Sign in to follow this  
Linkzelda

Scientism & It Potentially Breaching Into The Tulpa Phenomenon

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer: I heavily suggest that people check out the two terms hidden in words to know, since I might be throwing it around a lot in the thread depending on future contexts from others.

 

Word to Know:

 

[hidden]

 

Ontology - The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

- Examples of this in context of tulpas: “What makes a tulpa, a tulpa?” “What are the modes of existence for a tulpa?” “What are the modes of sentience in which a tulpa is presumed to have?”

 

Epistemology - The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion [/hidden]

 

Scientism is a belief in which the scientific method can have so much flexibility in being a dominating worldview, i.e., an end-all be-all worldview in trying to conceptualize a knowable world, and such. Rather than utilizing the scientific method as a tool, or a heuristic, those that endorse it may cultivate a disposition that the application of the scientific method can coordinate how one can assess their lives.

 

Putting this into context with tulpas, and loose generalizations with what this forum is intended to do (e.g. applying a psychological standpoint, and as much of it into the phenomena), this could create the potential type of dogma in which people would feel that ontology (e.g. a concept dealing with the nature of being—in this case, the nature of tulpas, and presumed sentience) can solely be explained through the foundations of the scientific method.

 

Examples within the forum:

[hidden]

- Reserving certain discussions of ontology (a branch of metaphysics) in specific boards, but not considering that any theorization over what makes a tulpa, a tulpa implies some application of ontology either way. It creates a bit of strife in how far people want to breach in worldviews, i.e., double standards.

 

- Applying the psychological viewpoint to the point where it breaches as a tool in how one should assess their journey in creating, and interacting with a tulpa instead of a heuristic that uses epistemological roots (e.g. cognitive sciences (where the psychological standpoint seems most fitting), cultural studies, and the history of science)).

 

- Utilizing ontological viewpoints (e.g. physicalism, eliminative materialism, and other viewpoints of consciousness) that are assumed to be resolved (in a “what is right/wrong” context) with the scientific method.

 

- “For Science.” Although it may be a gesture of striving for a scholarly spirit for creating a base of knowledge pertaining to the tulpa phenomena, it may have underlying tones of creating dogma (e.g. fear of branches of metaphysics reducing any potential curiosity for Science to welcome this phenomenon through empirical, and other epistemological applications.

 

[/hidden]

 

So, what I’m trying to get at with this thread is that it can be a free-for-all in identifying examples of dogma that could be created within the forum when discussing about tulpas, and whether or not there should be a balance with philosophy, and trying to align studies (e.g. cognitive studies on sentience) into the theorizing even though doing so wouldn’t imply the phenomena is empirically validated.

 

Because it’s one thing to strive for that scholarly spirit for using epistemological applications for some kind of truth, but it’s another to where the scientific method itself becomes the end-all be-all in assessing ontological assumptions, and how we should assess ourselves in this journey with tulpas. Science can't be both empirical and have what seems to be other-worldly knowledge--it either sticks to empirical applications that have epistemological roots, or the other (and the other becomes a dogma of how one could assess their lives).

 

Note: This isn't an attempt to destroy any strive for potential application of the method with the tulpa phenomenon, should there be any.

 

Thoughts? The scores don’t matter, so don’t worry about a win-lose mentality being apparent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that I would love for the scientific method to be applied to tulpamancy, but sadly I don't know of any practical way of doing this. Any debate over tulpas are ones of philosophy, be it metaphysical or psychological. I guess I'm just failing to see your overall point here. It's obviously over the recent debates that have been happening on the forum, but are you saying that these debates belong in the meta section? I mean I don't know if any real dogma can be imposed here with the nature of this forum. The obvious exception being that we must use a naturalistic approach to tulpas, i.e. not metaphysical. Maybe you are attempting to point out the irony in this?

