Xonas Pitfall

Assume everything is ultimately the same underlying reality, God/infinity. The ego ordinarily has limitations on what can be experienced or recognized. Yet the ego can apparently become substantially altered through awakening, meditation, psychedelics, contemplation, etc. Therefore, some apparently rigid limitation within the system can become malleable. So why couldn't other aspects of the apparent material structure also become malleable to some degree? If the answer is "the ego isn't in control," that doesn't seem to explain why the ego's constraints can change while material constraints cannot. That's the contradiction I'm asking to resolve. I’m not arguing that the ego can simply make God give someone a horse dick. I’m asking why there is supposedly such a hard boundary between what can become malleable at the level of ego and what can become malleable at the material level. If everything is ultimately the same substrate, God/infinity, then we already have an example of something that appears highly constrained and finite, namely the ego, becoming substantially more malleable through awakening, psychedelics, meditation, contemplation, etc. So the question is: what is the reason that this malleability can occur at the level of the ego but cannot extend, even partially, to the material level?

Maybe I’m missing something, but this is the contradiction I’m pointing out. Assumption: Everything is ultimately the same substrate (God). If the “ego” can exert some force of finitude that prevents us from accessing God right now, then, by the same logic, “material objects” exert a stubborn constraint that prevents reality from becoming more magically malleable. But if the ego can sometimes lose that control (due to whatever combination of chemical compounds, contemplation, yoga, meditation, focus) and “break free” of those constraints, then it seems like the same possibility should apply to the material level too. If the ego can be molded and changed after awakening, and usually is to some extent, what’s stopping the possibility of material things also being molded and changed to some extent? If everything is ultimately the same substrate, i.e., infinity, then I don’t see how the model can consistently explain why one kind of constraint could be overcome while the other is categorically impossible. Am I missing something here?

What’s stopping you from accessing alien consciousness right now? Just imagine it and so it shall be.

Awesome post! Thank you so much. I think, for me personally, this was what really did it. Bernardo has a course on this on YouTube. The essential idea is that if you take physicalism to its logical extreme, it ironically starts to resemble idealism. You keep reducing material objects into smaller and smaller components, and eventually into mathematical structures, equations, relationships, and abstractions. So you’re left with the question: how do you ultimately get a physicalist system if its fundamental description and "foundational substrate" consist of abstract entities and relationships? I think it’s a really masterful way of exposing that tension. Here’s the link to it:

No, my argument was to point out the correlation. If all is infinity, God, then all finite things have a looser grip on "reality" than infinity itself. So if the ego can get loosey-goosey and “succumb” to infinity, what’s stopping reality itself from getting more wonky, loosey-goosey, and more “stereotypically” magical? If the ego can break free from the chains of finitude, what’s stopping material things from being more malleable and loosey-goosey too? And we also see evidence of the ego changing and becoming more malleable as you awaken, because you realize the “fake illusion” of control and the boundaries you put on yourself. You can change your mind and bend it in more productive ways. Not fully, of course, but I feel like denying any magical possibility is just silly, especially given the framework you’re proposing.

It’s more that it just doesn’t follow a logical conclusion from any of the “system” or “logic” that is given in the forum/videos. Somehow, you’re saying that there are magical chemicals that can alter your entire perception of reality and selfhood, change your concept of who you are, and somehow expand your ego or let go of your ego so much that it becomes God, omnipotent and all-knowing. Alien intelligence, consciousness, experience. What’s it like to be all humans, all genders, all animals, murderers and the purest saints? Become the people you know, etc., etc. Yet, you cannot imagine any tiny bit of stereotypical magic in the future. It just doesn’t track. Just like an ego limits your mind and body, and you have compounds that let it loose. Why would it ever even be able to discover higher consciousness? There’s no reason why this might not be a potential discovery in the future of something “stereotypically” magical. I just don’t see a good argument for it, nor has one been provided. By this logic, you should never be able to awaken, ever. Why would the ego "allow" for it, or allow for any chemical to cause it? People aren’t trying to be wishful thinkers or “not surrendering to God.” People are questioning the logic and consistency of the system, hence the question.

