Xonas Pitfall

Yes! Although I’m not sure if it's unconscious or conscious. The reason I have the energy to write all this out is because I’ve seen it far too many times with people I’ve considered highly intelligent. The issue of ingrained misogyny and gender wars is so deeply embedded that it seems to be highly persuasive, even for independent thinkers. I think I was just shocked to see it (Leo included). I’ve known both men and women, and I can tell you these were extremely independent, almost disagreeable thinkers who refuse to succumb to the status quo and unoriginal thought. Yet, they still have and believe in these worldviews, which slip into their psyche through the arguments they make and the comments they pass. That’s when I realized this isn’t necessarily an issue of independent thinking; sometimes these things are just so deeply ingrained that it’s hard to break free from them. You need heavy reframing and alternative arguments to break out of them. So my guess is that Leo likely has a lot of these unconscious biases, and maybe he’s also attracted to a specific type of "feminine" woman, which filters his perception. I also find it funny that men often ignore or claim that women they’re not attracted to are “not feminine” and are instead more “masculine.” It’s a strange double standard. I know plenty of men who are masculine but whom I’m just not attracted to or who aren’t my type. I remember Leo talking about one of his girlfriends who was neurodivergent or had Asperger’s (I think?), and he called her “masculine” because she wasn’t overly dramatic or emotional, and it was one of his most functional and calm relationships he has ever had. That’s a funny remark to make, "Oh, she’s not going too crazy, so she must be more like a guy!" I don’t know where this stigma came from that any woman who isn’t emotionally unstable or who can think rationally is somehow more “manly.” If you subconsciously believe this, then, of course, you’re going to think men are the more stoic, truth-seeking ones. There are obviously a lot more points I’ve brought up above, but Leo’s arguments in both of those posts were extremely myopic. It’s also funny how he completely neglects the fact that most of the people he called untruthful, biased, and narcissistic in his blog were not women at all. And his dear friend Trump… well, of course, we completely forget about these men, they aren’t "real" men. But if a woman acted like Trump, she’d be a true woman, right? She’d only do what she "feeeeeeeels like doing," such a drama queen breaking up with Elon on Twitter... tsk, tsk, tsk! My hope is that the more powerful arguments and reframing strategies I (We) find, the easier it will be to break down this deeply ingrained issue. That's why I think parodies can be a great tool for this: if you can poke at egos and show them how silly they can be in a way that makes them realize it themselves, you might start to see a few lightbulb moments here and there. But who knows, shrug shrug! Men are just as emotional and deeply ingrained in their egos as anyone else. Trump, Andrew Tate, tyrants, and narcissistic world leaders are perfect examples of what happens when masculinity goes too far. The difference is that when women are irrational or emotional, it’s more overt; we see them cry, whine, be hurt, or vulnerable, which makes it more recognizable. With men, it's often more covert because they aren't "allowed" to express their emotions as openly. Instead of seeing a guy cry when he's rejected, you might see him do a complete 180 and call the woman a slut or a bitch, or act like she wasn’t good enough for him anyway. Instead of admitting loneliness, he might start a Reddit or 4chan red-pill movement. Instead of admitting he feels powerless and wants to feel superior, he creates a whole ideology where his race, gender, or beliefs are supreme, and everyone else should be suppressed, subjugated, or worse. He so desperately clings to finding some rational argument to justify it, trying to make it seem "objective, sensible, reasonable, and rational." Even Leo's posts are a perfect example of this, so much writing justifying his bias. Essentially, since emotions aren't overtly allowed for the masculine, they have to find ways to covertly or indirectly express them, often using other "masculine" tools like rationale, anger, domination, fighting, and status games to validate and justify their emotions. This pattern is something I see everywhere, all the time. It really feels like we’re forgetting that we’re all human, with fragile egos. Ego follows emotion. How is it that men suddenly seem like these alien creatures, detached from it all? It’s absurd. Just as you said, exactly! It’s honestly hilarious how men will openly say, "Oh, just appeal to my ego, teehee ;-)," and even take pride in it, giving tips to women like, “Show him respect, cater to his ego.” They’ll overtly admit they love their egos being stroked, yet still somehow believe this won’t cloud their judgment or put them in a biased state. And then they turn around and claim masculinity is all about pure rationality and unbiased truth-seeking. Leo himself said, "Ego is the little devil on our shoulder." It’s almost like they’re completely blind to how much their ego influences their perceptions. Catering to the ego makes "logical" sense in terms of survival. But survival, in the spiritual or enlightened sense, isn’t about feeding the ego. It’s actually about letting go of it, transcending it, and embracing things like love, compassion, beauty, and the pursuit of purity. All these things are often stereotypically feminine. But for some reason, they keep getting brushed aside. I think this is where a lot of the "flaw" happens: men are seen as more rational in terms of pushing their survival agenda, and to the ego, this seems like the most rational, smart, pragmatic, and truthful thing to do. But again, we are forgetting that spirituality is not about the ego. So, you cannot claim that what the ego finds to be true is the actual truth.