 

That all depends on what is meant by metaphysical. I've always taken the term to mean magic and supernatural powers. However the actual dictionary definition seems to describe something that is either relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen, or highly abstract or abstruse. If this is taken literally then tulpas are metaphysical by nature, and everything we talk about on this entire site is about meta.


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
Maybe you are attempting to point out the irony in this?

[hidden]

Well, naturalism can be split up into two branches: Methodological naturalism, and Metaphysical naturalism. The former is not concerned with what exists, but just methods of learning what nature is. In other words, scientific application with naturalistic roots seems sounder for natural causes and events. I hardly see methodological naturalism as anything the community can reconcile with since of the obvious difficulty of validating any kind of “cause and effect,” “purpose,” with tulpas with the real world; natural cause and effect with this reality, not their mental projection of assessing it.

 

Metaphysical naturalism, a type of ontological viewpoint, simply entails there is nothing but natural elements, rudiments, etc., i.e., these can be used as tools to understand the physical environment. That doesn’t seem to be something the community can reconcile with. If you’re referring to some other form of naturalism, some clarification would be nice. Though, I think you may be skewing the “nature” in ontology as having naturalistic roots.

 

Ontology can expand on the nature of being for physical and mental; naturalism seems more inclined to revel in the physical. Creating a connection with tulpas with that worldview (meta or methodological) comes at a dead-end. Naturalism isn’t before ontology, it’s the other way around. In other words, naturalism (the metaphysical one), can be a branch of ontology (just like physicalism, materialism, solipsism, etc. can be a branch of ontology because ontology is a branch of metaphysics).

 

Psychological viewpoints -> entail some ontological assumptions -> entails metaphysical assumptions as well. Unless, of course, we were to talk about methodological psychological viewpoints? Being optimistic, that might imply something related to cognitive science, but other than that, that seems to be something hard to chew.

[/hidden]

 

However the actual dictionary definition seems to describe something that is either relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen' date=' or highly abstract or abstruse[/quote']

 

[hidden]

 

What you’re inferring is a combination of certain branches of metaphysical viewpoints, but metaphysics does not only entail said points. Not sure if others are aware of this, but certain applications of Science would have to have some metaphysical underpinning to analyze if we took this in the obvious context of the scientific method being utilized as a tool to conceptualize a knowable world (e.g. experiments with presumptions of reality being explained through a materialistic worldview). If anything, this inference of yours could be a type of dogma in which branches of metaphysics that entailed something otherworldly and abstract are what metaphysics only composes of.

 

This paradigm reinforcement can create a dogma where others are free to discuss and theorize things like “what is a tulpa,” “what makes a tulpa, a tulpa” even though they would all have ontological assumptions, and with ontology being a traditional part of metaphysics:

If this is taken literally then tulpas are metaphysical by nature' date=' and everything we talk about on this entire site is about meta. [/quote']

 

Then yeah, it is essentially metaphysical. But there’s more to metaphysics then something like cosmology, spiritualism, and any theological viewpoints. The dogma you’ve created in this context is that metaphysics would exclusively be a cluster of theological and abstract viewpoints vs. ones that Science would utilize.

 

If the irony is not laid out there, then I’ll do my best to provide more examples, if needed. Long and short of it, the inference you made of everything we’re talking about tulpas being metaphysical is rooted with your presumption of metaphysics being exclusive to what I mentioned before. When you see other branches of metaphysics, one might put two and two together, and see the obvious irony with the separation of metaphysics in the forums. It could even be due to that same kind of dogma that metaphysics only entails something beyond our reach that’s transcendental, otherworldly, and things of that nature.[/hidden]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen the word "Scientism" in a context different from general science-bashing or sometimes as a way to defend some beliefs that you shouldn't rationally hold in the first place.

 

Science is not a world-view, except in the sense that it is applied skepticism (which is a worldview).

