• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Faemon

  • Rank
  1. With all due respect to your commitment to building a healthy boundary between how you feel and what other people think and say...I can't believe it's really that simple. I used to be so wimpy that I'd go catatonic at the knowledge of my own worthlessness if someone so much as informed me that my shoelace was untied! The thing is, I knew it was wimpy, but it took sooo much more inner work than a simple decision. It took an environment where people either encouraged or challenged, never bullied. It took the idea that what somebody else thought about me was none of my business. A quote I picked up recently that might also be helpful, from Epictetus (42) When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. If anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.” This quote probably doesn't apply to everything in life, of course, if somebody reviles you enough to try to get your town to shun your family into poverty, then it's not just somebody else's delusion of personal integrity that's injured. Most internet forum conversations that don't involve doxxing, though? Probably applies. Still, while what anybody else feels isn't any of my business either really, I do hope you both achieve the ability to read a sentence of such a nature and genuinely not feel attacked or invalidated, rather than it only being like...you would feel so awful, but hide/delete it (although that can bring the level of interpersonal tension down a whole lot, which can help, isolation isn't always the healthiest either.)
  2. Aha. Thank you for clearing that up! I can always tell the difference, too, even when they blend, but it was actually tough to try to describe what that difference is, and what I mentioned was not exactly it.
  3. That's an interesting point of confusion because I can feel when it's a dream versus a daydream. Daydreams took some training for me to relax, because I usually used imagination deliberately, to try to remember where I left something important like my keys, or what a word looks like when it's spelled correctly. They can become dreamlike or daydream like during meditations, but I remain aware of my physical body by default. When it comes to REM dreams, I lose touch with the physical but have heard that is not always the case. Dreams have a stickier, more cloying texture to me than daydreams (not necessarily more vivid)...so, it threw me a bit when you mentioned that you can reenter a dream while awake; a daydream of a dream, maybe, or a memory of a dream, yes I can understand, even a Wonderland based on a dream you've had...but how can you reenter a REM dream that isn't a REM dream? Can't you feel the difference in the texture of the reality fabric? Dreams have a higher thread count. Ha, that could just be me though. As for lucidity, well...if you can, try opening and closing a fist or stamping a foot, or some small movement like that. Now: what would be the difference between doing that because you decided to do that, versus having that movement happen during a seizure? The deliberate decision is lucidity.
  4. Full disclosure: I dislike the word tulpa, I'm only here because I've had similar experiences to what's described, if we would only do away with the jargon. I get why the jargon would be there, though, and some of this has been very similar to me-and-mine what fit better with soulbonds. I dislike that word, too. But, yeah, there's the voyeuristic visual thought process while I'm writing...and then there's characters whose composition of traits stir up something surprising that wasn't on the story outline...and then there's characters who sort of impose without my trying like and go "hey" and when I peer at them and go, hey, uhh, aren't you fictional, they just shrug as though we've sort of met and they've figuratively been raiding the fridge for months; they don't care that I seem to have been going muahaha dance my puppets, so maybe I haven't but I really sort of have? But I wasn't by then. She was the one sitting on my wrists at the keyboard and nagging, "write me!" There's another writer on here whose characters were horrified to find that they'd been made to suffer for the sake of entertainment in a fiction, so certainly my characters' worldview is not universal. And some characters remain characters, in the mental stage or television set of the creative process. For me, perhaps because of that weirdness between myself and my (sigh) waifu I think is what kids these days are calling it, there's a different attitude towards possessiveness during romantic relationships. Cap'n Lusmore (he's a pirate) has a boyfriend in the canon I thought up for him, and when I went over the "veil (between worlds)" I guess we could call it, or into the Wonderlands, and when I met this boyfriend of my boyfriend that way, well, he seemed to treat my relationship with my waifu as a non-issue: waifu-and-I weren't real in the ways that mattered to him, as long as I wrote good swordfighting scenes and caught the details of the good "swordfighting scenes" nudgewink (why is this only awkward for me?) then he really didn't care. Which I think and feel is totally okay, and even if I did not brainstorm, outline, script, or otherwise deliberate that meeting...that okayness of mine might very well be where his okayness comes from. That's my cue to get psychological about it. So: If you do not feel that this is coming from a healthy place, you are right, and would probably have more integrity and comfort in your skin if you don't do it. So how about exploring where that yearning comes from, in more abstract terms? Does your character symbolize or embody personality traits that you feel were repressed or neglected in yourself? That sort of thing. I'm not a psychotherapist, though, so if you want to do that then might as well consult someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Personally, I've found that starting something up with some manner of being such as Lusmore has been a more concrete exploration that gets me to much more emotionally healthy places. My therapist agrees.
