RendHeaven

@Sugarcoat Would you say you're completely over your anxiety?

This is so obviously made up. I'm not against children by any means, they are certainly beautiful. But be wary of over-glorification (THE MOST DIVINE AND HOLY THING YOU CAN DO is a serious epistemic claim, I hope you're ready to justify it)

Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting you have multiple wives in your saudi harem or anything insane like that lol. The simplest and most hassle-free non-monogamy is to have a girlfriend/wife in an emotionally exclusive relationship, but both parties are allowed to have unrestricted sex with anybody in a "friends with benefits" setting. The emotional exclusivity helps her feel safe, fulfills the criteria of mutual sacrifice, and disincentivizes her from running off with other men (lmao) Therefore, money spent should be roughly identical to standard monogamy. Re-read point #2 in my original post. I am pro-sacrifice, I think it is necessary for a deep connection. However, it is totally arbitrary to sacrifice your genitals. Successful non-monogamy still involves rules, boundaries, and sacrifice. This is discussed in advance through skillful communication and compromise. A total free-for-all would just lead to headache and chaos. Don't forget that monogamy is also "transactional." All dating is transactional. Strawman. Spell out why you think non-monogamy is less "equal"

I'm strangely ok with this lol

Yes. There is a titanic wave of invisible pressure on every human in the developed world to follow monogamous trends. It's usually implicit and unquestioned. The problem here is not that monogamy is wrong or bad. The problem is that we are unconsciously magnetized towards it without even realizing it. I have enormous respect for people who consciously choose monogamy after doing a thorough excavation of all alternative options. But who really does this? Most people just fall into the funnel with 0 self-reflection.

Party girl sounds like a problem. Glad you caught onto her scheme. Personally I'm pretty sold on non-monogamy. For you or anybody else in this thread, can you spell out the hangup? Why cling to monogamy? Here are some objections I can think of off the top of my head: But I don't want my girl fucking other guys! (enormous objection, aptly #1 on the list) But I think sacrificing your options is virtuous and strengthens your mutual bond! Without that upfront cost, there's no incentive to stick it out together when things get tough! But I want true, deep love. This can't be possible if you're sleeping around! But look at what happened to (insert polyamorous celebrity having a disastrous episode)! But I want to get married and have kids. I dream of that kind of stable nuclear family ideal! But girls wouldn't want an open relationship even if I did! And here are some contemplation avenues (each number corresponds to the list above): You sound insecure. The reality is, she's gonna fuck whoever she wants because she has free will. And this is the case even under monogamy - she can still cheat on you or leave you. In fact, her leaving you is the most likely scenario, especially if she's attractive. You really think becoming her legal husband means her genitals exclusively belong to you forever? That's beyond delusional. I agree with the importance of sacrifice. But why is the metric of sacrifice sexual optionality? This stinks of cultural indoctrination and insecurity. There are an infinity of ways to sacrifice for your partner - how self-serving and ego-boosting of you to hoard their genitals and to paint that as virtue... A monogamous deal asymmetrically benefits the partner with less sexual options. This is oftentimes the man, although rarely a woman will triumphantly lock down a total stud and feel the rush of asymmetric value arbitrage. Very convenient for a guy to act like he's making a noble sacrifice by getting monogamous, when he's actually not giving up much, and the deeper underlying motive is to capture the woman's body for himself. Why does gatekeeping each others' genitals influence the quality of your love? There more I think about it, the more suffocating and unloving monogamy is. Is controlling each other your definition of love? Imagine a relationship with as little possible control happening in both directions. The level of trust and vulnerability and development this takes is a true test of love. This means your girl can go fuck another guy, come home to you, tell you about it (to the extent that you're curious), and then you're happy for her as long as she's happy. Her winning = you winning. Why not? You love her! This should be a no-brainer. And then you guys can have awesome sex, and everybody wins. And before you get up in arms about refusing to be a cuck or whatever, remember that the vice versa scenario is also active. You have unbound freedom as well. Best case scenario your girl is down for threesomes or even more. This may sound utopian, but I know real people who have these kinds of relationship arrangements. It requires next-level openness and communication skill and self-esteem, but it's certainly possible. Celebrities and internet influencers are usually egomaniacs that have self-sabotaging personality traits. It's very likely that you simply haven't seen a healthy example of non-monogamy, therefore your mind jumps to the conclusion that it's not possible. How would you know? Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)... What stops you from having an open marriage? Why do you assume that to be a good parent, you must be monogamous? If you have multiple partners, simply don't flaunt them in front of your kids (obviously it will fuck with their attachment and development if you're constantly introducing them to a revolving door of adult figures). How do you know? Have you tried asking? How many times? Keep in mind that a girl who really really likes you will bend over backwards for you. Basic frame control is required to "convince" her of your non-monogamous agenda - you can't just get on your knees and start begging her. Is it manipulative to "frame control" her into adopting non-monogamy? Perhaps. But locking her down into a monogamous contract is also manipulative, we just don't see the manipulation because everyone is doing it. By participating in dating you are bound to manipulate, so as long as you are a thoughtful and empathetic person, don't get hung up on it. Food for thought. I'm not saying that non-monogamy must be better than monogamy. There's clearly deep nuance and individual preference here at play. I think my main point here is simply that, the urge to defend to monogamy, or the repulsion toward non-monogamy is usually unexamined cultural bias and personal selfishness/weakness. Feel free to be a champion of monogamy, but make sure you choose it from a place of serious introspection after first steelmanning non-monogamy

