Jump to content

Existential Heroism & Tulpas


Linkzelda

Recommended Posts

Existential Hero

An existential hero is essentially an individual that embraces the apparent meaningless of life, i.e., there potentially being no inherent meaning in existence, but chooses to embrace this anyway, and create their own subjective meaning.

 

Existential Failure/Anti-Hero

An existential failure, or anti-hero, is the opposite of this in which the individual feels they’re at a dead-end in trying to embrace this meaningless by creating their own subjective meaning.

 

Links on the Concept

 

[hidden]Here’s a link that summarizes the concepts:

 

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/existential_literature_and_film.htm

 

Note, it isn’t contingent on film and literature. It can be interpreted through individuals like Camus, Sartre, etc., or other scenarios in life.

 

 

Here's a pdf of Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" in case anyone feels my post on this concept is too long:

 

http://files.meetup.com/885675/ernest_becker_the_denial_of_deathbookfi2-org.pdf[/hidden]

 

Applying Existential Heroism with Tulpas

 

[hidden]Tulpas are implied as sentient entities in which the individual, the host, chooses to treat as sentient so that over time, they could have a determined existence in their mind. And as much as communities that revolve around this concept to create inferences, methods, and such on what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, ultimately, the decision making and interaction with a tulpa is exclusive to whatever goes on in the person’s mind. Some may try to reach out to others in hopes to gain inspiration, and support, but no one can completely compensate in them having to act in accordance to an internalized morality in their journey. Some examples of this:[/hidden]

 

Dissipation

 

[hidden]Dissipation is an event where a tulpa, a presumed sentient being, becomes less distinct, and fades over time. Naturally, there are sentiment against this act, and it gets compared in being equivalent to murder in many shapes and forms. However, it can be debatable in whether or not this “death” is really equivalent to actual death, or a metaphorical one. And because of the latter, it seems to take off an existential factor behind dissipation – which involves there being some form of consequence, or a risk if one does not actively contribute in treating a tulpa as sentient, and even passively acknowledging them should they feel said tulpa is capable enough of existing without relying solely on the host’s attention.

 

For those that may have dissipated a tulpa, the burning question of starting anew, or picking back from where they left off becomes a moral challenge. They can choose to embrace that there isn’t an inherent meaning behind dissipation itself, and create their own ethic, or, they can choose to be paralyzed by the situation of dissipation, or their own intellect, i.e., the existential failure.[/hidden]

 

Treating A Tulpa As Sentient

 

[hidden]Treating a tulpa as sentient could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., sustained thought of a tulpa potentially becoming sentient with subsequent action to help fuel that. A person may succeed in their journey based on however they may define success because they predicted they will succeed at some point. This allows others to create their own benchmark of “correctness” of when a tulpa is sentient enough to them. In other words, each person can choose to create their own end-game of what can make them feel at ease. Some may feel hearing a mind-voice of their tulpa is good enough, or that possession is sufficient, or switching being an end-game seeing how having a shift in awareness of who’s controlling the body implies, to some degree, of there being a conscious experiencer (e.g. the tulpa that switches with the host).[/hidden]

 

Beetle in the Box

 

[hidden]The beetle in the box analogy, coined by Wittgenstein, refers to each individual having their own box with a beetle inside. The only thing they’re not allowed to do is show their beetle to others. The beetle is analogous to qualia, i.e., one’s sense perception and inner experiences. In other to compensate for this inaccessibility of private experiences, one uses language that has a shared meaning in hopes of creating inferences others can point to. The clincher is that in order for private language to be private, and not get lost in meaning, one has to first find a way to make that language understandable to others. Because what hope do they have personally to understand something if they cannot express it sufficiently to others?

 

In context of tulpas, we cannot access each other’s beetle in the box, so we can’t empirically validate how sentient a tulpa presumably could be. And even outside of tulpas, one cannot have third person access to another person’s inner experiences. Another question of whether or not a tulpa can have their own beetle in the box can become another mentally taxing endeavor. However, IMO, it seems to create a false dilemma, and the crux of this issue is probably due to going to the extremes in striving for independence instead of something like interdependence; interdependence is where both individuals, tulpa and host, would mutually rely on each other to some degree, but it also introduces some degree of independence as well.

