Xonas Pitfall

Absolutely!

Orion 🤣

I genuinely think play is one of the most underrated pillars of self-improvement – it's deeply tied to happiness. I wanted to create this thread for any fun personal tips or little hacks you guys might have. Let's play together!

Happy Birthday! 🎈🥳🥳🥳🥳

Sorry! To clarify, I don't believe this at all. These are just some of the observations and contrasts I've seen expressed, or common biases that seem to arise. You see men looking down on the very same traits they wish to see in women, or shaming the very traits they actually desire. A healthy mind thinks like you do. I was just commenting on the possible biases and ego constructs that might arise, and exploring why or how they might develop.

I'd actually be incredibly curious to see why this happens and what the whole "ego construct" behind this phenomenon is. From my observation, men seem to have this weird duality where, on one end, they see women as "other": beautiful, pure, open, expressive, emotionally fluid, a need, almost like this thing that has control over them, which annoys them yet also entrances them because of the beauty. Yet, on the other end, there is this huge side who seem to genuinely feel that, compared to them, women are simply more childish, emotional, misguided, or not smart enough to be regarded on the same level. Or, even if they don't outright believe or say that, there often seems to be this underlying dynamic where "masculine traits" are viewed as being above "feminine traits." It can subtly and subconsciously creep into the way they think or perceive women. I don't know, but it can be quite a confusing construct.

Amazing product! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Philosophy + psychedelics is needed. (or some sort of deliberate consciousness practice), then you'll be sticking your head in cow shit, experiencing interdimensional alien love feasts, inhabiting the mind of a brutalistic caveman ready to rip a gazelle's neck off, tearing into raw flesh like a starving predator, standing knee-deep, reliving your own birth, mourning the death of the universe, and so much more...

The issue is that you think you're being objective, but you're using your biased perspective to claim it's the truth. That's what people have an issue with. You can like/prefer whatever you want, but you're claiming a lot of things that aren't correct or truthful, and that's what people are calling you out on. That's the issue.

You can have any bias. However, where people are arguing is that you take a bias and claim it as the truth. What you're saying isn't "the truth." It's just your preference. The problem is that you mask it, present it as the truth, and then claim you're being demonized for "speaking the truth." But that's not what's happening. You're presenting your bias as if it's the truth. That's the fundamental flaw (issue).

But the issue here isn't that people are refraining from or blocking you from saying the "truth." It's that what you're saying is either overly simplistic, poorly argued, not nuanced enough, and at the very least, up for debate. No one is telling you that you can't say the "truth", but you aren't actually saying the truth. That's why people have an issue with it. The same goes for Leo, as people pointed out above. He can definitely make incredibly simplistic, low-quality arguments and black-and-white binaries around what it means to be a man, a woman, feminine, or masculine. It's not that you're being blocked from saying the "truth." It's that you're in a forum that wants to understand bias, truth, and develop a more refined, complex understanding. We're studying Leo's videos about this. So expecting no debate, no questioning of your beliefs, or no one correcting them would be silly. I've been wrong myself, and as a result of discussions in this forum, I've corrected my own thoughts. It feels good. A lot of people genuinely want to help and push all of us closer to the truth. That should be the goal.

It's sometimes just very simplistic, basic "red-pill/pickup" rhetoric on what masculinity vs. femininity is. Take this post as an example: https://www.actualized.org/insights/masculinity-and-truth It's more disappointing how poor the arguments can be, from someone who's spent years deconstructing biases, self-bias, spirituality, duality/non-duality, etc. A lot of the claims in this post I don't think are accurate or even well-studied/scientifically supported. I think a lot of women on here get tired of how low-quality the arguments are. I think the topic of masculinity vs. femininity is a very interesting one, and plenty of fruitful conversations can arise from it, but we'll get nowhere if this is the level of argumentation...

I think it's also so tricky with old scriptures and philosophies in general to truly know what they all meant. You can easily imagine that if you only had a few videos of Leo left after hundreds of years, many people would also conclude, "Well, Leo said to transcend suffering and that it's possible, because he had that one trip where he said, 'Someone could shoot me through the head, I'm immortal, and I wouldn't feel a thing!!! Death is Imaginary! Pain is Imaginary!!!'" But obviously, if you had the full context, this entire forum, his replies, and all of his videos, you'd see the actual message. It's probably similar with many of these philosophies/religions too. It's always way easier for someone to "appear" like a God when they're dead, haha.

This sounds amazing. Would 100% watch! +1

Customers. As long as you have cash flow, you have a living business. You get customers by getting their attention: social media, paid ads, local paid ads, cold outreach, and other channels. This should always be your primary focus.

@Phil King Where are the 30+ Minute ones? Perhaps I missed them?

Since when have you been feeling this way? Why is it coming up now? Eight years is a long time to suddenly realize that someone makes you uncomfortable. It feels like there's a lot more going on than what's in the post. What are you actually imagining life would look like instead? What are you comparing your relationship to? It's normal for people to drift apart over time, but that's not really what I'm getting from what you've written. It sounds more like you're uncertain, but you haven't really explained why. I think you need to be more honest with yourself about what feels missing, and what you're hoping you'll find on the other side if you decide to leave.

