Xonas Pitfall

Self-Love (Self-Preservation, Stability, Security - Exploration, Expansion, Ego-Dissolution) Conservative-Liberal → Tradition-Progress → Stability-Flexibility Safety-Expansion → Security-Growth → Comfort-Exploration Ego-No Ego → Selfishness-Selflessness → Individualism-Collectivism Rational-Emotional → Logic-Intuition → Reason-Feeling Practical-Idealistic → Realistic-Visionary It's another duality, you are very correct! This concept is reflected in Maslow's hierarchy of needs: the necessity of establishing self-boundaries to preserve your ego and meet survival needs. Without these, you can become unstable and unsafe—because in order to experience life and grow, you first need a secure foundation. If these basic needs aren't met, life inevitably forces you to confront them. On a practical level, this looks like falling behind on rent, declining health, insufficient finances for necessities, or lacking social support to stay grounded. One reason childhood often feels like a happy and magical time (assuming the experience was generally positive) is that your core needs for security and self-preservation were met by your parents. You had a loving safety net that allowed you to explore freely—everything was new and exciting, not weighed down by the worries that come later in life. This balance between security and exploration is something worth striving for throughout life. However, focusing too much on comfort and self-preservation can be limiting, especially in a world that is constantly changing. Reality is fundamentally impermeant. If you ignore external realities (for instance, assuming your job is safe from AI disruption and not staying informed), you risk becoming unprepared to care for yourself in the future. Once your foundation is stable, you can then turn your attention to self-actualization, transcendence, and the exploration of new possibilities. Growth becomes a natural process, as the core of who you are seeks to continuously expand and understand itself more deeply. You just need to allow it the freedom to do so, without the weight of constant worry of self-preservation. --- When I refer to self-preservation and self-barriers, I mean both mental and physical aspects. These concepts reflect in everything you are. There’s no reason why it has to be a constant battle between self-preservation and expansion—they support each other. For example, if you desire to go on a five-month retreat for consciousness exploration, your "self-barrier" instinct will naturally kick in. Rather than viewing it as an enemy, think of it as a protective, yet supportive, voice like a concerned parent who's being realistic and pragmatic about your approach. If this desire persists, the question to ask yourself is: "Okay, I really want to expand my consciousness in this way, so what do I need to do?" You’ll need to inform your close relationships about your absence, arrange for someone to check in on you in case you lose your mental balance, and prepare for personal mental challenges you may face such as boredom, lack of perseverance, and mental strength. Then, plan how to overcome these obstacles. Treat any incoming self-expanding desires as clues for what you're motivated to do next. Use your self-preserving knowledge and past experiences to ensure you expand properly, safely, and without harm.

First of all, I grasp the duality of selflessness and selfishness. This question is on a more practical, grounded "human-relative" level. I often hear people say that selflessness is the best way to live your life, to truly align with happiness and fulfillment, and to give yourself in service to others. But I'm not sure that's what I'd personally advise. I think "authentic alignment" might be a better way to phrase it. A part of me really enjoys the idea of a self-expressing artist who creates masterpieces out of a sheer "selfish" drive to express their feelings and emotions, or an inventor advancing modern technology out of a genuine curiosity for growth, intellect, and a deeper understanding of reality. Or a comedian who amuses himself endlessly with jokes, regardless of their reception by others. None of these scenarios require acts of service or selflessness toward others, yet they seem like beautiful ways of living. You could even argue that some of the most helpful or useful things for humanity come from this raw, authentic drive—not because they are created with others in mind, but because the creator is purely driven by personal passion and curiosity. I'm not saying selflessness is bad or that I advocate for people to be more selfish. I think selflessness is beautiful. However, part of me wants to elevate the form of selfishness mentioned above and make it equally beautiful, if not more so. Perhaps I sense some imbalance in society's overemphasis on an "other-centered" mindset, to the point where it blinds us to the beauty that can emerge from self-amusement and authentic self-expression. How would you define these things? If you had to choose a word to describe the direction one should take for the best, most fulfilling life, would it be more selflessness, more authenticity, more awareness, or something else? I think I'm also asking this because I've heard Leo talk about selflessness in a very elevated way, which makes sense. However, I do wonder how this would play out practically. Playing devil's advocate for a moment—who would you say feels more fulfilled and at peace: a monk sitting alone under a Bodhi tree endlessly exploring consciousness without serving any other human beings; a writer locked away, spending day after day expressing their philosophies out of pure personal drive; or a nurse who adores giving herself in service to others, healing them? Would you say all of these people could be equally happy, or would the nurse (or any other example of a highly service-oriented life) be better off because it's supposedly more "selfless and giving"? I guess I'm trying to understand the semantics of the word "selflessness." Could it also include people acting out of pure personal drive, or does selflessness have to involve service to others? And how do we distinguish between higher and lower drives, or between what’s truly good and beneficial versus what's simply selfish? Thank you!

