Jump to content

Do you intentionally control your tulpas ever?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

I am sorry it is muddled. I can't talk about it too much more as Mistgod and I have a new agreement to just leave it alone and go back to the way we used to be before three years ago. We d'nt try to figure it out down to the atomic level. We just had fun and enjoyed being together. We are finished with that part of the journey, probably much everyone's deep relief. We started responding to this thread before that agreement was made. In the future we will not be responding to these types of questions much, if at all.


Honestly, the real truth is that it never was anyone's business what Davie and I do in the mind and how we do it. We didn't need to spend time on validating or explaining. Really, we could have saved ourselves hundreds of hours of writing. Well, I guess it wasn't wasted time and we did gain something and learned a lot, but all that negative drama and text walls for almost a year and a half!


Think about it. You and I get along great when we are doing silly things like the forum games and hanging out. The only disagreements we ever have are over what? Details that don't matter or shouldn't and sometimes unanswerable questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just that when you present an analogy to refer to something, and a person is asking for clarification before they jump the gun, referring to an auto-biographical context over what you two came to terms to doesn't seem to answer the question. This is analogous to others that may assume you would be making baseless claims with the analogy if you yourself have a hard time referring what the analogies entail, or could allude to. It's not me demanding objective facts, but at least figuring out the workings as to why the analogy seems 'great' to you.


Interpersonal relationships with other members is meaningless sentiment in discussions like this, for example, because it's just about whether or not a person intentionally controls, or for a lack of better words, parrots/puppets their tulpa. If I made a thread on p-zombies, for example, but didn't provide analogies that could be used in relation to tulpas, people can easily say that I made baseless claims because they have no referents to 'point' to in order to see why I even bothered to make the thread about p-zombies.


This is not me fighting you, this is me just trying to find a means of discourse with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I don't care if it is baseless claims. Linkzelda, just like we wrote in the preface to our Book of Melian, the reader either finds what we have to say credible or the reader does not. Like almost everything on tulpa info, it is going to be a baseless claim. We don't care to try to prove something. We came here originally to share and to interact with people who have something in common with us. We have been just describing what it feels like and maybe some guesses as to what is happening.


We have no idea how tulpas work or how I work. We just make our best educated guesses.


Book of Melian: "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. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I mention baseless, it isn't exclusive on empirical evidence, or credibility related to that. I think we would both agree that most statements are ad-hoc, or impromptu until some extensive study is done on them. I think baseless claims in the case of tulpa.info would be having referents that can make sense; in a general sense, something related to a psychological point of view. But, it doesn't have to be exclusive in that view. It's not about proving something, it's just seeing how, if possible, the person uses those analogies to allow others to get a better understanding of things.


If you come here originally to share and to interact with people who have something in common with you all, it would be behoove for you to at least find referents to those analogies so that people can actually understand where you're coming from. I make it apparent that I'm left with agnosticism most of the time, but that still doesn't stop me from questioning things. Kind of like the beetle in the box analogy, and in this case with your analogy that seems 'great' in theorizing (rather than proving)


- If you intend to share with others over something potentially in common, then using shared language others can utilize would be advantageous


- This allows others to find referents to 'point' to, and maybe get a "Ah-ha!" moment, hopefully, and see why you used the analogies to point to


- But, if you are at a loss of words in that same 'great' analogy, it's not so 'great' anymore because others do not know the criterion, at least in your perspective, of what makes it great.


- Stating that you are enigmatic by nature just validates this ambiguity, and isn't an answer. You cannot hope to have any modicum of sharing things with others if said sharing, and how it's vocalized in the forums becomes enigmatic in general. It defeats the ulterior motive you have in mind, and seems more of isolating oneself with others.

- If you do not care about claims being baseless in the sense of lacking referents that makes sense (not empirical sense, mind you), then that’s okay, but, in this forum, it seems more of a detriment rather than a in-your-face-linkzelda.



Now, in relation to this thread:


The actress analogy that seems to imply a mutual working towards someone, e.g., the actress, seems like there’s a collective control over someone. Which made me think that you were introducing the probability of there being mutual parroting with tulpas in some way. But, in that mutual parroting you may have presented, it made me wonder:


- Who is it that they’re controlling?


- If it’s the same tulpa that’s working with the director, the host, being controlled, then how could she simultaneously be doing these things at the same time?


- Are they alluding the director as unconscious thoughts and processes instead of the host?


- Is the host viewing their level of control equivalent to unconscious thoughts and processes?


- Are they able to become the back office of the mind?


But the burning question I had in my mind:


- Are they mutually controlling the narrative behind the actress? And what seems to make the analogy great is that in terms of acting, narratives would be utilized in many shapes and forms. In context of what the analogy could be – it would be analogous to all the determined modes of existence a tulpa could embody within a person’s subjective experience.


