Xonas Pitfall

@PurpleTree Unless you plan to live completely off the grid, making food, generating electricity, and defending yourself from wild animals in the jungle, then some level of social cooperation is essential for survival. Society, while far from perfect, is still what supports us. Yes, it could be much better, but it beats the alternative of being a naked man alone in the woods with no WiFi and a lion eyeing you for lunch!

@UnbornTao You're welcome!

solipsism The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. "Solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’" If you accept Oneness, God, Infinity, or Singularity, then by extension, you're also accepting the idea of a Singular Self - one consciousness, one being. You can call it the Self, or "Higher Self", or "No-Self" (if you're defining self in terms of the ego). Either way, it's just a matter of preference and language. Whether you’re dissolving the ego into the whole or naming the whole as the true Self, the essence remains the same. It’s all one, and how you label it depends on your point of view. Solipsism is true. The absence of ego is the absence of selfishness, "No-Self" or Selflessness - and in that absence, what remains is love. So you can just as easily call it Love instead of Self. The absence of bias and limitations reveals purity, truth, and realness - so you could also call it Truth or Reality instead of Self. All of it points to the same essence. Solipsism is just one philosophy for describing it. Ultimately, it’s infinity expressing itself in different terms!

“Twin Flames” is a term often used to describe a connection where both people deeply trigger one another in ways that catalyze growth. The cliché example might be a shy, anxious, people-pleasing “good girl” with an avoidant, rebellious “bad boy”... or a BPD drawn to an NPD, or a dependent personality entangled with a narcissist or sociopath. But it can also be more subtle, like a hyper-responsible, clean-freak eldest daughter meeting a laid-back, carefree youngest sibling. These aren’t rigid stereotypes, but you get the idea. Pairings like these can be powerful for self-awareness and growth because they highlight each other's blind spots. But more often than not, both people are too stuck in their patterns to give the relationship the breathing room needed for actual transformation. For example, a chronic people-pleaser might never learn to set boundaries or stop overgiving, so the narcissistic partner never faces the consequences of their actions or grows from them. And on the flip side, the narcissist may never learn to truly attune, give, or show up for someone else. The dynamic stays stuck and eventually breaks. These types of relationships only work if both people are self-aware and willing to put in real effort. Without that, it’s just pain and wasted time, especially for the more attached partner. If someone doesn’t care enough to reach out, show interest, or take accountability, please don’t wrap it up in spiritual delusion. That’s not a twin flame. Real twin flame dynamics involve mutual triggering and growth. If it’s one-sided, that’s not it. Also, sometimes the person isn’t even “avoidant,” they’re just not that into you. It’s harsh, but true. A lot of people will casually flirt, hook up, or talk without ever feeling the depth the other person does - and that mismatch can send someone down a spiral. While we are at it, be careful as well not to label someone as 'avoidant' just to soften the blow. Sometimes people aren't struggling with attachment issues - they're just careless, selfish, or plain inconsiderate. You had a real, intimate connection, and he ghosted you without a word. That’s not a psychological pattern - that’s being a cu**. Really sorry that happened to you, you don't deserve any of it. This dynamic is backed by a classic psychological experiment by B.F. Skinner, the founder of operant conditioning. In one of his most famous studies, he placed mice (and later pigeons) in what's now called a "Skinner Box," where they could press a lever to receive food. When the food was given consistently, the animals would press the lever only when they were hungry. But when the reward was given randomly or intermittently, the animals became obsessed. They would press the lever compulsively, ignoring sleep, food, and even basic survival needs. This pattern is called intermittent reinforcement, and it's been shown to be the most addictive reward schedule. This same principle explains why gambling is so powerful - and also why toxic relationships can feel like a drug. When love, attention, or validation is offered unpredictably, your brain becomes wired to chase it, hoping for the next hit. Just like those mice, we can find ourselves fixated, neglecting everything else in life for the chance of that emotional payoff. Sound familiar? Often, the people we become most obsessed with are the ones who are unavailable or uninterested, simply because the reward is uncertain. If they liked us right away, or if they never engaged with us at all, we wouldn’t be limerent or obsessed in the first place. What I’d suggest for you is to look into the concept of limerence. Right now, I don’t think it’s helpful to dive too deeply into spiritual concepts, as they can sometimes worsen the delusion and intensify the limerence (as you saw in the thread), things can get pretty wild. What you really need is exposure to more people, so you can hopefully find a mutual connection. Your brain is simply addicted to the intensity of love and connection it once felt, and it’s craving more of it, especially in a way that feels safe this time. It is possible to find someone who feels right and truly reciprocates your energy. When that happens, you’ll be shocked at how quickly the obsession can dissolve, or even just fade into a strange, distant memory. Alternatively, time can help too, but it’s a slower and less predictable path. One positive thing about these kinds of experiences is that they can give you valuable insight into what you want and don’t want in a partner. Now you have more information about the kind of connection you’re looking for. Ask yourself: What genuinely drew me to him in the beginning, before all the avoidance and mixed signals started? Was there a real attraction from the start, or did the inconsistency make me more obsessed over time? What were some red flags I overlooked that seem obvious in hindsight? Reflecting on these can help you better understand your patterns and preferences moving forward. Good Luck, I believe in you. Spiritual hugs!