@Keryo Koffa Could you elaborate on this a little bit more? I find the statement interesting . . .

People of Springfield, please don't eat my cats Why would you do that? Eat something else People of Springfield, please don't eat my dog Here's a catalogue of other things to eat 🐶They're eating the dogs (Woah, woah, woah, woah) 🐶 🐱They're eating the cats (Meow, meow, meow, meow)🐱 🐈🐕‍🦺They're eating the pets of the people that live there🐈🐕‍🦺 🦮They're eating the dogs (Woah, woah, woah, woah)🦮 🐕‍🦺🐱They're eating the cats (Meow, meow, meow, meow)🐱🐕‍🦺 They're eating the pets of the people that live there💛

@Evelyna Thank you! Beautiful answer. 🤗💛

@LoseYourvelf Never! We are merely expanding your Consciousness, Lose Yourself in the Breaking.

@Keryo Koffa💢 Yₒ, ₖₑᵣyₒ 💥ₖₒffₐ, cₒₙcₒcₜᵢₙg ₖₒffₐ’ₛ bᵣₑw,💗 ₛₜₑₑₚₑd ᵢₙ ₑₙᵢgₘₐ wᵢₜₕ ₐ cᵣyₚₜᵢc ₖₒffᵢₙ’ cₗᵤₑ! ₜₒ ₖₒffₐ’ₛ fᵤₛᵢₒₙ, ₐ dₐᵣₖ ᵣₒₐₛₜ ₛᵤbₗᵢₘₑ, bᵣₑwᵢₙg ₘᵢₛcₕᵢₑf wᵢₜₕ ₐ ₖₒffᵢₙ’ bᵢₜₑ ₒf cᵣᵢₘₑ! ₚᵣₑₚₐᵣₑ ₜₒ ₛₐᵥₒᵣ ₜₕₑ ₑₛₛₑₙcₑ ₒf ₖₒffₐ’ₛ ᵣₑᵥₑₙgₑ! 💫n 🥳 Liminal 😁 Psychic 🥰 ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🖤 Synergy ☯ Your ❄ Fractal 💗 Heart Hyper-Space ! 𓂙 𓃦 𓂀 Koffa Means more or less idiot but in a loving way. You usually say that to your best friend or a better friend. This word is more often used in the area of the austrian alps. Mike goes skateboarding without skate shoes and skateboard Chris: Haha you koffa.❤️

Hmm... I'd suggest setting tangible goals. To be "world-class charismatic" would imply influencing and wooing people in general, not just those you want to be in a relationship with or pick up. Although, that depends on what you want out of it. What would a world-class charismatic person be able to do to consider yourself one? 1. Would they have a large audience with an almost cult-like following? (In that case, starting some sort of social media would be the best practice.) 2. Would it be fluency in speech while exuding confidence? (Then, honestly, recording your interactions with others or even talking to yourself on a recording, almost like a podcast, might be the best approach. You could mirror people you want to talk like and compare how they sound to how you sound.) A goal could be: I want to get to the point where, when I listen to my own speech, I feel as equally mesmerized, inspired, or wowed as when I listen to [insert a world-class charismatic person]. 3. Would it be how quickly you can get someone to fall in love with you? How would that look? Obsession? Them confessing their love first? Wanting to have sex on the first date? A goal could be: I want to be able to pick up two girls by the end of the night. 4. You could also set more concrete goals such as: Can I make five people cry from joy or laughter this month? What about this week? Can I help seven people change their lives or get into a new career in three months? 5. Maybe it's about humor. Maybe it's about how easily you can blend into a random social group and stand out as a leader. How many people have you seen actively mirror your behavior or even outwardly admit they'd like to learn from the way you express yourself? The more precisely specific (even "autistic") you make your goals, the more you'll be able to track your growth. Recording or getting outside feedback is crucial as well. There's no reason why you'd need to do this outside of a relationship unless you specifically mean charismatic in the sense of charming women and sleeping with as many as possible, which is also a valid goal. However, if you just want to be more charismatic, then being in a relationship won't necessarily suppress that. Good Luck! 💛

