I couldn't hear it, so i'll just blog about my own "problems" with integral relationships.

 I dunno.  Send a pic of yourself and we'll see.  You're probably too far anyway.  Plus, you're only one year old than my KID!

I can understand what you're saying and you're probably right.  But I did four years of celibacy thing as an experiment but it's not fun anymore.  But I don't understand the following:

 re's a psychotherapist near me who has written a number of books, one called, "How To Be An Adult In Relationship" (David Richo's first book he wrote is titled the same, but without the "In Relationship").

If "In relationship" is left off, the title of book is called "How to be an adult."  

Are you suggesting  that I am not an ADULT.??  My first song if you click on the link is by ADULT.  They're one of my favorite bands.  The song is called "In My Nerves" and it should play automatically upon clicking the link.

Is it wrong to express what I feel?  That's the way I feel.  Well I can't help that.  I'm just being honest. How else do you suggest that I state the above? 

The last time I posted something on "integral romance," I didn't state explicitly enough what I'm not attracted to and wound up attracting people who were unattractive because of that oversight.  I may have offended only 3 or 4 people on this board but I didn't name any names and I don't even know who you are.  So I'm not attracted to you, either; so the feeling is mutual.  

BUT at any rate, the question is not whether you are attracted to me but rather how is it that eligible men cannot meet the qualifications for integral, but I can?  Anbo says that maybe I'm not an adult or that some people are not cut out for relationships.  

You probably got offended because I wrote something that reminds you of yourself.  I wasn't referring to you because I don't even know who you are but can't help it if something I said makes you defensive.

I really don't know what Ken thinks about all of this because I couldn't hear the video. That's why I'm so adamant about the musical thing.  I don't think that I'm on the same frequency with other humans, which is why music is so important.  

I am told that I am not like "other people."  Music can simulate vibrations but technically speaking, it is vibrations at a certain frequency of sound but is not the real thing, so is not a good substitute when no one is around.  

That being said, I have felt vibrations with some of them but it was only a physical thing.  Not a romantic or love thing such as vibrating heart strings or anything.  I can't say that I've ever felt that with anyone.  It probably doesn't exist for me except in music or maybe in vibrators.

No offense, but stoners are ok with me so long as they don't type in all caps, but I'm not much into a huge, flying, hollow stone head.

I didn't expect any advice from any of this; just venting my frustrations on my experiences in response to the Ken Wilber audio, which I couldn't hear.  I don't expect anyone to be "like me, except a guy" and realize that "integral" refers to 3% of the population, but couldn't think of any way to say it.  It was more of an exercise of venting my frustrations and updating my original post.  I didn't realize that being honest would offend so many, but thanks for the feedback.  I think I have met someone anyway who is also integral and attractive.  We'll see how it goes.

 Greetings Vivi,

It's been a while since I've returned to this post.  Thank you for your response.  I was not aware of your comments here but did come across your writing for the first time about an hour ago while posting to the inquiry entitled, "How can we have more authentic interaction on this website?" (or something to that effect).  You will notice that directly below your comment is mine, which inaccurately reported that no one could relate to my post about the problems of integral romance since most gave me a thumbs-down to rate my post as "not useful."  I was being honest and truthful so authentic; although what I reported there was factually untrue but yet an honest mistake so "truthful" to the best of my knowledge at the time because I was not aware of your response to this thread and assumed that your remark over there was unrelated to "me" or my issues until I came across your post over here and saw that you had responded to my post to say that you relate to my issues and share my frustrations--so I beg your pardon for my error in reporting..  

For the record, however--the post was not an expression of desperation or need.  For this reason I have no need to deny something that is factually untrue although I realize that I'm free to do whatever I please.  However, denial is an expression of falsehood as it is a rejection of truth.  When I reject "truth," then I am in denial.  When I reject falsehood or untruth, then I am not in a state of denial but am simply rejecting falsehood or error (although I realize that your error was an honest mistake so is not "falsehood" in the sense of lying or attempting to deceive with some bogus charge or claim).  

For instance: what you thought about my using this community as a dating service out of desperation or "need" for some date or soulmate is erroneous yet an honest mistake.  You were being truthful and authentic in your expression so what you said was honest and "truthful" so therefore "truthful," but factually untrue due to misperception of my situation as I am neither desperate, needy, or in denial..  It is thus erroneous which I must reject as untrue although I do understand that it is an honest mistake on your part so no offense taken in the error--and I believe that you are truthful and authentic in your interaction as am I, although your perception itself was in error (an honest error, mind you:: thus "truthful" but "untrue"); so is truthful in honesty but factually untrue in perception--as was the case with me in my truthfulness in reporting as in honesty but was factually untrue in my perception of no one relating to my post when in fact, there was someone who did--and it was you but did not realize at the time that anyone had bothered to do so..  Get what I mean?

