trenton

@Koeke So far I haven't learned how to do manual programming. I'm still learning. I plan to apply for a job in IT that might offer the training I need to get better at understanding the manual work behind it. so far, I am having a tool do most of the programming, I'm just trying to figure out how it should do it. I am running into a lot of problems though with usage limits, so knowing how to do manual coding would help.

@Joshe One of the key winning strategies in this variant is to exploit en passant. The reason white wins is because by advancing the pawns to the fifth rank first, it limits black's options greatly. en passant can then be used at any moment while running the opponent out of moves. This is also the reason why if en passant were not allowed, then this variant would be a draw as white's strategic set ups would no longer be effective. Sometimes this is a theme in a real chess game such as variations of the Sicilian or king's Indian defense. In the Sicilian white can sometimes push a4-a5. Once black has already played a6 preparing b5, this en passant set up can limit black's options for expansion. Similarly in the King's indian defense, white sometimes wants to play a3-b4 to expand on the queenside for a strong attack. In some positions black can slow this by using the maneuver Nb8-d7-c5 in conjunction with a5-a4. This kind of set up would limit white's option as using the en passant set up prevents white's expansion on the queenside with b4.

@Joshe I'm glad you like it. I submitted version 5 to chess in schools. These chess programs often use simplified chess variants for teachings young beginners. These variants are simple enough for a strong human to solve. This analysis can be verified with a chess computer that can calculate the limited number of positions. This is good because children often love chess computers anyway. This would make learning even more engaging and it would help the children to learn optimal strategy and play quickly. I haven't tried the full pawn game yet. It would be much more complex and the computer would need more time to calculate everything. I might require a more efficient computer for that variant.

I made an updated version. I found some bugs with the previous version involving draw and win conditions. This version 5 now allows the player to flip the board. It also has a description of the rules that can be accessed. The AI is set to play the most efficient win. https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/53204627-e589-4a97-95a5-61a405d2b7c2 If anybody wants to test this out, I hope you have as much fun as I had solving this game and using AI to verify my analysis.

@DocWatts I just have a question. I remember Gandhi in India used civil disobedience to an extreme degree. This included nonviolence while the British were tying people to cannons and blowing out their guts. It makes me ask, what would happen if Americans used extreme civil disobedience to the point of groups of peaceful protestors sitting down and being recorded as ICE agents publicly shot dozens of them to death? I am not sure what would happen in that scenario. Would there be overwhelming mass outrage? Or would the media claim that all of them were domestic terrorists, making the mass killings justified? Would this kind of situation be different or similar to what happened in India? Furthermore, it looks like ICE more accurately matches the description of terrorists than the people they kill, but they are State sponsored.

I have autism. I'm not sure how much detail I should give about this.

https://lichess.org/study/ORdmNFQD/8eQFKUPD This is chapter 1 of the lichess study. It has the central pawn opening.

