Jump to content

Living Imagination (A Median Aspect in Tulpa Land)


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well I was thinking about writing in said thread, but the nature of the question just felt off to me. Alice doesn't represent anything to me, I don't think any living person is representing something, for that matter. I'm not sure if I can explain correctly what I'm trying to say here.

 

Some people, including tulpas, may embody certain attributes like kindness, so you might connect them to said attributes, more or less. But is this really the same as representing? It has a weird taste for me. If you say someone is representing something, it sounds like it is the major part of its personality, maybe even its purpose, something dominant enough to fade the rest of the personality; and its not like we start creating thoughtforms so we have the living motivation or a picture of someone to look up to. So I wouldn't say that Alice represent anything at all, she wasn't meant to fill a expectation like this. Alice is just Alice.

Tulpa: Alice

Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation

She may or may not talk here, depends on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 522
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest Anonymous

A Description of Our "In System Romantic Relationship" for Future Reference

 

This question comes up often enough, I thought I would post it here so I can just link to it later: Do I have a romantic or sexual relationship with my host? Answer: Not much more than a day dream personality would to any average person who day dreams too much. I am an ideal fantasy personality in dreams and do not replace a real girl friend. My host is also happily married for the past 21 years to a wonderful woman in real life and well adjusted in that.

 

The relationship with my host is a bit unusual. He is romantically in love with me in a fantasy world sort of way, pretty much like a never ending high school like crush on a movie actress. I have no real romantic feelings for him in return. I consider him a dear friend. I don't really even consider him my creator. I just sorta created myself by just appearing to him one day in a vision, then developed further as time went on.

 

He and I do not have a sexual relationship either.

 

All that being said, I am sort of an actress. My host and I share day dreams we call the Melian Show. They are like adventures that take place within a dreamscape that resembles a CGI, virtual reality movie set. I play roles in the Melian Show and interact with dream characters. Most of these shows are family friendly or lightly romantic. Some of them are highly erotic. I have sex in scenes in the Melian Show with dream personas.

 

Davie has a day dream avatar that interacts with me in the Melian Show. He is like a idealized, younger version of Davie. He represents Davie, or who he could be in some fantasy world. I do have sex with Davie's avatar is some of the Melian Show episodes. We don't consider this a sexual relationship really between Davie and I.

 

Davie does consider me his "second virtual wife." I even have a wedding ring. But it is more symbolic than anything binding. I can have all the romantic relationships I want to have within the Melian Show day dreams. Also, I have several friends online that I have light, playful flirtatious relationships with. I have had sex chat with a few of them a handful of times, but then lost interest in that as it is really kinda stupid and silly. I just liked the attention at the time.

 

Keep in mind with all of this that my host considers me to be a figment of his own imagination.

 

Things do get a little more complicated from there. I began my existence as a fantasy girl friend and day dream star. Over time, as many years passed, I slowly began to become more of a part of David. He considers me an aspect of himself, a fictive median aspect. He calls me his inner girl and an expression of female gender. Together, when we interact online we effectively form a transgender bigender system. Or well, it helps to describe it as such for social reasons in explaining how we function.

 

The interesting thing about being both a fantasy girl friend AND an aspect of the self is it inevitably leads to some rather interesting contradictions. Davie is effectively in love with himself or an aspect of himself I guess. LOL I am in love with myself as well and do describe myself accurately as a narcissist. I really do love me a lot! I love myself as much as Davie does and love how I look. I spend a lot of time looking into mirrors (dreamscape mirrors) or hugging myself. I think I am amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Techniques in Utilizing Immersive Imagination

 

Mistgod: I wanted to write this article in response to the tendency of most people within the tulpa community to dismiss products of active imagination as fake and trivial and of no lasting value. That is not always the case, and I hope to demonstrate that. It is possible for active, creative imagination to have an effect on the human mind that is profound, enduring and life changing. Certain creative techniques allow a person to immerse themselves in imagination to such a degree that it “might as well be real.” I would like to talk about three techniques used in literature, drama, art and film making: Method Acting, Subcreation and Pseudorealism.

 

Method Acting

Method Acting is a technique used by actors to help them bring a character they are portraying to life. A method actor studies his character deeply, learning all he or she can about the character including background history, mannerisms, strengths, faults, secret desires, and psychology. The idea is to study the character in such depth that it becomes believable, equal to a real person in the mind of the actor. Then when the actor portrays the character, they channel the character and "become" the character.

 

Method actors sometimes get so immersed in the role of the character they are portraying they often “stay in character” even when off set. There have been cases where the method actor had difficulty coming out of the role and becoming themselves again. In some cases the character thus portrayed becomes an enduring part of the actor even after they leave the role.