This whole rhetoric is meaningless. Everyone wants someone who is “nice.” The issue is that, for either gender, “nice” by itself isn’t enough. No guy is having sex with a girl simply because she’s nice. No guy is going into a relationship with a girl simply because she’s nice. No guy is marrying or staying committed long-term to a girl just because she’s “nice.” People want a combination of things: someone they find hot, fun, sexy, attractive, intelligent, compatible, kind, reliable, safe, etc. Saying “girls don’t want nice guys” is basically equivalent to a girl saying, “Guys don’t want nice girls. They always cheat on them with hot girls.” It’s the same flawed framing. It’s like a "conventionally unattractive" girl saying, “Why don’t guys want sweet girls like me? They only want bimbos who are hot, bratty, materialistic, and bitchy.” Please don’t get caught up in these cringey “nice guy/nice girl” paradigms. They’re mostly meaningless. The only useful takeaway from the statement is that people generally aren’t going to enter or maintain a relationship with you simply because you’re sweet or nice. But that doesn’t mean you should become an asshole or a jerk. It simply means that being nice isn’t a substitute for attraction, compatibility, or everything else people look for in a partner. Most people want to be attracted to their partner and be treated well by them. That’s the ideal. Nobody is sitting there thinking, “Damn, I really want my partner to treat me like dogshit.” Niceness isn’t going to save a relationship if the two people are fundamentally incompatible in terms of values, sexuality, lifestyle, goals, personality, etc. It’s a good thing that people aren’t entering relationships simply because someone is “nice.” For a stable, long-term commitment, you ideally need compatibility across a lot of different areas.

Also, absolutely no pressure on this; I know Leo is busy with the book! But I think a lot of people would love to hear either an audio or written review, or just more thoughts on some of the newer Booklist books. I always find it really insightful to read, especially in case I missed something or hadn’t seen it from another POV, or if there are any crucial insights I overlooked Either way, thank you for making such awesome products, both on Booklist and with the clips!

When you say this, are you referring mostly to beauty, or is there more to it? What does “feminine energy inspires me and gives me energy” mean to you? I’d be really curious to hear what you mean by that. Thanks for the share!

Gotcha, I misunderstood then. In that case, I agree. I was thinking specifically of Tate’s teachings because a lot of his Real World courses were centered around teaching others his manipulation, exploitation, sex trafficking, Loverboy method techniques, etc. But if we’re just talking about red pill vs. black pill, then I’d probably agree.

5 was definitely one of the types I considered. But the way I understand the Enneagram is that the framework of each type’s mind is organized around its core fear and wound. Personally, I find myself reacting and behaving, both throughout my childhood and in my current adult life, in ways that align more closely with 9. 5 is probably somewhere in my tritype, though. I suppose both types can be quite withdrawn and similar behaviorally, especially more introverted 9s compared to 5s, so I can definitely see how the misconception could happen

Hard doubt on this LOL Both very bad

I’m a very private person, but I appreciate the offer 🤍

@Joseph Maynor I personally believe I’m an INFP, but I’ve been typed as INTP and ENTP by other “typists,” so it really depends on how objective I am about myself and how accurately I’ve communicated the relevant information to the typists. That said, I think MBTI and Socionics can be tricky to compare because the two systems aren’t completely 1:1. There are also some issues with how certain behaviors are interpreted through functions and information elements, so I’ve always found that part of typology difficult to pin down because it’s easy for definitions to become so broad or flexible that almost any behavior can be interpreted as evidence for a particular function. I think it’s more useful to stick with a consistent definition of each function that is specific enough to be functionally workable and actually distinguishable from the others. With Enneagram, though, I’m a bit more confident that I’m a 9w8, with sx/sp or sp/sx.

