Xonas Pitfall

@Natasha Tori Maru Honestly, anything is welcome as long as it's presented in a thoughtful way without too many assumptions. The whole point of the thread is to help bridge the gap between the paranormal and the rational, so even simple observational notes are a great fit. Excited to see what comes through - thank you!

Russel Targ's book "The Reality of ESP" https://virtualmmx.ddns.net/gbooks/TheRealityofESPAPhysicistsProofofPsychicAbilities.pdf

You're making the mistake of projecting time onto God. God doesn't "become" or "choose" - God just is. As an infinite being, God already contains all possible expressions - every "sub-infinity" is already fully realized within the absolute. Think of it like this: imagine an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1. Let's say, as a human ego, you’re the number 0.896532 and asking, “Why is God biased toward 0.8 and 0.9? If he is so 'unbiased' and infinite, shouldn't we see all numbers?” But that question only makes sense from your limited position. From the perspective of infinity, God is the entire interval 0 - 1, and everything in between. The bias you're perceiving is just a reflection of your temporary vantage point. Does this make sense? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, and we agree. Infinite absolute is pure, undifferentiated noise or unlimited possibility. For infinity to be truly infinite, it has to include the finite, too. The infinite is only made complete when experienced through limitation. When you limit infinity, you divide it. When you divide infinity, you get two sub-infinities. Now you’ve got two infinite branches, each waiting to be fully explored. Every sub-infinity must be realized. If every sub-infinity isn’t realized, then something is left out. If something is left out, then God isn’t truly infinite. If God isn’t truly infinite, then the absolute isn’t complete. Bias isn’t a flaw - it’s a necessary property of infinity.

I think this is one of the clearest breakdowns of materialism, physicalism, and rationalism I’ve come across. He still refers to it as analytical idealism, so he’s not avoiding the label – and that’s important. There’s nothing inherently wrong with calling it idealism, as long as the approach is grounded in rational analysis and argumentation.

I really like your argument actually! But there are a couple of assumptions to think about... 1. Assumption: Evil/selfishness is inherently infinite if left unchecked. Selfishness, by its nature, is self-consuming. An infinitely selfish being would, paradoxically, collapse under its contradiction - selfishness seeks to preserve the self, yet in doing so, it must eventually destroy everything else, including the conditions that make its own existence possible. It's like a fire trying to burn infinitely - it eventually runs out of fuel. So, rather than being infinite, selfishness is inherently self-limiting. Think of a game where everyone plays fair, then one player finds a cheat like aim assist. At first, it feels powerful - they win easily. But soon, all the real players quit, and they're left alone with bots. No challenge, no meaning. Or worse, everyone starts cheating, too, and the game becomes a mess. The system breaks, and nobody enjoys it. That’s how selfishness works - it might win short term, but it destroys the environment it needs to keep going. Even visually, imagine cutting a circle in two, one part bigger. The bigger half might feel superior, but if it keeps absorbing the smaller half, eventually there's nothing left to feel "bigger" than. It collapses into meaninglessness. In both cases, selfishness backfires. It relies on others to define itself - to feel "greater," there has to be someone "lesser." But when selfishness takes over completely, that contrast vanishes. It’s like a parasite that kills its host, only to starve afterward. By nature, selfishness is a dualistic concept - it defines itself against the other, not with it. Because it can’t recognize the other as part of itself, it’s ultimately self-defeating and bound to collapse. 2. Assumption: The selfless being wouldn't act to stop destruction. Selflessness doesn’t mean inaction. It can mean compassion, protection, and defense without personal gain. A truly selfless being might actively oppose harm, not for itself, but for the good of others. So the idea that selflessness must be passive isn't necessarily accurate. A truly selfless being can embrace and embody evil and selfishness when necessary, not out of desire, but out of understanding. It can take on darkness to protect the light. That’s why we admire heroes: not because they’re perfect, but because they’re willing to be fierce, even destructive, when the cause is just. True selflessness isn’t weakness - it’s the strength to become what’s needed, even if that means facing or becoming the very thing it stands against. - This is also why, for example, Stage Red in Spiral Dynamics doesn’t function better than Stage Orange. In Stage Red, power dominates - it's all about strength, selfishness, control, and survival of the strongest. But in that environment, the biggest "dogs" end up consuming each other, and everyone else is left at the mercy of whoever holds the most power. The weaker or less aggressive individuals, who might actually have better ideas, systems, or caretaking abilities, get pushed out or silenced. In contrast, societies that balance both selfishness and selflessness tend to thrive over time. They make room for competition and innovation and for cooperation and care. Without that balance, all you get is short-term dominance and gains that eventually collapse or burn out. In other words, it’s a system built for collapse. It may deliver quick results through force or dominance, but it lacks the stability and inclusiveness needed to endure over time. Without balance, it can’t sustain itself or dominate over anything long-term.