When someone rejects an untruth or error, it is not denial but merely rejection of something erroneous or untrue.  Thus your advice that I am free to "deny" it implies that I am somehow in a state of denial of an alleged desperation or need and am deceiving myself or others.  In which case I would no longer be honest and open but inauthentic in my expression and in falsehood because I would be hiding or deceiving (whether from myself or others, if I were truly in denial because I am hiding or avoiding some kind of truth).  Denial is thus a form of falsehood and dishonesty and thus inauthentic.  So I must reject the claim that I am in denial as untrue.

 There are some who are in a state of denial that they are in a state of "denial."  Such a double duplicity can be found in climate change deniers who claim that climate change is a "hoax" repeatedly as a mantra while asserting that they are not climate change "deniers" but insist that they are climate change "skeptics" instead.  If one is truly a climate change "skeptic" (as in scientific or amateur skepticism), then the mind is not made up one way or the other conclusively.  Yet to assert repeatedly that climate change is a "hoax" indicates that one's mind is already made up and is no longer in doubt or inconclusive so is no longer skeptical.  However, since man-made climate change is well-established in the scientific community and only disputed by paid contarian scientists hired by public relation firms (contrarian scientists who have furthermore never published a peer-reviewed study of any kind that disputes the science of anthropogenic warming to any respectable scientific journal listed in the ISI nor, for that matter--are they necessarily climatologists--), I can truthfully and factually say that the claim that "climate change is a hoax" is factually untrue.  Thus rejecting climate change as a "hoax" is not a rejection of falsehood but a denial of truth.  As such climate change deniers is an appropriate use of the term because they are asserting as "hoax" something that is well-established in science and factually true.  They are furthermore in denial that they are climate change deniers but claiming to be skeptics instead while asserting that "climate change is a hoax" so are being doubly untrue.

Sometimes I make honest mistakes as do others in what is "true" due to misperceptions--but at least am thinking that it is true at the time so I'm truthful at the time although the mistake was an honest mistake but a perceptual error that was factually untrue.  It was therefore not "denial" (which is based on falsehood and deception) but rather an honest and  truthful mistake that was factually untrue.  I likewise reject the claim that I am in a state of denial as untrue as well, because it is factually untrue (yet, too--an honest mistake or assumption on your part which was truthful so no offense taken). Were I truly serious and desperate and needy about impressing someone integral by posting a blog for a date or a mate on this website, I think I would have attempted to do a better job in selling myself and my qualities as "integral" to attract an integral mate instead of posting my demands obnoxiously and being ridiculous and snotty..  Obviously, I didn't care one way or the other but thought the post was entertaining and relevant and factually true but not exactly "integral" so was obviously neither deperate or needy of a mate.  And were I truly desperate or needy for a mate, it would seem inconceivable that one such as I would have chosen a life of celibacy, povery, and isolation for the past four years by choice just because I wanted to as an experiment until last month in a two-week fling that didn't really go anywhere.  So I am obviously neither needy nor desperate and thought that others would realize that I wasn't being totally "serious" but nontheless totally truthful and authentic in my interaction and was thinking it was interesting to share at any rate.  And--if someone came along it was fine but didn't expect it; if they didn't, that was fine, too.  To me that is not a sign of desperation or need nor denial of anything but simply telling the truth exactly how it is so was interacting authentically and speaking truthfully of my situation.  Had I stated it any other way--I would have been in falsehood and therefore inauthentic and dishonest.  Yet--in spite of it being truthful and authentic and brutally honest--and entertaining and interesting--so I thought--nearly everyone gave me a "thumbs-down" that my post was "not useful" so I assume that many here want me to be fake and inauthentic because posting otherwise would have been would have been falsehood if not reported as above as I had--hence the fake picture above in protest of fake people.  

As I had pointed out elsewhere, I am certainly free to do as I please, but have no need to deny that a green monkey is currently clinging to the back of my shirt.  To assert that I am in denial of a green monkey that is currently clinging to the back of my shirt is to essentially assert that there is, in fact--a green monkey that is currently clinging to the back of my shirt but that I am in denial of it.  I reject the notion as falsehood as there is obviously no green monkey that is currently clinging to the back of my shirt, which is patently ridiculous.  This is not denial of truth but a rejection of falsehood.

But thank you for your comment and I appreciate the topic idea.  I'm sorry that I didn't get to comment or empathize on your situation and kept talking about "me, me, me" and nothing about your situation--but I  got carried away and now I am tired and need to take a break but  will try to comment on your situation some other time..  But most of all, thank you for your refreshing honesty and truthfulness and allowing me to distinguish "truthfulness" as honesty and "factually untrue, but truthful" as a perceptual error so an honest mistake.  I find this authentic interaction and I hope that we can have many more authentic interactions because authenticity seeems highly underrated over here.