I have recently taken an interest in programming chess computers. My dream is to one day combine a C++ model with a LLM to create an advanced chess computer that both finds the best move and can articulate complex strategic reasoning in terms a human can understand. One day this might become a universal chess coach that anybody can access. It would be cool if the method of reasoning were adapted to the player's reasoning style. This would have to combine a chat function similar to Claude or some other bot with a chess engine capable of deep and precise calculation combined with reinforcement learning. I tried to build a prototype of this using Claude programming, but something went wrong and I need to rethink the project. The usage limits are problematic and they slow my progress considerably. I might require a large database of annotated grandmaster games to teach the machine patterns in human reasoning. I am also looking for a team that might be able to help me with this kind of project. For now I scaled back the project to focus on solving something simple first. This project I am submitting is based on a simple chess variant called the pawn game. This variant uses four pawns for each side. The pawns move the same way as in normal chess including en passant. The objective of this game is to get one of your pawns to the other side of the board. With perfect play, I believe white wins by force. Therefore, if you play against the computer as black, you should lose no matter what you do. I published a study on this chess variant on lichess.org. I originally solved it through human analysis and concluded that white should always win with either 1. e4 or 1. d4. the AI appears to agree with my analysis. My next attempt will be to expand this to the eight pawn game. Although I solved the simple version through my own analysis, the larger version is much more complex and I struggled. Apparently, white can win, but it is not with the intuitive central grab that I assumed. It might be with a flank pawn instead as it maintains flexibility with the central pawns. Here is version 3 of this project. It might be a little slow to load up at first, but it is working for me. https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/072e5c52-b844-41b1-b7ac-2d17e01aca50 Are you able to open the link? If so, feel free to test yourself against this computer as either color. If you find a line that allows you draw or win with black, then it indicates that this AI is probably broken or has a bug. I refuted versions 1 and 2 by winning with black. The line I used was as follows, but should no longer be possible in version 3. 1. d4 f5 2. e3 e6 3. f3 d6 4. f4 d5 5. c3 c6 6. c4 dxc4 7. e4 c3 8. d5 c2 9. dxc6 c1 Here is a link to my lichess study if you are interested. https://lichess.org/study/ORdmNFQD/RcBMDy26 If you are able to access everything just fine, then what do you think of this sort of project so far? Personally, I find myself really sucked into this.

@Yeah Yeah You might say I have been through hell and I have studied spirituality deeply. If you have seen my posts on this forum, you know my story. Sometimes I have suicidal thoughts because of a combination of many problems including trauma, sexual abuse, family estrangement, complex grief, and loss of direction and purpose. I don't see how to make life acceptable to me because all options involve being alone with nobody who loves me while I continue to suffer meaninglessly. By the way, I hate soul-crushing jobs too. They make me feel even worse which is why it is hard to motivate me to get another job after what happened last time. In terms of "am I actually allowed to end this?" According to spirituality there are no shoulds or should nots. The universe is structured such that people are allowed to be rapists, murderers, and terrorists hence they exist. There is such a thing as enlightened rapists such as gurus who might sexually abuse young children. The reason we might say you "should not" kill yourself is not because it is an objective rule as there are no moral absolutes. Instead it might be based on things like what is conducive to higher consciousness, truth, and love. For those reasons it makes sense that we should not run around raping and killing people because in that kind of society it is hard to guide traumatized minds toward truth, love, and consciousness so long as survival requires constant devilry and deception. If there were a spiritual reason to not jump off of a bridge, then maybe it would be for the collective good in that your identity includes more than just this one human being or ego. It is ego and its suffering that makes us want to jump off of bridges, and this is sometimes how I feel as well. In terms of moral arguments, there are conflicting view points. On one hand, there are people who face situations that no human being should have to endure. Humans are resilient, but they are not indestructible given extreme enough circumstances. You might make the case for suicide in situations like euthanasia. Why should we tell a human being that they have to live and they have to endure unbearable suffering because of our beliefs? On the other hand, suicide is not a neutral act and it does cause harm to others even if they are not included in your circle of concern. I don't know what your family or relationships are like at this time, and that would likely be a big factor behind your suicidal thoughts as it is for me. Normally people would be told "think about your family," but it sounds like whatever family you had must have been terrible. In fact there are some parents who disown their children and may even encourage them to commit suicide. Personally, I went to mental health centers admitting that I did not believe suicide was immoral which in turn indicated that I was at a higher risk. The way I have been trying to cope with suffering was by making my suffering meaningful. This is exactly way the soul-crushing jobs are so devastating. If you endured severe abuse and are unable to use your strengths and passions that give you meaning, it makes it feel like all of this trauma was for nothing and you will live in perpetual grief and bitterness. I often ask myself "why should I want to live under these conditions?" To this day I still don't have an answer. Once I lost my sense of direction, I tried turning to spirituality. The reason I looked so much at spirituality is because I was trying to find meaning and purpose for my existence, but ultimately this kind of behavior was a trauma response. People often turn to things like religion because they faced severe trauma and are trying to cope in whatever ways they can. I have been trying to find purpose through systems thinking and chess as well, but I faced other obstacles. Ultimately my problems cannot be overcome through intellectual pursuits and I require stable and healthy relationships. I hope you do get out of this situation somehow, but I must admit that objectively most people never recover from trauma because our current mental health system is inadequate. In my case I am still doing whatever I can through intellectual pursuits, looking for direction through deeper understanding of life and reality. It is hard for me to take the final step and carry out my suicidal plans. Sometimes there are invisible solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, and I have witnessed this before even when it seems hopeless. The solutions are not obvious and hard to find, but they may actually exist.