@Sugarcoat Thank you! Would you mind if I asked what things tend to bring you the most fulfillment, and if you've noticed any patterns in the past? Where would they fall on the selfless-selfish scale? 🐾🐈💛

@Sugarcoat Fully agreed. I suppose the question is more about the individual’s focus. People often say they feel happiest when their focus is on others, in servitude, or dedicated to some higher cause. So, the question would be: Would that leader feel more fulfilled by improving themselves or by serving and helping others grow, or could both be equally fulfilling? Why do you think people tend to place so much importance on service and selflessness, if both selfish and selfless behavior can be fulfilling?

@Evelyna Love the answer! Very similar thoughts here. May I ask further, what type of fulfillment and satisfaction do you think come from each of these "roles"? Are they things like: "I love how free and expressive I can be with my artwork," "I feel in tune with my creativity," "I love helping guide my children to a better life," "I love supporting my husband," "I love feeling like a good person," "I love seeing my friends grow"? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what you "tell yourself" when you feel happy about the choices you make, if possible, of course! How many of them sound more "selfish" (self-validating) and how many of them sound more "selfless" (other-serving)?

This is just an assumption, but a lot of times, people who become overly obsessed in terms of love toward someone often hold very strong values around relationships or possibly have anxious attachment or other attachment issues. Over-obsession can result from this, or there may simply be a negative pattern where the relationship slowly consumes their life and becomes their main and only source of happiness. You even mentioned it yourself - it feels like infatuation, and it’s probably very addictive and overwhelming. The issue with this is that, over time, people can neglect or diminish other aspects of themselves as the relationship progresses. So, even if at the start you seemed like "relationship material," as you start feeling this obsession, you become more imbalanced. This imbalance can make even slight indications of unreciprocated feelings or obsession seem extremely hurtful, especially since you've placed yourself in such a vulnerable state where much of your happiness depends on them. You may also begin to hyper-fixate—what if they don’t feel the same? People with these tendencies also tend to be attracted to those who seem more independent, avoidant, or self-sufficient in the relationship. The more attached you become, the more you feel the polarity between your own emotional investment and their independence, which makes it more painful for you. Please be mindful of this pattern and check whether you possess any of these traits. If so, you may find yourself repeating the same cycle in all your relationships, constantly chasing that "high" of infatuation and hoping someone will reciprocate. While it's fine to desire reciprocity, it’s crucial to seek it from the right people. Again, this is not a gender issue. In fact, I believe women often struggle with this more than men due to social conditioning to be agreeable, anxious-attachment prone, and neurotic. As a result, many women may report experiencing this same trend: “All I see is women being infatuated, while the men are the selfish assholes who don’t care about us and just want to use us for sex.” But this is not about gender - it’s the classic dynamic of dependent vs. independent, anxious vs. avoidant, borderline vs. narcissist. It’s a one-sided relationship where one person is far more emotionally invested than the other. You need to learn how to recognize when someone reciprocates your feelings and deal with rejection. If you don’t like the types of people you’re attracting, either "increase" your value or expose yourself to more people, dating is a numbers game, just like many things in life. As for the feeling you mentioned of "loving them simply for being them, loving just their presence and existence", you need to understand where that feeling comes from. You’ll see that everything is just values stacked on each other. You said it yourself in the post even: So, that feeling of "loving them for who they are" is just the result of multiple layers of value (whether it’s their looks, personality, life views, experiences, or humor) stacking up until you reach a threshold where you tolerate most of what they do, or simply feel happy thinking about being around them. Do you think you’d get this feeling if they didn’t have that combination? Probably not. They are already exhibiting massive value by hitting all those key points, and you start admiring them and how they operate. Do you think they, "as they naturally are," had all of these categories perfected? No, not at all. They had to stop being whatever they were "naturally" and go against themselves to become better. I’m sure most people can impress someone if they feel solid in all three of the categories you mentioned. You, yourself, included. You just have to be in front of the right women. Ask yourself: when I say I want to be valued for who I am, what is the "me" that I want to be valued for? What traits or aspects of yourself would you want others to see and be attracted to? Once you have a rough idea, you’ll want to try and expose yourself to those types of women. If you don’t know who they are, then you either need to ask others what they value about you or gain more social experience to see what patterns emerge with the people who like you, and be careful (!) not just the people you like. You need to recognize what aspects of you captivate others to begin healing from this. Getting stuck in a negative mindset will only hurt you in the long run, please try to fix it. ❤