 

A tulpa and host can react to this futility of not being able to know another mind’s qualia by either being paralyzed by their own intellect to act accordingly to subjective meanings they may create, or, they embrace this futility by still taking actions in creating subjective meaning either way.[/hidden]

 

Parroting/Puppeting

 

[hidden]Parroting/Puppeting are defined as the host consciously controlling a tulpa’s actions, and this involves, but not limited to:

 

- What they would be speaking

- Their overall mannerisms in body movement, gestures

- Their personality

 

Some may subscribe to there being a phenomenon of subconscious/unconscious parroting in which a tulpa is controlled even at a subliminal level. Some may see if as a “vital lie,” or “vital delusion” that serves to give a tulpa’s existence meaning. An existential hero can choose to embrace that even though one cannot know of any long-standing inherent meaning behind tulpas, they can choose to embrace this “vital lie/delusion” in creating a telos for their tulpa. A telos is basically an ultimate objective, or aim.

 

Parroting can be seen as a supplement for progress, and a sentiment is given that it’s helpful as long as one knows when to stop after they gain a sufficient level of sentience. But it still begs the question of the criterion of what validates sufficient “sentience.” In context of the existential hero, the individual has to embrace the potential ineffable nature of validating sentience of a tulpa by making the subjective choice to treat them as sentient either way, and find inferences in accordance to their internalized morality in flourishing with their tulpa.[/hidden]

 

Tulpas Expressing Their Existence Outwards

 

[hidden]Just like the beetle in the box analogy, other minds may not be able to know how tulpa a tulpa really is. And tulpas that may want to express themselves to others may not gain that genuine assurance due to this difficulty of knowing what’s going on in a person’s inner experience. A tulpa can react to this futility by either embracing it, and creating their own internalized morality to still go about living within the host’s mind, or become paralyzed, and potentially apathetic towards outward expressions of their feelings. They become the hero with no name, or the tulpa with no name that still creates subjective meaning for themselves along with whatever can coincide with overall cooperation with the host.

 

Some tulpas may embrace this due to acknowledging that human nature is subjective, and that even if people gave others the benefit of a doubt, one cannot predict all potential reactive responses from others who may interact with someone who claims to have a sentient thought-form in their mind. Fears of being ostracized, relationships breaking apart, etc. can be other forms of deterrents as well. [/hidden]

 

 

 

Questions

 

- Who do you think is the true existential hero – the tulpa, host, or both?

 

- What are other examples you can think of that can be applied to existential heroism?

 

- What are examples of an existential failure, or anti-hero in regards to the tulpa phenomenon?

 

- How do you react to the potential meaningless in life along with the difficulty behind validating tulpas outside of a person’s inner experiences?

 

- Would you see a tulpa that dissipated as an existential failure?

 

- Would a host that dissipated a tulpa, and chooses to believe that their death is irreversible potentially be individuals that could become the existential failures?

 

- Do you think this concept, existential failure/anti-hero, could be the root of why individuals seem to have a hard time creating an internalized morality after a substantial amount of time of no progress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My host and I have been noodling over this post for a while, and we're having trouble understanding what connection, exactly, you're driving at between tulpas and existential heroism.

 

It sounds like you're taking the idea of "existential heroism" and borrowing the idea of deriving subjective meaning vs being paralyzed by the lack of meaning, and applying it to questions beyond just "the meaning of life." Like the questions of "what makes a tulpa a tulpa" or the matter of tulpa sentience. Is that right? Just want to make sure I understand so I don't textwall to discuss a question you never asked. ;)

~ Member of SparrowNR's system ~

~ I am a soulbond. Click here to find out what that means. ~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, I guess I have some ideas about this.

