aurum

Lower mind sure relates with lower mind. Funny how that works.

@Socrates Total nonsense. Right-wingers cry about not having a voice while literally dismantling the government and free speech in their favor. It's absurd.

Most modern people move through Purple at a young age. You may not even remember it, depending on the culture you were born into.

It's "just a theory" in the sense that I have no experience of it working. You can predict what you think non-monogamy will be like for you. But until you have actual experience, you have little idea how your expectations will match with reality. You could be deceiving yourself. In fact, you probably are. The mind loves to conjure up all kinds of fantasies about how much better things will be. You've already identified many of my reservations. I find even just meeting a partner seriously interested in mature ENM is a hell of a task. My standards for getting into a relationship are already high enough that I disqualify the vast majority of women I meet. Add in ENM, and I might as well be looking for a unicorn. Then there's also the issue of all time you will be spending on your extra romantic relationships. Is that really the highest use of your time? I don't think it is for me. Especially not if you're having kids. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But these are some of my concerns.

Way too young for Yellow. There's essentially zero chance you've reached that high of a level of development. Get a solid grip on the lower stages if you really want to move into Yellow.

Keep us updated on your experience then. And yes I have sought out counter-examples. I've also read several books on the topic. Open Monogamy by Dr. Tammy Nelson was one of the best. I think if ENM works for me, it will look like something in the book. It does not exist at scale. Various indigenous tribes and minority communities do not count as my definition of "scale". Nor do they mostly practice a kind of non-monogamy I'd be interested in anyway. If you have counter-examples, please share. Do you have data on this? Or is this vibes and intuition? A cursory search with GPT reveals the data to be inconclusive. The best I found supporting your argument was this study: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infidelity-statistics-us-tops-the-cheating-charts-while-31-of-affairs-involve-a-co-worker-302241988.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I wouldn't call it a scheme. She just came from a very wealthy family and was used to a certain kind of lifestyle. That all sounds nice. But unless you can actually pull it off IRL, it's just theory. Have you actually succeeded in an open marriage raising children? Do you actually have experience with what you are saying, or are you speculating? Might be harder than you think. And the urge to defend non-monogamy usually comes from guys thinking with their dick If you look around, it's pretty obvious that non-monogamy exists nowhere at scale. That should immediately make you suspicious of claims that it can work. And also suspicious of claims that you are going to be an exception. Monogamy has proof of concept and needs less defending.

Trump firing inspector generals: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/25/trump-fires-17-independent-watchdogs-government-agencies

If they think they have a serious challenge, then they need to bring it to the courts. People have already lost enough faith in the election process. Don't undermine it more with speculation.

No. I did date one girl who was into having an open relationship. But she partied way too much and wanted me to be the rich guy paying for her Paris Hilton lifestyle. So that didn't work out. I'm optimistic for a better solution in the future, but realistically some compromises are going to have to be made. You're not going to get everything you want.

The eternal struggle. I don't have any magic wisdom on resolving it. Some people find ethical non-monogamy or being monogamish works. You just have to know yourself and what you value the most at this point in your life.

You okay bro?

A decent analysis of our situation. I dislike his framing of yin / yang though. When you use this lens, you flatten developmental hierarchies and tend to see things simply in terms of balance. Additionally, criticizing excess yin to someone like Dave Rubin and his followers does almost nothing but reinforce in their mind how bad wokeness / SD Green is. They have no interest in embracing wokeness, not even the good parts. Dave Rubin needs to be bashed over the head with all the MAGA and right-wing nonsense that is going on. Not more criticism of wokeness.

This is only true if you consider intelligence to be relative and socially constructed.

High: Places a strong value on truth and honesty. Meta-awareness of honesty as a self-image, seeks to go beyond. Of course this is tricky because even low-perspectives think they value truth. But given everything I know about Ralston, I think it's safe to assume this is coming from a high-perspective.

According to this source, up to 130 fake MAGA-related meme coins have spun up: https://www.ccn.com/education/fake-trump-coins-scam-warning/ Trump himself obviously did not start these coins, but his actions certainly encourage it.

Drain the swamp. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/22/trump-ethics-pledge-order-lobbying-00199908

Juxtoposition between high and low perspective: Low: Trump believing in the self-deception that he deserves authority over others. Lying and applying force to gain power. Decrease in sovereignty. High: Pence putting democracy above personal political and career agenda. Respects truth. Increase in sovereignty.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have assumed that was your position. I'm also not convinced collapse is inevitable though. I think the most likely outcome is that systems are not going to change and collapse will be local but not total. Collapse is a spectrum. Worrying too much about civilization collapse will have you do some very stupid things.

The metacrisis framework offers a high quality perspective. I appreciate the work being done by people involved in it. But it's still limited. And it's still subject to group-think like everything else. There's the error. The ship is not going to change course.

We've already had several conversations about my perspective. 2 years is not nearly enough to gain a big-picture understanding of our collective situation.

Just think about it.

You are stuck in metacrisis group-think.

Much time left until what?

More Pam Bondi devilry. She made millions off the Truth Social merger, I'd call that a strong conflict of interest for attorney general. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-ag-pick-pam-bondi-made-3-million/story?id=117784776