Because you are a human being designed by millions of years of evolution to be a social creature, interacting with other humans is an essential part of who you are. For instance, if you were locked in a dark, 2-by-1-meter room for three years, you would suffer, wouldn't you? It wouldn't matter how much of a Buddhist you were.
Buddhists say you must eliminate desires to avoid further reincarnation, but that is something they simply made up. It is like saying, for example, that prisoners must be sacrificed to appease the gods, just made-up religious ideas.

Yes, that's one of the main issues.
Even operating off the notion that there is a higher consciousness over lower consciousness... is to be operating from a relativistic perspective.
And because this relative perspective is being conflated with the absolute perspective.... it creates a trap where the person gets stuck in the relative because of ego-attachments to superiority, while believing that they're operating from a higher conscious place.
But in the absolute, the consciousness of the chimp and the enlightened guru are one and the same. And there is no hierarchy there, from that perspective.
It's all just different iterations of the same consciousness.
So, that's why it's important to not get too bogged down in identities of being "Higher consciousness" and judging others as lower consciousness.
It's all relative anyway. 

That's not anything close to what my argument is. Re-read what I wrote.
Leo is definitely talented in the department of consciousness and intellect compared to most.
I am also talented in this way. So, are many on this forum. (Though most people on this forum do also have major blindspots that the average person doesn't have, because of the issues that I highlighted)
And it's not inherently an issue to acknowledge people's talents/skills on a practical level, as human specialization works that way.
The issue is believing that this particular human specialization that Leo has (and many in his audience have) is fundamentally different and superior to other human specializations... and looking down on others who don't possess this specialization and calling them chimps.
It would be like a bunch of plumbers getting together and operating under the notion that plumbing is the most important specialization. Then, they call all non-plumbers chimps.
The issue is the ego inflation and placing arbitrary hierarchies regarding human specializations on top of reality to justify and maintain that ego inflation.
So, sure... Leo is relatively talented/skilled with consciousness and intellect. But it's unwise to create an identity out of it and view other people through that lens... as it creates disconnection.
Like, I remember when my son was in 4th grade, he started getting some of the same kinds of ideas.
He'd heard online that other Gen Alphas are uniquely stupid compared to other generations on some random YouTube Short. (Of course, that's always been said about every generation of young people)
So, he started thinking of himself as the exception to the rule, and like a uniquely non-stupid Gen Alpha kid. So, I had to sit him down to talk to him about it and dispossess him of the notion that Gen Alphas are all uniquely stupid... as it was creating difficulties with socializing with peers... and creating shame about being his own age. (Similar to how people who view themselves as better than other humans can develop shame about being a regular human being)
Though he was always trying to hang out with his older sister's teenage friends... who were nice to him. But he couldn't get a true peer relationship with them.
Then, the next year over he was able to let go of that superior identity of being "the only non-stupid kid" (similar to "the rare conscious person among chimps"). And that enabled him to make some friends who were on the same wavelength. 
And I see this same pattern playing out all the time on this forum.
So, I'm content to have the same kind of conversation with Leo and anyone else who's caught up in that kind of pattern... as it's just not good to be caught in that trap.

Ambition is very important for householders who are walking the path of embodiment.
And I already mentioned that it's my desire to master my craft. So, I'm very ambitious. And my ambition is in service of other people.
But the identity of being "the more conscious person" is actually the opposite of ambitious. It's saying, "I'm already far more conscious than others. And the average person has little to teach me."
It's an anti-growth mindset because real growth and maturity comes from allowing yourself to be humbled by life... and to have such identity attachments challenged and occasionally ripped away for new wisdom to grow in their place.
So, clinging onto such identities leads to disconnection and stagnation. And it also creates major blind-spots in your awareness when it comes to seeing the reality beyond the lens of practical human value hierarchies. 
So, you don't need to cook up some "I'm the top turtle on the turtle-pile" identity attachment to channel your ambition, as that kind of attachment creates a major growth ceiling and causes you to get complacent and closed-minded. 
And it honestly only gets in the way and calcifies you and stunts your growth.
So, you don't need to believe that your craft is hierarchically more important than other crafts in order to be ambitious.
And you also don't need to get so attached to the identities that differentiate you from others to be ambitious.
And if your path truly is the path of transcendence... these attachments to your identities of differentiation and hierarchical specialness will be extra important to detach from. 
The reality is that from the ultimate perspective the "Leo Game" is not organized in a hierarchy with the "Chimp Game" or "The Average Person Game". All are iterations of the same consciousness playing horizontally through each iteration. And it doesn't seem to 'prefer' a more conscious avatar to a less conscious avatar.
It probably gets infinite "value" by being a sea barnacle... and is humble enough to be fine with being a sea barnacle.
So, the more you identify with the Leo Avatar's specialness within relative human value hierarchies as it pertains to your own valuation of human social specializations... you will stay stuck in the avatar perspective that you seek to transcend.
You won't view it with the non-hierarchical neutrality that consciousness itself "sees" your avatar through.
So, I'd just be very careful about ego inflation and being too attached to hierarchical thinking... beyond purely practical reasons.
People can convince themselves that they're hierarchically above others in so many ways.
To give a more concrete example, I used to think that artists were doing the most important and most intelligent kind of people because I was an artist. So, I worked to become great at art. And this enabled me to say 1. Art is the most important human specialization and 2. I am the best artist in this room.
And for that time, I could feel okay with myself because I had differentiated myself and proven myself special and adequate.
And I got really ego inflated about this... which eventually led to a great humbling which culminated around the time of my first awakening glimpses.
But then, I was in danger of using my glimpses of awakening to recreate the same identity inflation... like 1. Spirituality is the most important human specialization and 2. I am the most spiritual aware person in this room.
And that's what it seems to me that you're doing when you go into "People are chimps... and I am more conscious than them!" mode. 
There's also a more subtle hierarchical valuation of your specialization over the specializations of others... which is the real issue.
It's fine to acknowledge practically that you're more aware in specific ways compared to other people. Just don't think that that awareness is a more important specialization compared to other human specializations.

