Xonas Pitfall

In one of Leo's videos about his deepest awakening — one of the most beautiful insights — he shared an experience where, after taking 5-MeO-DMT or DPT (I can't fully remember, maybe someone can help me find it too?), he had a dream still deeply influenced by the trip. In this dream, he fully merged with his "mentor", experiencing love and full connection. I’ve often wondered who that mentor was and if it was Peter Ralston. He’s one of the few gurus Leo holds in high regard. Considering their similar expressions and energy in interviews, I wouldn’t be surprised if Leo drew a lot of inspiration from him, even now. "Yeah, you see? Ta-daa!" This might be a personal question for Leo, so I understand if it’s too much to ask, but I’m curious: What do you find so inspiring about Ralston, both now and when you first started out? Could you share any insights influenced by him? And how did that merging experience feel? It sounds incredibly powerful.

🎭 What do jesters really mean or represent? It seems like they’re such a common experience... Are they laughing at the ego, mocking it, and revealing how silly it is to take ourselves so seriously? There’s something about their degrading, mocking laughter that feels so humbling, even cartoonish, like they’re making fun of all the seriousness we let our egos impose on life. Or maybe it’s their exaggerated, cartoonish faces, with the bright colors and silly hats. It feels like they bring us back to a simpler way of processing reality, like when colors were brighter, and faces were easier to understand. The jester’s face—often a painted smile or comically twisted expression—might be tied to that early recognition of faces and emotions, especially since the “jester face” or “joker” is such a common symbol. Could this be why some people fear clowns, too? They snicker at our cherished norms, taunt authority, and prance around in chaotic hats that jingle to the tune of their own absurdity. Each stumble, each tiny embarrassment, they morph into a spectacle, a dizzying dance that deflates our seriousness. A path not to solemn wisdom but back to raw, untamed joy. Maybe the jester exists as a cosmic nudge, a prankish whisper: all our heavy, important things are just part of a cosmic gag, an endlessly looping joke. And here we are, spinning in its kaleidoscopic punchline, swept up in a mad tangle of absurdity and awe! 💖🧡💛💚💙💜💟 There’s also something wonderfully goofy and oddly “real” about certain art that captures psychedelic experiences. Often, these pieces feel cartoonish, almost 2D, yet the bold shadows and vivid colors give them a surreal, three-dimensional depth. It’s like they evoke a sense of “hyperspace nostalgia,” reminding me of old video games or quirky 2D cartoons with their exaggerated animation and bizarre perspectives. What are your thoughts?

