Xonas Pitfall

Super interesting! Do you feel like you had a tendency to attach to one partner more than the other, or have a fixation point? I know for me, this is one of the blockages with polyamory, since I tend to have a singular fixation on a person and desire it reciprocated as well. So I’m super curious how it feels without it. Is it more that each party has traits, hobbies, interests, and ways of loving that soothe you better for one role, and another soothes you better for another? And therefore, you don’t really care if the other party reciprocates the same amount of love compared to the other? I’d love to hear about the mental processes and attachments, and how they play out, but obviously, no need to answer anything you’re not comfortable with ^^ I can just be curious at times. And my condolences... they sound wonderful. 🥀

How did it feel and unveil for you?

HAHA, what does this mean?

That's what she said... (˵ •̀ ᴗ - ˵ ) (Hahahahahaha...)

Thank you very much! It's designed to have very little to no meaning whatsoever. I like creating my usernames from,̵̩͓̊̈̌͒̑͛͒́̄̍̅̐̚͘͠ ̷̢̺̳̣̜̪̦̻͖̱̂͆̉̋͝͠ư̷̰̘͕̋̐̀̈́̔͆͂̄̓̔̈́͑͠n̷̨̡͕̲̤̖̪͇̙̉̆͐̋̍̅̚d̸̯͈͎̭̩̫̍̃̋̿̐́͑͐̋e̵̛͓̒̑͒̍͛f̴̢̨̮͚̗͍̺̱̫͕̥͒̇̌̓̊̓̅͘͜͠i̸͇̾̑͛̌͒̆͐̊͝n̸̡͖̖͎̺͓̘͈̟͇̠͚̠̞̬̿̽̃̎̈́̌́̌̚e̷̬̫͚̠̪͙̞̓̈̈ͅd̴̻̠̬̠̱̺̟̳͑̆͂̒̿̓̆͋͗͝͝ strings by humming random patterns as they come to me (perhaps a reference to Unfiltered Infinity? ). And for the answer... I’m very open to that. I probably should just do more trips and keep contemplating during them, as you suggested! I think the issue is that I still have some lingering 'otherness/materialism/separate reality from the mind' arguments in my brain that I can’t seem to deconstruct. I keep thinking: "Sure, I can conceptually and even experientially understand how the mind works, and how it uses concepts and experiences to define infinity, beauty, God, oneness, and the reality it’s perceiving." But I think the fact that I cannot truly control reality in both my waking and higher consciousness states makes me believe there is 'otherness' independent of my mind, with properties and processes I can never know. And this whole concept of God is just the ultimate way my mind can understand itself and ponder on itself, but the actual source, or the Creator, who is able to mold, spawn, and twist reality, is far different from what I could ever imagine. The best way I can describe it is: There’s reality, then there’s my mind, which evolved from that reality into consciousness to try and understand how reality functions. Sure, my mind is trying to understand reality, and it has plenty of infinite properties, processes, concepts like Infinity, God, and Solipsism, and psychedelic experiences it can create and explore, which is fascinating. But who’s claiming that it’s what created that reality, or is that reality? That's a huge assumption to make. I don’t know if I’m making sense. Leo’s post about being able to manifest a unicorn from pure thought and consciousness was curious to me, but I’ve never really experienced that, nor seen anyone actually do it, just claim it. The closest I’ve ever heard of it is Tesla and how he created his inventions, but even then, he still had to go through a process of materializing those creations. It’s not like it just poofed in front of him for all eternity. And also, this idea that the only present moment is the actual starting point of creation, and from there, I create stories to make sense of it, feels very weird. I had some psychedelic experiences that denied this idea, but it faded sadly. I guess I’ll just keep updating on the forum as I keep breaking my mind, teehee . Thank you!

Agreed! Hence, why I put the HUGE WARNING at the start, haha. Let's pray so!

Nope! It's not a choice; it's a tautology. Basically, it's infinity (all), and it cannot be anything but all. It must be, and include all because it is all. And in order to be all, it has to be both finite and infinite. That’s really all. It didn’t 'choose' anything, it just had to be everything from an absolute perspective. Choice implies an inherent preference for one thing over another, which can only occur from a non-dual, finite perspective.

Yes, please! Moving, maybe...?

Again, the point is to present a very 'biased' and myopic perspective to highlight the silliness! I realize there are a lot of things missing here, but that's the point, hehe! I'm dividing consciousness, splitting it in half, with the hope of uniting it once again! I suppose we can use this post to present biased perspectives and then show the reverse, with the aim of countering that bias.