@Schizophonia We could pass for brothers based on the eyebrows. your thicker neck mogs me though

Right. Your position is faultless and blameless and valuable.

@aurum Have you found any solutions for yourself?

Meaning, yes. Beauty, maybe not. Beauty is borne of both expansion and contraction as far as I can tell. Infinity is not dull or neutral. The increasingly revealed intricacy and reconciliation is breathtaking. Beauty is indiscriminate. I think I know what you mean. When I see how self-serving, limited, arbitrary, and fictional my human life is, I paradoxically get fired up to play it up. In that sense I don't think we're too different. I still value truth above all else, but in practice my life is severely limited and I'm just doing my best. A flowering relative-reality life is not mutually exclusive with truthseeking. I'm familiar with this. It's destabilizing, threatening, and leaves you begging for your human life to come back. Gasping for breath in tears when the floor once again grounds your body and the sky above hugs you warmly. But if you could surrender to even this, and dare to go even deeper (it will feel like jumping into a pool of lava), the randomness will become intelligible as you access what Leo would call "Omniscience." But this threshold guardian is brutal, it's basically the final boss of fear. I always turn tail after small glimpses because I have too much to lose. I love my life too much. And God loves me for my weakness. So maybe truth isn't my top value, based on how quickly I fold when everything I hold dear is dangled above the endless abyss of oblivion. Survival maybe wins in the end (for now). But the only reason I'm able to make this assessment is because I wanted to know the Truth of my predicament. I value Truth enough to know when I don't value Truth, which is a privilege and reward that only a Truthseeker can enjoy. Hopefully a real hobbit, and not a fake one

