Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Solarchariot. I have had a lot of training in art. Four years at Otis College of Art and Design. Drawing was my weakest subject so I took most of my classes in it. I never got good at it, nor do I like doing it. I am however a better than average painter and sculptor. (You have seen one of my pieces) I could suggest you try sculpting Loxy in clay. then painting her. With clay, you can let your inner child out to play, and the same with paint. Perhaps your inner critic will become more visible and therefore more easily negotiated with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think I am approaching another milestone. I am almost wanting to start another thread, because I feel like I am on the edge of going to another level.

 

I am not an artist. I don't say that with a sense of self-deprecation. I say that acknowledging that I don't have talent, or rudimentary skill, and I hold an expectation that drawing should be easy, intuitive. I have attached a video at the end, a guy teaching drawing faces using the Loomis method. I like the video, it's helpful, in terms of general skill building, and I also don't like it, because it feels like a cheat, using a method... But I am playing with it, and it seems helpful. I share that because it seems to me I read a guide early on about visualization that went into detail about bone structure and anatomy and I skimmed through much of it going, 'blah blah blah..." I know the human form, I know how to visualize... That was a mistake on my part. It may be that in order to have full imposition, most of us need to utilize technique, cheats, and not rely on intuitive feel to making things works. I refer to my line, I am not an artist. I think that statement needs to be clarified. The most frequent lament I have read is 'I suck at visualization;' "I am not an artist." I now think this is an erroneous belief, based on the fact we're not taught how to see, or how to translate what we see into form... I am not an artist means I am not a professional artist... But I am capable of learning...

 

I am not touting my art work here. I am pushing an idea: since I've taken on drawing Loxy, almost daily, I noticed greater inner visual clarity. I am now having visual experiences of her in real time, eyes closed, and every time, not just random flashes. These are prolonged moments. I am not seeing her with eyes open, but starting to see the hint of a silhouette. I am so stoked by this! I don't know yet if I will bring her all the way into this world in real time, non trance, non meditation, but I can close my eyes and I see her! There is movement, without auditory experience. It's almost like if I see, I loose the sound track. There is smiling. There is eyes closing/opening, head turns, changes in proximity so that we are like eye to eye, to further away. There is increasing visual continuity in form. And the only thing I have been doing differently, is drawing, and staring at my work, even if I think it's not quite there. One of the recent auditory experiences, Loxy has assured me it doesn't have to be perfect, it's a symbol that is unlocking more, trust your brain to do the rest...

 

That's all I got.

latest rough sketch of Loxy

https://i.imgur.com/iHTeh7L.jpg

 

proko on drawing faces using loomis method

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

How interesting, Bear... I didn't know that was a thing! I have logged some serious tetris hours... and worked 24 years at a major airline, and can pack some bags, and some freight, but I have never experienced that! (People frequently aske me to help move them, cause I can pack some trucks...) Given some of the thing I have unlocked since finding tulpa.info, I don't know why we don't unlock a whole host of new, strange things.... Maybe we do, but we don't know they're strange...

 

It occurs to me that even though we operate with basic definition of what a thought is, we really don't have a good definition or grasp of what it is in actuality. Carl Jung seemed to have his own ideas of thoughts...

 

"My thoughts are not my self but exactly like the things of the world, alive and dead. Just as I am not damaged through living in a partly chaotic world, so too I am not damaged if I live in my partly chaotic thought world. Thoughts are natural events that you do not possess, and whose meaning you only imperfectly recognize." ~Carl Jung, Liber Novus, Page 250.

