Xonas Pitfall

If you only had one woman, she would automatically be seen as the most attractive because there is no comparison. If a more attractive woman appears, she becomes the new reference point, and the standard of beauty shifts again. The same logic applies to strength or masculinity in men: a man seems strong until a stronger one appears, which changes how the others are perceived. I don't quite understand the difference you are trying to point out.

This argument is pretty easily debunked by the simple fact that women's attractiveness has been viewed very differently throughout history. So no, male attraction to women isn't a fixed, objective thing either. It's heavily relative and shaped by culture and time. The same applies to women and who they perceive as an attractive man. The idea that you would always pick out your “type” in any environment, any culture, or any time period because it is purely objective and independent is not true. Many other cultures also have their own ideas of what is attractive, and people within those cultures notice and value those traits. Attraction, for both men and women, is influenced by survival and social conformity, so people tend to find the cues valued in their own culture attractive, no matter how strange they might seem to outsiders. For example: You have to consider that society and media heavily shape your natural instincts and influence what you respond to, and that social conformity is also deeply embedded in how you choose a partner. A good open-mindedness exercise is to imagine genuinely living in these different cultures and naturally preferring to have sex with the type of women considered attractive there, genuinely enjoying it, and then feeling just as devastated if you were unable to have that experience as you would in your own culture with your “classic” beauty standards. Even if you argue that there are still some overlaps and consistent traits in what people find attractive, the same applies to male attractiveness as well. It still shows that both are relative.

Always just start building it first. Get to building as fast as possible. Nothing else matters more. The devil is in the details. The more you actually work on something, the more painful implementation details you discover. Those details are where the value is, and they're also what make it difficult for someone else to copy. The longer you spend thinking instead of building, the more likely someone else arrives at the same idea. And if your project is still just an unreleased prototype or a simple vibe-coded demo, it's much easier for someone to recreate. TL;DR: Your biggest asset is execution. Just build it. Keep it as a dirty little secret between you and Claude. As you refine the product, it naturally becomes harder to replicate. Every iteration adds layers of polish, edge cases, design decisions, and domain knowledge that aren't obvious from the outside. There are plenty of indie developers who release demos of unfinished games. Even if people understand the concept, it's incredibly difficult to reproduce the exact feel because their style is so distinctive. And once a project starts gaining traction, the original creator usually becomes associated with that style anyway. Marketing, community, and consistent execution create a moat that's much harder to copy than the initial idea itself.

Can infinity arise from the finite? Can randomness (or noise) arise from a signal? Can informality arise from formality? I feel like this is one of the central questions when thinking about infinity: can the finite give rise to the infinite, or is some form of infinity necessary even for a finite, mechanistic universe to exist? Which ultimately leads to the question of bias: can something that is inherently defined, constrained, or biased ever transcend its own boundaries? Can a collection of finite, bounded things, through their interactions and collisions, generate the vast complexity and apparent openness of reality without requiring infinity at its deepest or most fundamental layer? Or does such richness ultimately depend on some form of infinity already being present at the top, bottom, or foundation of the system? Some arguments: However: Are finite rules genuinely creating infinity, or are they merely exploring an infinity that was already implicit in the space they inhabit? If every rule is finite and every state is finite, where does the extra room for novelty come from? Why doesn't the system eventually exhaust itself? A finite-state system actually must eventually repeat itself. If there are only finitely many possible states, then after enough time, it cycles. No true novelty remains. So if reality exhibits genuinely inexhaustible novelty, one might argue that somewhere there must be: an infinite state space, infinite divisibility, infinite time, infinite possibility, or some other non-finite feature. Is emergence enough, or does emergence itself require an infinite reservoir of possibilities underneath it?

It's hilarious to think just how woo-woo, "irrational", and mystical science 500 years from now might seem to current scientists. Kind of like how Jesus would probably be (is) rolling in his grave, facepalming at the current opinions of "religious conservatives," hehe 😄

Hmmmm... Gotcha, but couldn't the same thing be said about philosophy? You could say, "As of now, the common consensus around 'philosophy' is very much not it." I suppose that's kind of what I mean with science. The "purest" form of science is what I described earlier. The same applies to your idea of a "pure" philosophy. It's just that the mainstream now corrupts all of these things. Yet they still have a pure form underneath all of that, or at least I'd argue they do. Not arguing against your point. I agree that science, as it currently exists in mainstream culture, is very far from what it could be and "should" be.

