Xonas Pitfall

Bless You! 🤍

Thank... you?

Precisely so!

@OBEler Got it! Just wanted to offer some advice, as I don’t think your intent was malicious. I simply want to highlight how your presentation might come across and where things could have been framed differently. Please acknowledge this in your future posts and be cautious not to pick out examples that fit self-fulfilling biases. It can mess with your worldview, causing you to keep finding examples that support your narrative. Just look at the whiny red-pill podcasts that focus only on men’s issues and complain about how no women want them. This is equivalent to finding women who constantly talk about how important women are in science, focusing on their gender instead of addressing the actual scientific research. The reason you received negative backlash wasn’t necessarily because you were presenting something "controversial," but because it came from a biased perspective. For instance, in your original post, if you wanted to make your point effectively, you should have found examples where both men and women act foolishly in their own ways. That would have been a more balanced assessment of how we all act foolishly, albeit in different ways, to highlight the differences between men and women (which you initially wanted). Instead, it seemed like you were saying that any intellectual pursuit by women is for selfish reasons or done in a "cringeworthy" manner, while men, as you put it, "don't do fake drama", "love actual technology." I’m just saying to be careful, because this stuff can easily creep into your subconscious. Leo himself has pointed this out in many ideology-based videos: you are thinking you're just telling the truth, and people don't like how the truth sounds, so that's why they are attacking you. From your perspective, you see these points as true, and it can feel like women and "soft men" are just attacking you because they want to live in their delusion. This, in turn, reinforces your worldview. But as you saw in this thread, both genders attack in genuinely foolish ways, just expressed differently. Hope I’m making sense. Let’s say I wanted to present the differences between men and women, and then I show examples of guys wasting their lives on OnlyFans, playing video games, having no jobs, raging on 4chan forums, and being Trump supporters. Then, I present women as hardworking, self-sacrificial angels and mothers. I can claim I care about the truth all I want, but the examples I’ve chosen to focus on and nitpick clearly show that I have a biased perspective I want to present, or perhaps unconsciously believe in. That’s why it would be expected of me to receive backlash, since I’m claiming to care about the truth, yet presenting such a biased perspective. So, if you ever engage in this topic again, please be careful how you present your original argument and the types of examples you give! Personally, I have no issue with your premise, and I do notice the differences myself. However, it’s important that these differences are presented fairly and truthfully. Often, people fall into the classic trap of equating masculinity with rationality and femininity with stupidity or irrationality, which is an unfair assessment. It’s not hard to see that both genders can act irrationally in different ways.

@OBEler My issue with comments and posts like these is that I’m not entirely sure what’s meant to be said or implied. For example, the initial post clearly nitpicked the worst examples of women in podcasting and science (if you genuinely want to look, you’ll find plenty of quality female podcasts and scientists). So, I’m not sure what the original intent was here. Are we implying that women are incapable of intelligent pursuits? A similar issue arises with the claim that women are dramatic. It was debunked by showing how both men and women can be equally dramatic in their own ways above. Was the original intent to say that women are too emotional or dramatic to think rationally? If so, has the opinion changed now? I’d like to understand the subconscious and background implications being placed on both genders from you here.

@OBEler Woman! So, that should hopefully fully fulfill the request above!

@OBEler Here you go!

The issue is that men often use the argument "women are more dramatic" to invalidate women and claim that men are more rational, less emotional, and more in control of their emotional responses. However, evidence absolutely does not support this. Both genders can be just as dramatic, irrational, and led by their egos and emotions in their own way. Hope the expanded perspective helps with that! I don’t think that definition is true colloquially either. We often call people dramatic when they’re overreacting, acting like drama queens. Plus, the male examples of "dramatic" above aren’t 'sad.' Most are emotionally charged, brutal, damaging, harmful, or driven by a need for attention and validation.