I would be careful of dismissing the need for community. There is no stage that is still human that cannot gain value from other humans. If you are so conscious that you don't require humans for fulfilment that is one thing but even in that case I still think 99% of it is spiritual bypassing and until you can overcome the need for eating and drinking water and other staples of life I think you're full of it and are just afraid of the chaos other humans bring.
There is a lot of value that comes from stepping into a mentorship and leadership role, even if you feel you have nothing left to learn technically in a specific domain. Seeing how other react to new ideas and concepts is quite valuable. 

@integration journey Or just read The Listening Society. Wonderful critique and contextualization of SD. Just ask AI for a summary, it could help a lot of issues and questions raised in this thread and by the OP.

I agree with this. There are more mechanisms from other domains at play that could be producing/generating behaviour:  Evolutionary psychology "evolved dispositions", developmental environment, cultural norms, institutional incentives etc can all contribute to observed behaviour. I don't feel the volutionary psychology arguments really bring enough nuance to differentiate all the possible domains that could contribute to what we see. 
More often than not I see observed behaviour explained in this reductionist way that could be generated by very different causal mechanisms.
As soon as you find topics that bring nuance to the theory it becomes clear it's very very complex and not at all clear cut.

The Matriarchy Thesis: Owen Cook on Why the Old Script Stopped Working
The Argument in One Line
The operating system of mating has been swapped out, the manual was never reissued, and most men — including most men's coaches — are still executing instructions written for hardware that no longer exists.
Cook's frame is simple and deliberately provocative: we lived under a patriarchy, we now live under a matriarchy, and the behaviors that generated returns in the first produce losses in the second. He repeats a disclaimer throughout that's worth taking seriously as a reading instruction — he is describing terrain, not endorsing it. The distinction matters because most of his claims are functional rather than moral: statements about what selects for what, not about what ought to.
The symptom that opens the talk is the man who ran the approved program — decent grades, a degree in something useful, a job paying six figures, a nest built — arriving at thirty and asking where is my wife? Cook's answer: there isn't one waiting for you. The script was never a law of nature. It was an artifact of an institution, and the institution has been dismantled.
The Numbers He Builds On
He anchors the case in a handful of figures: roughly 10% of men mating with 58% of women, with most of the remainder concentrated between the 80th and 90th percentile — leaving the bottom four-fifths of men structurally short of partners. He claims 65% of new jobs, new mortgages, and college degrees now go to women. He adds the NEET population — around 30% of men who have simply left the board for video games, weed, and porn — and points to population collapse in Italy, Japan, and elsewhere as the visible downstream consequence.
Interesting wrinkle: he doesn't treat the college pipeline as a straightforward win for women. He calls the debt-plus-HR-job path a bad trade and says a lot of women following it are getting fleeced. The 65% figure, in his reading, measures who is on the conveyor belt, not who is winning.
The Evolutionary Reframe
His most counterintuitive move: beta male reproduction is the historical anomaly, not the norm. Across Homo erectus's two-million-year run and most of Homo sapiens', a small minority of men passed on genes. The current squeeze is therefore not a novel injustice — it's a reversion to baseline after an unusual few centuries.
From this he argues that resenting hypergamy is incoherent. The reasoning is genealogical: you descend from your foremothers exactly as much as your forefathers, and every one of them selecting upward is the reason you exist in the form you do. You should, he says, wish they had been more selective, not less. He extends the same logic — with visible discomfort and repeated refusals to justify it morally — to infidelity: a woman raising three children with a provider while conceiving one with a higher-value male is a mechanism that made the species more adaptive over deep time. The claim is about function, not permission.
He also takes a swing at the height-and-looks determinism dominating online discourse. If six feet were decisive, we'd all be six feet. Historically, shorter men regulated heat better, needed fewer calories, ran below tree lines, climbed, dove, and carried lower cancer risk. Nature maintains variance because the optimum is environment-dependent. Height is at a premium now, in a world of caloric abundance — and that's a recent condition, not an eternal one.
The Actual Model: Three Variables
This is the technical core, and it's the part worth extracting even if you discard everything else.
Frame
Cook describes consciousness as continuously pinging — sonar-style — for what reality is: ground, chair, walls, faces, sound. The brain burns 20% of your calories and is ruthlessly economical, so when it meets a higher-certainty reality, it saves energy by synchronizing to that one rather than maintaining its own. A second incentive stacks on top: syncing with the group buys harmony, and harmony equals safety, which in ancestral conditions was the difference between life and ostracism.
That single mechanism, he argues, explains hypnosis (pacing and leading), demagogues, Sacha Baron Cohen extracting confessions from strangers, and what happens when a woman falls in love. She constructs what he calls a gift — a hybrid personality fusing her real self with a version calibrated to make you feel loved and accommodated. She takes up your interests, drops her vices, adopts your politics. When frame is lost long enough, the process runs in reverse as an RAS flip: she has to manufacture contempt to extract herself, which is why a decent man is often hated for six months after a breakup. The person you knew genuinely dies.
