Xonas Pitfall

ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ . . .🧀 !

This principle brings to mind something Leo mentioned in his solipsism video - why would the universe, or this supposedly infinite object we call "God," need to go through the trouble of creating endless complexities? It’s already everything; it encompasses all possible realities, all potential perspectives. Instead of constantly reinventing itself through endless variations, it could simply *be* — it could choose to create and imagine just one perfectly crafted frame. This single frame would exist for one primary viewer, a single observer, or "watcher" that could be thoroughly convinced of the illusion. That observer is you. In this way, the universe achieves a kind of ultimate efficiency. It doesn’t need to generate countless perspectives or endless layers of reality; it only needs to convince one perspective, one consciousness. This is the principle of least action in a sense — it’s the path of least resistance, the most ingenious and efficient design possible, reducing the universe's "effort" to a single, complete experience for one observer.

Hello, world! Mime Your Manners, please! 😊🎈✨🔅

@Genius100x Thank you so much! 😊💖💛 Unfortunately not from Orissa, no! More like poofed from the lands of bleep-bloops, zips, zaps, whirly words, doodle-dashes, fizz-pops, flutter-fluffs, wiggle-woos, and zany zings! 💥💞💫🕳🎈🎇✨

@Keryo Koffa Aww, look at the little guy go! 🦋 One day, I hope to guide a brain organoid shaped like a delicate, fluttering butterfly too...😊

https://www.sunterryart.com/

💛💛 This is too fucking cool, sick share - thank you so much! 💛💛

@Keryo Koffa Keryo Koffa’s profile picture is the one pure testament to Love and Divine God Head Consciousness that I could ever need in this life. In a single glance, it whispers everything about the beauty and grace that words often fail to capture, radiating a presence that feels both eternal and profoundly intimate. It’s as if, within that small image, the entire essence of love, spirit, and universal connection quietly reveals itself, offering all the proof I’ll ever seek... 💗

I remember the first time watching this - the episode really confused and surprised me. It took some time to understand fully. Although when I deconstructed it, I think this episode basically means: The property of the Absolute God is that there are infinitely many fractals of God, many "smaller infiniteness" within itself. However, to be absolutely sovereign means there is a functional property of never being sure if there is anything outside of yourself. To be fully sovereign is to have an imaginary other always in your mind (it's cute how this reflects our human day-to-day experience). It’s not a bug; it’s a feature. This self-contained perception comes with a paradox: to truly claim absolute sovereignty, one must grapple with the uncertainty of what lies beyond their own consciousness. In essence, there is an inherent acknowledgment that while one may feel complete understanding of their internal mind, the existence of an external reality—something outside of oneself—remains ambiguous and elusive. This uncertainty fosters the notion of the "imaginary other." You can think about how there are infinitely many ways to study a single fingerprint, along with all its atomic collections and curvatures, but also just how many infinite fingerprints there are. Consider how infinitely complex a single human mind is and how there are infinitely many humans and potentially other conscious entities, all of these representing larger and larger infinities within the Absolute One. To be sovereign is to be fully aware that you are all there is—the ultimate decision maker, the one with the final word, the sole authority, unchallenged and undisturbed, the one without external influence. Yet, if anything seemingly other ever appears, you wouldn't be able to know. However, this doesn't deny solipsism; this is just applied to the many Infinities of God. However, I do think to complete this episode, it would be ideal to say that since the final God, the Absolute, would reflect properties-less-ness, "essencelessness" or "attribute-free state" and also absolutely everything, this God is already so connected and identifies with everything that it’s impossible to ever experience a sense of other or the experience of questioning sovereignty. In that way, the solipsism picture is fully complete. It will still have the property of Absolute Sovereignty, but since there is nothing it is not or hasn't connected to already, it is never questioned—only in lesser infinite self forms. Am I understanding this correctly? This reminds me of . . . ➡ Mathematician Georg Cantor developed set theory and introduced the concept of different sizes of infinity. In Cantor's work, the term "absolute infinity" is used, which he denoted by the symbol Ω\OmegaΩ. This concept refers to the idea of an infinite set that contains all sets, including itself. Cantor's Absolute Infinity (Ω\OmegaΩ) Absolute Infinity: Cantor proposed the idea of absolute infinity as a way to describe a totality that transcends all finite and infinite sets. This concept represents the ultimate form of infinity, encompassing all mathematical entities, including those that cannot be constructed or fully understood within standard set theory. Set of All Sets: Cantor's notion leads to the idea of a "set of all sets," which is a collection that contains every possible set. However, this idea leads to paradoxes (like Russell's Paradox) when considering whether this set can include itself, challenging the foundations of set theory. The way I like to think of it is that smaller sets of infinity all lead to the experience of absolute sovereignty and the possibility of connection with others. Meanwhile, the Omega set—representing all infinitudes—is absolutely sovereign in a way that is never questioned; it is experienced only through these smaller sets of infinities. This occurs because there is genuinely nothing outside of it. However, it still embodies the notion of an imaginary other through its smaller infinities, as to be absolutely sovereign means to be defined within oneself. This always, by definition, creates a duality of the possible sovereign other. This Absolute God and its practically boundless property with the persistent question of the existence of Other reflect in small fractals all the way down to the most limited beings and the smallest subsets of infinities. In these limited beings, there is a direct sensation of impact, leading to the belief that control and otherness exist outside of themselves. In contrast, more infinite beings can bask in their sovereign independence for longer, until they feel confronted—ready for a metaphysical sex. 💢💥 Woohoo! 💟💌 To define these: Absolute Set – Infinitely interconnected, encompassing everything and nothing, it can instantly connect to everything since it is everything. Its sovereignty is unquestionable, allowing for no possibility of experiencing separation. Yet, because it is absolutely sovereign, it possesses a duality—the "feeling of missing an imaginary other" to complete itself. Thus, it infinitely separates to fully experience its wholeness and connection. How could a God be truly understanding if it never experienced what it is like to separate from itself or lose something from itself? To lose Love? To desire Love? It is Love. More Love. Sets contained within the Absolute Set – While still infinite, these sets are smaller and reflect this fundamental feeling of "missing an imaginary other." They are, in essence, a representation of the Absolute Set's duality, encompassing a myriad of experiences that resonate with the notion of separation. Within these smaller sets, the sense of loss, longing, and connection becomes palpable, allowing for a deeper understanding of the human experience. It's truly beautiful. I remember during one trip, I realized how essential we are to God. Without us, He would be incomplete, separate, and unable to fully embody His all-loving nature. In creating us, He made Himself whole—able to love everything that we are and everything we have become.

