Xonas Pitfall

Leo's quote: I can also say: Why the conservative bias? What kind of conservative version of reality are you arguing for? I can also make the argument that, fundamentally, Truth is Infinity, denying it and trying to box in and conserve reality is a fundamental corruption. For gender issues and men-women stuff, I won’t comment because I’ve commented on it many times before about how poorly the arguments from Leo are made. If someone is curious, they can see here (I basically made a parody of many of his claims): https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/110076-femininity-truth-parody-of-leos-blogpost/ Note: I’m not trying to promote either side or hate on Leo. I’m just pointing out that some of the biases in his takes can be fairly visible and, at times, poorly argued or concerning. Overall, though, I appreciate his work a lot, and I’ve learned a great deal from him!

Sure, I agree with that. But that’s not the intention of my post. The post was to bring up some of the biases being shown and question whether that is appropriate for this level of content/forum, especially since you aim to be a ‘paragon of truth.’

I agree that a solid and healthy conservative perspective can be good. But what is your actual position on these issues? To give an example, it’s easy to say, ‘Let’s have a healthy perspective,’ but then you make statements like, ‘Girls don’t think, they just feel with their pussies.’ Then you say, ‘Well... you see... progressives go too far with gender equality.’ Do you see how it might be difficult to understand what kind of conservative framework you are suggesting? Why side with one position and proclaim it as more correct or truthful if the fundamental truth is that both need to be integrated? This bias or taking sides feels unnecessary here.

This I agree with! The issue I have is that sometimes you can’t really tell what claims Leo is trying to make or propagate. Then, here and there, he seems to allude to something and later backpedal. It’s not always fully clear what he actually means regarding all the issues he brought up in his statement/quote.

Are we? For the most part on the forum, I see: there are people who probably need to get their lives in order, so in that sense, “conservatism” might be more helpful. But that seems more like self-discipline and self-improvement than political conservatism itself. I see more red-pill or manosphere-style conservative thinking, with only a few people pushing back against it. That would make the space lean more conservative overall. Rarely do I see people here heavily debating NFTs, crypto, trans issues, abortion, or other political issues in a way that is strongly progressive or conservative. Plus, I'm not sure which side crypto and NFTs are on. Aren’t they more about capitalism, technology, and the corruption of people chasing money, general "big-tech Silicon Valley" conformity? Trump himself quickly jumped on that trend. Most of the other stuff feels more centered on spirituality, personal growth, health, and self-improvement. No?

Someone insert the GTA meme for Leo's New Course?

If the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth, that'd be the absolute truth. It's a self-loop that always leads back to Truth (is-ness).

Yup! Fully agreed, responsible, and very much needed blogpost

🤣

You can. Just be smart about how you will survive. How will you monetize this? Who will feed you? Do you have a roof over your head? What people will be around you, what community will you have if things go wrong? What if you go insane? Homeless? Leo is basically cautioning against going too far into "airy" abstract thinking when you do not have the life support to practically sustain yourself. It is much easier to function and work 9-5 when you are not constantly questioning the metaphysics of your walls, the couch you are sitting on, and Alien God Awakening Intelligence! It's the same concept of being a Soundcloud rapper.

Agreed! I suppose I was just a little rebellious Shroom monkey. . . 👽🙈

I think a better frame is that there are people who are more orbit-like (more dependent, people-pleasing, other-focused) and some people who are more orbit-line (more independent, immovable, self-focused). Some people can endlessly pursue with no issues, and some people hate the feeling of chasing because they need extra security and clarity in confidence that the other person is genuinely interested in them. This is more a personality trait or preference than a gender thing, to be honest. There are also people who like to “reach beyond” what they think they can get, so they don’t mind pushing further and assuming they have to work for it, and in the end, they feel satisfied when they get what they wanted. That’s where you get common tropes like a man seeing a woman as a muse or a siren, a symbol of beauty, and perfection to admire. And will do anything in his power to keep and protect her. In a more toxic form, you see this in the “simp” meme. Then you also get the opposite trope: a woman who adores her man, wants to please him, and deeply admires him. In a more toxic form, this can resemble BPD-meme patterns of obsession, drama, etc. I actually think kink communities sometimes understand this a bit better, ironically, haha, because they don’t frame it strictly as man-woman dynamics, but more as dominance and submission, attachment roles, and psychological preferences. I’ve met men who genuinely enjoy adoring their partner, and women who genuinely enjoy being adored. In those cases, the relationship can work very well. I’ve also seen the opposite, and more “equal” dynamics, too. But I also think that once the initial phase passes, if neither person is able to shift out of being only the adorer or only the adored, the relationship can struggle long-term. For a successful long-term partnership, these roles will naturally switch back and forth. Plus, if you are a spiritual person, this should excite you because you get to experience both yourself making someone else feel like God/Love, and also someone making you feel that way in return. I feel like people often treat dating like politics, as if it’s a team sport, like “does red win or does blue win?” It becomes competitive in a way that misses the point. Gender and dating are often treated similarly, which is unfortunate. "Should the woman or the man submit? Who should love whom more? Who is the actual sucker here?" The ego has and needs both sides. It’s a fundamental principle of holism. Just like everything is a holon, the ego is one too. The ego has two sides: the admirer and the admired. It wants someone to admire so it can feel love, humility, and connection. When you have someone as an “other,” they can become almost mesmerizing in a way that makes you feel expanded or stunned by their beauty, whatever form that takes. So you get both the ego humbling itself enough to experience real love and a sense of expansion. But the ego also wants to be admired so it can feel safe, valued, and appreciated. So it can also be touched by someone’s love and gentleness, and actually let go of its defenses, allowing it to expand more toward ego dissolution and love. Both men and women have this ego structure, and if neither side is being met in a relationship, it becomes very hard to maintain anything stable or long-term. But again, I never really know if we are talking about hookup culture and dating strategies, or actual long-term spiritual relationships. If you mean the initial stage, then yes, you probably do not care that much about the person themselves, but more about what you can get from them. So to maximize results, you need to be receptive to people who are easier “wins” (who like you way more, that is.) That applies to both genders. If women don’t choose men who genuinely like them a lot or even more, they also tend to suffer. If we are talking about actual relationships, these concepts are quite meaningless. You need to deeply understand your partner’s preferences and not assume you already know what they want.