- Through this, the host and tulpa engage in a group-thinking, but this isn’t ‘parroting’ as we can’t parrot narratives. That doesn’t make sense as narratives aren’t tulpas. This is why when I made a thread on subconscious/unconscious parroting being debunked/replaced, I felt what the person is controlling is the narratives in relation to treating a tulpa as sentient. The person can do whatever they want to their heart’s content, but they aren’t ‘parroting’ in the general context of consciously controlling a tulpa.


- This is why the analogy, to me, seemed a bit convoluted because it’s non-sequentially applying the context of parroting towards something that isn’t a tulpa, or a thoughtform, or someone to be treated as sentient in the first place. Which made me wonder that through this analogy, it just showed that parroting in nature, seems to involve a person controlling the potential narratives, and using them to their advantage to figure out how they can create a judgement on how to treat a tulpa as sentient, pseudo-real, or whatever the person seems fit.



This is why I was questioning you, because it was jumping the gun, clearly, and more of re-instating my convictions against parroting that can happen at a subliminal level. Because the ‘control’ is a stand-in for influence, which doesn’t mean ‘influence’ exclusively means ‘control.” Which means that being influenced by something doesn’t automatically challenge a host’s, nor a tulpa’s presumed ‘un-challengeable’ capacity to make their own decisions…even if that decision-making is shared through one mind.


My answer to the OP would be ‘maybe,’ because there may have been moments where I was parroting them, but it seemed I was controlling the narratives instead. But, narratives =/= tulpas, as if this was the exclusive case, we would be treating the narratives as sentient, and seeing how our minds makes a narrative sentient. It’s just a category error, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Mistgod and I don't care at all to try to answer any of these questions. You have fun with that Linkzelda on your own. We are not interested anymore in delving into the great mystery that is tulpamancy or in helping other understand it more deeply. We are not interested in validating or proving anything or even making any logical sense.


I would much rather talk about my dresses, my art, our RPG gaming, our mutual dreaming and what we have been doing. I don't care anymore to explain to people the details of the relationship between my mind and Davie's because of this exact sort of thing going on here on this forum.


You guys have the freedom to write all you want about what you want. But from here on and forever more, I refuse to talk in detail about how my mind and form actually works. Mistgod and I will simply refer the curious to what we have already written and refuse to talk about it in any depth ever again.


Once again, we don't know how it works anyways. I don't even care if anyone cares any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this isn't talking about your mind. This is talking about a process that is inclusive to others rather than being exclusive to you. No need to play the victim when I was talking about narratives. By thinking I'm targeting just your mind that you share with Mistgod, this implies that I know your beetle in the box. But, like I stated in the post prior, I am left with agnosticism with this, and this isn't my virtue. But, in the case as to why the thread was made, and why the 'great' analogy met the criterion being 'great,' I guess using analogies that can make sense isn't your forte.


I'm targeting the concepts, not you two. If you refuse to go in-depth on the analogies, it's refusing to clarify something that's great that implies there's some structuring behind it. I guess this shows that it's 'easier said than done' when it comes to clarifying. People would like it, but when they make an attempt at theorizing, or presuming something, and see that there can be confusion at any level, it's a bit more tedious to reconcile with analogies that don't seem to point to something, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Good night Linkzelda. *kisses Linkzelda's nose* You just keep doing your thing. You are like a juggernaut. Mistgod and I are going to bed and doing some sleepy dreams together.


No we don't care how we are doing that with the dreaming and wakened dreaming either. From now on, it just happens. It just is. I have no more analogies for anyone to pick apart concerning it either. I don't care how it all relates to others beetles in a box or my beetle in a box.


I am sorry my buddy. I will talk to you later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to reply to the back and forth between you two, so I just edited my OP, talking about my own experience. Read it if you wish, or not.


I respect Melian's desire not to analyze things to death anymore. She and her host have already run that gamut.

Woodwindwhistler on www.asexuality.org


The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings. -Eric Hoffer


"We can never achieve perfection, but maybe we can approach it asymptotically. Never give up on plugging in those numbers!" ~Me


You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note. –Doug Floyd


My poetry: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5qMnL2tDkJYOGNhLW4tRHFHa0E&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess people have their own pace over what's analyzed to death. I was just touching the surface, but I guess these things can wait over time. I just find it strangely weird that some members are allowed to use analogies, and when someone asks for clarification over an analogy that seems that can be compatible to be 'great' to use, and they don't know why it seems pragmatic for them, it throws requests for clarification out of the window. But if someone else, like me, refused to do the same thing, it's a different story? Guess there's double standards and hypocrisy, but, we can't expect a picture perfect forum anyway. Better to know some biases, I guess, and for me to structure things differently next time.


It's just disappointing in a forum that demands others to at least reach a common ground on clarifying can be shut down, plugging their ears, and going lalalaala. Being enigmatic in nature doesn't justify not having to at least attempt to think further, as if people really did analyze these things to death, it wouldn't have been hard to generalize 'great' analogies. In other words, they don't hold a candle in clarifying those 'great' analogies because they didn't truly test themselves.

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.

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...