Xonas Pitfall

Cuties!

Gotcha. But how do you reconcile classic "moral" questions with this approach? For example, take a lion that wants to hunt a gazelle in order to eat, and a gazelle that runs away to avoid being eaten. Is the lion being “untruthfully truthful” here? Should a lion somehow become vegetarian, even if that goes completely against its nature? It seems like, as long as you have finite creatures with finite resources and finite ways of keeping themselves alive, some degree of conflict or apparent hypocrisy is bound to happen. That’s why I originally said I’m not sure truth is the main issue here. It seems more like a question of incentives and social structures that shape survival and behavior. And again, just to clarify, I am by no means trying to justify any abuse. Trying to think it through.

They would act truthfully according to whatever their desires might be. Throughout human history, we basically see this pattern. If anything, the concept of morality seems like an emergent social structure that reinforces good behavior so societies can function. At the same time, we obviously still see people wanting to exploit or work around it to serve their own survival or self-interest. I think the issue comes when you move to a very high level of abstraction about what absolute truth entails. Then you run into the kinds of problems I mentioned earlier. But I’m not sure, honestly 😅

Just to preface, just in case, I’m not arguing! I’m trying to understand this for myself. I have the intuition that truth is good, right, and the highest value, but I’m trying to reason through it. My issue with “absolute truth” is as you mentioned in the video you said it might turn out that humans might not even deserve to live, or that at some point we should make room for other species, and that one should genuinely and honestly question that. The problem then is that no goal really remains “sacred” except the abstract notion of truth itself. But then how do you differentiate between, for example, a truthful desire to abuse a child? If reality allows such a person to exist and express themselves, then reality allows it. It becomes complicated with “shoulds.” I might think it is completely fine to eat chicken because I enjoy the taste, but the truth might be that chickens suffer deeply for it. My truth is that I enjoy the taste of chicken. Maybe even grass is Alien Consciousness on Salvia, and every time I walk on grass I am abusing a being, yet my truth is that I want to move from point A to point B. It’s tricky to understand 😅

Exactly. That’s why I’m not sure “truth” is really the right argument here. These people often seem to have a worldview that says something like: “I am above the rules,” “I simply don’t care about whatever harmony society prescribes.” They understand they benefit from other people’s good morals, but if they can exploit the system, they will. They may even create rules and structures, and position themselves in power, so they cannot be punished. As long as they can get away with it, they see no reason to stop. This doesn’t really seem like an issue of truth. It feels more like a question of why anyone should care about others at all. Absolute truth itself does not necessarily say “you should care about humans.” Absolute truth is more like “whatever is, is.” There is no universal law written into reality that determines whether humans should live or whether children should be protected or abused. (This is not me excusing any harm whatsoever.) I feel like these issues are much more systemic, shaped by education, behavior, and social reinforcement. How do we teach people not to exploit others when they can? Why should they? And how do we build structures that reinforce this?

Hey, just a curious question about the latest post. Would you even call the “elitists in power” situation a lack of care for truth? In a way, absolute truth is just absolute reality, so whatever happens simply happens. Given that these people do not care for others and prefer themselves over whoever is being abused, that is ultimately what is “true.” You could even argue, in a strange way, that they are being quite truthful about their desires. I’m not sure I would call it a lack of care for truth. It seems more like a lack of a properly incentivized system that encourages good behavior. I wouldn’t say the ultimate result of what happens reflects a fundamental lack of truth. It feels more like a fundamental lack of care for harmony, structure, or following rules. It’s the idea that if you can exploit the system, you should, or that you are entitled to do so. I also doubt that if you told these people they were not being truthful or good, they would care much. Their “truth,” you could say, is that they believe they deserve to exploit the system, and since they can, reality allows for it, because reality simply is. I’m not sure “truth” is the best word here. But I don't know. . .

It’s more that, in order to awaken, you need to “own” God. I don’t mean this in a controlling sense, the way the word “own” is usually used. It’s more like complete union with God, completely being it. You cannot truly awaken unless you bridge this gap between yourself and God. Otherwise, you keep separating yourself: me and God, self and the other, self and God, a part of God and God. One of the huge aspects of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between self and other. Respectively, another huge aspect of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between the part and the whole. Another huge aspect of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between smaller and bigger, between the contained and the container. This also includes the duality of human versus God, ego versus God. God is God, and God has to be God forever. There is nothing other to be apart from God. In that way, saying “I am God” is correct, since there is nothing other or else that you can be. Ultimately, the highest form of awakening is just complete union, or Isness. Just God. Complete, utter collapse of any definition, distinction, difference, or otherness. God, God, God. Is, is, is. Being, being, being. There really is no “smaller you,” no smaller ego, no human self, and no part of God. It is all just Isness, Pure Truth, God. I hope that makes sense.

