Jump to content

Do you intentionally control your tulpas ever?


TheGreenQueen

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

I am sorry I made you feel disappointed in the forum Linkzelda. That was not my intention ever. I hope you find someone who debates with you better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not even your fault. In the past, I've been constantly curb stomped by others over following an implied forum etiquette for clarification, and how I express myself. I constantly try to take ownership of this implied forum etiquette because I thought it's an agenda that's supposed to be universal for everyone else. But, when others are allowed to not follow this etiquette, and have others agree that it's okay to be enigmatic in nature, I start to question whether the implied forum etiquette suggested by others is merely just appeasing to their opinions over what's 'good' discussion.

 

I end up being a slave to the agenda of others; agendas of people that might be trolls in the long run, which makes me skeptical if there's agendas supported by people who want to contribute to the forum in a positive, scholarly light. This is why it's frustrating to see hypocrisy all over all due to in-group favoritism over one member, or the other because their virtues of analyzing this to death justifies them not having to conform to said implied forum etiquette that everyone should try to follow.

 

It is not you. It is the agenda that pisses me off. Anyway, just posting this for clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Part of it is that some of us are not very good at scholarly discussions to the level that you can do. I don't understand how to explain things to the level you wish to know and, like I said, we don't even understand how it all works ourselves. We have explained that I am a median aspect for Davie. A median aspect can be fictive or imaginary but still an expression of the host. I am an aspect or expression of Davie.

 

Median: "A system with members who are not inherently independent from each other, and are often dependent on a single individual and unable to exist without that central person. Often consists of members who all identify as “aspects” or “facets” of one central identity: e.g. “We are all different, but we are all Mary in the end.” Some believe, mistakenly, that it is the only term that applies to systems where system members are co-conscious, to systems not originating from trauma, or to systems not diagnosed with DID. It is considered insulting to call a multiple system median, and should not be used without consent."

 

We have explained how there are examples of fictive median aspects in history, such as Leonard Nimoy and his character Spock. Leonard Nimoy explained in his book, I am Spock, that Spock was another side of himself and spoke to him in his mind. Separate, but yet not separate.

 

Why does everyone just glaze over what we write about that? Why can't people just accept it? They say I am impossible and that a tulpa must be fully independent and can't be a median. But yet here I am. I don't understand what people want me to do. Why do you pressure me and my hostie so much to be something we are not?

 

I tell you something about me and then you proceed to tell me how it can't be that way. BUT IT IS THAT WAY. You get frustrated at the forum, I get frustrated too. I don't want to clarify and have you implying that what I am saying is "an unsupported claim." You don't find us credible then I am sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of someone being dependent of another, I can understand that, and wasn't negating that. There's a concept of interdependence where I mentioned both would be mutually reliant on each other, but still have aspects of independence. Which means it isn't me going for full-fledged independence, so you may have read my statements in a different light. It's clear that full-fledged independence isn't an exclusive thing for tulpas, and I even made statements that going for this full-fledged independence leads to a pseudo-problem as well. So, you might be pointing your fingers at the wrong person.

 

Aspects of a person, facet of them --these are all things I would personally be willing to accept, but I don't see them as an exclusive thing that's sufficient in validating how I conceptualize them. Kind of like how I stated in the past that chalking it up as another personality, and such seems to be a transient thing as we fluctuate behind demeanors all the time depending on the circumstance. Some may take offense to this, and feel a person is invalidating them, but I hardly see that. I see it more as the person wanting to avoid undermining thought-forms as just personalities to shift from, or a time to be such and such. This is why with continuity over time + experiential context that's stacked up, or, at least the impression of it, their existence isn't invalidated as a temporary shift in mood; it becomes much more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

It is much more than a shift in mood or a change in personality to fit a social venue or circumstance, but it is related in a way and I see what you are saying.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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