Existential Heroism & Tulpas

[Linkzelda]

I never made this larger than it seems. I think what makes you gather that inference is that you're not used to someone else trying to de-construct this presumed, solid, and sound inference of yours sugar-coated as fact in the subjective sense. And like you stated, I don't know you, so I must make inferences, even if they may seem like jumping the gun. But through clarification, like you stated, it slowly dissipates that apprehension, and usage of conjecture. I thought this was a common discourse for others to abide to.

 

If you're talking about reality in terms of this reality vs. a person's internal reality, then there's no need to repeat myself. Even if this reality is mind-independent, like I stated, it's meaningless to worry about it because we're not asking that mind-independent reality any questions to address our concerns. I never assumed you had empirical rooting behind your presumptions, and knew it was hinged upon subjective opinion. But it's an opinion, not a fact. Fact in regards to yourself is still an inference, as fact can be 'a thing that is indisputably the case,' which means it would exist irrespective of subjective opinion.

 

And using 'subjective fact' means something that can exist irrespective of human opinion. But if that subjective fact is hinged upon subjectivity, it's hinged upon there being a valuator. And if valuators are non-existent, then the subjective fact is non-existent, which means it cannot exist regardless of human opinion and belief. It seems you're more bothered of it being an opinion of yours, and have to shield it with this contradicting statement of subjective fact; as if it undermines whatever credibility you're trying to take hold on in being self-sustaining. I can't just shrug off that post, because it'll have a bleeding effect in any future discussions with you.

[Lucilyn]

Oh boy I don't get it. By "our subjective reality" she meant the reality we experience, which obviously isn't a real-reality. By subjective fact she meant a fact within that reality we experience. And uh, the fact was "1=1", how could it not be true? I mean I guess we could have supernatural sources of knowledge that didn't come from our experience, as in we can't prove we don't, but what word would you use to mean almost-fact-except-for-the-fact-that-it-isn't-for-sure? Theory? 1=1 is a good theory

 

What she was trying to say is the basis of our subjective reality: Since we experience what we experience, if we change how we react to (how we experience) an experience, we've changed our reality. Everyone does the same thing, but not everyone takes conscious control of it. I use that idea to make things better than they might be, I see things as happy and fun primarily even if those things might not value them as much as I do. Idk what Tewi sees. Anyways you can call that an opinion, because it literally is to you. She said she can't even prove (to herself) that anyone else even perceives her, let alone discuss universal facts or experiences at all. So, she just meant what's true to us. So.. what we believe. Which could be "wrong", but because it's what we experience as true, it's true to us, see? It's a closed system and it works great. You can replace the words fact and true with opinion and apparent, if you want.

[Linkzelda]

Oh boy I don't get it. By "our subjective reality" she meant the reality we experience, which obviously isn't a real-reality.

 

Internal reality. I already understood this.

 

By subjective fact she meant a fact within that reality we experience.

 

Even in an internal reality you experience, it’s an inference, a presumption either way. It’s just grounded on justified belief. I already understood what she meant by subjective reality. Subjective fact is just an oxymoron, to me, since what allows it to even exist is that there are stll valuators in this world. Rid all of them, and goodbye to said subjective fact. What’s wrong with using ‘inference,’ ‘presumption,’ or anything else along that line?

 

And uh, the fact was "1=1", how could it not be true? I mean I guess we could have supernatural sources of knowledge that didn't come from our experience, as in we can't prove we don't, but what word would you use to mean almost-fact-except-for-the-fact-that-it-isn't-for-sure? Theory? 1=1 is a good theory

 

I never thought you had to use a supernatural source of knowledge as a crutch to give meaning to this 1=1 thing. You’re now using mathematics of 1=1, which is actually a fact that exists without the need of subjective opinion. But even then, it’s a fact cultivated by valuators. So it seems non-sequential to the thread either way; we’re still trying to talk to mind-independent reality here, for some reason.

 

Idk what Tewi sees.

 

If you don’t know what she sees, nor can you feel you can gather whatever mental resources she may have used to arrive at those inferences, then why are you vouching for her?

 

Anyways you can call that an opinion, because it literally is to you.

 

Well, that’s like your opinion, man.

 

She said she can't even prove (to herself) that anyone else even perceives her, let alone discuss universal facts or experiences at all.

 

Which means it can’t be a fact – it’s just an inference that has solid grounding based on subjective experience instead.

 

So.. what we believe. Which could be "wrong", but because it's what we experience as true, it's true to us, see? It's a closed system and it works great.