The operational definition: the strong-framed man emits pings without absorbing them. He sees through his own eyes rather than through group think. Cook stages this live, having taller and better-looking trained students try to pull the room's attention away from him, to demonstrate that attention flows toward certainty, not symmetry.
Internal Validation
Here he's unusually candid about what the concept actually is: a hack that simulates the passive validation an alpha receives from a harem. If twelve women want you, the thirteenth's indifference doesn't register — you pass tests without effort, because there's nothing to defend. Absent that, you have to generate the same signal from the inside. He concedes the internal version is healthier long-term while insisting it's far harder to bootstrap from zero, which is why his practical advice is to date several women before pursuing one you actually want.
This is also where congruence tests ("shit tests") fit. The sequence: she validates you, watches whether the validation inflates you, then withdraws it to see if your state collapses. Passing looks like agree and amplify, misinterpret as a compliment, ignore, or make a joke. Failing looks like explaining yourself. His hardest rule — any logical explanation kills attraction — is worth stating precisely: logic isn't disqualifying because it's logic, but because self-qualification is a status disclosure. It reveals that you believe you owe an account, which reverses the buyer-seller dynamic in a single sentence.
Winner Effect (State)
Borrowing Sapolsky's baboon work, Cook ties perceived status to neurochemistry and immune function. High state manifests as vocal projection (the voice opens when you feel safe — not forced open, which fries it), steady eye contact, and lateral thinking: the free-associating, joking, riffing capacity that reads as evidence a man isn't compensating. The inverse is legible too — heavy logic signals his winner effect is down and he's overcorrecting.
His machinery for generating it is behavioral rather than mystical: approach volume, minimized time between interactions, active state control, and — the most portable idea in the talk — setting your own criteria for success. Most men use did she like me?, which hands their state to a stranger. Cook uses did I talk to everyone and keep momentum?, which he can always satisfy. The justification is the winner effect proper: a boxer matched against opponents slightly above his level stacks wins and compounds; one thrown against killers early never develops. Men, he insists, require accumulated wins in a way reassurance can't substitute for.
Where He Breaks From Everyone Else
The mainstream position, which he attacks by name, is that a man's sexual market value is static — set by looks and money, alterable only by vanishing for a decade to build both, then presenting the finished product to the world. Cook's counter-thesis: SMV is dramatically dynamic, moment to moment.
His evidence is autobiographical and, on its own terms, hard to dismiss. On the nights he dominates and the nights he bombs, he is the same height, the same beard, the same pot belly, the same net worth. He also ran the other experiment deliberately: he locked himself away, added a few million, and emerged with worse results — because the interval had been spent repeating "I'll be the man when." The build itself installed a conditional frame, and the condition is what women read.
The mechanism is the spiral. Frame and validation buy attention; attention lifts state; state produces humor and lateral thinking; those buy more attention. It runs downward at identical speed, which is why men are tested precisely when things go wrong — and why Cook considers the man who performs from the abyss more formed than one riding a streak. His examples: a thousand-person event delivered while his life was falling apart; Brady down 28–3.
Chesterton's Fence: What the Old Order Was Actually For
This is the section he considers his most original, and it's the strongest piece of the talk structurally.
Using G.K. Chesterton's fence — don't demolish a structure until you understand why it was built — he reconstructs the function of the system now being cleared away. He grants the indictment first and without hedging: women were burned, beaten, disenfranchised, unable to vote, drive, work, or hold credit, and the complaint against all that is not unfounded. The question isn't whether the fence had costs. It's what it was doing.
The patriarchy was communism for beta males. By restricting women's access to income, credit, mobility, and education, it made the ordinary provider structurally necessary. A man who couldn't generate attraction could still generate indispensability.
The church ran the frame-control layer. It recoded cheap, fundamentally beta behaviors — opening doors, paying the bill, showing up on time, kneeling to propose — as alpha markers, and cast the man who couldn't perform them as a boy rather than a man. Cook's point isn't that these behaviors are bad; it's that they are not honest signals. Anyone can execute them. Frame can't be faked, which is exactly why it survived as the operative test once the coding collapsed.
It also outsourced frame control, and this is the load-bearing economic claim. Because attraction was institutionally guaranteed, the average man didn't spend four hours a day on swagger — he spent them at the mill, the boat, the construction site. That's how the cities got built. He adds a second-order consequence: married men with wives and children had a stake in the country, which is a very different proposition from asking an unattached man to die for strangers.
The subtlest piece is his treatment of romantic love. What we call falling in love is, in his reading, structurally selfish and pharmacologically shaped — total absorption, a high, and a crash proportional to the high. A man with real options is biochemically incapable of it; obsession requires scarcity. The church's move was to permit the obsession while installing a third party in the marriage, converting taking into receiving. And the lifetime bargain that made it work: what a wife lost in market value over decades, she gained in shared experience and continuity of narrative.
He illustrates this at unexpected length — the beaten Samsonite he wouldn't trade for twenty thousand dollars, the Von Dutch hat from one specific night that a factory replacement can't substitute for, the childhood teddy bear he'd throw out a better one to keep. The point lands: value that comes from accumulated memory is not fungible. That's the mechanism by which a man stays in love with a woman whose market position has changed — and it's precisely the mechanism a life of serial novelty cannot produce.