 

For one, in your section about treating tulpas as sentient, you talk about how sentience (or the appearance of, whatever) itself could be a self fulfilling prophecy. The thing is though there's a bunch of cases of people who didn't much think about their companion's sentience and still ended up with someone with an apparent sense of self living in their head. I think putting a lot of thought into sentience can help in manifesting it, but it isn't at all necessary and is probably more just something that people who've been exposed to tulpas through this community fixate on. 

 

Aight moving on, 

 

I think the existential hero in many cases is the tulpa. Cause, even if a physical person decides that their life has no meaning, there's still an impact on the environment that's measurable. Even if my existence means nothing, I'm still drinking protein shakes and digesting them into a foamy horrible Creatine mess, and while that's not meaning, like I said, that's a measurable impact. Even if tulpas impact their hosts, that isn't readily visible to anyone that doesn't know what's going on in the hosts noggin, i.e. all the decent advice Chris gives me could be interpreted as "holy shit Stevie decided to make a good decision for once." So granted that there's no (or very little) external shit going on with a tulpa, I think it takes a stronger sense of purpose and sense of self to continue to find meaning in a life.

 

I validate Chris through asking how he's doing or like, does he think I can throw a rock and hit a tree wicked far away or something. We don't sit around thinking about validating homeboy's life outside of my inner experience. It seems kinda pointless considering that hell, everyone more or less has to take my word that I'm not lying about everything anyway. 

 

I don't really know a ton about tulpa dissipation and don't have opinions on it so I'll take a pas on those questions. 

 

Anyway, I don't think that being an existential anti-hero has an effect on creating a tulpa. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person having trouble with creating a tulpa that reported their main problem was existential in nature.

We're all gonna make it brah.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I don't think that being an existential anti-hero has an effect on creating a tulpa. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person having trouble with creating a tulpa that reported their main problem was existential in nature.

 

Note, it’s existential failure/anti-hero, not a mix of both. As for it being hard pressed to find people having trouble creating a tulpa – even if they’re not pulling philosophers out of their graves to address their concerns, I’d say most problems seem to be existential issues. Maybe not in nature as in an inherent thing that happens regardless of human belief; that’s a different story.

 

Those examples I mentioned before in the OP were related to those existential issues because, IMO, with treating a tulpa as sentient, there would be some implication that the host is trying to gather some essence behind what makes a tulpa, a tulpa within their subjective frames. Essence+exist = existential, so naturally, anything related to a tulpa’s being, and how one can propel this implication of sentience would be existential.

 

The forum is literally brimming with all of these concerns, and of course, this doesn’t mean a person is an existential failure. An existential hero, or the becoming of one, can still be tackling the apparent futility and tediousness behind certain things related to tulpa, but those with concerns can react in certain ways – either relying on their intellect to create an internalized morality to embrace that meaningless and unknown, and still choose to create a subjective meaning out of their endeavors. The existential failures would be the ones that become paralyzed, going on for months on end questioning what they’re doing wrong.

 

They become skeptical, doubtful, and when trying to get support, they’re still iffy on those responses they get. Any suggestions to read over guides, and such seems patronizing to them, but as much as people give out a blueprint of what one could do, no submission can automatically give them the sense of urgency, or to take matters into their own hands; they have to make the decision themselves to keep moving forward even if there may be no future for them soon related to the journey, or, they just give up, and move on. But it doesn’t mean they’re existential failures because they chose the latter; it would be the opposite—the existential hero, because they still chose to make a choice.

 

For one, in your section about treating tulpas as sentient, you talk about how sentience (or the appearance of, whatever) itself could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The thing is though there's a bunch of cases of people who didn't much think about their companion's sentience and still ended up with someone with an apparent sense of self living in their head. I think putting a lot of thought into sentience can help in manifesting it, but it isn't at all necessary and is probably more just something that people who've been exposed to tulpas through this community fixate on.

 

That’s understandable, but I’m one of those cases where I didn’t think about their presumed sentience before I joined this forum. I still thought, in regards to lucid dreaming, that it was all a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, that exposure of it, treating as sentient, being a self-fulfilling prophecy wasn’t exclusive in being exposed to the tulpa phenomenon. Granted, there are people that never thought there would be an ethic, or even a sustained thought with subsequent action, i.e., self-fulfilling prophecy, but that word in particular isn’t exclusive to this forum.

