She's Also a Slut for You $$$

How does polyamory work? And does it work?

The one thing that makes polyamory work is being in love. To the bone.

If you are not in love, passionately or do not think 100% of the time this is the primary man, woman or tranny etc., for me for the rest of my life, no questions asked, even and especially within yourself–don’t bother.

It took my fiancé and I 4 years to establish the kind of trust it took to make polyamory not about jealousy and more about compersion and what love is supposed to be about: actually caring about someone’s happiness enough to alter ones comfort zones and values, or world or fundamental views about what love Actually is in reality. We get jealous but we maintain healthy dating of others and retain no fundamental jealousy–because we know for 110% sure that we’d never leave each other for someone else. So what does that mean in reality? It means in our case, of infinite numbers of ways of doing it–that we practice ‘hierarchical’ polyamory which recognizes that humans can’t possibly (at least with the tech we have right now) complete another human person 100%. Ironic eh? That means that you can love someone 100% while not being completed by them to that same extent. It means that we love partners vertically with an order of importance, primary secondary, tertiary, etc. Or: What people of the altruistic judeo-christian variety have kept us in psycho amorous sexual slavery over for 2000 years and still won’t admit: Love is measurable.

In fact, falling suit with this, I believe polyamory is the standard metaphysically with human beings. 60% of. US marriages fail within the first four years. A fast growing 40% or so of the same population is being honest about wanting to love and fuck other people while maintaining healthy multiple, often even loving relationships–and therefore practices some form of an open relationship, if not polyamory which apparently has risen to 10% now in the US.

The numbers of honest people are continuing to rise. Eventually everyone will be connected. 😉

The New Conformity: The Modern Hipster

Conformists are people that fear social rejection to such a degree as to need to ‘fit in’ and by like the people they are in fear of being in rejection of, most. This leads to circles of tightly nit social groups that one can clearly spot displays the following variants of hipster, which today, having completely reversed its meaning, equals what used to be ‘square.’ Hipster, today means conformist. Most people I deal with happen to be hipsters, though no one seems to admit it. Here are a mock list of what I’ve picked up so far:

-They talk about themselves in some kind of 3rd person cute name as per girls.

-They use inside terminology as if everyone outside the loop also understood it. Or know this and use it as a way to fish so they can name drop it. Why do they do this otherwise? Cause they think ALL of reality IS their ‘scene.’

-Everything and anything always or at least 90% relates exclusively in terms of something THEY’VE said.

-They have more than one convenient excuse why they are into one or more currently trendy things to do- i.e. “That’s not why I do roller derby, I do derby because…”

-The absence of personal questions genuinely trying to ascertain what YOU meant in of what interests YOU. -This makes total sense, they have given up the ‘I’ for ‘we’ even more resolutely and soundly, with far more integrity than the most fanatical military officer in Nazi Germany. Personal identity is of no consequence to them because their main value and goal is to assimilate better and better for the sake of the group or whatever’s hip to them which could be a person, style, people, or physical objects, i.e. clothes.

-There is a never ending drivel-lottery of trivial things and events that comprise the rest of their lives. Again this is to reinforce the ‘group mind’ even when they exist in private (not a place they generally like to stay). So they surround themselves with distractions from their boredom and other little things that remind them of ‘their last show.’

The Profit Motive is Not Capitalism

Another very real equivocation that we deal with on a daily basis is the confounding of the profit motive with personally or collectively held values.

They are two different things.

The profit motive is also not always capitalism.

For instance in Ayn Rand’s view, (as this distinction tends to be absent from conservatism and even society at large) the profit motive and the motive to create and sustain one’s product or service are treated as one in the same. Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged even states that all he’s out for is to make money at one point. When, this is wholly incompatible with the rest of his actions which do things very often at ‘sacrifice’ of money for more spiritual and mental gains. This can be viewed in Wall Street 2, where Gordon Gekko realizes the values of human mutual aid in a very interestingly selfish way I think. Funny enough, even in the first one, Gekko’s values do indeed seem to be at one with his primary purpose: making money. But even he contradicts this in illustrating that “You don’t understand, its not the money, its the game.”