 

I don't know if you meant to say that people err on the side of being to skeptical. I guess there will always be skeptics that look at things like tulpamancy and say stuff like "until it's proven to work, it's all bullshit". We can't stop them - but I think such a view is not relevant for the people who are actually studying the issue (ie tulpamancers), it is just an outside-view.

 

Applying the psychological viewpoint to the point where it breaches as a tool in how one should assess their journey in creating, and interacting with a tulpa instead of a heuristic that uses epistemological roots (e.g. cognitive sciences (where the psychological standpoint seems most fitting), cultural studies, and the history of science)).

Can you please say that again in some easier words?;)


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is not a world-view' date=' except in the sense that it is applied skepticism (which is a worldview).[/quote']

 

The OP isn't claiming that Science is a world view that's dogmatic. Scientism is the worldview, and the word “Science” is something completely different. Skepticism is just a doubt towards the truth of something, and how that is established is through a whole coverage of positions.

 

“Scientistic” -> Scientism

Scientist =/= someone who believes in scientism

Can you please say that again in some easier words?

 

Of course.

 

We try to use psychological standpoints to explain this phenomenon. There’s a whole coverage of subfields in philosophy that the standpoint can use as a tool to do this as well. However, as much as it’s a good tool in explaining what may be going on, it can’t really dictate how we should handle ourselves with tulpas, and all that it implies (e.g. creation, interaction, and sustaining beliefs).

 

It’s just a tool, like any other, to gather some kind of knowledge (e.g. via theorizing, using existing theories and concepts on consciousness and what have you). And epistemology, the investigation of distinguishing justified belief from opinion, is the study of knowledge. This can be chalked up to “What is truth?”

 

Ontology can be chalked up as a study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality along with other categories of being and their relations; "what is there?" (mentally, physically, etc.). People that theorize what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, modes of sentience (implied, real, etc.), and how they can relate to each other can be a part of that study. Not necessarily one that’s empirical, but just an endeavor of trying to come to an understanding in general.

 

 

(Optional extension for those that have time read)

[hidden]

So, if there’s a separation from those topics of ontology, the study of the nature of being, with tulpas:

 

- The Q&A and General Discussion would essentially be a cluster of people discussing their own input on what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, modes of sentience, and other topics pertaining to tulpas. But, it would be implied that utilizing the psychological standpoint to theorize on these aspects is more preferred.

 

- So, anything that goes beyond that standpoint, and it goes without saying based on what’s in the rules, would be shifted into the appropriate sections of the forum—in this case, the metaphysics section.

 

- So by separating ontological assumptions on tulpa (e.g. what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, etc.) into the metaphysical section (since ontology is a branch of metaphysics that has a whole set of subfields to it than just theology, and otherworldly implications), it raises questions as to whether or not the Q&A and General Discussion is specifically reserved for the psychological standpoint.

 

- Said standpoint, as much as it can be useful in trying to help theorize what’s going on, may be taken as the only pragmatic standpoint to utilize vs. other standpoints that can help supplement it (and vice versa). Although it might not seem like a trend of Scientism, if it gets to the point where we presume it can tackle those ontological assumptions, this is how dogma could be created.

 

- The type of dogma that feels there’s some strive of an objective rationalization over the phenomenon through the psychological lens, even though it would be a bit difficult to find an objective right and wrong way of handling ourselves with tulpas through those lens. And with a few threads lately with finding existing scientific studies on sentience, and other cognitive aspects, even if we do find that, it’s part of confirmation bias.

 

- That type of bias would lead to individuals wanting to see credibility on theories of sentience that perhaps the community didn’t align themselves into before, and thus giving them assurance that they can continue coordinating themselves with their tulpas. In other words, that theorizing would be a crutch; a pat on the back that they’re not so far-fetched in their belief of tulpas. There’s nothing wrong with trying to align to certain theories to make sense of it all, but it’s when the investigation paralyzes the person from doing anything with their tulpa, that sets the implication that they’re trying to use what may be more objective, and logically sound before even going through trial-and-error in their own subjective experience. But there has yet to be anything that's empirically sound with this, obviously.