  5. First, I want to keep in mind how vivid the physical world is through my physical senses. I have myopia, so my eyes cannot process light in a way that accepts clear edges of things at a certain distance. I also have some processing issues, for example, a lot of people who suffer from depression mention the world turning gray. That is not literal or visual, but neither is it merely poetic or purely emotional: senses feel more dull during depressive episodes. My thought process isn't as swift as they are on "good days", neither is my memory. I also have unhealthy eating habits, I can get so engrossed in something that I skip lunch, and that nutrition (calories, essential acids, salts, vitamins) can make my physical reality seem flat and distant. So, what make the physical real to me is how I tend to default to it. I can have dreams in different places, but I always wake up where I fell asleep. People I interact with every day put forth a sense of history and continuity when I do not witness them. I've read of people who live a "second life" in dreams or daydreams, and I don't disbelieve them, but neither am I saying that there is no difference when dreams and daydreams can be so vivid and the physical life so not, or that both can have a sense of history or continuity. What is the goal of classification? I once re-entered a dream by daydreaming about what I remembered of the dream right after I had just woken up. It was cool to feel myself falling asleep again, and how the mind-stuff shifted from memory/imagination to a dream, as I retained lucidity but...why should I want to make a categorical distinction? What purpose would that serve? With immersive daydreams, I have this sense of my physical body as an object, or my daydream body as an object. Immersive daydreams are personally very liminal and unstable. I heard a podcast where a lucid dreamer spoke about being able to sense the position of her sleeping body, but when I tried that during a lucid dream, I woke up: I don't have that mental "buffer space" between body and mind (or mindscape-body). Lucid dreams, likewise fuzzy on category. I've had what some call "false lucid dreams" where your dream-self acts as though they have reality changing powers or paranormal abilities, but did not know it was a dream; or, dream-self behaving as though consequences don't exist, so you'd think on some level they know it's a dream, but it's not what your waking-lucid self would have planned for a dream-lucid episode. In those cases, I advise to simply enjoy the memory of an epic, adventurous, empowering dream rather than grumble about it. I have also initiated out-of-body experiences, although I don't consider those the same as dissociation? Because I had been prepped with this model of body-as-object and spirit-world or extradimensional plane...which, even if you don't believe that as a fact, are what provided me the way to parse the experience. The word "dissociation" appears to be an experience in and of itself. At first, I'd experienced violent "exit" or "splitting" symptoms, loud noises, tactile disruptions, no cause for either of them...and then, after many of those, they became so calm that it became dreamlike except for the feature that these out-of-body movements would begin in what appeared to be the room I fell asleep (or meditated) in. False awakenings do that a lot, and just as vividly, though. So, if I'd wanted to make any distinction between out-of-body experieneces and dreams, it would be witnessing something in the physical world that I could later verify (but not have learned in any other way.) Those endeavors have personally been a consistent failure, so while I can insist in my heart of hearts that it's different, and that difference is really real (pout! crossed arms! foot-stamping!)...the distinction would really be just useless to anybody else.
