Xonas Pitfall

This alone is a definition, haha: 'God is a Self with no Other.' Everything can be defined, even God, but not in the sense of an 'actual' definition or limitation. Instead, it's about providing better sentences, definitions, and pointers to it. Even if it's something unknowable and infinite, you can still call it that and provide a better pointer than, say, the Christian definition or 'pointer.' This is the contradictory part: you can "reach" "other" gods, which implies something 'outside' of God, with a boundary that must be 'reached' and then united with. Now, again, if you are just telling me that God can create illusory limitations for itself and fool itself into becoming infinite gods, but in the end, all of those boundaries are illusory and there is only God, nothing outside of God, nothing unknowable and unreachable, then I agree. But if you're saying there are other absolutes outside of God, that completely contradicts the logic. What is the boundary made of if not God? If it isn't God, then what is it? If it is God, then you have God separating God into other gods, which are all still God, so it's all illusionary and one. My critique of Leo was that he should’ve been clearer in his language when making the replies, or else it can seem contradictory if not clarified further.

? I’m really sorry, but this genuinely makes very little sense. If, by definition, God is a Self that has no 'Other,' it means that everything is Himself. Sure, God can create illusions and fool Himself with them, but the Absolute must contain all, be aware of all, and have everything reachable and knowable to it; otherwise, it invalidates the very definition of what God is. The Absolute cannot have anything that is filtered or has any boundaries between Him, because all of those boundaries must be imaginary, as they are all Him. The only way He cannot see these boundaries as Himself is if He has fooled Himself, or if the definition of God is wrong.

But why then say it like this? If the former is true, then wouldn’t it be better to say: "Infinity spawns many absolutes which have no contact with each other, though they are all still contained within the final, ultimate absolute. I am just trying to illustrate how twisted infinity can be, and how it can spawn other versions of infinity within itself." This way, you sound much more coherent, and your teachings feel more credible, as they follow logic (and obviously, I’m not talking about rigid scientific logic, but a more tautological, definition-based logic). If you say there is a potential of infinite Absolutes that cannot communicate with each other, you are violating the fundamental argument that God is the Self with no Other, as you are creating Others that are separate absolutes not contained by God (the Self), which again makes the definition of God incoherent. I accept the premise that the Self and Other are contained within God, but anything outside or unknowable/unreachable to God invalidates its very definition.

Good boy!

Exactly. "Something" or the absolute or oneness must encompass all of it. It's like a set of all infinite sets. You can include: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} Then all numbers between 0 and 1, Then the interval between 0 and 0.00000000000001, Then all infinities, and then infinities + 1, Then infinities + infinity, And then the set that holds all infinities, Then multiple infinite sets that contain infinite sets of infinities, And then infinitely many sets that contain infinitely many infinite sets. Yet, all of this is still "contained" or captured by one whole reality: the absolute set, which is God, or Omega. Maybe...

But this is still not debunking solipsism, correct? I think this is the confusing part. It’s still all made of God, and inside of God, whether that’s infinite gods, they still have to be 'mini' gods or a second order of the absolute, no? Otherwise, the logic collapses. There has to be an infinite "object" that encapsulates all, even if it holds other infinities within itself.

How do you understand it?

What does the infinite sovereign minds mean in the context of God? This confuses me.

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!