J.Iscariot

Tulpa 'essence'

Recommended Posts

I've seen the term 'essence' here and there on the forums and other communities. While it's hard to define what 'essence' means without deriving to a metaphysical approach (which I do not support in any way or shape), hosts tend to be able to 'feel' their tulpas. More than that, they tend to be able to interpret what their tulpas could be saying without actually having any type of words enunciated live.

 

The reason for which I am asking this is that often, when I try to go deep in my thoughts to find my tulpa's essence, I can only see her base form along with other things such as emotions and certain feelings that remind me of her. There are interpretations that are located in my imagination, but all of them proved to be unrealistic and fake according to my tulpa.

 

It's interesting to see and hear about the term 'essence', interesting in a way that we could actually go somewhere with that type of thinking. That a tulpa supposedly possesses an essence, something in the mind of their host that stands out from other thoughts. It's hard for all of us, literally all of us, to properly define sentience and consciousness, neurology is still relatively a young science and one that requires more research to prosper.

 

 

So, what do you think of the whole tulpa 'essence' deal? Do you think that it is possible for tulpas to have something of the type, an essence that exists independently from the host's cognition or attention span? Moreover, how is that essence formed in the first place? An essence (and by essence we're speaking in a metaphorical way more than anything else) that elevates speaking, autonomously sentient thoughtforms from static thoughtforms? Basically, have you ever felt like there was a thing of such consistency that was going on in your mind? Personally, it always felt like there was actually someone else in my mind, the impression I got was one that implied that there was someone I loved and cherished in my mind, and even when I tried to fight it, to see if I truly was into self-deception or deluding myself (or simply roleplaying in my head), I could not get out of it. I'm wondering how other people have it going.


A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Felicity:

 

As is the case with much about tulpamancy, this is a question of definitions. For example, when my headmates and I use the term "essence," we mean something different than "presence" (that which allows our host to feel us, as well as us to feel one another) and empathic connections (which is one of our ways of communicating emotions nonverbally). For us, an "essence" is that ironically indefinable trait that makes a person "that person." It is the idea of who we are, in the most holistic sense. Specific traits are considered more ancillary than necessary to it; perhaps the essance can give off the impression of core personality traits, but a person is so much more than that. The "essence" is like the well of gravity around which all the rest of someone's personhood revolves.

 

I... hope that makes sense. I threw out a few mixed metaphors there. ^_^'

 

I would not say that "essence," as my system uses the term, has much at all to do with cognition or attention spans. An essence does not have to be sustained nor independent of our host's mind to be valid. In fact, I would say that the "essence" of each soulbond in my system is entirely reliant on our host's ability to remember what that essense entails. When she cannot get a grasp on someone's essence (usually due to not working on their project for a while), they go inactive. But similarly, that essence can develop, change, or become active again after a long absence, usually at the whims of the subconscious (though, for the third case, there is often some sort of external prompt to "remind" our host of the essence of the character).

 

But what you describe as "essence" is a bit different from our definition. It seems like how we use "presence," where we can feel one another, but also different from that. I would be most curious to hear more about what you mean by your use of the word "essence!"


Sparrow---Temar---Joss---Ayo--et al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I personally see as a tulpa's essence is the same as anyone's. If you take the dictionary definition as it applies to this situation you get "the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features." So an essence would be what you think of when thinking of a specific person. When someone mentions someone you know, your mind flashes through: your memories you have of this person, what they look and act like, your emotions toward this person, etc. This flash of recognition is the person's essence. That's what I mean when I use the term at least.


Host: Ayre

Tulpas: Coda and Segno

 

Shameless Progress Report Plug:

Ayre's Opus 1: Informal informative index of inhabitants in an invisible inner-world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what do you think of the whole tulpa 'essence' deal? Do you think that it is possible for tulpas to have something of the type, an essence that exists independently from the host's cognition or attention span?

 

I'm sure it's possible for tulpas to have an essence if the host assumes that they do. I bet a host could even feel the tulpa unconsciously if they had even a part of them that believed in that sort of thing.

 

Moreover, how is that essence formed in the first place? An essence (and by essence we're speaking in a metaphorical way more than anything else) that elevates speaking, autonomously sentient thoughtforms from static thoughtforms?

 

I'd guess the essence is formed through host assumption, conscious or unconscious either way. If we're assuming that the host can feel something different between a regular thoughtform and the tulpa, as I think you're saying, then it would fall under the same sort of thing such as distinct mindvoice in my eyes. Which is to say that it will differ from person to person, and the host has control over it if they accept that they do (excluding outlier cases).

 

Basically, have you ever felt like there was a thing of such consistency that was going on in your mind?

 

In terms of an unconscious "feeling," no. But my tulpas do surprise me without me thinking of them consciously and other unpredictable things that lead me to assume they exist.