Perceived Lack of Autonomy or Control, Isolation and Loneliness, Persistent Mental and Physical Health Issues, Suffering and Hopelessness, Fear of a Meaningless Existence, etc. People who consider suicide often experience a pattern of inescapable suffering. Imagine being abducted and taken to a secluded island where you know no one will ever find you for 150 years, and you are tortured every day. Wouldn't you be tempted to end it all to escape the unending agony? This is similar to what people who feel trapped by their suffering experience. They feel as though there is no escape, no end to the pain, and no way to change their situation, which can make the idea of ending their life seem like the only option.

Yes! Let me help you contemplate it! You mentioned before that you believe God should follow logic, and I still fully agree with you. The following will be purely definitional logic. The very moment I define Light as something, I also define it as not being something else. At that moment, I created the notion of what Light is and what it is not. Can you see how the "absence of Light" is a necessity for defining Light? 🔅 Imagine a completely unbiased object that can be anything and nothing, and then I point to it and say, "Have the property of being white!" Suddenly, I've created a "definition" for it. It is white, and not anything else. 1 = 1; it cannot equal 1 = 2, 1 = 3, or 1 = 4.56. It must be what it is. Therefore: Everything = Everything. And what is Everything? Again, every single thing—both Light and Dark. Both inclusion and absence. The concept of "Everything" is unique because it inherently contains a paradox. Most concepts are straightforward in their definitions: a human is distinctly a human, a number is specifically a number, and a bird is clearly a bird. However, "Everything" is different. To truly be "Everything," it must include all things and all possibilities, even those that seem to contradict or oppose it. This means that "Everything" must encompass not only all things that exist but also the idea of what does not exist. In other words, "Everything" must include both itself (all that exists) and what it is not (the concept of non-existence or absence), because if it didn't, it wouldn't truly be everything. It can be challenging to grasp because it requires a leap in logic that allows for contradiction to be part of a whole. Another way to illustrate this is to think about the concept of an empty set. An empty set is defined as a set that contains nothing. But if we say it contains "nothing," isn't there still the concept of "nothingness" within it? If there truly were nothing, then the idea of an empty set itself would not exist. Thus, even the idea of "nothing" paradoxically suggests that there is "something"—in this case, the concept of "nothingness" itself. Just get your brain thinking through paradoxical concepts and see what you come up with. The more you get comfortable with these logic patterns, the closer you will get to understanding the fundamental necessities that define God! Good luck! 💛 Again, this is pure logic and playing with definitions—there is no personification happening.