Why Current Advice Fails
Against Galloway and most of the coaching industry — make more money, get fitter, be kinder — Cook's objection is that this optimizes for a decommissioned system. Going from $80k to $110k, or from fourteen-inch arms to fourteen and a half, doesn't clear the bar if frame, validation, and state are absent. He recommends doing all of it anyway, for yourself, while refusing to sell it as an attraction strategy.
He adds a methodological point that deserves more attention than it gets: women are largely inarticulate about their own attraction mechanisms. Interview them and you get patriarchy-coded answers — height, millions, a list. He notes the women who say they date cute guys, then date him and reach for interesting. So podcast interviews produce accurate reports of stated preference and useless models of revealed preference.
The matriarchy's actual currency, he argues, is social proof and vibe. His case study is Bieber at Coachella: hoodie, laptop, YouTube, zero production spend, visible chemical wear — against Karol G spending millions on staging. The entire content of that presentation is "I will not self-qualify." Which is why he reframes the high-value modern male not as the provider but as the LARP master — the rapper, the DJ, the psychic in a robe delivering standard self-help advice that lands as revelation because of the costume. The skill is authority inside her emotional world, not competence in yours.
The related fault line is the side quest. Men run the main quest — build, provide, advance the ball — and file fun under distraction. Women read that refusal as scarcity, and scarcity is the disqualifier. His own illustration is the student he flew to the Redwoods who couldn't stop asking coaching questions; Cook says he experienced, from the inside, exactly what a woman feels around a man who can't stop optimizing.
The Semantic Flip
His cleanest observation, and the one that travels furthest from the dating context: the behavior didn't change, the labels did.
Thirty years ago, I couldn't live without my wife meant emotionally healthy. Today the same sentence reads as codependent, needy, toxic. Run it the other way: what would have been diagnosed as narcissism is now marketed as self-love, and not needing anyone — once unloving — is the health marker.
His conclusion is not that self-love is fraudulent; he grants explicitly that non-neediness is healthy and that the woman in his example video is saying reasonable things. The claim is that the frame inverted, so a man expressing depth of attachment now emits a low-value signal rather than a commitment signal. He credits Casey Zander with the sharper name for it: not a shit test but an interest test — your interest is too high, therefore your value is low. Both men are describing the same instrument reading a different scale.
Where He Thinks This Goes
His forecast is deliberately uncomfortable. With AI and robotics eliminating the need for mass male labor, and some form of universal high income conceivable, he suspects the system is now selecting for lower quantity and higher quality reproduction — that the bottom third of men exiting the gene pool is not a bug the system is trying to fix.
He tracks the incubation of ideas as his forecasting method: what's niche on a campus or a platform in year one is policy in year ten. His current sample is "decentering men" content and the proposal that women should be paid to have children — the argument being that if childbearing is more valuable to society than basketball, and we pay LeBron, the logic follows. His extrapolation: population crisis → substantial payment for childbearing → the financial constraint on partner choice disappears entirely → artificial insemination from a narrow pool of high-status donors, with the genetic-diversity cost that implies. Against that, he sets the alternative: a beta male uprising, his read on what a large population does when it concludes the game is rigged.
His proposed exit is not restoration. It's mainstreaming social intelligence — not as pickup, but as personal growth and emotional literacy — inside what he calls a human awakening project built on authenticity, community, self-reliance, and above all getting men out of group think, which he also frames as the survival trait for an AI-saturated era (his Wall-E reference is the picture of what failing that looks like).
The deepest version of his claim closes the loop cleanly: if attraction is fundamentally frame-tested, then needing money or muscle in order to hold frame is itself proof of weak frame. Which is his explanation for why women fetishize the DJ and the surfer rather than Gates or Ballmer. The man at a middling income doing what he actually loves reads as stronger than the man who required a billion dollars to feel legitimate — because the first one's certainty is unconditional, and the second one's has a price tag attached to it.
A Note on the Empirical Layer
Worth separating the psychology from the statistics, because they stand or fall on different evidence.
The 10%/58% figure originates in dating-app engagement data — likes and matches — not measured reproduction or relationship formation. The gap between those is enormous. The 65% figures run well above published data: women are roughly 58–60% of US college graduates, but not 65% of new jobs or home purchases, and the claim that women out-earn men on average doesn't hold at population level. His deep-time effective breeding ratio claims are directionally supported by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial evidence but the specific numbers are actively disputed. The Sapolsky material is real; the extrapolation from baboon hierarchy to nightclub state is his, not Sapolsky's.
None of that touches the central psychological model. Frame, validation, and state are claims about interaction dynamics, testable in the field, and largely independent of whether the demographic framing is accurate. The statistics are the frame he wraps the model in — and, fittingly, frame is exactly the thing you're supposed to audit against your own experience rather than absorb from the guy with the strongest delivery in the room.

