Xonas Pitfall

The title says it all! Inspired by some of the recent blog posts shared, I thought it would be valuable to open up a space for reflection and discussion on the darker sides of human behavior - selfishness, corruption, underdevelopment, and the systems that perpetuate them. Of course, we'll aim to keep everything within the forum's guidelines - and moderators, feel free to step in or close the thread if it veers off course. On a balanced note, I’ll also be creating a companion thread focused on humanity’s goodness, love, selflessness, and progress - both aspects are real and worth exploring.

Sure, but you said this: Doing heroin is less bad than weed in my eyes because it has a huge stigma and barrier to entry, which is good. ?

I want to be charitable to this argument, but I just don’t see it. OF definitely has a stigma, and it’s not like if you say you do OnlyFans, people will assume you’re doing something honorable. Most people will assume you’re doing porn and being a whore online, whether that’s softcore or explicit content, especially if you’re earning a lot. If anything, the porn industry probably has more toxicity involved once you start considering recruitment practices, trafficking, and agencies that have control over these women, along with shady contracts that strip them of ownership over their content and push their boundaries further for content they cannot easily say no to once in the system. I don’t necessarily know which is worse, but I don’t see a strong argument for why traditional porn would be better or worse than OnlyFans. Both carry a significant stigma. Plus, it’s not like porn agencies don’t use OF arguments to recruit women, “You’re gorgeous, Abigail, you’ll make so much money, so easy, so fast!” It’s kind of like saying pimp street prostitution is better than high-end security prostitution in Las Vegas clubs, because at least on the street you’re more likely to face violence, get raped and beaten, and be asked to do more nasty stuff, which would discourage more women from getting involved. “If I can just strip and dance in strip clubs with high-end security for money, then Actuzlied.org wouldn’t even exist!” It’s also more fair from a purely business perspective. When you want to jerk off, you jerk off and "enjoy" the model, and what she does, you are not jerking off to the agent, the cameraman, the tax advisor, or anyone else behind the scenes. Therefore, most of the value is in the model. So most of the power and control should lie with the creator. It’s similar to if YouTube suddenly called you up and said, “By the way, Leo, we’re taking an even bigger cut of your earnings, and also earnings from your course and forum now belong to us too. You are part of our ecosystem and agency, hence we can do it.” If a new platform offered the same opportunities but gave you more control over your content, you’d likely switch immediately and view it as less toxic and more fair overall. Also this, yes.

I do wonder if people would have the same reactions toward the owner of Pornhub or other well-known porn sites. It seems like OnlyFans carries a certain sting for some men because it’s seen as “empowering” women. But when women are coerced into porn or are part of an agency run by a man, those same men are often viewed as legends, "cool chill guy", or just neutral. Hm . . .