The purest form of science is very much needed. I don't think science as a principle or philosophy is bad at all... 🤔💭 The actual scientific method is essentially: how do we verify and discover reproducible steps toward a certain goal? How do we verify truth? If the goal were to deliver experiences of God or enlightenment in a reproducible way to people, you would still need some sort of discipline that attempts to do that systematically for most. If, let's say, one day the goal of science became enlightenment or God, scientists would still need to create some form of methodology, synthetic psychedelics, or other interventions. For all of that, you would need very efficient, precise, granular studies of genes and molecular structures, as well as strong social sciences and psychological sciences, to administer and guide that type of transformation. I don't think science as a method is horrible at all. Its current aims are often tied to materialism, pragmatism, business, and operating within capitalism. But if the aim were God, enlightenment, or spiritual realization, then the scientific method could integrate mysticism and spirituality. It would become something more aligned with Stage Orange's rigor, combined with Stage Yellow/Teal's integrative and spiritual perspective.

Fear, lack of forethought, and social conformity (identity). I guess like most things... 😓

I think the way I understand an "alien" mind is that it simply means something far outside human cognition, so far beyond our normal way of thinking that it feels alien or foreign to us. Whether actual extraterrestrial beings that visit us, or that we visit, would be much smarter or much dumber than humans is a separate issue that is currently unknowable. That uncertainty does not disprove the existence of "alien consciousness." You could also describe it as "otherworldly" or as "a form of consciousness so foreign to you that it lies beyond the perspective of human ego".

I don't really know what you mean by "empathy social networks." If you think women will just be helped by anyone at any time, that's simply not true. There are plenty of women struggling in poverty, single mothers, unemployed women, homeless women, abused women, trafficked women, women trapped in violent relationships, women dealing with addiction, women with disabilities, elderly women living alone, women facing discrimination, exploitation, and all kinds of hardships. The narrative that any woman can automatically obtain a happy or comfortable life is very detached from reality. By that definition, you would never see a single struggling woman, which is obviously silly. Is this what you're arguing for, or...? If you're talking about genders supporting and emotionally validating their own members when discussing gender-specific issues, then male spaces have huge amounts of that as well, as I brought up previously. There are countless podcasts, forums, YouTube channels, communities, and online groups where men provide empathy, validation, support, and reassurance to one another. In many cases, they're soothing their own emotions (empathy social networks) through these communities. I mean, the whole rise of the red pill community and podcasts was literally men bringing up male issues, specifically filtering for girls who reinforce those narratives, and making people famous who strengthen those beliefs. So, of course, it’s a mutual empathy network. If you think it’s not, then you’re fooling yourself. And me as well, I think what Natasha and I are arguing for is simply that this is too myopic a view. It’s more an unhealthy human behavior, rather than something specific to women or mostly women.

ham-fisted 🤣 Yes!

Exactly! It's quite saddening to see the exact same emotional behavior get completely different narratives, levels of respect, and interpretations depending on the gender of the person expressing it. People should be willing to deconstruct gender, as well as science, materialism, and religion. All of these frameworks can contain biases worth examining critically in the search for truth.

That's exactly why men gather together, buy podcast equipment, and spend hours talking about "low-value females" and the "male loneliness epidemic." They invent incel terminology like "foid" and congregate in 4chan and Reddit communities to collectively complain, seek emotional validation from one another, and justify their own flawed worldviews. They rile up emotions across the entire online space and frame everything as a gender issue, hoping to gain sympathy, validation, or support for their grievances. Again, this isn't femininity or something inherently female. It's simply immature human behavior from people who don't want to take accountability or responsibility for their situation. To clarify, my point isn't that men or women are "more" bad. But please, these behaviors aren't inherently gendered. They're just genuinely bad examples of human behavior across the board. The stereotypes really don't help people wake up to that. If anything, they make it easier for people to excuse these behaviors in themselves and only notice them in others.