 

- This is completely different from those that have a subjective fallback, and are merely studying and investigating for knowledge’s sake, and curiosity towards the nature of being with tulpas. That scholarly spirit where people can just talk things out while knowing we can’t really cram into each others' throats on some objective right and wrong with the tulpa phenomenon.

 

- That paradigm shift of open-mindedness due to the awareness that Metaphysics is more than just cosmological assumptions, and transcendental implications, is what can allow others to further their investigation as to what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, and finding tools of deriving knowledge to supplement that, and vice versa. Where someone isn't going to believe that if they go into the Metaphysics section, that they're only going to find threads on chakra beads, spirit guides, etc. So, it may be a matter of expanding certain branches of Philosophy (e.g. Ontology (branch of metaphysics), Epistemology) while existing branches (e.g. paranormal, etc.) have their own separation as well.

[/hidden]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it something we're supposed to discuss...? I've typed thrice to come up with something coherent but this 'view' (that I would like to see in everybody else) makes absolute and perfect sense, at least, it's something I've been pursuing for a long while, epistemology and ontology in this phenomenon; although I find it a bit... I don't know how to put it. I would say that it would be very hard to possibly define 'tulpamancy' in such a way with ontological evaluation.

 

This is a man-made concept. It requires, well, supposedly requires amounts of belief and motivation for it to take any occurrence. This is a concept people wish into existence; it has no basis in psychology (aside from dream characters that could be compared but your brain operates in completely different modes when you sleep), it has some ties with, what, detachment of your own sense of self as a person (as demonstrated in other 'plural' practices; some scholars even went as far as to deny DID openly!) which I believe is a foundation to the practice of switching and possession, but I could be wrong. Would we not need to define the function of such ontological evaluations here? Because yes, you can apply ontology in human concepts, but tulpamancy is actually only a thing that we will, we wish for to become real.

 

We are subject to reality in ways that it is mildly subjective. Mildly subjective because there is a ground to experience universal 'objective' reality that is in reality a wider, universal subjective lane - common sense, moral codes, logic and ration, how some things make sense in the minds of all people - and yet, some people experience things differently due to, say, brain alterations, events that attain their psyche in a way that it modifies thought processing, evokes certain mentalities clouded with emotions of fear, paranoia, etc... This is going a bit far from what there is to be said about the topic at hand, but the point is that people are subject to reality in generalized ways; this is how epistemology and ontology function; we experience, witness, question one another about the nature of existence, the 'meaning', perhaps, of life and what nature has to offer us... but the issue is that everyone here is seemingly experiencing tulpamancy in a more or less different way. As I hypothesized it before, it is possible to place general definitions and modes of operations on tulpas and how they function, but it is both possible and impossible at the same time. Possible because there is some acceptance to this mentality, it makes sense, you should be able to define what a tulpa is - but impossible because it is not something that was already present in reality, it's something in our minds that requires more knowledge in the specific psychological field, applied ontology applies to things that happen whether we deny them or not, microorganisms are still there and are technically empirically 'provable'. But tulpamancy is a cat in a box you cannot see; rather, it is a cat in a box you cannot open, or may have opened but there is far too many things in it for us to 'comprehend'. Freudian psychology tells us a good bit about developmental phases of the sense of identity that makes us who we are, libido from birth up to advanced stages of adulthood in direct practice; but a lot of people reject that. You cannot apply Aristotle's syllogism either because it's not as simple and linear as that. More than that, it's not like math either where you have axioms that are plainly self-evident (euclid's propositions), because the nature of tulpamancy is not self-unveiling, we don't get to see what truly IS inside and are in constant doubt. Would you imagine how it would be if it was the exact same thing with math? If axiomatic definitions were distorted in ways that we wouldn't be able to just go with them? (like Euclid did and even with Lobachevsky's Non-Euclidian Geometry, it still works, because axioms are not to be questioned and make sense within their own axiomatic systems).