A show like Six Feet Under, on the other hand, is set in a philosophical landscape where individuals believe and know that the profit motive is not a valid primary aim for human life and hence this distinction is very well illustrated. The story is set from a small family owned funeral home business that’s struggling against their corporate competitor that is naturally only out to make money.

Very often the profit motive is one in the same with all one’s other values. Very often, it is not. In the times when it is not, one must never sacrifice the mind to the body. In order not to do this, one must understand this distinction. But in order to be a good objectivist in my own sense, one must act at a default that two are one, but at appropriate times when the spiritual and the material conflict, concrete particulars are to be expendable and not the tenets or desires of the mind.

(TANGENT: This is not to be misunderstood to mean that there are no materials that represent the mind’s work in terms of the object of what’s being valued. i.e. A painting purchased for one’s home reflects the conformity of the material with the mind in that one possesses it for spiritual reasons. If one’s painting is threatened to be burned or stolen, one might consider this a horrible thing in that they would not necessarily be able to replace that ‘mental-state,’ they can witness merely by looking above their couch. There are many other materials that do not possess the same congruence of the mental and the physical. These would include creature comforts and things built for more utilitarian use.

So when is it true that one is simply trying to ‘make money’ and living an absent life of hedonistic vacuousness? What drives them really, if I am asserting this to be incompatible to a rational mind? Who am I to say they aren’t living the most ideal life they’ve ever wanted?

Whether or not they are happy in this instance, is not in my view of objective concern since an organism can only value and be happy in terms of what it knows, and hence, happiness in the immediate sense is relative to what we know and are used to, and this is what makes the issue of personal happiness more complex. One is not happy in the higher overarching sense of a rational person if one is consistently limited to one domain. this is too large a subject to go on with here, but I should hyper link this later on and make another blog out of the subject of the margin of relativity in ethics.)

This was certainly true of Howard Roark, in The Fountainhead who would never divided his spiritual and material values.

Another example is in how society has fallen into the same equivocation as Karl Marx in believing that the only alternative to capitalism, is communism when had he had made a distinction between the profit motive and (ethics) values. It didn’t occur to me for instance that a revisionism of capitalism is even possible. i.e. a capitalism where good work is valued above financial gain.

Since we live in a society that is wholesale about the abdication and surrender of all values to the profit motive, it is hence, very easy I think if one tries to know this distinction well.

This is all coming out of my former view that the profit motive is always in some way at one with one’s values since making money is linked directly to survival. What we forget is that there are different kinds of survival. And that there is mental-spiritual survival as well as physical. I offer as evidence to my argument all of the daily teen suicides in which the mental-spiritual mechanism (philosophy) has been abandoned and in its place, now rests the sole reason for living: to make money. And since this is (I think) invalid to human existence being logical and volitional based, the profit motive cannot be the overriding priority of life, merely one of them.

The same alleged dichotomy is said to exist between selfish and selflessness. When, how can anything chosen by the self, be selfless if it is or has been indeed chosen by oneself? Indeed I hold this to be true. However, I believe that altruism as a component to philosophy is a value. That being established, selflessness does not exist, only two different kinds of values and two different resulting kinds of people with different ways of life.

Unlike the Objectivist view and very much like the generic view of objective philosophy and what I think it would hold true in terms of it, I believe that true altruists are people that derive most of their values and existence from social interaction. That being said, I think that altruism as a philosophy for man, is bunk. That is, altruism unlike perhaps republican democracy, cannot possible act as an all-encompassing philosophy. Notice however, that neither can egoism, only objectivism in this general sense.

I therfore believe that altruism is not the most efficient form of human existence when it is treated as the primary arbiter of one’s ethics. I therefore believe that though altruism is and must be a component of a rational enlightened selfishness, it is a disaster as the pilot being that social interaction is merely one dimension of a complete and therefore rational existence.