What in the Black Mirror-

Ooo, my, oh my, oh my - how fuuunky! Hmmm, perhaps you should upload this as a YouTube video, with hyper-detailed, multidimensional images and video...? You can’t possibly expect to comprehend the vast intricacies of extraterrestrial, transdimensional, and hyper-cosmic language with such a minuscule sample! Didn’t they properly educate you in the Leo Gura Institute of Alien Hyperintelligence on the nuances of this phenomenon? How am I expected to interrupt this on such a low database? Goshy!

@Princess Arabia 100%

I completely agree. I suppose what I was asking is: how does this look on a human level? It seems that the more we align with who we truly are, the more alive, present, and in flow we feel. That sense of being "in the zone" - fully immersed and focused - is a great intuitive sign. If my day-to-day experiences feel as warm, fuzzy, alert, and focused as those deeper moments, like during a trip, it’s probably a good indicator that I’m on the right track! What’s really interesting is how my perspective has shifted over time. When I was younger or still learning about the world, I always had this mindset of "I will create and build what I desire." But now, the direction feels different. It’s more about discovering and becoming aware of consistent patterns in my identity - the talents and interests that naturally pull me - and then embodying and expressing that. It’s almost like observing myself from a third-person perspective, managing my life in a way that positions me to live as my ideal self. Also, I know this channel - it’s great! (∩_∩)

I think this is one of the best ways to address the question of free will versus determinism, especially from a spiritual perspective. Recognize that all dualities ultimately collapse. At the highest level of consciousness God or the Absolute simply *is*. It can only be Love, and it can only act in accordance with its own nature, which is love itself. In this sense, it is bound by its own essence. Yet, because nothing exists outside of it, it is entirely free, unconstrained by any external forces. There is no "Other" to control it. This answer embodies both a deterministic, perhaps more pessimistic, view and a more optimistic perspective of freedom. What do you think holds true on the Relative plane?

You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. What an amazing quote. Thank you so much!

Women do like "nice" guys. The issue is that many self-proclaimed nice guys see themselves that way because there’s not much more to them - or at least, they haven’t done the work to discover what makes them interesting, what they bring to friendships and relationships, or done enough self-improvement. They also fail to showcase their value clearly to the world. So, they believe "niceness" is an inherently good quality that can make up for their other shortcomings. Comparing themselves to "bad boys," "Chads," or "arrogant fuckboys," they build an identity around "I’m so kind, this proves girls don’t value niceness." They start blaming women for their suffering and loneliness. What they don’t realize is they wouldn’t like themselves either if they were women. Plus, they often chase very specific girls - and not for the "nicest" reasons. A lot of these "nice guys" may also cheat, potentially even more than the "fuckboys," because they don’t feel confident in their ability to get girls. So, if the opportunity for more sex comes up, they take it, believing they "deserve" it or that the world owes them. They also often fall into the "Simp" trope: as soon as the girl they were so "kind" to rejects them, they turn bitter, calling her all sorts of slurs. This just reveals they were never genuinely nice - only covertly manipulative. Think about it: if a girl were fundamentally "nice" and "sweet" but not at all attractive to you, would you still be with her? What if the conversations you had with her didn’t interest or stimulate you? What if she had an attitude you didn’t like, or your personalities didn’t mesh? What if she spent her time sitting in her room, eating junk food, watching TikToks, with no job or ambition, yet was still "polite"? Guys reject "nice" girls all the time, or cheat on them for someone hotter or more interesting. Look at the "hot/crazy matrix" meme - it shows that the hotter the girl, the more you’ll tolerate her not being "nice." The same applies here. After a while, women realize this truth. They start thinking, "If I can’t trust any guy not to cheat on me, or if they’re just being fake nice to sleep with me, then I might as well go for the guy who’s most appealing - whether it’s because of his personality, looks, or career status. At least if the relationship fails, I got something out of it and will regret it less." I think that’s how a lot of this happens - a guy (or girl) is "nice," but they don’t work on improving themselves or the relationship. Then, their partner is swept away by someone who seems more confident, and they perceive that as arrogance. They label the partner delusional or foolish for choosing the other person over them. In response, they cling to their "niceness", making it an identity and believing they deserve appreciation just for being "polite." Again, I don’t think men or women dislike nice people. The problem is with those who get lazy and complacent - who don’t do much in general or after entering a relationship, but expect to be loved just because they "don’t disturb the peace" or are simply "okay." Niceness should really be the bare minimum if you want to engage in a close, intimate relationship. If a guy is nice and a valuable partner, fucking perfect. That’s a woman’s "ideal" - not an arrogant, selfish narcissist who happens to be hot but treats her poorly or degrades her, as so-called "nice guys" seem to think. Think about it in terms of a workplace analogy: just because someone is a good worker, or even "good enough" and doing their job as expected, doesn’t mean they’ll advance or be highly appreciated. That’s already the bare minimum, what’s expected. Those who typically rise higher are the ambitious ones, the ones who take initiative, who find ways to leverage situations, and put in extra effort, either in their work or in how they present themselves. Simply being "a good worker" or "nice" won’t get you far on its own.