 

I’m not here to deconstruct authenticity of your own inner experiences as I don’t have direct access to that.

You can replace the words fact and true with opinion and apparent, if you want.

 

You can do this as well for the sake of consistency.

[Lucilyn]

because the fact in question was "We experience only what we experience". The only way that's not 1=1 (which I get is a math fact so it's :actual: fact unlike stuff in the real world) is if we experience things that are not from what we experience. So, like, supernatural knowledge, right? But that sounds extremely unlikely so I'll call it a theory but not a fact. But we never meant for fact to be used in the scientific sense in the first place.. like how people say they LITERALLY DIED laughing.

 

I don't get what you're saying about it not being true within our experience/reality tho. Like.. yes it is? When we specifically qualified it with "only to us not to anyone else", our experience is our experience, because we think that's true and it's what we experience, even if it's not true lol. Even with supernatural knowledge to invalidate that if we're convinced we're experiencing just our experience (like if someone's convinced they're experiencing pain - brain actually makes it) then that's our experience! If it's not I'm totally lost!

 

'Course none'a this makes any sense in any way at all, we're discussing your discussion of Tewi's nonsense post. Idk if this is really productive discussion even for you. She told me she left it there because it might be interesting but otherwise would've deleted it. Oh and when I said "Idk what Tewi sees" I meant I don't exactly know what filters she's got on her subjective reality. I mean, I don't experience being her, really, don't think like her, and that's what that means. Maybe if I thought about it really hard. But I didn't mean I don't get most of what she thinks in general, just that specific question ok? ok gonna go play dungeon defenders got a friend waiting for me

[Linkzelda]

I never made a statement that your experiences aren't true. I was merely stating that they can't be a fact in application of what a fact really is; something that's indisputably the case regardless of any valuator's beliefs. The subjective fact thing was more of jumping around with semantics with 'opinions,' 'perspective,' etc. I explicitly stated:

 

I’m not here to deconstruct authenticity of your own inner experiences as I don’t have direct access to that.

 

Which means I made a statement that I'm not here to see if your experiences are true/false as I don't have direct access to that. Maybe I wasn't clear in that one-liner, and if that's the case, I'm not sure how I can even clarify more to you as to why I stated I'm not in it to validate your authenticity of your own inner experiences.

[TulpaFox]

- Who do you think is the true existential hero – the tulpa, host, or both?

 

I think that they work as a team to become the hero, but that the host is ultimately the hero. Since the host is the one who created the tulpa, not that a tulpa is purely a tool. However I think such things are done out of utility to surmount the difficulties of life. ( I can't disagree here, I think this part is logically straightforward)

 

- What are other examples you can think of that can be applied to existential heroism?

 

I think everything we do is on some level, even messing around with recreation is an attempt to find meaning in life. Some people are more conscious of it than others I suppose, we live in a country with a lot of people who believe in god, myself included, so we aren't the worst with it. As a whole I think it's a negative phenomenon though, because people fail to surpass it and it creates kind of a grimey type of cynical hedonism that makes me uncomfortable. 

 

- What are examples of an existential failure, or anti-hero in regards to the tulpa phenomenon?

 

(Tulpas who simply disappear come to mind, they are brothers and sisters of mine who failed to find a purpose. Even if it was within the confines of the host's mind, I still think it's a profoundly sad thing. The host himself lives within the confines of his own mind after all)

 

- How do you react to the potential meaningless in life along with the difficulty behind validating tulpas outside of a person’s inner experiences?

 

Sometimes with frustration, I don't like talking to close friends about it, it always ends up making me angry at them. I feel like Eve has done a lot for me, and getting closer to her and developing her further is a top goal of mine. People just can't understand that, yet at the same time they are people I help out who just take and take and take, and they don't realize that I wouldn't have much to give without Eve being there for me <3.

 

- Would you see a tulpa that dissipated as an existential failure? 

 

Yes, or at least a skill failure on the part of a host, depending on the level of devleopment. (Yes)

 

- Would a host that dissipated a tulpa, and chooses to believe that their death is irreversible potentially be individuals that could become the existential failures?

 

I believe they are messing up on their quest to find meaning, yes. I do think a tulpa is tremendously useful, and that if they end up trying to rely on others they will waste their time that they could have spend improving themselves and developing skills. They will find that no one will support them like their tulpa could have, and it's a shame they quit before getting further down the line with it.

 

- Do you think this concept, existential failure/anti-hero, could be the root of why individuals seem to have a hard time creating an internalized morality after a substantial amount of time of no progress?

 

 

I'm not sure. 