  6. Nope. No one has, no one can, no one shall. Goes against the laws. The laws of physics.
  7. Maybe they were lying to fit in with what others were saying, even lying to themselves, and one day just figured out it wasn't worth the exhaustion anymore. That doesn't mean that everyone else who has testified to vivid projection, switching, etc. are lying, just that if I haven't experienced it myself then it shouldn't matter to me. It'll be interesting to read about, and it would hurt if I found out it wasn't true whether it was a very convincing troll or someone finally owning up to wanting to keep up with the Joneses, but it ultimately someone else's experience shouldn't have been the pillar of my belief system.
  8. Welcome back! With me, it feels as though it's not the case, so I have to keep reminding myself to interpret the actions/messages symbolically. Some issues even seem to work themselves out when I buy into autonomy (within interpersonal limits) rather than keep neurotically conscious about thinking about thinking about how my mind operates...so, when others insist on independence, I just figure that that's their process. I'm not their mother, or their therapist. Still, it sucks to only be in that mindset because of peer pressure and not because it's really the process of the psyche. If more conversations would open up about interpreting tulpa experiences symbolically or narratively, maybe there would be fewer dogmatic flamewars. Disbelief shouldn't be a threat, just appreciated as an individual approach. That's brave to admit, that your own testimony wasn't valid. Really, though, back to interpersonal limits...I think the real biggest problem is never what people believe, because that's their bailiwick (again, I am nobody's mother! or therapist!) but what they demand of you—attention, time, conformity? If you neither enjoy or afford giving that out, then run! Be free! With headmates, without headmates, whatever—communities have failed when your inner world becomes condemned to value judgment, more than the interpersonal or empirical effects. I hear the same from ex-Otherkin or religious zealots who got disillusioned or simply mellowed out, and, ehh, sometimes that's just an extremely prominent manifestation of an ordinary life process: living and learning. Sometimes what we did when we didn't know better is damaging and shameful, sometimes it's peculiar and embarrassing, but...you know better now, and you'll know better than now in the future, so...if you were of that paradigm back then, it's because you were.
  9. Interesting! Could be. Wasn't there an Expanded Narration Theory of tulpas somewhere on these forums a while back? This creative process sounds like a good example of it. :) Yes. If Garnet had an evil twin...No, no, maybe more like if Jenny and Kiki turned out to be the same person from alternate dimensions/timelines...and with the ability to fuse, which they'd do comfortably because they're both aware that they're really Kenny, even if they sort of dislike one another (dislike themself?) That's more like what it could be like. Ehh, I just roll with it. Anybody ever read Thief of Time? Discworld novel. It's probably closest to that character fusion. So...semi-permanent, but if they take a moment to ask themself Is This How I Fall Apart? The answer is always fifteen of yes. They don't enjoy being confused for each other, but they default to fusion form, and when they're fission form they're almost twins. No worries about the rant! I've met some proud multiples, and they're all right and got a handle on it. Even if we're theoretically all one, (psychologically or spiritually) the practical distinctions must have come up for good reasons.
  10. I wouldn't appreciate this. If this is already too elaborate to be true, then how is it better to add another layer to say it's a deception of one's personal experiences, and you're really doing something else that only looks like what you've experienced, but can be explained by what must be elaborately labyrinthine logic that nobody can even check? That's like...Occam's paisley three-piece hologam parachute pantsuit. Logisticians are supposed to like Occam's Razor. All I want to do is see them turn into a giant woman. A giant woman! Anyway, I'm curious if you did a proto-do? As in mulled over possible fusion results, and felt the most likely one to be proto-Ambi? Or was the process closer to: "You! And you! Do the do, do! Like on TV! Yay! Uh. Wh-What are you even..."? Interesting that you'd found it to be delicate, difficult, and disorientating, but from the outside it's more stable if effortful. Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar with your contradiction philosophy. But did you try to...take a moment to think of just...flexibility, love, and trust? Take a moment, remind yourself to take a moment and find yourself? Is this working from meta on the pop culture source material? Like Lapis the domme with Malachite, except when watermelons are attacking? (That can't have been a spoiler, by the way, this has been a very strange show since episode one.) Because either way, I would have thought fusion more a natural result of being on the same wavelength, noticing that harmony, and keeping it up. Mine are more prone to fission. One and I blended by accident one sleepy sleep paralysis morning and decided never to do that again. I say One, but this One has an alter-ego and they often present as the same person...? So I guess they've been doing fusion most of the time, but the way I met this One was "one who becomes two" not "two separate, let's see who happens when shmoosh". There are two others who remain individual on their own, but I speculate on how much more comfortable I would be if we ever blended or switched. Would that be fusing with me? I'm guessing this can all also be on a spectrum of, simply, influence. Some combinations/methods of influence can become identifiable as an entity...more than, or characteristically different than, the sum of the parts.
