Jump to content

[split] Debate on the validity of terms in the scientific tulpa community


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

 

Head.. mate. Head friend. A friend in and of your head.

 

If you think that's weird, I'd like to introduce you to the term "soulbond." I thought it was something super metaphysical when I first heard it, but apparently it literally just means tulpa, with extra context for how they were created. Most commonly with an author writing a character who becomes sentient, but also applicable to tulpa-adaptations of other existing characters, I think. I dunno. Headmate is pretty obvious.

 

Oh! Thank you for the explanation ^^

White text- Ash (the host!)

Red text- Quartz!

Purple text- Gamzee!

Blue text- Obsidian!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Meh. Amazing and productive argument, guys.

 

@Monster We are not so purely "scientific" that we automatically discredit any metaphysical beliefs people have. It's the difference in being a scientist and being an atheist. Because we do not discredit those beliefs, despite not necessarily sharing them, we are also accepting of the different "types" of systems (that one is a well-established word) people claim to have/be. Headmates is a very large umbrella term that applies to almost all of them. Mixed system, I believe, means there's more than one "type" of them present, ie a tulpa you made and a soulbond you accidentally created as a child, or something more metaphysical. Definitely exists, which is what this thread was for, to see how many people have more than just one type of headmate.

 

Sorry, but to deny the plausibility and legitimacy of every person's beliefs because they are not purely logical is unscientific. No matter how entrenched you believe atheism and scientism are in science, they are not. Skepticism far exceeds them in importance. And that means we do not absolutely deny, nor confirm, anything without 100% undeniable proof. The existence of metaphysical creatures is equivalent to the existence of a God, demons, or angels. And we aren't allowed to say they don't exist, if we're being truly scientific here.

 

 

@Mist Try not to argue so much while I'm gone, you should know by now after the first two posts nothing is ever achieved except Mod intervention. He wasn't really trying to do the things you said, just state his distaste for crediting what he sees as unscientific concepts. I think you guys took it too far, or at least should've stopped when you started repeating yourselves. "Arguments" like these are destined to go nowhere.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I haven't been able to find this answer anywhere else, but what exactly is a soulbond and how does it work?

 

A soulbond is very similar (if not identical in the end) to a tulpa, except it starts life as a literary character. Many authors describe a process in which the characters created seem to come to life in their minds and appear to communicate with the author and act autonomously and independently.

 

You can find more about soulbonds here: http://www.soulbonding.org/


@Monster We are not so purely "scientific" that we automatically discredit any metaphysical beliefs people have.

 

Thank you very much Lumi,

 

I appreciate your input as usual. Melian and I are a bit testy when dismissed as less than dignified and childish in creating threads such as this. That was indeed the explicit assertion by Monserkid, that the post was something that might have been written by a 14 year old role player and that it is undignified.

 

Just for the record. Many/most of the modern daemons are not metaphysical but based on Jungian psychology (very scientific in concept) and soulbonds are based on phenomenon, such as the Illusion of Independent Agency, documented by psychologists and reported by many professional authors in personal testimonies.

 

Daemons and soulbonds are every bit as scientifically based, if not more so, than tulpas. It is possible, as has been reported by many, to have a "mixed system" of different thoughtforms having different origins. Just because they are not tulpas, does not make them automatically metaphysical in nature and less scientific and less legitimate. This is not the only science based forum.

 

This thread was a survey poll (For Science!) of those mixed systems and certainly those responding very much maintain their dignity in talking about something that might be a little different than a tulpa created by use of the official tulpa guides.

 

Some members of this forum need to lower their prissy-snobbery level when it comes to how they regard other types of thoughtforms and their creators. They may find they will expand their experience and working knowledge.

 

EDIT: What is so offensive about the term "headmate" anyway? I think it is very descriptive actually. There is certainly nothing unscientific about it in the least. In fact, I almost prefer "headmate" over "tulpa." "Headmate" is very descriptive, where as "tulpa" is a term corrupted and altered from its original Tibetan meaning. If someone is going to insist on scientific accuracy, then "headmate" works better.

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...