The more someone trumpets his IQ score, the less intelligence I see in him.
Like Chris Langan. "World's highest IQ", but still a Trump supporter. That shows you just how little IQ is worth in the real world.
IQ makes you feel smart on paper but foolish in practice, as ego will co-opt that IQ against you. There are some forms of stupidity exclusive to high IQ people.

That is impossible. The world works only according to the outdated 17th century Newtonian atomistic-mechanistic worldview.

Yes. And I made an error with the timestamp, so I fixed it here:
 

No way, I was in the deepest most completely incompetent hole at that stage. Pieces of existential dread held together by vague hopes there might be something to come that wasn't punctuated by an all encompassing anhedonia.
I was unemployed, recently homeless and attempting to rebuild myself after a lot of trauma. Now? Successful. In mental, material and spiritual ways.
It is never too late. You have no idea what is coming around the corner. You can be certain change is the only constant.
With life you sort of have to be all in, and I created a lot of my own suffering by trying to just dip a toe in and get by.
From one kindred spirit to another - You have this strength in you. 
Whatever challenge you currently face - your biggest challenge - is there to prepare you for the next greater challenge. You won't even be able to conceive of your true abilities because it will be built up by facing these little challenges... until you are self actualized. Until you know inside you, whatever comes, you have the balls to drive into it head on <3
 