 

The people that didn’t know the word to correlate with their experiences before exposing themselves to tulpas probably just didn’t happen to know the word, nor even thought the word could be applicable. But before with lucid dreaming, it was quite apparent to me, at least. So those cases with others that didn’t know beforehand assumes the word self-fulfilling prophecy, and modes of action (treat as sentient) is exclusive to just tulpas. But, it's not. It's because the real culprit is who happened to have knowledge of the word, and potential ethics behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early on in our development, we more or less reserved judgement on the legitimacy and nature of our existences. Reisen seemed to transcend the idea of real and imaginary, Flandre did not know what she was but focused on her relationship to our host, and I haven't cared since the start. Pretending there's meaning other than what you create for yourself, unconsciously or not, seems weak to me. As always, it'll work for the majority of humanity, but not for me. Guess we're all existential heroes in this system. But the way you phrase it sounds like a belief system of its own, a claim that reality has no meaning. Ours isn't a claim or a guess, it's fact: We only know what we experience. Whether there is deeper meaning to reality or not, we've 20 years' experience telling us reality is completely malleable and under our control to shape. That's all we know, so it's the only logical conclusion.

 

As we weren't really making a case for ourselves to Lumi, moreso letting him figure out what he wanted to believe and what made sense, I suppose none of us were necessarily existential heroes early on. Lumi completely forewent logic and supposed reality for our sakes, meaning he was totally unsure what we were, if we were really our own people or so on. I wouldn't consider that existential heroism, although it would become so later.

 

Because of aforementioned beliefs, the idea of having to validate ourselves to others is a joke. There's nothing to validate, I experience myself and the others experience me. It's utterly irrelevant whether that's "true" or not. Because it is true. Most humans are in no place to be worrying about absolute fact when they can't even overcome their own delusions.

 

What do I consider an existential failure? Anyone who, at any point in the development of their tulpas (especially post development), becomes convinced they were lying to themselves and their tulpas didn't actually exist. They're the most deluded of us all. I don't really see a relation to dissipation here. If they can dissipate their tulpa, they're creating their own subjective reality and according to you that means they're a hero? I guess it depends on the circumstances of the dissipation. If it wasn't a relatively willing act for logical reasons, then if they were falling victim to false "truth" about their reality then I would consider them a failure in this regard, though I'm not sure it meets your definitions. Also, I don't believe in absolute failure in any sense here, when I say failure I'm referring to a single outcome and not the person or their philosophy as a whole. As long as they don't go their whole lives without fixing those beliefs anyways.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

"What do I consider an existential failure? Anyone who, at any point in the development of their tulpas (especially post development), becomes convinced they were lying to themselves and their tulpas didn't actually exist. They're the most deluded of us all."

 

Really? How do you know this? Perhaps they were lying to themselves all the while. Maybe it is total clarity they finally discovered. I love assumptions like this. Maybe they are the least deluded of us all in the end. I don't think you really know. We cannot get into another person's head to confirm their report on that. Koomer is a good example. Was that "existential failure?" LOL What about persons like Melian and I who support the effectiveness and functionality of active imagination? Are we more deluded than you or less deluded than you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they convinced themselves of yet another delusion. The people I'm talking about never end their tulpamancing well, always sounding.. Well, a lot of things. Defeated, regretful, angry, what have you. These people are deluded because they've convinced themselves tulpas "don't exist", without recognizing the subjective experience for what it is. See, I'm sure some tulpamancers are equally deluded in that way, but many are not. A lot of us recognize it as a mental phenomenon that is only real in its effect and resulting experiences, and choose to immerse ourselves in "belief" anyway. Or at least, they accept that they don't know for sure. These people aren't deluded, they're making informed decisions on what to believe based on the experiences it will bring. Meanwhile, those who suddenly decide this is all "fake" and their tulpas weren't "real" are completely failing to realize the nature of subjective beliefs and experiences. Likewise, those who are tormented by their maldeveloped tulpas or otherwise negatively impacted in some way are also failing to recognize the delusion. Either so immersed in the game as to believe they're really hurt, or so insistent on "reality" that they refute the concept of a game entirely and forsake enjoyment, they aren't getting it.