I think a helpful way to look at this is through specialization. Adults generally know more than children, but that doesn’t mean any adult is qualified to teach any subject. We ideally still want to rely on trained experts in specific areas. The same logic applies to governance. Wealthy or corporate elites might have deeper knowledge in certain domains, like business or finance, but that doesn’t mean they should have broad, unchecked authority across all areas of public policy. In an ideal system, decision-making would be more “policy-specific.” People with demonstrated knowledge and experience in a given area would have more influence over decisions in that area, rather than power being concentrated in a small group or tied to wealth alone. Right now, democratic systems often end up revolving around electing a single leader or "a vibe", and voters are frequently influenced more by charisma, identity, or surface-level messaging than by careful evaluation of actual policy. One way to think about it is that instead of relying mainly on a human representative system at the top level, you could have a more direct, structured participation system, where people engage with policy through, let's say, for a fun example, a web or mobile platform. On that platform, users wouldn’t pick leaders, but would be presented with policy proposals and asked to respond to them directly, through written input. Before participating, the system could also gather relevant context about each person, such as their experience in specific fields, how much of it is tangible and verifiable, years of work in those areas, relevant certifications, and possibly general knowledge assessments. Based on that, different aspects of policy input could be weighted differently depending on relevance and demonstrated expertise. The idea is that this could filter out low-effort participation to some degree, since many people would not spend the time engaging deeply unless they care about the topic. It could also help distinguish between different levels of understanding, where someone with direct experience in a field might have more informed insight into that domain than someone without it. A.K.A You can see whether the person wrote to “Should immigrants be allowed in the US?” “no because they are gay lol, death to all Mexicans,” compared to a properly written, logical, well-phrased opinion, that would be far more helpful both for data quality and for the actual informational value of the vote. That is much more useful than simply circling the name of a president they like to watch TikTok videos about. Of course, there are serious problems with this kind of system. One major issue is governance: who designs and regulates the system itself? How do you ensure the people defining what counts as “relevant experience” are honest and not biased actors? How do you prevent manipulation, cheating, or people gaming the system by faking credentials or optimizing for whatever increases their influence score? So this kind of system might be a kind of idealized direction; it is very much utopian for now. In principle, though, it tries to move toward a model where specialization, multi-perspective input, and reduced bias and polarization lead to more informed collective decision-making, rather than relying purely on broad, undifferentiated voting or personality-driven leadership. TLDR: I don’t think pure one-person-one-vote democracy works that well because it treats everyone’s input as equally informed. I think voting power should be weighted based on things like experience, domain knowledge, and how much someone actually understands a specific issue, so people who are more informed or experienced in a topic have more influence over decisions in that area. Obviously, you’d need really solid, fair ways to measure that; it could get gamed or corrupted.

"But Leo, You're So Privileged!" blog post is amazing. Thank you.

Unironically, Actualized.org videos

Try it yourself. Do exactly what you’re asking: remove all your assumptions and beliefs. What is anything you can be sure you know? Try to remove everything. The only thing you will be left with is pure “is-ness.” This is now, therefore it is. This is in my direct experience, therefore it is. This “is-ness” is truth, or pure correspondence that things are just what they are, not some other way or with some filter, assumption, or perception added to them. Just A = A. This is what it is. It won’t have any thoughts or any further veil of perception. It really does feel like pure nothingness, or a vacuum of existence, just pure being.

One thing I’m really grateful for with social media is that it exposes more transparently the kinds of people who run for these positions. Before, you’d assume, “Oh, well, hopefully these people have at least some knowledge and level of awareness before running for president, right… right?” How naive of me

Love You!

🤣🤣🤣

Women were very much at the mercy of men who financially supported the family. When you lose power, and someone has that much control over you, it’s easy to imagine how things can become abusive and toxic in a relationship or marriage. The laws used to be much worse, too, and you can still see horrible laws in some parts of the world, such as marrying off girls at 10-12, a lack of access to education, and extreme restrictions on freedom. There are even places where older men genuinely cry for and protest against higher ages of consent. On top of that, we still have pedophilia and sex trafficking rings. So to deny that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, or to claim it is only a reaction to feminism, is unreasonable. Toxic masculinity existed long before women had any real say. A lot of feminism emerged as a reaction to prevent these kinds of horrific outcomes and to give women more power and autonomy. I just wish people understood that when someone identifies with a certain idea, it doesn’t mean they embody the most extreme version of it. You can absolutely appreciate men who are kind, honorable, and genuine, while also not wanting to return to a time where women had to marry young, have children early, and depend entirely on one person for survival or derive all their value from that role. The same applies to men. You can value traditionally feminine traits in women without falling into toxic “red pill” ideologies that glorify power imbalances or assume feminism is simply about making men weaker or useless. People need to stop over-polarizing these issues, because doing so only deepens bias and fuels bitterness about society. There are genuinely good men and women out there, and there are also many who are trying to do better. This really shouldn't be that outrageous to say.

:,)

That’s very true! Let’s lead by example then: a new thread where we eternally terrorize Leo with superior taste. We should also hit his spiritual ego, how God is infinite, and how he’d find beauty in the filthiest of deathcore breakdowns. This ultimately proves his low to low-moderate (8/9) arousal level, mid-tempo (7/9), predictable harmonic complexity with no surprises, atmospheric sonic aesthetic, and soft electronic production (7/9) music touches nowhere near the expanse of infinite love. Bully him into submission. Kriya yoga with metal, guys?