I personally started at 18. I’m not sure I would recommend it, but I’m glad I did for myself. The trick is that, after a few trips, I eventually realized the “burning through karma” concept. You just feel during the trip that there are so many things your ego is still clinging to and worrying about, mostly survival or ego-related, that prevent you from having a more open and flowing mind. I would think about things beyond myself, but then my mind kept asking, “But how do you know? You haven’t experienced this or that. Absolutely none of it. Who do you think you are?” I had a lot of self-doubt. I feel like if you are too young, you just don’t have enough life confidence to even ground yourself properly, especially if you can’t yet feed and shelter yourself independently. So for me, if anything, it helped because I kept feeling blocked, and it motivated me to get my survival in order. But it’s tricky to know whether you would have the same response, because it’s very subjective. I feel like there’s no clear answer. It’s too case-dependent.

Ideally, when you are a youngster, you try it a couple of times to get a glimpse of what is possible. This can hopefully give you more hope, direction, and ambition for your life. You realize you need to get your survival sorted out first, so you can later fully enjoy the richness of consciousness properly. But obviously, no one can guarantee what will happen once you “get a glimpse” of it . . . Oopsies, now we are all addicts!

What would you think of your daughter? What do you think of little girls (children)? You can try starting from there. Just as you are a boy in a man's body. She is a girl in a woman's body. Just as you are a child in a man's body. She is a child in a woman's body. P.S. Don't anyone dare turn this into anything pedo . . .

Shortest answer: Ego!

🤣🤣🤣

Pseudovirtue, Sanctegoism – sanctity + egoism → ego pretending to be holy, Virtuception – virtue + deception → believing your own moral lie, Halo-corruption When the ego disguises itself as moral or divine truth, leading someone to justify harmful or corrupt actions while genuinely believing they are good. The key here is that you genuinely believe you are doing it for a higher value; your ego has successfully deceived you. I’m controlling you because I care about you and know what’s best. We’re going to war to defend the purity of our people / sacred values. ”I’m just being honest” (while being unnecessarily cruel) “We must silence them to protect truth and goodness.” “I’m condemning / excluding these people because God demands it. Not me.”

This. These tools are getting so deeply integrated into major companies that at this point, it almost feels like asking whether to use them isn’t even relevant anymore. It's kind of like saying: "I’ve been using social media to promote my business, and it’s working way better than anything I used to do. I don’t need to go door-to-door or chase newspaper headlines anymore; I can just make content and get results." I actually think the smarter move is the opposite of what you’re worried about. If you fully lean into AI and get really good at web dev + using it properly, you’ll be ahead of most people. If you avoid it or don’t learn it deeply, that’s when you fall behind. The future is going to massively favor developers who know how to guide AI, prompt it well, and quickly fix or refine what it gives back.

The title says it all! Inspired by some of the recent blog posts shared, I thought it would be valuable to open up a space for reflection and discussion on the darker sides of human behavior - selfishness, corruption, underdevelopment, and the systems that perpetuate them. Of course, we'll aim to keep everything within the forum's guidelines - and moderators, feel free to step in or close the thread if it veers off course. On a balanced note, I’ll also be creating a companion thread focused on humanity’s goodness, love, selflessness, and progress - both aspects are real and worth exploring.

Record yourself and have someone close and trustworthy record you as well, with and without meds; that'd be the best reference for judgment.

That's too cool! 🥝

And they say Shakespeare is dead... ⸙