More Debunks! https://www.actualized.org/insights/why-masculinity-values-truth-more Okay... let's analyze! The idea that 'men value truth and women value feelings' is easily debunked by looking at women’s history (or frankly, any minority or repressed group). If men were truly high-value truth seekers, why did they feel the need to enslave, suppress, and exclude women from higher education, the workforce, and other knowledge-seeking and expanding opportunities? If valuing truth was so natural to them, why not just ask women what they wanted and fulfill their truth as well? You can’t claim to value truth if it’s only when it aligns with your perspective and serves your interests. There are many more arguments later that I’ll make that show men care about the truth only when it suits them emotionally. A true truth seeker would want others to seek truth too, to be enlightened as well. They would create systems that support this spiritual journey, not lock their students away next to washing machines or by the kitchen stove. And if you use the argument that 'those are just the corrupt men,' that's silly. You can't nitpick like that. I could throw a curveball and say, 'Oh, well, the only truly 'real' women are highly spiritual, intelligent, and rational women who are both in tune with their logic and emotions, every other woman is corrupt! She's not a valid representation of the feminine!' But that’s not how it works. You have to own the *truth* of all expressions of your gender and look at it rationally and *truthfully*. If your gender is disproportionately responsible for things like war, power struggles, greed, manipulation, oppression, and sexual exploitation when in power, then one should seriously question how truthful masculinity is by nature. Truth is not the same as effectiveness; in fact, they are often opposites. Survival is not inherently about truth. Sure, they can be correlated, but the fact that men are physically stronger and can bend, control, dominate, and threaten reality more than women might actually make them more prone to being untruthful. “Oh, I see… I'm the most powerful, alright! I’ll use the truth to my advantage and create my own version of reality.” It’s easy to manipulate the truth to build a spiritual cult, convince women to worship you, sleep with you, and brainwash them all. It’s effective for the ego, right? That’s how “truth” can be twisted into something that serves personal gain rather than genuine reality. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you how many men throughout history have created cults, ideologies, and religions to manipulate and misuse the truth. You can be aware of the truth, but if you twist it to deceive others, how truly aligned with the truth are you? If men were genuine, pure truth-seekers or enlightened gurus, they would seek to enlighten everyone, regardless of race, gender, or age. But history clearly shows us that this is the complete opposite of what’s actually happened. Also, you do realize this goes full circle, right? If you say women value men because they are truthful, that means women value truthfulness and pragmatism. But what do men value? Emotionally, they often seek softness, something smaller, younger, and less likely to threaten their ego. They want someone who won’t be too disagreeable, someone who won’t challenge them or tell them how it is, but will follow blindly, subserviently, and boost their ego, "Oh, my king!". Hmm? How strange... It’s curious how this all comes full circle, almost like men are the ones who need a partner to be deluded, feeding into their own delusions. If femininity really is this delusional, unintelligent, and irrational behavior, why are they so attracted to it? Effectiveness ≠ Truth If anything, I could flip this argument. The world often rewards men for how brutal, manipulative, and devilish they can be, essentially for their ability to dominate and bend reality. By nature, survival, and design, they are more likely to become liars, cheaters, and ego-driven, often falling down a corrupt path. I don’t want to repeat myself, but this issue goes both ways. If I saw statistically that men were more aligned with the truth of reality and fighting for it, while women were lost in delusions with their astrology and crystals, sure, that could be one thing. But that’s not the case. What we’re really seeing is human ego and greed playing out on both sides. Men often come to terms with the brutal truth of reality, yet instead of helping, they exploit the system for their gain, creating more manipulative industries, crypto scams, sex cults, harmful ideologies, and pyramid schemes, rather than contributing to something meaningful. Let’s flip the argument again: consider that women are often most vulnerable to their very mating partners, who are their natural predators in many ways. This is a hard, cold reality to face. The question is: Who faces the harshest truths in nature, the predator or the prey? Who’s more painfully aware of reality? The one who has the power to tear apart, or the one who’s constantly aware they can be torn apart at any second? On the topic of business: Research shows that, on average, men take more risks than women, both physically and financially, which may help explain why female-led companies often have steadier, long-term growth. MSCI reported that companies led by women saw 10‑point better returns on equity over time. Male-led companies may pursue faster growth, but often at the cost of higher risk and volatility. In contrast, female-led companies often achieve more sustained and stable growth. During crises like the pandemic, firms led by women were perceived as less risky, had better credit quality, and weathered downturns more reliably than male-led firms. A large-scale study of nearly 99,400 global firms found that companies led by women consistently outperformed male-led ones on exploitation metrics, such as productivity, innovation, and capacity utilization, but showed lower growth in sales and aggressive expansion behaviors like asset acquisition. Men are much more likely to punch, attack, or street fight, whereas women are more likely to express crying, issues, or vulnerability; both of these are impulsive, non-stoic expressions, not grounded, logical approaches. Being ruthless and warlike has very little to do with actual enlightenment or truth. It's much more of a Stage Red argument. If you look at the average yogi or monk, they often embody qualities that might be considered more feminine: calm, peaceful, non-ruthless, patient, detached from material reality, and distant from war. But of course, you could flip these definitions and argue that they’re also very masculine in their stoicism, emotional detachment, independence, and resilience. In reality, they embody both qualities. The core argument is this: yes, you might be forced to confront harsher truths, but that doesn’t mean you necessarily value or appreciate them more. And again, I’m not convinced that men are more compelled to value truth. Think about all the victimization, abuse, torture, and rape that women endure, and their overwhelming helplessness in the face of it. That can be just as awakening as any brutal reality check; it’s an intense, harsh truth of its own. Truth certainly demands the harshness of reality, but it also often requires safety and privilege to even access it. Buddha, for instance, could only retreat to a cave because he already had every material need taken care of. He had the privilege of detachment from survival. So, in that sense, I could argue that men, being more occupied with survival, might have less mental and emotional space to engage with spirituality. Women, on the other hand, might have more time to be spiritually aware or reflective because they’re less consumed by the demands of physical survival. 