introducing tulpamancing and multiplicity to society one city at a time

[tulpamancer31]

so this is my idea, i was in the library today when all of sudden i got this idea to use my libraries community room to host a informational seminar about tulpamancing,multiplicity and just general information about using your imagination to alter things in reality(eg:imposition of various kinds).now this will be a "beta test" for something much larger, for those of you who dont know i have grown up in southwestern wisconsin my whole life, the kind of people i see in my town and the surrounding areas are very conservative but liberal in a sense. they would take this with a grain of salt i assume and while i cant speak for every one they would probalby be at least willing to try it out. in this seminar i would be making all kinds of points, information about the history,culture,and general atmosphere of this community and others like it. now, back to my statement of it being a "beta test".the reason i say that is because as far as i know, i am the first person in recent times to try something like this, and i am hoping that some if not hopefully all of you decide to learn from me and make your own seminars. i will write out a scripted speech and probably set up a powerpoint demonstration for the seminar.

what are your thoughts? good or bad idea?

[Tewi]

As far as I know no one has done anything like that in real life yet, no. But plenty of people have written elsewhere about tulpamancy, it's been on a news site or two, and it was also on Fusion Network. I don't think too many people are sure enough of themselves, or the people they'll be talking to, to try and do something like that in real life. I generally wouldn't recommend it, I guess. People are more likely to consider you a psycho for talking about weird things IRL than on the internet, and people already aren't always understanding of tulpamancy on the internet.

[jean-luc]

@tulpamancer31

Goddammit, would it hurt you to use capitals and punctuation? Especially if you're making a serious post.

 

Otherwise, I think you have an interesting idea. I'd love to know how it turns out. If you could even record a video of how it goes that would be awesome. I would be both very interested to do this but also afraid of doing it.

[Zaya]

I don't know. I've played out a thousand different ways of introducing this to the masses in my head, and to be honest, I can't imagine it would be perceived in any better way than lucid dreaming has.

 

Tons of people can get behind lucid dreaming because they already dream, some have vivid dreams, and can see "yeah, maybe I could work with this"

 

But due to the lack of examples other than psychopathology (schizophrenia, DID, etc), not many people can make the leap of faith and actually say, "maybe there's some merit to this!".

 

I'm not saying its not possible, but I'm not sure its going to be anywhere near widely accepted, at least in my lifetime, as something that's not generally "crazy" until some people with some serious merit come out and advocate it.

I want it to be accepted.

Hell, I would even martyr myself with tons of books using my legitimate name, trying to get interviews, and speaking publicly about the matter if I wanted to a few years from now, as long as it made a difference.

 

If it would do something positive for the community, I would commit social suicide in a heartbeat.

[Linkzelda]

I remember giving a presentation over lucid dreaming to a neurologist one time in college, and let's just say I forgot to add in the empirical evidence into that equation. Sure, I wow'd some people who also asked me if I lucid dream, but that neurologist was pissed. I still passed the class, though, but I could imagine if I did it on tulpas, I'd probably have to get a test from the neurologist on the spot, or a euphemistic GTFO, I think.

[solarchariot]

I would encourage you to try it and see what happens. I suspect Zaya hit it right, when saying people can get behind lucid dreaming because everyone dreams... Most people don't talk to tulpa's or other "non localized" beings. I don't even have the language to discuss it, apparently. Clearly, everyone talks to themselves, right? There's almost always a running dialogue. And there are those who are spiritually orientated and they speak to a host of entities, but even that can freak the average person out. I think most people would tolerate the idea of praying or speaking to God, in general, and would make distinction between this and the previous sentence, but again, we're speaking of degrees. People tend to be okay with prayer, but if someone tries to convince you they 'literally' talk to God and He/She talks back, aka, Joan of Arc kind of conversations, people start marking the exits. Never mind the fact, anytime someone is mad and rehearsing an argument in their head, or playing back a previous dialogue and tweaking their conversation in hindsight to justify and rationalize their position, they have basically just entered the parroting zone, for an undesignated tulpa potential event... (and then people wonder why they struggle with emotions. LOL)

 

Notice, we haven't even brought up mental illness, yet, which carries it's own stigmas. And, as a professional who works with mentally ill folks, I do make a clear distinction between someone who has spoken to a ghost of a deceased family member and someone who is hallucinating, but I imagine most people wouldn't, because most the time, there are people who have some profound experience but they're too afraid to share because they think someone is going to lock them up and throw away the key, and that's just not the case. It'd not against the law to be "crazy," if you'll forgive the use of the vernacular. Now, if you say you're going to kill yourself or someone else, that can get you a few days in a hospital, but just talking to yourself... Well, let's just say there isn't enough bed space to cover that one.

 

So, if you do it, I'd be interested in what sort of turn out you get in terms of numbers and the types of people. People talk to themselves all the time, maybe the trick is, teaching people to listen. Humanity's greatest lament is we're separated, from each other, from God, or creation, and we spend life times searching for signs of intelligence, in animals, searching the stars for signals... but what if the answer was always right there in your own head, and it's been wanting to talk back, but you were never quiet long enough to hear...

[MobianAngel]

Everyone above me has good points on this matter so there really isn't much I can say.

 

Even though I do have to agree that it's a nice idea it's also a "leap of faith" and would most likely bring out the bitterness in people.

 

I had experiences in real life with this sort of thing at college and it did not turn out very well at all. And you better bet people have given me crossed looks, laughed and told me to go see a doctor thus why I don't try to be open about talking to non-physical beings from fiction anymore. This would most likely be the same result if you went on talking about tulpamancy no matter whether or not you deliver scientific evidence.