@Joshe I think it depends on what the gig is. If the gig is bagging groceries at Kroger then my employment record and experience is only going to qualify me for adjacent departments with no meaningful movement. If it also eliminates the option to travel due to the lack of flexible scheduling while eliminating the possibility of being off on weekends which interfered with chess, then I might feel trapped in a pointless grind. This served as a daily reminder of my fundamental lack of worth due to being a mere tool. This is part of the reason why I ended up even more depressed and hospitalized to the point that I lost that job. What gig is it? How many hours will I be expected to work to get that kind of money? Is the work meaningful? Does it use my strengths? What opportunities would I have for advancement? What impact am I making with the work? I think part of the problem might be that I learned not to believe people when they discussed career opportunities that would change my life and make me happy, especially if they say I can do anything I choose which probably isn't true. Fulfilling work comes from being passionate about the right things. If your passion is something other than what is available and offers decent pay, then following your passion is a recipe for disaster.

I struggle with this a lot as well. I used to have a passion for chess I pursued constantly, hoping to become a professional player. However, this was interrupted and I never had a realistic chance to make this happen despite my efforts partially due to structural barriers beyond my control. Once this happened it became obvious to me that the passion story is romanticized and doing what you love is often a fairytale that isn't true for most people. The outcome is that I looked for passion in many different directions and struggled to find anything compelling. I am effectively looking for hard work for the sake of survival when survival itself is not rewarding to me. Therefore, I sometimes wonder if I should choose death instead. There is no reward for hard work without passion other than a meaningless life as a wage slave in which we constantly lie to ourselves about our true feelings. I have a hard time finding motivation to work without answering the question "why shouldn't I kill myself?" Why should I suffer for no conceivable gain whatsoever? So far the closest thing to meaningful work I found would be systems thinking, but the problem is that I'm caught in the system. I don't see any traditional career path that would satisfy me. It's almost like I would have to start my own business or system to find something I can be proud of. Perhaps the problem is that I lack the knowledge of business and I don't know what thought process I'm supposed to use to find openings I could create. I end up just drawing a blank when I try to think of a million dollar idea. This seems to be my experience with hard work and passion because I haven't really worked hard on anything since I studied constantly to become a professional chess player. Once that was revealed to not be a realistic option I just lost motivation to put on any comparable effort toward anything else. Instead I end up in hospitals due to recurring thoughts of suicide.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom Thank you very much for this response. This is the direction I was thinking in. I have been looking into ways to change systems that trap people, or perhaps develop alternatives that might help people escape from the systems that trap them. Of course, my goal is not to help every individual because that is impossible. The most efficient way to help people would be by having a stronger system in place that can support as many people as possible. To me an obvious example would be a homeless man. I could give him some money to buy a meal, but once the money runs out he will be in the same spot as before begging for food. If there are hundreds of thousands of desperate people like him, then there needs to be a more efficient system for supporting such people, although this is complicated by many factors including political opposition to housing first programs along with inadequate systems for criminal rehabilitation and mental health services. My tendency is to look toward building a better system, but of course this is hard to do. I have looked into things like game theory, and I applied it across many domains while discovering the limits of game theory as well. Some of the systems I looked into include economics, international relations, sociology, environmental policy, organizational behavior, education, criminal justice (the one that inspired me to use game theory), politics, and religion. I noticed that American society is efficiently aligned toward wealth concentration in terms of its incentive structures across many different fields, including religion which is required to satisfy its billionaire donors by painting Jesus as if he were a