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. I could argue: "Oh! Men are often more likely to get stuck in the endless pursuit of self-preservation, resource gathering, and power hunger, remaining in stages like Red or Orange in terms of consciousness. On the other hand, women are more likely to be in Stage Green, which is more focused on community, empathy, and interconnectedness. This puts them in a much better position to access higher levels of consciousness, like Tier 2 (Yellow, Turquoise, etc.), where a more holistic and integrative worldview can emerge!" But what’s less obvious is that love also demands truth. Without truth, you cannot truly love or care for another person, especially children. Your emotions, intentions, and actions must align with the reality of the person you care about, their needs, their struggles, and their growth. If you delude yourself about your partner, you risk losing them. If you ignore the truth about your children's needs, their development, their struggles, you’ll fail them. The world of relationships, like the battlefield or business, demands an honest view of the reality you’re in. If you deceive yourself about your partner's feelings or your children's needs, you’ll lose your connection to them. Love that is built on fiction, on denial or self-deception, is ultimately fragile and unsustainable. True love is rooted in an honest understanding of each other, where both parties are seen clearly, without distortion. Why is it often the men who are absent from their children's lives? Why do so many men end up with second families, struggle with fidelity, rely heavily on porn, or constantly demean and compare their partners? Why is the domestic violence rate so much higher? Why is it that so many men show so little interest in their partners' lives and needs? It’s almost a sad, ironic meme at this point: dads forgetting holidays, birthdays, or missing parent-teacher conferences. It's like society has normalized this neglect, turning it into a joke. Why is this behavior so common? You can’t selectively value truth. If you only care about the truth on the battlefield but ignore it when it comes to loving your family, then you don’t actually care about the truth; you care about fueling your ego. You want to be the hero, the protector, the savior, the cool, edgy, tough soldier. If you can’t be truthful with the people you love, then you're just living in a delusion of your own making. I agree to some extent, but if men were truly these high-level truth-seekers, why are so many of them avoiding socializing, depressed, constantly playing video games, and spending their time debating their favorite ideologies on online forums? If masculinity is so deeply connected to truth, shouldn’t we see a clear discrepancy between how this "Gen Z modern" lifestyle is affecting men vs. women? Also, if women were so desperate for someone to take care of them, why do we see female ideologies pushing for pro-choice, higher education, delayed marriage, the 4B movement, women in business, and advocating for more and more independence? If femininity is so reliant on being taken care of, desperately wanting to stay in "La La Land", wouldn’t these movements reflect that? It’s also curious that many men complain about women not being subservient enough, while women are clearly pushing for greater autonomy. Does this really follow the path of a "truth seeker"? And when we look at voting patterns, who do you think elected Trump? The gender disparity in voting is massive, and it tells a very different story about what genders currently value. Men often complain that women are too vulgar, not sweet, soft, as easily influenced, or feminine enough. They point out how women are out-earning them and have more ambition. Meanwhile, women tend to prefer when their guy is more direct and straightforward. So, who here really seems to value truth more? And who is trying to protect their ego from being hurt? It’s clear that the ones pushing for softness and maintaining their ego might be more concerned with image than truth. How is this a good point for men? Imagine if we flipped the scenario: women are far more suited for truth because which woman would go fight a war to protect her family? That action is far more suitable for a man than a woman. To prioritize truth over everything and everyone else is a hell of a thing, and it comes more naturally to women than men. That’s why nature allowed men to be stronger, to fight and protect, while women focus on spirituality, doing their yoga and witchcraft. Who’s really facing the true, harsh reality of survival here? The one who’s protecting something so vulnerable, just after giving birth, in a jungle, while struggling to keep a newborn alive? It's funny how convenient it is to abandon your wife and children in the name of "spiritual seeking," and then turn around and claim she’s the delusional one. You can’t flip-flop and nit-pick these arguments. You can’t say men are "more hardcore" because they go to war "Grrr... raw survival, pragmatism, guns, bombs, aghhh!" and value truth for that, but then say that they leave their families to go sit in a cave, abandoning the women to take on the brutal, life-or-death responsibility of caring for the child. How does that make sense? How does that follow? It should take zero brain cells to realize that nurturing a newborn, especially after experiencing the death-risking potential of pregnancy, is extremely hardcore. To assume that women don’t value truth in order to survive is simply naive. In fact, the history of countless men, many of whom were intellectual, spiritual, or simply able to sit in caves for years, contemplating mathematical problems, highlights the privileged and cushy survival conditions they had. Meanwhile, most women were immediately thrust into roles where they had to please their husbands and work to ensure their own survival. On top of that, they were often viewed as prizes or targets in war, subjected to rape, torture, and sexual exploitation. To claim that women lived in some sort of airy, protected survival fantasy is a narrow, myopic perspective.

