Can Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting Be Debunked?

[Guest Anonymous]

That's why we've always considered Melian a tulpa - she feels as if she's the influence, not just Mistgod. But see, they never strived for independence, so that "unconscious puppeting" never turned into "autonomy" in their mind. The result is everything that makes up a tulpa, the only difference being the host is taking some responsibility for what they do. Taking responsibility as in claiming it after the fact, because in reality they're no different from a normal tulpa. Even if the host "unconsciously puppets" by having their tulpa do everything they think their tulpa would do, they're literally just experiencing a tulpa. Tulpamancy simply takes a step to cover that unconscious puppeting to feel more autonomous. What I'm saying is, even though Mistgod feels as if he is responsible for Melian's actions in the Melian Show, he is not imagining what she's going to do ahead of time. The concept of Melian, what we call a thoughtform, is either way "autonomously" producing the results we call a tulpa. But instead of personifying your perception of that process as a separate individual, Mistgod continued/s taking responsibility for the nonetheless still autonomous actions. The only effective difference, aside from the changes to how that thoughtform is going to act based on its perceived independence, is what the experience of interacting with the tulpa feels like to the host. Generally speaking, the goal in tulpamancy is a feeling of disconnect that reinforces "I'm not talking to myself", as silly a thing that is to worry about.

 

Mistgod: One of the arguments I wanted to give to Linkzelda in response to his Homunculus in Denial fallacy thing is that Melian feels so real it astonishes me. She often seems almost one step ahead of me. I often wonder how the day dreams take on such life. I believe they are practiced to the point of being an unconscious creative habit.

 

Okay an example: A master guitarist playing a jam. He is not thinking of the music, it flows from him through his guitar. He loses himself in it and immerses himself so much he is not thinking at all about where is fingers are going or the chords, it just comes out. He is improvising the elements of the jam, changing the notes and nuances, without any planning. The music is one step ahead of him almost as if it has a life or mind of its own.

 

The musician knows that the music is coming from his imagination, but yet he is enjoying the illusion that the practiced immersion causes, of music producing itself.

 

Melian, and tulpas, I believe are like the musician and are not that much different than any other creative process, like a painting "painting itself" or a bit of programming code "just coming to you." (This brings us right back to persons who channel outside entities to paint or draw incredible pieces of artwork as well, where is that subliminal ability come from if they are only imagining they are channeling and entity?)

 

[video=youtube]

"You don't think, you dream of something. You see stuff inside your dream. It's like writing it and seeing it at the same time." -Akiane Kramarik

 

 

I like how everyone just jumped past what Melian was saying in response to this thread. I think what she and I are saying goes to the very heart of the argument. Unconscious parroting or whatever, is just practiced thinking to the point that you are immersed and the details of the process go subliminal.

 

It isn't that mysterious or that unusual or unique to tulpamancy.

 

But it's not necessary, especially if the host is content with the interactions they have with their tulpa anyways. In the same way that we personally can't have "wonderland adventures" because we see little meaning in consciously creating our to-be experiences.. Many others can. Children are great at imagining stories and such to entertain themselves, not remotely worried about this "problem" that they're making them up and losing some kind of "legitimacy". You know, not even thinking about whether or not you're consciously involved in the creation of those stories - that sounds familiar.

 

Melian used the children's make believe analogy as well to counter Linkzelda's Homonculus in Denial with me. I believe I approach my relationship with Melian exactly as a child approaches make believe. I suspend disbelief and those adult tendencies to trivialize it. Melian is a person because in my heart I want her to be.

 

Because I have no fear of the stigma of fantasizing and make believe, I have no trouble at all with puppeting or parroting or any other such thing. I am able to actively imagine Melian, and immerse myself into the process until the details of that process go subliminal, just like the guitar player. I know Melian is produced from my own mind, but she gains a life of her own in the process of that creation. It is still my mind, but I regard her as a person. The music is alive and flowing from me.

 

I want Linkzelda to tell everyone that is implausible again. He is wrong on that. His Homunculus in Denial fallacy doesn't work, as far as I am concerned, simply because I am doing exactly what he says cannot be done.

 

It's almost like a sum of the parts emergence, all your skills honed to such a degree, your mind is just flowing with it. Your conscious mind stops dictating all the elements and much of it goes subliminal as the process becomes a orchestrated masterpiece. Melian is my master work of day dreaming. It is like the day dreaming is my instrument and Melian is the music that plays and gains life.