 

"Thoughts are real, they are the consciousness. People can’t see that. Einstein could not." ~Carl Jung, J.E.T., Pages 90-95

 

'He said I treated thoughts as if I generated them myself, but in his view thoughts were like animals in the forest, or people in a room, or birds in the air, and added, “If you should see people in a room, you would not think that you had made those people, or that you were responsible for them.”' ~Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams and Reflections, Page 183

 

There are a dozen more I wanted to add here, that seem to me to fit a theme that we explore on a regular basis at T.I., even if it's just the periphery of it that we touch upon, as we try to formulate what is us, what is other, and what all the other entities and artifact are that exist within this thing we're constructing... I have shared before that I have had experiences with what I have designated as not tulpa, like with the invisible counselor technique. I named Jung as one. I read a lot of Jung. Partly because, if you do the 'invisible counselor technique' correctly, you don't just invite your preferred counselor, but if they exist in history, you do research on them... Probably a way to keep them in your mind. Does that make my Jung a factive? I don't know. I just know I had tangible experiences with him... If you're interested in the major two that I thought were most spectacular in terms of 'wow' after the fact, you can read about them below. Its much too involved to report here, but I find it correlates to previous discussions of late. I consider these experience instrumental to my evolution of a tulpamancer... Is there like a tulpa-padawan? I hardly consider myself a mancer, must less a master... :)

 

These events were meaningful to me, and I hope they are helpful in general.

 

https://pathfindere.blogspot.com/2016/12/permission-to-feel-joy.html

 

https://pathfindere.blogspot.com/2016/12/watching-wheels.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

How interesting, Bear... I didn't know that was a thing! I have logged some serious tetris hours... and worked 24 years at a major airline, and can pack some bags, and some freight, but I have never experienced that! (People frequently aske me to help move them, cause I can pack some trucks...) Given some of the thing I have unlocked since finding tulpa.info, I don't know why we don't unlock a whole host of new, strange things.... Maybe we do, but we don't know they're strange...

 

It occurs to me that even though we operate with basic definition of what a thought is, we really don't have a good definition or grasp of what it is in actuality.  Carl Jung seemed to have his own ideas of thoughts...

 

"My thoughts are not my self but exactly like the things of the world, alive and dead. Just as I am not damaged through living in a partly chaotic world, so too I am not damaged if I live in my partly chaotic thought world. Thoughts are natural events that you do not possess, and whose meaning you only imperfectly recognize."  ~Carl Jung, Liber Novus, Page 250.

 

"Thoughts are real, they are the consciousness. People can’t see that. Einstein could not." ~Carl Jung, J.E.T., Pages 90-95

 

'He said I treated thoughts as if I generated them myself, but in his view thoughts were like animals in the forest, or people in a room, or birds in the air, and added, “If you should see people in a room, you would not think that you had made those people, or that you were responsible for them.”'  ~Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams and Reflections, Page 183

 

There are a dozen more I wanted to add here, that seem to me to fit a theme that we explore on a regular basis at T.I., even if it's just the periphery of it that we touch upon, as we try to formulate what is us, what is other, and what all the other entities and artifact are that exist within this thing we're constructing... I have shared before that I have had experiences with what I have designated as not tulpa, like with the invisible counselor technique. I named Jung as one. I read a lot of Jung. Partly because, if you do the 'invisible counselor technique' correctly, you don't just invite your preferred counselor, but if they exist in history, you do research on them... Probably a way to keep them in your mind. Does that make my Jung a factive? I don't know. I just know I had tangible experiences with him... If you're interested in the major two that I thought were most spectacular in terms of 'wow' after the fact, you can read about them below. Its much too involved to report here, but I find it correlates to previous discussions of late.  I consider these experience instrumental to my evolution of a tulpamancer... Is there like a tulpa-padawan? I hardly consider myself a mancer, must less a master... :)

 

These events were meaningful to me, and I hope they are helpful in general.

 

https://pathfindere.blogspot.com/2016/12/permission-to-feel-joy.html

 

https://pathfindere.blogspot.com/2016/12/watching-wheels.html

I have been able to help more than a few distressed folk, but teaching them that 'they' are not their thoughts, neither are 'they' their feelings, nor, their perceptions. These are all constructs of the brain. an epiphenom if you will not the real thing. In mindfulness meditation one can "see" this and when disowning it and letting it all flow on by, one can (when exceptionally lucky, or on a rainy day) experience selflessness. I appreciate the work you are doing and I know from your writings, that you do understand the underlying mechanisms. Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're a great tulpamancer SC. Loxy is blissful. That's all the feedback you need.

