Xonas Pitfall

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.

I agree with this. Although I’d add that it’s also quite possible you just haven’t found your person yet. There may be someone who matches your intensity, and you might even bond over how you both went straight into deep conversations instead of staying on the surface. In that sense, it’s partly a numbers game and a matter of where you’re “casting your net.” If you want openness and deep discussion, being around people who are likely to enjoy that kind of conversation is crucial. You can be “deep” about almost anything if you’re both genuinely curious about the topic. So what would you actually want to talk about with your future partner? I’d also reflect on your previous relationships, especially whichever one came closest to being a long-term partnership. What made it work? Why didn’t it work? What patterns do you notice? Then ask yourself: “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?” Remember, if you’re looking for a lifelong monogamous partnership, you only need one person. It’s okay if it takes time to find them

I really loved this quote because it connects to something I’ve been thinking about, especially regarding intelligence and the distinction between AI and human intelligence. It seems like “consciousness” or “God” intelligence is very elastic, almost organic. You set a rule, but it can easily wrap itself around that pattern, rule, or bias. It can switch between contexts, and as it gets one thing, it bounces into another or creates something new. Kind of... that game you play when you’re younger: “Okay, I’ll think of the highest number.” “8.” “Well, I know 9.” “Okay, well, I know 10,000.” “Well, I know BILLION.” “Well, I know Googol.” “Well, I know imaginary numbers that go into negative infinity.” “Well, infinity + 1.” “Okay, infinity + infinity. What about that, huh?!” This ability to keep doing this without simply breaking your own mind is actually highly intelligent. That’s very much what I experience when my mind gets looser with psychedelics. It’s like a stretchy wrapper or piece of gum that can instantly wrap and hook back onto itself and mess with its own thoughts. You think of one thing, and suddenly another thing appears. Recontextualizing, changing the frame, bending and twisting the narrative, pattern interruption, loop interruption, infinite stimulation. It’s very loopy and jumpy by nature. So it makes sense that the ego = “God mind with a survival bias”, would have this property. You give it almost any rule, and it can find a way to wrap itself around that rule for its own service. The only way to escape the loop is to point out the very bias it’s using: survival. The moment you point it out, it stops being itself, and you get an insight into the “Truth/God.” “You bent all those rules because you wanted me to survive, you little Devil!” As long as that underlying need isn’t acknowledged, it can keep looping around its own thoughts. It’s really interesting to notice.

Hmm... Isn't it more like? “I love my child, so I want them to wear Christian robes, sing Christian songs, read Christian scripture, pray, go to church, follow Christian moral rules, marry within the faith, raise their children Christian, spread the gospel, and live according to Christian teachings.” “I love my child, so I want them to explore who they are and decide what kind of life they want to live, as long as they aren't doing injustice.” - “I love my child, so I want everyone to know about my child. I want them on TV, in the news, everywhere. I want everyone talking about them.” “I love my child, and I hope they become a good person and do whatever they want to do.” - “I love this song, so I want everyone to hear it, sing it, and pass it on to their children.” “I love this song. I hope other people enjoy it too, but they can listen to whatever they want, as long as they aren’t using their music to harm or oppress others.” - Obviously, I’m presenting the left quite mildly, politely here, haha. They have their extremes too

Maybe I misunderstood what “love” means here. I can definitely imagine someone loving their culture so much that they want to see it everywhere, spread it, preserve it, and conquer anyone who stands in their way. I just wanted to add that I don’t think people on the left hate their culture or don’t "love" it. It’s just that their "cult" or definition is more open and elastic. You can definitely see people on the left being extremely passionate about their values, views, and protecting against injustice, to the point where you get some pretty extreme people on the far left too. It’s the same way an atheist might be extremely passionate about scientific thinking, so they become very “biased” toward it and love it deeply. They just don’t necessarily have an entire way of life attached to it that they’re also biased toward. So even though both “cults” are biased, one is definitely much more biased and prescribes way more things strictly than the other. So if you define love by how strongly biased someone is toward it, then yes. Yes!