@Vynce I’ll try to explain the way it makes sense to me: Because God is everything - all the past, present, future - all things that were, are, and will be realized. The best way to illustrate this is with the idea of evolution. Imagine a chain of evolution: You start with a jawless fish like Haikouichthys → then comes Osteostraci, armored jawless fish → mutation leads to jawed fish like Placoderms → then bony fish like Eusthenopteron (has limb-like fins) → mutation gives rise to Panderichthys (transitional fish with flatter body for shallow water) → next is Tiktaalik (famous “fishapod” with wrist bones and a neck - bridge between fish and amphibians) → then Acanthostega and Ichthyostega (among the first true tetrapods - four-legged animals) → then Temnospondyls (early amphibians) → leading to early reptiles like Hylonomus → lizards, snakes, and dinosaurs, etc. Each generation carries mutations. The ones that can’t survive get filtered out. The ones that can survive, self-preserve, and move forward. And this entire process - all of it - is God. Or at least a slice of God. God isn’t just the fish, or the Osteostraci, or the Placoderms, or the final lizard. God is the whole evolutionary chain. Every failed mutation, every success, every transition. The entire thing is part of the Whole. Now, where are you here? Let’s zoom in on you for a moment. You're a single spark of consciousness in a vast evolutionary chain stretching across billions of years. Let’s say you’re the moment when Tiktaalik, a fish with primitive limbs, first crawled onto land and began the journey toward amphibians. Maybe in your life, you feel out of place. Struggling. Overwhelmed. Maybe you’re rejected by your peers, and less equipped to survive in your environment. To you, that feels like suffering - like failure. But in the grand scale of nature, that is progress. Evolution is built on what survives - and what doesn’t. So when you ask: “Why me, God? Why did you make me this way?” You’re asking from one tiny point in an infinite unfolding. God wants to experience what it’s like to be: The fish torn apart by predators The one that escapes The amphibian that dies trying to adapt The reptile that thrives The hominid that invented fire The human who feels lost The human who discovers meaning You are one expression in that eternal process. And if you ask: “Why create all these flawed forms? Why not skip to perfection?” Because then it wouldn’t be everything. God would be leaving something out. That’s not infinity - that’s limitation. To be truly infinite, God must also be the flawed, the broken, the forgotten - and live through all of it. If God created pain but avoided living it, that would be hypocrisy. But God doesn’t avoid it, he lives through it with you. You are God, consciousness experiencing itself, right here, right now, this precise chain of life unfolding in this exact timeline. To answer your question, it's really about what kind of answer you're expecting. Somewhere across billions of years of evolution, your specific bloodline went through genetic filtering, and the schizophrenia-related traits weren’t passed on. Because you're a limited, condensed expression of consciousness, you're now living the unique version of life without schizophrenia. Another way to look at it: imagine God watching a horror movie. At some point, He decides that watching isn’t enough - He wants to experience it. Not just from the perspective of the main character, but also the one who gets killed, the haunted house, the knife, the wind, even the doorbell. Every angle. But to actually feel what it's like to be those things, He has to forget He’s God. Otherwise, it's just acting. So he fully steps into each role, one at a time - including yours. In this moment, you're one of those roles - the person without schizophrenia. That’s not bias. It’s just the specific perspective being lived right now. It feels biased because you only have access to your own experience. From where you stand, it feels absolute. But that's just a limitation of being you in this form, at this moment. The truth is, you could’ve been any other conscious experience. You just happen to be this one right now. Out of all possibilities, this is the version of reality you're living. God is all of them, so He is unbiased. You are just biased because you are you now! Haha, I'm going in circles, but I hope that makes sense!