@UpperMaster Check page 50-51 for some discussion on this post

I have a very similar disposition to Leo. My personal answer is that the freedom of being unbounded brings me more reconciliation and fulfillment than getting sucked into (boxed into) a particular movie. I have nothing against the movie - I may even love the movie. But I do not want to merely watch the movie in a linear spoonfed manner. I want to play around with it - pause, rewind, dissect, reassemble. And then I want to watch a different movie and do the same thing. And then I want to explore every nook and cranny of the theater before finally walking outside and seeing the sun. All metaphorically speaking, of course. This freedom to tinker and go beyond is the birthright of Consciousness. What a shame to drift through your movie as a passive consumer with no care for the active vision behind building the thing, and what a shame to not even realize there are other movies, or that you're in a beautiful theater, or that the sun is waiting for you outside! You do have a good point that eventually all vessels will physically die. Going beyond the confines of this movie (ultimate Truth) is inevitable anyway. So I can see how you would wonder "why rush to end the movie when it will naturally end by itself anyway? why not construct illusory castles and play princess? what does it matter whether I'm actually a princess or not?" I'm in no rush to die or to burn everything to the ground through deconstruction. I love life. This movie is beautiful, with all of my arbitrary biases (such as being born male or being attracted to women - this shit only flies within my current movie!) I don't see truthseeking as necessarily anti-human. Although the truth will oftentimes directly contradict your human survival agenda and mental constructs, that doesn't stop you from playing the game. For example I can become highly conscious of the demonic supply chain practices behind the manufacturing of my electronics, but then continue to use those electronics to advance my life. Yes, this will initially cause cognitive dissonance because I want to see myself as a good person (survival agenda), but the TRUTH is that I am participating in evil. And I can become conscious that I will overlook my own evil (because I'm allowed to get away with it cuz I'm specially exempt according to my needs). And therefore nothing changes, and life goes on. Except - armed with truth, I no longer have the fantasy that I am a good person. I am a complex entity struggling to survive, as is everyone else, and we are in a mutually exploitative web. That's the truth. It is what it is. And I can continue to enjoy the movie. So truthseeking does not inherently hinder the enjoyment of the movie, unless you go out of your way to get emotionally reactive or defensive to what the truth has to tell you. The ego may consider this bleak, but, to roll with this example - "I'm not a good person" is in many ways a more accurate/truthful position than to insist "I am a good person." I personally do not see this as bleak. I get thrilled when I learn of my own shortsighted interpretations. It's liberating to have once believed reality was a certain way, but then to discover you were wrong. The truth is always more intricate and dynamic than you had ever given it credit for. This discovery is its own joy. To answer the question above in red: I'd rather be a real princess than a fake princess. And if it turns out that I'm actually a peasant in a shack instead of a princess in a castle - then that is what I am. I have no interest in larping royalty. Whatever is ACTUAL wins by virtue of existing as such.

Disagree with what? You think women are at fault and have blame? Who cares what people think? Stop letting people dictate your "job description"

Emerald has a blatant female POV bias but you can't fault her for that, if you were a woman you would be the same. It's not part of her job description to deeply sympathize with male pain, the same way it's not part of your job description to deeply sympathize with female pain. Obviously it would be nice if this bridge could be crossed, but that's more of a luxury. Both sides are blameless.

@integral Although I pretty much agree with everything you've written regarding the content of your words against veganism, your tone does come across as somewhat dogmatic. It feels like you are crusading. This is not a personal attack, just a bit of feedback.

5 years ago I was a hardcore vegan. To this day I still have unreversed lingering side effects

This is true.

I'm not so sure. Everything is so fiercely interconnected. Rot and corruption will ripple through the chain. The "good actors" lose on the game theory battlefield and get weeded out through survival of the fittest. The status quo being abuse and exploitation of the commons means that "islands of coherence and power" just means more for the taking from the especially greedy actors who will be thrilled to see their competition forfeit their slice of the pie. Of course, I'm not suggesting that we just give up. It's moreso just encouragement to keep your expectations in check. I suspect a Sisyphus rolling the boulder uphill esque future for people like you and I. Where we fight for the hell of it as opposed to some delusional sense of heroic duty. Let me know if I'm overlooking something. Save yaself, save ya family, spread the love. Not much else you can do really. Haha we're in for a ride. Time to retreat into my cave and contemplate! no better way to pass time while the plane crashes

Great, we all agree

I agree. I never said it would. There's a part 2 to my explanation above which is often better left unsaid since it's a personal speculation, and a grim one at that... But I predict a majority of us will eat shit down the line - by which I mean, serious loss and suffering and yes, death. Because likely nothing will change, and we have already established that the ship is headed directly towards an iceberg. But all that grim stuff is my own conjecture. Metacrisis framework is very solid as far as diagnosing the problem. I do share their opinion that our system will not change in time. The anti-rivalrous omni-considerate dynamics necessary to escape the metacrisis unscathed requires that the majority of the global population develops SD tier-2 cognition. And if even a handful of powerful actors lag behind in tier-1 cognition, the scheme fails. This simply will not happen. That being said, you're completely right - keeping current systems will end in collapse. So. Put 2 and 2 together and try not to lose your marbles

Yes. The rule of thumb I use for myself is: If it is patently & obviously INFINITY, then doubt is obliterated - drowned out in the suffocating Truth of Omnipresence. You physically cannot doubt something that is Eternally and Unconditionally HERE. Kind of like how you can't inhale air underwater. On the other hand, if we are dealing with anything less than INFINITY, then doubt is always active. Any finite object of contemplation is fallible and has alternate valid perspectives to consider. Refrain from drawing finalized conclusions regarding finite/relative matters.