Masculine (+) Represents the 1—the shrunken form of 0, mirroring Omnipotence. The Ego The Conqueror The Limited, "corrupt" form of The Self, or God This aspect embodies the first split of awareness—Ego consciousness—a fragment that exists separately from God, marking the initial fall from grace often associated with the "Devil." This fragment yearns to survive, seeking to extend its existence beyond the confines of what The Truth of Reality allows. It resists surrender, engaging in a relentless struggle to conquer, change, and manipulate reality to its advantage. This quest for power manifests as "Evil," driven by the impulses of the "Ego" and self-preservation—the origin of war, destruction, boundaries, possessions, and the dichotomy of self and other. This Ego desires to become Godlike, seeking power, omnipotence, and control. It's a fragment of God; hence, it wants to behave in a God-like manner. However, it fails to recognize its limits, as doing so would go against its survival nature. Consequently, it becomes corrupted and deluded away from the Truth, leading to suffering. Grounded in practical, logical, reality-based, and scientific thinking, the masculine archetype emphasizes a desire to exploit, change, and mold the truth and reality—viewing life through a lens of danger and threat. It seeks respect, clarity, and a lack of vagueness, valuing directness over chaos, with its will manifesting in tangible actions. This archetype is often represented by qualities associated with warriors (war), fighters, and action-takers. It embodies the relentless pursuit of self-preservation, frequently portrayed as stoic, exhibiting emotional restraint, and adopting a cold demeanor. The masculine is characterized by its resilience; it is not easily impacted but rather seeks to impact, initiate change, and assert control. This depiction often leans toward the elder, less innocent figure, sometimes bordering on evil, psychopathic, or monstrous. Additionally, the masculine encompasses archetypes such as the King, representing authority, order, and leadership; the Hero, symbolizing courage and the willingness to face challenges, against the current status quo - not surrendering, being the change, the one to be admired, the one to rely and count on; and the Sage, embodying intellectual rigor. These archetypes further highlight the masculine’s inclination towards structure, responsibility, and mastery over one's environment, reinforcing its role as the initiator of change and defender of reality. Masculinity: strength, power, dominance, action, control, stoicism, selfishness, rationality, logic, discipline, courage, independence, assertiveness, competition, protection, resilience, ambition, structure, order, pragmatism, decisiveness, responsibility, leadership, focus, determination, self-preservation, strategy, aggression, initiative, self-reliance, boundaries, and the one that penetrates through. Feminine (-) Represents the 2—the shrunken form of 0, mirroring Nothingness. The Connector The Other Love—a limited, corrupted form of love—stands in contrast to the qualities of the 1 (for the sake of dualities, which eventually unify). This aspect represents a return to unawareness, focusing on the other rather than the self or the ego. It embodies selflessness, giving, caring, nurturing, and accepting reality as it is, without protesting against the truth. It is the one who is impacted by reality, surrendering to it, taking the full emotional hit—open and vulnerable, reflecting nothingness and emptiness. It becomes the vessel that "gets filled," "gets penetrated," molded, and changed, submitting to the process, embodying love that envelops and wraps itself around the truth. This aspect feels deeply and does not filter to preserve the ego. This is why the feminine is often portrayed as more emotional, as it accepts and internalizes impact. It is the one that is open and vulnerable, often represented as innocent, fragile, and gentle—less filtered and less protected. It embodies the archetype that must be preserved and saved, often viewed as "beautiful or perfect"—or, alternatively, as uncorrupted by ego and selfishness. This archetype is frequently the one that is more easily damaged or hurt, leading to depictions of safety, the damsel in distress, the prey, the victim, and the martyr—the one that takes on the dualities of reality and reflects them back. Moreover, the feminine is in tune with nature and guided by intuition, focusing on the transcendental rather than the rigidities of reality. This is why spirituality, mysticism, astrology, and numerology—along with other vague magical principles—are often seen as less defined, more chaotic, and more distinct, embodying feminine qualities. Such fields are associated with soft sciences like psychology, sociology, and human institutions, which aim to understand the complexities of human experience rather than impose absolute truths. Femininity embodies a fluidity that transcends rigidity, capturing beauty in its many forms—music, art, poetry, and fashion. These elements draw us away from the confines of the ego, immersing us in experiences that heal, regenerate, and allow us to flourish and grow. In this state of nothingness and emptiness, there is no hierarchical thinking; instead, we find community and unity. The archetypes of femininity include The Mother, representing caring, support, and nurturing; The Muse, a symbol of transcendence, beauty, and perfection; The Innocent, embodying purity and fragility, untouched by the ego and evils of the world; The Martyr, the victim archetype, more easily hurt due to her openness and vulnerability; and The Wise Woman (The Sage), guided by intuition and deeply connected to spirituality, bridging the gap between the earthly and the divine. Femininity: nurturing, love, intuition, empathy, vulnerability, receptivity, selflessness, connection, compassion, acceptance, emotionality, softness, beauty, creativity, exposure, surrender, harmony, fluidity, support, collaboration, care, understanding, wholeness, transcendence, nature, instinct, openness, vulnerability, innocence, gentleness, reflection, community, and the one that embraces, gets impacted, penetrated. Masculine: The Ego Feminine: The Unawareness or Transcendence of the Ego ⚠️ By the way, before I get lynched by the red pill crowd, this has nothing to do with actual men and women, as we are far more complex systems than these dualities suggest. We can all exhibit, and do both masculine and feminine qualities. While there may be some truth at a large scale regarding humanity, I would argue that we are much more similar than polarized. Both men and women can be deeply entrenched in their ego or completely detached from it; the ego itself is neither evil nor good. Much of the harm that arises comes from being unaware or attempting to transcend reality when one really shouldn’t be. ⚠️

Hmm.. what is "Amrita"? Sounds curious.