Anticipating sexual fulfillment with a reciprocating other. Anticipation means it is not certain, guaranteed, or yet to happen. For example, someone may glance at you in a way that suggests interest, creating a possibility that something might happen. This uncertainty spikes dopamine and builds tension. Even during a sexual act, like a striptease, you continue to anticipate what will happen next, so the tension remains until the fantasy or act is fully realized. Once fulfillment occurs, the tension fades. That’s why anticipation is essential - without it, the tension doesn't exist. The best way to picture this is two people naked, looking at each other. You can feel the tension building in that moment before they kiss or fuck. Sexual desire or fantasy means the tension is rooted specifically in sexual interest. For example, if your partner does something sweet or meaningful that fulfills an emotional need, such as caring for you while you were sick or making you breakfast, you may appreciate it, but it will not create sexual tension unless it connects to a sexual desire or fantasy. It might sound obvious, but a sexual context is essential for sexual tension to arise. Fulfillment means the person involved must be someone who can realistically fulfill the sexual desire or fantasy. This includes matching your preferences in appearance, personality, orientation, or other factors. You might find someone physically attractive, but if they don’t fit your personal criteria (type of banter, teasing, spontaneity, playfulness, mystery, looks) or sexual orientation, the tension will be weaker or nonexistent. Reciprocation means there has to be some form of mutual exchange or signal that suggests the possibility of the fantasy becoming real. For example, if you are attracted to a celebrity who shows no sign of interest, you may feel lust but not sexual tension. Sexual tension usually needs direct personal interaction - in person, by phone, video chat, sexting, or other communication where there is some mutual exchange and reciprocation, either one-on-one or with more people. You can anticipate sexual fulfillment when you’re alone, like during masturbation, but that doesn’t create tension in the same way. It’s more about self-pleasure than desire or lust. That’s why sexual tension requires at least one other person who is reciprocating and desired. Plus, both people need to be able to match and respond to each other’s energy and style of tension and play. Maybe something like this?

Yeah, no worries at all, haha! I'm still struggling to fully understand it myself, or I guess, embody it. I can grasp it logically, but of course, my ego doesn’t like it too much, teehee. I guess it's only natural! The most practical advice I can give is to explore this through direct experience. A decent dose of a psychedelic, paired with deep contemplation, can help. Read blog posts (even this one!), watch Leo’s episodes on love, self-bias, infinity, and just let your mind wander. Let the questions stay open for a while, and eventually something will click. I know that before I had those experiences, none of this made any real sense to me either. I just didn’t have the consciousness to see it. But to try putting it into words here, it all comes back to infinity. If God only created you in a "fully evolved" state, then it wouldn’t have created you as you are now. If it only created love and not evil, then it wouldn’t be all-loving, because true, infinite love must include even what we call "unlovable." So when people say “collapsing into One is Love,” it means that in total Oneness, in absolute infinity, everything is included. Nothing is left out, not even suffering or evil. That kind of unconditional inclusion is Love. But the ego doesn’t like that, because it wants to protect itself. It wants to separate what’s "good" from what’s "bad." So when it hears that God doesn’t share that judgment, it resists. That’s the tension. The issue really comes down to comprehending and accepting infinity - all of it. All experience, all being, all contrast. Love, in this context, isn’t sentimental or nice. It’s total inclusion, complete connection. It's the willingness to be everything, even the parts we fear or hate. And that’s something hard for the ego to accept, because the ego runs on division - on protecting a self from the rest. A good metaphor here is the saying, "a face only a mother could love." It means that even if someone is seen as ugly or flawed by the whole world, their mother still loves them deeply simply because they are hers. She brought them into existence, watched them grow through every stage, witnessed their struggles and triumphs, and knows every small habit, fear, and strength deeply and intimately. You can imagine God like that. Everything is its creation - there’s nothing to reject, nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to judge. It understands why someone did what they did. It saw the entire path, the whole chain of cause and effect. It was there, as all of it. It knows how limited that consciousness was. It is that consciousness. So, from God’s perspective, even the darkest evil is still understood. Still part of the whole. Still held in love. Some forms of evil are truly a “face only a mother could love” 😅 - and we, in our limited human forms, are not that mother. Not yet. But God is!