@Sugarcoat A better way to figure out your type would be to question what you dislike or cannot imagine yourself doing, as well as the thoughts and behaviors you seem to fall into on autopilot, even when nothing is forcing you to act that way. In Socionics, I believe this is partly why there is a function called PoLR, or the Point of Least Resistance. It refers to the information element that is particularly difficult or uncomfortable for a person to deal with. It can show up as a blind spot, an area where you have little confidence or interest, or something you instinctively try to avoid unless circumstances force you to engage with it. Looking at these kinds of patterns can sometimes tell you more about your type than simply reading descriptions and trying to find traits you relate to. In that sense, you can reverse-engineer your type. Instead of asking, “Which type sounds like me?” you can ask, “What consistently feels unnatural to me? What do I struggle to pay attention to? What do I do automatically, even when there is no external reason to do it?” This can help you identify recurring patterns in your cognition and behavior. It’s way too easy to read broad descriptions of different types and get lost in them, especially because you can probably relate to aspects of multiple types. Looking at your actual patterns, especially the things you consistently avoid, struggle with, or do automatically, can give you a more grounded starting point. And of course, as we’ve learned here, bias is huge too. We often subconsciously want to be one type rather than another, or project false identities onto these labels based on what we think they mean for how we’re perceived and what we’re capable of. Removing that bias as much as possible would be ideal. Every type has its own strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and limitations. I’ve seen, for example, intuitive logical types be the ones people especially like to identify with, or types that people associate with high charisma, intelligence, manipulation, or some kind of exceptional prowess. But people often overlook the less flattering aspects of those types, including the ways they can be clueless and "useless".

MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, Jungian typology, Spiral Dynamics, etc. are amazing tools for self-reflection, but it’s important not to get stuck in these labels. It’s so easy to get caught up in them, and I’ve definitely seen many people do that. Use these systems to reflect on your values and behavioral traits, not to box yourself into a specific type, think you’re above a certain cognitive type, or assume you’re the “best type,” etc.

#Highest T-levels

THANK YOU!

I think it could be helpful in future livestreams to bring up some concrete examples, such as specific forum posts, comments, or answers that you two have debated. It would be interesting to see when something was stated, what the actual context was, and what each of you considers valuable or not. Otherwise, I feel like it can be quite easy for both sides to get stuck discussing things in the abstract, which makes it harder to really move the conversation forward. Just a general suggestion for the livestream format!

Exactly. Because from then on, you can basically say: GOD actually imagines OTHER GODS, fully more powerful and bigger than Him. GOD then imagines things outside of His control, OUTSIDE of His reach, OTHER to Him. GOD then creates something so OTHER THAN HIM. He creates EVIL, and it is SO TRUE AND REAL. It is REALER than GOD HIMSELF. Then He CREATES A REALER REALITY THAN HIS OWN MIND. And even though it doesn’t make sense why that reality would be realer than this mind, it IS. GOD can imagine ANYTHING BEYOND. And then that reality has HUMANS, and GOD also said that it didn’t come from GOD but from THE DEVIL. So the world is actually REALER THAN GOD. All of this is a fundamental contradiction. Unless you predefine and say: God can imagine a “fake separation” into a relative world like that. If you don’t define/clarify this, you make your entire system meaningless and useless.

Of course it can be imagined, but then we have to separate the absolute from the relative. Just how the relative others, humans, evil, destruction, etc. can be "imagined" and "real," but fundamentally, it is all still part of the coherent, one Self. You can imagine multiple gods, but they would all have a fundamentally "false" separation between themselves. Otherwise, the oneness is negated. At least that's how it can be coherent to me. It's possible I'm missing something here.

Supposedly God. That's why having something "so far apart from God, Other than God" that even God cannot reach makes little coherence.

I'm not sure this tells me much, haha. False as in incoherent, non-integrous, non-whole, non-one.

Wouldn't this be the one example that's contradictory? What would the "other gods" be made of if not from God? What would the separation between them even be? I suppose this aspect is a bit confusing, haha.

How would you see the infinity of gods fitting into this? I think this was the one that always confused me. By definition, God cannot have any other, or any other level of "wokeness" beyond itself. So to imagine any other "god infinity" beyond it, unless it's in some way a fragmented, imposed, fake limitation/separation, seems unfitting.