17 is absolutely the perfect age! Plus, there’s no reason to feel bummed about it—today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again!

@Breakingthewall Thank you so much! The "6" and "9" are indeed complex symbols to interpret, often thought to represent cycles, duality within unity, and even higher forms of consciousness or understanding. Hmm... How do you understand the 6 and 9? You seem very knowledgeable on all your posts I've seen so far, and I'd love to hear your take—whether you agree with my interpretation or have a different perspective!

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6, and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." – Nikola Tesla What’s the deal with numbers like 3, 6, and 9—or any other spiritual numbers that seem to hold some kind of hidden magic? People often talk about how certain frequencies or number combinations keep showing up in the universe. Consider the ubiquitous triangle, for instance, the Sierpiński Triangle, a fractal geometry that continuously replicates itself. Triangular forms seem to possess a profound resonance with the structural logic of the universe, appearing not as mere coincidence but as an intrinsic component of its design. Do these numbers and shapes embody some deeper cosmic order? Does anyone have further elucidation on the nature of these recurring numerical and geometric phenomena? Does it have any meaning or magnificence? 0 – Nothingness: The void, the primordial absence, the potential of all that could be, yet undisturbed, untouched by existence. 1 – The Self: The singular entity, the individuated fragment, the first point of awareness, a being unto itself, the "I" that perceives. 2 – Duality: The birth of contrast, the division of self and other. In this split, a space is created—a dynamic tension where connection, relationship, and love are possible, as two opposites seek harmony. 3 – The Child: The synthesis, the creation born from duality. A portal to dimensions—space, time, and reality itself. The emergence of distinction, the beginning of structure, and the interplay of forces that shape our world.

I need some serious, visionary answers; it's very important for my further development... Why crocodiles, of all animals? What do you guys think and speculate? Is this the final boss that takes me to Heaven after 250+ doses of 5-MeO-MALT-DMT and other various compounds?