I'll try my best to explain it, but it's tricky since it's very paradoxical. I'm sure most people, by now, get the paradoxical nature of infinity, oneness, and consciousness. Since it's an "infinite object," it has properties that contradict themselves. Unlike a cat, which is a finite object - it is a cat and not what is not a cat. Infinity includes both the infinite and the finite. If I'm infinite, then I must include all that I am - and all that I am not. The same logic applies to love, or to God as "all-loving." If you are "all-loving," then you must also love that which is all-unloving - aka pure evil. The "form of projection of the ego" is the only way evil can exist. It cannot exist without finite forms, because if all finite forms collapsed, there would be no limited perspective for evil to be done onto. It has to be real suffering from the POV of the ego, because if it weren't real, then there would be no way for it to exist. Imagine you weren’t attached to your arm, and I pulled out a chainsaw and split it in half - you wouldn’t care, because you aren’t attached to it. And if everyone in the world were like that, then "fear of having your arm cut off" or "the evil of having your arm cut off" would never exist. But since God has to actualize all possibilities, somehow it has to create an attachment to an arm. So yeah, from your human POV, God is both benevolent and psychopathic - both very loving and very evil. Your human self actually helps God become both all-loving and all-evil, because you are the final "ingredient" It needs to complete its infinity. Since it is "One" - and love requires another, and evil requires another to be done onto - It creates limited forms: planets, atoms, humans, bugs, ants, etc. There is no “horror” to conquer, because that horror is a part of It. It is that horror. It has to be - otherwise It wouldn’t be truly all-loving, infinite, or all-encompassing. The real point is simply to experience life. But the way we've structured society causes us to constantly search for purpose and meaning. That’s mostly our ego - it clings to meaning, because the more meaningful we feel, the more valuable we believe we are. If we’re valuable, then maybe our identity can survive beyond our lifetime, or we can secure a sense of survival now. But the actual point is just to fully live it - to experience everything, and to enjoy whatever beauty you find. That is the reward. That is the present. And if we do want a "purpose", one of the most meaningful is to help enhance that exact experience - to increase our capacity for beauty, understanding, and connection. Whether that’s improving health, advancing science, creating art, writing poetry, loving someone, loving many, inspiring others, or simply speaking in a way that makes life feel more alive and magical - that’s where the deepest purpose can be found. Whether that impact is small, just on yourself, your pets, your closest people, or something that reaches the whole world, is entirely up to you. The universe is structured in such a way that no matter what you do, you’re always fulfilling your purpose. Because the only true purpose is to fully experience and appreciate the present moment - the life you have, right now.

@Oppositionless To be "One" is to unite everything, to connect everything. And to truly connect is to love. To hold something in your consciousness with the full intent to experience and understand it is, in essence, to love it. The deeper your desire to understand something, to take it in as part of yourself, the less judgmental you become. You grow more accepting, more compassionate, more loving. Think about the people closest to you. Why are they called “close”? Because they probably see and understand you more than others, because you have more experience with them than with others, because they probably care for and love you more than others. The more "connected" you are, the closer you are. The closer you are, the closer to One you are - merging together. We usually call this process "love." Oneness requires ultimate connection and a lack of separation. The process God uses to fully "merge" or bring parts "closer to each other" until they unite is Oneness, Love, Union, or even Sex. Even the physical act of sex is a symbol of this: getting as close as possible - literally under someone’s skin, inside their body - to create pleasure. To Love them properly and fully. Think about what we mean when we say someone is “close-minded” or refuses to empathize. We often say, “He can’t see the other person’s point of view,” or “He can’t put himself in their shoes.” In other words, he can’t imagine being close to that person, can’t imagine being them, can’t merge his perspective with theirs. He’s stuck in his own experience, focused on his Self, not the Other. He’s failed to connect the two into one shared understanding. And because of that, he is less empathetic, less compassionate, less loving. He lacks the Love to merge, to connect, to understand. However, God has an infinite supply of that! Hence the label "All-Loving" or "God is Love."

@Thought Art I 100% agree with that! Mysteriously beautiful!