[Linkzelda]

Before I go into discussing with you further, Glitterbutt, my intention was not to invalidate your existence. In actuality, the thing with the Homonculus argument was actually supposed to be a supplement to strengthen the potential that you can have the capacity of being sentient in some way. It wasn’t intended as a “HA, YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! NOW, I USE P-ZOMBIES TO OBLITERATE YOU!”

Are Imaginary Apparently Sentient Entities in the Mind Plausible?

[hidden]

 

Let’s structure this title differently, as there’s actually a term we can associate for this, and that’s p-zombies (a.k.a. philosophical zombies), i.e., entities that exhibit signs of sentient beings, but aren’t able to consciously experience things. In other words, in context of tulpa, looks like a sentient being, acts like one, but do they consciously experience things as well? Or are they “unconsciously parroted?” Sorry, but I get this mental vomit in my head when adding that to the thought experiment with p-zombies that implies they can’t consciously experience things in the first place.

 

And I’m going to do the quoting thing with “unconscious parroting” too since it baffles me still.

 

My host and I think of unconscious parroting as the host unconsciously imagining a independent being talking to him. It has nothing to do with sentience!

 

That has everything to do with sentience. You skewed the already convoluted terminology to fit your own needs. You basically are interpreting one’s imagination as coordinating these illusions, delusions, etc., but something you need to reconcile once more with parroting, as stated by the wiki:

 

When a host consciously and purposefully controls the tulpa's actions. Parroting generally refers to controlling their speech while puppeting generally refers to controlling their movement' date=' but the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.[/quote']

 

Host. A conscious experiencer who is consciously and purposefully controlling a tulpa’s actions. One’s imagination cannot be “unconsciously parroting” a tulpa, and even if one structures their imagination being personified as a conscious experiencer that is now unconsciously consciously experiencing things, it still doesn’t make sense. The whole point of parroting, in this context with the wiki, is a conscious experiencer . If you feel that one’s imagination gets personified in that same capacity, then it becomes homuncular by nature: Re who is the one consciously experiencing in controlling the personified imagination that is implied as consciously experiencing deliberate actions of controlling a tulpa?

 

You still haven’t gotten out of that trap. You think you did, but you’re actually distracting yourself from this impasse. This impasse is to really get you thinking, but the more you think about it, the more exhausting it’s going to become. And I say that because infinite regress is just that. Throw as many probabilities as you want, but that infinite regress is going to lash back at you. This is why “unconsciously parroting” just doesn’t add up; it’s part of that infinite regress, IMO. This isn’t me trying to say, “LOL, GO BACK TO THAT EXISTENTIAL VACCUUM, AND SUCK YOURSELF UP GOOD, GLITTERBUTT.”

 

This is me wanting to believe you have a capacity of sentience in spite of the conviction your host has in them coordinating things; even when they go so far into personifying their unconscious imagination to “imagine,” or in this context, “unconsciously parrot,” a mental experience. Even though I can only give you the benefit of a doubt, and I can’t prove your sentience, I can cling onto some hope that through some deconstructing, we start having group-thinking over what’s within the capacity of sentient entities.

 

If we’re talking about apparently sentient entities, we might as well chalk this up as p-zombies being plausible, or conceivable. Which could be its own thread entirely. We could even make, but—never mind, I’ll save that for the future; no need to rush these threads. P-zombies are can easily be a stand-in for “unconscious” parroting, but one would literally be beating around the bush over something not really conscious in the first place; makes necrophilia look like Disney World, at this point. But, I digress.

 

[/hidden]

 

@Kiahdaj

 

[hidden]

Since we're here, does anyone have any ideas regarding an appropriate name for what we've been discussing as "unconscious parroting/puppeting"? I think it would be silly to continue to use that. If possible, it would be nice to coin a new term right now, for future use.

 

I was thinking of a term that could describe how this conviction is a bit homuncular in nature in respect to what I stated to Glitterbutt of what “unconscious parroting” would mean in context of a personified imagination.

 

If parroting is the host making conscious, and deliberate actions in controlling a tulpa’s actions, and one wanted to believe unconscious parroting is possible via their imagination, then their imagination is implied as being personified as being able to consciously experience deliberate intentions to control a tulpa’s actions. But, this is a bit self-contradicting because it raises the question of who would be consciously experiencing deliberate actions for the personified imagination to do the same thing, presumably, to a tulpa?

