Emerald

He was saying that he wanted impregnate a woman from every race to raise his "cubs" so that there are a lot of different versions of himself running around in the world. I think that the word animalistic is accurate.

That sucks that the laws in those countries are so antithetical to the stability, health, and wellbeing of women and children. And there are tons of people I know who are either single mothers or who have never met their father because they took off. I think it's a lot easier for irresponsible men to leave their children because they don't carry them for 9 months before-hand, and they can detach and kind of pretend it didn't happen. So, this is probably why that dynamic happens as often as it does. So, the level of discernment and vetting that women put men through, is just a really wise decision. I think that a lot of inexperienced men like the OP want to see sex in a vacuum without regard to the practical concerns. And just thinking about how things "should be" if they were fair. There are so many dysfunctional people out there, men and women both. But there are so many added layers of vulnerability for women as the one possessing less physical strength, less testosterone, and having the lion's share of the role in caring for children in the gestational and baby phase. So, it's very important to find a man who is a rock in terms of reliability, integrity, and stability if a woman gets into any sexual situation that could eventually turn into a family. Otherwise, they will live their life in a constant state of anxious upheaval, with children in tow.

Wrong. Women have a lot more at stake in terms of child-rearing and the potential effects on their lives and bodies. Women can also only have one child every 9 months or so. So, women have to be selective. Also, she wants to be sure she has chosen a man of character, because in the earliest days of nomadic living, if a man left then both woman and child would die. And even today, women have to REALLY scrutinize men and be selective if they want to live a life that isn't filled with tragedy and mayhem. Men, on the other hand, could father thousands of children in his lifetime if he tried. And his body and survival wouldn't be effected. And there is more of an opportunity for him to just run away from the responsibility of child rearing. So, men don't have to be as selective. They just have to find a woman that will accept them... which will happen eventually if a guy tries enough times. So, it is quite practical that women tend to scrutinize men more than men scrutinize women, partnership-wise. And this is one reason why women are very unlikely to approach. Also, as a woman, I only like one guy at a time. And if I approach that guy and he says no, then I have to wait a long time before I can get over him and even longer before another attraction comes up. So, I never approach as there is simply too much at stake. I just spend time around him, drop hints, and hope that he approaches me. So, even if a woman did like you, you probably wouldn't know unless you tried to escalate things. Also, women are not going to just come up to you out of nowhere. It's dangerous to approach strange men, as you don't know what that person is about. Plus, women have tons of guys approaching them all the time, so there really would be no reason for them to approach a stranger. Most often, you have to actually know women for them to become attracted to you. So, you really should understand that women and men's attractions don't work the same way. Women don't work the way that you do.

Everyone in society is discouraged from being loving and feminine. That's why so many people (especially men) have a hard time with repressing emotions. But if women have been cold and distant with you, it simply means that you were not their romantic partner. Women tend only to give affection to men they are in a relationship with. Strange. I know. Women tend to have an easy time being loving toward their romantic partners. But if you've never had a romantic partner, than why would you expect that random women would be loving toward you? And you would actually have to know women and approach them personally. Women usually only like guys that they know personally. Strange. I know. So, if you don't know any women, then women won't know you and thus won't be attracted to you. No. Mature in this sense means integrated and well-developed. An integrated and well-developed man won't feel insecure in himself and won't ignore parts of himself. So, as a result, he will have an integrated and well-developed feminine side, which will allow him to be emotionally aware and sensitive as well as having emotional mastery and equanimity . And his masculinity will become warm instead of cold. Immature men have a cold, fragile, and juvenile masculinity because they are stiff and contracted like very thin glass. Mature men have a warm, holistic, and mature masculinity because they are flexible and expansive. But the primary difference that I've noticed between mature and immature men is the warmth of their being. I believe what the science has to say on the matter. If you personally feel less 'dominant' afterward, it likely has a lot to do with your psychology rather than anything to do with your biology. Do that. It might help to abstain, especially if it's at the level of addiction. But understand that quitting masturbation is a symptom-based solution. It doesn't deal with the issue at its core. It just gets rid of a problematic behavior that stems off of the actual core. If I were to put my money on an actual solution, it would be to integrate and develop your feminine side. This would enable you to be more aware of your emotions. You would also have more of an intuition about what would be attractive to a woman in yourself. And you wouldn't be so stuck in a narrow box of your ideas about masculinity for fear of seeming feminine. Basically, you have a very narrow tightrope you feel that you need to walk and you have you eyes closed to a lot of things. Just open your eyes and see what's actually there without resisting it. And don't be on the defense all the time looking for someone to blame or some rationale for your behavior. Look and see what's there and choose consciousness over comfort.