 


 

Doc,

Hold the phone, 'selflessness' as in without a self?

 

I grasped at a fleeting thought and managed to catch it before it dissipated. What if "I" is just a label given to the primary actor, but what "I" really am is the stage?

 

In terms of computing, "I" would be the operating system, not the first program.

 

Long conjecture follows possibly off-topic.

 

[Hidden]

Say I have four or more actors, the one "I" developed starting at infancy, the one that had to be molded and adapted to meet the demands and get the sustenance of daily bread was just the first, and "I" made him to meet those basic needs so we could continue to exist.

 

Plural from birth, everyone.

 

Consider the main actor fronted for nearly all my life, and perhaps I am not even capable of speech myself, only through him and his utterances can I communicate to other actors outside the system. I would never necessarily have to speak internally or externally, I simply desire, I require, I need, and I bleed onto him desire and he bleeds back his emotions as he attempts to fulfill my will.

 

Without him I am perhapse selfless unable to function. A car without a driver.

 

As he drives using the common assets of senses, I am given a tiny slice of consciousness, just enough to record and enjoy, experience and react, but he potentially has so much more.

 

I have noticed that often I don't know where my thoughts come from, I can't honestly tell you what I will say next. Is it reaction to my own thoughts that my thoughts reveal or is it an actor that does the thinking? He's well aware of what he's talking about, he seems to know what he's doing, but I can't hear his thoughts except for rare instances.

 

This sentence is his, but he's getting my desire to speak it and to think about my existence outside of his own. Does an actor notice how the stage supports and cares for them?

 

Now that I have 4++ actors in my mind, I have begun to realize that certain things occur without it being assigned to anyone. Before I was sure everything was me, why would I question it? An example is my hands, they seem to type without my cue, the current actor uses them, my feet walk without my direction, the actors swap them freely, just as surely as my heart beats without my direction. There is my will to do, and they do it their own way, with their own volition.

 

Who 'posesses' the hands? It's as routine as who possesses the mindvoice for me now. They just do what they should, there's no levers or buttons, they just respond and simply know what to do. Certainly in the days of hunting and pecking, typing was more of a manual procedure, but that's not how it is today, after having typed millions of words. Literally millions, as the sum of my books are over a million easily if not over two recorded in themselves alone.

 

Perhaps an enlightened state realizes that the actor fears and deficiencies are just a distraction. Their reactions are immaterial to "I", if they fear the dark, they can be switched out for an actor who doesn't.

 

As it stands today, my adaptation to switching has become what I refer to 'the patchwork bear'. "I" switch the actors as I see fit given the scenario. [i've] been getting good at it. Triggers lose their bite when the fronting actor doesn't react to them negatively. Then "I" have no negative emotions bled onto me.

 

Before Tulpamancy, I searched for a way to 'fix' my actor, he had triggers and tantrums, depression and rueful thoughts, he had fears and odd meanderings, ruminations of seld destruction. These distracted him and there were times where his sadness overwhelmed him. The biggest driver was classic lonliness. I couldn't help him, I couldn't console him, I could only desire that he be fixed.

 

So we found a word, Tulpa, and testimony of others getting helped by multiple 'actors', but how was still a mystery that only walking the path could reveal. It seems everyone is different.

 

We did and we learned and we found a path to repair what was broken and replace what we couldn't repair. Here I stand, nearly a year later, four strong and stronger for having them. "I" am who you see on the street, but under the skin is a mosaic of thoughtforms, working together, learning to share the load and comprise, synergistic and resolved. Fully in love with themselves and others, with a desire to spread the good news of the patchwork bear. When completed, he would be the perfect being behaviorally and cognitively. Reborn and adaptable, potentially immune to fear and infinity renewable.

 

From a DID perspective, self-fracturing and rebuilding to use the pieces together to eliminate the noise of life, so we are free to explore the goal of self actualization. What's potentially different from that perspective is that the actors are free to interact and frolic when off duty. When the trials and tribulations of the day are done, we come together and share our lifes and perspectives, strength our bonds, and enjoy ourselves off stage. Where imagination, dreams and our real life affords us time to explore our love and self-actualization in peace.