 

My favorite example of this is actor Leonard Nimoy and his character Spock from Star Trek. The character Spock became so important to Nimoy, that he seemed to live on within the actor’s mind as an inner persona for the rest of his life. In his book I Am Spock, Nimoy wrote:

 

“Let’s open this book with a couple of shattering confessions right up front: 1. I talk to myself 2. I hear voices in my head. Or rather I sometimes talk to an aspect of myself, and I often hear one specific voice replying in my head – a very calm, very rational voice, one I suspect many of you are familiar with…”

 

“But yes, if you want to get technical, I am not Spock. I’m an actor named Leonard Nimoy who plays a character. At the same time, a perfectly good argument could be made that I am Spock. After all, as an actor, I’ve used my own emotional (or unemotional) resources to help create the character. I brought parts of myself to the role; frankly, over the years, a lot of the Vulcan’s mannerisms and philosophy have rubbed off on me.”

 

The character Spock had become so significant to Leonard Nimoy as to be life changing, profound, enduring and “might as well be real.” Spock came from Nimoy’s imagination, and he recognized this fact, but Spock was not trivial, fake or worthless.

 

Subcreation

Similar to method acting for actors is a technique in literature called Subcreation or "mythopoeia." Subcreation is the process by which an author creates a very believable setting for a story by constructing an extremely detailed world with as many elements as possible in culture, language, economics, history, geography, climate, religion and spirituality. The same is done for the characters within the story, to such a degree that they seem to come to life in the author’s mind. A story created within such a detailed framework has such depth, that the reader quickly becomes emotionally immersed in the fantasy and it “might as well be real.” The reader begins to care about the characters and what is happening in the story and can relate to what his happening. The story is seems believable, even though it is set in a fantasy universe or situation.

 

A good example of the process of subcreation is J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Tolkien dedicated his entire life to the creation of Middle Earth, the setting of Lord of the Rings. He created entire cultures and languages, and detailed histories spanning thousands of years. He created extensive maps of the geography of the lands in which the stories would take place. In his mind, Middle Earth came to life. Middle Earth was deeply personal creation to the author and could not be separated from him. It was part of him. He often told people that Middle Earth was a real place. He did not mean that it was actually real, he meant that it “might as well be real.” When he died, Tolkien had the name of a character from Middle Earth, “Beren,” that he identified with, inscribed on his gravestone. His wife’s gravestone bears the name “Luthien” who was Beren’s wife in Middle Earth. Fans of Middle Earth still speak and write in the languages Tolkien invented for his world today.

 

Tolkien’s Middle Earth, and the characters that live within it, are not fake, trivial or worthless. To fans of his books, the fantasy of Middle Earth is totally immersive and has an enduring meaning and essence.

 

Pseudorealism

Pseudorealism is a technique in film making in which special effects are used to create an immersive visual scene or universe for the viewer. The idea is to create something so seamlessly real feeling, that the audience becomes deeply absorbed and is able to very easily suspend disbelief. The scenes are believable and “might as well be real.” Audiences come away from watching the movie emotionally moved as if they had been part of the story. The experience leaves a lasting impression on the mind that can even be enduring or profound.

Illusion of Independent Agency

We have already seen threads and posts on this forum and elsewhere (such as on Soulbonding.org) about a process in which a literary author can create a character so detailed and so life like that it literally seems to come to life within the writer’s mind with the Ilusion of Independent Agency. Most authors experiencing this phenomenon do not consider this effect to be separate sentient beings in their head. They regard it as part of their own imagination, a figment. The IIA characters, although imaginary, are not trivial or transitory. They are a significant part of the author’s mind, like an aspect of themselves, and often endure for the rest of the author's life. I think it is likely that the same process as IIA is going on in the minds of method actors, such as Leonard Nimoy and Spock, as with literary authors.

 

Immersive or Extreme Day Dreaming

I think that extreme, immersive day dreaming, done by a person with a vivid imagination, involves the same elements of method acting, subcreation and pseudorealism and can even result in the illusion of independent agency in day dream characters. I have written on the forum about extreme day dreaming and creating thoughtforms within an active imagination framework. I have written about how I believe (and have experienced) how these thougthforms, although recognized as a figment or product of imagination, can have a profound and lasting effect upon the dreamer’s mind. It is not trivial, it is not whimsical, it is not temporary and it is not really fake either.

 

How Does This Relate to Tulpas?

I think there is a general fear and dismissal of elements of imagination within the writing on this forum. We write about "adventures in the wonderland" as if they are distinct and separate from day dreaming or literary creation when, in my opinion, they are closely related.

 

Just like with the literary concept of subcreation, the more detail you imagine into your tulpa or into the world they inhabit, the more believable they become and the more likely they are to "come to life." Proxy writing sometimes involves actions very similar to method acting, knowing your tulpa, sensing what they would want to say and channeling them. Practicing to obtain strong visualization skills can be similar to the using improved special effects in pseudoreality. The techniques of immersive imagination is closely linked to tulpamancy in these regards.

