Xonas Pitfall

The title says it all! Inspired by some of the recent blog posts shared, I thought it would be valuable to open up a space for reflection and discussion on the darker sides of human behavior - selfishness, corruption, underdevelopment, and the systems that perpetuate them. Of course, we'll aim to keep everything within the forum's guidelines - and moderators, feel free to step in or close the thread if it veers off course. On a balanced note, I’ll also be creating a companion thread focused on humanity’s goodness, love, selflessness, and progress - both aspects are real and worth exploring.

All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊All is Love. 😊

Meow... Psss pss pss...! 🐈🥛 /\____/\ > • • < ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡶⠚⢷⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣲⡶⠛⠻⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢠⡿⠁⠀⠀⠙⣷⣄⠀⢀⣴⡟⠁⠀⠀⢷⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣾⠃⠀⠠⠶⠚⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠀⠀⣀⡀⢸⠈⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢸⣏⡔⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠚⠉⠉⣿⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢾⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢠⣿⢠⣶⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢒⡾⠁⠘⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠉⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠠⣍⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⡇⢀⣤⠶⠛⠛⠻⢦⣄ ⠀⠸⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⡟⣴⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻ ⠀⠀⠀⠛⣷⡦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⡴⠞⠋⢠⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾ ⠀⠀⠀⢰⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠳⣤⡀⢸⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡶⠟⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢷⣹⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡄⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠈⣧⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠙⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⢸⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⠀⢀⣴⡟⠁⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠘⠿⠶⢶⢧⣦⣦⡴⢾⣥⣽⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⡴⣯⡤⠴⠶⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀

Please yes! ≽(•⩊ •マ≼

ִֶָ. ..𓂃 ࣪ ִֶָ🪽་༘࿐࿐Your profile is so pretty ~ ~ ~ 😊༊·˚༗𓆰𓆪꧁⎝ 𓆩༺✧༻𓆪 ⎠꧂ ⸙@XXXXXX

@Cred OK, fine. That’s it. I will now make it my life purpose to out-neurodivergent you.

Hmm... if I recall, a few years ago he said he had made enough money to be able to not work for about ten years of his life. Now, given that he lives in Las Vegas and owns a house, that would suggest he at least had a high seven-figure net worth (I think?). ~$1.9M to $2.4M, conservatively Comfortably $2M+

An even better (?) version is pure translucency. Or actual emptiness. Nothing at all. Like a mirror endlessly reflecting itself back into itself! The Droste effect is a recursive visual technique where an image appears within itself, creating an, in theory, infinite, looping, picture-in-picture effect. Often called mise en abyme, it is characterized by a smaller version of the scene appearing inside the original scene, similar to placing two mirrors facing each other.

I’m uniquely unique. I’m so unique that I’m special in my own way, but I also recognize that everyone else is special and unique too. I’m uniquely unique in a way that makes me special, but the kind of special that only works if everyone else is also special, which means my uniqueness depends on your uniqueness, which then loops back and confirms mine again. I’m so uniquely unique that I have to acknowledge everyone else’s uniqueness just to keep mine functioning properly. That makes me special, but only in a very normal way, the most average kind of special possible, like a perfectly balanced human being with an average IQ and an unremarkable label that I don’t use because labels would interrupt the loop. I don’t divide people into neurotypical or neurodivergent, because that would make things asymmetrical, and my uniqueness requires symmetry. So instead I remain normal, which is its own special category of unique, which brings us back to the beginning, where I am uniquely unique again, but only because everyone else is too. I am special

You are still human, neurotypical or not. Because of that, many life lessons about priorities and self-actualization still apply to you. If you need help focusing or functioning in society, that is simply another self-help issue. Whether the support comes from therapy, EMDR, somatic work, ADHD or ADD medication, or other forms of assistance, it is up to you to figure out. This does not mean it will be easy, of course

As Consciousness / metacognition approaches → ∞ → distinctions collapse, everything converges into 1 Singularity/Self/Concept, which can be called |God|→ 0 (Even 0 “exists” as a concept, so 0 + 1 → 1 "concept" of Singularity) As C approaches → 0 → pure nothingness: no distinctions, no ego, no God. Awareness is dormant. As C approaches → 1 (singular focal consciousness) → ego / attachment emerges; distinctions appear relative to that self. C = consciousness / awareness / metacognition D = number of distinctions G = God / unified Self E = Ego / self-identified entity C → 0: nothingness, D → 0, G → 0, E → 0 C → 1: E → ∞, D → ∞-1, G → 0 C → ∞: G → ∞, D → 0, E → 0 Equations: D = C * (1 - 1 / (1 + C^2)) E = C / (1 + C) G = C^2 / (1 + C^2) Limits / Behavior: As C approaches 0: D ≈ 0 E ≈ 0 G ≈ 0 # pure nothingness As C approaches 1 (focal consciousness): D → ∞ E → ∞ G ≈ 0 # ego and attachment emerge As C approaches infinity: D → 0 E → 0 G → 1 # unity / God / Self