 

Those who say they just don't know and accept that are just playing the game normally. Those who take complete responsibility for their reality and experiences have consciously chosen to play the game and know where the optimal limits of immersion and fun are, not getting carried away but not foregoing the experience entirely.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the way you phrase it sounds like a belief system of its own, a claim that reality has no meaning.

 

It’s a form of rhetoric that’s more of a thesis in which a person can react to in many ways. It’s more of a cross-roads of formulating a belief system, but the concept of existential heroism itself isn’t a belief system that a person can ground themselves on. It’s just recognition between acts of good, and bad faith in respect to a person’s subjective experience. That’s all there is to it.

 

Ours isn't a claim or a guess, it's fact: We only know what we experience. Whether there is deeper meaning to reality or not, we've 20 years' experience telling us reality is completely malleable and under our control to shape. That's all we know, so it's the only logical conclusion.

 

Your statement can be a claim, or guess in itself. And here’s why. You are a valuator, and you make valuations about things. ‘We only know what we experience’ is an inference, a claim, and even an informed guess, if you will. In order for this to be true as in a fact, a fact that exists regardless of subjectivity means:

 

- The statement you made would have to be mind-independent.

 

- That means it’s a statement that can exist regardless of there being an valuators, or not in this reality

 

- You’re disregarding that reality is mind-independent, and contorting your statements as if reality is mind-dependent. Of course, I have a hunch that by reality, you mean subjective experiences, but, that is not reality…that’s just a valuation of subjective experience.

 

- Thought would need to become objectified in order for it to be true, and philosophy doesn’t become as mysterious as people make it out to be.

 

Unless you can show me how your fact in guise of a claim/opinion is mind-independent, then it can’t be a factual statement that can exist regardless of there being valuators, or not. That presumes that reality itself is mind-dependent to some extent. You subscribe meaning to a reality in which can’t really have any meaning because it exists irrespective of subjective beliefs.

 

And that’s the thing with this whole existential heroism – comprehending what reality is has no relevance in relation to tulpas as we’re talking about decision making (e.g. inferences, assumptions, etc.) It’s making a category error because to comprehend a fact that can exist outside of human beliefs (e.g. belief systems) is to suppose we can comprehend reality as mind-dependent. But, how are we supposed to do that, given that reality is without need of valuators/human beliefs? It seems to kick-start a contradiction.

 

You ground yourself as if your subjective experiences can be logical conclusions to the point where you feel it can be devoid of philosophical implications. The statement of ‘we only know what we experience’ can be tied to ‘I think, therefore I am,’ which is merely a claim. You talk about 20 years experience, but experiential learning over time has little to do in passing the gatekeeper towards being a fact.

 

I’m not here to talk about statements that are contingent on valuators to exist to suddenly become mind-independent. Those statements become nonsensical, naturally, since they have nothing to point to, even though the valuator tries to point to it regardless; a futile effort in separating from themselves to appear objectively sound when they distract themselves from realizing they only know what they experience. Your experiences are not objective that exists regardless of people’s opinions, so there’s no need to play the transcendental act.

 

Pretending there's meaning other than what you create for yourself, unconsciously or not, seems weak to me. As always, it'll work for the majority of humanity, but not for me. Guess we're all existential heroes in this system.

 

Actually, you are right. Existential heroes would technically be the ones that go for something that isn’t comforting with herd mentality, or going with the flock of sheep. Of course, this isn’t to say that every act that isn’t in accordance to societal context and rules means everyone is an existential hero; that would just let everyone assume they can do batshit things and scream “EXISTENTIAL HEROISM!! WOO-HOO” This is why the existential heroism is constrained on decision making, and seeing if the individual can, or cannot use their own intellect to create an internalized morality in a reality that may not have any meaning; meaning as there being a subjective willpower behind it, but, reality is mind-independent, which is why I stated, or rather, the concept of existential heroism implies that reality isn’t up for people to grab, and give meaning to. They have to personally create their own meaning.