Wrong again. Number one, schools don't encourage kids to touch themselves. If there is sex positive education, then they may tell them it's an option. But there is no encouragement. Also, VERY few schools have sex positive education in the first place. So, if you're linking the issue of masturbation addiction to the 5% of schools with sex ed that are also sex positive, then you need to seriously reconsider your logic. Number two, pop culture shames those who DO masturbate. There's a TON of comedy all based around jokes about guys who masturbate where the guy is the butt of the joke. It's the same situation with comedically unattractive women, where there will be jokes about them masturbating. Attractive women, however, don't have any mention of masturbation. It just gets left out, perhaps as an assumption that they are to pure for masturbation. Also, masturbation by itself is not bad for you. It's only an issue if it becomes an addiction and a barrier to intimacy. Wrong again. These feelings will naturally come up if a person is in touch with their emotions and instincts. If a person doesn't feel this drive, it just means that they probably have an issue with emotional repression. This is also why many men get stuck focusing only on orgasms and dick-focus because men are discouraged from feeling emotions. So, focusing single-pointedly toward the sensations that the penis feels during sex is a way to disconnect and push away any emotions for fear of seeming feminine. And this cuts them off from more gratifying feelings like love, passion, intimacy, joy, openness, and the like. So, this is why men who get stuck on porn and masturbation never go out to have sex with an actual woman. They don't actually realize that sex with a woman has a lot more to offer them than an orgasm does. There is nothing more of value in sex that registers to the emotionally repressed. The ability to feel emotions also a good indicator of how mature a man is. If you develop that ability to be aware of your emotions and responsive yet equanimous toward them, you'll also be a cut above 85% of men. Women crave for a man who can meet them where they are. So, this will probably be a good focus for you as this seems like the core of your issue. Wrong. Masturbation doesn't lower testosterone at all. Sexual exhaustion can effect the androgen receptors which makes the body temporary not able to know what to do with the testosterone it has. But the testosterone is still there and doesn't diminish at all. Also, there is no link between masturbating to a person increasing the belief that you can't have them. This is just another excuse you're using to stay in your comfort zone. You can blame masturbation all you want for your fears of women. But demonizing masturbation is never going to fix any of your issues. You need to just go out there and meet women. Go out and socialize in general, and meeting women will come as a natural by-product of that.

Wrong. Number one, most schools don't teach masturbation. Number two, I discovered masturbation on my own, and so did all my friends. It's pretty obvious. And even if it weren't obvious, there would be plenty of things in pop culture that would clue them into it. Also, masturbation doesn't properly stand in for a partner because being with a sexual partner isn't even mostly about orgasm. Sex has a lot more to do with being close to another human being, feeling that person's body up against your own, intimacy, kissing, etc. than it has to do purely with orgasm. Sex that's just about an orgasm is bad sex. Now, masturbation is a lot more effective for an orgasm (for women). Climax can come in minutes, when it may never come with a partner. But I've never known a single woman that preferred masturbation to being with a partner despite the orgasm gap between the two. And this is because there's a lot more to sex than orgasm. Orgasm pales in comparison to erotic emotion like love, exhilaration, desire, surrender, and joy. And these cannot be achieved through masturbation. So, if you've stayed away from women, it is only because of your own fear. Don't blame masturbation. Masturbation is quite natural and will happen regardless of whether or not it's taught in schools. Just go out there and meet some women.

Eight year old kids in America are not even taught sex ed. And even teenagers in my neck of the woods are taught with abstinence-only education with no reference to masturbation. The slogan that they drove into us was that "It's okay to have feelings and attitudes about sex, but it's not okay to have sex." Then, at age 22, I was considered a bit of a late bloomer when I had my first child. And many schools don't offer sex-ed at all. Yet... surprise surprise... everyone discovered that secret one way or another... usually through intuition or occasionally sexual references in teen movies. Probably many learn it through exposure to porn. So, to frame it as "We have to stop teaching masturbation in schools." is just silly. People are going to find out either way.