Obviously, these kinds of strong claims are hard to give a definitive yes or no to. But in terms of publicly available "commercial" material, he’s definitely one of the best. His delivery of spirituality and truth is so much more direct, with far less fluff, obscurity, or unnecessary circling around the point. We can never know if *the most*, but certainly one of the best out there. Or, at least that I've found by far!

+ Bump for Curiosity!

Universal importance could be thought of as patterns or structures that remain invariant across all conscious agents. For example, survival, self-preservation, or the tendency to minimize suffering might be considered “universally important” in any system that is aware and limited. Personal importance is filtered through an individual's particular mind, memory, experiences, and goals. What is important to you may be completely irrelevant to someone else, even though both of you operate under similar constraints (like time, energy, attention). I don’t think personal importance ever truly breaks away from universal importance. It just becomes more complex, abstract, or in some cases, deeply distorted. A helpful analogy is computing. At the lowest level, all computers operate on the same simple universal principle: ones and zeros, basic binary calculations, and logic gates. That’s the universal foundation. But as more layers are built on top, you get sophisticated applications that seem totally unrelated to binary math. Photoshop, for instance, is used for editing images, and its purpose seems worlds apart from basic computational logic. Or take an AI in a self-driving car – it's scanning environments, making decisions, and navigating real-world traffic. But underneath it all, it’s still just built on the same logic gate systems, running instructions. Of course, no one says Photoshop’s "value or function" is in computing numbers – we say it’s for creating digital art. That’s the point. In the same way, you could say humans operate from a few fundamental "universal preferences" – survival, avoidance of suffering, pursuit of comfort, pleasure, and ego preservation. But over time, these simple drives evolved into incredibly complex behaviors, shaped by society, language, identity, trauma, and culture. So we end up with things like: Someone thinks they need to break their bones to become a few inches taller just to hit 6ft on Tinder, thinking that’s what it takes to be loved now. That’s today’s version of a mating strategy. Someone decides the best way to survive is to become a quant, staring at tiny candlesticks and charts all day. Hunting’s been replaced by tracking pixels on a screen. Someone feels so much pain or emptiness that their only way to stop the suffering is to end their life, not running from danger, but from their mind. Someone gets so wrapped up and brainwashed in a belief system, a sense of group identity, and purpose that they blow themselves up for it. All of these are still expressions of the same core motivations - they’re just processed through incredibly sophisticated and sometimes warped systems of meaning. So, personal importance is never separate from universal importance. It’s just the same principles dressed in layers of thought, emotion, and experience so intricate that the original foundation is hard to see. Just think about how insanely far we've drifted from basic human-animal behavior - the survival instincts are still there, but they've evolved into these complex, layered, almost unrecognizable strategies. The way we try to survive now is so sophisticated that it barely resembles anything natural anymore. At least that's how I think of it, but I'm very open to being wrong! Can we generalize the point of divergence? It’s hard to pinpoint a precise “moment” where importance becomes personal. But it generally begins as soon as a conscious agent starts forming preferences or developing a model of reality tied to its own identity and history. That moment might look like: the first time a system has to choose between two actions based on expected outcomes for itself, and not purely based on external physical laws. This is such a hard thing to know, because when we're kids, we're basically just running on instincts and genetics without any self-awareness, little brainless zombies. Maybe one day we'll develop more advanced psychological tools that can map or predict these early tendencies, but for now, not even close. All we have are personal memories of what we were naturally drawn to as children, often without realizing why. It's one of the areas I'm especially curious about, too. I really love your question! Hmm... Whether the universal structure of importance can be separated from other universal structures really depends on what you mean by "universal." If you’re talking about universals within humans, then yes. There are universal value structures that apply to ants, water currents, aliens, games, computers, and even inanimate objects. Since all of these are limited in some way and grouped by shared patterns, we can identify universal values within those limits. But if you mean the "ultimate" or absolute (like God or infinity), then no. There aren’t separate universal structures because infinity includes everything. You can’t have another absolute infinity outside the original. It would simply include that other absolute infinity within itself. As an infinite entity, it "absorbs" anything outside of it instantly, making it self-defining and all-encompassing.