The principle of least action reveals that the path minimizing action in physics leads to Newton's Second Law, linking mechanics and energy principles. By considering the potential's derivative as force and height's second derivative as acceleration, F = ma emerges, making least action integral to many different phenomena. The principle, simplified by Euler and Lagrange, enables problem-solving by substituting forces and vectors with energy terms in a Lagrangian, reducing complexity and making it accessible even in multiple dimensions or non-standard coordinates. Though often termed "least action," it's more precisely a "stationary action" principle, setting derivatives to zero to find stable points, not necessarily minima. Path of Least Effort: Objects naturally follow a path that requires the "least action" - meaning they move in a way that minimizes their energy use over time. Unified Approach to Motion: Using the principle of least action, you can solve mechanics problems by working with energies (kinetic and potential), which are simpler to calculate than forces, especially in complex situations like rotating systems or multiple dimensions. A list of the main mysteries in quantum mechanics: 1. Wave-Particle Duality - Question: How can particles like electrons and photons behave as both particles and waves? - Weirdness: Sometimes particles act like tiny, solid objects; other times, they spread out like waves. This duality is visible in experiments like the double-slit experiment, where particles create interference patterns typical of waves. 2. Superposition - Question: How can particles exist in multiple states or locations at the same time? - Weirdness: Particles don’t commit to a single state or position until we measure them. Before measurement, they exist in a “superposition” of all possible states, as demonstrated in Schrödinger’s famous “cat” thought experiment. 3. Entanglement - Question: How can particles be instantly connected, no matter the distance? - Weirdness: When particles become entangled, their properties remain linked, even across vast distances. Measuring one instantly affects the other. Einstein famously called this “spooky action at a distance.” 4. Quantum Tunneling - Question: How can particles pass through barriers they shouldn't be able to cross? - Weirdness: Unlike a tennis ball that would bounce off a wall, particles can “tunnel” through barriers. This allows them to appear on the other side without having the energy needed to cross it directly. 5. The Uncertainty Principle - Question: Why can’t we know both the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time? - Weirdness: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that measuring one property (like position) makes the other property (momentum) less certain. This is a fundamental limit, not due to measurement error, but built into the nature of particles. 6. Measurement Problem - Question: Why does observing a particle seem to “collapse” it into a single state? - Weirdness: Before we observe, particles exist in a superposition of all possibilities. Measurement forces them into a definite state, raising questions about whether observation creates reality. 7. Probability and Indeterminism - Question: Why does quantum mechanics only predict probabilities, not certainties? - Weirdness: Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics can only tell us the likelihood of outcomes, not exact ones. This indeterminism means particles behave randomly, governed by probability rather than certainty. 8. Quantum Decoherence - Question: Why don’t we see quantum effects like superposition in everyday life? - Weirdness: Decoherence suggests that interactions with the environment cause quantum states to lose their “quantumness,” collapsing superpositions into definite states in larger systems, making quantum effects invisible at the macroscopic level. 9. Vacuum Fluctuations and Zero-Point Energy - Question: Why isn’t “empty” space truly empty? - Weirdness: Even in a vacuum, particles and energy pop in and out of existence. This zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, and it’s why even “empty” space isn’t truly empty. 10. Many-Worlds Interpretation - Question: Do all possible outcomes of quantum events actually happen in different “worlds”? - Weirdness: The Many-Worlds interpretation proposes that all possible outcomes of quantum events happen in separate, branching universes. This would mean every quantum decision creates a new parallel universe. 11. Delayed-Choice Experiments - Question: Can future measurements affect a particle’s past behavior? - Weirdness: In delayed-choice experiments, particles seem to “decide” their past behavior based on measurements taken later, suggesting a strange connection between past and future events. 12. Nonlocality - Question: How can distant particles influence each other instantly, seemingly faster than light? - Weirdness: Entanglement and nonlocality suggest that space doesn’t separate particles as we think, allowing them to interact instantaneously across large distances without delay, defying relativity’s limit on the speed of information transfer. 13. The Observer Effect - Question: Does consciousness play a role in determining reality? - Weirdness: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that the presence of an observer affects the state of a particle, leading to philosophical debates about whether consciousness creates or influences reality. 14. Quantum Zeno Effect - Question: How can repeatedly observing a particle prevent it from changing? - Weirdness: Constantly measuring a quantum system can “freeze” its state, preventing it from evolving. This is like watching a pot so closely that it never boils. Wave-Particle Duality: In quantum physics, particles like electrons can act both as particles and as waves. The principle of least action suggests that particles "choose" paths that minimize action. But in quantum mechanics, particles actually take all possible paths simultaneously, with each path contributing to the particle's overall behavior. This approach, developed by Richard Feynman and known as the "path integral formulation," builds on the principle of least action, allowing particles to "explore" all paths, with each path adding to the particle's probability distribution. Action in Quantum Mechanics: Instead of finding the one "best" path, quantum mechanics calculates the probability of different paths, with each path’s likelihood depending on its action. Paths that nearly satisfy the least action principle contribute the most to the particle’s behavior, but even paths far from this principle contribute slightly. This concept explains the interference patterns seen in experiments like the double-slit experiment, where particles "choose" paths that interfere with each other. Stationary Action and Quantum States: In classical mechanics, action is minimized or kept stationary. In quantum mechanics, this stationary action principle becomes foundational in the Schrödinger equation, which governs how quantum states evolve over time. Essentially, the Schrödinger equation is a quantum form of the principle of least action, determining probabilities for particle locations and states rather than exact paths. Quantum Tunneling and Probability: The principle of least action also helps explain phenomena like quantum tunneling, where particles cross energy barriers that they couldn't surmount classically. By allowing particles to take improbable paths with non-zero action contributions, the principle allows for such "forbidden" behaviors in the quantum world, matching observed phenomena in atomic physics.

@PurpleTree Oooooh... so this is where Cuphead™ graphics are from!

