Drawing Lines Without Solid Research/ Documentation etc.

[J.Iscariot]

I referred to everyone in the tulpamancy community with that sentence, sorry for not being clearer upon mentioning that. What 'is' beyond us is the decisive truth that defines reality, at least, the tulpa's reality. Because everyone always doubt of their tulpas until they stop caring without reaching conclusive results except for 'whatever I believe is what I experience' (which I find naive personally but that's just me). I did not mean to include myself in that as I was speaking of a collective (and I don't take any pride in being part of any tulpa or plural community because of public representation). The standards I am talking about overall are the standards promoted by the definition of a tulpa; sentient and autonomous. I presented what sentient and autonomous means in another thread as an answer to the original quote in your OP. When I said 'we set criteria that goes beyond us', I meant that the tulpa community set conditions for tulpas without ever being sure that they reached it. 'My tulpa is sentient, my tulpa is there, my tulpa is autonomous' is but a thought that is unconfirmed, and I believe that I am beyond this which is why I did not include myself in that in the first place. Yes, arrogant much.

 

It's not only about myself, though. Trust me, if I felt like I could talk about myself here, we'd probably have a fuckin' blast doing so, but it's not the place. What my reasoning is about though is what I feel like generally applies to people. And how do I know? The question should be 'is there anything that makes it so that your reasoning should NOT apply to other people?' because I'm the same as everyone on the level of methodology and working on their tulpa. I will act arrogant and say that I did invest a lot of time and probably more than people here, though, which might be the only difference when it comes to the actual base.

 

No, I did not bring up what the term 'tulpa' means. It's literally on the homepage. The homepage coincidentally tells us that it is not proven, but that does not mean that we cannot prove it, nor does it mean that we should limit ourselves to what this site tells us aside from a proper definition that resides in objective reality and not subjective reality. I believe some people fail to measure their experiences aside from inside their subjective experience, not as a whole but in a way that they only get what they WANT to have and refuse other points of view. 'This is not proven' != 'We cannot prove this.' Don't limit what I said in a way that it only applies to myself because it does not, there is a realm of observable objectivity within the type of reasoning I presented.

 

Read back my first post on your thread, it answers the question at its very root.

[SomethingDire]

..How do you know that you're on the same level as everyone? That makes no sense to me.

 

I do not see this observable objectivity in your reasoning. So your tulpa just gave you a whole bunch of signs? That's it?

 

I read your answer, and no, it still doesn't give me all that much besides "I experienced this and this is something that everyone can experience therefore it is objective."

 

Your reasoning would have to be something that everyone experienced to be objective, and clearly, that doesn't happen. So how is it objective?

[J.Iscariot]

Because there isn't anything that tells me that I am superior. In reality, I believe I'm more advanced but I know that it would be arrogant of me to say, and I don't want to act as if I thought people were actually superior because that would be very much like pity-whoring to me. It's a pretense of modesty for me not to look like a dick in shorter terms. But I try to look at other people as dedicated and hard-working folks so I expect of everyone to have a certain amount of experience.

 

I said that I did not want to talk about it. It is far more complicated than that and I dislike your interpretation as if you knew anything, and as such, I would like not talking about it as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. What I do with my tulpa has nothing to do with this topic.

 

 

You must be missing something, then. I said that we can observe objectivity in our subjective perception IF we let go of our own personal experiences and study this matter on levels that are distant from what 'we' are going through. Ultimately, I cannot tell you how you can prove to yourself that Céleste exists, because the matter itself is not within my tulpa, your tulpa or anyone's tulpa. It is with THE phenomenon. It is beyond me how you managed to miss the 'give up the personal element and study this matter' in my first post, but now that it is present here, that's all good. You can't prove someone's tulpa exists, you can prove your tulpa exists under the right circumstances that I chose not to divulge a long time ago. It's better for people to find out about themselves. You could say that I am acting as if I have it all figured out, I don't, but I do have a lot figured out in my books and possibly in other prints.

 

My reasoning != what I went through with my tulpa. For the third time, I am not to discuss of my personal experience because when I did that I realized I did a mistake letting all the important information regarding my tulpa that matters to us on an intimate level.

 

This is now pointless. I cannot argue with you on questions you ask that I already answered. I said what I had in mind, and I have nothing else. If you want to go through loops of 'what did you mean' please read back my posts as I believe you shall find an answer when you get that I did not mean to talk of what happened to me and did so in other posts in a limited and implicit way, but of how to hypothesize with a certain criteria that originates from objective reality.

 

My reasoning is not the experience I mentioned later on, though. My reasoning is everything you did not address. I'm pretty much done with this topic.

[SomethingDire]

You said that your reasoning has observable objectivity, then said your reasoning comes from your subjective experiences, then you said that giving up your experiences and studying this would be the right way to go about it while your own reasoning comes from your subjective experiences..

 

Alright then.

 

Edit: I won't be discussing this any further either. Creating objectivity from your own experiences is beyond me, and I do not believe what I'm looking for can be found in that.