That makes sense. If it feels important, than he should do it. I just always wondered if the appeal of being a body builder went past aesthetics.

If I were in your position, I'd play the piano as a main focus. But I'd also go to the gym every other day for an hour to keep up your physical fitness. I personally don't see any point in actually being a body builder, other than for the physical look of it. I think a lot of men get into it because they think women like it. But women actually tend to prefer men who are just strong and lean and not super bulked up. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see any actual benefit to being a body builder other than the belief that it will make you more attractive. So, I would just work on being a physically fit piano player because it sounds more well-rounded. You can really give your all to piano playing while also keeping your body in shape.

Actually people who are into "identity politics" don't think a person can be a black person even if they're white or vice versa. There was a huge controversy several years ago with Rachel Dolozol. But race is different than gender in the sense that there is no essence of blackness or whiteness. Everything with regard to behavior and race is environmental and cultural. So, if a person says, "I identify as black" what they really mean is that they want to belong to a culture and have a cultural identity that they were not raised in. By itself, if wouldn't be a negative thing but we live in a society rife with many wounds relative to race. So, people naturally get upset. But gender is different in that it is not fully a cultural phenomena in terms of behavior. With gender, it's a bit more complicated as there is an essence of masculinity and femininity. And these two essences (Yin and Yang) imbue all living and non-living systems, including human beings. So, we all have a unique masculine/feminine signature inherent to us. Most of the time, women will have more femininity that masculinity and vice versa with men. But occasionally there are outliers where someone who is born male, has a lot more feminine essence. And if he chose to identify as a woman, they would better be able to express their authentic essence. And this is why accepting trans-people is very important. For them, it creates a space where they can be themselves. For us, it allows us as cisgender people to travel outside the lines of the cultural conscriptions about gender which enables us to find ourselves more authentically as well.

Does anyone actually do this? Sounds like straw-feminism to me. Sources please, as well as the names of teachers who propagate this idea. I've seen quite a lot of female spiritual teachers talk about the rise of the divine feminine. But I've never once heard a female spiritual teacher say that we need to leave men and masculinity out of the equation.

I see. My impression was that you were asking me if she was open about these things, instead of making a statement about her being open about these things. So, I do agree that it's better that she's forthcoming about her weaknesses. That said, I do still have some aversion to her, even though she has helped me quite a lot.

No. I said that she is direct about them because @Elisabeth asked me if my perception and assertion of her being self-important and that she seeks for admiration, acceptance, and money is something that she's been open about. So, I was answering, by saying that she actually is somewhat open about it because her whole thing is to be authentic and go against the grain. But that it's also pretty obvious even if she weren't open about it. But you're filling in a lot of assumptions about me here. There's nothing that I said that would actually indicate this, as I'm very mixed in my feelings about Teal Swan. On one hand, her work has helped me a lot and I'm glad that she exists a resource for people. But on the other hand, I've always had an aversion to her and it's quite clear that she has a huge problem with self-aggrandizing. So, it seems like you misunderstood what I was saying and filled in a bunch of blanks.

Well, she isn't extremely direct about them. But you can tell if you listen to her that she has an exaggerated sense of self-importance. And because of this, you can deduce that she is searching for admiration and acceptance. But there are more direct things she's said as well, where she's very open about the things that she wants. As for the money, I think this because she is very skilled at creating tons of revenue streams. Like, she probably has about 20 different ones: premium content, synchronization paintings, apparel/prints/accessories with synchronization painting patterns on them, tarot cards, sports coaching, ads from videos, retreats, teaching the completion process, guided meditations, and a bunch more that I can't remember off-hand. From a business stand-point, it's impressive and genius. But it also shows that money is a huge motivation for her. And this she has been somewhat direct about. Her thing is also all about authenticity, so sometimes she'll share things like this in a more direct way to go against the grain. As for her extrasensory abilities, I lean toward believing in them, to a point. So, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt about being psychic and experiencing vibrations and frequencies, as these are within the realm of things that I consider plausible. I also believe her relative to talking to guides, as this is a commonly reported phenomena among psychics. Now, when she talks about going out of body and directly helping people around the globe, then I tend to eye that skeptically. I have OBEs but I don't necessarily think that would even work. Now, of course, I don't know any of these things for sure. I tend to have my beliefs in what is plausible in terms of what is the proximal range of my own experiences (however limited they may be). But of course I do not know, so I take it all with a grain of salt and just take what's helpful and leave what's not.