Amen!

Correct! It's inevitable. From a young age, we're fed all kinds of narratives about what matters and why being "important" is something to chase. Celebrities, the wealthy, and cultural icons are idolized, while living an ordinary life is often framed as something to avoid or be ashamed of. It makes sense that questioning your own value feels threatening. The ego craves an objective standard to measure itself against, something solid it can point to and say, "See, as long as I embody this, I matter. I’m worthy. I’m safe." It’s comforting to believe in that kind of certainty. Just like it’s comforting to believe in an all-knowing, all-loving creator who protects you and punishes those who hurt you, it's upsetting to imagine yourself as the one who might be harmful, evil, or deserving of punishment. The ego naturally resists that. It clings to a good image, so it often avoids questioning its motives or examining whether its intentions are good, pure, or free of selfishness. That’s why it’s much more common to see victim mentality, projection, and blame than honest self-reflection and personal responsibility. That’s also part of why religion can be so appealing. Why wrestle with your values and morality when you can adopt a ready-made framework that does the thinking for you? You get to blend in with the community, follow the script, and feel a sense of certainty. You don’t have to ask yourself if you’re actually good or not - the book already says you are, so that must be enough, right? Yes, I think this is why spirituality (or at least the kind we’re doing here) is so powerful. It's one of the first fields I’ve come across that actually makes this distinction (like Leo’s State of Consciousness blog post!). You can understand all of this conceptually and logically, but the real work is applying it to your day-to-day experience. In the relative "human" world, you cannot escape your judgment or the judgment of others. The way I usually navigate this is by recognizing that there are two layers of values we deal with. First, there are more "global" human values. These are helpful to be aware of, because they show up almost everywhere: Being seen as attractive, intelligent, independent, capable, and well put together Doing more good than harm is usually better for humanity overall Striving for your happiness and the happiness of those closest to you, while minimizing suffering Then, there are personal values. These are things you can only discover through direct experience. You have to live life, observe yourself, and slowly figure them out. Questions like: What are my talents and virtues? What moves me or inspires me? What is my style? What disgusts me? What kinds of people give me energy or drain me? What kind of conversations light me up? What is my purpose? What kind of impact do I wish to have? What environments make me feel most like myself? You find these by exposing yourself to a wide range of experiences, while passively observing and self-reflecting. Journaling helps a lot, too. Over time, you build a personal “value bank”, a sense of the things you naturally gravitate toward. For example, imagine if I asked you, "What makes you laugh?" And for the past six months, you had been consciously tracking every moment you laughed, even writing it down. You’d start to understand your sense of humor, the types of jokes that work for you, the comedians you love, and the people who bring out your creativity and playfulness. That’s valuable insight. It’s deeply personal, but incredibly useful. Leo’s course touches on these layers well, actually! Even though in the "Absolute God-state or the infinite singularity of love and beauty", everything is equally valuable, we still need to understand what makes us tick on the relative plane. We have to learn how to build a life that fits who we are. That begins with discovering our real values. This also means being careful not to let the outside world program us into adopting values that are not truly ours. One of the first ways to avoid that trap is by asking yourself, "What is value? What is importance?" (just as you are!) And not being afraid that asking those questions might somehow make you less valuable. Yes! I was just having fun with those words, sorry haha! There is definitely nuance between them, but meaning, worth, and value often overlap a lot. Usually, if you know what you value, you also understand what gives your life meaning. Most of the time, you find that thing worthwhile, purposeful, or connected to your sense of self-worth. We tend to use many of these words interchangeably or in similar ways, so I just wanted to point that out. Yes! What I meant is that since everything is ultimately Singularity, or One, or "God," trying to make something more important or valuable than something else creates separation. But that idea is more about metaphysics and less about the practical side of value discussed here, so it doesn’t matter as much for now!