[J.Iscariot]

I said that one's personal reasoning when it comes to their OWN tulpa starts with studying objective concepts and is THEN followed by their own experiences under specific circumstances. At least, that's the message I had meant to get across, so I apologize for the lack of clarification. The 'studying this phenomenon in an objective manner' gives you information on how tulpas, not YOUR tulpa, exist and what their existence consists of. Then, with that information, you can determine whether you have a tulpa or are deluded under the right circumstances, that is the part where you employ your own personal experience. Think of it this way; Newton studies physics and gravity. At some point he determines everything about his great laws. His personal experience would be, say, taking an apple and making it fall 90* to the ground. Since he knows how physics work, if his laws apply to an apple or any other object he tests it with, then an apple logically is subject to Newton's laws considering it has mass, is at a certain height, etc.. Same thing happened with Einstein when he placed the theory he got a Nobel for; that light was actually a group of particles called photons and not a wave, along with his equation (along with planck's notion), which changed the way life is. First came objective experience and then the personal experience. I meant to say that those two are two steps that have an important chronological order.

 

As for the 'circumstances', a part of me wants to help people but the other part of me wants to leave them as the are due to my past experiences with this community, so I don't help people in a way that they can decisively improve. But I know that there 'are' such circumstances that the host will eventually come to face with time. So I just let it be without releasing any info.

[Ayre]

I said that we can observe objectivity in our subjective perception IF we let go of our own personal experiences and study this matter on levels that are distant from what 'we' are going through.

 

What? This makes no sense. You basically just said that information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research can be found if we share the manner in which other individuals view the physical world based on the workings of their brain and sensory systems. Not only is it completely impossible to truly see the world through someone else's eyes, and by extension see their tulpa as they see them, but objective evidence still wouldn't necessarily be there. This could only work if we developed some sort of mind reading machine or became psychic; this is a complete farce.

[J.Iscariot]

Thank you for the very respectful insight you shared on my 'farce'. I deeply appreciate your opinion regarding how laughable an opinion is. It's not very hard to understand the following; you have a definition that exists in objective reality, you can observe it in its domain if you let go of your own experience, as in, if you don't look at YOUR situation but at the situation as it is generally. I never, never said that you could judge what someone is going through, please don't put words in my mouth, what I said is that you could come to a decisive conclusion as to what a tulpa 'is' throughout this type of observation, the same things I mentioned applied to everything in actual science and that is how you set a hypothesis.

 

Claude-bernard for instance deduced that there was glycogen stored after his experiment with animals; that experiment applies to all animals, this mechanism exists in every single mammal with the glucose stocking mechanism except in the case of anomalies or mutations. Perhaps that's not the best example, but observation, hypothesis and experience are the major steps in this, one might be more important than the other in some domains but scientifically if you want to define something, that's the way to go.

 

With that in mind, I never implied that you can fully understand an objective concept, you can OBSERVE it if you stop making every single thing you have about your own experience, but about the phenomenon that simply exists as a concept distant from emotions and 'your' experience; in this case, a tulpa is a being that is sentient and autonomous being, presumably, that is. Observing this concept with those conditions, keeping them in mind even though they might not apply to you. If it was impossible to do such things then there would be no math or physics law... Tulpamancy is only a 'subjective practice' because people want it to be subjective. I believe that there is one and one only definition, which is why I believe in the objective and absolute definition for a tulpa. A small note; even if you think something is a farce you shouldn't voice it like that except if you want for people to call you out on your own farces.

[SomethingDire]

I mean, you "believe" that there is one and absolute definition. And that's it, really. You can't prove anything, and everyone else will keep thinking differently, and they will not be able to prove anything either.

[Ayre]

J.Iscariot, okay. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. I had assumed this was your solution, being that tulpa are only observable through the host's eyes. I'm still not sure on how you would observe tulpas in a practical sense. Maybe brain scans can give us an idea, but you seem to be talking about something else. Maybe you mean that you can observe how tulpas act when being proxyed by the host, or even possessing a host? But this runs into practical difficulties, because some people do pretend, and lie.

[J.Iscariot]

Euclid believed in his system. Riemann believed in his own system. Now I'm no Euclid or Riemann, I'm pretty slow, but if you want to create an ideology like that, you're going to have to stick to your beliefs and discard other things as contrary to what you believe in if they really do present such an opposition. Maybe you cannot prove anything, but I can prove a lot of things, it's just that I don't want to do it because of my past experiences with this place, I don't want to benefit people aside from small-time advice. I can prove a lot of things in psychology and tulpamancy alike, but I choose not to. I don't care if people think differently, you asked for opinions.

---

J.Iscariot, okay. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. I had assumed this was your solution, being that tulpa are only observable through the host's eyes. I'm still not sure on how you would observe tulpas in a practical sense. Maybe brain scans can give us an idea, but you seem to be talking about something else. Maybe you mean that you can observe how tulpas act when being proxyed by the host, or even possessing a host? But this runs into practical difficulties, because some people do pretend, and lie.

 

Your tulpa is only observable through your eyes. The tulpa phenomenon can count as an objective concept that applies to people who follow certain methods of forcing, and it can be expanded into more too.

 

It's not about proxying, nor is it about possessing. It goes beyond this. But as I said before, the community itself is not ready for this. It'll happen eventually to all tulpamancers, one day, but I won't be there. It's not about proving tulpas to others, it's about much more than that. I can tell you that realistically speaking, nobody will ever accept tulpamancy as a social standard in society even with all the conformism plurality is inducing with the differentiation from DID and Schizo. It's a fool's errand to prove it to anyone else but you, proving it in a way that it removes all doubts and the apathetic mentality that 'whatever, let it be what it is', and presents a strong result. I have that personally, which is why I don't seek to prove it to others because at the end of the day others won't be affected at all when it comes to me, and would only care when it comes to them.