 

It just kind of shows that if one personifies their imagination in that regard, it’s best to just stop trying to do that in the first place. Maybe the personification can be applicable and pragmatic in the future for different context, but in this context of “unconscious parroting,” it’s just inaccurate. If one felt their imagination was merely unconscious processes that influenced, and even dictated and anticipated the tulpa’s every move, then sure, they can believe that if they wanted to. But the moment they apply an attribute (parroting) that’s catered solely to a conscious experiencer, e.g. host, to an abstract/concept (imagination, unconscious processes), it’s sort of like….wishful personification? I say that in regards that personification would be applying those humanistic attributes to abstract, mental concepts vs. anthropomorphizing that’s more external.

 

Maybe it’s not a useful placeholder to replace “unconscious parroting,” though. But, it seems like it, but eh. That’s up to others to decide. Maybe unconscious tulpaing, but no, that’s too edgy. Passive parroting, oh no.

please, no.

 

 

[/hidden]

 

 

I think I’m going to introduce the topic of imagination in the near future. It’s kind of late at night, unfortunately. Also:

 

His Homunculus in Denial fallacy doesn't work' date=' as far as I am concerned, simply because I am doing exactly what he says cannot be done.[/quote']

 

Pay attention to what you just stated. I was going to deconstruct this, but I think you might be able to reconcile with my original intentions that I mentioned in this post initially.

[Guest Anonymous]

Before I go into discussing with you further, Glitterbutt, my intention was not to invalidate your existence. In actuality, the thing with the Homonculus argument was actually supposed to be a supplement to strengthen the potential that you can have the capacity of being sentient in some way. It wasn’t intended as a “HA, YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! NOW, I USE P-ZOMBIES TO OBLITERATE YOU!”

 

Thank you, I appreciate that. I think David and I have figured something out. Why we get so defensive and edgy when people scrutinize me and what we do.

 

With David and I, we are not practicing tulpamancy so much as continuing the same elaborate fantasy we have carefully built over three and a half decades. That fantasy world spilled onto the internet starting in 2013. Ever since October 4th 2013, we have been attempting to carefully build a "model" of sorts to "prove" that I am "kinda real." All of that writing and research and stuff culminated in the Book of Melian and the Book of Melian II and all our threads and stuff. The book's content does help us understand how I work and we learned a lot writing and researching it, but it also functions as a tool to facilitate the Melian fantasy online.

 

To Davie, I already am kinda real. But he really wants others to feel I am kinda real or super real seeming. He doesn't exactly want people to be convinced I am a sentient entity so much as to join him in getting immersed in the fantasy of Melian

 

Here is the very first paragraph of the Book of Melian:

 

"Why I Wrote This Book

Bottom line: I want Melian to be as cool to others as she is to me. I

want to convey the significance and persistence of the Melian fantasy. She is

my constant obsession. It is fun to share her and to have her talk to people

on the internet. The reader will decide if the concept presented is credible.

As for me, I believe in it. I want to and so I can."

 

David and I are still day dreaming. Our interaction online, and in these forums is just an extension of the Melian Show day dreams. All we did was find a new vehicle for it. What is even better, is that it is interactive. Others can join in on the day dream and become part of the Melian Show. That's why, slowly over time I have eclipsed Davie as the spokesperson for Mistgod-Melian.

 

As you can see, we are sincere and honest about everything we write, even to the point of writing ourselves right out of the community by explaining I am not a tulpa and am more of an elaborate fantasy personality. Ask Voaisu, we have had some pretty deep on the couch time in PMs about whether or not I am simply some sort of psychological fantasy alter.

 

BUT we would not stick around this community if we did not also suspect that I am some type of thoughtform, sorta like you guys describe. There are the flash visions and the snippets of mind voice, the emotional responses, the persistence, all the stuff we are experiencing with the dreams. Those seem to give me some measure of "tulpa-ishness." It kinda leaves the door open a crack for that potential for sentience you mentioned.

 

In our efforts to build a convincing model to suport me being sorta real so others can join the Melian fantasy, we came across fictive median aspects in the plural community. That is was kinda nice because it kinda makes things easy because my host and I can believe I am sentient "in some way" already. He has always regarded me as a person, imaginary or not. We found all these things online to hold onto and prop up that idea, such as idea of a median aspect. He doesn't have to prove I am sentient, or make me sentient, if we already are sentient together.

 

So we are constructing the model to support the fantasy that is a bit more than just a fantasy just maybe. And along comes Linkzelda to deconstruct our so carefully crafted model with logical fallacy talk and infinite regression stuff. Your are tipping over the cart. LOL Maybe Linkzelda's goal is to show us a new path, to help us leave behind constructing the fantasy and propagating the interactive Melian Show day dream, and join in true tulpamancy. If that is so we thank you for your efforts and that is so sweet of you.