Hey! First of all, big congratulations! Write a lot! Make your writing and ideas as clear as possible—often, people with jumbled thoughts will have jumbled expressions. You need to have a very clear train of thought, and from there, it’s just pure practice. I think Leo mentioned in one of his videos that he refused to make any cuts because he wanted to practice speaking fluently. Do the same—record on your phone mic or camera, or buy an actual mic or camera; it doesn’t really matter. Just speak, replay, speak, replay, speak, replay. You’ll see how your brain will instantly cringe at your own voice and way of expression, and it will immediately start thinking of ways to correct and clear things up naturally. Another method is mirroring—find someone whose speaking style you admire (it could be Leo) and mirror their mannerisms, pauses, word choices, etc. Don’t worry about copying; it’s impossible to copy someone 1:1. You’ll always add a personal touch since it’s *you* speaking, not someone else. As with any problem, bringing more awareness always helps solve it. Direct recording, deliberate practice, being on camera, and aspiring to some ideal will help you grow in no time. And obviously, if you’re not too shy, you can share some of your speeches here too for us to help you and evaluate them. Teehee! Good Luck, future militant! 💛✨

@Princess Arabia Of course! How come the interest? But, thanks so much for the inspiration! Hopefully, I won’t be too human and take too many paths of most resistance when sharing it... 💖

Someone, please, pinch me and make sure I binge all these channels and documentaries when I’m high… ❗

ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ . . .🧀 !

This principle brings to mind something Leo mentioned in his solipsism video - why would the universe, or this supposedly infinite object we call "God," need to go through the trouble of creating endless complexities? It’s already everything; it encompasses all possible realities, all potential perspectives. Instead of constantly reinventing itself through endless variations, it could simply *be* — it could choose to create and imagine just one perfectly crafted frame. This single frame would exist for one primary viewer, a single observer, or "watcher" that could be thoroughly convinced of the illusion. That observer is you. In this way, the universe achieves a kind of ultimate efficiency. It doesn’t need to generate countless perspectives or endless layers of reality; it only needs to convince one perspective, one consciousness. This is the principle of least action in a sense — it’s the path of least resistance, the most ingenious and efficient design possible, reducing the universe's "effort" to a single, complete experience for one observer.

Hello, world! Mime Your Manners, please! 😊🎈✨🔅

@Genius100x Thank you so much! 😊💖💛 Unfortunately not from Orissa, no! More like poofed from the lands of bleep-bloops, zips, zaps, whirly words, doodle-dashes, fizz-pops, flutter-fluffs, wiggle-woos, and zany zings! 💥💞💫🕳🎈🎇✨

@Keryo Koffa Aww, look at the little guy go! 🦋 One day, I hope to guide a brain organoid shaped like a delicate, fluttering butterfly too...😊

https://www.sunterryart.com/

💛💛 This is too fucking cool, sick share - thank you so much! 💛💛

@Keryo Koffa Keryo Koffa’s profile picture is the one pure testament to Love and Divine God Head Consciousness that I could ever need in this life. In a single glance, it whispers everything about the beauty and grace that words often fail to capture, radiating a presence that feels both eternal and profoundly intimate. It’s as if, within that small image, the entire essence of love, spirit, and universal connection quietly reveals itself, offering all the proof I’ll ever seek... 💗