I don't know if the majority of the stuff in the article is true or not. But I used to binge-watch Teal Swan like crazy, several years back, and it really helped me out. But she never talked about being an alien or anything outrageous like that in those videos. The only thing that could be considered crazy by the general populace is the focus on new age ideas (like Law of Attraction) in her videos. But I was always a bit averse to her personality and sense of self-importance. When I found her work, I was going through some tough times and her work really helped me out of a negative spot that I know I wouldn't have otherwise been able to. But I still didn't like her persona and resisted against her. I didn't like that I was getting so much out of work. She's very focused toward herself and self-aggrandizing... which is certainly a huge red flag. And then, when people criticize her, it deeply bothers her so much that she'll mention it in her videos. But I went to one of her events a few years ago and even met with her and some members of her intentional community as well as a bunch of volunteers, and it was pretty normal. And I was on high alert for cultish behaviors because of my aversion to her persona. So, I would say that, if she is running a cult, then she's not really using her events to organize it as one would expect from someone really intending to create a cult. I think of Teal Swan more as a self-important but helpful spiritual teacher that also uses her teachings in search of adoration, acceptance, and money.

Teal Swan's teachings are very helpful. I know that she's been crucial to my personal development, as she has definitely been one of my 'big influence' teachers. When I found her work, I was always slamming against many walls in my own mind. But after watching the majority of her content (about 4 years ago), I really felt like a huge weight had come off of me. And I know that I wouldn't be where I am now without her. So, don't knock Teal Swan's work without trying it, as I had a lot of resistance to her too. But her teachings themselves are very powerful for those that need them. That said, she does have a lot of qualities that are off-putting. And she may indeed be a narcissist and a cult-leader. She definitely has a lot of ideas of self-importance and talks about fame too much. But you don't really have to worry about this, unless you are the idolizing and cult-joining type. So, unless you think you'll get lost in her teachings, I highly recommend checking them out to see if they resonate, as she teaches some very powerful things. So, with any teacher, you should base your desire to watch their content in how much you resonate with it and how much it gives you a personal sense of expansion. And then, once they don't resonate anymore, you can find another teacher that does resonate. It may be true that she has a lot of flaws. But you should adopt the mindset that "While no one has the full truth, I can learn from anyone."

Women as a whole group will be more Yin than men as a whole group. But all people (and literally everything that exists) have both Yin and Yang in varying degrees. And everyone is an expression of nature (Yin), men and women both. So, we are all the children of Mother Nature and we all have a part of us that is connected to the cycles of nature. And ultimately, if we compare men and women outside of the vacuum of the human species, men and women are mostly alike. Even in terms of something as sexually dimorphic as physical strength, where there is an average of a 40% difference in male strength versus female strength, we are still relatively similar in strength relative to our proximity to other creatures... which used to matter a whole lot more when we lived more primitively. So, human beings that are male and female are ultimately not very different on the grand scale. We're like male and female ants or koalas or some other kind of species like that. Ants and koalas probably notice the differences between the males and females of their species quite a lot. But outside of the microcosm of their ways of life, it all seems mostly the same. But we do notice and like to exaggerate gender differences in general, (previously for practical purposes but mostly now for sexual purposes.) So, this is why in earlier societies, that which is referred to as Yin came to be associated with woman-like-ness and that which is referred to as Yang came to be associated with man-like-ness, because gender was the closest human metaphor to describe this difference. And there is an implicit tie in the consciousness of human beings that naturally link concepts of womanhood with Yin and concepts of manhood with Yang. But all of this is a practical concession for ease of human understanding and allegorical thinking. So, it's important to understand that womanhood and manhood both are just a couple reflections among millions of reflections of the interplay between Yin and Yang. And womanhood reflects more Yin than Yang in general. And the opposite for manhood. But Yin is not woman-like-ness. The concept of womanhood is Yin-like-ness. It's just human beings that like to think of Yin as woman-like-ness because it's a really understandable human example that is symbolic of Yin. So, Yin supersedes and imbues all things, just as Yang supersedes and imbues all things. You cannot have a working system without Yin and Yang in intercourse with one another. It is this intercourse that creates life and functionality in all things. So, you may be predominantly more Yang than Yin if you have a more typical masculine/feminine signature for a man. But even if you have more Yang, you also will naturally have a ton of Yin too. If we approach this topic on the level of being, Yin and Yang are so closely matched that the slight differences between our individual essence as male or female that seems so apparent to us as humans don't really tip the scales that much in either direction. The most masculine man and the most feminine woman have a nearly identical Yin/Yang signature on the grand scale of existence, even if the differences seem extreme when looked at zoomed into the vacuum of human interactions. So, don't worry too much. If you'd like to integrate the divine feminine, it is in your power to do so. If you would like to encourage the integration of the divine feminine on the broad-scale it doesn't require that you be a woman. Women may generally be more likely to resonate with this and may as a group have a slight edge, but this is not a problem. Just do what feels right. Also, there are men that exist who are more Yin that Yang naturally, and women who exist that are more Yang than Yin. So, there are always a ton of exceptions.

