.

So, you're either compatible with someone... or you're not compatible.

And if you get into a relationship with someone you're not compatible with, there will be tons of conflict... and lots of criticism and nagging on the part of whoever feels most put out by the incompatibilities... or whoever falls into the anxious side of the relationship dynamic (which is women, more often).

Just the fact your brain think about needs is so unserious.

Your only need in a relationship shall be love and surviving.

Everything else is bargaining for non sensical goodies. Basically trump level self entitlement drug addiction to stimulation.

It's fine to enjoy crack though and find someone who enjoy it with you. 

So you're right about that. I m into fantastic romantic delusion.

 

"We will drink water and our love will help us figure it out."

 

Girls have become so anti Disney for the worse and they suffer more from the list of needs. I know it but I can't prove it. 

Too much mental calculation. Too much bad self awareness.

Edited 1 hour ago by AerisVahnEphelia

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

Yea you're right. But even lay people can practice to transform themselves

 it is possible to lessen the power of the things that we need by observing the causes. 

It is the hardest thing but it can be done. 

The most common thing is to go with our desires.

Yes. And I'm a lay-person who has an inner work practice that's not geared towards transcendence. 

But it perhaps can be done if a householder commits themselves to monastic levels of detachment in this life with zero personal interactions with other humans.

It's just a lot more do-able to commit one's self to monastic levels of detachment by living in a monastery... and I'm not sure if most householders can pull that off. So, I'm always skeptical of householders who claim they are.

But it's not my preference to use this lifetime to play the game that monks are playing. I prefer a different game that has a lot more to do with immersion into the avatar perspective.

So, I am not trying to transcend my humanity or talk myself out of having basic human needs. And I have no desire to "escape" the Maya as I don't see it as something that needs escaping. 

I am an ordinary human animal with ordinary human needs, patterns, and limitations, and I have no qualms with that fact. I am simple a sheep among other sheep.

So, I have zero desire to use my inner work practice to mold myself into an ubermensch who is beyond the pull of basic human patterns.

If I desired that, I would become a monk.

So, you'll not find me trying to fight my Earthly nature to transcend my needs for food, water, safety, connection, or anything else. 

That's how you end up with people who identify as spiritual repressing their humanity... instead of truly transcending it because they didn't actually truly want to commit to a monastic life.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Just the fact your brain think about needs is so unserious.

If that perspective works for you, more power to you.

But I think you're in denial about your own basic human needs... and that you have some kind of superior identity of being "The extra special person who is beyond human needs and who knows better than all the sheeple."

That's the vibe that I'm getting.

And that will almost certainly backfire on you in your friendships and relationships, because you lack the self-honesty and self-awareness to recognize that you even have needs in the first place.

[Emerald]

22 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well then you live happily ever after.  I really feel that any couple that does is very blessed.  It is hard to find. 

Well, it's less like a happily ever after... and more like, we can continue to build without incompatibility issues getting in the way.

And it's not really hard to find.

The main thing is developing discernment about what you want and need... and making romantic decisions on that basis.

[Jordan of the Shire]

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 

But it perhaps can be done if a householder commits themselves to monastic levels of detachment in this life with zero personal interactions with other humans.

.... 

That's how you end up with people who identify as spiritual repressing their humanity... instead of truly transcending it because they didn't actually truly want to commit to a monastic life.

I think statement 1 invites the conclusion that people who don't live a monastic level of detachment can't go against their desires and have agency for how they act. I would go against this idea and say people can, they can, and they don't need to live in a monastery. They can have a family, and live in the world. Many cultivators I know do. 1 foot in and 1 foot out as they say.

Statement 2 I see this as another way of defining spiritual bypassing. I think this is common for all people. But I don't think we are repressing our humanity by choosing to go against our desires. I think it is kind of an idol or conformity to think our desires are ultimate.

Edited 1 hour ago by Jordan of the Shire

[Jordan of the Shire]

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I prefer a different game that has a lot more to do with immersion into the avatar perspective.

I hear yah 

All for that

I'm kinda just playing around and doing what I think is fun as well. But also - I reserve skepticism for defining and having total faith in the ultimate truth or nature of things ... until I experience it for myself.

[Emerald]

16 minutes ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

I think statement 1 invites the conclusion that people who don't live a monastic level of detachment can't go against their desires and have agency for how they act. I would go against this idea and say people can, they can, and they don't need to live in a monastery. They can have a family, and live in the world. Many cultivators I know do. 1 foot in and 1 foot out as they say.

Statement 2 I see this as another way of defining spiritual bypassing. I think this is common for all people. But I don't think we are repressing our humanity by choosing to go against our desires. I think it is kind of an idol or conformity to think our desires are ultimate.

I think this framing misunderstands the level of detachment that's happening for someone who is actually on a path of transcendence. 

It's not about "going against your desires." That's more of a repression and "fighting with your humanity to maintain a spiritual identity and worldview" thing.

It's about fundamentally seeing through the illusion of the character you're playing and the entire reality that you exist within as that character. 

It's realizing that you're a character in a story. And that character will never transcend the confines of that character... including the desires, needs, limitations, and attachments that come with that character.

Instead, it's about realizing the entire book that you character exists in was always a falsehood... and even your desire to transcend your wants and needs is part of that story and is used to build and reinforce that story.

When my story was thrown into the fire, revealing that the Emerald character and the entire reality she existed in was an illusion... I realized there was no version where Emerald would ever be enlightened, even if she became enlightened within the story.

In the same way that Gandalf is written to be Gandalf... his enlightenment is fundamentally false, as Gandalf isn't real. It's just part of the story. 

The same is true of the Emerald character. She dissolved along with the entire existence she lived in. And there was pure nothingness. But Emerald never become enlightened... she ceased to exist.

Then, the nothingness eventually reconstituted the Emerald story and avatar because that's what it preferred. And that's when Emerald the character stopped trying to be anything other than an ordinary human with all the ordinary human patterns, needs, and desires.

So, I don't want to re-attach myself to the previous strivings to be desire-less... as all of that was just extra stuff in the Emerald story. And it wasn't even fun.

Instead of being like Bruce Wayne trying his damndest to be Batman and transcend his ordinary humanity...

I'd much rather be Superman performing the most convincing Clark Kent disguise that he can muster.

Edited 1 hour ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

I hear yah 

All for that

I'm kinda just playing around and doing what I think is fun as well. But also - I reserve skepticism for defining and having total faith in the ultimate truth or nature of things ... until I experience it for myself.

That makes sense.

My perspective is directly shaped by my experiences of ego transcendence and ego death.

And it helped me realize that the avatar game was the preferred path of this iteration... and most iterations within humanity. 

Very few people genuinely prefer the game of immersing in the game to transcend it.

And it took the direct experience of transcending it and dissolving completely to realize that that wasn't the presence... and that there was nothing to escape about the illusion. 

It's just that my understanding was, "Transcendence is always preferable over immersion within the illusion."

And the dissolution challenged that hierarchy I had created in my mind. And I realized that I don't prefer the path of transcendence. I prefer the path of embodiment.

And I'm always skeptical when a non-monk claims to be wanting to transcend the Earthly embodiment.

I find it far more likely that there's an identity or experience within the Earthly embodiment that they're trying to attach to... sort of like a realization of the ideal self.

But that's not what transcendence is about. Transcendence is throw the character and the book in the fire, and simply exist as pure infinite consciousness.

And "I've" had  some "experiences' like that. But even those experiences are only important and meaningful to me in relation to the Emerald story.

And true transcendence is not that.