capitalist. Meta game theory goes into how the incentives should be structured and what outcomes should they be aligned toward. Again, this is hard to do if my methods require interfacing with broken systems, especially the legal system due to various lobbyists and interest groups who might oppose my methods if I don't properly account for them. I have a couple of examples that might work, and I am looking for more examples. In the case of an individual I helped, it was a victim of predatory loaning who was repeatedly failed by the legal system in which no lawyer was willing to take her case. I have come to understand why this likely happened because prosecutors are caught in the same incentive structures that make it difficult to win against white collar criminals and costly if you lose. The way I helped her wasn't by fighting hopeless legal battles or uphill activist movements against injustice. Instead I researched programs that might help the victims of predatory loaning, and I discovered that she qualified for a program that was open during the Biden administration. When she managed to get her debt forgiven, she cried tears of joy because of how much I had changed her life by showing her an alternative to the hopeless court battles she had been fighting. On the other hand, I bare in mind the fact that there were likely tens of thousands of victims of predatory loaning who never realized they qualified for this program. There are still alternative programs that might help with such matters should lawyers fail people like my coworker. Another example, I have in mind might be recategorizing different types of sexual abuse due to how the mental health system failed me repeatedly and caused other problems. This might have a chance to succeed in that it requires minimum interfacing with legal systems, but I would still have to face other problematic systems. One example would be to use the term "legally recognized sexual offenses." This makes it less ambiguous than "childhood sexual abuse" because the mental health system and the legal system use two different definitions for this which in turn creates a lot of confusion for people entering the mental health system. Other categories might include "psycho-sexual abuse" which typically is not legally recognized, but can be just as damaging as physical sexual abuse in terms of the psychological impact. The lack of legal recognition for psycho-sexual abuse adds to the confusion when the mental health system does consider this sexual abuse. I might be able to explore how recategorizing these matters might be a means of reducing confusion, thereby helping people to recognize different types of abuse they may have experienced and then get appropriate help. I have many ideas for changes that need to happen within our overall collection of systems, but that seems nearly impossible to accomplish. I'm currently trying to think of examples of systems failures in which there are battles that are small enough to win and big enough to matter. I would like to come up with more examples other than the two I just mentioned. I am still lost in terms of how I should go about developing some kind of career around systems design, and what specific systems should I be focusing on. I previously tried going back to college for social work with the idea of joining a think tank, but my education was interrupted by medical complications related to depression. I tried appealing the loans to get them cancelled and although the college said they would take care of it, they did not leading me to pay out of pocket for classes I was unable to attend. It seems to be hard to change a system when you yourself are a victim of the system that blames you for its failures. This is the difference between real life and chess. In chess I am in control of all of my army and I have perfect information on my opponent's army. Meanwhile, in real life I myself am a pawn in the system or a cog in the dysfunctional machines. In order to have my ideas implemented, then like in the game of chess I need to be positioned with control or power, which requires entering a corrupt legal system. At least in chess the rules are clearly defined, but in real life the rules are constantly changed or ignored based on who they serve. Part of my problem is that I don't know who values people like me with these specific interests, even though it clearly seems to be what the world needs on many fronts. I am then lost on how to go about building such a career around such interests while being caught in the systems I wish to change. I have considered think tanks before, but one of the problems with think tanks is that the think tanks which get the most influence and funding are those who work for the military industrial complex, giving them disproportionate influence while keeping those who contradict them insignificant regardless of factual accuracy. Will I need to invent a system for changing systems?