@Pure Do you feel like a Glitch? W̶̹͉̋͝ḩ̸̡̯̄͊͘a̸͇̥͕̒͑͗t̷̫̱̼̰̀͒͆͘ ̴̨̻̌̓ͅḵ̶͒ï̷̹̎̊̚ͅn̵̨͖̙͉͒͆͆̆d̴̠͑̐ ̸̛͇͍̳o̵̢̙̮͜͝f̴̛̞͋͛̈́ ̷̧͔̞͉̉̆E̴͍̞͌̽͆̚n̴̟͙̕e̸͉͔̪͂͆̐̕ṛ̷͛͠g̴͚̒̊͝͠y̸̦͋́ ̴̝̣̘̽͒̽ȧ̷̞̂r̷̞̬̳͔̔͆e̵̞͖͍͇̽ ̶̨̣̔̐̂͘ý̸̧̢̠̫̄͠o̸̤̒͋̎̔ů̸̫̟̹̩̑͒̓ ̴̱̌̌g̵̳̞͖̈́͘e̵̡̯̠͍̓͐̔̍t̵̜͈́̕t̵͓̗̲̽i̵̯̖̻͎̎n̵͖̰͑̿͊̆ĝ̶̰̲͇͜ ̷̳̳͛ͅf̷̜̓͛r̷̢̺̟͉͐̽́ó̵̠͖̈̂ṃ̵̝͂̿ ̶̼̺̎m̴̝̂ȇ̴̞̝?̵͍̯̊͌̇̉

Like any Ego does!

Just some gentle criticism/advice: I don't think most people have an issue with you getting things "wrong" or the specific percentages of how many things you get correct/wrong (10%, 90%, etc.). I think the bigger issue is the level of confidence and sensationalism that often accompany many of the claims. Statements can sometimes come across as very absolute, almost as if there is no room for debate and anyone who disagrees simply isn't conscious enough to understand. I just don't see what benefit that adds. If a person is wrong, you can often disprove many arguments about God through logic alone. There's a huge difference between a scientist making a claim based on a particular research protocol, later revising it, and allowing it to be challenged through peer review, versus a scientist constantly presenting themselves as "I AM the greatest researcher ever! No one ELSE DOES SCIENCE BETTER THAN ME!". If that scientist later makes a mistake, people will naturally be much more eager to point it out and use it against them. Imagine a scientist like this. How eager do you think people would be to point out flaws in his methods and question his credibility? How confident or willing do you think people would be to engage with his methods? I think that's one of the main issues. When someone presents themselves in such an absolute and self-aggrandizing way, people naturally become much more motivated to scrutinize their claims and look for mistakes. Just a suggestion!

Terms don't really make sense to me, tbh. If someone is consistently good and reliable, why would you want to remove them? If you're unreliable or do a bad job, you're out. If you're good, you stay. It's like wanting to fire a great employee just because their "term" is over. No, obviously you'd want to extend their contract if they'd like to keep working with you.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying! Then I don't really see a need for this specific post unless, for some reason, it wasn't already allowed to ban or flag people if they claimed it was "a cult"...? Just keep moderating rude, accusatory, and low-quality posts. There's no need to make it specifically about cults or anything like that. At least that's my opinion. I feel like this whole discussion is better kept between the mods and Leo when deciding what should be flagged. Otherwise, it just makes Leo look more suspicious for no real reason, even if the request itself is completely reasonable. Haha. I'd hope Leo himself would gladly welcome constructive criticism about why someone might think his community is becoming a cult, as long as the arguments are reasonable and made in good faith. Obviously, if someone is just posting beyond-brainrot points or making bad-faith accusations, you can't really expect anyone to tolerate that instead of banning or flagging them. And if you want extra proof that you aren't being cult-like, you could showcase those discussions publicly and transparently for all to see. That demonstrates you're open to criticism while still moderating low-quality or bad-faith content. What got banned? When? Removed? Why?

I think a better solution to this rule is to simply ban people who consistently give Leo's "low-IQ brainrot." I'm sure all of us have seen plenty of comments and arguments from people who are consistently rude or just contribute nothing of value. A simple moderation policy could work: if someone repeatedly posts low-quality content and receives enough warnings or bans, they get kicked. I feel like adding the "cult-specific" rhetoric does Leo more harm than good. Just ban people who consistently engage in low-quality accusatory discussion. There's no need to expose yourself (Leo) or other members to it. The cult-specific part feels largely irrelevant here, and I think it ultimately does more harm than good.

What was this? I am not aware of this.

I agree and disagree. For example, let's say we all know here to some extent what God is. Does that mean we would suddenly agree on how civilization should continue to progress? Should we even continue progressing civilization at all? Should our priority be curing world hunger, ending disease, and reducing suffering? Or should we instead focus on consciousness research and understanding the mind? How should we allocate resources between those goals? Who decides? How much funding should each receive? Should money even continue to exist? If not, what system replaces it? How would resources be distributed fairly? What kind of government should we have? Should there even be a government? If there is one, who should govern, and how do we decide who's qualified? Should decisions be made democratically, meritocratically, by AI, or through some entirely new system? How do we balance individual freedom with the collective good? What rights should be universal? How much inequality is acceptable, if any? Should people still compete, or should society become fully cooperative? What incentives drive innovation if traditional economic systems disappear? Do prisons still exist? How do we educate children? Should humanity continue exploring space, or should we focus inward on consciousness? Should we continue advancing AI, genetic engineering, and biotechnology, or are there limits we shouldn't cross? Knowing God doesn't automatically answer any of these questions. It may provide a deeper perspective or a better moral foundation, but we still have to reason through these practical problems, experiment with different systems, and discover what actually works in reality. All of this requires both an understanding of God and a practical, scientific approach. God-realization may provide the direction, but it doesn't replace the hard work of testing ideas, running experiments, analyzing data, and discovering what actually works. We still have to respect reality and figure things out through evidence and experimentation. And if you say, "Well, I don't care about pragmatism at all," you're kidding yourself. There's a very good reason you prefer living where you do instead of in the Stone Age, a war zone, or a country struggling under severe conflict or repression.