@Happy Lizard Your profile is so cool! ____...---...___ ___.....---""" . ""--..____ . . . . _.--._ /| . .'()..()`. / / ( `-.__.-' ) ( ( . . \ / \ \ . \ / ) ) . .' -.__.- `.-.-'_.' . .' /-____-\ `.-' . \ /-.____.-\ /-. \ \`-.__.-'/ /\|\| . .' `. .' `. |/\/\| |/\/\|

Humans, in general, regardless of gender, can get competitive over potential mates. If there's a handsome guy who might steal your girl, you may become competitive, hateful, jealous, emotional, sensitive, impulsive, or you might grow resentful, passive, or dismissive toward the girl. You might consciously or subconsciously try to paint the other guy as somehow inferior, whether in your own mind or in hers. That's more of a personality-based defense mechanism, but either way, you usually won't just easily and gracefully accept the situation. Just as it might be shocking that a sweet girl could have these feelings, it can also be surprising that a stereotypically "masculine," macho, strong, blunt man can become very sensitive and emotional over the same thing. These are human feelings. Gender isn't nearly as impactful as we're often led to believe by media portrayals. These are feelings that both men and women can be sensitive about. The problem is that society often frames the same emotions differently based on gender. When a person doesn't fit that stereotype, people may see it as shocking, deceptive, or somehow out of character. You can equally say: I hate this "macho" facade that many guys put up. People often assume their decisions are driven by pure logic, pragmatism, or an unwavering commitment to truth. In reality, many of those decisions are influenced by personal bias and sensitive emotions, just like anyone else's. Instead of admitting they're jealous, insecure, hurt, afraid, or threatened, they will reframe those feelings as competition, hierarchy, strength, rationality, or principle, and then use that framing to justify their trash behavior. And then people might say, "Well, they don't have a choice. Society forces men into those roles." But the same applies to women. All of us are shaped by social expectations, often without even realizing it. We absorb norms, stereotypes, and roles through conformity and social pressure. That doesn't mean we should keep reinforcing them. To me, these gendered expectations are part of a social game that deserves to be questioned rather than blindly followed.

How much are we allowed to discuss the clips? I'd love to ask more questions about them, but I'm not quite sure how unfair or bad it would be to Leo and premium content.

Hahahahahahaha

Hello, I potentially have another suggestion, if possible. Thank you either way! One thing I find difficult in this journey with God is the issue of good and evil. I know it's a very standard question, but I feel like there is a lot more here that deserves to be properly dissected. Solipsism was never something I had much trouble integrating. However, good and evil are more difficult for me. If all is ultimately good, then it seems true that someone can be incredibly happy while doing a great deal of evil. There also appears to be a sense in which selfishness prevails in the short term, so the ego is naturally tempted by such things. I believe in one of your clips in the Vault, you talk about how selflessness and goodness aren't really treated that kindly and are very easily exploited. And in the long history of humanity, selfishness has basically tended to prevail. It also seems that some people are born with strong attractions toward evil behavior and can derive a great deal of happiness or satisfaction from it. How do you go about contemplating and deconstructing this? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

I actually found the YouTube channel Leo shared on the blog post really insightful for these topics. It covers topics like the development of societies, politics, government, and how patriarchy emerged in a very clear and helpful manner. Obviously, it’s important to take all of this with a grain of salt and keep a healthy sense of skepticism, but it seems fairly objective compared to a lot of other sources. In case someone has not seen it: https://www.youtube.com/@WHATISPOLITICS69/videos

My bad . Corrected!

