Xonas Pitfall

Sorry if I came across as cynical, haha. I genuinely have 0 issues with people having FWB relationships if they enjoy them. I was really just responding to what the previous comment was getting at, so I probably made it sound more negative than I actually meant it.

We’re pointing out the unfalsifiable ideological tactics that allow more toxic ideologies to become self-propagating. Stuff like this: A lot of cults can do this too. For example, a cult leader claims that an apocalypse is going to happen on a specific date, and that's why everyone needs to give him their money, follow him, and make whatever sacrifices he demands. Then the date arrives and absolutely nothing happens. At that point, a falsifiable belief should take a serious hit. But instead, the ideology can simply generate a new rationalization: “Nothing happened because you all sacrificed so much and did such a good job. God saw your devotion and spared us for another day.” And just like that, the failed prediction becomes evidence that the ideology was right. The same basic pattern can keep repeating. If something happens, it proves the ideology. If the opposite happens, that also somehow proves the ideology. Every contradiction gets absorbed into the framework rather than forcing anyone to question the original premise.

Yes, I have zero issues with that claim. Again, I think a lot of people simply cope with this. Maybe they genuinely want a specific person around because that person gives them some "goodie", but at the same time they realize that they want different things, more investment, different responsibilities, or different expectations from the relationship. But because they don't want to accept the possibility of losing that “goodie” the person provides, they start doing all kinds of self-justification and ego framing, tactics to avoid confronting the incompatibility. The ego goes, “I want this goodie, so how can I frame reality in a way where I can keep getting it without having to admit that I'm being selfish, deceptive, or unfair?” Then you can end up rationalizing almost anything.

A falsifiable model requires clear definitions and clear conditions under which the model could be proven wrong. Obviously, everything is fundamentally relative to some degree, including what we mean by “falsifiability.” But within a given framework, the basic idea is still straightforward: “All swans are white.” Now we know exactly what would challenge the claim. If you show me a genuine black swan, then the original claim has been falsified. What you can't do is keep changing the definition every time contradictory evidence appears: “Here is a black swan.” “That's not a real swan.” “Why not?” “Because real swans are white.” “Okay, but this animal is biologically classified as a swan.” “Yeah, but it's an abnormal exception, so it doesn't count.” “Okay, so what would count as evidence against your claim?” “Nothing. If it's white, it proves I'm right. If it's black, then it isn't a real swan.” At that point, you've constructed a model that cannot possibly be wrong. You're no longer testing the premise. A lot of human ideology can work this way. Someone starts with a premise they are emotionally invested in, and then every new piece of information is interpreted through that premise. If the information appears to contradict it, instead of allowing the evidence to update the model, they modify the definitions, introduce exceptions, reinterpret the evidence, or create new distinctions that preserve the original conclusion.

Exactly. Basically this. And not to just point fingers at men. Women can absolutely do the same thing themselves. A woman can string a guy along for sex, attention, favors, money, entertainment, validation, or simply because she’s bored and enjoys having him around here and there. It really isn't a gender thing. It's ego. If you want something, and you've convinced yourself that getting that thing is important, your ego can become incredibly sneaky in convincing you that what you're doing is morally acceptable or necessary. It will find ways to explain why it's “not that bad,” why you “had no choice,” why the other person “deserved it,” or why you're somehow justified in doing what you're doing. And sometimes it goes even further. The ego doesn't just convince you that what you're doing is okay. It can prevent you from fully seeing what you're actually doing in the first place. Ego Blindness. The core of self-deception, and it's a lot of what Leo talks about in his lessons more generally. The mind can become extremely creative when it wants something badly enough. It can construct an entire ideology around your behavior so that you can continue pursuing what you want without having to confront the fact that you're manipulating, deceiving, exploiting, or hurting someone.