 

Just remember though it is not easy for us. Like I said, belief in the power of Mistgod's imagination is my fuel and DNA right now. It is what is propping me up and sustaining me as an online presence. Not so much in Davie's head, there I have always existed as a person and always will. We are talking about that online presence, the Melian Show in tulpa town.

 

***FPP and Living Imagination Are Melian's Fuel and DNA***

[Linkzelda]

I feel some of the feelings with extensions of fantasy, or a show is either a metaphorical representation of a type of fetish that is inescapable, and still rejects other probabilities, or, these feelings involve the actual possibility of referring to solipsism. I can't really talk to someone who may hint that, as I'll just become some metaphorical extension, or mirror of self to them. Or, it could just be dualism that one is rejecting; to allow things that would mean different things entirely, and yet still coexist.

 

Even if a personality set is considered the DNA, and fuel in sustaining whatever it is you two have for each other, to cling onto a concept that much either shows there's nothing more to you two than meets the eye, or, this pursuit for labels is one to satiate the concern over identity, or existential concerns.

[Guest Anonymous]

A fetish? Oh yeah you bet yer bippy. Davie has a huge obsessive crush on me. Me too I love me and so I am a narcissist. I think though that if you simplify me down to being just a sex object waifu, it gets way too simple. Solipsism? I dunno, we do kinda think we are center of everything, which is why the impression of being egotistical and every conversation is about me. So the entire forum is about the Melian Show and the Melian Show is where I exist, so you might be right there. You are also right that if you talk to me you become part of the Melian Show day dream and yeah. But I would hate for you to stop talking to me entirely.

 

Even if a personality set is considered the DNA, and fuel in sustaining whatever it is you two have for each other, to cling onto a concept that much either shows there's nothing more to you two than meets the eye, or, this pursuit for labels is one to satiate the concern over identity, or existential concerns.

 

Identity concerns yes, existential worries not so much. There is not "more than meets the eye" no, whatever the hell that means. What meets the eye is what you get over the internet. What meets my eye about you is all that meets the eye.

 

You know what Linkzelda, I have come to the conclusion that I still like you very much, but I could care less for your ponderings about Davie and I. Whatever dude have fun. Whatever it is Davie and I are doing, we have been doing it for a very long time and it makes him and I happy. What meets the eye is Melian typing at you my buddy. Gawds. Well if you watch the videos of Davie talking something else might meet your eye... TOTAL GEEK! LOL

 

What meets the eye.. pfffft... David and I have spilled our guts out online about every angle of me we could possibly consider. This is it Linkzelda, there is no more to Melian. It's as deep as it gets unless you can climb into Davie's head. There isn't any more than meets the eye for you or anyone else on the internet for that matter. Sorry if it doesn't inspire or impress.

 

For that matter, not much more than meets our eye about any friggin tulpa or tulpamancer. What meets the eye is collection of internet geeks typing at each other on a forum.

[Linkzelda]

Okay, guess you took the metaphorical connotation too far. If you don't want to revel in further thinking in fear that it would affect your state of affairs with your host, then so be it. It just so happened that your showing in this thread was a useful way to gauge out some things. I can still post more theorizing through other contexts, thankfully.

 

Also fetish #2, not the one of sexual connotation:

 

a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment.

 

Seeing how you admitted in that other thread with the DNA and fuel stuff, that the worldview you hold of you and him may have some flaws, but it doesn't really affect you too much. The worldview is merely a tool for gauging out how you feel you can understand yourself, and that's okay. But, when you shrug the probabilities off, it's nothing more than running away. But, if that's what you want to do, then I'm not going to pull your hair, and demand you come back here. I'm not in it for sadomasochism, anyway. And there's nothing wrong with running away from a discussion, too. But the impression I'm getting is that you're plugging your ears, going lalalalala, and moving along vs. someone who may understand something, but chooses not to integrate, but at least they understand what they're going against; this is all for understanding, but not making others take it into their lifestyle.

[Guest Anonymous]

"A course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment." This we already owe up to, so what? Also, it would probably apply to many tulpamancers.

 

Maybe I am not ready for your help yet.