Leo is just a drowsy hipster enthralled by his next safari expedition at heart. Leave the bald man and his mid-tempo (7/9) decibels alone.

What Is Real?

It’s more like asking, ‘Why is it impossible for an ice cream not to be made out of ice, water, milk, and flavor?’ When you ask, ‘Why is it impossible for God not to have others?’ it’s not that it couldn’t happen, it’s that then it wouldn’t be God by definition (its essence, nature). Or saying: ‘Why is it impossible for a cloud not to be in the sky and made of water vapor and tiny water droplets or ice crystals?’ I could imagine a cloud that’s as hard as a rock, sitting on the ground and made of stone!’ That’s fine, you can do that, but that wouldn’t be a cloud; it would be a rock by any common definition.

It’s an even more basic reason. Why do you want to be in a room that is cleaner and smells nicer rather than one that doesn’t? Pure sensations that you can tolerate. Why do you keep listening to a song that is more harmonized instead of one that’s a mess, like something a toddler made with spray paint? If someone is aesthetically pleasing, that’s what it means: it’s easy on the eyes. You want to keep looking at it, being around it, being immersed in it. You allow it to impact you as deeply as possible because it’s so beautiful. Something like that . . . That being said, people definitely find different things and cues more appealing than others, but there are some general qualities that point to survival, comfort, safety, and indicators of health. For example, we tend to find wider smiles more attractive because they can signal a broader airway and better breathing capacity. Because of that, your speech is naturally clearer, your energy is higher, and you’re seen as more attractive; you become more confident and expressive. That increased confidence makes you even more attractive, which people respond to even more, creating a self-reinforcing loop. If you start off attractive, you’re usually treated better, which boosts your confidence and makes you more magnetic.

I'll try my best to explain this. It's very loopy! 😵‍💫 Most words we commonly use refer to finite concepts. When you say “cat,” you are pointing to a defined idea, whether it’s a specific cat or a general concept. That concept includes attributes like whiskers, four legs, and the ability to meow. These attributes define and limit what a “cat” is. Because of this, you cannot reasonably convince someone that a pig is a cat, since their attributes differ. Each term is constrained by its defining characteristics. However, some words behave differently. Certain concepts, like “everything” or “all,” point to something infinite or highly flexible. They are not limited in the same way as ordinary concepts. Instead, they function more like variables or all-encompassing categories. Their definitions are infinitely elastic, you could say. Take the word “everything.” By definition, it must include all things. If you ask whether a box containing “everything” includes a cat, the answer must be yes. Otherwise, it would not truly be “everything.” The same applies to a pig, or any other imaginable object. If something is excluded, then it is no longer “everything,” but rather “everything except that thing.” So, if you ask, “Does a box containing everything include a cookie?” the answer must be yes. If it did not, then it would not truly be a box containing everything, but rather a box containing everything except a cookie. These words have a unique property: their very definition requires them to include all possible things without exception. In a sense, they act like a conceptual container that cannot exclude anything without contradicting itself. Enlightenment reveals that God is defined as “everything,” so God must include all things. If something were excluded, then that definition would no longer hold. It would not be “everything,” but something limited. If God is defined as “everything,” then God must include all things. If something existed that was truly separate from God, then God would no longer be “everything,” but instead “everything except that thing.” That would contradict the definition. Basically, when you ask, “Why would it be impossible for God to create other minds?” it’s like asking, “Why would it be impossible for a cat to not have four legs, whiskers, and meow?” It’s not that it “can’t” or that it’s impossible, it’s that it would stop being a cat. It would be something else entirely, like a pig or a donkey. In the same way, if God could create something completely separate from itself, then God would no longer fit the definition of being all-encompassing. It wouldn’t be “everything,” but something limited. God would not be God if it had an Other. It feels strange because, in everyday language, most things we talk about are limited and distinct. But here you’re talking about a concept / "Being" that, by definition, cannot exclude anything at all. And by the way, when I’m talking about words and definitions here, it’s VERY important not to think of it as just wordplay or language games. This "being" is VERY real, and you can become conscious of it. It’s creepy, but also really cool. Basically, try to first conceptually understand these ideas and paradoxes, and then imagine that it is actually real. What would that being be? A being that is truly all-encompassing? You would call it God.