Thank you! I'll try to cover all your questions and answer them as best as I can. There is just a tiny leap in logic you need to make, and you will get your answer! If you understand the idea that God needs to experience limitations to fully understand or embody everything, then that becomes a condition of being God. This means you cannot have God without limitations. For God to be God and fully embody "everythingness," He must embody both limitations and the absence of limitations. That is why limitations exist. Limitations aren’t just random things that happen to exist, requiring God to go through them to be fully Himself. They exist precisely because God needs them to be fully Himself. Think of the cheesy quote: "You cannot have light without darkness." The moment you define something as one thing, you immediately place limitations on it and impose conditions on what it must be. At the same time, you create two things: what it is and what it isn't. If I define light as bright, white, striking, piercing, etc., I am instantly limiting light to only that. So, what isn't light? That which isn't bright, striking, white, or piercing, which we happen to call "darkness". Definition = Limitation = Conditionality = Bias The moment you define something as all-knowing and perfect, you create a separate entity that is not all-knowing and perfect. The moment you create or define something as fully aware, you create something equally unaware. Now, since God’s only definition is that which is All or Everything, He is bound to be Everything or All. However, since everything means containing all dualities that are ever created, He must experience both limitless and limiting experiences. I’d potentially suggest contemplating more about the nature of dualities and how they interplay with each other if it feels tricky to grasp. But the main takeaway is that the moment you define something, there is a fundamental 'split,' creating two entities or concepts: that which it is and that which it isn't. This is why limitations exist: because God itself is the 'primal' definition (limitation) as "That which is All, that which is Everything." By defining this, you immediately create a split—All and Nothing, Everything and Something, Infinite and Finite. However, since God is All, He must contain both. All dualities that exist and can ever exist. It’s very paradoxical yet logical. I’d say here you are attributing more to God than necessary. Just as you asked me, "Why would God need to experience limitations?" I’d ask why the purpose must be Divine or "deeper". What would you define as Divine? What answer would be satisfactory enough to be considered "Divine" or "Worthy of God" or "Intelligent Design"? Since the question you asked is more from a "human domain," which is a more relative, survival-based domain, this question can be answered in several ways. Think about failing a grade and ask me, yourself, or God: Why? Why would God put me through this suffering? Why God? What’s the Divine or deeper purpose here? What answer would satisfy you? You could answer from the "God or more Absolute Domain": "I wanted to experience what it is like to be a human at this exact moment, to understand what it means to try at this 'human concept called school,' go through a 'test,' and experience these human emotions of sorrow, loss, and defeat. It’s an expression of me I want to understand." Or the answer could be: "Because you repeatedly refused to study, you didn't adapt enough to the knowledge required for this grade, so you must learn more. The suffering you are feeling now is a direct consequence of your actions." Or: "You must experience what it is to suffer to fully get motivated and overcome your limitations. You can do more than this. Once you pass this grade and test, you will feel happier and more fulfilled. This is the purpose of the failure—to help you grow." It’s the same question with hands and fingers. I could give you an answer like: "Because God wanted to experience what it is like to be this particular species called a human, right at this moment, and all that entails." "Because humans are a species that evolved for millions of years, and due to certain environmental and genetic factors, they have evolved to have hands with five fingers on average. This configuration seems to be optimal for survival, dexterity, and movement. The purpose of your exact number of fingers is to aid in your survival." It’s just important not to fall into the trap of the "puddle analogy": "This is like imagining a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well; it must have been made to have me in it! It must serve such a great purpose for me!'" In reality, our hands and bodies are probably not perfect and will continue to evolve in the future. God is simply unbiasedly observing, experiencing, and understanding all of it through us. Again, here I’d challenge you to define what would be Divine for you, or what it means to be Divine, and how that plays out in reality or through logical reasoning. Be careful not to attribute only positive and good qualities to God, as humanity has often fed us these notions without fully considering them. If God is infinitely benevolent and selfless, that would imply He has no self or inherent bias. What does this actually look like in practice? Consider a gazelle being chased by a lion, with both metaphorically praying to God for help: "I cannot be eaten by the predator to survive," versus "I must eat this prey to survive." Who does God choose to aid? If God is infinitely benevolent and provides you with infinite access to free food in your next lifetime, you might start taking the food for granted, becoming greedier and overeating, and eventually dying of obesity. How do you evaluate which actions are good or bad, benevolent or malevolent? Can a seemingly malevolent action be more beneficial and caring in the long run? You can begin to see the nuance in this and how intertwined these concepts are. Binary notions of good and evil are not always the best model for evaluating reality. Labeling God as someone who would only engage in "stereotypically" good actions is unrealistic in the context of the human world.