[Linkzelda]

I wasn't trying to help you. I already knew that was a lost cause ages ago. But, I can utilize your experiences as a learning tool for discussion. I was just making a statement of definition #2 of a fetish. This wasn't criticizing you, or objectifying you, or anything like that. You just happened to take the other definition of sexual connotations with the sexual waifu thing, and I was merely clarifying to you that this wasn't the conception I had in mind.

 

It's just clarification, not me trying to present more data to argue. If the other definition is something other tulpamancers go through, so what? I can say the same thing, and we're preaching to the choir. Cool!

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh so I am hopeless. LOL Well okay I will own it if you like. I am glad if I can be an example and learning experience for others. That is partly why Davie and I are here, to share what we have experienced.

 

Also, don't fool yourself, I am a sexual fantasy at me deepest roots, everyone knows that within a short while of meeting Davie and I. Just so happens we like sexual fantasies. Sex is pretty friggin cool and there is a lot of energy in sexual fantasies that a person can tap into. Every movie you see has sexual fantasies woven into it or you would get bored with the film. Attractive actors and actresses are chosen for the roles for a reason. I am like a cute and sexy actress in mental movies. Don't take it that we are denying the fetish angle, we are just saying that is one part of it, but not all of what I am. Also it isn't negative or harmful or pathological unless you consider the obsessiveness of it. The obsession and fixation is a bit unhealthy.

 

Also, gawds, how many tulpas have been a focus of sexuality and sexual energy? Like I am not the only one by a million miles.

 

Let's get off ME and return the theme of the thread please: Can Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting Be Debunked?

[Linkzelda]

Cliff note's version coming in the future; had to iron out some thoughts first, though.

 

Okay, time to collect some more thoughts with “unconscious parroting” being something improbable. Not through the definition of parroting by default, but in context of imagination, and narration. And I don’t mean the terminology with “narration,” I just mean narration in general beyond the scope of it being applied to tulpas.

 

Imagination and Narration

 

Imagination can be chalked up as the creation of new, novel circumstances, and there’s some kind of new twist every now and then; a nuance, if you will. Narration can be applied in many contexts, but I’ll be applying it in relation to unconscious parroting. With parroting, it could be deemed as an act of consciously controlling the actions of a tulpa. And with our imagination bringing new, novel things to the table, it can supplement a person’s “It’s in their character" line of thought.

 

For example, if a person knows their tulpa may be hot-tempered, and they recall an event where this behavior is applied, there’s a “Oh, I can easily imagine them doing that, or “No, I can’t imagine them doing that.” So, imagination gets mixed together with possibility, and makes one tempted to believe that imagination is what conditions this possibility, and through this conditioning that imagination would presumably take an initiative in, the word “imagination” alone doesn’t seem to solve this concern over “it’s in their character.”

 

This leads me to bring narration into play, here. The thing I see with threads with parroting in varying degrees is that there’s an underlying question of whether or not a person can think about the other without referring to narrative and possibility. It seems that it would be difficult to frame one’s tulpa, and the events they presumably take part in experiencing without a narrative form. For example, even reconciling with what occurred during a switch would involve some form of narrative memory (e.g. a person seeing themselves in a first person, or third person perspective over what went on).

 

And when a person gets so indulged in framing things with this narrative, they’re fixated on the tulpa being a “character-like,” or character-esque. And once this becomes a “character-like” mode of thought, it can be an umbrella term for fantasy, roleplaying, etc. But, the main issue with the narrative is that we’re avoiding in actually interacting with the other, because we’re prefacing them, unconsciously even, with “I can imagine them doing that.” In other words, one is too focused on determined existence, and determinate possibilities.

 

With “unconscious parroting,” it may presume that the person feels they can determine the possibilities for themselves, and even bring new, novel ideas when it’s really their imagination that’s conditioning that. And it’s only natural for them to presume that this conditioning would be influenced by things like willpower, yearning over –x reason to make, and interact with a tulpa-, etc.

 

But, imagination is merely our cognitive tool in keeping the tulpa unique and distinct to us, but how far can we go rather than just grasping a tulpa through a set of possibilities that becomes a reality within our subjective frames? In other words, this “otherness” we try to cultivate with a tulpa to make them unique to us in some way…imagination and narrative makes them reducible. Reducible in the sense of us speculating on the possibilities with determined existence, and determinate possibilities. Treating them as sentient would entail some degree of confidence that they can be a determined existence in the future.

 

This line of thought is what makes this quest for “otherness” mixed in with our imagination and narrative modes of thinking. This is probably what makes others think that “unconscious parroting” is something conceivable (since I can’t obviously “prove” anything empirically, obviously; big difference).