You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. Instead, you pick up an AK-47 and commit a school shooting, murdering countless innocent lives to express your emotions of loneliness and anger. You don’t throw things out of the window to get attention; instead, you wait for your partner to come home and beat them up after getting drunk on alcohol to show your displeasure with their behavior and overall relationship. You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. Instead, you bottle it up and rage in silence until you snap, taking it out on a random person during a street fight. You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. You find a random scared girl, rape her, stalk her, just because she didn’t respond to your Snapchat, left you on read, or ignored your advances. All pretty drama-llama too, haha. Men are extremely drama-prone, too. At its core, drama is about overreacting to emotions and displaying them for others. These extreme examples are both damaging and dramatic, fitting the definition of drama itself. What does drama mean to you? Try to define drama without associating it with feminine connotations. Drama is not just when you scream in high-pitched voices and cry like a woman. It’s the same as if I defined beauty as: when you are captivating like a woman. That’s a stupid definition. Men can also be beautiful. Beauty extends beyond gender, and so does drama. So, what is drama? Also, what does this sentence even mean?

@Schizophonia This sounds so interesting! Do you know why? Are you essentially saying that the weaker or smaller you feel, the more you want feminine girls (girls who are also weaker, smaller, cuter, passive, and innocent)? What does "being empty" mean here? I like your reflectiveness and honesty.

I don't knooooow... War, weapons, shootings, violence, street and bar fights, rape, murder, and domestic abuse are quite dramatic...

Come on, haha, this is silly! I could also nitpick things like this. Look, guys! All men talk about is getting women and being insecure. This is what your average male podcast is like: Compare this to your average female podcast, miles apart: https://www.youtube.com/@melrobbins/videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFGVw1aK9Hb4hOvUjoEhHBIEG-kRTtDMy Jokes aside, this guy is really helpful if you want to see the dumbness on both gender sides of the "podcast" debate. https://www.youtube.com/@TheGingerKB/videos I’m genuinely telling you from the bottom of my heart, go out of your way to see the stupidity on both sides of the spectrum. This bias won’t serve you well. You seem intelligent, so there’s no need to fall into these ideological narratives. Look around, and you’ll see how easily both men and women fall victim to ego, cringeworthy beliefs, and ridiculous statements. But on the other hand, you’ll also find incredibly intelligent perspectives on both sides. Pushing these narratives will only discourage smart women from sharing their talents and opinions, which we desperately need. At the same time, it could potentially encourage deluded, ignorant, self-centered men to pick up podcast mics and spread whatever nonsense they have. We need to encourage intelligence, no matter which gender it comes from. Anything that minimizes or represses it is harmful in the long run. Ideologies like yours do exactly that, whether you're consciously or unconsciously aware of it.

Sorry for the late reply! Gocha. Apologies for bringing it up then, but I’m really pleased to hear that's been changed! I definitely don’t want to claim any absolute statements when it comes to solipsism, but I had psychedelic experiences that have tilted my perspective. What I’ve noticed is that simply using psychedelics doesn’t automatically lead to more insight. However, the more deconstruction I engage in, the more it guides my experiences in a helpful direction. These forum debates really help me in my process of deconstruction, I noticed! It can sometimes be tricky contemplating alone, as I don't have a clear sense of what is possible. For example, I know for a fact that I wouldn’t be able to contemplate a lot of Actualized.org topics without psychedelics or Leo’s videos as input. To be honest, even AI contemplation can be limiting, as it tends to become overly agreeable with your views once it senses the direction you're leaning toward. Though there are ways to prevent this, actual proper forum discussions have been really valuable for me in this regard. I tend to lean on classical "tautological-like" logic, since it seems like the one thing God "follows," if you will. It’s simply the logic of Is-ness and I am-ness, which are tied to definitions and existence itself. For example, if I accept solipsism as true, the definition of solipsism inherently involves “oneness”; there’s only one thing, one substrate, or one "material" that constructs this reality. For now, I hold this belief, but I remain open to changing my view. My issue, though, is that if solipsism is true, then when Leo talks about the infinity of gods, each "separate" from one another, it doesn’t logically hold up. As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be an implied difference in "substrate" and "material," but what defines or divides them? What's the "boundary" between these Absolutes? When does Absolute God 1 begin, and Absolute God 2 start? If we say "God," then that brings up the issue again: it’s God dividing God into more gods, which points to Solipism and negates "Infinity of Gods". But if all Leo means is that God can “delude” Himself into a multitude of infinites within Himself as part of a dream to create connection and love, I fully agree. That follows Solipism and his original arguments, too. That makes perfect sense given the nature of Infinity. So, the only issue I have is with the words “separate,” “outside,” and “completely isolated from each other.” If we’re referring to Oneness (God), then how can anything truly be separate from it? Also, I apologize to both you and Leo if I came off as combative. This forum is a space for me to expand my understanding. If I give arguments, it’s because I’m trying to learn through contemplation and future psychedelic experiences, so I enjoy it. But if an argument doesn’t add up, I’ll continue to call it out until I’m provided with an alternative that feels more cohesive. I think my criticism stemmed from the fact that, at the start of the forum, there were some bold statements made regarding solipsism, especially from Leo. But when I probed deeper with further argumentation, the responses seemed more uncertain, with statements like, "Well, my views always change, I’m uncertain. It's open to anything." My only criticism was that if someone is uncertain about the subject, it might be better to admit that upfront in the post. Otherwise, it can come across in a way that might be confusing. Nonetheless, I’m glad things have been clarified now! As for my own experience, logically, I’m much further along in the concept of "You created your own reality" and non-materialism. However, my body and brain haven’t fully adapted to this understanding. Even though I have alternative experiences and views conceptually, I’m still in the process of embodying them. That’s why I enjoy discussing and debating here; it helps me come closer to fully embodying these ideas. I also enjoy very much hearing insights that oppose my views, since that’s usually when I make the greatest leaps in my understanding. I welcome all of them. However, I would prefer more constructive replies rather than just "It is true!"... followed by questioning it... "Oh, by the way, I said my opinions can change! " Hope that clears things up! 😊