 

Personally, it always felt like there was actually someone else in my mind, the impression I got was one that implied that there was someone I loved and cherished in my mind, and even when I tried to fight it, to see if I truly was into self-deception or deluding myself (or simply roleplaying in my head), I could not get out of it. I'm wondering how other people have it going.

 

Even if you fight something, if you're truly self-deceived, you wouldn't be able to shake it, in my opinion. That's kind of the point of self-deception. I'm not making a claim on your specific case, but I am using it to point this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it's hard to define what 'essence' means without deriving to a metaphysical approach (which I do not support in any way or shape)' date=' hosts tend to be able to 'feel' their tulpas.[/quote']

 

Well, if you don’t support metaphysical approaches entirely, then yes, it would be hard to define, or to even correlate things towards the nature of mind, and reality in general. It’s like wanting to theorize on consciousness, but not having any foundations of current theories of consciousness to cultivate the discussion in the first place.

 

It's hard for all of us' date=' literally all of us, to properly define sentience and consciousness, neurology is still relatively a young science and one that requires more research to prosper.[/quote']

 

Well then, if metaphysical approaches seems to be something you want to avoid in the discussion, then yes, the infantile science that seems to be of neurology would be irrelevant. Especially since the essence, or the nature behind the existence of a tulpa seems to be discussed through experiential cases vs. ones that have a sound, empirical framework (if any).

 

Do you think that it is possible for tulpas to have something of the type' date=' an essence that exists independently from the host's cognition or attention span? Moreover, how is that essence formed in the first place? An essence (and by essence we're speaking in a metaphorical way more than anything else) that elevates speaking, autonomously sentient thoughtforms from static thoughtforms?[/quote']

 

I think using a model like the four stages of competence might even out the playing field here without diving too much on the metaphysical connotations with consciousness, epistemology, and other verbose wording. For example:

 

- Let’s say that treating them as sentient is the base ideology to derive things from. In the initial stages where the host is cultivating techniques to further that tendency to treat them as sentient, things seem a little out of place; trying to find their place in their own mind, and coming to terms with it in hopes that those experiences would lead to them having someone that’s a conscious accompaniment

 

- Over time, those experiences could bleed into cognitive foundations that makes it a bit easier to render, and process it all. Hopefully to the point of even having unconscious competence in it. This terminology might be a useful heuristic to categorize the “essence” in the presumed conscious accompaniment (tulpa) being sentient in some shape or form. And if we add in the potential of having conscious competence of unconscious competence, that might satisfy the implication of higher autonomous sentient thought-forms, and we can finally bridge the gap.

 

- So for it to be formed in the first place, in theory, is probably a tulpa learning to put things into context in a mind that is just a cluster of random, contradicting, and contrived thoughts; them learning to weigh in a certain belief towards things in life in spite of that chaos. The long and short of it—it may get to the point where after treating them as sentient for a while, the mind already renders out a canvas for them to start treating themselves as sentient to where they put so many things into context, and distinguishing themselves from the random noises of the mind to where the “treating” becomes an understatement. To the host, that ability for them to gather information consciously, and what have you becomes so profoundly obvious that there’s no doubt in their heart over their presumed sentience.

 

 

Basically' date=' have you ever felt like there was a thing of such consistency that was going on in your mind?[/quote']

 

Like I mentioned in a previous point, our mind holds contradictory thoughts without us even having to consciously be aware of that. And yet somehow, we still find a way to flourish and exist. Which makes one wonder if our psychology can be benefited from types of delusions (e.g. self-deception). And I never thought I would say this, but I might support the implications that delusions are necessary. Simply because we have predispositions to make certain assumptions in spite of evidence (e.g. empirical evidence that seems to objectively stand the test of time). This could bleed into the poll thread that questions creating a tulpa requiring belief, or suspension of disbelief.

 

But, I won’t say directly that we’re all delusional; we just happen to have tendencies that makes us make assumptions. Since that’s what putting things into context does—assumptions and judgements are made to conceptualize the reality going on; inward, or outward. Not sure how one can objectify themselves out of that, honestly. I guess if a tulpa can weigh in a set of thoughts that can help define their belief in them being sentient, it could be a way to gauge that. And for them to presumably hold those thoughts temporarily for the time being while in search for something better to put into words, even better.

 

Maybe through the set of analogies I mentioned above, one would see that instead of trying to make our minds internally consistent—we would see the random chaos of contradictory thoughts as a trial-and-error to reign our ability to be conscious, and their presumed ability to be a conscious accompaniment to weigh in certain beliefs, especially when it comes to conceptualizing what their essence, or mode of existence could be.

 

Perhaps that scattered mind of ours already has the canvas for us to play in; we just have to start getting the ink, and paint!

Share this post


Link to post
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.