No, of course not. I never said that. My main criticism is aimed at men who hyper-focus on telling women exactly how they should behave and what kind of women they should be, while developing all kinds of rationalizations for why they should pursue a very specific type of woman. Then, when they actually get that woman, they completely disrespect her position and perspective and don't acknowledge it in the slightest. Instead, they use evolutionary biology, gender-war rhetoric, and self-reinforcing red-pill ideology to justify their behavior. For example, you have men who specifically look for virgin women and talk about them as something precious, pure, and uniquely valuable. Yet those same men can be the ones who eventually cheat on her or leave her. The woman may have genuinely been ready to marry him, love him, and build a life with him, and yet after he betrays her, she can somehow be reclassified as “less valuable,” “used up,” or undesirable. Or you have men constantly complaining that “there are no good women left” and that women don't want commitment anymore, while they themselves don't even know what kind of relationship they want. They lie about wanting monogamy, get a woman emotionally attached to them, then push her toward an open relationship, cheat on her, or keep other women on the side. They say they want a traditional, loyal, feminine wife, but then cheat on that wife with the exact kind of women they claim they would never want as a partner. They want the status and social respectability of having a “pure,” respectable woman as their wife, while privately pursuing promiscuous women, strippers, mistresses, or whatever else they actually desire. Then they hurt the very woman they supposedly considered so precious, while still expecting absolute loyalty and devotion from her. And, of course, they would be completely disgusted if their wife treated them the same way. That's the contradiction I'm criticizing. Some men build an entire ideology around what women supposedly owe men, what women should be, how women should behave, and which women are supposedly worthy of commitment, while simultaneously giving themselves endless exceptions and rationalizations for violating standards themselves. That's the part I find deeply dishonest. If you find an honest, beautiful, sweet woman who is hopeful about love and genuinely wants to commit herself to an honest, noble man, then you should respect that. And if you're the type of guy who knows that you will abuse that trust, manipulate her, lie to her, or try to convince her into whatever lifestyle you can mold her into once you've gotten her attached to you, then you shouldn't go after her in the first place. You shouldn't deliberately seek out someone's innocence and trust because you know those qualities will make her easier to manipulate, only to use that trust against her once you've hooked her. But a lot of men don't acknowledge this aspect at all, because why would they? It's much more convenient to believe that you can do whatever you want, that you're entitled to pursue whoever you want however you want, and that whatever happens afterward can somehow be justified. “It's biological. It's human nature. Men are different from women. Women naturally like this. Women can be made to like this. We're just wired this way. So why are you blaming me for doing what I'm naturally programmed to do?” Ideally, of course, people should explore their options and find someone who genuinely fits their values and relationship paradigm. I'd never recommend that someone blindly marry young or stay with the first person they like unless they're genuinely very sure about the person. That would be foolish.