@Thought Art Let me try to explain! You're approaching this question from a really limited perspective, which is totally normal. It’s not a natural shift at all; it usually takes some deep meditation or a heavy psychedelic kick to really break through, hehe. Take a look at some of those deep-space or infinity documentaries - there are countless planets out there. Even here on Earth, or deep under the ocean, you could have been born into a completely different form of consciousness. Each one would offer a radically different experience of life compared to your current human self, or any other creature. And every planet comes with its constants, its own gravitational rules, environments, and elements. This planet just happens to have the right mix to support the specific form of life we're used to. Now, a better way to understand this might be through a video game analogy. Think about Mario. Mario spends his life navigating his world, learning its mechanics: "If I go down this pipe at this angle, that Piranha Plant eats me - okay, avoid that." "Hit this block, I get a mushroom." "My goal is to save the princess." "When I descend into this pipe at a 45-degree angle and velocity > 2 m/s, I get eaten by a carnivorous plant-like entity. Conclusion: avoid entry at that vector." "Striking this suspended block with an upward force of 10 N triggers a transformation sequence resulting in an object that enhances my size and abilities - a ‘mushroom’ power-up." "Objective remains consistent: traverse obstacles, maintain life state, reach destination to initiate rescue protocol for the princess character." So within his world, he develops a clear sense of cause and effect - his version of physics. "Mario Laws & Physics." But if Mario ever asked why his world works the way it does, he'd be trying to find meaning in rules that were coded into his reality. Those laws make sense to him, but only in his specific world. He doesn’t know his entire universe is just one tiny sandbox among infinite others. Now apply that to us. If you ever went to Mars, you'd have to let go of Earth-based assumptions. Your body would feel different. Your movements would change. Time might stretch or compress. Watch the movie Old (2021) if you want a wild example of this. (Spoiler: on an isolated beach, people age so rapidly that a full lifetime happens in a single day. Their biology, relationships, fears - all get redefined. The entire framework of what matters changes.) That’s the point: once you tweak just a few variables, the entire structure of life, meaning, and consciousness transforms. And that tells you something huge - none of this is fixed. It's all context. When you ask that, it really depends on what you mean or expect with the question. If you’re trying to connect Earth’s specific laws to some divine plan or ultimate reason, the question kind of collapses in on itself. It only really holds weight in a relative context. It’s like Mario asking, “How do the Laws of Mario Physics connect to the Human World? What about the Ultimate Universal Laws?” It makes sense within his game, sure - but outside of that, it doesn’t apply. His world is just one coded system, and there could be infinite others with totally different rules. Same with us. From a relative, physics-based view, you can answer why we're here the way we are - because of this particular set of constants - gravity, electromagnetism, time, matter - everything lined up just right. If they hadn’t, we simply wouldn’t exist. There are infinite versions of planets that never stabilized, stars that never formed, and universes that collapsed into dust long before anything conscious could even appear. But if you're trying to tie that to “God-level” reasoning - like why this version of existence was chosen - then it becomes meaningless, because God already includes all those failed versions. Every possible configuration is already part of the infinite. There was no final “decision.” Look at atoms, unstable isotopes like Carbon-14 exist only for thousands of years before decaying, while stable isotopes like Carbon-12 last indefinitely. Or think about planets - some like Mars have stable orbits that have lasted billions of years, while others, like small asteroids, can get pulled apart or crash within a short time. The same goes for genetics. Genes that can’t find a stable, functional configuration disappear over generations, while those that do survive and keep competing. Evolution 101. TL;DR: God, or the ultimate reality, contains all the “failed” infinite forms and structures that never lasted long enough to become physical, as well as those that did - including our Earth and human life. We often underestimate the immense timescale of billions of years of evolution and the constant clash of dust, particles, and energy that made life possible. But on a relative level, we can study which combinations and configurations - like stable gravitational setups - persist long enough to support life, helping us understand why life emerged here, why it took this form, and why we exist.

Yes! You're on the right track, but again, consciousness is infinity (since it is all one). Now, one "weird" or "unique" thing about infinity is that it has different properties than most - or any - objects you see. It contains its own contradictions. If you say "apple," it is apple - it's not "not apple". If you say "bird," that bird is the bird - and it's not anything other than that exact bird. If you say "fish," it is not "not a fish". You get the point. However, one unique thing about an "object" that is infinite - or everything - or God - or All - is that since it is All, it must contain that which is not. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be truly All. Do you see the paradox? This is the kind of thinking you need to start understanding. So if God is All-One consciousness - Infinite - Then it "asks" itself: What am I not? Finite? But how can I not be finite? I am everything, no? So - it becomes finite. If I am All-loving, then what am I not? Not-loving? But I am All-loving, no? So - I must also love the not-loving, aka evil. So it creates evil, so it can love evil too. Now I must note: when I say this, it might look like there's some timeline progression or some kind of needing or realization going on in "God's mind." But God just is. It's basically like an infinite object. That's really all you need to understand. Think of an infinite object. What properties does that object have? Does it lack anything? Or does it not? If it lacks something, what does it lack? Can it lack anything? Just question that. That’s really all you need to understand - or to begin understanding - God and "Its" nature. Hope this helps! Also gave my signature a little upgrade, hehe 😅

@Thought Art How so? Solipsism just says there is only God - it doesn’t actually deny anything. In fact, for God to be truly infinite, He must include the finite. You can’t be infinite without including all limits. So the existence of finite agents isn’t a contradiction - it’s actually necessary for God to be God. And once you have finite agents, you automatically get conflict - you get clashing wills, which leads to suffering. So really, it all circles right back to the original point: Solipsism - One - Only Infinity. Infinity includes everything, including the finite, and suffering comes as a direct result of that inclusion. Let me know if I can explain that clearer or from a different angle!