What would be the male version of this? Attractive interaction with men is about one thing: Openness? Reactivity? Or maybe it all just points to "play", just expressed through different playstyles. Haha, funny... the key insight to 🎮 🕹️ GAME is PLAY! 🎮 🕹️

@Princess Arabia Your profile picture looks like it’s straight out of an epic retro 80s musical aerobics and Pilates weight loss training video! I'd totally get your tape, neon headbands, and leg warmers!

Again, this behavior isn’t gender-specific. People love hearing things that soothe them. That’s how cults persuade people, how political parties gain support. Who do you think brought Andrew Tate, Trump, and Hitler to prominence? Do you think it was women? Men also love hearing things that soothe them, and once you can whisper those things into their minds, they, too, can be easily controlled, manipulated, and will submit to whoever the authority figure whispering sweet words is. Another good example is when it was publicly believed that women were too stupid for schools. "Women can't do this... All this logic thinking it's a 'guy thing'!" Now that the majority of women are outperforming men in schools, suddenly the 'narrative' is: 'Well... uh, schools are just made better for women because it’s all about brainless memorization and people-pleasing to authority. Men like sports and activity more.' Instead of acknowledging that men are failing currently in the very system that was originally designed to cater to them. Plus, I think she was just accepting a cute compliment. Teehee >.<

100%! I was just pointing out the gender bias happening, both can be crazy crazy ones! 😅

Nisssse Silly Gueuïeoosee!

The hotter the guy, the more difficult it is to handle their ego, greed, lust, and narcissism. It goes both ways, haha. The more attractive you are in general, and considering you haven’t faced much backlash in life and are still relatively young, the more you can get away with things. This is an attractive-people thing, not just a guy or girl thing. (Also edit: As @Schizophonia pointed out, it’s more of just a toxic person thing, to be honest haha. It’s just that the more attractive you are, and if you’re a toxic person, the more you can get away with. But yeah, still non-gendered.) Again, you can’t call women the crazier gender when men, throughout history, have been more aggressive, impulsive, cheating, causing unnecessary wars, domestic violence, and creating laws that benefit them and disadvantage anything not like them. It took thousands of years just to get some gender equality, who do you think was electing for this? History alone shows plenty of blind spots on the men’s side. Again, I’m not saying women are the better gender now; I dislike these gender wars. I’m just trying to point out the biases here. You have to remember that anger, inability to control lust and horniness, and inability to be vulnerable are also unhealthy emotions that should be seen as "crazy" and incredibly toxic as well if not regulated.

I think it's also about how relevant and helpful education is perceived to be. With the internet, kids are more likely to stumble upon "anti-schooling" content and realize how irrelevant many of the things taught are, so it’s even less motivating when online learning feels like a better alternative to traditional education. Personally, and for many of my friends, this has been a significant issue. When you compare traditional education to online resources, and also become aware of how little school guarantees a job (if anything, it might just get you into more student debt), it makes school even less appealing. I guess in the past, there was a sense of security that if you got a degree, you could get a stable job and stay with a company long-term with little fear of sudden laid-offs (though maybe that’s just a myth, I am not well-versed here). Education fundamentally has to feel like a worthwhile investment compared to other alternatives, which is why people are pushing for school reform. There are (for example) plenty of AI tools that can potentially be implemented to personalize teaching for children, and that’s just one of the ways the system could potentially improve. Before, students didn’t have as many distractions, so even if the teachers weren’t great, they could still get by. But that’s not a good situation, and it shows how many flaws have been overlooked in the system. Not saying teachers should be disrespected at all, but it’s clear that the education system has long been ignoring some key issues. It could push us to rethink how we engage students, allowing them to explore subjects they’re truly passionate about and helping them discover what interests them. This, to me, is what real education should look like. Obviously, it sounds somewhat utopian for now, but I do think many of the flaws in old-school approaches are slowly being more and more exposed. Which is good!

South Park makes me nostalgic :') ❤

Thank you very much! I highly suggest this tip, to be honest. I feel like my thoughts got progressively clearer once I started doing it. I guess seeing them written out 'prettier' and properly motivated me to push extra hard to keep redefining my logic and communication style.

I write it myself first, but I can't be bothered with grammar, capitalization, or spelling, so my original is very wonky. Then I run it through AI and say, 'Hey, correct grammar and capitalization.' It's an awesome combo, hehe!

