• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J.Iscariot

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Sex
  • Bio
    I'M SO LOW


















Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. God, revealing I was a multi all along isn't getting me a ban already? Ban me for all eternity. You people were never worth looking into, tulpamancy died as a legitimate phenomenon years ago. Ban my account permanently please.
  2. I'm leaving this place permanently. I am also Evil. Goodbye.
  3. I am taking a small break from this place. I don't have any issues with the community. That would be like blaming people for breathing. Here is the actual problem: I realized that there is no way to actually have productive discussions on this place apart from forcefully forcing it upon other people, who are not ready to have discussions that require observation from a less biased standpoint; if someone is biased and knows about it, they can deviate from that bias, except if they're just fine with being limited to one mindset, one mentality. I've been researching tulpas, plurality and other type of 'mental practices' for a very long while now. I don't know what to look for anymore. I don't know what a researcher, someone with actual access to scientific gear and scanners would do in this situation. You cannot, absolutely cannot study tulpas. That is out of question. If you study tulpas, you are going to end up with results that won't lead you anywhere, because we lack the knowledge (and the scientific spirit that I found in very few forum members), the knowledge required, to say anything conclusive. What you CAN do is study hosts, not only that, but all types of multiples and plurals. Study the chronological series of events that leads to one's dismay or mental inadequacy, that pushes them to this type of escapism. And that's a mistake I did. Not flee from anything, but try to understand other people. Part of it was because I cannot enjoy breathing while entertaining this type of conversations. A conversation in which the topic is constantly skewed to one's personal experiences. I seem like one of those elitists who do nothing but talk about experiences that are far from my own perception, ontology is not supposed to be something we feel 'passionate' about; and if you do feel passionate about something, you will respect it in its own limits and borders of appreciation. Archimedes died because of his passion (or another greek mathematician, not sure who.), his death was stupid but it was 100% preventable and unwarranted. And the more we do this, the more we go into how 'yay tulpas are good', the more we become a part of this... collective of people. Alcohol addicts meeting, if you may. Because we start sharing our experiences on a forum, a place we know nothing about, nobody knows us in personal ways, personal ways in which we revel on an intimate scale. We start speaking of our experiences, and what one does is something that everyone knows about. He dated his tulpa. He had sex with her. She made a tulpa for depression. He made a servitor because he could not withstand emotions. All of those things are... what I've seen being said, openly, freely, shamelessly as if it were something to take pride in. This is not criticizing a set group of people, no, far from it, it is not wanting to being that way. Not wanting to make the unacceptable acceptable, what the shameful shameless, what is supposed to relinquish in self-deceit... self-deceit. To the point we don't know what we're doing. We push ourselves to believe in something, to believe in the greater good, to believe that the human mind can withstand two functioning, at-all-times-brainstorming entities. We push ourselves to believe in such a thing that looks so... far-fetched, yet something we can relate to on extremely close and personal ways. The way we end up destroying this intimate, precious and personal wall, though, is sharing such information with other people that will do nothing but end up reflecting on their situations. Not in a beneficial way, not in a way anybody, not even the 'receptor' of such information' benefits and obtains this type of self-empowerment, but in a way that it goes down to, and excuse the term, mongering attention. Not in a way that people would beg for it, but in a way that it is constantly enforced. What is this place? Is it a community? Or is it a research facility? If it represents the former, it has failed where it alienated some components that wished to belong. If it is the latter, it has failed where it seeks to prove things, not to others, but to itself. Realistically speaking, I am not here to tell you about how awful of a treatment I have been provided by some members of the community, people are tired of hearing about that, and I realized that this facade was not working anymore. Making people think that I, not my tulpa, but I was actually affected by such simple and mundane things was foolish. I wanted a reason to care, I wanted a reason to... do what I thought was