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dating multiple people if you aren’t committed to anyone (as long as you aren’t playing manipulation games, like pursuing people who are vulnerable, emotionally unstable, leading on people who want commitment, or keeping people around without being clear about what you want). Although I guess you’d technically be considered in some sort of “talking stage,” not ”dating.” I don’t know how people define these things. If you genuinely want polyamory or that kind of lifestyle, you need to be extremely straightforward. Like people who are into very strong kink or BDSM dynamics, maybe even 24/7. You realize your preferences are a bit “out there,” so you try to disclose them early and be around communities, forums, etc. where you’re more likely to find someone who genuinely wants to engage with you. But if you’re still operating from the idea of, “Oh, I can take someone who wants commitment and somehow mold, bend, or change them to fit my needs,” then you’re acting dishonestly.

I wonder if it’s that they “honestly love their culture”, or if they’re simply less willing to leave room for a particular way of being “wrong.” People who are along the left "stage green-esque" kinds of communities, they come together around “injustices,” but they don’t necessarily offer a particular way to be. “You can be whatever you want to be, as long as you’re not abusive in whatever way we consider abusive.” So that kind of culture can create this more justice-warrior-esque style while also being very open-ended. And I think that can leave a lot of people wondering what the right path or way of living actually is. A lot of people just aren’t comfortable with that level of openness and prefer having some kind of structure or script. It’s analogous to religion versus agnosticism. With religion, you’re given a lot of things upfront: a community, family values, a way of life, routines, moral frameworks, ideas about masculinity and femininity, an identity, etc. But with agnosticism, suddenly all of those questions are left open. I feel it’s more about simplicity, comfort, and self-preservation than necessarily “honestly loving the culture more." You could say: Christians genuinely love their culture, whereas agnosticism/atheism do not. But agnosticism/atheism isn’t necessarily trying to prescribe one particular, “biased” way of being or make a specific culture easy to follow. The whole point is that you now have more choice. It gives you more choice, which is harder to sell but more freeing for the right kind of psychology.

I think insight is a “genuine connection between two or more concepts.” “Oh, I see! I was being judgmental there because I felt insecure about this...” “Oh, I failed this level of the game because I missed this obstacle.” “Oh, they painted that section of the artwork because it reflects this part of their biography.” “Oh! They used that shade of blush because they have high cheekbones.” That’s why, usually, if you grasp one “side of God,” you can have a chain reaction of connecting multiple insights, because it’s a connection after connection, a multilateral tautology. “Oh, God means that which has no other, no more than itself. Infinite. All there is. Forever. It’s infinity! Oh, so it’s only one. One, one, oneness. Oh, oneness, same as love. Oh, it’s love. Oh, oh no, it’s me. I am God.” Sidenote: I actually really love how people usually depict insight with a little lamp and a person looking up and pointing their index finger upward. I think it’s one of the more accurate “common” depictions of an "emotion" I remember one of the first times I had what you’d probably call a “quasi-awakening.” I felt a light burning warmth around my forehead. Although it was probably just the lamp burning into my face because I’d been staring at it for so long while tripping. At the time, though, I thought it was symbolic of my “enlightenment,” hahaha.

They just don’t care. That’s it. “The world isn’t fair; everyone is playing a dating game” is used to justify why they can play more “games.” Everyone is unconscious and selfish, therefore what I’m doing is justified. The world isn’t fair. Yet they go for the vulnerable to exploit, of course. “Men just have different preferences than women” means they don’t address the fundamental inhumanity of it. No one wants this type of disrespect if they genuinely cared about themselves or others. So, just saying “men and women operate differently” can completely avoid any attacks on human decency. That’s basically the whole schema: you want to get as much as you can for your ego, pleasure, fun, etc., while being as oblivious and unconscious as possible and getting away with it. And since you’re blinded, you feel like you can normally ask these questions without getting a reaction. And anyone who calls it out is dismissed as too deluded, as someone who wants to “water down the truth,” is too “SJW,” wants “PC control,” “isn’t getting laid,” is clueless, naive, etc. That also prevents any further reflection, because any criticism can simply be dismissed as evidence that the person criticizing them is the problem.

It's definitely subjective. My only argument is that it doesn't really sound like many of the people commenting have much experience maintaining or being in long-term relationships. A lot of what is being described seems to revolve around "quick fun" and short-term experiences. So I can understand that if that's your primary experience, it might be easier to make more idealized or fantasy-like statements about relationships and sexuality without having much experience with the realities of sustaining a long-term relationship.

