Xonas Pitfall

I seem to have a ? of consciousness that’s difficult to understand and grasp. I have a decently easier time understanding during my trips the nature of truth, beauty, love, masculinity, and femininity. But I think one thing my mind still has trouble wrapping around is this reality versus consciousness chicken-and-egg problem, which I feel is holding me back. I wanted to contemplate it here to potentially hear my thoughts out loud and get some help with it. I think the issue I see is this: (I’m not saying I believe this necessarily, I’m just voicing my thoughts that seem to block me from fully realizing this.) I have trouble understanding: if, let’s say, reality came first: a spontaneous Big Bang or white hole or whatever, then there would be “no consciousness,” and consciousness would slowly emerge later. Now, once emerged, the mind is infinite and conscious, yes, but how does that imply it’s the absolute creator or generator of reality? Even if the mind is infinite, it could just be an infinite property of it, like how my hand can move in infinite ways, yet it’s still just a hand. The way I understand the consciousness-first argument is that the entire current moment is constructed by your consciousness, and to make sense of it, the ego creates stories, “you were born from your mother,” and “there were particles,” "mitosis, Big Bang, this is philosophy, "etc. Even if I accept the argument that everything needs a creator, it doesn’t mean that creator has to be consciousness. It could be a spontaneous clash of particles, and now universal patterns are emerging from it. And if you go with the requisite variety argument, that a complex system can only be created by a more complex system, that’s not really true. Parents, who are “less smart,” give birth to children who can be smarter. Humans created AI, which in certain tasks is infinitely more intelligent and complex than us. Also, if I go with the idea that everything has to be contained within consciousness to exist, I don’t see how that necessarily follows. It implies the ability to be observed, but it doesn't imply that it cannot exist or be created outside of consciousness. I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around this stuff. Any help deconstructing this would be great. Thank you! Which questions should I keep asking myself?

♥(ˆ⌣ˆԅ)

Yes! When I say 'property,' I just mean 'to be infinite.' What does it mean to be infinite? Then, you can derive conclusions from that!

I love this aspect so much! Completely agreed! 💛

LOL... Oooooops! Glad it still helped! 💛🔅

@Princess Arabia Yes! The word "whole" or "complete" is the most correct term; I’d encourage you to think of infinity as an "object" with "inherent properties." (Obviously, infinity, like God, is alive, since we are.) But this perspective helps clarify the logic. What I mean by "object" and "properties" is this: An apple is an object. Its properties are: red, sweet, juicy, round, and crunchy. One of God's (Object's) properties is being infinite. To be completely "infinite," God must integrate both the finite and the infinite. He connects (through Love/Union) all the finite parts, becoming both the finite and the infinite. Since it is all Him, it is all One (solipsism). It’s just that, inherently, God is One because there is nothing "other" than Him, outside of Him. Hence, Solipsism. To break it down further, imagine you have two boxes: Box 1, Air, Box 2 (This is three "components." Two boxes and the air (boundary) between them.) Now, God is both Box 1 and Air, and God is Box 2. So actually, you have: God, God, God. Once any boundary between them dissolves, all you get is God touching God, being God. By simple logic, when everything is the same, it means everything is one. This is what’s known as solipsism. We are all the same Big Self, God. Your lower self or ego isn’t God, but when you trip on something like 5-MeO-DMT, you may unite with the Big Self, God, meaning you, me, Leo, everything. One way to imagine this is by reflecting on when you were a baby. Often, you’d be completely unaware of boundaries between yourself, your mother, the objects you shouldn’t touch, or even how far your pain extends from yourself to the environment. Everything felt like a blur, united. As we grow, we try to maintain our sense of self, body, and ego, learning what forms are separate from us and what are not. This division creates our reality, which is why solipsism can seem so strange. Does this make it clearer?

Self-disrespect (self-hate), self-suppression, and self-guilt lead to depression. On the other hand, self-respect, self-love, self-confidence, and self-expression bring happiness. Happiness is directly proportional to your highest self being expressed and loved in reality (both by you and others). This is why, when you're in a high state, you feel the closest to your truest self (God) that you ever do in real life. You feel radiant, happy, and not blocked by your ego or suppressed. In contrast, when you're depressed, you're often reclusive, avoidant, unmoving, and hiding.