Do you know what triggered it so much? Or what was the fantasy? Perhaps it's too private to ask, but thank you for sharing!

Ding ding! ✅

Do you have specific delusions that, looking back, were so insane it’s scary how strongly you believed them? Or was it more just a general period of time where things felt off?

LOL, are... you?

I guess I can also share my own experience! I was going through a lot of identity issues while stuck in a toxic situation, and psychedelics often made things worse by completely dissolving any grip I had on reality or sense of self. I’d end up convincing myself that I was born "empty" (the emptiness was a sign of "purity" or closeness to "God, Enlightened Selfless Self") and better off just surrendering to whatever was happening to me, even when it wasn’t healthy at all.

Very good insights! It’s honestly wild how intensely psychedelics can amplify certain delusions. But I suppose that’s part of the point - to bring buried thoughts or patterns to the surface in a way that makes them impossible to ignore.

I know, right? Honestly, this was probably one of the most painful parts of my entire psychedelic practice - and still can sometimes hit bad. Facing the ridiculous things I believed, the delusions, the embarrassing ideas that genuinely felt true at the time, was brutal. Deconstructing ideas about God actually felt refreshing in a weird way compared to it, haha. I can definitely see how this kind of insight could help others, too. I know I would’ve loved to have heard it before I started. No pressure, of course, though! I guess one way to keep it safer and avoid spilling too much personal stuff is to stick to general points without getting too specific. But the more detailed and emotionally vivid the story is, the more powerful the impact. Alternatively, we could even start a thread on it if others are open to sharing their experiences, too.

@Leo Gura Hey, on a side note for this comment, could we perhaps get a blog post or a video on the insanity or delusional thoughts psychedelics can give you (both delusions that bleed through into your real life, like the one you just said, and ones that happen only during the trip)? I think that one would be insanely valuable, because at least for me, once I started practicing psychedelics, I was genuinely shocked by how much mixture and distortion my reality was getting from the drugs, and I had to pull myself out of it. I feel like in some communities, psychedelics are marketed as truth-revealers, or that only the wild, obvious delusions are insane, and they don’t follow you into real life. I had to battle through that, and still do to some extent. Maybe, if possible, a post or video with examples of personal or other people’s insanity - especially the more sneaky, tangible ones like that - would be amazing. Thank you!

"While it is not suited for a woman to" - why do you think so? How do you stay loyal to your ride-or-die when those urges hit? Do you genuinely think that's realistic for you in the long run?

Hmm... The alternative is him being honest with her and saying he doesn’t love her as much as she loves him, that he wants more options, sex, exploration, and not being committed to her in the way she wants, and the way she originally said in the podcast she always wished and longed for. This is where a solid example of Leosplaining would’ve been so much better - no fluff, no “spirituality,” no talk of a “spiritual pathway” or “next-level relationship evolution” or any of that. The girl needs a reality check, not a spiritual brainwashing word-salad ritual. Bonus points if he had any respect for her, he would’ve taken in all the times she said on the podcast, “I died, and died, and died. So many boundaries were pushed. This whole relationship, I felt like my limits were extended. All I ever wanted was to feel safe, secure, and loved.” If he’s spiritually “evolved” and a present, attuned lover who knows his partner, he should’ve recognized that and helped her stay grounded. I don’t mind him wanting polyamory at all - that’s not the issue. But the spiritual posturing is cringe. I do agree she should find courage and leave, but he does not seem "loving" or "spiritual" here. But I could be wrong, idk!