Gocha. Really sorry to hear that. Thank you nonetheless for all that you did share, helped me personally to be a lot more cautious and smart with psychedelics when necessary. It's very much appreciated.

Do you think you’d ever consider sharing some of the more difficult or extreme health/events you’ve experienced during and due to psychedelics, enlightenment? Things like you said, the shit stain mess on your carpet, injuries, bruising, etc. I feel like people who are curious about going down a similar path would really benefit from hearing the honest, unfiltered side of it. It could help them understand what they might actually be getting themselves into. I know for me it would’ve been really helpful if someone had told me about some of the harsher realities before I went. I didn’t expect sudden urges to puke, bruising, or even the possibility of blood clots, etc.

Question: There are some puzzling contradictions I find . . . related to the idea of absolute truth and certain claims Leo has made. If someone becomes more “purified” or ”cleansed” through realizing absolute truth, they are supposedly supposed naturally want to let go of negative desires, such as lying, predatory behaviour, psychopathic tendencies, etc. However, also according to Leo’s blog posts, a person would not gain miracles or special powers because wanting miracles or higher enlightenment would be selfish. In other words, wanting God to give you powers would still be ego. How does this follow? In the same way they accept the truth that they cannot perform miracles or be a "higher form of a healer", couldn’t they also accept darker truths about themselves and continue being such free of conscience instead of automatically becoming morally purified? If enlightenment does not give you access to some aspects of God’s power, then why would enlightenment give you access to any kind of purification or separation from your desires (especially for people who are born with antisocial predispositions, psychopathic traits, pedophilic attractions, or extremely strong lust, etc)? In both cases, you are still acting as a human and accepting that you are human, and that this is your current truth. If someone claims that enlightenment makes you more aligned with God, meaning you develop a desire to be more like God, then why would that only apply to qualities such as being more truthful, pure, honest, or loving? Shouldn’t it also be reasonable to desire other god-like abilities, such as having powers to heal, bending reality in evermore magical ways, or creating things? Leo himself has said that this is one of the aspects of God: it does not need any “behind-the-scenes” atoms, physics, or rules. According to him, God can simply spawn things directly into existence in a single moment, without any underlying mechanism or separation between hallucination and reality. Why would the second type of desire be considered silly, wrong, or unrealistic, while the first type is treated as valid or expected?

I agree with most responses that it heavily depends, and a lot of the time, it is just a mismatch of the moment, or between the man and the woman. (I just want to get that out of the way first!) However, one thing that’s worth noting is that a lot of the time, if you’re not showing cues that you appreciate someone and that you’re being genuine, it can become difficult for them to feel safe and trusting in a relationship. I feel like this is more common on the women's end than on the men's end, because women are more socially conditioned to be expressive in this way. A good exercise, if you're a guy, is to imagine your woman being cold and stoic toward you, yet everything on the surface seems fine. You date, hang out, have sex, and have fun. How would you feel? In relationships in general, both genders usually want to experience that sense of emotional safety. I think that’s one reason men often say they like or want a “feminine woman,” because she will show and share her emotions clearly and vulnerably. When she adores him, when she is impacted or inspired by him, or when she feels emotional because of him, she expresses it openly. All of these cues are ways of showing someone that they matter to you. If you do things too coldly, it can become difficult to really know what the other person is actually feeling. Another reason, I think, is that if there is some emotional disconnection or issue in the relationship, the more emotionally attuned person will be more likely to pick up on it. Because of that, they may want more reassurance and vulnerability in order to feel like the issue is being resolved. So they might seem like they want more ‘intimacy’ than the other person, even though the issue is already present. They’re simply more receptive to it and more aware of the potential long-term consequences. I also feel like there is a bit of bias in that sentence. Guys desire a woman who is very adoring of her man, which is why they often say they want someone “submissive” or “open to influence.” If that isn’t getting into someone’s mind . . . Ultimately, both people generally want to feel like they matter a lot to the other person. So if a woman is very receptive to you, does things for you, is eager to be around you all the time, shares openly, gets jealous, or cries because she cares about your opinion, then of course, you’re less likely to feel that emptiness or the need for further reassurance and emotional support. You already receive so much of it. Imagine if all of that suddenly went away. You might even start thinking she’s cheating But again, this isn’t me trying to blame everything on the guy - just offering a perspective. As I said at the start, it HEAVILY depends on the situation and the people involved.