@Thought Art Satisfying for what, though? It makes total sense that you're not experiencing infinity - you're a limited being. You can't experience the infinite if you're finite. That’s just basic logic. If I gave you a calculator that only does math up to 10, it’d be dumb to say, “Well, I'm only seeing results up to 10... where’s the rest of the numbers?” You’re using a limited tool, so of course you’re getting limited output. Same thing here. You can experience infinity - but only through mediums that allow for it. Your body isn’t one of them. Your body is super constrained - it can’t fly, it can’t run faster than Usain Bolt, etc. It’s built with limits. But your mind? That’s different. The mind is fluid, abstract, weird - way more flexible. It can touch infinity in ways the body never could. You could imagine God as a kind of mind without a body - pure infinite awareness. No constraints. No filter. Just being, totally open. That’s what allows for infinity to be experienced in full. And noted - I’ll switch up my signature, hehe!

@Thought Art The key is realizing that suffering, as we experience it, is deeply tied to our limited human perspective. When someone we love dies, it feels tragic. But that sense of tragedy comes from attachment, from identifying with a specific, localized viewpoint. From a more objective or universal perspective, it just means old genetics phasing out, and new, younger, stronger ones emerging. Nature is evolving. It’s a beautiful process. Something to be celebrated. Take a museum as an analogy. When a painting is removed, no one calls it a tragedy - because we know it means new art is coming. If you were especially attached to one particular piece, you might feel its absence as a loss. But everyone else might welcome the change, especially if they connect with the new works in deeper ways. That doesn’t make it bad - it just means your view is personal, partial. It’s the same with nature. Imagine a Lion and a zebra both surviving, in their own way: "God, help me eat!" "God, let me escape!" Whose prayer does God answer? Who deserves to live? This dilemma only exists if you assume there should be a side to take. Each creature is doing what it evolved to do. Their clash isn't a flaw in the system - it's the system itself. Suffering exists because competing wills exist. As long as beings care about their continuation, their safety, comfort, offspring, and territory, there will be conflict. Not because something went wrong, but because that’s how life works. So, from our narrow view, we call it “suffering.” But from the universal perspective - the view of the system as a whole - it is not seen as a tragedy, but as evolution, transformation, self-understanding.

To clarify the wording, it's not that God needs to do anything. It's more accurate to say that it simply is as it is. There’s no choice involved, no desire or preference. God is all, everything, infinity - so by definition, everything must exist. It's a tautology. A = A. If A is all, everything, infinity, then A must be all, everything, infinity. Nothing is excluded. That's what makes it total. If there were any bias in that creation - any limitation or exclusion - then it wouldn’t be infinite. It wouldn't be all. If God created a universe with everything except suffering, then God would be everything minus suffering - and that’s not totality, that’s a constraint. That’s a limitation. And if God is limited, then by definition, God is not God - not the infinite, not the total. It helps to imagine this as a random set. Let’s say you want to create a set that is truly infinite. Not just very large - actually infinite. If it’s truly infinite, then it must contain everything you throw at it. Will it contain 1? Yes. Will it include a googol? Yes. Graham’s number? Yes. Any number you can possibly imagine? Yes. Why? Because if it left anything out, it wouldn’t be infinite. It would be almost infinite, but not total. So when you ask - Why the Horror? You are basically asking - “but why must this infinite set include 17? or 21? or 89?” - the answer is simple: because if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be infinite. The nature of infinity is that it must include all. It exists by necessity. Same with God. If God is all, everything, infinite, then all things must be present. Not because God “wants” them, but because God is. There is no creation with bias. No cherry-picking. No exclusions. The horror and the beauty are there because they must be - because they are part of everything that is. I hope this makes sense!