The same dynamic applies on the other side. There's not much difference between a woman doing OnlyFans and asking countless men for money, and a woman who is actively sugar-daddy hunting, draining a man’s resources because she knows there are always more men willing to do the same. These women, too, live in a different world. Extremely attractive people, in general, live in different worlds. They see firsthand how quickly others compromise, how much people are willing to give up their boundaries, and how drastically behavior changes in their presence. Still, none of this justifies anyone exploiting others. What bothers me is how sometimes the “high value man” archetype is often tolerated or even respected, while an attractive "sugar-baby" woman doing something similar is judged more harshly. But when you strip away the surface, it’s the same thing. If you abuse your partner’s love or specifically seek out partners you view as “lower” than you just to manipulate them or gain access to more affection, control, money, or options, you are trash. This applies to any gender. Don't start by claiming you're monogamous, pouring on love, acting sweet, saying you'll cherish and commit to them, making it seem like you’re on the same page with a "mutual" agreement. Then, once they're emotionally attached, drop the polyamory proposal as if it was always part of the plan. If you want polyamory, find a partner who also wants polyamory at the very start. Don’t manipulate someone into reluctantly agreeing just so they don’t lose you. That’s not love, that’s selfishness disguised as empowerment. But people rarely stop to think about this, because the ego boost feels too good to question

NOOOOOO!!! Don't fall into such mousetraps, Mr. Leosplaining!

I think what's needed is a good counter-term or rhetorical trap, similar in tone and function to leftsplaining. Something that calls out the mindset where people hide behind cynicism, blackpilling, status quo bias, TINA ("There Is No Alternative"), toxic or weaponized realism, hard-nosed pragmatism, or doomerism to justify inaction and block change. The ideal term would expose this move for what it is: a way to shut down deeper vision, dodge responsibility, and defend broken systems by pretending to be “realistic.” Examples: “People are just selfish and violent by nature, they need to be controlled - that’s why authoritarianism is the only thing that works.” “Most people are too stupid to vote correctly, so democracy is a joke. I want a strong, masculine dictator who will set real order!” “Racism will always exist - there’s no point trying to fix it.” “Most people can't grasp complex ideas, so why even bother with education reform? Just tell them what to think.” “Climate change solutions are a pipe dream - people will never sacrifice convenience.” "If people are too closed-minded to accept LGBTQ+ rights, then maybe the issue isn't even worth fighting for." Cynisplaining, Defeatplaining? ... is the rhetorical move where someone uses "harsh reality" as a weapon to dismiss effort, imagination, growth, or responsibility. It's a kind of realism-worship that blocks change, often disguised as wisdom or pragmatism. This mindset accepts the world as it is - flawed, dumb, unfair - and uses that acceptance as an excuse to avoid higher thought or ethical responsibility. Instead of acknowledging the need for a better system, the person doubles down on the broken one as “just the way things are.” Another version of this is when someone selectively uses realism and harsh truths to push their agenda, but the moment their ego needs comfort or validation, they suddenly cling to softer, more hopeful, or lenient ideas. Examples: "Look, poverty exists because some people are just lazy. You give them free money like UBI, and they'll just waste it. The rich? They worked hard, made smart moves, and took risks. They deserve what they have. We shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity." Later (when it touches their own life): "Man, ever since I got laid off, it's been tough. I've applied to like 20 places and still nothing. It's not that I don’t want to work, I just need a chance. Honestly, if there were some kind of program to help out with bills while people get back on their feet, that would change everything. Not like UBI exactly... but you know, something for people like me who actually try." "The truth is, most people are idiots. They can't think for themselves, they follow trends, they need someone strong to lead them and keep them in line. You give the average person freedom, they ruin everything. A strong hand is the only thing that works." Later (when it's about them): "I’m not gonna be anyone’s puppet. I make my own path. I don’t need some system or leader telling me what to do. I don’t fit in with the herd. I need to live free, on my terms. I hate when people try to box me in or act like they know what’s best for me." "Emotions have no place in politics. We need cold, rational decision-making. Leaders shouldn’t care about feelings - they should focus on results. That’s why soft, compassionate policies always fail. We need logic, not bleeding hearts." Later (defending their favorite leader): "No, you don’t understand. He gets it. When he speaks, I feel it. He’s not just about numbers, he understands the struggle. He’s passionate, he cares. That’s what makes him a real leader, not like those fake ones reading off scripts. He speaks to something deeper."