 

If you are able to take harsh criticism and mockery then I'd say do it. Even if it doesn't turn out to be a positive experience, at least your word would of been heard.

[yenu]

Never mind the fact, anytime someone is mad and rehearsing an argument in their head, or playing back a previous dialogue and tweaking their conversation in hindsight to justify and rationalize their position, they have basically just entered the parroting zone, for an undesignated tulpa potential event... (and then people wonder why they struggle with emotions. LOL)

 

I think thats a possible starting point. Quite probably, everyone has mental models of other people whom they interact with. Like, close friends.

But you could also mention steriotypes. Like "Imagine a steriotypical bishop. What would he say to you?" Things like that.

[SomethingDire]

the reason i say that is because as far as i know, i am the first person in recent times to try something like this, and i am hoping that some if not hopefully all of you decide to learn from me and make your own seminars.

 

I couldn't help but chuckle at this part.

 

I wish I had the audacity and bravery to go out and introduce such a controversial and subjective phenomenon to people, but I don't.

 

what are your thoughts? good or bad idea?

 

There's no certainty about whether this is good or bad here. There're only the conclusions you may get, and you get to draw your own conclusions from those conclusions. Like MobianAngel pointed out; if you're able to take harsh criticism and are not aiming too high about impressing people, it'll probably turn out alright.

 

People are more likely to consider you a psycho for talking about weird things IRL than on the internet, and people already aren't always understanding of tulpamancy on the internet.

Yeah, this.

 

From what I've seen, people are way more laid-back on the Internet than they are IRL, yet that's still not enough for them to be accepting of such a phenomenon. That should give more than a few points to consider.

 

Tons of people can get behind lucid dreaming because they already dream, some have vivid dreams, and can see "yeah, maybe I could work with this"

 

But due to the lack of examples other than psychopathology (schizophrenia, DID, etc), not many people can make the leap of faith and actually say, "maybe there's some merit to this!".

 

I'm not saying its not possible, but I'm not sure its going to be anywhere near widely accepted, at least in my lifetime, as something that's not generally "crazy" until some people with some serious merit come out and advocate it.

 

Another ditto. There's no "scientifically documented" evidence that I know of about tulpamancy, and that is usually more than enough for people to be put off by this kind of thing.

 

Sure, I wow'd some people who also asked me if I lucid dream, but that neurologist was pissed.

 

..And this is, in my humble opinion, one of the best-case scenarios that would conclude your seminar. The "open-minded" people may end up being impressed, but if you get people who want actual evidence (and expect merit, like Zaya pointed out) they are probably going to be disappointed.

 

I had experiences in real life with this sort of thing at college and it did not turn out very well at all. And you better bet people have given me crossed looks, laughed and told me to go see a doctor thus why I don't try to be open about talking to non-physical beings from fiction anymore. This would most likely be the same result if you went on talking about tulpamancy no matter whether or not you deliver scientific evidence.

 

If you are able to take harsh criticism and mockery then I'd say do it. Even if it doesn't turn out to be a positive experience, at least your word would of been heard.

 

I personally think that most people's views would change accordingly if there were enough evidence, but that's beside the point. I also had a very similiar experience when I tried to explain tulpamancy to one of my friends a bit of time ago; he said that us (the tulpamancers) were either just buying into a self-powered hallucination, or that we were "screwing up our minds really bad without even knowing about it." Should give you a bit of idea about the reactions you're going to get.

[solarchariot]

So many good points here, especially MobianAngel's point about criticism. You should also consider your mission statement. What's your goal in doing this? I mean, seriously consider the "why" behind your motivation. It's usually never just one thing, but if your number one objective is to share your enthusiasm about something that has changed your world, that is rarely enough to motivate others. This kind of motivational lecture, where the goal is to fire people up about their potential, they will usually want a lot of evidence for how your life has improved. "My tulpa gave me the winning lottery numbers and I'm set for life" kind of evidence of improvement. The more esoteric benefits? Well, yeah, that's a different crowd than the general public, and they will find tulpa's on their own...

 

If your goal is to prove something to yourself, like you're not crazy... Or subconscious need to have a admirers, well, who doesn't want that, at least sometimes, but both of these are generally a bad idea for a lecture. And I can already hear a heckler, and I'm hoping it's just my own brain and not my developing tulpa, cause it feels mean, "Why would someone who can create friends in their mind need an audience?" Besides the fact we're human and we want to connect with others, hence this community, and all the community that come together- and a lecture without a specific goal could potentially create a community that either disdains or actively dismiss or hates the tulpa community. There are benefits to being a "fringe" community: anonymity.

 

If the goal is to educate folks, you have lots of good source materials, some people might want to see new stuff, especially if those in attendance who are already knowledgeable about the subject. And those folks will challenge you with questions just to see if you pass their test.

 

None of these are meant to dissuade you. I am all for putting yourself out there and seeing what happens. They don't 'tar and feather' people much anymore, and no matter what happens, you took a risk and discovered something about you (but notnecessarily about the world.) Yay. Most people don't take risks. But that's where the good stuff comes. In an imagined, ideal world, where everyone hears the message that tulpas are fun and life enhancing, and everyone in the general public started doing it, as opposed to playing with their "Cellphone" (a tulpa substitue? tulpa lite?(And I dare say talking to tulpa while driving is likely more safe than texting...)) i'm thinking I don't want everyone doing it. It would be interesting. I have some ideas about that world. But those who push the boundaries of consciousness has always been on the fringe, from shamans to Einsteins... they're needed, but the world wouldn't quite function if everyone was one or both.