Impact on whom? To what? What are the key answers you'd like to know? 😊

🧘🌸

Have a long way to go to embody all! But, excited for all the "trips" to come! 😋

Yup! Tautological simply means self-referentially true. There are things that are what they are in their essence. They don't need anything "outside" or "other" to define them, or verify their truthfulness. To show you a simple example: A greenhouse is a greenhouse. (You don’t have to verify anything in this sentence, or anything outside of it, because it follows base logic: A = A.) Goodness is good. A circle is a circle. Or, you can have a tautology that takes extra steps, but it’s still a tautology, like: A bachelor is an unmarried man. All squares have four sides. A triangle has three sides. A bachelor, by definition, is an unmarried man, so: > An unmarried man is an unmarried man. Squares, by definition, have four sides, so: > All things that have four sides have four sides. You get the point. These things might seem silly or trivial, but this is how reality works. Reality has to be all that is real, because if a thing were not real, it wouldn’t exist, or it cannot be. Hence, reality is all. All is Everything. Everything must include everything, so it cannot exclude anything outside of it. Since it includes everything, it must be one, as it contains all. This leads to solipsism. Since it is all, and I myself as a finite thing can keep including +1, +2, +3 forever, it means infinity must be included in reality. Infinity is real. Since it is all, it must be both infinite and finite; this is non-dualism. Since it is all, it must be ever-present; hence, you get omnipotence and omnipresence. And so on, so on... As you can see, these traits and properties describe God or Reality. Now you can just notice that there are things that are "tautological". Goodness can only truly be good if it’s good for the purpose of being good. Beautiful things are beautiful in and of themselves. The most unconditional love is the love that just wants to love for the sake of being loving. It’s like they are their own fuel, their own creator; there’s no causal effect. They are their own effect and result. This is how God functions. When you "awaken," you just realize that this is how things "are", how it must function. Let me know if that helps!

No, no! Sorry, to clarify, I never implied that you think this. I was just giving a cartoonish example to understand what you actually believe in. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that men need help maturing; I just don’t understand why that involves disagreeing with what I said above. Men can mature without that preventing women from also doing things outside traditional roles. This doesn’t have to be a mutually exclusive thing.

But what is your stance on this? Do you think they are intellectually inferior and should only be "in the kitchen"? What do you actually believe in? What’s the comfortable gender difference or change you’d like to see?

Can you help me understand what you wanted to say with this? I’m not denying that men are struggling. Life is hard. But, what’s your solution? Should we beat women down so men feel better about themselves? I don’t understand why my point can’t be valid while also acknowledging that men are suffering as well. In this post, I was simply acknowledging areas where women are neglected, as they also experience their own difficulties. If the thread were about how to help men with their "mediocre" lives, I’d write different things, of course. I want to help both genders.

@OBEler I don’t have much information on that; I’d have to verify those statistics. Thank you for sharing! But nonetheless, as I stated, I don’t necessarily care who performs better, since my goal is just to enable smart and ambitious people (no matter their gender) to do the business and work they want to do. The reason I shared those stats was to show that women are certainly capable of excelling in both academics and business, contrary to popular belief, “red-pill” ideas that women just want to cook, clean, and do makeup, and are useless and unable to learn anything else. The original point remains that they can be capable in both academics and business. My intention and concern with these kinds of posts is that, while it’s fine to have an understanding that genders are different, we shouldn’t overly stereotype to the point where we say things like, “Women cannot succeed in business unless there are men around”, "Women are too stupid for study, academics, logical and rational thinking." If I evaluate the increasing number of capable women in business, academics, and education, many of whom are achieving far more than would have been believed possible in history, it becomes clear that this isn’t really a gender issue. It’s more about enabling people, regardless of gender, to go out into the world, explore, and pursue their goals. Ultimately, I just want men who want to succeed to do so, and women who want to succeed to do so as well. Whether a man or a woman might perform better overall, I don’t really care, because people have different interests and ambitions. There are men who are so unambitious that they never want to do anything with their lives, and I’d gladly have a woman run a business she’s passionate about instead of them. Similarly, there are women who are equally unambitious or uninspired, and I’d be just as happy to have a man do the work. I just don’t want to enable or disable anyone unnecessarily, if that makes sense, and I worry these kinds of examples and narratives do that subconsciously in our society, so I wish to correct them. Hopefully that makes sense!