@OBEler Exactly! Of course, I'll continue my own psychedelic, spiritual, and god exploration, etc., and verify things on my own. But if there are people here confidently claiming they’ve discovered something truthful or alternative, it’s worthwhile to question and probe their logic. The idea of multiple infinite gods doesn’t really make sense if you’re claiming there's something 'outside' of God, like a different 'reality or substrate.' However, if what’s being claimed is that within infinity there are multiple absolutes, infinities, and variations, then of course, that makes sense logically, given what infinity is.

@Leo Gura I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do feel that what we’re aiming for here is to understand the 'truth.' There are definitely things that are more or less "true", for example, Christianity vs. atheism, atheism vs. non-duality, etc. Some pointers to reality are clearer or more accurate, purer than others. When someone is giving teachings and making strong, bold statements, it feels a bit like a cop-out to then say, 'Please remain open...' If, from the start, it had been said, 'I am unsure what the answer is or what other possibilities exist; test it for yourself, this is about going on an exploration,' then there would be no issue with that. But this started with very bold, strong statements, hence why I was bringing up contradictions. Leo often says things like, 'No one is awake more than I am. No one on this forum is awake.' These are pretty bold statements that aren’t very open-ended or exploratory 😅 One of the main things that attracts Leo (and many of us) is finding 'the answers.' That’s one of the main things he talks about in his videos: understanding consciousness, revealing life's biggest questions. So, there’s definitely an aspect of seeking answers and truth, or as close to the total answer as possible. Suddenly shifting to, 'Oh, it's about openness and endless exploration,' after making bold statements with clear passion about revealing "the truth" doesn’t quite sit right. Hope that makes sense!

@Leo Gura Thank you! I suppose a little suggestion for the blog or future videos: it would be awesome to get an update on the supplements video from a few years ago that you made! That one was incredibly useful and taught me a lot! Really appreciate it!

@Leo Gura Sneak peek as to which ones?

@Breakingthewall Sure, but I'm still not quite sure what's being said here. The original question or problem was about multiple gods, infinity, and solipsism. By defining God as infinity, you’re essentially saying that all is infinity. So, unless you're claiming there’s something “outside” of this infinity that is putting a limit on it, then nothing novel is being added. God is still infinity, and all is God, Oneness, Solipsism. Yes, it’s infinite in nature and ever-unfolding, but still, nothing exists outside of it, which was my original point. Therefore, you cannot claim there are infinite absolutes "outside" of God, only within or as it, expressing itself infinitely. Hopefully, that makes sense? I am not denying that infinity has infinite unfoldings and expressions, but they are still just that: infinity expressing itself. It’s not necessarily some other substrate or origin.