If by “metacognition” you mean increased self-awareness and consciousness, then yes. The whole point is that awareness becomes so expanded that you start seeing self, self, self, God, God, God everywhere, both in the world and in yourself. At that stage, the distinction between self and other begins to collapse. The higher consciousness becomes, the more unified it is, moving toward oneness. Metacognition is often used to mean thinking about thinking, mental observation, and conceptual relationships. In that sense, the term is not fully accurate here, because the final movement is not more thinking, but embodied being. However, if we use the simpler example of mirror recognition, then yes, it applies. What separates a donkey from a human is that a human can recognize the reflection in the mirror as itself. That capacity is a basic form of metacognition. In that sense, you are already “higher” metacognitively than a donkey. But you still see a human in the mirror, not the total reality, not the whole self, not God. LEVEL 1 — DONKEY __ (oo)\_______ (__)\ )\/\ ||----w | || || Donkey ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ??? "I don't know." LEVEL 2 — HUMAN O /|\ / \ Human ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ( Me ) "That's me!" LEVEL 3 — HIGHER METACOGNITION / ENLIGHTENED HUMAN O /|\ / \ Human ───▶ [ Mirror ] ───▶ ( God ) "That's God!" LEVEL 4 — GOD ∞ ───▶ [ God / Self / Mirror ] ───▶ ∞ ◀──────── God ────────▶ "I am God. The mirror is God. God is looking through God." "I am Self, and the mirror is Self. Self is looking at itself, aware of itself through itself." Meditation, psychedelics, ego dissolution, and other spiritual practices aim to move consciousness beyond that limited identification and toward that unified state. self, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, Godself, self, God, God, God

No teacher is ever enough. You still need to do the work yourself.

Hmm . . . 💭🤔 I don’t think that when most people talk about miracles, they are thinking about whether they are free, karmic, ethical, or long-term in nature. In traditional or layman’s terms, a miracle usually means a strange, sudden, and inexplicable event, especially one that would normally require a long time or enormous effort, or that appears impossible within the current understanding of reality. For example, if a patient needs eight years of intensive chemotherapy to recover from cancer, but instead goes to a mystical healer who snaps their fingers and the cancer disappears, most people would call that a miracle. Now, I agree that such a healer, or possibly their genetic bloodline, may have invested enormous effort over many years to develop that ability. In that sense, the act still has a consequential cause, even though the observer experiences it as sudden and inexplicable. Ultimately, this seems to come down to how you define the word “miracle.” If a miracle is defined as something with no causal explanation whatsoever, then in a universe governed by cause and consequence, miracles do not exist by definition. If a miracle is defined as something that has no explanation within our current observable or accepted framework, yet remains coherent within a still-unknown system of causes, then miracles do exist. And if a miracle is defined as complex systems gradually harmonizing over time to produce beauty, health, love, or support, then nearly everything in life could be considered a miracle, and many more will continue to emerge. Basically, whether something is called a miracle is highly dependent on the observer, and on that observer’s assumptions about what is normal, expected, or possible. The same is true for labels like abnormal, alien, or unfamiliar. Even the official Oxford definition points in this direction: “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency,” for example, “the miracle of rising from the grave.” The key phrase here is “not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” Whatever a culture or observer accepts as natural, scientific, common, or usual will determine whether an event is classified as a miracle at all. Change the assumed framework, and the miracle either disappears or becomes ordinary.

Or better said...! Dualities. Always here. Evil and good. Dark and light. Chaos and order. Bias and neutrality.

That's it. The hot witch girlfriend seductress needs to come back with her love potions to Leo’s lap (the TO-BE exemplar of Truth on Earth for mankind) ASAP.

Exactly! I see this in myself as well, and I’m actively trying to break down and properly deconstruct my own biases. I think this is also why it can be disappointing to see Leo make such overt, unprompted, and poorly reasoned arguments in this area of masculinity and femininity. He has a very intelligent open mind, but you can clearly see the influence of a “masculine aesthetic” bias. I have no issue if the “masculine” perspective is, so to speak, more truthful, but the arguments presented are, frankly, quite shallow and not well thought through or logically persuasive to take as truth. 😓. . .