I wonder if any of these people have even had a relationship that lasted a year or two and was successfully maintained in a healthy, emotionally stable way. A lot of this talk comes across as idealized without much experience. It sounds like businesspeople who have never successfully run a business for even three years dreaming about owning a multinational empire with dozens of product lines.

Hitler could also say, "Who told you life is fair? Look around." That doesn't mean his statements, ideology, or approach were fundamentally correct. People are calling out what they see as hypocrisy, contradictions, and untruthful claims. Validate your ego and have as much fun as you want. But when you've made this many strong, judgmental, and definitive statements across the forum, people are naturally going to point out the flaws, contradictions, and selfishness in what you're saying.

No one said it is. As I said above, you can absolutely have relationships, have sex, and even practice polyamory from a conscious angle while still approaching it from a more grounded and honest place. If you just want to fuck and have fun, sure. But please stop claiming that you're Tier 2, that you understand the truth of love, how women are, what women/men are, or that you're somehow acting honestly at all here. A lot of your rhetoric sounds very similar to old-school PUA/red-pill manipulation tactics: seeking out younger, less experienced women because they're easier to influence, hooking them, playing with their emotions, and failing to respect their sovereignty. Hoping to hook them into polyamory, keeping things deliberately loose so they can become attached while you avoid taking any real responsibility, and essentially being enslaved to other men's opinions, letting their judgments determine who you should be seen with and what kind of woman is "valuable." Again, as I said above, do whatever you want. I'm not attacking that. But please stop with these unbelievably harsh judgments of women and other men and their relationships. You don't actually care about truth here. You care about having fun and fucking around. That's it. You care about looking good socially with a hot girl, and you care about having your ego validated. Those things are all fine (to an extent) But when you come on here and start posting things about how women are all emotional children, emotionally damaged or "baggaged," irrational, immature, manipulative, attention-seeking, incapable of handling relationships responsibly, or somehow less valuable because of their age, experience, or body count, how they're unintelligent, selfish, or retarded, or how you specifically prefer them young, malleable, and easier to control, that's where I have an issue. And that's where I think a lot of the other members you've had "beef" with have an issue too.

He can admit he just wants to fuck and have fun, "burning through karma," as it is. The issue most people have is that he comes on the forum and starts claiming that he understands the "dark deep Truth of women, dating, and sexuality"; how he is truly masculine, a playboy, etc. Presents himself as deeply concerned with spirituality, truth, and returning to old, traditional, "holy" values. He judges women with an absurd level of harshness, reducing them to their age, sexual experience, body count, emotional maturity, and every other metric he uses to determine their worth. Yet after all of that extremely confident, boastful, and judgmental rhetoric, he comes here and retreats into: "Well, um, idk what I want >.< Fuck or Commit? and I'm scared of getting judged by other men... um, unsure... I want them malleable, and no hard emotions, no baggage for meee >.<" Sure. The forum will be whatever the forum will be. But you cannot be one thing and claim to be another. A lot of what people talk about here isn't spirituality. It's ego, which, again, is expected and completely normal. Just don't present yourself as something that you aren't. I'm not necessarily saying that you are doing this. I'm speaking specifically within the context of this post and AION.

Being vigilant of our infinite capacity for self-deception in all its forms: Dogma Black & white thinking Superstitious thinking Warping of our worldview due to ego & personal bias Narcissism Vanity Hedonism Group think & social conditioning Arm-chair philosophy Academic snobbery or technical argumentation Debate Acting superior Judging/criticizing others

Covert manipulation, "hooking" the girl even though you don't want to commit. Not respecting the fundamental sovereignty of a person. Wanting them as young, inexperienced, and clueless as possible so you can tamper with their sense of self, taste, preferences, and sovereignty. A high amount of social conformity and concern for how you appear to the social crowd of people, especially other men talking behind your back. Seeing another person as something to be "licked," "used," "showed off," or used as validation to gain social conformity from other men. Even more conformist. I don't understand how someone can claim they care about spirituality, truth, "the Tao," with this mentality. This is very clear. There is nothing wrong if you want to be polyamorous, but this is not "spirituality/honest/love" polyamory at all. All of these types of thinking go directly against everything Actualized.org and Leo stand for and spent years trying to define. You can definitely try to be polyamorous and still be loving, but this isn't it. The whole approach is fundamentally flawed.

Dude, how in the living fuck are you in a spirituality forum speaking like this 😂