Yup, exactly. The whole reason this can get so protracted is that the ego is a tricky thing. It can rationalize and justify almost anything by adopting whatever framing, including biological or gender-based framing, makes the conclusion work. And it becomes especially effective when that framing allows someone to collectively convince themselves that they are right. Basically, according to the men/red-pill/pickup worldview, you have a girl whose highest “market value” is supposedly between 18 and 25. Put yourself in her shoes for a second. Think about how young, dumb, and inexperienced we all are at that age. This is the period when you are only just beginning to develop a real sense of identity, independent thought, and some understanding of who you actually are. You’re going to college, maybe getting your first real taste of adulthood, and even by 22-25, you’re still figuring a lot of things out. She is considered more desirable if she isn’t too analytical or “heavy-thinking,” because being too rational, independent, or challenging can supposedly make her too masculine. She might become too cold, too logical, too emotionally detached, or otherwise insufficiently feminine. On top of that, she is expected to focus heavily on beauty and femininity. A lot of her time is supposed to go toward her appearance, makeup, dancing, traditionally feminine activities, and cultivating an innocent, sweet, feminine image. She should be highly agreeable, innocent, naive, and soft-hearted. She shouldn’t have too many strong interests or ambitions of her own, because the ideal is apparently for her to be molded and led by the man once he gets her. She is also supposed to genuinely believe in love, want a deep romantic connection, and be willing to love, serve, submit, and devote herself to her man. Do you see the profile of the girl we’re actually talking about here? You’re describing a very young girl who has very little experience. She has no real concept of strategy or manipulation. Now ask yourself: if that girl encounters a manipulative man who knows how to present himself, promises her love, tells her everything she wants to hear, how likely is she really to avoid getting attached to him? How likely is she to immediately recognize what is happening, see through the deception, and avoid potentially screwing up her life? How likely do you think she is to actually have the tools, experience, and wisdom necessary to avoid any of this? Would it even be realistic to expect her to? How realistic is it to expect her to somehow have enough worldly experience and psychological insight to immediately recognize manipulation, see through deception, and make all the right decisions? And now consider that the red-pill/pickup world specifically targets exactly these types of women. It teaches men to look for women who are young, innocent, inexperienced, trusting, agreeable, and emotionally open. It doesn’t just teach them how to pursue these women, either. It also gives them a framework for rationalizing what they’re doing, so that they can convince themselves that what they are fundamentally doing is perfectly okay. And more importantly, how realistic is it to expect her to somehow figure all of this out quickly enough to conduct extremely heavy screening and “mate selection” during the very narrow period that these men claim is her most valuable? You’re describing a girl who is supposed to be maximally innocent, trusting, inexperienced, agreeable, feminine, and emotionally open, while simultaneously expecting her to possess enough psychological sophistication and worldly experience to immediately identify manipulation, carefully screen men, understand male incentives, and make optimal decisions about lifelong partners. And then if those girls say, “Hey, I don’t want to have sex. I’m saving myself for the guy I eventually marry,” the guy might get frustrated, resent her, or even cheat on her with another girl who is more promiscuous. So either way, she can’t win. If those girls instead say, “We don’t want to date men. We’re going to stay single because all of this has made us confused, distrustful, and resentful,” then you have men complaining about male loneliness, saying women are selfish and ungrateful, arguing that women shouldn’t have been given rights in the first place because “look how they turned out.” Feminism, grrrh! If the girl is somehow smart enough to see through his bullshit, he can get annoyed by that too. Suddenly she’s “too masculine,” “too intelligent,” “too argumentative,” “too suspicious,” or “attacking him” simply because she questions what he says instead of blindly trusting him. If she has her own career and doesn’t need a man financially, she’s “too independent” and supposedly incapable of submitting to a man. Not girly enough. If she wants to take things slowly and actually get to know him, she’s “playing games” or making him “wait.” Shit testing. If she has sexual boundaries, she’s boring. If she is sexually open, she’s apparently “used up” or no longer worthy of commitment. If she doesn’t ask enough questions and trusts him, then she’s supposedly responsible for choosing a bad man. If she stays and tries to work through the problems, then her staying can simply be interpreted as proof that the man's behavior wasn't really that bad. If she wants a relationship but also wants to maintain her own identity, she’s selfish. If she completely devotes herself to the relationship, then that devotion can be taken for granted. That is just what women should do; they are "naturally" submissive. If she chooses to commit to a man when she’s young, say at 18-25, and he eventually cheats on her or leaves her when she’s 40, then apparently she “chose wrong” when she was young, so it’s her fault. If she goes through that experience and becomes more guarded or less trusting afterward, while she is older, then apparently she’s “used up,” undesirable, old, ugly. If the man leaves her and she becomes a single mother, then that’s also her fault. She chose wrong. Now she’s supposedly an “old hag” or a “used-up single mother” who no longer has the same value or desirability. That's what makes the whole framework feel so fundamentally rigged. Almost any response the woman has can be interpreted in a way that confirms the ideology. If she trusts him, she's naive. If she questions him, she's too masculine or combative. If she stays, she's accepting his behavior. If she leaves, she's selfish or incapable of commitment. If she dates men, she's choosing badly. If she stops dating men, she's selfish for contributing to male loneliness. The whole framework basically ends up teaching women to be the perfect victims while teaching men how to become the perfect predators and exploiters. You can rationalize anything in this world. Life is life, and people will do whatever they want to get whatever they want. But this ideology is especially poisonous because it actually convinces you that what you’re doing is fundamentally good or justified, when it absolutely isn’t.