I'd like to share a different perspective here, as a woman who is very dedicated to my life's purpose who has been called Masculine by many on here (though I disagree)... and who has never had trouble attracting men and having longterm relationships with men who love me.
Consider that being hyper-attractive is very positive for men as it widens the net of potential partners. It's like adding a bit of honey to attract more flies, as the challenging task for men is attracting more flies.
So, because your dating/mating strategy is attraction if you want a partner and you find women attractive, you are thinking it works the same way for women.
But the dating/mating strategies are actually quite a bit different. And the goals are often different.
And women of all levels of attractiveness are already receiving quite a bit of male attention (usually too much). And about 95% of that attention is spam attention. The flies are already over-swarming the honey pot.
So, women becoming more attractive to the male gaze doesn't actually increase their ability to strike a good longterm match (which is what most women are seeking out sexually and romantically... and what is actually satisfying to most women). 
Instead, what actually helps women strike a great match is to be more discerning and learning to sort better... which means narrowing the pool of applicants significantly by sorting the wheat from the chaff.
And it's even better if you can disgust the wrong ones and scare them off with your particularity and authenticity... and they sort themselves from consideration. That way, you don't even have to reject them directly.
In this way, hyper-attractiveness is bit of a liability for women... as it's harder to scare off the wrong ones if they're audacious.
And it requires extra defenses, sensitivity to her own feelings of disgust, and what I call "personal disgust factors" for that hyper-attractive woman (and this goes for more average women as well) to end up with a well-suited guy... and not some spam attention guy who only cares about her good looks and wants to mold her to his whims, like in the example you gave.
And disgust factors are things that are polarizing... like high standards, directness, hyper-particular interests, unique styles, career success, high intellect, hyper-particular opinions, decorative make-up that doesn't appeal to the male gaze, development of the Masculine side, etc.
This is often why very attractive women tend to operate in groups and can be bitchy, if you cross them. It scares away the spam.
And very attractive women who fail to consciously adopt these disgust factors or who are too nice, will tend to dim her attractiveness by dressing down, not taking great care of herself, or even gaining weight to deviate more from the beauty standard.
Ordinary-looking women will tend to have her disgust factors built in to scare of the solely looks-and-status motivated guys. So, she doesn't need as many disgust factors, as the hyper-attractive woman. But she still needs some.
Ultimately, these personal disgust factors polarize in the sense that they scare off spam attention... but if they are authentic to her they also attract genuine attention.
So, for women, the main challenge isn't to become more attractive.... it's to become more discerning and more authentic and particularized and therefore disgusting to the wrong ones.

Here's what a Yellow wedding looks like:
 

This guy has an extremly deep understanding of the physical and mental aspects of his works. That is also reflected in all the degrees he gained over time. His whole business model he shaped around that reflects it aswell. Even more interesting is the level of consciousness he has achieved by embodying his works to a very high degree. He might be even turqoise.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original.
I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability.
Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened).
Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection.
 
Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player:
 
Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below).
(Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).
 

Living on purpose is much harder than not. That's why so few do it.
But it is more fulfulling.

Confidence in oneself.
Inner knowing if what you are.
Knowing what you want.
Taking responsibility of life.
Being actively participating in life. Protecting.
Taking responsibility of others as well. Breaking barriers you have created for yourself.
Accepting reality, Accepting everything. 
Being decisive. 

Well, Jesus did kill a child.
No one cares.