It can't be both. It would invalidate the logic of God. The logic of God states it has to include all and everything. So yes, that includes the possibility of other gods, but they are still contained within the infinity. Otherwise, the logic of God breaks, which would also be included inside of God. Just like for God to be 'all,' it has to be both 'all' and 'nothing' and 'something.' So, it creates both nothing and something, but those 'nothing' and 'something' also exist within God. Riiiight...? Not really sure what we’re pointing to anymore, haha.

This makes very little sense to me. I understand that God inherently has to have an 'other' or 'infinite others' within it, but it’s still all God, no? It’s just more properties, instances of God within the same singular God. Otherwise, it doesn’t really make sense logically.

Yes! The challenge with asking that question is that it often leads to neglecting the deeper implications behind it. Imagine something you are (or were) deeply attached to: maybe your greatest love, your child, your family, your hands and body, your values, just pick something you're deeply connected to and need. When you ask the question, 'Okay, but do you get to experience all other stories?' you’re essentially asking to fully let go of your current attachments to experience a completely different reality. That’s why psychedelic trips are often more abstract and storyless, because you’re still trying to retain your human self while accessing higher truths. Plus, you’re removing your ego, so you start realizing the purity of truth more and aren’t as attracted to entering into another alternative ego. However, you can still definitely find plenty of accounts where people have long trips and experience entirely different lives (stories), or experiences like salvia trips where people become inanimate objects, juice cups, or doorknobs. Some people have NDEs (Near-Death Experiences) and experience PTSD from losing 'the family lives they lived for ages' in a coma state. So, yes, you can experience full stories that feel incredibly real, just as real as your current reality. It’s just very difficult to retain it, since for one reality to feel real, another needs to feel fake (or less real), so you always get this weird blend (hence why it’s very difficult to scientifically track and report these instances). The key insight for immersion is that you need a singular point of focus that feels most important, something to fully engage with and concentrate on. To achieve this, the best illusion is to forget everything else, making it seem as unreal as possible, so that your focus remains on the one thing that feels "most" real. That's kind of what God is doing. Since He created all these stories, He knows they are all equally His. The only way to truly immerse oneself in or believe one story is to forget all the others, along with the creation process itself, and fully embrace the current story as the truest, most real experience. I hope that makes sense! I think a clearer way to approach this is by looking at it through the lens of 1st order and 2nd order, since the word 'real' tends to carry a lot of emotional baggage and connotations. When Leo expresses it this way, it can often feel dismissive or invalidating. When God created one, five, twenty, or even infinite stories, it's not that these stories aren't 'real.' Rather, they are extensions of God Himself. In creating them, God momentarily deluded Himself into forgetting that He is the source of all these stories. He created them to "complete" Himself fully, both in limited and unlimited forms, both in states of delusion and full awareness. This process allows God to explore and understand every aspect of His own being. When we speak of solipsism, we’re simply saying that 1st order God is singular, complete, eternal, and solipsistic. Hence, why Solipsism is true, since it is 1st order. Everything that comes from it, the 2nd order, is still part of it, but fragmented, limited, impermanent, extensions of the original, divided parts of it. Does that help clarify it? The reason we use the word 'real' is because we also use it colloquially when referring to 1st and 2nd order. To give you a few examples: Your face is the 'real' face. But then I add a filter, some Photoshop, and now you have a picture of your filtered self. The picture is still 'real,' but it's second-order to your 'real' self. So when someone asks how you actually (IN REALITY) look, you'd say how you look in the unfiltered photo. Aka, you refer to your 1st order image as the 'REAL' one. The second one exists, but it is a 2nd order extension, a filtered perception of your REAL face. Does that make sense? Or when quantum physics was discovered to be more 'true' and 'real' than Newtonian physics: Newtonian physics wasn’t invalidated; it was just shown to be true within a smaller scope of reality, while quantum physics encompassed both Newtonian equations and higher equations. So we'd say quantum physics is 1st order, and Newtonian physics is 2nd order, derived from quantum physics. I’d recommend using this logic personally, as it helps remove the emotional charge from the concept. The issue is that, as egos, we've been taught to equate 'real' with the 2nd order reality because we’ve never directly experienced the 1st order. So when we’re told that what we perceive as 'real' is not truly real, it feels incredibly invalidating. We’re so deeply attached to this 2nd order reality because it's all we know. It's like a child crying because they’ve just realized Santa isn’t real, even though they’ve believed for 10 years that a jolly old man gives them gifts every Christmas. To us, as adults, it seems silly because we understand the 1st order truth, that Santa isn't real, but to that child, it shatters everything. The emotions, attachments, and pain are deeply real for them. Now, imagine our situation is much more profound. We’re not just talking about a child who believed in Santa for 10 years. Think about 20, 30, 40, or even 60+ years of a full, fleshed-out narrative: relationships, careers, friendships, love, heartbreak, loss, betrayal, wars, successes, failures, joy, pain, and everything in between. And then someone tells you that all of it isn’t real. Of course, it feels impossible to accept, because it feels like we’re being asked to discard a lifetime of experiences, emotions, and attachments. Naturally, it’s not something we’d accept without resistance; it’s incredibly difficult to even consider. Which is why the lack of God-realization continues. This is also why we need long retreats, deep meditation, and the most potent psychedelics to truly break free from our natural wiring and realize these truths. These are incredibly difficult truths to confront, and realistically, they’re not that practical when it comes to survival. This doesn’t mean anything bad at all. It just means you get to experience this limited existence and try to make the most out of it. It’s not really that different from accepting death. Either way, death will make it all seem like an illusion at some point. So, from that perspective, it’s not anything that new.

Oh, but that is what is being said! The ego, as you experience it, is ultimately made of the same essence as everything else; it's a limited form of the same substance (God, Self). Solipsism, in the Actualized.org sense, isn’t claiming your limited perspective is the absolute truth. Instead, it focuses on the nature of the "substrate" or the origin of reality, what is the true substance of existence? The limited perspective I’m referring to encompasses all the stories that shape your ego, your name, your family, and your experiences since birth, everything that contributes to your identity. However, beyond this, there’s the pure consciousness that is aware of all of it, the "you" or the "I Am-ness" that has always been present since the moment you were born. This pure awareness, the observing presence, is what solipsism points to. It is the eternal, unchanging aspect that has always existed and will continue to exist. Everything else is a limited expression or extension of this essence. Think of it like this: you're the storyteller of a story that you've created. The story is a second-order extension of you, but you are the first-order, the origin. Now, imagine you've created 10 different stories, each one separate, unique. Then, imagine 100 stories, 2000, and eventually, an infinite number of stories. Each story is a separate, limited expression, but they all stem from the same source: you. It’s just very difficult to imagine this if you’ve never had psychedelic experiences, because "You" and the ego (your name, the story of how you were born, your sense of being and why you are in this present moment, your meanings, purpose, and attachments) are so deeply intertwined. You often mistake them for the same thing, but they couldn’t be further from the truth. Once you experience a separation of "you" from the ego, you'll begin to see what solipsism is pointing to. That "you" is eternal and solipsistic, while everything else is limited, impermanent, and just an extension of it. A good metaphor would be that you forgot you created all the other stories and became deeply attached to a single one. Over time, you began to believe the character in that story was you. Solipsism isn’t claiming that you are just the singular story, but rather that you are the creator of all the stories. And that creator is singular, solipsistic, eternal, and God.