This I understand conceptually, but if I truly ask myself if I’ve experienced, believe, or know this, I’m not quite sure. That was my original question in this post. How do you know this isn't just how the mind works, and that it’s all happening in my mind? Sure, the mind has an infinite looping property, and yes, it's contingent for reality to exist; but can’t I just say it’s contingent for reality to be perceived, not exist? How do I know if my mind dies, then everyone separate from my mind in this "reality" will die too? I cannot ever know this. Nothing I ever experienced points to this, both logically and experientially. So, I wanted to ask: how do I contemplate this further so I can grasp what is being said? Thank you so much! ❤

Meaning usually follows this path: You notice or experience some suffering → You alleviate it for yourself → You share, teach, or help others alleviate that same pain. Or, in a shorter and broader sense: You notice how to generate more happiness for yourself and others → You share it and help others experience it. It’s about sharing happiness, alleviating suffering, increasing love, self-expression, exploration, understanding, and care. Life purpose and "calling" usually imply the specific skill or type of suffering or experience/happiness you’re fixing and sharing. That’s why children and relationships are meaningful to a lot of people; you get to feel loved, share love, and feel the direct impact of your actions on others. The same applies to high-purpose careers. This is the more "human" definition of meaning. The more spiritual/metaphysical view is: The universe is unlimited, undefined, pure chaos, and infinity; what it’s missing is finiteness. So, it creates finitudes to experience and know itself. We are small pieces of consciousness, or figments, that help consciousness define itself. Think of it this way: If you don’t know how to gain muscle, you enter into a chaotic, unpredictable world of the gym. Then, you discover how to achieve that goal, and in the process, you’re slowly defining and paving the way on how to do it. See how it connects back to the human-purpose version, too? It’s about defining infinity, making infinity know itself. It’s ultimately meaningless since we are the meaning generators. Meaning fundamentally implies that something is more meaningful than something else. But in non-duality, nothing is more meaningful than anything else. Therefore, all and nothing are meaningful. You're filtering and creating structure in the undefined to achieve your specific bias (goal). For God, this specific path is meaningless because God is both overweight and lean, big and strong, small and fragile. But for you, you have a very specific preference for how you want to be, so now you make that specific distinction in the "unknown" meaningful. You give it special treatment and notice. This is something God "alone" could never do. We are the creations He needed to make this specific distinction, and that's why we exist. God can never alone experience attachment because God is unattached and equally attached to everything, fully connected. He both loves a glamorous movie star and a reclusive, bookish introvert; a tough, battle-hardened soldier, a free-spirited artist, but also a corporate CEO, a passionate activist, a hot playboy bunny and a 48-year-old basement-dwelling nerd, a rugged military man, a redneck, but also a spiritual delusional hipster, a man in his peak athletic capabilities, and a disabled person. But YOU have a unique ability to love a very specific set of people or one person fully, and see, distinctly to you, why they are so special. You give them meaning that transcends all others. This is why we are needed by God. This also applies to yourself, your career, your hobbies, and your taste. Why are they so special to YOU? Only you can make them beautiful and meaningful because God cannot do it for you, since He loves all of them equally. It’s just that people often have a hard time loving themselves or feel self-deprecating unless they have more narcissistic tendencies. So, it’s sometimes easier to see this as a service to others and separate aspects of reality. But both are completely valid points of meaning. You can only experience meaning from a finite perspective. So, the most meaningful thing is the thing from your personal, limited self-perspective, and that’s your "purpose." Keep chasing your bias. Humans’ bias is towards happiness and fulfillment, and away from unhappiness or hopelessness. So, whatever form your personal point of view gives you, that is the highest meaning you can ever have and experience, since you’re the only ever source of finitude in the universe and the current NOW.

Bless! 😊💞💗💛

Masculine is Self Feminine is Love Then: What is Sex? Self-Love! ❤

Love it! ❤ I think an important distinction I’ve personally made is between kindness and integrity. Some people might seem kind and caring, but if I notice a lot of inconsistencies between their words and actions, it should raise red flags. Truth and integrity go hand in hand, and if one is missing, the other likely is too. I 100% agree!