I notice a lot of misconceptions when it comes to empathy and compassion for child sex offenders. I have a different perspective from most for several reasons. Firstly, my father was involved with a gang of child sex traffickers and I was one of the victims. Secondly, I have done a lot of research on criminology which is directly relevant to empathy and compassion for child sex offenders of all kinds. Thirdly, pedophilia is a subtype of preferential offenders which is disproportionately likely to have multiple victims. Most child molesters are not pedophiles and they have a diverse set of motives and psychological problems that lead to this kind of behavior without being inhuman monsters. Fourthly, empathy and compassion for perpetrators or victims cannot be cleanly separated for reasons I will explain. the core reason is that to vilify love and compassion for perpetrators is to indirectly shame child victims who cover for the parents that abuse them due to loving them, such that they feel their love makes them unacceptable and unworthy of life to the point of needing to kill themselves. Finally, empathy is not an excuse for harm. At minimum, cognitive empathy is necessary to inform prevention of violence and enable the protection of child victims by understanding what circumstances lead to victimization. You don't have to have warm feelings toward child molesters and you are allowed to be outraged at the harm they cause.
Relevant to this discussion is my past thread on deconstructing monster narratives.
In this thread, I mentioned incest perpetrators and parents who sexually offend against their own children. From the perspective of the parental perpetrator, they live in a distorted moral reality in which this type of love is appropriate for their child. They have all kinds of ideas about how this isn't harmful because harm comes from discovery rather than from the act. Sometimes they rationalize this behavior with cultural relativism, arguing that some cultures allowed incest, meaning the behavior isn't actually bad. The parent does not grasp the harm caused to the child because if they did then they would not be able to live with themselves, therefore the incest perpetrator must believe that the behavior is acceptable and the child can meaningfully consent. This pattern is common in parental offenders who are living a criminal lifestyle which corrupts their sense of what kind of love is appropriate, similar to what happened with my father. To clarify, most parental offenders are not pedophiles, but rather they are situational offenders who falsely believe that this kind of love is appropriate, which is technically distinct from pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children rather than having a distorted familial bond with inappropriate forms of love in it.
Given my research into criminology, this closely matches my father's behavior and actions while being relevant to recovery. This gets very unsettling and disturbing, but it is true nevertheless. My father showed several distorted means of attempting to bond and connect with me. Firstly, he was afraid of me thinking of him as a bad person, as ironic as that may sound. Because of this he needed to change the standard of what it meant to be loveable and desirable. He was so embedded in criminal life that he had no realistic exit without permanent life imprisonment. Therefore, he attempted to recast his behavior as gangster and badass such that he would seem desirable. This included boasting about his exploits of all kinds including death threats, drug deals, prostitution, and his relationship with my grandpa who he claimed had extensive involvement in his crimes.
My moral conscience was threatening to him such that he both wanted to change my perspective and part of him seems to have convinced himself that this was cool or an appropriate form of connection. The first incident involved my unwanted participation in drug deals. I was clearly heavy and upset with what had occurred, but my father cheerfully told me to "lighten up." He insisted that I was badass like him, but the violation of my values could not be ignored when I felt intense guilt and shame in response to these situations. I knew my father had done something wrong, but I never had the courage to tell anybody at least in part because I loved him. He also showed several patterns of grooming in that he wanted to keep the nature of our relationship a secret from others while using a lot of positive reinforcement.
My father also showed apparently genuine love in response to a situation with my mother and stepfather who were drug addicts. He appeared to both want my safety and to exploit my need for safety to get out of paying child support by using me to get dirt on Mom. This included his reminders that he was involved with a violent gang that would be willing to kill my stepfather, as if I could count on them for protection when in reality I was terrified of them and my father as well. I couldn't say these things to my father or other family members as doing so would jeopardize me further. The outcome is that parental perpetrators commonly don't realize the harm they are causing their children due to their implicit theory that a child would openly complain if they were unhappy. Similar to incest cases, the victim often appears  to silently accept this kind of behavior due to coercive control which shares parallels with my case.
I detailed the trafficking incident in a separate document. The FBI expressed interest in my explanation of the evidence and how it connects to broader patterns in organized crime that often goes undetected. They said I do need a Bachelor's degree though to work in higher positions. I can post it in this thread too if necessary, but the necessary snippet is in the other thread for more context and evidentiary standards for these situations.
In terms of fathers who traffic their children out of love, this gets very fucked up, confusing, and disturbing. However, it matches my findings in criminology and maps onto all of the other patterns of my father. Part of why people join gangs is out of a sense of belonging that is being filled with a criminal group. Therefore, from this point of view, treating a child as if they belong to the gang is held as a form appropriate connection and love. This can include initiation through child prostitution in which the father is proud and excited for what is happening to his child. I was really baffled as to why my father was happy over all of this.
The overarching pattern in parental sex offenders is that they generally do not realize the harm they caused and they see their behavior as loving. They have a distorted sense of reality in which everything is perfectly fine such that their map of reality has the child's reality completely backwards as the child's behavior is interpreted through the distorted framework. This is often relevant for victims in recovery who feel that their feelings of love make them unacceptable.
One the inside as I stayed silent, my logic was as follows. By following this victim logic, it often leads victims of parental sex offenders to suicide.
1. My father did something unacceptable.
2. I silently accepted my father's unacceptable behavior.
3. My acceptance of that which is unacceptable makes me unacceptable.
4. Therefore, I am unacceptable.
This line of reasoning is often tied to survivor's guilt such as "I should have turned my father into the police" (who in reality were corrupt and possibly complicit) or "I should have protected others from my father" (even though I couldn't protect myself). These are the surface level should statements that victims use to blame themselves, but the deeper should is "It is wrong for me to love my father because of his actions, therefore I should cut myself off from love to prevent love from enabling harm." (therefore I should kill myself.) This is a common pattern in how victims of child sexual abuse think and it often leads to suicide because they feel that their love is unacceptable and they should remove themselves from love forever as a consequence. The belief is that if a child molester is unlovable, and your parent is a child molester, and you love your parent, and loving someone is supposed to be unlovable makes you unlovable, then the victim is unlovable. This is why it is important that we don't demonize compassion and love for perpetrators as it is connected directly into the victim logic leading to suicide. children often stay quiet and cover for abusers as a consequence of loving them in the secret relationship the perpetrator established through grooming.
There is also an important distinction between "accepting" as in endorsing or consenting to my father's behavior, and "accepting" as in having a freeze response as a survival instinct and therefore incurring the cost of my father's actions.
The alternative frame for victims would be as follows.
1. My father did something harmful.
2. I accepted the harm because of my desire for love.
3. The situation was logically acceptable by virtue of the fact that is was accepted.
4. Therefore I did not accept anything that was unacceptable.
5. Therefore I am acceptable by virtue of the fact that I exist and I desire to love and be loved.
6. None of this is an excuse for harm.
The core point to this connects to spirituality in several important ways. Firstly, ego is not defined just by an individual human being. The ego is relational and defined relative to other. Therefore, demonizing other beings who inform the ego identity translates into demonizing oneself, as the relational nature of ego makes self and other entangled in ways that cannot be cleanly separated. In my case, hating my father translates into hating myself because he isn't actually separate from me. The same logic applies to all human beings, animals, and objects in the universe as all of them are ultimately part of me. In that sense, I am the universe and everything in it. Self is defined relative to other within the universe and the distinction is untenable. At the same time from another point of view I am the universe experiencing itself from the point of view of a human being within the domain of separateness which itself is illusory and not separate from unity.
Leo takes this further by saying that I literally created the universe, not just that everything is connected. Oneness is deeper than just connectedness as would be the case for the relational nature of ego in which self and other cannot be cleanly separated. Either way, there is ultimately no difference between loving self and other though.
This is also crucial for forgiveness which applies even in some extreme severe cases.
1. My father hurt me to some extent out of ignorance in that he could not distinguish the harm caused from implicit theories linked to the distorted alternative reality.
2. My father hurt me out of weakness and fear such as his fear of being caught leading to threats of disownment combined with his inability to exit the criminal lifestyle without permanent imprisonment.
3. My father hurt me out of selfishness. (no shit)
4. My father hurt me out of a need for love from his son which he sought through criminal exploitation framed as inclusion, protection, belonging, and bad ass gangster identity while being severely traumatic to his son.
5. My father hurt me out of a lack of consciousness in that his dense ego was prone to severe distortions and self-deceptions such that it could spin entirely alternate realities in which the behavior was good and justified.
In the end of all of this, I hope you can see why empathy, love, and compassion for perpetrators ultimately ties back in to empathy for victims as the two cannot actually be cleanly separated due to the nature of ego, self, and other. Additionally, there is more complex information in terms of cognitive empathy for sex offenders that can be used to inform prevention. This includes situational / opportunistic offenders which are the most common, grievance based offenders such as intimate partners who rape and murder their victims, and preferential offenders which includes pedophiles who impact a disproportionate amount of victims as well as sadistic serial rapists / killers and zoophiles who rape animals believing it is an appropriate form of love. By understanding the different types of offenders and the psychological backgrounds, then at minimum it can be used to inform prevention, especially sense social isolation and feeling like an outsider in society is a common problem for criminals who might seek belonging from gangs instead. This is a big topic for discussion, but it is important for correcting the conflation between pedophiles and child sex offenders. The truth is more nuanced, and the truth is necessary for there to be any meaningful love as without truth, any love expressed is ultimately based on falsehood. In that sense it is like loving nothing.
This was kind of heavy for me to type, but I hope you find value in this kind of work. In my case it also relates to abuse from my sister who likes to weaponize my trauma around my father against me by insisting he was "loving and caring like a father" while knowing the harm he caused me. Forgiveness in this context does weaken my sister's ability to weaponize this trauma.
Perhaps the next question would be in regards to child sex traffickers who are not the child's parent and who instead kidnap other children at airports to take them to the wrong plane, leading to a gang who turns them into sex slaves for profit. This empathy and love for offenders could be expanded on that front, but it seems more difficult in some ways. I have a hard time with sadistic offenders especially who torture their victims for sexual pleasure, including children which creates an alternative sexual motive for the assault aside from pedophilia.