I have a few! I’m sure a lot of people would be really interested in different trip reports involving various chemicals, research chemicals, or combinations thereof (equivalent to, for example, Leo’s Salvia, Ketamine, DPT, 5-MeO-DMT, MALT videos, etc). Even that mysterious shroom juice he shared on Instagram would be interesting! I know Leo has expressed plenty of times that he doesn’t want to share a decent chunk of them, but it would still be fascinating to hear about any new chemicals, protocols, or combinations, as well as insights into how different substances may differ, what kinds of reactions or realizations they can produce, or even just Leo’s own stories. Tips on how one would approach testing, mixing, and trying out their own research chemical protocols. How do you manage and do it yourself? Perhaps some quick Kriya Yoga tips too! Reading about them in Leo’s comments is useful, but a demonstration would likely be a much more powerful and effective way of teaching. I’d also love the topic of solipsism vs infinite God awakening to be talked about: the differences, the clarifications. I’m wondering if there are some hidden nuggets of truth I’m missing. I’d also love to hear your experiences on retreats and workshops. I remember one video where you shared an insight into Peter Ralston’s workshop (if I remember correctly): "Oh, the person gets that the finger is the pointer! How does it even understand it’s the relational operator, etc.?" I might be butchering it from memory, but some stories or quick snippets of your own “aha moments” that are very describable or specific would be great. Definitely more about alien awakening, or just weird, funky, alien-like, or shocking states of consciousness. I especially enjoyed the blog post where Leo shared that watching Stephen Wolfram’s video on alien-like forms of perception and consciousness sparked an insight for him. Content like that is personally very fascinating to me, so I’d love to hear more experiences, insights, or stories in that direction. Topics and personal stories about psychedelic delusions and self-deception you've experienced: When have psychedelics actually been more deceptive, harmful, and not enlightening? I feel like this is a very important topic to be more conscious and aware of, and something that should be talked about more: physical dangers, preventative care, pre-trip protocols, harm reduction, and tips for having safer and better trips while avoiding bad ones, etc. Also, it’d be interesting to hear more political and historical realism insights, like some of the stories you shared about corruption involving the CIA, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. Just more mind-expanding facts, historical perspectives, and lesser-known insights from the books you’ve read. I recall you mentioned reading dozens of books on topics like torture, corruption, geopolitics, and human behavior, so I can imagine there’s a lot of fascinating material and perspectives that haven’t really been shared yet. I’m sure you can generate plenty of clips here from having read so much, haha. Perhaps you can also share insights on how you manage your happiness and baseline consciousness levels despite health issues. What would you say to someone struggling with something similar? I also remember a long time ago you mentioned you would make a video on Visual Logic and what creativity is. I’d love to hear some nuggets about that. The ancient, legendary, mythic, long-overdue Witch Girlfriend video? Just some random ones for now! Obviously, I fully understand that some of these are reserved for the awakening course or retreats, but I’m sure some of these can be spoken about in some manner

One thing I’d definitely recommend is looking into bulk-posting software across social media. It can save you a ton of time since you can create one reel/video format and automatically spread it across Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, etc. You could look into things like Buffer, Repurpose.io, PostFlow.app, and similar tools. Try a few and see which one gives the best value for money and feels the most comfortable to use. I believe there are also tools that can take videos and repurpose them into text-based posts for Twitter/X, LinkedIn, YouTube community posts, etc., so you can get even more value out of a single video piece of content 🙂 I’d maybe even consider hiring the same editor, or a new one, specifically to repurpose all of your Actualized.org content into short-form reels and funnel people toward your products. I know it kind of sucks that the hustle side is necessary, but you already have such a huge amount of valuable material. If you found the right editor or media agency to repurpose and promote that content properly, I genuinely think it could help bring in a lot more sales for the business while also helping more people discover your work. More exposure is always great, and if you’re already creating videos in the correct 9:16 format, you might as well repurpose them across all platforms for extra impressions. Good Luck, Leo! Would hate to see all that quality content not get the support, sales, and exposure it deserves.

Makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...

Gifted or not, it's allowed to have a brain...

One way to think of God is as an infinite “playground” in which finite forms can appear and exist, like children playing within it. In this view, humans and all other finite things are expressions within that field of existence. Truth, love, and consciousness can then be understood as the “ground” or “medium” of that playground. They are not separate objects inside the system, but the underlying conditions that make experience itself possible. They function like the background container that allows separate beings to arise, relate, and persist as distinct yet connected forms within the whole. If that “playground” (universe or God) were not truth, then there would be a fundamental bias in which forms could exist and which could not exist, making it an inaccurate medium for the expression of ALL infinity. If that “playground” (universe or God) were not pure, unfiltered consciousness, then there would be a fundamental bias in which forms could be perceived and which could not be perceived, like a human eye that cannot see the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum of color, making it an incomplete medium for the expression of ALL infinity. If that “playground” (universe or God) were not love, then there would be a fundamental bias in which forms are preferred and which are not preferred to exist, more or less loved, creating separation and hierarchy, making it an inconsistent medium for the expression of ALL infinity.