A little too flippant for my liking. Metacrisis-awareness is not mindless doomerism, it's a nuanced observation of specific interdependent dynamics. This is not shit you can make up or merely pull out of your ass. Our rate of extincting species is undeniably increasing each year. This has unfathomable ripple effect consequences. Likewise, planetary boundaries are markedly and unambiguously worse each year. Microplastics are found in rainwater all over the globe, including the arctic where there are no humans. New studies strongly correlate microplastics to a plethora of disease risks. By 2050 it is projected that there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. AI, which is touted as the deus ex machina for our energy crisis, has been promptly co-opted by big oil companies to accelerate extraction efficiency. Trump&Elon being in office only eggs them on, as regulations get gutted. Geopolitical tensions get worse each year while our growth-oriented monetary system drives up prices and keeps countries and individuals in debt which necessarily threatens social stability. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. You may consider this group-think, but you would be hard-pressed to falsify anything I've said. Are you really willing to argue that our biodiversity loss is a boogeyman myth? or godforbid that it is harmless? Are you really willing to argue that our planet is on a trajectory towards a thriving sustainable future when 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries have been breached (possibly irreversibly)? Are you really willing to argue that a plastic-infested planet with plastic-infested humans is harmless? Are you really willing to argue that AI will save us all when its current applications are doing the exact opposite? Are you really willing to act like Trump&Elon in power are harmless? Are you really willing to claim that our geopolitical landscape is peaceful and stable? Do you really think our monetary system is long term sustainable? None of these are separate issues. There are common drivers (i.e. "generator functions") behind every crisis/issue. The biggest one perhaps is personal survival maximization at the cost of one's surroundings. Every problem I've listed is directly borne of a short-term survival-maximization play by egos. When one player does this, it's not a big deal. When absolutely everyone is doing this, we have an uncontrollable snowball effect. The ship becomes too large to steer; the system devours itself eventually. We'll be fine for several years - yes. Nobody is saying we're gonna die tomorrow. But certainly within our lifetimes, there will be enormous systematic change - for better or for worse is yet to be seen. The point is that our current trajectory is literally unsustainable. This is quite easy to personally determine. Group think is rather unnecessary. We have finite resources on a finite planet but our system demands exponential growth. 1+1=2. Collapse of the current system is inevitable unless we reorient our values and steer the ship together in a new direction. Whether or not we have a livable planet in 100 years is seriously unclear. If anything, to take for granted that "everything will be fine" seems to be the group-think position to me.

A concrete example of this was when I first heard Jacob Collier's Moon River 5 years ago, I struggled to enjoy it. It felt like too much, especially at 3:48 and onwards. I wished he would've just kept it more unembellished because the unconventional musical decisions were just too difficult for me to follow. I remember my gf at the time straight up said she hated it, despite knowing that Jacob is a certified genius. That "genius" label didn't mean anything to her because her ears intuitively rejected what it heard. But in hindsight our judgement was like a child learning algebra deciding that Einstein must be full of shit because we "intuitively" didn't see any potential in the conclusions of his general relativity (of course, without having spent any time mulling over his equations) Now I recognize that this work is a blinding ray of genius that staggers my mind to even attempt to comprehend. The part at 3:48 to the end which I so disliked is now my favorite part. This change in opinion came from my own maturity in musical understanding coupled with a detailed study of the following logic breakdown video. This example is a watered-down microcosm of Human mind interacting with Alien/MIND. When a human finds something aesthetically distasteful, it can be genuine (from above) or ignorant (from below). The difference is tricky to tell apart, since the ignorant judge loves to see himself as genuine. The answer is in lots of study and experience + having the flexibility to pinpoint the beauty in absolutely anything. The latter bulletproofs you against ignorantly declaring something you don't understand as ugly.

Yes! Which goes to show the relativity of hearing "beautiful harmonies" and assuming they are superior, good, or true.

The celebrities/pr0nstars/hostess/bargirls in major cities are all plastic-engineered to look like flawless anime characters. It's super hot and annoying. However it hasn't overtaken the culture completely. Most normal girls are normal. Unlike S.Korea, where the average girl is getting plastic surgery from her parents as a graduation reward. Example above is a S.Korean girl