I believe the actual argument of solipsism is that the 'substrate' or the foundation of all reality is consciousness, the Self, or infinity. Other minds would just be limited, fragmented creations of that infinite, singular Self. It’s kind of like saying slices of an apple exist, yes, but they are all still made of the same apple. Separation exists because it has to, in order to complete the infinity, as you said. But only illusionary, underneath, it’s all the same: infinity, one, one Self. Hope that helps!

Hmm... how so? The logic is that everything is God and holds the unity and all-encompassing consciousness at the center. The only thing dividing us from full omnipotence is our level of consciousness. Once you are more closely merged, you are the center of the whole universe, because, in essence, you are God. So theoretically, if one's consciousness is raised enough, they should be able to bend reality (at least to some extent, given that you are still trying to retain your human body). But some level of higher controlled change should be possible.

@Natasha Tori Maru Exactly! It was actually quite a pleasant surprise for me too, and the dude does seem decently open-minded and non-judgmental.

I think my issue is that I can't tell if this is just a process within my mind (or other conscious agents' minds) and not so "relevant" beyond explaining that. To give an example: A neural network starts from a random function, and it slowly starts making biases, distinctions, weighted functions, and gradient descent to map out whatever it is being fed as input. However, it's not like that neural network (although it is an "infinite mind" in a sense, since it’s diving and uniting itself in infinite ways, infinite times) is able to impact reality in any independent way beyond its definition. Sure, it's a universal pattern of how its mind works and how all of our minds work, but there is nothing to suggest this is how it works outside of the "minds" or consciousness, just like how a neural network or a computer processor can divide, analyze, and comprehend in a million infinite ways. But that doesn’t mean it’s anything near the way a human mind works. There is a significant qualitative difference in experience. But if you were a neural network, you’d never know. Sure, a computer chip can realize, "Oh, I'm just making decisions! And if I stop making binary 1s and 0s, I’ll cease to exist! Yay! :D" This means "I am God 100%", but that computer chip would have missed out on important, qualitatively different experiences from its human chip creator, outside the reality of its binary process. It’s not like if a human were to realize, "Oh, I’m just making distinctions!" they could playfully play with mental distinctions, let alone physical ones. Leo once said that if he wanted to, he could make his hand a tentacle, but he didn’t want to during the trip because he’s attached to his hand. Okay. Then, can he make some physical changes and bend and manipulate distinctions of things he’s not so attached to? He could give himself abs, perhaps even a slight eye color change, or solve gut health issues, right? Again, this feels like a very crucial element that gets ignored. We’re doing science, but proper science here. If I concluded that mind and reality are the same, then testing this very distinction is imperative. I understand the concept: "Oh, you’re in such a high state that you don’t care about giving yourself a billion dollars or proving anything to anyone!" But he clearly still is teaching; he clearly still cares about putting his words and understanding the truth in a proper manner. This feels to me like one of the primary things to test for reality vs. mind non-duality beliefs. Because if I can, in a super high state, bring into reality something that could’ve never happened normally (and that I controlled for, not something the trip blurred my mind with), that’d truly be impactful. Am I making sense? It kind of feels like you’re just defining patterns of how the mind functions, and then if you can remove some of these distinctions in the mind, experiences would change. But the fact that your internal state cannot impact the external beyond your ordinary human limitations, at least it hasn’t been recorded to do so, leaves me confused as to why there aren’t better proofs of this, as it seems like the first thing to explore if you want to spread consciousness to people. And not in a way that looks like a magician performing with sleight of hand. And if you say, “Oh, well, it’s difficult to bring upon a whole pyramid with your mind!” I’d ask, why? According to your metaphysics, God has no meaningful difference between spawning a kangaroo and building an Empire State Building; it’s all imagination for him. So that means you, as a human in God consciousness, should be able to at least spawn some water or fire intentionally in your highest state of consciousness. And you don’t have to do this because of ego, pride, or anything, but just because you want to play and explore consciousness more, for the beauty of consciousness.

‎ Emptiness Presence Now Emptiness Everything All ⮔𓍰𓎂ꝍỾ࣯࣯ Truth Being Isness I am

Not necessarily! If one night I drugged you, locked you up in a basement, and performed gender transformation surgery, making you "Miss Leona," you'd be forced to have a "consciousness expansion" experience due to your physicality and hormones changing. If I induced schizophrenia in you through a lobotomy and electric shocks, you would also have a shift in consciousness. When you're sad, you can point to brain activity that's "presenting" that you are in a sad state. When you're doing a complex calculus problem, there's brain activity for that as well. And there is also brain activity when your "dissociative process," aka your DMN or "ego," is being lowered, which expands your sense of self. I'm not saying the brain is the cause of consciousness, but it is a good "map" to look at if one potentially wants to cause these things outside of psychedelics. Creating substances that mimic this behavior, lowering brain activity, especially in areas associated with the "self" and "self-rumination," would be a good direction! Fundamentally, both 'real' mental barriers and 'real' physical barriers are the main culprits as to why we are not all flowing and basking in God. It's a sturdy process to deconstruct these things and become unself-deceived. That's why psychedelics help so much, as they loosen things up. This is also why I can touch my toes on psychedelics and almost do a pretzel!