 

[/hidden]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard the Great Bear, and am processing... something I am writing reflects this, but instead of the stage, I found myself thinking I am a goldfish in a bowl, and the 'I' is the bowl and the water... That's all I got... But in a weirder place yesterday, I went beyond anything I can explain... I tired putting it in words with the holodoc, because, hello HOLODOC, aka shades of ST:Voyager... Aren't we all a patchwork bear? We don't happen in a vacuum... "A Wonderful Life" just popped in my brain. Jimmy Stweart version, of course. I do like the Mary Tyler Moore version, 'It happened One Christmas,' but my fondness for Jimmy supersedes it. Mary is in my head, spinning and tossing her beret in the air. She came a long way from the dick van dyke show... I think that's the point... Looks Like We Made it... Oh, wait that's barry mannilo, but his songs are like that, too.

 

 

so, close out the day with this Joan Jett version of the mary tyler moore show, as she gives it a nice little hip in your step, the way guns and roses improved 'live and let die...' cause that so needed an edge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're a great tulpamancer SC. Loxy is blissful. That's all the feedback you need.

 


 

Doc,

Hold the phone, 'selflessness' as in without a self?

 

I grasped at a fleeting thought and managed to catch it before it dissipated. What if "I" is just a label given to the primary actor, but what "I" really am is the stage?

 

In terms of computing, "I" would be the operating system, not the first program.

 

Long conjecture follows possibly off-topic.

 

[Hidden]

Say I have four or more actors, the one "I" developed starting at infancy, the one that had to be molded and adapted to meet the demands and get the sustenance of daily bread was just the first, and "I" made him to meet those basic needs so we could continue to exist.

 

Plural from birth, everyone.

 

Consider the main actor fronted for nearly all my life, and perhaps I am not even capable of speech myself, only through him and his utterances can I communicate to other actors outside the system. I would never necessarily have to speak internally or externally, I simply desire, I require, I need, and I bleed onto him desire and he bleeds back his emotions as he attempts to fulfill my will.

 

Without him I am perhapse selfless unable to function. A car without a driver.

 

As he drives using the common assets of senses, I am given a tiny slice of consciousness, just enough to record and enjoy, experience and react, but he potentially has so much more.

 

I have noticed that often I don't know where my thoughts come from, I can't honestly tell you what I will say next. Is it reaction to my own thoughts that my thoughts reveal or is it an actor that does the thinking? He's well aware of what he's talking about, he seems to know what he's doing, but I can't hear his thoughts except for rare instances.

 

This sentence is his, but he's getting my desire to speak it and to think about my existence outside of his own. Does an actor notice how the stage supports and cares for them?

 

Now that I have 4++ actors in my mind, I have begun to realize that certain things occur without it being assigned to anyone. Before I was sure everything was me, why would I question it? An example is my hands, they seem to type without my cue, the current actor uses them, my feet walk without my direction, the actors swap them freely, just as surely as my heart beats without my direction. There is my will to do, and they do it their own way, with their own volition.

 

Who 'posesses' the hands? It's as routine as who possesses the mindvoice for me now. They just do what they should, there's no levers or buttons, they just respond and simply know what to do. Certainly in the days of hunting and pecking, typing was more of a manual procedure, but that's not how it is today, after having typed millions of words. Literally millions, as the sum of my books are over a million easily if not over two recorded in themselves alone.

 

Perhaps an enlightened state realizes that the actor fears and deficiencies are just a distraction. Their reactions are immaterial to "I", if they fear the dark, they can be switched out for an actor who doesn't.

 

As it stands today, my adaptation to switching has become what I refer to 'the patchwork bear'. "I" switch the actors as I see fit given the scenario. [i've] been getting good at it. Triggers lose their bite when the fronting actor doesn't react to them negatively. Then "I" have no negative emotions bled onto me.

 

Before Tulpamancy, I searched for a way to 'fix' my actor, he had triggers and tantrums, depression and rueful thoughts, he had fears and odd meanderings, ruminations of seld destruction. These distracted him and there were times where his sadness overwhelmed him. The biggest driver was classic lonliness. I couldn't help him, I couldn't console him, I could only desire that he be fixed.