There is no such evaluation with tulpamancy; it is a practice a lot of people doubt and question with a lot of other defaults. I do agree that you could apply ontology onto 'how' tulpas are a thing but we need waaaaay more psychology knowledge regarding how the mind functions; and in that case, if we come to find out that this is merely a delusion of some sort, would we still need to allocate the importance of applying ontological evaluation to that concept? (sorry if this makes no sense I have no idea what to say aside from that)


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
I've typed thrice to come up with something coherent but this 'view' (that I would like to see in everybody else) makes absolute and perfect sense' date=' at least, it's something I've been pursuing for a long while, epistemology and ontology in this phenomenon; although I find it a bit... I don't know how to put it.[/quote']

 

Just to clarify – Epistemology and Ontology is not exclusive to Scientism. Those two branches have coverage in all sorts of worldviews, theories of mind, and such. Scientism is merely a type of dogma, IMO, where instead of the scientific method being humble in empirical applications, it’s bled onto as a tool for ontological evaluation as well.

 

This can be chalked up, in a comical way, with a quick analogue:

 

Person A: “Hey, you heard about that newspaper that mentioned an article over the secret of sentience behind a tulpa, and the meaning of their existence?”

Person B: “Yeah, but what was that secret again?”

Person A: “Lipids and Nucleic acids.”

Person A: “Wait, what?”

 

I would say that it would be very hard to possibly define 'tulpamancy' in such a way with ontological evaluation.

 

That’s completely understandable, and being aware of that apprehension is crucial. It’s not really pragmatic to use ontological evaluation to define tulpamancy since tulpmancy is just a practice of creating and interacting with a tulpa; an endeavor. However, we can use an epistemological evaluation for that since it would be the study of deriving some kind of knowledge over the practice. This can bleed over the morals, ethics, etc. that others cultivate during the endeavor.

 

Examples:

 

- What is implied with treating a tulpa as sentient

- How people go about deriving their own truths in cultivating that

- Social construction over how one should do this

- The list can go on when it comes to deriving knowledge

 

 

Ontological evaluation would be trying to define the “reality” of the practice, but tulpamancy isn’t some kind of spatiotemporal reality, or theory of mind to wonder about the modes of existence behind it. The ontological evaluation would be towards the concept of tulpas, such as, but not limited to:

 

- Applying theories of mind, i.e., theories of consciousness, with tulpas (e.g. applying an eliminative materialistic standpoint with tulpas, or a solipsistic worldview, or even the worldview of panpsychism).

 

- How terminologies (e.g. switching and/or possession) creates implications of the degree of sentience a tulpa is presumed to have—to see if the theory can be put into practice. In this context of the terms, whether or not the tulpa can really shift awareness with the host in which they become a conscious accompaniment (switching). This can be chalked up into theorizing: Is switching really all that it’s cracked up to be? (Note: epistemological evaluation can blend into this as well)

 

- One would probably use certain theories of mind that try to conceptualize reality (mentally, or physically), and how the mind and body could align to the theory behind the terminology. A person can also use epistemological evaluation into this, but the idea here is to understand the limits of each. Like how the scientific method would stay humble through empirical evaluation that has epistemological rooting instead of beliefs that claim it can do that along with tackling ontological evaluations (e.g. meaning of life, ultimate purpose, etc.)

 

- Yeah, it does get a bit confusing since ontology and epistemology can be intertwined, but the thread is focusing on Scientism that feels it can bridge the is/ought gap. In other words, “is,” in analyzing and describing something, and “ought,” which implies morality and ethics, and then some. Acknowledging those limits, and acknowledging other options to supplement one’s fix for understanding the tulpa phenomenon can reduce the dogma. It doesn’t imply that it will make it easier to have empirical studies behind it, but at least it appeases the struggle of understanding of the phenomenon.