Hey, I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen or heard this idea before. Do you have any reputable sources or historical references for this? It seems incorrect. Most religious practices used gender segregation because they believed it reduced distraction and upheld modesty in prayer, not to create a male retreat away from women’s speech or presence as a form of personal escape. There is also a long history of beliefs that women were not capable of logical thought or philosophy, which led religion to separate them. This belief was a social construct of the time, similar to slavery, not a God-given truth. In general: Religion emerges in early societies as a way to explain nature, enforce norms, create group cohesion, and legitimize power. Gender segregation in religion is better explained by patriarchy, inheritance systems, modesty norms, and control of reproduction, not male burnout from women. Most religious spaces were actually labor-intensive and communal, not quiet retreats. To be honest, most of the things you said in that post seem heavily unsupported scientifically and historically. Please be careful before believing such claims. Just as a fun remark (not saying this is grounded in truth at all): women probably wanted their own religious spaces too, to “babble” all day with their girlfriends, but men called them witches, heretics, eldritch spawns of evil, and then burned them at the stake, so, oh well… LOL. Jokes aside, I find comments like this really childish. Why are you in a marriage with someone you cannot even bear to listen to? There is nothing cool or masculine about marrying someone while refusing to indulge their excitement about things that matter to them. That is not stoic masculinity. That is just being an inconsiderate asshole. It sounds less like love and more like marrying someone to do house labor, raise children, and maintain a “status, picture-perfect family,” all on her effort, while you go off to “practice religion with the homies.” What kind of love is that supposed to be? Why are you even in this marriage to begin with? Marriage is a two-way choice and a two-way responsibility. If you cannot engage with your partner as a full human being, the real question is why you chose to be in this marriage at all.

This is fine, but the question is: how much do you generalize? If you stick to that kind of thinking, then Black people would only be seen as slaves and inferior. Women would still be considered incapable of work or going to university, which they have more than proven wrong. You could add more stereotypes too: people with OCD or other mental illnesses would all be labelled as useless, even though plenty of them are genuinely talented, certain ethnic groups being labeled lazy or violent, immigrants assumed to be incapable of entrepreneurship and only suited for hard manual labor, and so on. Acknowledging patterns in reality matters, and pretending differences never exist is dishonest. At the same time, forcing reality into rigid narratives is just as dangerous. When expectations are built on stereotypes, they shape behavior, limit opportunity, and create self-fulfilling prophecies. The challenge is not to deny reality, but to stay flexible enough to let reality correct our assumptions instead of bending people to fit them.

Actualized.org is definitely the most efficient source I’ve found. I fully agree with the post. I’ve been a big fan for almost 10 years, and it’s probably my favorite YouTube channel and resource out of all of them!

Just for fun. Would you make the same argument for Black men versus White men, or Asian men versus White men, or Arab men, or any men from other oppressed regions to White men? Who do you think made it this way? Is it really their “nature,” or is it oppression? How can you claim that the group responsible for creating this inequality in the first place is more prone to enlightenment than the oppressed group?

Attachment begins when you "recognize / believe" something as essential to who you are or what you need. In that sense, it can feel “God-Like,” as an experience of infinite connection where the boundary between you and the other dissolves into the self. In a way, this is true, because your human self is only a “part,” not the whole. Because of that, it makes complete sense that you become attached, since attachment is an attempt to feel whole, to move closer to God, which is ultimately closer to yourself. You want to be yourself, to be whole, to be God. Because of that, you become attached, seeking connection with “others,” which are really other parts of yourself. Where it stops being “God-Like” is that it presumes a separation between you and the other. If, in your eyes, the “other” is slowly disappearing from you, you will perceive that as "bad / tragic / loss" and want to stay in fantasy, manipulate, keep, control, preserve, take, and indulge selfishly as much as you can. This happens because you perceive it as separate from you, therefore outside of your control and something that can disappear. As a result, you become more and more attached, and more controlling to that "other". Think of how a parent might want to preserve their precious child from the evil of the world and never let them grow up. There is a desire to preserve, to control, to freeze the child in a state of innocence, even though we know that reality, truth, and God are all rooted in impermanence. In trying to protect the child from harm, the parent ends up limiting their freedom. In one way, the child is harmed by not being allowed to be free. In another way, the child may harm itself by being set free. Either path carries risk. This is the unavoidable cost of attachment. However, I would say that as long as you want to identify with your human self, that kind of thinking is wishful. As long as you are human, you will want to care about staying alive, food, shelter, having enough income, love, support, some sense of direction, achievement, and purpose. By definition, if you stopped caring or being attached to food, you would die within a short span of time. Even if you wanted to be a yogi, monk, or meditative guru, you would still have to find a way to preserve yourself. Who would take care of your living situation and your body while you meditate into blissful or psychedelic states? If you rely on a monastery, then you have an attachment to the monastery and would need to follow and comply with its rules. If you completely want to live alone in the woods or a cave, outside of everyone, good luck. You would still need to be attached to your body and your sense of self-preservation in order to ward off animals, insects, or diseases crawling onto you. If you are okay with dying, and you will if you choose to lose all attachment, then yes, you can absolutely escape attachment. Otherwise, it is not really "practical". I would say the more practical approach is introspection, seeing what things you actually care about, and making that as clear and pure as possible. There are so many things we are fed daily that we are told we should care about, but we really do not. I think this kind of practice is far more realistic and sustainable long-term, as long as you accept wanting to be a human living in this society.