I'm coming to the realization that altruism was likely a false life purpose for me. I didn't always have this leaning. For me there is something that resonated from Buddhist traditions in that altruism is a form of self punishment in that it is self sacrifice for a perceived greater cause. In my case the sacrifice felt worth it because my identity was already destroyed, so whatever identity I sacrifice is a miserable one anyway. However, this is a set up for self destruction regardless of any noble acts I ever do. I'm now trying to figure out a purpose that is independent of altruism. I'm trying to figure out how to define my self worth in some way other than my utility to other human beings. No matter how many children I save from kidnappers or victims of predatory loaning I help it doesn't feel like it's enough to fill my inner void. These acts are designed to be proof of my inherent goodness and worth which I am still not convinced of despite the acts. Furthermore, the reason I am drawn to changing systems and understanding social structures is because I am looking for ways to help the maximum number of people. This is why I am drawn to politics and "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, in my case I was happy with practicing to become a professional chess player. The reason I didn't do that is because of a series of obstacles I seemed unable to overcome. Therefore, I needed to create an alternative life purpose beyond chess. In order to compensate my misery and justify my continued existence despite the years of my life lost pursuing a false hope of joy and fulfillment, I increasingly emphasized my utility to others. I can't make a living off of chess because it is not valued by others in the same way I loved it. The outcome is that following my passion was never really an option, but trying to change broken systems is even more unrealistic than becoming a grandmaster in chess. If replacing things that made me happy with altruism doesn't work, then I'm in new territory. I genuinely don't know what other type of purpose to pursue. If I can't get fulfillment from career, impact, passion, and things of that nature, then what other purpose should I have? I could try relationships, but it requires building a new support system outside of my family. Maybe fulfilling relationships are possible, but I would need to move out to the right location with the right support systems. Furthermore, the only other logical choice for meaning and fulfillment might be spirituality. The problem is that Truth and God transcend the self and meaning altogether. This would probably be spiritual bypassing if I tried committing my life to these things. Part of me doubts that I would be good enough to be a sage given my kind of track record and what goes on in my head and what I have been through. Of course I know I keep saying "I" even though I don't exist and it happens because I have a hard time describing things without contextualizing them within the framework of the ego self. Without "I" I don't know how to think, so no need to remind me that I haven't awakened. If spirituality really were a path to some kind of acceptable existence, then meditation and psychedelics seem like they might be an answer, although the outcome may not be practical change depending on how it is executed. I unfortunately don't see any other paths to meaning and purpose. If altruism isn't the answer, then I need to rethink this whole situation in terms of what my goal should be. I have no idea what other sources of meaning I could be using.

I have been reading about the extent of the problems in the criminal justice system and I reached a conclusion that renders the justice system completely unworthy of a shred of trust. Although the problems were numerous and I already knew the entire system was broken, the problem goes beyond a broken system in that the criminal justice system is perverted to the point of being weaponized against its enemies. This includes up to the extent of framing people for murder by planting DNA evidence at crime scenes in order for the court to conclude that the defendant is guilty. We already knew they planted drugs on people and often get away with it, so clearly the police are the most effective at framing people for crimes they didn't commit. The problem is that our society treats DNA evidence as if it proves that a person definitely did something, when really it might prove the police are framing them but the courts refuse to question this possibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence The way this is accomplished is through organized crime syndicates such as Mafia Cop. I have encountered organized criminals before such as my father and his gang. Sometimes these organized criminals are smart enough to work with the police. This way they can learn more about how the justice system works, how to gather evidence, how police operate, and how to manipulate police more effectively. The organized gangs then gain substantial inside knowledge on how police function as well as the justice system as a whole. This includes gang members becoming attorneys, prosecutors, and judges in order to learn how evidence in court works, how to use it, and how to weaponize it against rival gangs. They understand how the logic of the court system works in order to navigate as effectively as possible to their benefit. For example, in 2025 New Mexico Judge Jose Cano and his wife were caught housing a suspected member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Although this judge may have been linked to a gang, I can no longer be sure if this is truly justice or if another gang framed him to make him resign. Furthermore, being a police officer is an effective way to get away with murder. There are all kinds of excuses you can make to just shoot somebody and kill them, but then get off with minimal repercussions. This is even more effective than typical gang violence because they have the guise of legitimacy that allows them to kill people more efficiently and with impunity. This kind of reminds me of the Nazi police officers, but hopefully our police are not as bad as them. This kind of problem is fundamentally unsolvable through more criminal justice. The problem is that if we live in a society where there are deeply evil people who want to exploit systems to their benefit, then they will look for ways to corrupt our systems and use them for their own gain. If we make a criminal justice system, then organized criminals would want to infiltrate it. I don't know how to solve the problem of organized criminals infiltrating police ranks to frame people for crimes they didn't commit while getting away with murder. There is no amount of tough on crime rhetoric that can solve the criminal police problem. Tough on crime is only directed in ways that serve those in power who wish to continue using the system for their benefit. It kind of sucks that we might need a good president to help us with this, but the problem is that Donald Trump is the president and sometimes compared to Jesus Christ who loves America with all of his heart. By being in power it allows them to control the narrative including in criminal justice when the system is weaponized against rival gangs. We see the news coming up and talking about all these evil and horrible criminals, but that is just to serve the justice system which itself is full of criminals but targeting the ones they want to. I find this disorienting because as children we are conditioned to trust police officers and they are framed as heroes. However, this completely flips reality on its head by making police look like some of the worst villains of all. It looks like gangs exist on every level of the government and they will use whatever power they have control others. At the same time those who show fear of the police end up seeming suspicious, therefore they will investigate you for crimes and look for what ever they can to get a conviction. How do you think we should go about addressing corruption under circumstances like these? If those in power are the problem, then how do we change a system that is run by those in power? For some strange reason they seem very resistant to adding anti-corruption measures.