  11. Yes. But if my best loving effort has no effect, and I have a life of my own to live with so little time and energy: "Bye-bye!"
  12. Depends on how much you believe in the string. Not to rhyme, but belief's not an entirely conscious thing.
  13. I'm terribly sorry that you feel that way. I wish we knew about this more that there could be some way to solve it, but I can only say that I have come across this problem frequently, either through channeled tulpas or hosts despairing over what they have done...and I don't understand it, because mine have worlds of their own. I only technically "host" because I write about my experiences with them, but they were accidental tulpas to begin with...and they are inconsistently present...not because I am careless, either, but because they seemingly have other worlds to explore, lives of their own to live, and perhaps even other people to bother! They get into skirmishes with other maybe-not-technically tulpas that I only get to know because those other displeased tulpas follow "my" ones back. So, I can only conclude that there's far more going on beyond what I can be arsed with, and if that freedom of hosts that "can't be arsed, but that's not a problem because the tulpas have lives of their own in worlds of their own anyway" could be shared, it would be great. But I don't know what makes mine different from you.
  14. Faemon


    I'd actually considered therian Otherkin as a modern way to absorb dispositions hard-wired in maybe more people than obvious, since paleolithic times and scattered all over the world. For those who are fans of "Game of Thrones" the royal families take the symbols of heraldry very seriously, and viewers just go with it: the Baratheons are stags, Lannisters are lions, Starks are wolves...Many fans of astrology can identify heavily with zodiac signs of oxen or scorpions, or in Chinese mystical traditions there would be different animals depending on the birth year. If therians or daemonists or therian Otherkin are unusual, I'm more inclined to blame a society that neglected to provide vocabulary, routines, and rites of passage to hold or express those therian experiences.
  15. I've seen Lusmore napping after what appeared to be an injury (not all my accidental tulpas are good company, some are monsters he's moved to fend off.) It looked like an awful battle, and sometimes I wonder if he died and I've been interacting with a ghost since then. I have thrown up my hands and shouted "whatever!" on subconscious parroting, but that one event gets me squinting and wondering, "am i...? NAHHH, that's Not A Thing. (pause) but am i...?" As far as I know as a layperson, sleep and death is largely a corporeal thing, though, to do with corporeal bodies. We have circadian rhythms, melatonin production, in response to light cues...if we deprive ourselves entirely of sleep, our bodies could have trouble regulating the core temperature, which could lead to sepsis. I'll speculate that tulpas don't have melatonin in and of themselves, or a core temperature to keep up in and of themselves. If the host sleeps and meets a tulpa in dreams, maybe that means the tulpa never sleeps, not that they sleep at the same time as the host. For now, I'd go with that the appearance of repose or rest (or even of death, whether permanent or afterlife) in a tulpa are all symbolic. That applies to sickness like a fever, whether visualization becomes tangible so you can feel the heat of their skin, or there's a Wonderland clinic stocked with a thermometer...but, I'm not personally inclined to decide that Lusmore automatically has the same body temperature, circadian rhythm, and sleep phase that I have just because I am corporeal. Somebody incorporeal could have different needs and conditions, even though they can be anchored to or associated with the host's corporeal needs and conditions. But if I see Lusmore sleeping, sick, or dead(!) then maybe it means something about my state of mind.