❤️ Honestly, it might just be that you don’t have people around you right now with whom you feel safe fully expressing yourself. If you’re really deep into this kind of path - one that involves a lot of self-exploration and introspection - it is a very specific lens through which to see the world. And yeah, it can be a bit addictive, in a good way, because you’re uncovering so much about yourself. Is there anything you want to be doing right now? If you're currently drawn to things like ego dissolution, meditation, psychedelics, and contemplation, then maybe that’s just what you need right now. You don’t need to force yourself to be social if this is your “asocial” chapter. It’s okay to have seasons like that. Some questions to sit with: What would I like my day-to-day life to actually look like? Do I like the people I'm around? What kind of person would I even enjoy talking to or being in a relationship with? Is there a kind of work or self-expression I’m into - like making content, writing, even just sharing on this forum? (You seem fairly active here, so maybe that is something you enjoy.) TLDR: It’s possible there’s nothing wrong with you - you’ve just shifted the way you see the world, and now your reality needs to catch up. That includes your habits, your environment, and the people around you.❤️ Good luck! Plus, from the little I’ve read of your posts, you come across as thoughtful, intelligent, and grounded. I don’t see any reason why you’d struggle to get things going if that’s what you actually wanted to do. My guess is that it’s more about what I mentioned earlier, rather than you being flawed or “messing with your ego” or anything like that. And my bad if someone already brought this up - I didn’t read the whole thread.

It depends semantically on how we define "experience." Definition: experience /ɪkˈspɪərɪəns, ɛkˈspɪərɪəns/ Noun Practical contact with and observation of facts or events. "He had learned his lesson by painful experience." Similar: involvement in, participation in, contact with, acquaintance with, exposure to, observation of, awareness of, familiarity with, conversance with, understanding of, impression of, insight into If experience is not equal to being, then we enter the duality framework: The experiencer and the observed - or the experience itself. The Self is observing, and the "other" is being observed or experienced. This can be interpreted in two ways: The Self experiencing itself as a fragment (i.e., God fragmenting itself to become limited so it can experience itself from the point of view of the fragment), Or, the object/subject/limited fragment experiencing the world through its subjective lens. (This would be the same as a human experiencing breathing, love, the cold sensation, the taste of a strawberry, etc.) Both definitions essentially point to the same; the difference lies in perspective. One includes the expanded viewpoint of God or pure being, while the other reflects a more limited, "human" interpretation of experience. Nonetheless, it simply means to allow “the other” into your own consciousness, and the amount of consciousness you direct onto the other is the depth of your experience or understanding of the observed. Consequently, once your consciousness deepens and expands enough, the other ceases to exist - and there is no longer an "experiencer and experience" - but just pure being, or merging with the other/experience. (Kind of like when people on Salvia report becoming the doorknob or a juice box - their depth of consciousness and the "volume" they can hold in their perception expanded so much, they stopped experiencing the inanimate object and became it for eternity.) This also explains why more limited, constrained egos or human minds might not be able to understand the perspective of another human different from them, because the depth of consciousness or understanding they choose to (or can) bring in is limited. (For example, a person may not be able to understand what it’s like to have gender dysphoria, or to be born in a different culture, religion, etc.) Hence, you'd say: Their limited point of view lacks the capacity or willingness to expand consciousness onto another. For example, a religious person may not want to experience what it's like to belong to another religion. As a result, their understanding of the other person remains shallow - they see the other religion as meaningless, confusing, separate, or even wrong. The more you’re willing to experience, the more you’re able to understand. And the more complexity, variables, and nuance you can take in, the more consciousness you're deploying - deepening the quality/depth of your experience. From experience comes understanding, and from deeper understanding comes deeper experience. They influence and reinforce one another. So the progression goes: → Unconsciousness (The subject is not perceiving the object) → Experience (The subject is experiencing the object, but it is separate from it, and perceived through a limited lens of the subject) → Total Being or Union (The subject merges with the object and fully becomes or embodies it) Now, if you want to redefine experience semantically to include “experiencing what it’s like to be one with another,” you could - but then the original definition of experience, which requires both an experiencer and an observed object, would no longer apply. In the pure state of being, there is no “other” to be observed. Definitions: Experience is to allow “the other” into your consciousness. Experience is the act of allowing 'the other' to enter and be held within your consciousness. Experience is the process by which consciousness makes contact with phenomena - internal or external - allowing them to be known, felt, or absorbed. To experience is to open awareness to the presence of anything - the self, the other, or the space between.