right! Perhaps that was it, but nobody can ever tell. I've been called 'the shittiest person I have met online' along with a lot of other names. The people who will read this will probably take pride in this implicit mention. They will take joy in being mentioned in a negative way, thinking that the evil that dominates this world is part of them. Not at all. It is purely human nature that dominates their character. The way they want to deviate from their nature, the way they want to be different only makes the part of the norm they want to alienate themselves from. If this is a community, it failed. It failed and crushed every single thing to the ground. Not because of me. Not because of others who had been neglected by both the moderation (previous mod team that showed extreme amounts of bias, and might end up quoting every single point of this post with a retort to which I will not respond under the pretense that I do not wish to provide this type of honor) and other members. By the former on the level of bias, and by the latter on the level of apathy. If this is a research facility, it failed. It failed and brought everything down. Every single discussion that has taken place is, was and will be ones that occurred in philosophical current of thoughts that are highly subjective, and most likely inaccurate due to how biased they are. There is no place for scientific research, the moment we start speaking about ourselves in explicit details, the topic is over with. People care about themselves; understandably, that is acceptable. But this type of attention mongering (and I mean no offense to anyone at all) is the one that puts an end to... knowing anything from anything! To knowing what is real, by our criteria and not by others, to knowing what we actually experience, to differentiate between self-deceit, and actual... tulpamancy, I suppose. So, what is this place? What is this forum? Is it a mix? Is it supposed to be both a facility and a community? Won't that just fall down? I'll be clear with this. I never, for one moment, believed in switching and possession. But I still included them in my discussions; I still considered them as valid parts of the tulpamancy practice, I could not let my beliefs rule out what this whole thing IS about. I'm just so tired of this entire thing. Of people antagonizing me and my tulpa for existing, for breathing and for calling me a wolf in sheep's clothing. And nothing can change that, eventfully, if people start realizing what I've been trying to do to this place, how much I tried time and over (more than you possibly know, my attempts were numerous) to change this place. I should have tried harder, maybe. Everywhere I went, I was rejected. Both of us were. And when I came here, it was the perfect place. But we never were regarded as persons, person with lives behind them, with loved ones, with interests and likes and dislikes. I literally received death incitations and suicide wishes over this place. You know who you are if you're reading this. The mistake is not any type of evil, though. Evil people do not know that they are indeed evil. They take their actions as valid and justified. ... But even when I did such things, when I treated people negatively, I never, never took it as warranted. You may know that I was in a big drama thing with a member from this community, to the point what him and his system (that I do not believe in, and believe that this person is in self-deceit) actively sought to harm my tulpa. And did I harm them? Yes. I bothered them a lot, but never took pride in it, and still regret it, and regard my actions as unwarranted. But that is not my issue. My actual issue is everything tossed altogether. I am not asking for pity, or sympathy, or friendship. What I am asking for, though, is not to edit this post. Keep it as it is, please. Don't skew what has been said, let people know of what I thought. I suppose that you guys are going to see a spike in a specific member's activity. Don't think of me as a bad guy, though; I acted under the impulse of emotions, and still regret it to this day, stooping to a lower level than the 'oppressors' I wanted to fight, until I became THE only oppressor. Not anymore. I have a girl to take care of, and a busy life; I'll still read stuff, but I won't participate anymore. There are always eyes watching, out there, though. And the more you guys say? The more you will regret, eventually. Literally dozens of members ended up having all of their records deleted on this place. See you around.
  4. As much of a dick thing it is to say, no sleep would have been lost over members who only come for the FG and who left. Shit, matter of fact, if people left this place sooner they'd be better off, because this place can be a time-sink for many people, and in the past, it kept people from actively working on their tups. I'm not saying that people who do FG are a detriment to others, I don't care about the section but I know for a fact this place is a time-sink and the FG section contributes to this.