I’ll try my best to explain this. But this is more about “bargaining power,” and depending on the society we live in, men and women will have different types of bargaining power. Or you can just say “power.” Basically, if you let ego run loose, both genders, humans in general, would love the scenario of: “I want one partner who will work for me and give me money; I want one partner who is the most hot and attractive and really gets my orgasms going; I want someone who has the same hobbies as me and whom I can talk to. I want one for this hobby. I want one for this activity. I want one to make me laugh. I want one to do my housework, etc. Gosh, if I could just flip and switch around and never get bored, that’d be ideal! Infinite love for me, infinite entertainment, and infinite resources for me!” Ego itself with no self-reflection or "empathy" will be very much like an idealistic child: “Me, me, me. I want this and this and this.” You want as many goodies for yourself as possible while avoiding as much responsibility toward others as possible, whether that means commitment, doing hard work, or having others do the work for you, etc. Human condition and Ego 101. So when you add gender, it is really just what society conditions you toward + your actual bargaining power, expectations, survival needs, and perhaps some biological factors. But I’d be careful not to over-map it onto biology, because a lot of people use biology as an excuse to avoid seeing the generic ego mechanisms that are present in all humans and somehow turn them into a much larger gender issue. Since, societally, women were more largely removed from resource-gathering and resource-controlling power, on both sides you would have: Men using women for labor, status, or resources: This can take many forms, such as relying on women for domestic labor, household management, social positioning, caregiving, or other forms of unpaid work. Men might benefit from women’s beauty and labour (through pimping, modelling, sex work, service businesses under this wing, etc), social connections, or labor while receiving most of the recognition or resources themselves. In some cases, women’s work was credited to men, or women had to operate through a man’s name or authority to gain access to opportunities. In more personal relationships, a man might rely on a woman to maintain his home and family while he focuses on his career, or ends up having a second family, mistresses, etc. Women using men for labor, status, or resources: Relying on men for financial support, education, housing, protection, social connections, or other resources. Women were restricted from working, owning property, or accessing education independently, making dependence on men necessary for survival. In other cases, women may intentionally seek out men primarily for their wealth, status, security, or connections, while contributing less to the relationship themselves. This can range from ordinary dependence within a relationship to more exploitative behaviors, such as gold-digging or using relationships primarily for financial gain. So you can see that both genders can follow the same pattern, because again, this isn’t fundamentally a gendered issue. It is ego. Ego will try to use whatever it can to get access to power, resources, sex, survival, and safety. That is the common rule. Gender is really just another overlay through which ego operates. The gender position you are born into is simply one of the cards you are dealt. The same goes for fun, lust and sex. A woman can also have preferences and have some “fuckboys” or boy toys who make her hornier than her “provider.” She might enjoy the sexual side more with one person, while choosing to stay with another person because that person is more reputable, stable, noble, useful, or beneficial to her in some other way. In the same way, a man might cheat with a mistress because he enjoys the sexual side more, while not wanting to actually be with the mistress because his wife is more reputable, stable, “pure,” noble, or useful to him in other ways. Again, the same pattern can exist on both sides. Both men and women love to have sex and have fun. Then, depending on the society, women might be more or less sexually shamed or repressed compared with men. That is why you might see higher divorce rates or more promiscuity as societies become more sexually free, because you are removing some of the blocks and restrictions placed on ego. And the same, of course, applies to this topic. If you let women’s egos roam completely free, you can end up with millions of simps who want to pay for her on the off chance that she might get with them. She can then find a non-attached friends-with-benefits partner whenever she finds someone attractive, or she can have one guy take care of her survival, money, and resources while she chooses to play around and fuck whoever she wants on the side. If you let men’s egos roam completely free, he can keep a wife who functions as his secure, safe-space home while having second families and mistresses on the side. Or he can have a harem. Or you might have women desperately trying to do favors for him, work for him, provide domestic labor, or perform other kinds of labor in exchange for access to him, all the while he doesn't commit to a single one of them because he simply can. Again, this is all ego. If you let ego roam completely free, then yes, ego will want people to do labor for it, get money for it, provide resources for it, and give it as much sex, fun, good times as possible with the people it finds the hottest or most desirable. "I want everything with the least commitment and responsibility on my end, but ideally, all of you are so obsessed with me and committed to me that you keep giving me goodies permanently!" And some egos will use restrictive laws, force, financial isolation, social isolation, or anything else they can to make this happen. The whole point of love is to experience actual depth and see the other person as an equal, as someone you do not simply want to control, use, abuse, swing around, or extract value from. But people often mistake ego-driven forms of attachment, desire, dependency, or “love” for actual forms of deeper, more genuine love. People need to first have an awakening to ego and survival, and how much they control 99% of people’s behavior. Gender is much more secondary to all relationship issues. If you’re still attached to some sort of fantasy where you want to be a harem king, being served by everyone, then you’ve dropped all notions of genuine love. Your best bet at making that fantasy a reality is to simply own what you’re doing and find vulnerable, desperate, needy people to fulfill your fantasy.