People only work well celebrating small incremental wins. And it's those small wins that gives way to bigger ones. For example, my big YT channel goal is to have 100,000 subscribers. But I don't measure it back from that big goal, otherwise I would always feel exasperated because I have a long way to go. But if I focus on small wins, I can be happy every day because I'm growing and expanding my channel by 40, 50, 60 subscribers. And eventually, I'll get a bigger growth spurt. So, I give myself opportunities to celebrate every day and even every time I check my subscribers. And this gives me energy back. It's how I've gotten up past 20k, since every small incremental win adds up over time. So, focusing on small wins in really important in being able to pave a path in general in a way that is congruent with how human beings work and derive satisfaction from their work. Focusing on the long-term goal only, is out of congruence with how human beings work and there is always a feeling like satisfaction is a LONG way away. And no energy comes back.

Regarding your first question, there are a lot of women that do operate off of the idea of what they "should want." And I relate that to being a late bloomer in terms of attraction... or potentially even having some mental blocks that get in the way of intuition and insulate them from their emotional sensitivity and acuity. So, I was a precocious child in the sense that I was always attracted to boys, even when I was like 3. I even tried to elope with my 4 year old neighbor Steven, when I was 4 (unbeknownst to him). When my mom caught me I was dressed in one of her white slips, holding a bouquet of fake flowers, and wearing a metal hair thing from her jewelry box like a tiara. So, when I was little and attracted to boys, it was always based on looks with no other factors considered. It was only when I got to be about 14 that personality really started to genuinely take the main focus, and that my attractions deepened. So, this was a blooming of sorts. But I had a friend in college who was 19 when I was 20, and she was always big into a guys looks at that point. And attraction was all based around that. And she didn't really understand what I would talk about when I would like a guy who, to her eyes, just was an average guy. But then she met this guy named Stewart, and felt more for him about his personality than his looks. And it was a totally new thing for her that just had bloomed, just a bit later than me. But if a woman has a mental block and has a huge laundry list of requirements in her mind as to what she needs to be attracted to someone and she gets logical or perfectionistic about it, then she will always be cross referencing men with that list in a mechanical way. And she won't be sensitive or receptive enough to feel her actual emotions and to listen the cues her intuition is giving her about the chemistry or lack-there-of. So, she will generally find guys that she's not really passionate about because they're trying to be objective and logical about something that's best approached subjectively and intuitively. And some may even remain single because they can't find any guys that fit all of their criteria. And overall, it will be just trying to squint and make magic happen when no magic is present. But chemistry isn't related to intellect or looks or any other specific trait. That's how men are with the specific trait attraction. Women, on the other hand, get attractions holistically where the whole of a particular man suddenly becomes greater than the sum of its parts. When chemistry is present, that man's entire personhood is like a recipe where all the ingredients are what they are and may be awesome or perhaps not so much. But when all the ingredients are put together and cooked just right makes for a masterpiece dish that is far more satisfying than any one individual ingredient that's in the recipe. Edit: And what I mean by "guys will go for the prettiest girl they can get" is that they'll be most attracted to the prettiest girl and will desire the prettiest girl, even if they don't go for her. For women, they won't usually go for the handsomest guy. They'll go for one who is their looks-match and mostly won't tend to feel desire or chemistry with a guy who's significantly more attractive.