I think the question is also sometimes about what the bias is behind the things you find humorous! Provocativeness can come from both sides. As people mentioned above, when people call out Trump for being in the Epstein files, or mock Tate for being beaten up by a guy with pink gloves and having a clone that is “Bottom G” and unbelievably gay, or Nick Fuentes receiving a blowjob from Destiny, or people calling Pearl and Candace Owens a pick-me, or calling out conservatives for crying and whining when Trump makes economic plays they do not like the results of, or mocking Erika Kirk or Charlie Kirk by creating meme songs, convert conservative figures into drag queens or call them “closeted gays,” suddenly that humor is not favored and is labeled as “boring,” even though you can technically say they are all provocative in their own way. I definitely think people can be overly uptight with humor, but I do not really think “woke” people are particularly more or less sensitive than the other side. It is more a matter of bias and what things you are personally attached to. If someone is joking about something specifically sensitive to you, you will not like it, whereas if that thing is not that relevant to you, you would not care or you might even join in the fun. People often use “woke” as a scapegoat for mockery, when it really comes down to weak spots and personal attachment. I mean, don’t conservative Muslims literally bomb people over mocking their prophet in comic books? Talk about putting a damper on humour

This test seems flawed... If one person is stronger or faster and another is weaker or slower, yet both conceptually understand that the animal is dangerous and that escape is required, then success on the performance test mostly reflects pre-existing physical traits. It also reflects what someone happened to focus on in life, such as athletics rather than academic or analytical skills. I would agree with the test if it focused on interaction with an unfamiliar object, animal, or alien. In that case, it could measure openness, comprehension, adaptability, and the ability to process abnormal or unexpected features. How much can you accept something that is foreign to you? How well can you work with paradoxical traits? How do you make sense of something when you have very little prior reference for what it is? However, the moment you add the possibility of physical attack, the test becomes about survival. I can be the most intelligent and conscious person in the world, but if an animal outruns me and eats my guts alive because I do not have the genetic composition of a panther or a cheetah, and that somehow counts as a study of my “intelligence”, then I would not call that a good measure at all. It reminds me of an argument from Charisma on Command interview with Leo. “Fine Leo... all this psychedelics and consciousness talk is irrelevant if someone can just shoot you with a gun.” Leo responded that if someone shot Einstein in the head during a lecture, it would not invalidate Einstein’s theories. So if the theory is not disproven at the moment survival ends, then survival itself should not be used as the measure in the first place (or, at the very least, carefully removed or accounted for on the test.) You could say something is “unformalizable,” yet you would still try to use logic to comprehend God, or at least the “logic of God,” the pure logic itself. There are more and less accurate systems of utilization and judgement for a characteristic. By that same argument, I could also say: “I invented my own IQ test. The true test is how much blind faith you can place in an imaginary figure. It measures your ability to be open, receptive, and unjudging or unbiased before reality. And to be clear, I am not saying IQ is linked to faith. I am pointing out how unformalizable intelligence really is.”

When was the first time you came to consciousness? What age were you? What was the memory, and do you remember how it felt? I’d love to hear everyone’s stories. For me, I think one of my first memories was watching a video game that arrived for our kindergarten PC. It had a very strange mechanic. If you stumbled into an obstacle while racing a car, the controls would suddenly reverse. Pressing left might make you go up, down, or right, randomly, and vice versa. I think that uniqueness broke my brain a little, and I became aware of myself. I was around three or four years old. I completely forgot this memory until years later during an LSD trip. After it was over, that night I dreamed about myself coming to consciousness and remembering this memory. Neat