I think I have realized a gap in Leo's forgiveness video. Although it is mostly good, there were some oversights which were not properly integrated, and I don't think he could have expected this. The thing is that he said that if somebody abused you physically or sexually, then that would require professional help like a therapist. This on its own is fair and likely true because the trauma would be too severe for exercises assumed for a general audience. However, this did not account for psychological abuse in extreme forms including things which I have experienced but were not technically physical or sexual abuse. In my case I was framed for a variety of things across multiple examples including child sexual abuse and kidnapping due to a conspiracy to set me up and make me seem guilty when no such intent existed. When I try to tell people that I am a victim of a conspiracy to frame me, I end up seeming like I am crazy and people don't want to believe me because it sounds absurd. Although I was not physically or sexually abused, I was framed as if I were a perpetrator of child sexual abuse. This included an incident when I was at the park and a couple told me that a child was their brother when in reality the child had no brother. When I told the child that his brother was waiting for him and wanted me to come get him, the child panicked and ran to his mother who was outraged with me. Luckily, rather than pressing charges she told me to stay the fuck away from her child before I left. The conspirators had fled by the time I realized what was happening, thus making me seem like a liar. Maybe the reason I got stuck on forgiveness is because being framed for serious crimes like the sexual exploitation of a minor, rape, or murder might constitute another form of abuse that requires therapy rather than a forgiveness exercise. The reason Leo's framework may not apply to these situations is because of the reasons why people do this. First of all, if somebody is framing you for a crime, they clearly are not ignorant and they obviously are lying while seeming reasonable to others because they deliberately planned and designed this entire situation. In this case something like "father forgive them for they know not what they do" most likely applies to the people who punished me, but not the perpetrators who framed me and lied to them making them think I was guilty when I wasn't. The innocent people are not only executing someone innocent, but also enabling serious villains without realizing it. Secondly, if people hurt you out of weakness and fear, then it is hard to say that this applies to people framing you for a serious crime which they deliberately planned and had no need to do it if you did nothing to them. At best the people framing you for a serious crime are doing so because they were directly responsible for a serious crime and want to avoid the consequences out of weakness and fear. However, in some cases there was no crime from the beginning and they created the entire crime from the beginning purely out of the sadistic pleasure of getting away with something so heinous while causing others severe harm for which they can never be held accountable. Thirdly, people who hurt you were probably being selfish. Maybe people framing you for murder might come off as a tad self-centered. It kind of looks like they are trying to hurt me and get intense sadistic pleasure out of it. Fourthly, people who hurt you were acting out of a desperate need for love and they wanted love from you. How exactly does that apply to someone framing you? Is it appreciation for the intelligence of evil that they have or is it to treat them with compassion for being poor people who were hurt and deserved better? At best I can see how this is pretty clever, but I don't want to actually do that to people because that would make me an asshole. I don't really see anyway to actually design a system that can't be exploited by this mechanism. We would probably have to avoid punishing people and instead focus on repair, knowing that it is possible that someone is the victim of a complex conspiracy to frame them and not even realize it while everyone is making them feel guilty to the point of a false confession. Finally, people who frame you are definitely not very conscious. If they were self-aware and realized how selfish they would have to be to act this way with a complete absence of any form of empathy. It is hard to tell what kind of universe they were living in to not feel bad in the slightest at anything they were doing. They must