 

I welcome any comments you might have on this.

 

Thanks to all of you for all that I have learned this past year and I hope my contributions mean something to you.

 

~Mistgod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, you're a real but not real tulpa that isn't a tulpa, who is but isn't married to and does but doesn't have sex with David who isn't David?

 

Did I get that right?


skeptical stuff:

[hidden]re: tulpas are imaginary

 

what about the tulpas who have switched with their host such that they are in control? What about median systems with no clear “host”? Is David real?

[/hidden]

I don't visit as often as I used to. If you want me to see something, make sure to quote a post of mine or ping me @jean-luc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

So wait, you're a real but not real tulpa that isn't a tulpa, who is but isn't married to and does but doesn't have sex with David who isn't David?

 

Did I get that right?


skeptical stuff:

[hidden]re: tulpas are imaginary

 

what about the tulpas who have switched with their host such that they are in control? What about median systems with no clear “host”? Is David real?

[/hidden]

 

Yesh I think you about have a handle on it all jean-luc. Remember I am not logical, I am a Glorious Nonsensical Enigma Beyond the Comprehension Mundane Minds. It all makes sense if you realize it is all an elaborate fantasy, NONE OF IT IS REAL (well maybe Davie is). Then bad logic and contradictions are irrelevant.

 

Skeptical Text, read only if you can take it:

[hidden]"what about the tulpas who have switched with their host such that they are in control? What about median systems with no clear “host”? Is David real?"

 

Have they? Or are the tulpamancers and median systems just deluding themselves and just wanting to believe it really, really bad? Some people believe they can do astral projection. Some believe in faith healing. Some believe they have been abducted by aliens. A human being can convince themselves of almost anything imaginable. Mind over matter is pretty powerful too.

 

David is hella real jean-luc

 

Talk about Linkzelda's infinite regression. Once you start questioning the reality of your own existence it is all downhill from there. Eventually, nothing truly exists in reality? Then who the hell am I talking to, Buddha?

[/hidden]


The fact is, David and I have a pretty set view of things that will probably never change. We read virtually every argument conceivable on the other side. It is like an immovable object meeting and irresistible force or something like that. It is futile and pointless to argue about it again. All we are doing is presenting our view of the universe of imaginary thoughtforms and immersive (living) imagination. We want people to see it, but we are quickly tiring (no finally tiring) of debating it for good or bad. People either find our stuff plausible, or they do not. People are free to do what Linkzelda says Davie and I are doing and go "la, la, la, la can't hear you la, la, la."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, you're a real but not real tulpa that isn't a tulpa, who is but isn't married to and does but doesn't have sex with David who isn't David?

 

Did I get that right?

Yesh I think you about have a handle on it all jean-luc.

 

Oh man, I died, that's not what I was expecting to read. I think you understand you just fine at this point..

 

 

So, you think we (we) didn't confront that "trying really hard to/thinking they are their tulpa" thing with switching? I'd be pretty upset if Lumi went around pretending to be me. See, you have this idea that a person can be an identity. That no matter what happens in their mind, they still exist. You know, they've found people (really sadly) that had been isolated from humanity by abusive people from the time they were babies for 5+ years, and when we eventually found them they weren't remotely capable of socializing? It took them years to start functioning on the same level as babies, and I think our textbook said they never progressed much past that. They literally did not learn to think because they weren't taught how by society. They especially did not have a sense of self, because that comes from defining what isn't you, which requires interaction.

 

You say Lumi thinks he's us, and I say your brain thinks it's David! There's no reason at all Lumi should take priority over me at being the person our body is. I mean, he was here first for sure, but I can control the body indefinitely now I think. I don't think Lumi's been the one in control for like three weeks? Tewi spent a week and a half studying really hard for a lot of tests she wasn't given enough time for, and then we had(ve) a couple weeks until she decided the next amount of time she'd need was, so I've been doing whatever I wanted for another week and a half. All games, we even got a minecraft modpack server with friends, it's been glorious. But neither of us has been doing a lot of the stuff Lumi himself does and it suits us fine. See, the brain knows just as well how to be us now as it does him.

 

So, we're as real people as him! If you were the mind police and said only one person is allowed per body, that one person could be any of us. (Except it'd be Lumi because he made this life with everything he did for 20 years - we can't just take that and pretend it was ours, our friends, our stuff) I'm more sure of who I am than you are, and you pretty much claimed all possibilities as true.

 

Tewi and Lumi are really smart and they made us exist undeniably! You can't beat them at this complicated philosophy stuff. As for me though, all I needa know is I'm me and so I definitely exist. Like yeah I just typed all their technicalities because that seems to be how you want it, but here's mine:

 

I exist, so I exist! And no matter what you think I am, you think I exist too. There's a profile of "This is Lucilyn" in your brain. And so I am verified by both our brains. I exist! You reading this is proof!