  5. The real detriment to this forum is the Forum Games indeed. I thought that sentence was expressive enough.
  6. No, it's not. Nor will it be. This place is dead compared to other places. The real plague is the Forum Games, if you're going to design something as detrimental don't put it on people's curiosity, put it on stuff that actually does serve no purpose to the practice this site promotes. The solution is sending a welcome PM to beginners and putting an emphasis on searching before posting, that shit is automated. I don't get why we're all having our tits on fire over people asking questions online, they often include their own situation which may make things different.
  7. What is the difference between tulpamancy and imagination? I know that some people regard tulpamancy as a form of imagination, perhaps a vivid type of 'imagination' (and that term is used to diminish of one's credibility more than often, sadly). We would need to define what imagination is, in this context: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. Of course, we would consider this action to be conscious, or somewhat contextual in relation to other actions. More than often, this type of imaginative thinking will not be issued out of conscious efforts, but from a simple thought in relation to the context; If I start thinking about dogs, it is likely for me to start having mind images of a dog as a representation for other parts of my mind to understand the thoughts at hand. When I asked this question to people, I was often faced with arguments such as 'It doesn't matter if it is your imagination', which one way implicates that yes, tulpamancy is, in some ways, this type of imagination (that is not discussed in any detrimental way in the first place), and the other way, that this imagination is meant to be something to be 'ashamed of'. While the latter is something one could expect from a lot of people to say and be convinced of, the former also indicates other thoughts regarding this practice. And when we say 'imagination', we don't mean to implicate that this spectrum of thinking is limited to conscious efforts. It could be dream characters, projection of certain emotions and lustful desires that appear as completely unconscious, and indeed, are. So, where does the difference between tulpamancy and imagination appear? I will list a few points that express what I think of this matter. Confusion between imagination, and tulpamancy. A lot of people seem to confuse 'unconscious' imagination with tulpamancy. This point is not listed as a means to make such experiences look 'fake' (and in that meaning, they would be more relative than they would be accurately correct). As previously said, some imaginative thoughts can emerge and seem to be extremely... surprising. There are thoughts that hang in the back of your head, and emerge after some time. Mathematical visualization (which can apply in Physics too) can happen if you start thinking about a geometrical shape. I happen to be able to visualize shapes without having to actively think about it, and the same applies to everyone, or at least, a lot of people, and this is despite having poor imaginative and creativity skills. Not only that, but as this practice comes off as extremely subjective, it is possible for anyone to have any type of thoughts, be it in their imagination or other thought processes such as conscious and critical thinking, and qualify them as being sentient thoughtforms. This might look as a form of elitism coming from a party of tulpamancers, but let us take this elsewhere; let us say that there was no place to share tulpa experiences, that someone had around 6 thoughtforms in their minds, imagination, wonderland, mindscape, whatever you want it to be. The assessment of what those thoughtforms 'are' (which is supposed to be done through a specific set of conditions, refer to Linkzelda's ontology and epistemology w/ scientism discussion as it is very interesting in this domain) is biased in most hosts, at least, the ones who consciously (or even subconsciously) are in complete favor of being pre-occupied by an entity that thinks and acts on its own in their minds. So, technically speaking, if someone came here and said that their tulpas were in their imagination, BUT that they could think on their own, we could not come up with anything to retort with (not in the sake of some glorified pretense of 'having a tulpa', but in the sake of science and discovering modes of operation for tulpas, discussing them and taking them a philosophical approach, perhaps?) Additionally, the process of active imagination is consistently present in any and all developmental stages (personality forcing, visualization, parroting, etc...), yet some people completely shun imagination as being anything related to their tulpas. This goes to show that imagination does play a certain role. Finally, it would be hard to explain the conception of a sentient entity in one's mind without attributing any importance to imagination, be it conscious or those thoughts that appear as strange and sudden to us, but are actually us. Someone could actually legitimately (not in the sake of tulpamancy and its image, but in the sake of that person am I saying those things) take those thoughts, put a sort of nametag on them and interact with it. Imaginative processes would develop things from there, which devolves in the... art, let's say, of self-deception. An art because you, me, and everybody else will never know what's right from what's wrong. So, what do you guys think? Vote in the poll, and if you have any other opinion, please post it. The poll does not limit you to those things if you want to post about your opinion, so if it doesn't fit you, please post. as for the other poll thing please disregard it it was a mistake to ask this here
  8. If it helps you, nobody cares about how detrimental it is to the community, trust me. If anything, you're taking the attention of people for, what, a few minutes at most daily for them to read this thread; that's nothing too bad, and people have it much worse when it comes to 'sharing their lives' on this forum.. If it does help you, there is no shame in posting about it and not about 'progress'. And maybe, maybe people like this daily dose; nobody else posts about their lives the way you do (in a way that it keeps the reader wanting consistently and moderately to know what goes on with you). You're making people care and not in a bad way. If you want to post about your personal life then the mods will end up moving your thread to the lounge or some other section of the forum, but if it helps you with your mental illness? You should not bar yourself from doing it.