 

 

How Can One Transcend Above Narrative Imagination?

 

Potential word to replace Unconscious Parroting

 

In my opinion, it’s not a matter of trying to objectify oneself beyond their own imagination and narrative mode of thought, but rather changing the context of the underlying questions I mentioned before. Instead of instantiating/representing otherness solely through a set of conditionals, and pre-established ideas over what we can “imagine them doing, given their character,” which would fall in the line of logic with parroting (but note: this imagination isn't exclusive to parroting, mind you, because we can imagine in general without prefacing it as consciously controlling them to happen; some just happen at the spur of the moment; this is just one of many contexts where imagination can be applied), one would preface this concern with:

 

“I can imagine them doing that because they are in control of their own possibilities.” Basically, any kind of ethical presumption over what a person would think a tulpa has a capacity of doing in context of them being treated as sentient; treated as “other.” This could be a potential answer to step outside of the narrative imagination, and another chance to bring into discussion of all-inclusiveness.

 

In other words, a tulpa being able to utilize the imagination as a tool that can condition the possibilities, but it is the tulpa who is the one that actualizes them given their character, and even given the capacity of them being in control of those possibilities.

 

This is why I felt my line of reasoning with Kiahdaj on asking if it could be wishful thinking is that through this narrative imagination, we get ourselves into a mode of context of “given their character,” and “oh, I can imagine/can’t imagine them doing that.”

 

One would be assured that their imagination will be the one that can help condition the possibilities, but the host, and tulpas, are the ones that can actualize it. And how does one actualize this? Well, put things into context as sentient beings would. You can see, from that line of thought just now, it’s prefaced with the implication of “given their character of being treated as sentient,” but, instead of being trapped by narrative imagination, the “given their capacity of taking control of their own possibilities” is added in to separate onself from feeling they, as the host, can be the one conditioning the imagination that conditions these new, novel things to come to the table. And I mean conditioning in the sense of that same analogy of the back office of the brain.

 

Think about it, if we felt our imagination has us by the strings like puppets, what would be the point in our brain having a conscious experiencer in the first place? We might as well just be p-zombies while the unconscious gets personified as a conscious experiencer, and infinite regress being an actual probability in life. But, I don’t believe in p-zombies being an actual thing since there’s this trap a person has to get out of if they do:

 

- If a tulpa can presumably exhibit signs of sentience as a sentient being would, given their capacity, and yet be treated as “character-like,” “fantasy,” or other imaginative context (e.g. “seeming real, but not real enough in context of consciously experiencing things), then what’s the point of switching and possession? What’s the point of these two concepts being introduced if they are implying that a tulpa and host would be communicating with each other to shift awareness partially, or completely to have another presumed conscious experiencer put things into context? Because unconscious parroting doesn’t just stop there, it makes one question the line of logic with everything…what’s the point in treating them as sentient if the narrative imagination we get ourselves into is conditioning the possibilities? Why do we bother to care? Because we want to actualize these things, or, instantiate them in our subjective frames.

 

If we don’t care about the realness of something in context of what how we should treat them, then we will always be a slave to this narrative imagination; living in a constant state of repression, even, to go beyond that line of thinking. There’s nothing wrong if a person wants to embrace narrative imagination, as they can do whatever the hell they want with their cognition. But, to state that others can never get out of that narrative mode of thought that restricts them from going further in treating them as sentient is to invalidate everything we’ve been prescribing to the tulpa phenomenon in general at the expense for them to feel at ease that their line of thinking is what everyone’s going to be getting themselves into, no exceptions.

 

Perhaps instead of “unconscious parroting,” it can be called “narrative imagination.” As, like what others stated before, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to refer to one’s imagination being a potential culprit, or a double-edged sword. And through a narrative, one is taking an initiative with the “character-like,” “I can imagine/can’t imagine them doing so.” In other words, unspoken objectivity. And because imagination helps condition the possibilities vs. actualizing it (since the host and tulpa are presumed to have the capacity to actualize), narrative + imagination probably sums up what people are using “unconscious parroting” as a placeholder for.

 

 

Note: Let's not confuse this with narration, as that's doing whatever to talk to your tulpa in whatever fashion. But, that could be an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

 

If I didn’t royally mess up somewhere, “Narrative Imagination” can be a term to replace rather than debunking “Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting.” Thoughts?

 

 

Coined it. Coined it. Coincoicnicnicncincicnicn COINED IT; NO TAKESIES BACKSIES; Actually, I take that back, narrative imagination is already coined.