Value = Meaning = Worth = Significance = Importance = Merit = Purpose = Relevance = Benefit = Desire = Utility = Priority

These are just silly examples, but they highlight the absolute relativity of what value is and isn’t. The only reason we might think value is objective is if we look at it from a human point of view, for example: Decreasing suffering is usually better than increasing it. Safe, collaborative environments are generally better than hostile, dangerous ones. But I’m sure you can think of examples where the opposite is true: A spoiled luxury child might need a metaphorical "punch in the stomach" to get going. An ungrateful, lucky narcissist might need some suffering to self-reflect and grow. Human perspectives, but especially from a god’s or the universe’s point of view, value is absolutely relative and undefined. Value is relational and mental. Value only exists through relationships and perspectives. Potential and undefined until an observer actualizes it through their bias, preference, or meaning. God or the universe contains potential "undefined experiences". All are possible until they become actualized through fragmented perspectives, preferences, and meaning-making.

+------------------+--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Observer | Perspective | Object 1 | Object 2 | Object 3 | +------------------+--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Artistic Human | Emotional, symbolic, beauty-aware | Abstract painting → | Custom rifle → | Tax forms → | | | | Deep meaning | Design, craft | Dull, lifeless | +------------------+--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Ant | Survival, instinct, function-first | Sugar crystal → | Twig → | Human → | | | | Colony treasure | Bridge/path | Obstacle, unknown | +------------------+--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Abyssal Octopus | Sensory, spatial, harmony-based | Current → | Anchor → | Reef → | | | | Orientation guide | Disruption | Home, camouflage | +------------------+--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ +------------+----------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Perspective| Object | Interpretation | Underlying Value | +------------+----------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | God | Act of evil | Expression of distortion - hunger, power, rebellion, | To know what it's like to not be all-loving, to feel | | | | inability to love, inability to see self in other | separation, disconnection, fragmentation | +------------+----------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Human brain | Self-reflection machine for the human - | Experiencing limitation, duality, identity, and choice | | | | biological interface of consciousness | through a finite lens | +------------+----------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Distant nebula | Silent explosion of gas, dust, and starlight - | Beauty without witness, raw cosmic creation, | | | | cradle of stars, chaotic balance of forces | art that exists regardless of observation | +------------+----------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Object | Perspective | Interpretation / Assigned Value | +------------------+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Act of Evil | God | Fragmented self - to feel separation, powerlessness, | | | | inability to love - a lens on disconnection | | | Artistic Human | A tragic character arc - a study in suffering, trauma | | | Ant | Irrelevant unless it disrupts the colony | | | Octopus | Sudden violent movement - a predator, danger to avoid | +------------------+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Human Brain | God | Self-reflection machine - interface of finite mind | | | Artistic Human | Source of creativity, emotion, identity | | | Ant | Possibly a large, moving obstacle - no concept of brain | | | Octopus | Emits electricity and sound - complex lifeform to watch | +------------------+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Distant Nebula | God | Cosmic art - creation without audience | | | Artistic Human | Unreachable beauty - inspires awe and humility | | | Ant | Beyond comprehension - sky is just light/dark | | | Octopus | Unknown pressure pattern above - meaningless visually | +------------------+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+