Hmm, how so? You mentioned: I completely agree with you! Think with me through this logic: If God is everything, what is everything by definition? You can think of it as a set that contains all possible 'things'—it's in the name, right? Every thing. Every single thing. If I have two sets: One that has everything: all iterations of God, including a God who forgets and remembers, who is weak and remembers He's a God, who is weak and fully forgets He's a God, who is powerful and remembers He is powerful, and who is limited and doesn't know He is powerful, and a God who is limited and knows He is powerful. A second set that also has everything but has no instances where God ever forgets He is a God, even if He is weak, limited, all-powerful, all-knowing, or even a fragile baby ant. Which set is truly the complete set, the one that fully encompasses everything—the first or the second? Logically, how could one limitation be more or less relevant, necessary, or unnecessary than another? For everything to be truly everything, it must contain every single thing; therefore, no limitation is fundamentally unnecessary or less important than another. - Take a set of all whole numbers up to ten: The first set is: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} The second set is: {1, 2, 5, 6, 7} Which set contains all the numbers? Is excluding 3 a less significant omission than excluding 7? What about 4—is including 4 more important than including 10? All elements are equally important; without each number, the entire set would be incomplete. All ten whole numbers are required to meet the definition of a complete set.

They aren't limitations; they are a part of what God is. If God were only that which remembered God, what would He not be? A God who can forget He is a God. Plus, wouldn't you say it is limiting for God to only want to remember Himself? Why desire to be only a God who is always all-powerful, always conscious, always above all? What if He wanted to both remember and forget, to be both powerless and powerful? Wouldn't He, in this instance, be more omnipotent, accepting, and 'grander'? A God who only desires to remain an all-powerful God would have quite a big bias toward power. A God who wants to keep His superpowers intact at all times is a God who is extremely biased toward superpowers, a God who fails to see the beauty in non-powerful and unconscious things. Which version of God feels more limited to you? Yours, who only desires to remain in His state of godhood, or mine, who desires to experience, be, and understand both the weak and the powerful, both the conscious and the unconscious? Just another thought experiment! 💙

Correct! Although I am unsure what you mean by 'but,' I agree with you! This is precisely why God manifests in both limited and unlimited ways—He is present in everything, both limited and unlimited. Yay! 💛

"Stay" would imply a temporal notion (time), where He is first whole (one with the oneness) and then fragmented (broken into limited forms). However, when you say "God is everything," He already is everything. Again, He cannot stop being Himself because that's all there is. Limited or fragmented forms, or forms away from oneness, are still a part of oneness. Oneness would be incomplete or not "One" or "Whole" if it did not include them. Go through this thought experiment: If I am everything but something, then I am not everything. I am everything that is missing a thing. I am everything but that thing; therefore, I am not whole, one, and complete. If God is EVERYTHING but an apple, then Him missing being an apple is exactly what would make Him unwhole and incomplete. I hope I am making sense. Limited forms are what complete oneness; without them, God wouldn't be God, and that's why He exists in both states of oneness and limitation. It has nothing to do with amusement or boredom but with fully being Himself! The thinking is very non-dual, but that's the domain God operates in.

Haha, I am! I am not getting my logic from Leo; I am considering what God would entail by definition. You yourself are saying, "God has the capacity to do anything." Where are you getting this idea from? From the concept of God being All, Almighty, All-Powerful, or Omnipotent. Ultimately, there is no special reason other than being Himself. God can only be Himself—a God. (This is just pure logic or a tautology.) To be Himself, He goes through all His iterations, instances, and parts to fully know Himself. No one is mentioning any forms of amusement here. He is just being Himself and exploring all aspects of Himself because that's all there is to do. God being God, God understanding God, God exploring God—infinitely. Some of His instances will be less conscious, and some will be more conscious—that's really all!

But that’s precisely it! Again, for God to be God, or All, "He" needs to experience All and Be All—both limited and unlimited, conscious and unconscious. Therefore, if there were a reality where all iterations or instances of God were highly conscious, then God wouldn’t be everything. He’d be all that is conscious but not all that is highly unconscious. He’d be "limited" or "missing" unconsciousness. What is your argument on the process being deeply flawed? Think of it this way: if you want to include all versions of an apple, you must be a green apple, a blue apple, a yellow apple, a red apple, etc. Any version that you don't include will limit you from being all apples—whole and complete. This is why forms that are both deeply conscious and deeply unconscious must exist, along with all others in between the spectrum!