This is currently happening across all education, college-level included. Higher Graduation Rates for Women: According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), women have outpaced men in terms of graduation rates from colleges and universities in many countries, including the U.S. In the U.S., women now earn more than 57% of all bachelor's degrees and a similar proportion of graduate degrees. Men, on the other hand, have shown a decline in college attendance rates over the past few decades. Academic Performance: A report by the American Council on Education indicates that women consistently perform better academically in high school and college in terms of GPA and test scores. The research points to a variety of factors, including women being more likely to attend college and finish their degree compared to men. International Comparisons: In several countries, such as the U.S., Canada, and many parts of Europe, women outperform men in education. In fact, women represent a growing majority in college populations, with countries like the U.S. and the U.K. seeing a steady increase in female students in higher education over the last few decades. Additionally, female-led companies often have steadier, long-term growth. MSCI reported that companies led by women saw 10‑point better returns on equity over time. Male-led companies may pursue faster growth, but often at the cost of higher risk and volatility. In contrast, female-led companies often achieve more sustained and stable growth. During crises like the pandemic, firms led by women were perceived as less risky, had better credit quality, and weathered downturns more reliably than male-led firms. A large-scale study of nearly 99,400 global firms found that companies led by women consistently outperformed male-led ones on exploitation metrics, such as productivity, innovation, and capacity utilization, but showed lower growth in sales and aggressive expansion behaviors like asset acquisition. Now, I don’t necessarily care about who is outperforming whom; my point is that it was once believed women were absolutely incapable, stupid, irrational, and too dumb to even pursue any kind of education, let alone college-level work, PhDs, or CEO positions. The idea that they could outperform men was considered insane. That’s what I mean when it comes to over-stereotyping. I agree that there are gender differences, but we have to be careful not to make mistakes like this one that heavily overstep and damage society overall. We need intelligence, and the more we tell people they’re not meant to be smart or capable of survival, the more harm we do, not just to that gender, but to society as a whole. If a woman is intelligent, we should encourage her, because we need more bright minds to elevate society. These narratives can be extremely damaging and subtly creep into our subconscious. You probably don’t believe that black men are somehow inferior to white men, right? I’d hope not. Yet, no one is using the argument, “Oh, why aren’t there any black inventors or scientists? It always seems to be predominantly white people who are seen as the innovators! This is why white supremacy is the truth! White men are superior to black men!" We often forget this argument when it comes to women and how much they’ve been suppressed throughout history.

I think what she meant is that a lot of the male generalizations and judgements about women are a bit "cock-blocked," haha. For example, what I've said above: It’s more appealing to puff yourself up as this strong, rational, intelligent man while portraying her as this helpless, lost, and stupid damsel who desperately needs your leadership, even though she might actually have a lot of intelligence in that area. Also, as I said above, please be careful with nitpicking examples. I can also do this: Oh my god... See!? Clearly, women are often far more capable and adaptable when it comes to handling life’s challenges. (Ironic, of course! ) And just to clarify, no one here is saying that we don’t need each other, absolutely not. I believe gender harmony and synergy are some of the most beautiful things ever. The issue here (at least mine) is labeling "stupid, dysfunctional" behavior as feminine when they don’t need to be, which does a disservice to women. This, in turn, causes people to subconsciously lose respect and start believing things like, “Women don’t like technology at all; women are drama queens; women are useless in survival situations." That's all.