 

This is a concept people wish into existence; it has no basis in psychology (aside from dream characters that could be compared but your brain operates in completely different modes when you sleep)' date=' it has some ties with, what, detachment of your own sense of self as a person (as demonstrated in other 'plural' practices; some scholars even went as far as to deny DID openly!) which I believe is a foundation to the practice of switching and possession, but I could be wrong.[/quote']

 

Now, your guess is as good as mine when it comes to finding any truth of their being a basis through a psychological lens. And the analogue with dream characters can have that same agreement in sentiment as well, but I feel there can be a discussion over theories of mind, and how the brain operates in certain contexts – lucid dreaming, or even tulpas. Simply because even though lucid dreaming and tulpas are different altogether, one could, if they wish, analyze how the brain would utilize certain processes to render certain phenomena in the first place.

 

But just know that your own application of epistemological and ontological evaluation isn’t Scientism.

 

This is going a bit far from what there is to be said about the topic at hand' date=' but the point is that people are subject to reality in generalized ways; this is how epistemology and ontology function; we experience, witness, question one another about the nature of existence, the 'meaning', perhaps, of life and what nature has to offer us... but the issue is that everyone here is seemingly experiencing tulpamancy in a more or less different way.[/quote']

 

I hardly see this as you derailing the thread. This is a good contrast towards the potential dogma that I’m theorizing behind Scientism. Coming to terms that we blend around epistemological and ontological evaluation is what we use to come to an understanding. It may not be the best thing ever, and it may not be empirically sound, but we make use of what we have in hopes of getting to something better. Acknowledging that even though our knowledge of tulpas may seem infantile, even through the psychological lens, we can still expand upon other options rather than thinking one worldview is the dominate one that can bridge those gaps and limits. In this context, the psychological perspective.

 

 

But tulpamancy is a cat in a box you cannot see; rather' date=' it is a cat in a box you cannot open, or may have opened but there is far too many things in it for us to 'comprehend'.[/quote']

 

It’s understandable that tulpas (not the practice), isn’t something you can see. It’s not like we can step into another’s internal experience, and fathom how to validate whether or not they have a tulpa. But, epistemological and ontological evaluation isn’t exclusive for the physical, or material world. Yes, reveling in the metal aspect can have a horizon so big that it can paralyze a person from further discussion due to the difficulty of trying to comprehend it all, but it’s not so much of everyone having to know the totality of those evaluations with the theories of mind.

 

I do agree that you could apply ontology onto 'how' tulpas are a thing but we need waaaaay more psychology knowledge regarding how the mind functions;

 

So, do you feel epistemological evaluation with psychology is the most important factor in theorizing tulpas? There are other ontological presumptions that could help in supplementing the theorizing that can be analyzed through the psychological lens. And there is more we need to work on with theories of mind and functioning, but that’s the thing—it’s a progressive learning curve.

 

if we come to find out that this is merely a delusion of some sort' date=' would we still need to allocate the importance of applying ontological evaluation to that concept? (sorry if this makes no sense I have no idea what to say aside from that)[/quote']

 

Your mileage will vary as to whether or not said conclusions would paralyze a person from partaking in the endeavor, or continuing to do it in spite of there (in the hypothetical scenario here) being evidence that it is a delusion. But it wouldn’t be the first event where people choose to believe in something in spite of there being ongoing evidence and discussions that may invalidate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LinkZelda, I meant naturalistic in a vague sense of, basically, things that have better answers than, "it's this way because it just is, or because magic." I'm not very well versed in philosophical terms, and apologize for that. I just meant that this website is more about psychological schools of thought than believing in magical things. And of course by magic I mean, "The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature."

 

As far as your Sciencism point. Maybe it has been seeping into the forums, to be honest. I know I tend to fall into this thought process sometimes, and maybe I shouldn't. It's in my nature to trust what I can see over what I'm told to see. It's also not my place, or anyone else's place, to tell people what they can see, and how their reality should be viewed. What has been around here lately is a clash of many different and opposing world views butting heads.