There absolutely might be creatures who retain awareness of higher consciousness while they experience limited forms. We just aren't one of them, and that is okay. God is biased toward being a God. God cannot be anything but itself—a God. A God, by definition, is everything. To be everything, you must be both everything and nothing, biased and unbiased, limited and unlimited. God has to encompass being biased because that is what 'He' fundamentally is. 'He' doesn't create everything out of boredom; it just has to exist so He can exist completely. Think of it as a truism or a tautology that cannot be avoided—you are personifying too much. For God to be everything, 'He' must manifest everything. Part of everything includes limited forms, both aware and unaware of their higher consciousness. Therefore, limited forms must exist. Humans are just one of many manifestations or parts of God.

I absolutely adore the potential of this! Here are some of my suggestions: Destiny - He's quite an open-minded individual, despite his seemingly aggressive and disagreeable takes. I believe he went through a period where he got involved with psychedelics, and openly admitted in one of his videos that he's seeking deeper experiences and understanding with psychedelics, not just the high or rush. For instance, he took a huge dose of mushrooms (10.5g+) and recorded the entire trip. He seems like the perfect candidate who got a glimpse of God or the God Mind or Solipsism but has difficulty fully deconstructing or accepting that reality. At one stage of the trip, he reported feeling complete loneliness and uncertainty about whether anything existed outside of his mind. He also mentioned how he used to believe that truth is all that matters—as long as I align with the truth, I am good—but after the trip and his immense loneliness, he’s starting to question such beliefs. Having someone guide him through those trip experiences and help him explore the things that left him questioning seems too exciting to pass up. I believe Leo could serve him well in this regard and might also make other viewers curious. Destiny is also known for giving a platform to people with novel or fringe viewpoints, so I don't see why he wouldn't take him up on his offer! Dan Koe - As others have mentioned, Dan has stated before that he thinks Actualized.org is one of the best channels on YouTube. He even goes on long runs and walks just to listen to Leo's full episodes. Leo's influence on Dan's videos is also quite apparent, from the minimalist background settings and first-person perspective speaking directly to the camera, to the metaphors and how he perceives reality. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say in several of his videos, "Reality is just states of consciousness, states of experience." I'm sure he would be delighted to speak with Leo, and there are plenty of things he would love to ask and discuss. Leo is likely one of the main influences on Dan's journey to finding God, so that conversation could be very wholesome and full of depth. Plus, it would be great promotion for Leo and his future courses, as Dan is quite influential in the online education and self-development space. Bernardo Kastrup - I don't think I need to over-explain here, but I'd love to see Bernardo pushed on his idea of why consciousness has to be the fundamental truth, and how deep his understanding truly goes. He seems to have just accepted that, as a scientist or philosopher, one must take something as fundamental truth—in his case, consciousness—and if that thing can model and explain all of reality, then it's good enough for him (according to his PhD). Probing him and discussing this topic would be fascinating. He also has interesting ideas on AI, and since Leo himself became an AI junkie now (in the best possible way), I'd love to see this crossover happen! Also, Bernardo seems to be appearing on all kinds of shows, even on small channels with under 1K-5K views. It really seems like he's in the promotion stage for the Essentia Foundation. Considering Leo has over a million subscribers and a huge following, it would be more beneficial for Bernardo than the smaller consciousness channel interviews he's been doing over the past few years! I see no reason why he'd deny such an opportunity. Looking forward to it all! Maybe you could introduce all of them to your crocodile collection... Garr.

@NoSelfSelf I think the point made is that it's often not what you say but how you carry yourself and frame the conversation. Saying, "Omg, you are adorable," doesn't necessarily signal that the woman is "above" you. You can frame it in various ways if you know how. For instance, it can mean you find her very cute and feminine, and since you are masculine, you feel attracted to that and are being assertive with your desires. It can also mean she seems small and adorable as you look at her from a masculine, domineering, and tall perspective. However, as you said, the opposite can also be true: being overly expressive in a "simp-y," obsessive tone can make it seem like you are pedestalizing her. Basically, with power games, if you choose to play them—although I don’t recommend viewing interactions through this lens—they are much more fluid and dynamic. A simple sentence or context change can completely flip who is dependent on whom or who appears to be worshipping the other. A one-liner or pick-up line won't matter if your overall frame and confidence in the conversation consistently position you as an equal or in a dominant position. Once you understand this, you can flip an insane number of sentences and not stress about specific words. I hope this makes sense.