You can see this in the case of Teal Swan. She had a lot of childhood trauma and her entire body of work is now about that. It's not wrong, but it is somewhat limiting to have your worldview revolve around trauma.

You wont find butterfly people in caterpillar environments.

There cannot be a formula. You just need to want it bad enough, have a very open mind, and then roll up your sleeves and start doing research and experimentation.
Do lots of deep research and experiment until you eventually find the perfect thing.

You get what you care about.
If you care about money, you get money. If you care about sex, you get. If you care about fame, you get fame. And if you care about nothing, you get nothing.

I spend a lot of time explaining reality to myself. So by the time I have explained it to myself, explaining it to you guys is trivial.
I write a lot of bulleted lists and outlines of the key points for any question.
Whatever topic we are talking about or trying to answer, there is always a key question that is motivating it. For example, a question might be: What are all the limits of science? So I will focus on a core question like that, and then my mind will generate answers and I will write down a bulleted list. I don't write in long paragraphs, I write down the key insights. A key insight does not require a paragraph but a sentence. So I end up with long lists of key insights to any question. And then I spend a lot of time polishing and organizing the bullet points in the list, to create a good logical order to the points, because some points build on top of others and require coming first, and other points require coming last.
I also get lots of random insights throughout the day which don't pertain to any specific topic or question. I always write those down in a miscellaneous notes document. So I have thousands of pages of misc insights which I can always look over for inspiration or as the need occurs.
Organizing the insights into a logical sequence is the most time-consuming and laborious part of my work. Insights never come organized, you have to do the work to organize them.
My days are unstructured.