She probably won't win, but I think it's great that she's running and that she has really solid common sense policies that she's proposing like Medicare for all and a focus on a Green New Deal. And given that she does have quite a large following, might give her a surprising edge. Now, I think that if she got into office, she would be really great as a moral leader if she can talk in a way that's understood simply and doesn't go over people's heads. And she would probably be against all the regime change wars that America is involved in, and maybe we could make some small progress toward ending that. But this is true if we had any truly progressive candidate in office. But as far as progressive candidates go, I'd say that Bernie Sanders (if he runs), Elisabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard will all probably do a lot better than her unless she's able to pull a Donald Trump. But I think that's unlikely because Trump is basically the poster child for everything that America secretly loves deep down: racism, sexism, greed, power, ignorance, and machismo and he was promising all these popular changes and drawing on peoples lesser devils to appeal to them. So, he's go the societal shadow on his side which played a huge part in him winning. There just aren't enough people that prioritize consciousness and awareness to really tip the scales in her favor. But I'm interested to see how she does and how she addresses things as she campaigns. I think her existence in the race may help some others in society connect the dots in terms of the deeper causes of all these issues, which will raise awareness in and of itself.

You can use either Final Cut Pro X or Adobe Premier. These are the most popular of the two. Final cut costs $300, all in one go. Adobe Premier costs $50 per month on an ongoing basis. So, I chose FCP because Adobe gets really expensive and you have to continue paying on it. Also, if you want to get a lot of views, you'll want to focus on thumbnails, titles, tags, description, and transcription. Be sure that all of these are optimized for the terms most commonly searched for the topic that you're covering. This will help your channel, as a new channel, be able to get ranked in YT and Google search as well as potentially get recommended to others who are searching for similar things. This is probably the most important advice for a new YouTuber looking to grow, other than to make high quality videos and to have a clear brand that is professional looking and recognizable.

Wrong. I could be repulsed by a really attractive guy, and really into a guy who's average. It really depends on the character of the guy and the presence of chemistry (which is always a toss-up). Also, generally speaking, women like to date men who are their looks-match or even slightly lower. I would feel strange dating a super-model-looking guy because I am an average looking woman, because I know that my looks would not impress him. But if I'm with an average guy who is maybe a point below me on the attractiveness scale, he would probably be really excited about my looks. Basically, women generally like to be the peacocks of the relationship. So, dating a really attractive guy, leaves little opportunity for that to happen for a woman who is more average. But if a guy is average, then it is easier to be the peacock. Now, looks do matter somewhat. It's the first firewall that women have. And it stands out right away in an obvious way. So, looks can be a deal-breaker if a guy is significantly less attractive than the woman in question. So, if I'm a 6, I'll never be interested in guys who are below a 4, no matter what. But a 5 might be attracted to a 4, and a 3 wouldn't necessarily want to date a 4 because a 4 is too attractive for her to feel like the peacock. So, this is how women mostly size a man up looks-wise. Men try to go for the most attractive woman he can get. But women don't work that way with men. Women try to go for a guy who is her looks-match... or date an older man who was maybe a point or two above her when he was her age, but is now her looks-match due to aging. But looks are just the first fire-wall, and are really not as interesting as the deeper parts of attraction that are infinitely more intuitive and intriguing. It's really all about the chemistry, which doesn't really correlate with looks at all. When I like a guy and have chemistry with him, I like the way he looks better than literally everyone else on the planet, even if he's a solid 5. And this is just because he takes on a magic quality that no one else has that can't be replicated. And when I do get attracted to a guy, I will feel a completely unique emotion related specifically to him that I'll never get with anyone else in the exact same way. So, there is a huge investment upfront before the relationship even starts (if it starts at all). So, I'll like the shape of his head that others may find strange, or that he's got a birthmark on his cheek, or that his arms are really long or some random thing like that because those qualities belong to him. And even if no one else sees him this way, I will think he's more attractive than Brad Pitt or any other Hollywood heartthrob. And only because he is him and is the only one who makes me feel that way.

