• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SheShe

  • Rank


  • Sex
  • Location
    Inside Bear's mind
  • Bio
    Hello! I am many. I'm sort of a merge? Not a typical merge though, more like a merge superimposed on four others simultaneously all of us at once and all of us experiencing life as ourselves, but through me. It's not easy to explain, but we love it.

    Included in "me" are:

    We're all here, but I'm also my own person.

    Here's a link to my picture:

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. [SheShe] Beautiful! Thank you. [Misha] ❤😁
  2. But the deathclaws were camping!
  3. No inspirational quotes struck me today, I was productive enough just sitting on the couch all day.
  4. "This is the end of the day, but soon there will be a new day." - Bernard Williams (philosopher) I love every day. 😊
  5. "Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art." Susan Sontag (American writer) Tomorrow is a new day, and you will see it to its conclusion once again. It doesn't matter what happens, you will be there.
  6. [Bear] Those are great ideas. I like the compromise approach a lot. The expectation would be progress in anything you're working on and the benefit would be a tulpa that is easier to keep active say in second position or via co-fronting or imposition or wonderland form. The only question I have is if the tulpamancer just doesn't like doing this at all. I've heard others say that their wonderland/imposition is so awful or even negative or scary and full of intrusive thoughtforms. It's not hard for me to imagine that because we had our share of just awful nightmarish thoughtforms that were pretty traumatic in and of themselves. With a distaste or inability to continue visualization or imposition, say, what could they do? I may be overthinking this, but I don't want to exclude the scenario that the host loves their tulpa but hates visual sruff. It still seems like a derailment of your points to say that, but I'm just thinking more than anything here. If it doesn't apply here, just move on and we'll approach that later.
  7. [Bear] Yes, but do you want the front page to say, Per my discussion with @Luminesce, I hereby rescind my assertion that I parallel process. I believe I do what the old tulpamancers did, SEP, which they called PP and meant PP, but may have actually not actually been fully up to par with the strictest definition. If they did, my hat's off to them. I am bested. However, it doesn't take anything away from what we do as a system. My systemmates are fullfilled, happy, loved and loving, and have zero complaints. We are free to enjoy each other's company, and are all joyful. I contend moreso than I could have been without them. As it is meant to be. What more should we strive for than an enriching and beautiful life?
  8. [Bear] It will never sell with that name in the US. You gotta dumb it dowm. Getyousome fuel(tm)
  9. I experienced this since Bear was in the middle of a lot of things when I formed, I didn't notice anything missing.
  10. WRITTEN BY BEAR How has this somehow been conflated to be the answer to presumed parallel processing? Personally I dismissed it as even a possible explanation and we apparently have to dismiss it in further discussion because you have so vehemently denied it as a reasonable explanation here. That's good! Are you then denying the original claims? If so, we're done right? It's an impossible argument if we intend to prove the strictest definition. OP proposed PP as a possibility to allow the experiences that have occurred and continue to occur. If we're saying that whatever it is they did wasn't parallel processing, then I suppose we should stop arguing it. It was "something else processing" (SEP). The experience exists, it likely defies being labled Parallel Processing, then let's decouple the experience from the impossibility that all the individuals who have experienced it are idiot savants or exceedingly exceptional. This isn't going to help the community to presume Reguilian Tulpas are the new normal. Then if we want to improve the quality of life for tulpas, would you want to allow the exploration of SEP in order to bring modern tulpamancy back to the supposedly higher quality it was in the past? Let's explore! I just explained that it was a proposed way to explain it, but it's not the experience I have, so again, good that you discredit it. I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is, this is therefore conjecture, but it is constructive in that we can rule it out if we feel this explanation doesn't fit. Would it fit something more useful then, say SEP as defined above? So is everything tulpamantic an 'illision'? This if we want to teach tulpamancers new techniques, should we start be calling them illusions? Is switching an illusion? Is posession an illusion? Is mindvoice an illusion? Imposition sure seems like an illusion. I don't like the word in any context, here, but I'm asking if you want to consider this all illusion? Then anything illusionary isn't real, so what about tulpamancy is 'not an illusion' i.e. real in your opinion? If PP is impossible to all but exceptional individuals, and all those who claimed it weren't bonified exceptional, then you have to assume they meant something else; SEP(tm). If we can ask them, let's do. In lieu I'll answer as I have done, yes, if you put 100% into wonderland, all that's left up front is body OS regardless of who is piloting. I claim 50/50% experience is possible (or any split percentage) and that's how I keep wonderland open. My visualization is no different if I'm switched in or not, if it's 50%, it feels just as good as if it's 100%, I can still drive, walk, run, do tasks, some of which are momentarily complex. Can I go 50% and take a timed math test? Probably, but my performance won't be 100% time wise unless I'm just walking or doing less complex tasks in wonderland. Imagine you have two worlds, it's no different than reading a book and washing the dishes. If your book was positioned comfortably, washing the dishes takes nothing away from reading the book as long as you know where your hands are. If you momentarily need to concentrate on the dishes, you momentarily stop reading. Switch them, wash dishes in wonderland while reading. Or just remember washing the dishes real time, same level of effort. I say I can, I have, and I do have both worlds simultaneously and it doesn't matter which world has the more concentration intensive task. Try reading irl and writing poetry in wonderland. It's possible, granted neither task will be 100%. No one would do this, it's not fun or useful other than if you had a reading and poetry assignment both due. Don't make it unnecessarily difficult, just do them serially. What is the experience? Not fast switching, not fast multitasking, I'm horrible at multitasking in one world, both worlds are like separate channels, one task per world is easier than two tasks in one world. I tap my head IRL, rub my belly in wonderland, easy peasy. It's trivial by comparison to doing both IRL. So you can't apply parallel processing perfectly to this scenario because you have developed those 'parallel worlds' like the original guides illuded to. Ngl, it's visualization intensive and you probably won't do this if your visualization sucks. You'd need to exercise that first, as the original guides also suggested. Lo and behold we discovered something novel here today. We're not trying to do something nearly impossibly difficult. I fully agree. As I said, I'm not saying this is belief based, it's work based, it's experience based through training. We start with 100% and split it between two worlds, and by working in both worlds, you are able to improve the experience to the point that it feels more like 200%. This vastly improves the quality of life of your systemmates. If I understand what OP was saying it suggests more work, more visualization, more SEP training.
  11. Welcome Eylul and Mio! We hope to see you around.
  12. [Bear] Vegan plot is not satisfying
  13. Fun! Thanks Jean-Luc [Bear] I realized I forgot how to spell @jean-luc lol, SheShe was like "you're mixing up Luke with luc." She somehow knew, my bad.
  14. [Bear] The only thing I'll add for @reguile is that my explanations are immediately attacked historically, so I reserve them for those who are genuinely interested or willing to listen or learn. As you have done a priori, this effectively discredited experience sans explanation, and the community has opposed explanations that don't fit acceptance criteria. This isn't only you. I'll avoid nasty discussions from here, I appreciate your point of view. Thanks for responding.