All of this stuff is way too generic. This isn’t a gender issue in the slightest. What happened in your last relationship? Be honest with yourself and their side too. It is always easy to have a failed relationship and blame the whole thing on the other gender.

Exclusive commitment to men is also like exclusive commitment to women. You don’t see many men happily having their girl fuck and fall in love with other men either. In fact, they might be even stingier about it, with their obsession over “virginity” and “cucking.” There really is no difference here, but a lot of men want there to be so they can justify their lust: “Oh, she’s a girl, she’s different from me. She likes it. Girls can be made to enjoy this. I can make her love it. They kind of do already.” Then they come up with a bunch of “biological” and other cope arguments as to why.

I wouldn’t trust Leo much when it comes to his views on women, tbh. His positions on this subject have been biased and rather shallow many times.

Haha Nothing screams ego like: “I want as many people as possible to want to fuck me, obsess over me, love me, and want a long-term committed relationship with me, while I don’t stay committed or responsible to any of them. Infinite love for me, but not for thee!”

You can definitely derive Love from scratch. A = A, or correspondence. That is all you need for truth; in a sense, that is truth itself. From there, you can derive other aspects of truth. A = A implies Solipsism. A = A also implies Love (Union / Love / Being One / No Bias / No Separation). A = A implies Love, Is-ness, Truth, Unity, All, and God. It also implies Identity, the Self, and the “I am.” To be "One" is to unite everything, to connect everything. And to truly connect is to love. To hold something in your consciousness with the full intent to experience and understand it is, in essence, to love it. The deeper your desire to understand something, to take it in as part of yourself, the less judgmental you become. You grow more accepting, more compassionate, more loving. Think about the people closest to you. Why are they called “close”? Because they probably see and understand you more than others, because you have more experience with them than with others, because they probably care for and love you more than others. The more "connected" you are, the closer you are. The closer you are, the closer to One you are - merging together. We usually call this process "love." Oneness requires ultimate connection and a lack of separation. The process God uses to fully "merge" or bring parts "closer to each other" until they unite is Oneness, Love, Union, or even Sex. Even the physical act of sex is a symbol of this: getting as close as possible - literally under someone’s skin, inside their body - to create pleasure. To Love them properly and fully. Think about what we mean when we say someone is “close-minded” or refuses to empathize. We often say, “He can’t see the other person’s point of view,” or “He can’t put himself in their shoes.” In other words, he can’t imagine being close to that person, can’t imagine being them, can’t merge his perspective with theirs. He’s stuck in his own experience, focused on his Self, not the Other. He’s failed to connect the two into one shared understanding. And because of that, he is less empathetic, less compassionate, less loving. He lacks the Love to merge, to connect, to understand. However, God has an infinite supply of that! Hence the label "All-Loving" or "God is Love."