 

So we found a word, Tulpa, and testimony of others getting helped by multiple 'actors', but how was still a mystery that only walking the path could reveal. It seems everyone is different.

 

We did and we learned and we found a path to repair what was broken and replace what we couldn't repair. Here I stand, nearly a year later, four strong and stronger for having them. "I" am who you see on the street, but under the skin is a mosaic of thoughtforms, working together, learning to share the load and comprise, synergistic and resolved. Fully in love with themselves and others, with a desire to spread the good news of the patchwork bear. When completed, he would be the perfect being behaviorally and cognitively. Reborn and adaptable, potentially immune to fear and infinity renewable.

 

From a DID perspective, self-fracturing and rebuilding to use the pieces together to eliminate the noise of life, so we are free to explore the goal of self actualization. What's potentially different from that perspective is that the actors are free to interact and frolic when off duty. When the trials and tribulations of the day are done, we come together and share our lifes and perspectives, strength our bonds, and enjoy ourselves off stage. Where imagination, dreams and our real life affords us time to explore our love and self-actualization in peace.

 

[/hidden]

I think that the main illusion, is that there is a "Main Actor". Before Tulpamancy,  other actors, were/are, considered to be evidence of mental illness, a dis-ease. Now as you so eloquently describe, there is no dis-ease with it, there is the opposite, more ease, better functioning. This brings up the central idea that there is something essentially healthy about having a main actor or undivided self. In my opinion, this is non-sense. Freud told us that the ego, that brain function which is our interface with reality, has many functions. One of them is called the "Synthetic Ego Function" this serves to create a single story that is always "front" and which we know as "I". Is this the TRUE SELF? We all (and not just all tulpamancers) know that this is not the case. If it were, how could we function at all? What a mess of contradictions, inconsistencies, functional and dysfunctional thought forms, and cacophonous emotions! 

I had the pleasure of studying with the philosopher, J. Krishnamurti in the 1970's, who was  a very astute questioner, and was able to lead us to the experience of the main actor as one more noise in our heads. A fiction, and one, which in our modern life, seems to be more and more poorly written. The problem of course is that 'noise in the head' precludes an unobstructed view of reality. Mr. K. put it as it creates a tension in the mind. as when we live out of sync with reality, we are tense, and rightly so. Selflessness, as in Buddhist thought, refers to a quiet mind. One in sync with the reality in which you are immeshed. Dr. Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the main illusion, is that there is a "Main Actor". Before Tulpamancy,  other actors, were/are, considered to be evidence of mental illness, a dis-ease. Now as you so eloquently describe, there is no dis-ease with it, there is the opposite, more ease, better functioning. This brings up the central idea that there is something essentially healthy about having a main actor or undivided self. In my opinion, this is non-sense. Freud told us that the ego, that brain function which is our interface with reality, has many functions. One of them is called the "Synthetic Ego Function" this serves to create a single story that is always "front" and which we know as "I". Is this the TRUE SELF? We all (and not just all tulpamancers) know that this is not the case. If it were, how could we function at all? What a mess of contradictions, inconsistencies, functional and dysfunctional thought forms, and cacophonous emotions! 

I had the pleasure of studying with the philosopher, J. Krishnamurti in the 1970's, who was  a very astute questioner, and was able to lead us to the experience of the main actor as one more noise in our heads. A fiction, and one, which in our modern life, seems to be more and more poorly written. The problem of course is that 'noise in the head' precludes an unobstructed view of reality. Mr. K. put it as it creates a tension in the mind. as when we live out of sync with reality, we are tense, and rightly so. Selflessness, as in Buddhist thought, refers to a quiet mind. One in sync with the reality in which you are immeshed. Dr. Bob

 

I grasped at a fleeting thought and managed to catch it before it dissipated. What if "I" is just a label given to the primary actor, but what "I" really am is the stage?

I agree that with the main actor quieted, what is left is the stage. I like that. I have called it "The silent self"

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.

×
×
  • Create New...