 

Note: (insert text here) indiciates Eve speaking

[Stevie]

[| Eva |]

Just some musings to hopefully relate to this topic. It may seem random at first, but since we intended for this thread to be open towards all kinds of musings with this concept, here goes:

 

Aftermath of Dissipation : -

Are hosts, who want to reconcile with a tulpa that they thought wouldn’t be part of their lives, validating the probability that in doing so, their tulpa, to them, is an existential hero? Is the host in question one as well?

 

Here are some inferences as to why I, or rather, we collectively seem this could be the case for both. Now, before I go on, I don’t want anyone to think that it’s just perfectly fine to kill off tulpas like nobody’s business. But rather, to show that in spite of what seems to be a horrendous occurrence, it’s actually a red herring, i.e., something that’s concealing a deeper truth with inner turmoil.

 

If we acknowledge dissipation as removing a tulpa from existence within one’s cognition, however the host reacts to this, no matter what façade they decide to put up, they can’t pretend they don’t care about death, even if it’s in its most symbolic sense with dissipation with tulpas; the fear is invariably there.

 

Whatever stand the person takes in this – reconciling with a tulpa that seemed like a lost cause to them, or them furthering the practice of there not being another continuity of self, it, the concept of death, becomes a constant vehicle being shoehorned down their throats, and dissipation itself, seems to be one of several potential distractions from this truth.

 

To those that have the ideation during this existential questioning of dissipation being a reality to them, they, the host, can still become an existential hero, or rather, presume the path of one for several reasons:

 

- They may realize that by doing so, they stopped in helping cultivate another continuity of self that they treat as sentient to become self-enclosed, conscious, decision-making beings.

 

- Because of this, a taste of humble pie is eaten because that ‘what-if’ mode of thinking comes to mind, and it goes something like ‘What if that was the continuity of self I subscribed myself to?’ ‘What if that was a self that I thought I had uncontrollable authority over in my life?’ In other words, when compared to their auto-biographical context, it sets up more existential questioning and shifting through that quandary.

 

- This potential truth; understanding that continuity of selves can have impermanence just like human mortality can be distracted, but it can’t be fully resolved just by pretending it didn’t happen.

 

- That individual, at that time with that state of affairs with speculation, has to come to terms with either being paralyzed by their intellect, or embracing it. They have to choose that this continuity of self (as hosts), especially one that had physicality (e.g. how the identified themselves with their physical body, and how societal rules and norms conceptualized them as well) could’ve been a what-if.

 

- From this inference, the only practical option is that this reminds them, constantly, as to why they should be appreciative of their own continuity of self. And out of whatever symbolic respect they had of that other potential continuity of self, e.g., a tulpa, they have to embrace whatever intellect they have to create a better future for themselves.

 

- Otherwise, if they’re paralyzed by it, it’s almost as if dissipation is more of the host eating themselves away, metaphorically speaking, rather than believing a tulpa actually died.

 

 

This is why, from this potential scenario, dissipation isn’t something one can shrug off just like that. In some shape or form, the concept of it occurring will come back to their awareness. They just have to choose how to react to this, and also how they’ve tried to mitigate the fear of actual death that the human condition has being doing for thousands of years, now.

 

To those that reconcile with a tulpa, the scenarios are practically the same, albeit, the tulpa-in-question now becomes an existential hero, or rather, someone with the capacity of becoming a conscious, existential hero. Simply because in spite of the face of doom and gloom that was dissipation, they would, symbolically speaking, be resurrected. And from this, the host would attach to their tulpa as this token of a better future.

 

This also seems to be a recipe for adding in theology, but I’m not going to do that.

[Lucilyn]

I love that you guys care about this stuff so much

 

but, idk what to say, because we're pretty solid on our beliefs and all I can really say to others is "Sure, that works". Uhm, yours is a good thought process I guess (how words), all I can say about the hypothetical/theoretical is that a lot of people don't think so logically, or at least their priorities don't lead them down the exact same path, so it's not totally universal. Possible though. Possible ways your guys' thoughts on the matter could've gone? Maybe it did?

[tulpa001]

This discussion of continuity of personhood potentially interrupted sounds related to me to the modern notion of the diachronic-episodic spectrum.

 

I summarise, potentially inaccurately, a diachronic person is normal. Such a person sees themselves as the protagonist in the story of their lives, including all sorts of unrealistic story tropes. These explain some common cognitive biases. Then there are episodic thinkers, those who look upon their history and see... different people. A different person lived their childhood. A different person lived their adolescence.