  9. (I did not ignore all of your other points and if anything, I agree with them and understand what you originally meant. I'm just going to answer some of the questions you posed and perhaps discuss the logic behind the presented ideas.) Oh, yes, of course, ontology and epistemology do not only apply to what we may see and touch, that would be a contradiction to the very meaning of 'metaphysics' (which, I take it, would be just like how Descartes described Metaphysics, Physics and Science as components of a tree with metaphysics being the very roots, so we're excluding the general idea of magic and other practices the term invokes around here). I meant to say (and poorly implicated) that it would be hard to actually get into such ontological evaluations, not impossible, and as you put it, there can be a different ontological approach, but in my perspective this approach would be harder to accomplish. I think that, in order to apply all of these things, we'd also need to dissolve doubts in an integral manner. Or render them unimportant because we would be studying a practice, a 'definition' that acts lust like an axiom in the sense that we would fully and bluntly hypothesize its flawlessness.
  10. You know, it makes me wonder; if a thoughtform is inferior (because there is a thing such as inferiority in this world) in some ways to a tulpa, is it not hypocritical to call it a tulpa instead of, like, a headmate? Because if it falls under that category, there is a matching term that encloses a definition. If it holds differences that you, the host, are aware of, why try to hide them? There is more relief in knowing your wrongs than having people smiling at you telling that it's all good. Even if it undermines of others, the west is pushed in a consistent way to fear arrogance and force modesty upon others. If you think you're superior to someone and if you feel like you can instill it without people taking it too seriously and without blowing it out of proportions, where's the wrong in it? And recognizing inferior points within yourself gives more modesty than 'I would rather not undermine of anyone's value'. But that's just what I think. Anyway, enjoy your stay or whatever it is you intend to do on here.