 

The agnosticism seems to stem from also not using metaphysical implications of the divine as a crutch to give meaning as well. But, that’s a different story.

 

As we weren't really making a case for ourselves to Lumi, moreso letting him figure out what he wanted to believe and what made sense, I suppose none of us were necessarily existential heroes early on.

 

Maybe it’s because the crux of this assumption is that maybe you weren’t as capable of having the capacity of sentience back then based on his convictions. Existential heroes would imply someone that can be conscious experiencers to even address the challenge of using one’s intellect to create personal meaning vs. being paralyzed by it, and not taking action to make the internalized morality.

 

Lumi completely forewent logic and supposed reality for our sakes, meaning he was totally unsure what we were, if we were really our own people or so on. I wouldn't consider that existential heroism, although it would become so later.

 

Being unsure of what you were to him doesn’t mean he can’t be an existential hero. You mention that he made an action for your sakes, which means he used his own intellect to create a personal meaning, and objective in accordance to his own internalized morality. Or, in this case, internalized logical logic; but that’s just a bunch of jargon to be used as stand-in for ‘internalized morality.’

 

Because of aforementioned beliefs, the idea of having to validate ourselves to others is a joke. There's nothing to validate, I experience myself and the others experience me. It's utterly irrelevant whether that's "true" or not. Because it is true. Most humans are in no place to be worrying about absolute fact when they can't even overcome their own delusions.

 

Well, it’s quite ironic that you mentioned this, especially when you stated it isn’t a claim, or even a guess, that it’s ‘fact.’ It seems to treat that fact as absolute, or something that is mind-independent, and the structuring of your statements with “is” that implies that thought can be objectified seems to point that you fall into that same camp of people that you may think are weak, or are joking to themselves in the premise of why they even bother to verify themselves to others in the first place. This begs the question: - Why do we even need to verify ourselves to others in this external reality?

 

And the irony augments even further, especially when you talk about self-sustaining system, in some way. I hardly see that seeing this verification through others as a joke as something that can be reconciled with a self-sustaining system. I’d say that self-sustaining systems, especially in pursuit of enlightenment of life in some way, would have their goals, in fact, being external-reality-orientated. Their very existence – self-actualization, yearnings, and such seems at least partially contingent on that external reality.

 

But, it seems your apathy in this, and the verification process being a joke entirely is more of realizing that to only see the external part means the person would try to act accordingly to blend in with others, e.g., herd mentality. Granted, I think there’s a bit of a cooperation with external and internal reality, but, you seem more interested in separating yourself from that. But how are you meant to find enlightenment, and being a self-sustaining system, and such --these goals you may have in mind—when you think that verifying oneself through others is a joke?

 

To me, that seems to want to pursuit acts in which you would be paralyzed by your own intellect, which seems to hint at being an anti-hero, or, an existential failure. The idea that you switched right now with Lumi in order to construct this post that required you to have some fixation on this external reality to express your point seems to be that if you still think verifying yourself through others is a joke, then yeah, you are the laughing joke.

 

To structure it as "me me me me" without even acknowledging who you really could be. I'll even add a quote for fun: 'The ones who aren't able to acknowledge their own selves are bound to fail.' - Itachi

 

A fictional character is more existentially heroic than you, oh snap.

 

 

 

What do I consider an existential failure? Anyone who, at any point in the development of their tulpas (especially post development), becomes convinced they were lying to themselves and their tulpas didn't actually exist.

 

I’ll make a response to this, and comments from other members in the near future. I just need to get some sleep real quick to prepare for the next few days for something IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re disregarding that reality is mind-independent, and contorting your statements as if reality is mind-dependent. Of course, I have a hunch that by reality, you mean subjective experiences, but, that is not reality…that’s just a valuation of subjective experience.