It’s a boring answer, yet it isn’t, haha. It’s tautological. It’s just all that “is”, AKA what is real. So, for example, when you tell a lie to your parent, friend, or spouse, you are essentially pointing to or describing something that is “filtered,” “fake,” or “untrue.” You’re creating a fake illusion, AKA separating yourself from reality, from truth. When you get direct experience of truth, you essentially remove the fluff of your ego: the imaginary stories you tell yourself about what should or shouldn’t be, the filtered opinions you have of yourself and others, based on your ego, bullshit, lies, etc. Like avoiding weighing yourself when you’re sober, telling yourself how you should look, filtering what the mirror shows you, or avoiding looking in the mirror or taking pictures. Then, in a more conscious state, you see it all as it actually is: fat or not, attractive or not, healthy or not. It’s just everything that actually “is there,” and everything that “isn’t” is falsehood.

A slave who had their identity and ego beaten out of them can also appear extremely loving from the perspective of the ego, because they have been deprived of their sense of self. They become willing to do whatever is demanded of them because most of their aspirations for their own identity, life, and autonomy have been removed. At that point, they may care only about survival, or sometimes not even that. This is part of how you get slavery, brainwashed cultists, suicide bombers, victims of abusive relationships, etc. Note that if you were a king and these slaves were brought to you after the programming, they would appear quite loving to you. "Aww, look at my cute little puppy slave! They're always so happy to see me. They bring me my food, clean, cook, work for me, and never ask for anything in return. What an adorable, loving, obedient little creature. So sweet. So devoted. How admirable that they're always so eager to please me!" There are versions (or perhaps different definitions) of "love." One is love from the perspective of the ego. This is a childish conception of love, similar to a child whose parents give them everything they want: "Mama will protect me and care only about me." or "If only I had a partner who was perfectly aligned with me, did everything I wanted, let me do whatever I wanted, gave me whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it, and always cared about me, while I only had to care when I felt like it." It's essentially the aggrandizement of the ego and its importance. Whoever can appeal to the ego in this way will seem extremely "loving," but the underlying structure is immature because it denies the sovereignty of the other person. The other person becomes an extension of the ego rather than a sovereign individual with their own desires, boundaries, values, and existence. Then there is conscious love. You take yourself and the other person as sovereign individuals, while also realizing that you're creating a union through the relationship. Because of that, you might willingly give up certain things that your ego wants in order to care for the other person or for the relationship as a whole. You don't have to destroy yourself or your identity. You consciously integrate your own needs with the needs of another sovereign being. From there, you can expand this type of love beyond the individual relationship: to other humans, communities, societies, animals, ecosystems, the Earth, and eventually larger systems of life and existence. It becomes increasingly integrative and requires a much higher degree of consciousness, care, empathy, and ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. There is another level where you become more directly "one with everything." where you become more directly "one with everything." This state is much less practical for human beings and their egos. It is more characteristic of certain yogic or monastic states, deep meditation, psychedelic or mystical experiences, or perhaps death, where the ego can become radically diminished or dissolve entirely. In this state, there is no longer a fundamental distinction between "me" and "them," "owner" and "slave," or "self" and "other." Everything is experienced as part of one unified whole. There is no specific entity that needs to defend itself or survive as an isolated ego. In that sense, it can superficially resemble the state of a completely submissive slave or someone whose ego has been destroyed. But the difference is enormous. This is why, from the perspective of an ego, these states can look deceptively similar. Any entity that lacks a strong sense of self, doesn't resist, doesn't assert its own survival, desires, or boundaries, and appears completely accepting and accommodating can look "loving." But the underlying structures can be completely different. It's basically analogous to the Spiral Dynamics model: You start with Beige, where consciousness is almost entirely centered around immediate survival and the self. In a sense, there isn't much conceptual "other" yet because consciousness is primarily organized around its own immediate existence. Then, as the spiral develops, consciousness increasingly integrates otherness: empathy, social awareness, perspective-taking, morality, cooperation, respect for sovereignty, systems thinking, and eventually increasingly holistic forms of identification. At the higher end of the spiral, however, you can reach a state where the distinction between "self" and "other" itself becomes transcended. You realize that all of these apparently separate entities are ultimately parts of one. So, if you looked only at the structure from outside the Spiral Dynamics model, you might say: "Beige and Turquoise/Coral are both kind of solipsistic. Both ultimately collapse everything back into one." But that would completely miss the enormous difference in intelligence, integration, consciousness, and complexity between them. It's almost like saying that a newborn and a mystic are the same because neither has the same kind of fully developed adult ego.