That’s really interesting! I’m actually a bit surprised to see the archetypal Masculine linked to air and fire, since I’ve usually heard masculinity described in more stereotypically "hard" terms - grounded, pragmatic, reality-focused, logical, structured. Meanwhile, the Feminine is often framed as "soft," emotional, fluid, intuitive, and abstract-transcendent. This split shows up in how society categorizes fields, too: "hard sciences" like physics and engineering are seen as masculine, while "soft sciences" like psychology or social work are viewed as feminine. Even visually, masculine design tends to favor sharp lines and angles, while feminine design leans toward curves and soft shapes - it reminds me of the Bouba/Kiki effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect Also, why people tend to joke or meme about women being into things like astrology, numerology, the law of attraction, spirituality, or personality types. That's why it’s kind of funny to hear spirituality linked to the Masculine, since it’s often "stereotyped as a Feminine domain" - all about emotion, intuition, abstract ideas, nonlinear thinking, and connection. A lot of guys, at least in mainstream culture, tend to pride themselves on being logical, step-by-step thinkers, rooted in what’s “real.” Plus, many spiritual practices focus on ego death and surrender, which are often culturally coded as feminine values. On the other hand, masculine traits are often associated with more ego-driven concepts like competition, hierarchy, and individualism. Not to mention, one of the core aspects of God-realization is Love / Self-Love / Surrender / Submission / Absolute Beauty, and I’d honestly be shocked if anyone claimed those concepts sound stereotypically masculine! Of course, real spirituality is about balance - it takes emotional intelligence and intuition alongside critical thinking and philosophical deconstruction. Concepts like truth, reality, ownership, omnipotence, and power are also deeply tied to God-realization, and stereotypically, those are seen as more masculine traits. You need both. If you haven’t integrated both aspects, then you're not fully realized yet. And if you continue to see one side as lesser or incomprehensible compared to the other, you're still missing key elements of reality/infinity itself. What’s unfortunate is how “feminine” is often treated as a synonym for "stupid" or “irrational,” rather than just a different and equally valuable mode of thought. That’s why I’m not a big fan of these kinds of comparisons. They often feel like they distract from actual realization and can limit growth for both genders. And just to clarify - I’m not saying you implied that at all! Your original comment just sparked this train of thought for me. If you strongly identify with the ego or sense of self, you're more likely to resonate with ideas like self-sufficiency, solipsism, the Lonely God-Head - the all-powerful, all-mighty, ever-present, omnipotent. But you may struggle with ego death, with seeing yourself in others, with recognizing all as love-interconnected, chaotic, beautiful, without needing structure or definition. On the other hand, if you resist or struggle with the ego/self, you'll likely find it easier to accept those interconnected, fluid, and love-centered perspectives, but may have difficulty embracing the power, sovereignty, and totality of the self. That’s why deconstructing the masculine and feminine dichotomies is essential if you're seeking true integration - without it, you're only ever seeing part of the whole.

Beautiful video - the emotion and dramatic touches really added a lot They gave the whole episode a deeper, more immersive feel. I'd definitely encourage experimenting with that more if it feels authentic and enjoyable for you!

It depends on your current situation - if you urgently need the income, it might be a good idea to take the offer, build up your experience for your resume, and continue looking for better opportunities in the meantime. If you have the flexibility to job hunt a bit longer, it’s definitely worth exploring roles you’re more passionate about or would genuinely enjoy. Also, optimizing your LinkedIn profile, sending out more applications, or even doing some direct outreach via email can open up more doors Best of luck!

Definitely - I’m not on the forum that often, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lot of meaningless debating going on, often just to defend someone’s ego or fixed beliefs rather than to genuinely help or bring clarity to others. I was mainly pointing it out so you don’t fall into the common trap of thinking, “Oh, if someone’s enlightened, they couldn’t possibly care about any ‘earthly’ matters!” That’s just not true. People can absolutely choose to engage in whatever feels authentic or brings them the most joy. Spirituality and enlightenment aren’t about detaching from life, but rather about freeing yourself from the ego-driven “copium” that blocks your real self-expression. From what you’ve said, it sounds like you already value authenticity and aspire to live that way - so yes, I think we’re totally on the same page. Yay!

Thank you! I came to the same conclusions myself, but I hadn’t heard much about the "cyclical nature" aspect before, so I really appreciated that addition. I also like to think of it as the “ultimate” or “fundamental pattern.” For example, when we call something “funny,” there’s always an element of surprise or a punchline - a basic structure that repeats, even though the content varies infinitely. Similarly, when we call something “useful,” there’s often a structure: a problem appears -> something resolves it -> and thus it’s deemed useful. The "pattern" or its "properties" are constant, but the ways it shows up are endless. In the same way, God/Truth/Reality/Consciousness seems to follow a fundamental cycle: “I am infinite -> but am I finite? I must be -> so I create the finite -> the finite "feels" separate from me -> it strives for union -> it is whole -> I become infinite again.” That cycle endlessly expresses itself in infinite variations of separation and reunion. From within time, we perceive it as progress or evolution, but from the perspective of the infinite, it simply always is.