This argument makes very little sense. It’d be the same as if I said, “Oh... wait until a strong army invades your country, and you'll see how little men care about video games, higher philosophy, and truth-seeking. Wait until a strong army invades your country, and you'll see how little women care about doing makeup and shopping.” No shit, haha. In such a scenario, men would likely hyper-focus on physical strength, weapons, and strategy, while women might rely on either developing strength and similar strategies themselves for survival or leveraging other strategies, such as seduction, psychological manipulation, or deceit, or depending on men for protection. When there’s war, people fall into survival strategies that are more beneficial to them, since they are desperate and need to survive. The modern world is all about making us feel safer so we can explore more and gain a higher understanding, intelligence, and diversity, which in turn elevates society further. Actualized.org would have never been able to exist in a war zone. But that’s the whole point of human evolution: you create more technology and safety nets so people can explore beyond their natural instincts and move beyond mere survival, thus expanding consciousness. No one here is denying that there are gender differences; the question is how much of them are actual and whether we are overly stereotyping things that shouldn't be stereotyped. A good example of this is the education system. Throughout history, there was a widespread belief that women were too stupid, irrational, and incapable of serious thinking. Now, with women outperforming men in education, the narrative has shifted to, “Oh, of course! You’re just being yielding and pleasing to the teacher; that’s a ‘girl thing!’” In reality, nothing about the education system has changed over the years. This shift in narrative when it doesn’t work in men’s favor is a perfect example of how "stereotyping" can go wrong.

Upvote!

Bless You! 🤍

Thank... you?

Precisely so!

@OBEler Got it! Just wanted to offer some advice, as I don’t think your intent was malicious. I simply want to highlight how your presentation might come across and where things could have been framed differently. Please acknowledge this in your future posts and be cautious not to pick out examples that fit self-fulfilling biases. It can mess with your worldview, causing you to keep finding examples that support your narrative. Just look at the whiny red-pill podcasts that focus only on men’s issues and complain about how no women want them. This is equivalent to finding women who constantly talk about how important women are in science, focusing on their gender instead of addressing the actual scientific research. The reason you received negative backlash wasn’t necessarily because you were presenting something "controversial," but because it came from a biased perspective. For instance, in your original post, if you wanted to make your point effectively, you should have found examples where both men and women act foolishly in their own ways. That would have been a more balanced assessment of how we all act foolishly, albeit in different ways, to highlight the differences between men and women (which you initially wanted). Instead, it seemed like you were saying that any intellectual pursuit by women is for selfish reasons or done in a "cringeworthy" manner, while men, as you put it, "don't do fake drama", "love actual technology." I’m just saying to be careful, because this stuff can easily creep into your subconscious. Leo himself has pointed this out in many ideology-based videos: you are thinking you're just telling the truth, and people don't like how the truth sounds, so that's why they are attacking you. From your perspective, you see these points as true, and it can feel like women and "soft men" are just attacking you because they want to live in their delusion. This, in turn, reinforces your worldview. But as you saw in this thread, both genders attack in genuinely foolish ways, just expressed differently. Hope I’m making sense. Let’s say I wanted to present the differences between men and women, and then I show examples of guys wasting their lives on OnlyFans, playing video games, having no jobs, raging on 4chan forums, and being Trump supporters. Then, I present women as hardworking, self-sacrificial angels and mothers. I can claim I care about the truth all I want, but the examples I’ve chosen to focus on and nitpick clearly show that I have a biased perspective I want to present, or perhaps unconsciously believe in. That’s why it would be expected of me to receive backlash, since I’m claiming to care about the truth, yet presenting such a biased perspective. So, if you ever engage in this topic again, please be careful how you present your original argument and the types of examples you give! Personally, I have no issue with your premise, and I do notice the differences myself. However, it’s important that these differences are presented fairly and truthfully. Often, people fall into the classic trap of equating masculinity with rationality and femininity with stupidity or irrationality, which is an unfair assessment. It’s not hard to see that both genders can act irrationally in different ways.

@OBEler My issue with comments and posts like these is that I’m not entirely sure what’s meant to be said or implied. For example, the initial post clearly nitpicked the worst examples of women in podcasting and science (if you genuinely want to look, you’ll find plenty of quality female podcasts and scientists). So, I’m not sure what the original intent was here. Are we implying that women are incapable of intelligent pursuits? A similar issue arises with the claim that women are dramatic. It was debunked by showing how both men and women can be equally dramatic in their own ways above. Was the original intent to say that women are too emotional or dramatic to think rationally? If so, has the opinion changed now? I’d like to understand the subconscious and background implications being placed on both genders from you here.