I wonder if women kept posting threads on the forum about how to manipulate a guy’s feelings to make him hooked on her and extract as much money as possible, how to do it over and over again, and flexing their “bank drain count,” along with all the stories of manipulation, would they be taken down? lol... Remember, guys: “Masculinity has an advantage when it comes to accessing Absolute Truth, Love and Selflessness.”

Correct. But here, that's the key distinction between paradox and contradiction. Once you enter the non-dual “space,” there’s no such thing as contradiction or paradox. It’s all just Isness, truth.

I’m also getting flashbacks from Leo saying, “NO ONE IS AS AWAKE AS I AM! NO ONE! NO ONE!” Of course. People rape, kill, and pillage for their nation, tribe, clan, religion, or identity. People strap bombs to themselves for their god. People sacrifice their lives for their ideology, die defending their homeland, and dedicate their entire lives to spreading their religion or worldview. I think people were adding nuance to the concept of “love.“ Exactly. A group’s cohesion doesn’t necessarily prove that its members love or even fully believe in everything the group represents. For example, an oligarch might not genuinely love every aspect of an oligarchic system. But they can still strongly defend it because the system protects their wealth and status. A person might have serious doubts or dislike certain parts of their own tradition, but changing or abandoning the larger system can feel much more threatening than tolerating its contradictions. Usually, the more corrupt, biased, self-preserving, and unquestioning the system is, the more appealing it can become to the ego when the ego benefits from it. Even if you occasionally question whether it’s true, if the system gives you more status, security, power, or self-preservation, you will still be pulled toward it. The ideologies that offer the strongest ego incentives can become the ones that survive and reproduce most effectively. A culture with enough psychopaths in power can force its way into existence. The stricter the rules, the more coercion you can use to preserve them. An abusive father can beat his wife and children to keep the family hierarchy intact. A regime can brainwash children until they’re willing to strap a bomb to their chest for it. That’s why you get Elon Musk, who was initially more progressive, against Trump, becoming incredibly supportive of conservatives and Trump, funding his election campaign, and buying Twitter. Do you think it’s because he deeply LOVES conservative values, or because he benefits from tax-avoidance and asset-protection policies being implemented? Is it really “love” for the culture? That’s why you get Somalis crying when the age of consent is raised: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DPdQUspCF7f/; or when minorities are given more rights, etc. Do they really love their culture so deeply that they’re devastated when it changes, or do they realize they’re losing the “goodies” that the system gave them? Is it culture, or just the fact that the culture aligns more with the incentives of the ego?

When would you guys say is "a good time" to be doing consciousness work with psychedelics, intense insight/introspection, trips, inquiry, etc.? I’m asking because I imagine there’s probably some kind of sweet spot. I don’t really know how psychedelics affect us as we age, especially as you move into your 40s, 50s, etc. Would you say it’s not as smart to be doing this kind of work later in life, and that there’s more of a sweet spot from your 20s to 40s? What would you say?