 

Maybe what your point is that we need to push open-mindedness for ourselves, and others. No "dogma," or a pushed single view by authorities. But how do we do this without allowing magic to also seep in? Or maybe we should allow this after all?


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

(I did not ignore all of your other points and if anything, I agree with them and understand what you originally meant. I'm just going to answer some of the questions you posed and perhaps discuss the logic behind the presented ideas.)

 

Oh, yes, of course, ontology and epistemology do not only apply to what we may see and touch, that would be a contradiction to the very meaning of 'metaphysics' (which, I take it, would be just like how Descartes described Metaphysics, Physics and Science as components of a tree with metaphysics being the very roots, so we're excluding the general idea of magic and other practices the term invokes around here). I meant to say (and poorly implicated) that it would be hard to actually get into such ontological evaluations, not impossible, and as you put it, there can be a different ontological approach, but in my perspective this approach would be harder to accomplish.

 

 

I think that, in order to apply all of these things, we'd also need to dissolve doubts in an integral manner. Or render them unimportant because we would be studying a practice, a 'definition' that acts lust like an axiom in the sense that we would fully and bluntly hypothesize its flawlessness.

 

So' date=' do you feel epistemological evaluation with psychology is the most important factor in theorizing tulpas?[/quote']

 

Yes, definitely.


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
Maybe it has been seeping into the forums' date=' to be honest. I know I tend to fall into this thought process sometimes, and maybe I shouldn't. It's in my nature to trust what I can see over what I'm told to see. It's also not my place, or anyone else's place, to tell people what they can see, and how their reality should be viewed. What has been around here lately is a clash of many different and opposing world views butting heads.[/quote']

 

Yeah, the strife is apparent, but I think if others knew that at the end of the day - We may be exercising our minds with those contrasts in beliefs, but the user should know the words, screaming, and pit-pattering rage doesn’t suddenly take over their ability to take their own stand in life. It’s also agreeable that one cannot push for an ultimate view that others must align themselves to as that might lead to more oppression and dogma.

 

I think the key thing here is that people’s yearning for a sense of liberation isn’t contingent on a few threads that may try to invalidate, critique, or even support. Things can get passionate, and I would be the last person to state that I haven’t done so myself (aggressively, and what have you), but as long as we can close the laptop and move on with our lives, it’ll be alright.

 

But how do we do this without allowing magic to also seep in? Or maybe we should allow this after all?

 

I don’t have a perfect solution to this, but I do know that discussing more metaphysical topics (this can range from theories of mind, consciousness, etc.) that doesn’t entail transcendental and otherworldly implications would be a nice stepping stone. Maybe more thought experiments (like a few J.Iscariot made before that tends to rustle some jimmies for some, and some I made with p-zombies and all) might help, but it can be done. I tried with those PEET topics, which I think could be shifted into other boards, if there can be a system for categorizing them instead of having it clustered into General Discussion. Of course, we can use epistemological evaluations towards terminologies as well, and try to blend both concepts. But the key difference is noticing where the limit is drawn, and that might take some time.

 

As for fear of magic seeping in, and creating a dogma as well -- I’d say it’s a matter of categorizing those discussions, and others knowing said perspectives that gives that implication of “magic,” and the supernatural is seen through those lens. They don’t have to wear those lens in their daily activities. They can put it on for curiosity’s sake, and move on to another. It’s just expanding the options. I guess it sounds pragmatic in theory, but I will acknowledge that it can be hard to put into practice. Just another challenge, though.

 

It’s easy to try and find a perspective that can be the jack of all trades (e.g. the psychological one), but it would be the master of none because other perspectives would have to help supplement it, and vice versa. Maybe this analogue might help others structure the intention of this thread differently.

 

@J.Iscariot, thank you for the clarification.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.