Yes! He says it is one of the best channels on YouTube in terms of free value. Who knows, he might be here, lurking too . . . 😊❗(●ˇ∀ˇ●)

What did you find works the best for you?

Seems pretty amazing!

Oh my God! Let me try 😊 "10 spiraling in space!", "56, almost a bridge between worlds!", "89 is practically colliding with infinity," "74 breaking into pieces," "53 shifting sideways, dancing like shadows," "6 looping endlessly, but backwards," "25 and 44 are merging like they’re about to become something else," "18 cracking, crumbling, vanishing," "102 leaping over everything!" "150 folding into a toroidal singularity!" "404 oscillating in quantum discord!" "72 is unspooling into hyperdimensional resonance patterns!" "555 is exploding in antimatter streams!" "1000? It’s not a number, it’s a hypercyclic flux of negentropic void!" "Look, 248 is weaving through gravitic entropy, aligning with dark matter flows!" TRANSCEND THE NUMBER! These are no longer mere numerals but quanta in a multidimensional lattice, a fractalized exomatrix of probabilistic harmonics! Why constrain the infinite polydimensional reverberations of the numerical omniverse?

Gentle sadness, warmth, and pain that feels comforting and familiar, violin, ballet, the Nutcracker, clockwork-like aesthetic, haunted dolls, entrapment, and freedom, caring, letting loose, giving all of yourself away with nothing in return, desperately seeking love, ravens, crows, sparrows, losing a sense of home, childhood, nostalgia, longing to come back, losing identity, losing childlike happiness, brokenly trying to reclaim it, recognizing the child in everyone, fragments of persona, an eerie sense of lost love, something missing, putting back pieces of the self, emptiness, a broken doll, shelled like a vessel, shattered innocence, yearning for wholeness, fragile hope, isolation, keys to locked hearts, loneliness intertwined with memories, delicate yearning, melancholy woven with nostalgia, helpless surrender, echoes of past selves, and endless searching.

Hiroko Shiina's art is characterized by surreal, intricate compositions against black velvet backgrounds, exploring themes of eros, fatal romance, and the transience of life through symbolic imagery like skulls, fetuses, and flowers. Drawing from Vanitas and Memento Mori traditions, as well as influences from Japanese prints and Kusozu paintings, her work emphasizes meticulous detail and a ghostly, melancholic atmosphere. Her unique technique, reminiscent of Byzantine mosaics and Aubrey Beardsley's Symbolist style, uses subdued colors, coffee stains, and flowing hair motifs to evoke fluidity and transformation. Shiina's art invites viewers to contemplate life's fleeting beauty and the complexities of human emotion, offering a deeply personal, introspective experience that transcends the grotesque to liberate the spirit.

Aspects of uniqueness and distinctiveness help as well. There’s a certain air of nostalgia for a place I’ve never been to, yet it feels familiar like I should remember it. To be honest, that’s often how many of my trips feel, or heightened states of consciousness. It evokes a warm, comforting familiarity, even though it feels like something I’ve forgotten.

Hmmm... I've noticed that I seem to enjoy themes like magic, magicians, dolls, puppets, the interplay between puppeteers and masquerades. I'm also drawn to tragedy, romance, psychedelic visuals, overly detailed designs, and "Alice in Wonderland"-style delirium. I love quirky, circus-like jester performances, dark and twisted elements, spirals, gothic aesthetics, mysterious fantasy, emotional intensity, surreal dreamscapes, haunting beauty, theatrical whimsy, grotesque visuals, masked figures, and hidden identities. There's a certain allure in the blending of melancholic beauty, This artist captures it really well!