@Breakingthewall How do you cope with or understand the inability to manipulate reality that much, even in the highest states of consciousness? Even the highest prophets and gurus didn’t leave historical records of being able to, let’s say, spawn an object in front of them, or even just in terms of things like growing hair, gaining or losing weight, morphing into different forms, or having a strong pigment/race change; just any type of reality manipulation that would be more evidential. This should be achievable at the highest states following the Logic, yet nothing. And by the way, I’m not asking this as an attack point. I just noticed this is one of the main blockages I have to fully embody and accept the "All is Mind" narrative. I find the logic of God fairly simple to follow and to make connections with, but when it comes to my ego accepting some of these truths, it’s more difficult, specifically because of this argument. Considering that it often leads me to believe the logic I’m plotting out is the logic of my perception and mind, not the actual source.

Here! I’ve timestamped it, but this video explains well what psychedelics do to our brains! I honestly suggest watching the full course if you're interested in this. TLDR: Basically, the way I see it is this: You know how when you're walking down the street, you can separate your own individual self from other people talking? Well, someone with schizophrenia, for example, can’t do that. They often hear voices and interpret other people's conversations passing by as if they are being watched or talked about. They're missing that "dissociative separation boundary of ego" that most people have, which is necessary to function properly in the real world. During psychedelic trips, or people with telepathy, clairvoyance, schizophrenia, DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), or even savant syndrome, cannot form a consistent sense of "self" or "ego." As a result, a lot of other things "leak" into their consciousness, which causes their perception of reality and sense of self to differ drastically from what we consider "normal." This is why they tend to be more dysfunctional on average, but can also display unique abilities or gifts. Psychedelics directly target the DMN (default mode network). The Default Mode Network (DMN) is thought to be closely linked to the ego or sense of self. For example, it is strangely overactive in depressive patients. These patients struggle with an overactive sense of self and repetitive thoughts, which is why psychedelics can help treat depression; they break them out of their mental loop. Similarly, sociopathic or narcissistic individuals might experience guilt or empathy when they use psychedelics, because it loosens their rigid sense of "self." So, psychedelics are essentially substances that lower DMN activity or reduce brain activity overall, particularly the ego. If we could create a drug or medicine that does the same thing, we'd likely see similar effects. Of course, this is all still under heavy research and uncertain, but the ongoing evidence suggests this is the direction we're heading.

Close, he went with the baboons! 🐒🍌

Well... I'm not sure history would agree with you here, to be honest, haha. I honestly can’t think of more destructive cults, ideologies, and reactions than those on the masculine side, especially when there's a leader who whispers exactly what people need to hear. What do you think the whole incel/4chan/redpill/pick-up movements, with school shooters and misogyny, are about? It's guys with repressed feelings and needs who get pulled into groupthink with their issues and soothing their emotions by forums telling them they’re justified in feeling what they do. Those are the huge number of guys who aren't seeking any real truth. Instead, they endlessly and mindlessly repeat debating points in their heads, justifying whatever emotions they want to feel; soothing themselves in their own delusions to feel good. If the masculine is so prone to truth more than the feminine, how do we explain this huge discrepancy? People often say how women are always targets for cults and sexual exploitation, but are we forgetting that men are the ones building the infrastructure for those cults? Why are we ignoring all these men living in delusion, thinking they can exploit whoever they want? This is a perfect example of living in complete delusion, thinking you're untouchable and beyond morals. And you're telling your ego, along with other men, that you can do this because it makes your ego and emotions feeeeeeeeeeeeel good. If these aren’t proof of guys being highly social, prone to groupthink, and emotionally driven (especially given that there is no feminine alternative to this kind of phenomenon, as far as I'm aware), I don’t know what is, haha.

I love these questions! Obviously, I am not saying I 100% know or there is a definite answer, but it can be fun to speculate! 1. Opposable Thumbs and Dexterity Unlike most animals, our thumbs can touch the tips of our fingers, giving us the ability to grip, manipulate, and shape objects precisely. Imagine a caveman or early human experimenting with rocks, sticks, or bones, and discovering how to hold and craft them into more sophisticated shapes. Humans could begin to create tools that were more complex and adaptable, from simple cutting tools to weapons. This trait likely drove evolutionary pressure to maximize the use of our hands, as they became our primary tool for survival and innovation. Also, when humans started walking upright, it freed the hands for tasks other than locomotion. With free hands, early humans could use tools, carry objects, and build shelter. This change was a distinct break from our ancestors, as being bipedal allowed for more complex and multi-purpose hand usage, not just walking or gripping. 2. Cognitive Push for Survival: Humans didn't have the physical power or speed of many predators. Unlike big cats, bears, or large primates, early humans were relatively small and physically weaker. But the lack of physical strength likely pushed humans to develop tactical thinking and strategies. Since we couldn’t outfight predators or rivals, we had to think and use tools to make up for it. This created a strong evolutionary push for higher cognitive function, such as developing advanced tool-making, hunting strategies, and social cooperation. Cognitive evolution became central to our survival and success. Different species have adapted to their specific ecological niches. For example, dolphins also have large brains, but their environment and survival strategies don't require them to build tools or create complex social structures in the same way humans do. Larger brains are heavy and require a lot of energy, which means other traits might be sacrificed to allocate resources to brain development. In a predator like a lion, strength and speed were more important than cognitive complexity, so evolution didn’t favor larger brains. In contrast, humans faced survival challenges that pushed them toward brain development rather than just physical traits. Elephants live in complex social groups and have a long lifespan, meaning they need advanced memory for navigating vast territories, remembering waterholes, and maintaining social bonds within their herds. Their intelligence is also crucial for empathy and problem-solving within social groups. Their large brains are vital for social interaction and memory, but they also come with high energy costs. Unlike big cats or prey animals, elephants invest heavily in social cohesion and environmental memory rather than in physical speed or strength. 3. Social Cooperation: Humans are incredibly social animals, and some researchers argue that we might be one of the most social species on Earth. Cooperation and social bonds were essential for survival: sharing resources, protecting each other, and coordinating in hunting groups. But cooperation also required advanced cognitive skills like empathy, understanding others' thoughts and feelings, and communication. The need to cooperate in increasingly larger and more complex groups led to the development of language and more intricate social dynamics, which in turn required more sophisticated thinking. Basically, every species has its trade-offs and benefits. Humans aren't as large as elephants to afford to not be quick or reactive, nor are we built for extreme speed like cheetahs, so we can't afford to completely ignore social cooperation, tool-creation, or higher cognitive development. While this isn’t a fully clear-cut answer (since it’s all quite convoluted), the summary would be: we had certain natural predispositions, like hand dexterity and eventually bipedalism, which freed up our hands for manipulation. Once a species develops a unique ability (like dexterous hands), evolution often exploits that advantage because survival thrives on these specialized traits. Over time, these traits become more refined and specialized, leading to the development of other functions (in our case, the brain) that could have developed to support it. Instead of making the brain smaller, if we were, let's say, more specialized for vision like eagles.