Funky! 🤹‍♂️

Not true . . . ? Music history alone shows that what people find appealing changes drastically across cultures and time periods. Imagine introducing Taylor Swift’s music into an era shaped by classical concert traditions, court music, and formal composition standards. Compared to the musical language of the time, her melodies would likely be heard as harmonically simple and structurally repetitive, not refined nor serious. And if you place her music in periods where religion was far more pervasive and moral norms were stricter, the lyrical themes alone would likely be considered scandalous or inappropriate. What’s seen as normal pop today could easily have been dismissed as degenerate or offensive back then. I can easily imagine Stage Blue churchgoing grandmas and priests in the early 1800s reacting with disgust, thinking, “This is what our children listen to? Where are the holy bells? The chants? The worship of God, the sense of spiritual ascension? Where is the breath of fresh air and love? What is this? Is the devil himself Taylor Swift?” both melodically and lyrically. In the same way, many heterosexual men might feel repulsed by a postmodernist ad today.

Hard agree.

The purpose is to experience whatever you want to experience. If there were no meaning, would you kill yourself? If not, then whatever you had in mind is mostly what you want to do and experience. Meaning is self-given. You give meaning to things, so it makes sense that if you remove yourself from meaning and then ask whether there is any meaning, you are asking an exterior source that cannot give you something that is not meaningful to you. It is a flawed question to ask. You need a subjective “meaning giver,” which is you, to give meaning. If you cannot find it, then yes, everything is “meaningless.” It is like asking, “What is the point of a tool if I refuse to use it?” A hammer has no inherent purpose on its own. Its purpose appears only when someone wants to build or break something. Without a user, the tool is meaningless. Meaning does not come from the object; it comes from the one who uses it.

Happy! Happy! Happy! Happy! Happy!

#HardSkillIssue I say

I’d say most of the forum posts are very valuable to me. Always look forward to them I think Leo sometimes dramatizes or sensationalizes his statements. That initially put me off, since I tend to prefer more precisely defined, almost “autistically” structured language. Over time, though, once you adjust to the style and recognize that he is often aiming at a broader, big-picture lesson rather than strict definitions, the posts become yummy. I think he himself has also moved away from making extremely strong statements, like “I am the most awakened one, etc!”. The posts that consistently felt lower in quality were the masculinity and femininity ones. Those often rely on weak arguments, in my view. I actually wrote a post some time ago pushing back on many of the claims made there. Femininity & Truth (Parody of Leo's Blogpost) | Femininity & Truth (Debunk of Leo's Blogpost) I also had some issues with the Infinity of the Gods episode, mainly with how the “higher and lower infinity” and “an infinity of many infinities” were defined. I think there were several semantic problems that could have been easily avoided if the terms had been defined earlier on. It made things unnecessarily confusing. Still, it was an interesting contemplation that I’m open to revisiting it later Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 1] | Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 2] | Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 3]

Absolutely! Sometimes the most Loving move is to accept, especially when your position is weak, unproven, or shown to be wrong. Other times, the more Loving and intelligent response is to double down, particularly when you sense that something untrue is still lingering beneath apparent agreement. Union and division are both mechanisms for reaching Truth. When alignment is real, deepening unity makes sense. When alignment is built on falsehood, division becomes necessary so truth can emerge.

I also retract my past statement, even more Love, Beauty, Union, Non-Bias, & Openness! 🤗💗

We are witnessing Love, Beauty, Union, Non-Bias! 💗🤗

On a serious note, though, MBTI as a typing system is deeply flawed in how it actually assesses personality consistently. That said, I do think there is some truth to it, and I’d be fine with saying: a personality that is more introspective and genuinely values deconstruction and questioning is more likely to engage with this kind of work. I’d say that is more accurate attributing it to INXX types or just XNXX types, since this work is, by definition, more abstract and intuitive. You have to have a preference for that, or at least enough interest to pursue it rather than clicking off the video or stopping reading the material. I wouldn’t be that confident making any further assertions, to be honest. Limiting it to only INTP or INTJ is too narrow without research.

This is the On(e)ly Real Truth. 👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚

He is actively doing that! I’m confident that some of his blog post quotes are from his book. 😊

I think it is this: https://olympicophthalmics.com/itear-100/

Because people love to say and feeeeeeeeel like they are aligned with the highest values. That’s one of the reasons religion can be appealing to many (among other reasons). Something resembling truth, beauty, love, perfection, or goodness. I must align myself with that. But again, saying you are aligned with something and actually acting upon it are miles apart. Something you learn over and over again through others and through yourself.

Gotcha, I guess that’s what podcasts usually are... Oh well, enjoyable nonetheless!

Loved it! Although I’d suggest that in the future, it might help to have specific episodes or clearly defined sections of the podcast. For example, one section/episode could be explicitly framed as: “This is about truth as it is, no matter how impractical, immoral, or anti-human it might be. Truth is truth, and if you claim you want to know the truth, then we have to throw everything else away.” This section would be for the “truth psychopaths.” Then there could be another section/episode focused on moral implications, utility, and how to apply infinite truth and its aspects to a finite human system. I feel like a lot of the “counters” were simply due to the inherent implications of what truth might lead to. So there was a lot of, “Oh no, but we don’t want to talk about this if this is what it leads to.” It felt similar to how a child might think: “Oh no, let’s not talk about health unless it leads to me eating candy!” So if there were a separation like, “First, let’s just talk about what is, and then let’s see how to apply it,” that might have added more clarity and structure. Let's address what health is, and then we can find ways to make vegetables sweet. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed it. Awesome one! Super excited for more podcast appearances. Super fun, contemplative, and useful.

It's me! 🤗💗