Drawing Lines Without Solid Research/ Documentation etc.

[Ayre]

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 by what I say on the internet.

 

This sounds metaphysical to me, or maybe just a cop-out. It almost sounds like you are implying some form of mental convergence, or tulpa singularity. You are right about your second part, tulpa are sadly laughable and will be for the foreseeable future. And no, science will not change this. Science does not change everyone's minds even with complete solid evidence and proof. Look at evolution, it has a world of evidence backing it and it's known as science fact at this point, but I personally know people who will outright deny evolution and refuse to look at the evidence. Same will happen if tulpas are confirmed to be separate mindful beings, many will still say we are either mentally ill, or playing with imaginary friends and to grow up.

[J.Iscariot]

Oh, I'm not into meta. But it sounds so because I don't want to provide too many details. Welp, diddly doo.

[Ayre]

Oh, I'm not into meta. But it sounds so because I don't want to provide too many details. Welp, diddly doo.

 

Okay then. It was an interesting chat, as always.

[SomethingDire]

..This is the Internet, so yes, a random person talking about how much he has to prove but refuses to do it because of the reactions he might get is a bit inconvenient, don't you think?

 

Regardless, I respect you not wanting to share your personal stuff. Everyone has the right to do that, of course. But no one is going to take a person seriously when they say "I know a lot of stuff but I'm not going to tell it to other people because they're personal and no one will take it seriously either but believe me when I say what I know is objective and they define the one and absolute definition of a tulpa"

 

You knowing stuff doesn't mean anything to anyone else unless you prove it to people other than yourself and your company.

[J.Iscariot]

Edited because I don't want to say those things anymore.

---

 

Okay then. It was an interesting chat, as always.

 

Likewise.

[SomethingDire]

I'm not treating you as an idiot. I'm only saying that no one is buying into this "absolute tulpa" thing because there isn't anything solid behind it, yet you claim that there actually is and that you know about it. I was hinting at the fact that I was ready to listen to you and your findings by speaking like that, because hell, that is the point of this thread, to find if there are actual findings behind the "absolute tulpa" thing but if you took that as me treating you like an idiot, then you're free to think whatever you want to. I'm only trying to dig deeper as to find answers, to find something more than said "methodology" or something as subjective as experiences. Also, let me use this opportunity and say that I do not give a single flying fuck about this community's definition of a tulpa, because there isn't a single stable source to prove that it's the right definition. What we create, what I've created are people. I'm trying to find if a "tulpa" means just that or something else.

 

I'm not trying to sympathize or gain anything emotional from you, that's the last thing that I want to do. The "it doesn't mean anything to you because I don't want it to" approach is nice, but like you stated before, it wouldn't mean anything to me either way.

 

The point is this: I was looking for actual research, you said you had it but refused to share it because "man is not ready for this", then, from what I understand, implied that I thought of you as an idiot, which was certainly not the case.

 

Thank you, J.Iscariot, for your views. Of course I am going to oppose them or question them but I will forever know that they are valid for their followers and won't deny that. But now, this has turned pointless., because I have made it clear that I'm looking for research.

 

Once again, thank you for the

showdown

discussion. It's always nice to do it without turning it into a flamewar.

[J.Iscariot]

Oh no. I don't think people take me for an idiot. But I realize that if people dislike me as much, I shouldn't really share anything with them in the first place.

 

 

I know. Likewise.

[Sock]

Hm...having mainly read the original post, something really bugs me about this line of thought. I don't think I can give you a well polished and solid explanation of why yet, as I'm still ruminating on it myself, so I'll give a few notes of my thoughts:

 

- This line of thought seems, to me, the opposite extreme of the "Everyone is a roleplayer except me and my group of friends" paranoia.

 

- This line of thought is highly focused on the goal of what I call "outward validation". The person, rather than seeking the truth of the matter in themselves, and observing what is and what isn't, instead relies on what others say about them, and whether they accept them or not.

 

- In some cases where I've seen this line of thought, the person pushing it would hand wave people openly lying about their experience and communing under false pretenses. I think this is more dangerous than people actually think it is.

 

- I think another danger with this line of thought is that it is against curiosity, or the drive to actually want to find out how things work. It seems to say: "Why even try to gain knowledge? We can never know ever! Let's just accept things as they are, without ever trying to look further in to them, or even being honest with ourselves!". This last sentence refers to the theory of self-deception, which is something I've often seen linked with this line of thought.

 

- It therefore pushes out people who wish to look deeper in to things, and examine them, in favor of those who "just are", and either have no desire to even try to dig in themselves, or have never even tried.

 

- It also weakens one of the core differences between tulpa creation and other forms of multiplicity: That is, tulpa making is an exercise, not a thing that just happens. It's something someone does with the knowledge that the result may happen, not something that just appears one day without any explanation.

 

Those are my thoughts on things right now.

[Luminesce]

@Lumi

I will now apply cold water over that burn.

 

Wasn't supposed to be a burn, I was being 100% literal. Every so often someone makes a thread about people or discussion going on recently that just doesn't apply to me at all. I often find myself wanting to simply respond, "I don't." But instead I either post nothing or attempt to discuss anyways. Doesn't feel like I contribute much.

[Drakaina]

I really did try to read all of the responses so far, but with all the text walls and my bad eyes I couldn't do it.

 

My position on how there can be objectivity in a subjective experience can be summed up like this. All of reality is subjective. It can be argued that there is no physical world and all of the things we interpret as objective are just shared perceptions.

Say you have 10 people in a room, and one of them drops a ball, then asks "did you see that fall?". 9 of them respond yes, and 1 says "no, it went up". The 9 shared experience is going to be seen as truth, and deemed the "objective" experience.