That's a significant assumption. Our ancestors, like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, lacked the advanced brain and cognitive abilities that define Homo sapiens. Their brains were smaller, which limited their ability to think abstractly, plan, or form complex social structures. Unlike animals that are better predators, faster, stronger, or more agile, our survival advantage came from our ability to think, create tools, and collaborate in large groups. Over time, those without these cognitive traits were outcompeted or wiped out, leaving Homo sapiens as the dominant species due to our brain's adaptability and flexibility. The approach you're suggesting was attempted in nature, and if anything, it was necessary for further development. These species were wiped out because they couldn’t survive, while we, Homo sapiens, remained due to our adaptability and cognitive abilities. You see, we don't have many inherent genetic or physical advantages: Humans have an unusually large brain relative to body size, particularly in the neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for higher functions like reasoning. Highly developed hands, specifically opposable thumbs, which allowed for intricate tool-making and manipulation. Humans are also incredibly social animals, and our survival often depended on cooperation and communication within groups. These are a few advantages we have, and all of them, to some extent, support the development of more complex structures of thinking and conceptualizing. If we were created to be exceptionally large, fast, or flexible, nature would likely have doubled down on those traits more. However, since most of our advantages lie in our brain structure, our ability to manipulate reality with flexible hands, and our social group dynamics, it made more sense for nature to emphasize these traits. Nature is very efficient at times.

@Jannes I think this is more of a practical issue. Obviously, you're going to need to do everything since well... you want to do everything, haha. There's no way around it, you won’t have enough information before trying. So, first, focus on getting your survival situation in order: secure your basic human needs and make sure your income is stable, so you're not stressed. Once that’s in place, you can figure out how much free time you can allocate for spiritual pursuits and psychedelics. Plan it out in advance: what kind of psychedelics? How many grams? LSD, mushrooms, 5-MeO-DMT, DMT, etc. If you prefer a retreat, I don’t have much info on that, but you can look it up. From there, start feeling it out and see how your body and mind respond. You’re going in without knowing exactly what will happen; you might get insights immediately, or you might find that your ego is much more stubborn than you expected. Based on your experiences, you’ll start to see what comes up, whether you need to work on things like dating, making more money, or traveling. Or maybe you’ll be able to let those desires go. For something like life purpose (LP) specifically, you won’t suddenly realize it during a trip if you’ve never had any external experience or input in that area. If you’ve never heard of a particular line of work, it won’t just appear to you during a psychedelic experience. Research and experience are key if you want to find your LP. If you don’t have any lingering desires, you can just continue with your spiritual pursuits. Over time, you’ll likely experience God realization. After that, you'll either be very clear on your life purpose (LP) and happy with it, or you might find that you no longer care much about it. In that case, your focus on survival and basic needs will help maintain whatever lifestyle you’ve found in the process. Basically, you don't have all the info yet, so there's not much you can do. Psychedelics (God-realization) won’t suddenly give you an insight into your life purpose (LP) without any prior input. To recontextualize something, you need to have something to recontextualize in the first place. For example, if someone was born to be a hockey player but never heard of it, a trip won’t make them think, “Oh, I should play hockey! What's that?” What’s more likely is that the desire was already there, maybe from childhood or while watching sports, or even while training in a different sport. They likely have a strong subconscious memory of it. Then, during the trip, it suddenly clicks for them. Also, be careful of psychedelic delusions. You might suddenly think, “I want to be a billionaire to save the world! I wanna start a healthy whole foods business!” But if you have zero experience with what that actually entails, it can mess with you. Psychedelics can help with LP discovery, but they work best when you’ve already had experience or exposure to potential LPs. Without that, it can easily become delusional. A better approach might be to start working on an LP you think you'd like, and then use psychedelics to help you gain emotional attunement and clarity. Let them help you assess and keep you in check whether what you’re doing is truly enjoyable and aligned with who you are. It’s really important to avoid black-and-white thinking, like believing there's only one true LP for you or that you must follow the most optimal path. In reality, the best you can do is minmax: gather as much experience and information as quickly as possible so you can make better decisions. It’s all about flexibility and adaptation. Survival is crucial and cannot be ignored even at the highest levels.