The difference is basically your ability to “hold” a paradox or "be" a contradiction. For example, reality is everything and nothing. You could say that’s a contradiction: you can’t be everything and nothing. But reality can, because reality is above duality and bias. It can hold or be both without being “self-contradictory,” so to speak. All paradoxes are inherently contradictory, but the difference is that a paradox can contain and hold that contradiction. A biased, defined, dualistic entity like a human can’t do this as easily, because for a human to remain a human, it has to operate within duality. It can’t fully become a nondual entity. You could say a paradox is truth viewed through a 2D/3D “dual” perspective. From a 4D or “non-dual” perspective, there’s no longer any confusion about paradox. It’s all just Is-ness, truth.

Random tangent: this kind of reminds me of the “you can either annihilate yourself or become everything” path to enlightenment Imagine loving your culture so much that you’re willing to be shot in the head for it. Or imagine loving your culture so much that you make it lovable and accessible to everyone, so you don’t need to shoot anyone in the head to keep validating it or making sure it’s regarded as the truth. Annihilate everything so your culture is the only one. Annihilate all bias within your culture so anyone can love it. Something, something, something...

I suppose I just don’t know Miguel well enough. You’d have to give us information and concrete examples about how you approach the whole thing. How are you judging these girls? What are you talking about, and how are you selecting for them? What is your thought process? What are your expectations? How realistic or unrealistic do you think you’re being? How honest are you being with yourself about what you offer? And where are you even looking for these people? (The classic “looking for a bookworm in a club” problem, for example.) This frame of “proving her worth to you” already sounds potentially toxic. If they’re talking about juggling multiple girls, them getting uncertain about your intentions and going out of their way to prove their worth to you somehow, doing favors, etc., seems like a pretty unhealthy dynamic. I don’t know about these numbers, though. It’s possible you could have 5-10 interesting people you’re talking to, but at least for me, it’s usually pretty clear quickly which few people I’m actually interested in. But again, I don’t think the specific numbers really matter. If you have 5-10 people you are genuinely interested in talking to, so be it. If at some point there’s only one person you really want to focus on, then focus on them. I know it’s a really boring answer, but all of these situations could be possible. The goal is to narrow things down and focus, so the quicker you can do that, the better. But there’s also no reason to force yourself either if you just don’t feel a connection with any of them.

Yes, haha, that’s why I think it’s useful to clarify what we mean by “love” here. By this definition, Hitler quite “loved” German people “I love my child so much that I’d be willing to kill them if they don’t behave the way I want.” “I love my child so much that I’d kill anyone who refuses to listen to them on TV. I want everyone talking about them.” “I love this song so much that I’ll murder anyone who disagrees that it’s the best song.” An authoritarian government “loves” its culture; an oligarchy “loves” its social structure.

Yes, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Go on lots of dates, focus when something clicks, "has potential", reach out here and there in case a special connection develops, rinse and repeat. I really don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s probably something I’d suggest myself. It’s totally possible that in some “rounds” you won’t want to reach out to anyone again, while in others there’ll be one or two people you want to focus on. Again, as I suspected, it’s probably mostly a numbers game. I think maybe some of your posts just came across as a bit restless or impatient in your pursuit, so people reacted negatively to that. But this example seems reasonable to me.

To me, this sounds like you should just go on more dates until you find your person. I think people were mostly just worried and warning you not to accidentally dismiss someone because of your own judgment, impatience, or expectations about how the first few dates are "supposed to" go. Most dating issues, honestly, come down to these questions: “What kind of partner do I want? What kind of partner would they want? Am I that person? If not, why not? Am I looking in places where I can actually find this person? Am I giving off the signals that I’m the kind of person they’re looking for? How many dates am I actually going on?” If you can answer these honestly with yourself, you’ll find the blind spots you should work on.