It might be more like the puddle analogy. “Imagine 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, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it still desperately hangs on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it.” You can see this in simple cases. A chair designed by a human is more comfortable for another human than a chair designed by a monkey or an alien, because the designer had a butt shape similar to yours in mind. Likewise, you are more likely to become close friends with someone who speaks your language than someone who speaks a completely different one. A hammer designed for the human grip feels natural to use, while a tool designed for a different kind of hand would feel awkward. The tool works well because its structure matches the structure of the hand using it. Musical instruments and scales are created to sit within ranges that human ears perceive clearly and pleasantly, etc. The same principle might apply more broadly. You can think of it as starting with a form that wants to continue existing as that form. In other words, it has a bias toward maintaining itself rather than dissolving back into constant change, complexity, or infinity. It prefers stability over becoming something completely different. Because reality itself is always changing and unstable, that form has to create or arrange more stable structures around itself in order to persist. It does this by selecting and reinforcing patterns that support its continued existence. In a sense, it “divides” and “materializes” parts of the world into structures that help stabilize it. For example, a human form is biased toward materials that support its body and survival. Wood works better than water for sitting, so it is used to make a chair. Cement is more stable than wood for long-term shelter, so houses are built from it. Over time, the same process extends further: people organize systems for stable access to resources, and eventually even build governments or institutions that help maintain social stability and survival. Something similar seems to happen even at the level of atoms! Certain atoms combine easily with others because those combinations form more stable structures. When atoms bond into molecules, they often become more stable than when they exist alone. Elements that cannot form stable structures tend to disappear quickly. In this way, forms that want to continue existing tend to surround themselves with other structures that reinforce their stability. Patterns that support the form last longer, while patterns that do not eventually dissolve. So I feel like it’s a self-looping bias. You come into a finite consciousness because that form is the only form that can provide that experience to you; it persisted long enough to become finite and maintain itself for some time, maybe 10 seconds, 5 months, 10 years, or 80+ years. And because of that, you will see supporting structures around yourself, since your brain and ego developed to recognize those things that help maintain you. The form persists, and because it persists it learns to recognize and create the conditions that let it keep persisting. In that sense, it really is an ouroboros, feeding back into itself. And I can only imagine that if you had something like a Donkey-Alien-Dog-Mix-Kubahu brain, you would probably see this same reality completely differently. The patterns you notice, the things that feel stable or meaningful, and the structures that seem important would all change depending on the kind of mind that is perceiving them. It’s that initial bias “I want to remain, I want to be, I want to be stable, I want to persist in this finite form against the infinite” that can cause an infinite regress or a chain reaction of other finite forms to persist as well. So, I’m not sure if it’s “resonance” in the sense that sameness attracts sameness, but perhaps it tends to be stable if it has similar or complementary structures, or if it’s a form that can manipulate and bend to ensure its survival other lesser biased / weaker structures. Selfishness and Support (Love). Still, I think this is a very promising direction! In a way, this also explains why you need “selfishness.” You need a phenomenon to construct a form out of indefinite; otherwise everything would remain undefined. And “selfishness” is a top-down human perspective. What we’re actually seeing is what happens when a finite form reconstructs the infinite into its own form to preserve itself.