Mosquitoes evolved to produce many offspring because the survival rate for each individual is low (Female mosquitoes typically lay a large number of eggs, with some species laying up to 300 eggs at a time), and most of them won’t make it past birth. You could think of it as each mosquito exploring a different "path" in reality, and natural selection acts as a filter, keeping only the ones that survive. At some point, evolution realized that if an organism could "pre-abstract" the consequences of actions by observing past outcomes, it wouldn't need to spawn multitudes of offspring just to ensure one survives. This is especially important for animals that take a long time to give birth to a single offspring, making it impractical to have so many. The ability to predict and understand your environment became a huge evolutionary advantage, just like long-term memory. For example, if I can remember that the last five cavemen who went down a certain path didn’t return alive, I can deduce that the path is dangerous and avoid it. If I can recall past seasons, I can plan for the winter and manage my resources better. Even better, if I can understand the why behind the seasons, I can prepare for an early winter and avoid being caught off guard. This cognitive ability is a huge survival benefit, and the same principle applies in the modern world. You want to know the truth about your business partner because you don’t want to be taken advantage of. You need to understand your romantic partner’s behavior to avoid planning a future with someone who might betray you. Career planning requires abstract thinking too: understanding how you might feel in different roles, anticipating the harsh realities of corporate work before you join. All of these are high-level, conceptual, abstract thinking required to survive most optimally. In the past, understanding why thunder occurred helped you avoid placing your house in dangerous places. Today, if you understand why certain things happen, you can manage your life better. This is also why early religions and pagan beliefs developed; they sought to explain external forces beyond human control, so people could navigate their reality more effectively. "Okay, so I understand that a flood might happen at random times, and that’s not ideal. I don’t like that. Hmm, why does the flood happen? What’s the truth behind it? Oh, it must be a flood God! I should give sacrifices to the flood God so they won’t be upset with me! Of course!" This is a primitive example of how truth-seeking happens. Truth is both practical and, at times, impractical for survival. But it makes a lot of sense why we evolved to seek it. Think of it like this: If you were inside a video game, wouldn't you want to know if there’s a “God mode,” a cheat, or a glitch you can use to navigate the game better? If you could understand how the game was made, you'd have an advantage and could use that knowledge to "win." This is highly appealing to the ego. Ego loves the idea of God, using it as a tool for survival. Little does the ego realize, it’s actually seeking its own self-annihilation with that exact wish. Truth means understanding the cause, and most of the time, we seek to know the cause of things so we can navigate better.

Hmm... It’s really circumstantial. The issue with survival is that it impacts your inquiry. You can still realize God, but it’s less likely because desires and unresolved karma will creep back in. For example, you might have a peak enlightenment experience, but desires such as intimacy, love, or sex could still linger. Until those are satiated to a decent extent, you likely won’t be able to truly embody higher states (ignoring genetic freaks). Similarly, if you’re living paycheck to paycheck and stressed out, your mind is likely to dismiss deeper realizations as less important, leaving you less contemplative. I’d suggest saving up some money for psychedelics or retreats, and finding spare time to listen to Leo’s videos and engage in mind deconstruction. These experiences will broaden your horizons, give clarity to your desires, and help increase your capacity to handle survival, as well as boost your creativity. But at some point, you’ll probably face blockages that require more experience and karma to burn through. That’s when it’s time to focus on those issues so you have fewer regrets. Once you do, you can focus more on spirituality, rinse and repeat, until your survival starts aligning with your LP. Ideally, your LP and your spiritual growth will start fueling each other. Even if you eventually decide you just want to sit in a cave, avoid talking to anyone, and not help others, you’ll still need to figure out how to maintain that lifestyle. Your LP could then shift to how you use your skills to support that lifestyle. And if you decide you want to help others, great, you’ve already started, and you’ll be even more certain about it!

Do you think someone can be enlightened yet still have a toxic LP afterward? I doubt it, but it’d be curious to hear what others think. Maybe you just want to experience "evil" for the fun of it and for a deeper understanding of it. Or perhaps there’s still some leftover ego and unrealized karma (desires) that wiggle their way back, kind of like those spiritual sexual trafficking cults. Or perhaps you realize ego will always be there, so you might as well satisfy it and make yourself as happy as you can. Shrug, shrug...

Exactly! The way I see it, you can use these polarities to spot your blind spots on both sides. If you have too much masculine polarity, you might need more connection to the feminine to awaken. This could involve learning to "submit" to the experience, embracing raw truth without the mind trying to analyze it or over-intellectualize it. You might need to let go of the typical scientific materialistic arguments like, "This is too woo-woo, what's the use in this? How do I benefit from this? This is all too fluffy and irrational!" and be open to crying, expressing, screaming, or being a vulnerable curled up cry baby asking for Mommy during the trip to reach higher states. It’s about not being so ego-survival-focused, prioritizing connection instead of pragmatism. Being open to embracing more chaos, irrationality (insanity moments), and not being too grounded in reality during your experiences, without seeing it as you becoming too 'feminine and weak,' so your ego blocks you. Or being open to things like love, beauty, care, and selflessness as actual parts of truth, and not labeling them as too naive, utopian, feminine, irrelevant, or dismissing them. Didn’t Peter Ralston originally deny Love as an aspect of Truth at one point? Shows the blind spots that can happen, though maybe I’m wrong or he changed his mind. If you have too much feminine polarity, it could lead to deluding yourself into thinking you're "feeeeeeling the frequencies of the universe, deities, chakras", or that crystals are making you more aware. It’s important not to get lost in the fluffy, airy-fairy community-comfort side of things and instead be open to the "uglier" or more "hardcore" aspects of the experience, finding the logical structure of God and deconstructing it without trying to make the truth too beautiful or idealized. And obviously, all the other aspects Leo mentioned in his previous posts. That's how I see it. The path is androgynous and completely neutral, and the feminine and masculine polarities help provide lenses through which you can see what you might be missing and what's blocking you. I agree that saying the path is exclusively 'masculine' or 'more masculine-leaning' is unproductive and useless.