have had a very different brain structure to think this was all somehow okay. There is no helping those people and we need to stay away from them by being able to recognize danger before it is too late even if they are in reality lurking for a target like you but you don't realize it because they present as completely normal human beings with plausible stories that seemingly exonerate them of any potential wrongdoing. I am also realizing that if evil is questioned all the way to this level, it becomes completely impossible to distinguish who the devil is. What happens when people start trying to frame each other for framing them by making up these stories to make it seem like they are the ones framing you when in reality your the one framing them? Here is an example I thought of. Suppose a man has a girlfriend who invites him for sex. However, this seduction is in reality part of a plot to frame the situation as rape/self defense in order to get away with murder. When the man does have sex with her a fight breaks out with injuries for both. However, the man leaves a potentially lethal stab wound in her which could cause the situation to look like rape/murder when in reality it is self-defense. Once he breaks free, run and calls the cops saying "help! My girlfriend seduced me as part of a plot to frame me for rape as she attempted to murder me claiming self-defense which in reality it wasn't! I stabbed her in self-defense leaving a potentially fatal wound and she needs to be rushed to the hospital or else her death was also deliberately designed on her part to make me seem like the bad guy when in reality she is the bad guy because she was the one trying to rape and murder me and not the other way around as she would claim in the event that she survives and attempts to frame me! When the girlfriend survives she claims "he is a complete fucking liar! He is the one who tried to rape and murder me and not the other way around and now he is attempting to frame me as if I were the one setting up a murder plot when in reality it was him! I never seduced him, in fact I repeatedly told him no but he forced himself on me anyway and then left a potentially fatal stab wound as I attempted to fight back in self-defense only for him to flee as if I were the one trying to frame him and not the other way around! He is the one who set up the situation to make me look like the bad guy when really it was him! He's the one who wanted all the money to himself!" Boyfriend says "no she's lying! She is the one who wanted all the money to herself and she therefore tried to get away with murder while claiming that I am the one who was trying to get away with murder as if I were claiming self-defense but lying while in reality I am actually telling the truth and it really was self-defense on my part and not hers!" In this scenario they were the only two witnesses and there were no recordings of what actually happened in this intense fight. It might become impossible to tell who the bad guy is in this situation. If he said/ she said situations are already bad enough in cases of domestic violence and the police often can't do anything about those cases, then imagine this kind of he said / she said. I think it is fair to say that being framed for a serious crime might be beyond what Leo intended for the exercise. How would you apply something like forgiveness to situations like being framed for something you didn't do, and how would you reconcile your life for having been ruined by the belief that you did something that you didn't do? In my case I have also been hurt by being turned into a scapegoat by my family, leaving me isolated due to the belief that I am somebody I am not as a consequence of lies and gossip which some innocent acting family members believed as a typical dynamic in narcissistic abuse. Part of me still feels tempted to not forgive the ignorant family members who believed the lies because they repeatedly failed to give me a pass for ignorance when I made a mistake and tried to make amends. They enabled the abuse by refusing to believe that I was being framed and they continue to do this do this day, hence I feel unsafe still. I may require a new life but struggle to build it. Do you think forgiveness in scenarios of being framed might require the God Consciousness or awakening Leo was talking about in order to realize that I am one with the people who tried to frame me and not separate from them? Would that mean that I was the one who framed myself? This probably requires consciousness beyond what I currently see.