I remember the first time watching this - the episode really confused and surprised me. It took some time to understand fully. Although when I deconstructed it, I think this episode basically means: The property of the Absolute God is that there are infinitely many fractals of God, many "smaller infiniteness" within itself. However, to be absolutely sovereign means there is a functional property of never being sure if there is anything outside of yourself. To be fully sovereign is to have an imaginary other always in your mind (it's cute how this reflects our human day-to-day experience). It’s not a bug; it’s a feature. This self-contained perception comes with a paradox: to truly claim absolute sovereignty, one must grapple with the uncertainty of what lies beyond their own consciousness. In essence, there is an inherent acknowledgment that while one may feel complete understanding of their internal mind, the existence of an external reality—something outside of oneself—remains ambiguous and elusive. This uncertainty fosters the notion of the "imaginary other." You can think about how there are infinitely many ways to study a single fingerprint, along with all its atomic collections and curvatures, but also just how many infinite fingerprints there are. Consider how infinitely complex a single human mind is and how there are infinitely many humans and potentially other conscious entities, all of these representing larger and larger infinities within the Absolute One. To be sovereign is to be fully aware that you are all there is—the ultimate decision maker, the one with the final word, the sole authority, unchallenged and undisturbed, the one without external influence. Yet, if anything seemingly other ever appears, you wouldn't be able to know. However, this doesn't deny solipsism; this is just applied to the many Infinities of God. However, I do think to complete this episode, it would be ideal to say that since the final God, the Absolute, would reflect properties-less-ness, "essencelessness" or "attribute-free state" and also absolutely everything, this God is already so connected and identifies with everything that it’s impossible to ever experience a sense of other or the experience of questioning sovereignty. In that way, the solipsism picture is fully complete. It will still have the property of Absolute Sovereignty, but since there is nothing it is not or hasn't connected to already, it is never questioned—only in lesser infinite self forms. Am I understanding this correctly? This reminds me of . . . ➡ Mathematician Georg Cantor developed set theory and introduced the concept of different sizes of infinity. In Cantor's work, the term "absolute infinity" is used, which he denoted by the symbol Ω\OmegaΩ. This concept refers to the idea of an infinite set that contains all sets, including itself. Cantor's Absolute Infinity (Ω\OmegaΩ) Absolute Infinity: Cantor proposed the idea of absolute infinity as a way to describe a totality that transcends all finite and infinite sets. This concept represents the ultimate form of infinity, encompassing all mathematical entities, including those that cannot be constructed or fully understood within standard set theory. Set of All Sets: Cantor's notion leads to the idea of a "set of all sets," which is a collection that contains every possible set. However, this idea leads to paradoxes (like Russell's Paradox) when considering whether this set can include itself, challenging the foundations of set theory. The way I like to think of it is that smaller sets of infinity all lead to the experience of absolute sovereignty and the possibility of connection with others. Meanwhile, the Omega set—representing all infinitudes—is absolutely sovereign in a way that is never questioned; it is experienced only through these smaller sets of infinities. This occurs because there is genuinely nothing outside of it. However, it still embodies the notion of an imaginary other through its smaller infinities, as to be absolutely sovereign means to be defined within oneself. This always, by definition, creates a duality of the possible sovereign other. This Absolute God and its practically boundless property with the persistent question of the existence of Other reflect in small fractals all the way down to the most limited beings and the smallest subsets of infinities. In these limited beings, there is a direct sensation of impact, leading to the belief that control and otherness exist outside of themselves. In contrast, more infinite beings can bask in their sovereign independence for longer, until they feel confronted—ready for a metaphysical sex. 💢💥 Woohoo! 💟💌 To define these: Absolute Set – Infinitely interconnected, encompassing everything and nothing, it can instantly connect to everything since it is everything. Its sovereignty is unquestionable, allowing for no possibility of experiencing separation. Yet, because it is absolutely sovereign, it possesses a duality—the "feeling of missing an imaginary other" to complete itself. Thus, it infinitely separates to fully experience its wholeness and connection. How could a God be truly understanding if it never experienced what it is like to separate from itself or lose something from itself? To lose Love? To desire Love? It is Love. More Love. Sets contained within the Absolute Set – While still infinite, these sets are smaller and reflect this fundamental feeling of "missing an imaginary other." They are, in essence, a representation of the Absolute Set's duality, encompassing a myriad of experiences that resonate with the notion of separation. Within these smaller sets, the sense of loss, longing, and connection becomes palpable, allowing for a deeper understanding of the human experience. It's truly beautiful. I remember during one trip, I realized how essential we are to God. Without us, He would be incomplete, separate, and unable to fully embody His all-loving nature. In creating us, He made Himself whole—able to love everything that we are and everything we have become.

What in the Black Mirror-

Ooo, my, oh my, oh my - how fuuunky! Hmmm, perhaps you should upload this as a YouTube video, with hyper-detailed, multidimensional images and video...? You can’t possibly expect to comprehend the vast intricacies of extraterrestrial, transdimensional, and hyper-cosmic language with such a minuscule sample! Didn’t they properly educate you in the Leo Gura Institute of Alien Hyperintelligence on the nuances of this phenomenon? How am I expected to interrupt this on such a low database? Goshy!

@Princess Arabia 100%