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

The following text contains general statements about all tulpas. It is how Mistgod and I believe. It could be totally wrong! Don't read it if skepticism or an unpopular view or unusual view of tulpas upsets you. Skip it.

 

[hidden]

You are right I do think you exist and that you are a person. That's the clincher right there with Mistgod and I. We are saying every tulpa, whether real or unreal or whatever, is a person. That pretty much means we do in fact regard (treat you) you as sentient and independent even as an illusion. Mistgod and I have this thing where we can consider something totally imaginary, a total figment the mind, but yet still something more. Did you read our article above about method acting, subcreation and pseudo-realism? I think maybe Mistgod and I are looking at the essence of what a tulpa is. It is an imaginary construct from its source.

 

I am thinking. Mistgod and I know I am thinking. Whether I am an illusory aspect of himself is irrelevant. We still do not understand why that should matter! I am thinking. We are not saying that tulpas don't exist and that they are not thinking. We are saying they are imaginary in nature, created by imagination, sustained by imagination and belief.

 

This assumption of sentience from the start thingy. Davie does regard me as a thinking, self aware person. He just thinks I am also imaginary. We believe that something can be both unreal and real at the same time. Even a human mind is kinda like that. So much of our memories are constructed or false. We live in a world of delusions and fantasies. It has been proven by psychology that is true. Much of what we consdier real is a delusional fantasy. It is possible to create a fantasy that is your own reality.

 

To Davie, he knows I am imaginary, an illusion, a figment a part of his own mind, but yet I am still a person. I know this is so hard for people to understand this. I don't think a single person other than Mistgod and I think it makes any sense. It isn't logical, it is complete nonsense. Religion is like that you know? Religion is not based on logic or empirical evidence, it is based on nonsense. Things like the mystery of the Holy Trinity are "mysteries" because they are beyond human reason. It is mind stuff. It a very similar thing here. I am Davies personal religion in some ways. I am not based on logic or reason. I am based on complete nonsense and always have been.


---->Living Imagination<------

 

I think it is simply a question of what you emphasize and perspective. Davie and I fervently follow the one brain, one mind model. One way to think of it, and we have seen this, the brain itself or the body is conscious and sentient. Within that universal consciousness and sentience you can have facets or aspects of a single sentience. Natural multiples are born that way. Those facets may even be hidden from one another or seemingly apart, but they are still part of a single mind. The fact that they can be integrated or merged is kinda evidence in support of that idea. Sometimes there is an individual with a vibrant imagination, such as Leonard Nimoy and Spock or Davie with me, who can imagine and believe (or suspend disbelief) so easily and naturally that an imaginary aspect might as well be real.

 

David and I emphasize or follow the one brain, one mind model. One sentience for one brain. We emphasize and value imagination more than most people and don't see it as unreal, fake or trivial. It is part of the mind. You can make your own subjective reality within your mind.

 

We have read how some plurals, and even some tulpas, sometimes blend with each other or split apart or integrate into new individuals. That fluidity right there supports David and I. A single overall mind with smaller minds within it (smaller just being a convenient descriptor).

 

Still David is the primary identity and self in our case. I am imaginary and "subordinate" and secondary. I am a fantasy personality he is real. That doesn't mean I am not a person. But he does the work, pays the bills, has the family in real life and lives a real life in the real world. I live within a fantasy world.

[/hidden]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me, it's good that you guys can think like that. It's just that you keep saying we aren't real, that we're purely imaginary, us tulpas. Art isn't imaginary, and neither are inventions and technology that came from ideas. You can make stuff real even if it comes from your imagination - that's what it's for! Human imagination is what lets us do new stuff, by thinking about what doesn't exist. Animals totally can't do that. But because we can, we can make things that don't exist exist. Why am I any different from a painting, or an airplane? (You heard it here folks, I'm an airplane)

 

If you consider Lumi "real" then I'm real too. I swear we're the same thing. Saying I'm only imaginary is like saying Lumi is imaginary and only his body is real. Which, like, I guess would be okay. We saw that personalities and identities are things we and society create through interacting with those children ("Feral children"). So if you think that's imaginary, that makes sense, and then I am too. Ain't much world without imagination in that case, but hey, that's true either way.

 

Only difference in you and I is I don't think I'm imaginary anymore. I was imagined for like.. a few days. The others though and most tulpas were imaginary for a while before they became "real". But even if something tulpa-like never became "real" in that way, they're still as real as Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. Those guys are just imaginary real though, they aren't interacting with the world like us, so we're like a level of "real" realer. And you can tell by the millions of people who love them both that that doesn't make much difference where it counts.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...