@Inliytened1 No, that's not what I mean. The logic I'm referring to is tautological, not the typical reasoning used in science. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition or by its logical structure, meaning that it’s true in all possible scenarios because of the way it's phrased. It doesn't need to rely on outside evidence or "other" observations to be verified. It's a statement where the truth is built into the language itself. For example: "A blue tree is a blue tree." This is tautological because, no matter what, it’s always true. The subject (a blue tree) and the predicate (is a blue tree) are exactly the same thing. There’s no new information being added, and no need for external verification. The truth is contained entirely within the logic of the statement. It’s true by definition, not by reference to any outside reality. Why tautologies are self-evident: They follow a structure where one part of the statement essentially repeats or reinforces the other part, leaving no room for contradiction or alternative possibilities. In logical terms, a tautology is true in every possible situation because it can't logically be false. "All bachelors are unmarried men." (It’s true by definition because being unmarried is part of the concept of a bachelor.) This is how one can come to understand God: by asking, What is God? What does being God imply? What are the "properties" of God, one could say? God is All. "All" must include both the finite and the infinite. Therefore, God must encompass everything, as God is infinite. God must have always existed, since to be infinite is to be ever-present in all things, everywhere, at all times. By the nature of being All, God cannot be bound by time, space, or any limitations. God defines time, space, or any limitations. If God is infinite, then God is both transcendent (beyond the physical realm) and immanent (present within everything). God would also be unchanging, as anything that changes cannot be infinite; it would be limited by time or space. Since God is the source of everything, all things would inherently have some connection to God, whether consciously recognized or not. God must be eternal, as eternity is a property of infinity; something that is infinite cannot cease to exist. All of these are simply implications of "infinity." For example, if I say, "Jeremiah has all pink nails," that implies her thumb, pointer, middle, ring, and pinkie nails on both hands are pink. Similarly, if I say, "God is infinite," that implies a range of qualities: Oneness, Solipsism, Truth, Love, Omnipotence, Everpresence, and so on. As mentioned, one of the properties of God is Omnipotence and Everpresence. God is the source of distinctions, finitude, and limitations. By pure logic, this means that any limitation or boundary that exists must have been created by God. This reasoning follows a type of logic more akin to "I am, therefore I am", a self-evident, self-determined truth, rather than typical human rationality. I believe Chris Langan makes a good point in this regard here:

Hahahahahaha ❤❤❤

@Razard86 Most likely!

@Inliytened1 But there would be. It's the logic of God and (non)duality. For example, length only occurs if there is a separation between two points so that you can measure from one object to another. Otherwise, you just get infinity in all directions, which is essentially infinite length. Now, sure, can you create alternative realities where lengths are measured in centimeters, millimeters, elephant stomps, golf carts, alien ⠋cryptic ⠋⣁⡞⠁language, etc.? Yes, of course, but the universal principle of needing two separate points to define length remains, no matter which reality you go to. The same applies here. You can imagine infinite absolutes and countless more infinities, but the fundamental principle remains: for a separation to occur, there must be a separate 'boundary' or something 'separating' the difference. And the key question is: what is that space made of? Vacuum? How did that appear? Intergalactic alien fluid? Who created that, and what's the substance of it? How did that come to be? If you say God made it, then it's God, God separating Himself into gods. This still falls heavily into duality. "Each their own entity" still means there is an 'end' to one and a space between the 'start' of another. Again, the question is: what's separating the two? Hence, repeating the same question. As I acknowledged above, I accept the notion that within God, there can be infinitely many absolutes separate from each other, but not outside of God. That is false.

@Inliytened1 It really doesn't have to be that difficult or complex. If you are saying 'not different,' then you can say 'Absolute' or 'Complete' (meaning it contains both the self and the other absolutes); a non-dual perspective. In either case, you can call that absolute singular or solipsistic once you 'group' them all. And if you are speaking from a dual perspective, then you're saying it's either one or many.

This alone is a contradiction. 'Different reality' already implies separation, which means division, or 'otherness.' Again, the only way this works is if the 'sovereign' gives up his sovereignty and fragments himself into multiple absolutes as part of a 'dream' or 'illusion.' Any other way is contradictory, as you'd still have to answer the question: what is separating these 'absolutes' or the 'dreams'? The answer will always be God, as He is the ultimate sovereign. So, you'll always end up with God separating God into gods. It's inescapable by pure logic.