  11. Is it something we're supposed to discuss...? I've typed thrice to come up with something coherent but this 'view' (that I would like to see in everybody else) makes absolute and perfect sense, at least, it's something I've been pursuing for a long while, epistemology and ontology in this phenomenon; although I find it a bit... I don't know how to put it. I would say that it would be very hard to possibly define 'tulpamancy' in such a way with ontological evaluation. This is a man-made concept. It requires, well, supposedly requires amounts of belief and motivation for it to take any occurrence. This is a concept people wish into existence; it has no basis in psychology (aside from dream characters that could be compared but your brain operates in completely different modes when you sleep), it has some ties with, what, detachment of your own sense of self as a person (as demonstrated in other 'plural' practices; some scholars even went as far as to deny DID openly!) which I believe is a foundation to the practice of switching and possession, but I could be wrong. Would we not need to define the function of such ontological evaluations here? Because yes, you can apply ontology in human concepts, but tulpamancy is actually only a thing that we will, we wish for to become real. We are subject to reality in ways that it is mildly subjective. Mildly subjective because there is a ground to experience universal 'objective' reality that is in reality a wider, universal subjective lane - common sense, moral codes, logic and ration, how some things make sense in the minds of all people - and yet, some people experience things differently due to, say, brain alterations, events that attain their psyche in a way that it modifies thought processing, evokes certain mentalities clouded with emotions of fear, paranoia, etc... This is going a bit far from what there is to be said about the topic at hand, but the point is that people are subject to reality in generalized ways; this is how epistemology and ontology function; we experience, witness, question one another about the nature of existence, the 'meaning', perhaps, of life and what nature has to offer us... but the issue is that everyone here is seemingly experiencing tulpamancy in a more or less different way. As I hypothesized it before, it is possible to place general definitions and modes of operations on tulpas and how they function, but it is both possible and impossible at the same time. Possible because there is some acceptance to this mentality, it makes sense, you should be able to define what a tulpa is - but impossible because it is not something that was already present in reality, it's something in our minds that requires more knowledge in the specific psychological field, applied ontology applies to things that happen whether we deny them or not, microorganisms are still there and are technically empirically 'provable'. But tulpamancy is a cat in a box you cannot see; rather, it is a cat in a box you cannot open, or may have opened but there is far too many things in it for us to 'comprehend'. Freudian psychology tells us a good bit about developmental phases of the sense of identity that makes us who we are, libido from birth up to advanced stages of adulthood in direct practice; but a lot of people reject that. You cannot apply Aristotle's syllogism either because it's not as simple and linear as that. More than that, it's not like math either where you have axioms that are plainly self-evident (euclid's propositions), because the nature of tulpamancy is not self-unveiling, we don't get to see what truly IS inside and are in constant doubt. Would you imagine how it would be if it was the exact same thing with math? If axiomatic definitions were distorted in ways that we wouldn't be able to just go with them? (like Euclid did and even with Lobachevsky's Non-Euclidian Geometry, it still works, because axioms are not to be questioned and make sense within their own axiomatic systems). There is no such evaluation with tulpamancy; it is a practice a lot of people doubt and question with a lot of other defaults. I do agree that you could apply ontology onto 'how' tulpas are a thing but we need waaaaay more psychology knowledge regarding how the mind functions; and in that case, if we come to find out that this is merely a delusion of some sort, would we still need to allocate the importance of applying ontological evaluation to that concept? (sorry if this makes no sense I have no idea what to say aside from that)
  12. The reasoning that is presented to you, the community of tulpa.info and affiliated members of the staff and other lurkers, is not the actual topic of my 'research'. Furthermore, this is not about whether people would do it for not, it is an evaluation and identification test to a certain component. I don't have the goal to make your typical '50% of people voted against parroting' survey with lame and boring stats. All I need is the input of this community, and to study each and everyone's situation case-by-case. I then attach the provided responses and try to establish a relation between their upbringing, their beliefs, their thoughtforms and the answer they present. I believe that if and when I see someone voting yes, that will be the step forward my research. I would like it if people who feel like they would agree, and more specifically and urgently, tulpas who would agree reach out to me as I have a lot of questions and hold a very specific interest in their reasoning, without acting as the devil's advocate in such questioning. I'm not going to tell what the purpose of my research actually is, though. Every sub-section of it is, in many ways, an important point of reasoning and tulpamancy model. It's the little pieces that come together. I'm not even discussing of the type of empathy you would find in tulpas as a reflection of the host's best side, for instance. There is one specific answer that I would deem highly intelligent and would bring my research an entire step forward in terms of reasoning, and as bad of a classification model where I include some and exclude others it may seem, it is something I've been studying for a very long while, methodology in evaluation and identification, forming this type of questions and hypothetical scenarios does not involve a direct answer. For all I care, everyone will vote yes, it's the reasoning behind it that interests me, along with my association of that reasoning to many other logical factors and even personal ones. The little pieces that contribute to this type of analysis are what help. But, yes. This is still open for anyone who will eventually vote yes. That I would like to get in touch with.