We have to be very careful in how we define these terms. When we talk about Truth, what are we referring to? If we’re discussing concepts like God realization, ego submission (or loss), love, beauty, the mysterious dream-like nature of reality, and experiencing being rather than just thinking, analyzing, or strategizing, I would say all of these aspects are typically more aligned with what is traditionally considered “feminine.” In this context, they appear to be a significant part of the truth. As I mentioned earlier, many times when discussing these ideas, Leo responds with, "You need a higher level of consciousness to experience this," which is fine, but this isn’t the autistic, step-by-step, logical answer you'd expect; he said himself that it was only after several years of inquiry, experience, appreciating, and basking in God/enlightenment that it really clicked for him that God has a natural order and logic to it. My issue lies in how we often define masculine and feminine intelligence. It's often framed as smart versus dumb, rational versus irrational, or order/structure vs delusional. ๑ This is a tale as old as time, a pattern that keeps repeating everywhere ๑ Even Spiral Dynamics follows this very structure. You have an egoic, self-oriented, survival-aware, individual-based level, the masculine. Then, it shifts to a more communal, group-centered, world-aware level, the feminine. This is the core of these dualities. If you fail to acknowledge the intelligence in either of these perspectives, you’ll continue to hold a very distorted, biased, and ultimately invalid view of what masculine and feminine actually are. Chris Langan is a good example of how far you can get with pure, rigid, logical analysis and little to no spirituality or feminine embodiment. Don't get me wrong, he achieved a lot, but even Leo admitted that he wouldn't consider Langan to be God-realized, which is a fair point. Plus, I’m pretty sure Langan himself acknowledged that he was able to do his work because of his woo-woo experiences and lucid dreams, which he referenced while trying to explain his findings. Science, rationality, pragmatism, empiricism, logic, and systematization are what you get when you focus solely on those aspects of reality. That’s why ‘mystics’ and highly open-minded individuals, who weren’t afraid to explore the paranormal, undefined, and more 'chaotic', often ‘feminine’ parts of reality, were needed to make greater scientific breakthroughs. It’s also funny how liberalism is viewed here as a more progressive and correct view, yet if I ask some hardcore, masculine, grungy redneck, they'd say liberalism is for 'pussy beta cucks' and that you're not a real man if you hold that perspective! This means conservatism is seen as largely more masculine, not liberal; yet somehow, the feminine is considered the higher perspective? In fact, if an objective alien were to observe both from a non-partisan perspective, they’d probably conclude that conservatism feels more masculine, while liberalism feels more feminine. F: 'So, you had more mystical experiences with nature or God, right? You’re talking about feeling and intuition, and that led you to some aspects of truth, correct? You do realize that talking about things like beauty, love, selflessness, and transcendent reality is a very feminine thing, right? You’re talking about ego dissolution, going beyond reality and pragmatism, and seeing the other in yourself, love and connection.' M: 'Uh... No, no, that’s also masculine, because, uh… I logically inquired about all of this while I meditated on a rock alone, tough guy monk stuff! I don't care about those things, it's just the Truth, and it's masculine to value Truth, yeah!' F: 'So, if those things aren’t feminine and they’re not part of the feminine approach, then what is feminine intelligence and spirituality? M: 'Uh, new-age spiritual nonsense, delusional astrology... that’s it! Dumb chicks thinking they can manifest anything they want with the law of manifestation, duh! Just feeling and being a brainless bimbo instead of logically inquiring and deconstructing, yeah!' It’s like, when it’s convenient, the mystical, intuitive, and "dreamy" aspects are suddenly masculine because of the way they were 'logically' processed, but anything that’s labeled 'woo-woo' and retarded gets dismissed as feminine. Does that make sense? The distinction seems unfair and incoherent, not to mention other important elements I mentioned above. I feel like Leo and a lot of guys who agree with this view often underestimate how feminine much of what they’re saying sounds (and I'm not shaming that; I think it's awesome!). But let’s zoom out for a bit. If I brought in an objective alien or a random, non-biased human who has some vague idea of what feminine and masculine mean, and I showed them some of Leo’s posts, they’d probably think it sounds like some delusional manifestation talk chick, completely unrooted in reality, posting #LawofAttraction tumblr quotes. Hey, I’m telling you, you can imagine a unicorn! If you just manifest and wish for it, the unicorn will appear right in front of you! The highest beauty is selflessness. The highest beauty is that everything is an illusion. A lot of Leo’s videos were very much in the 'hipster' green stage spiritual realm, yoga guides, meditation. And a lot of them were titled with feminine themes too: 'What is love?' 'How do you express love?'" You don’t get the truth, you cannot prove the truth, you need to embody the truth, be the truth. You’re not in the right consciousness or frequency! It’s all a dream... nothing is real... I manifest/create my reality and self. Again, I’m not trying to mock, nor am I saying these posts aren’t true or meaningful. I just want to offer some perspective on the unfair bias and nitpicking that seems to be happening here. I hope I’m making sense. Please feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything 🤍