I'm not trying to get you to prove anything to me. And I'm not refusing to take 5-MEO or something like that. I just won't seek it out because I won't take legal risks since I have children, and for this juncture in my life it would be unwise to do anything where there is a risk of my getting caught and spending huge chunks of their childhood in prison. I know this is highly unlikely, but I'm not about to take any kind of risk. Also, I don't think that you're making anything up. I believe you 100% that this is what you've experienced. I don't have any doubts in my mind as to that matter. I'm just asking you if it could be possible that, even a person who's had many experiences with God (and even a person who is enlightened), could 1. still be living in a delusion, but an alternate delusion that feels like absolute Truth, and 2. Once they're out of the experience and crystalize it into a memory and belief, could be deluded in this way. So, I'm not saying anything about you personally, and I'm not saying that what you're saying is definitely untrue. Instead, I'm asking for my own contemplation purposes, as I have had two direct experiences of God in the past and saw the Truth from a state of completely uninterested in spirituality. So, I know that the experience is phenomenologically real and can be experienced as I was not clouded by wishful thinking or confirmation bias. But also, since I am not directly experiencing that, could I (if I think about the limits of what I know) potentially be remembering a past that never happened as perhaps there is only now? And even in the experience, as true and clear as it felt, could I have potentially been interacting with a secondary delusion despite how true it felt? I'm asking you because you seem very sure and like you know. But my impression is that no matter how much we feel like we know, we'll be forever innocent in terms of actually knowing. But again, I know my limitations here. I am not able to experience Truth, God, or oneness right now. So, to me, it seems like none of this can ever truly be known or even known as absolute. Seemingly, it can just be experienced and taken for what it is. TLDR: Is true gnosticism possible, or will there always just be agnosticism even if we experience what feels in an absolute way like gnosis?

Listen, I understand my limitations here. I am still very much ego identified. But my impression was that you are too, but have had many glimpses through psychedelics. So, given that what you talk about is not rooted in the present but always in reference to past experiences (correct me if I'm wrong), how can you know right now as you are identified with Leo-ness? How can you know 100% for sure that the mind is not deluding you by creating an interpretation of your past experiences that is comprehensible to the mind and others who read it? And how could you know any of the past actually happened at all? And could God not create a secondary delusion, that to you feels 100% like absolute truth but would just be another delusion? And could that secondary delusion be what you're describing right now? Now, I'm not saying it's not true. But I'm asking, do you have 100% certainty that what you're saying is absolutely true... or could it just seem true in your experience? I just feel like pinning anything down in the realm of thoughts will always be a concession, and may be totally delusion at every step. So, it is not so much about doubt but a surrendering of the mind and admit that it cannot know anything for sure. And a total embrace of the mystery of what is and our own perpetual state of innocence that never dies.

I am talking from the perspective of someone who has had two experiences of ego transcendence, where I experienced oneness and recognized God was the nature of everything. But I also currently am ego identified. So, recognize that my belief in the ultimate truth of that experience is still just a belief based in a memory which is also a thought. So, I don't know for sure. So, I am aware that I'm believing in non-duality like a person believes in atheism because it is not my present moment experience and I recognize that I cannot truly know anything for sure. So, this is why I pressed Leo on the matter. How could he possibly know if there are multiple realities or just one reality if it's a belief of his based in memory? How could he possibly know that there are no other experiences when nothing can be seen beyond his immediate experience? How could he possibly be sure that his mind's interpretation of his experiences which are then crystalized into beliefs are correct? An insight that I had gotten was that to truly be open to Truth, a person falls into a trap to take any belief for granted. And since innocence was one of the core aspects of experiencing oneness for me, my intuition is that all belief in the absolute nature of reality should be set aside and not taken for granted. And this is true with anything that the mind interprets and crystalizes into an idea or belief, even relative to experiences of oneness. It seems wisest, that the mystery should be embraced that we may not be able to know even if it seems that we do. So, any absolute interpretation of reality I eye suspiciously (including my own)... especially if it's comprehensible to the human mind.