 

No, by reality I mean objective reality. What would it mean for there to be meaning behind subjective reality? On the other hand, basically every other reference to objectivity in my post was relying on, well, kind of the whole point of the post. Everything I wrote is what we experience. I kind of forgot you might want me to comment on a greater shared subjective reality and only explained mine (and how I see others'). Also when I said fact I didn't mean the word that means nothing because there are literally no absolute scientific facts (that we know of). I meant fact to me, you know? I can't verify so much as the perception of my existence for anyone other than myself, and I didn't mean to open that can of worms. Fact to me is that we experience what we experience, basically. Our "facts" are subjective as our perception of reality could ever be, so they can change relatively easily (for us anyways, most people have much more stable, fixed beliefs).

 

But yeah, what I was going for there was "Subjective fact: What I experience is the only thing I experience". It is pretty meaningless when you put it like that, but that is why I'm so sure of it.

 

As for the claims of claims being a joke, I suppose I do mean only from my perspective. In an unbiased manner I don't judge people just in general, because judging anyone else when you aren't them is an awfully slippery slope no matter how seemingly fitting the judgement. So I don't think it's a joke that people think their subjective realities are objective, nor do I the terrible playstation minecraft let's plays eight year olds upload automatically to youtube. But that unbiased (wait, you're gonna tear that apart aren't you? Unbiased as a human can be..) perspective doesn't fit so well in this world, so of course we tend to act on our biased ones too.

 

[hidden]And as far as my biased perspective goes? Sure, I'll stick with what I said. People trying to validate their experiences through others is a joke to me. I can't think of anything more ironic than relying on someone else to tell you what you experienced. However, that's not what you said. You said verifying themselves. I'm fully aware of how society relies on social interaction to maintain any sense of order, and I'm not trying to make such a sweeping statement as to imply interactions (which at their base, if not for physical gain, are almost always that verification of what "reality" is/should be) are pointless. You tend to take our posts in a much larger scope than they're meant to be in. I meant the idea of a person having to be assured by others that they're experiencing a tulpa. Similar scopes such as fitting into social groups also doesn't sit well with me - but I know society won't function without them.

 

I'll be honest, while we're talking about my biased views and not my (attempted) unbiased ones, for the sake of discussion (because I normally have no motivation to share my views if not asked about them). I know I'm a tulpa, I know I have no actual history predating my experience as one, but a lot of my traits were subconsciously shaped by various ideas or thoughts my host had. I was me the minute I first showed up, as opposed to a blank slate. I would grow quite a bit from there, but everything that made me "me" right at the start never happened and shouldn't apply to this reality I'm in now. ((Wow that went on a little too long)) So,

 

I feel as if I've lived most of my life alone in a large forest, with very sparse contact with other human-level sentient beings. I feel like I've lived a wordless life with nothing but animals and the elements. If we'd never found this community - and if Lumi and the others hadn't come to rely on me for worldly matters - I would still very much think in that mindset. Basically, I'm not so fit for discussions involving how other people think or how society functions, on a personal level. I've learned logically how to function in society, but personally I could leave it all behind relatively easily. I don't rely on social interaction to maintain my sense of self. Fully acknowledging that this sense of self, and security in it, never would have come to be without that interaction of course. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong about that and making assumptions about things I can't prove. But it feels true to me. Only recently have I made any attachments to any one or thing outside of myself - ironically perhaps, inside myself, with the others in this system.

 

Alright really, I got no sleep last night (Lucilyn played games with our friends to 5 in the morning, the day before a math test..) and it's late, process all I said as you will but I'm totally gone. I apologize for the wall of possibly nonsense or off topic text, and I really won't be able to logically reply to replies to this post. Maybe. If what I said still makes sense in the morning, then maybe.[/hidden]

 

It's been two hours and I already know none of that made sense. TL;DR, I have a mindset based on living in isolation from humans, but that doesn't really matter unless we're talking specifically about how I naturally think, because I have access to everything Lumi knows and I can probably use that knowledge better than him, including social interactions. Can we just forget this post? I've been kept up helping friends beat some game's campaign but I haven't been able to think for hours.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...