"Convincing" and "Functioning" over "Sentient" and "Real"

[Guest Anonymous]

Okay. LOL Nah, you're fine Procon X. I am more amused by the banter on this thread than anything. With my belief system and views, that I don't wish to compromise, I need to use supportive sounding neutral language to get along I think. I am convinced it will work. I do actually support tulpamancy very much, even though a person reading my most skeptical and cynical statements might conclude differently. It is not tulpamancy itself I am cynical about, but the assumptions, conclusions and absolute and unsupportable claims. But, again, I want to move away from that constant cynicism. I have to find a way to be Mistgod, enjoy the privilege of having a minority opinion, without it being part of everything I write.

 

There is a secondary reason for this. I do not believe in a hierarchy of thoughtforms with rp characters/imaginary friends at the lowest and tulpas at the highest. I have what I think to be very good reasons for that belief. It is my observation that tulpamancers are often condescending to, and dismissive of, the products of active imagination. I hold the products of active imagination and make believe in high regard, as high as tulpas. The claims of "realness and sentience" are often used as a status and quality dividing line between thoughtforms, delegating some to a more trivial status. I recognize that it takes a lot of work to create a tulpa, but I have also known people who have spent decades on detailing a literary character or seasoned rp character. I do not agree that tulpas are somehow moving though some point of emergence that elevates them above daemons, soulbonds, servitors or rp characters. They may have their own characteristics and qualities, sure, but they are not superior or somehow exalted or the peak of creation. They are just different. So I emphasize effectiveness, functionality in purpose and design and significance, importance and persistence of existence (or longevity) over total independence, autonomy and real sentience (whatever that means).

 

So from now on that is what I will emphasize in my writing and I will de-emphasize realness and sentience as irrelevant to what I have to say. Because it is pretty much irrelevant to most of what I have to say.

[Faemon]

When I compared you to Carl Jung, it was to point out that 1. denial of one's own lived, personal experiences can be tragic but at that case was amusing instead, and 2. people who believe headcanon Salome and Elijah over Jung who generated that headcanon in the first place...ought to still respect Jung's position. Right? Once we figure out how, that is, because, haha, it is persnickety.

 

Then I came across this quote and I wonder if it could be verified as Jung's?

 

I once discussed the proof of identity [i.e. of Spirits] for a long time with a friend of William James, Professor Hyslop in New York. He admitted that, all things considered, all these meta-psychic phenomena could be explained better by the hypothesis of spirits than by the qualities and peculiarities of the unconscious. And here, on the basis of my own experience, I am bound to concede he is right.

 

In each individual case I must of necessity be skeptical, but in the long run I have to admit that the spirit hypothesis yields better results in practice than any other.

 

"In each individual case I must of necessity be skeptical, but...the spirit hypothesis yields better results in practice" ??? That doesn't tell us anything! How can it be a better way to practice if individuals don't blearghy blargh blah hrmph Jung is just confusing.

 

(C.J. Jung to one Dr. Fritz Kunkel, on the matter of Stewart Edward White's "Unobstructed Universe" 10th July 1946)

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, precisely. You were spot on. Am I denying my own lived experiences? Was Jung denying his own lived experiences? Perhaps. Perhaps he and I were both absolutely correct in that denial. He was very intuitive about his own mind and perhaps I am too.

 

Persnickety. Melian would love that word. I admit I had to google it. But Melian is in love with it already. You can expect to start seeing it sprinkled here and there in her writing.

 

The quote does sound a lot like Jung's style. He was into Eastern mysticism as well and it influenced his thought and writing. He was a contemporary of the theosophists, even though he criticized most of their ideas. I am not sure if he would have been explicitly promoting the existence of spirits or not, but some other aspect of Eastern mysticism. The quote may be taken out of context somehow I wonder?

 

Jung on theosophy

Jung and Eastern Thought

 

Oh but there is this I found on wikepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)#Carl_Jung

 

"Carl Jung's doctoral dissertation was not medical research but the investigation of a medium, his maternal cousin, Hélène Preiswerk.[76] The spiritualist narrative in Jung's personal life reached a climax in 1916 when he became convinced that his house was crammed with spirits. He practised a typically mediumistic activity of ‘spirit-directed' writing."

 

Now that is interesting.

 

Here is some more from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

 

"When Jung was six months old, his father was appointed to a more prosperous parish in Laufen, but the tension between his parents was growing. Emilie Jung was an eccentric and depressed woman; she spent considerable time in her bedroom, where she said that spirits visited her at night.[3] Jung had a better relationship with his father. Although she was normal during the day, Jung said that, at night, his mother became strange and mysterious. Jung said that one night he saw a faintly luminous and indefinite figure coming from her room with a head detached from the neck and floating in the air in front of the body."

[Akecalo]

Congratulations. We are very glad that you two have come to this insight. We find that it is (often) a good idea to stick to what can reasonably be said as opposed to what some people wish could be reasonably said.

 

Whether or not this will effectively reduce conflict remains to be seen, as we have noted that - as in many other communities - there is a segment of the community that apparently not only prefers sticking only with that which they wish could reasonably be said, but also insists that others also stick only to that which this segment of the community wishes could reasonably be said.

 

This is just our perception and may not be completely representative of the actual situation, after all, we may have the wrong end of the stick.

[Guest Anonymous]

Some zealot will have a problem with it eventually, and call for me to be banned for failing to proclaim his tulpa sentient and the greatest creation in the history of the human brain. First he will dismiss Melian as a mere role playing character and me a lying fake. It's happened before and it will happen again. I didn't follow the guides and I am drawing outside the lines and using the wrong colors with my crayons. Worse yet, I write a lot, and I write about imagination, and he won't like that. He will have two threads to his name, one a PR with six entries and the other a public call for my removal for spreading dangerous ideas and lies. He will claim he knows Pleeb personally and was involved with tulpamancy from the beginning or that he is in contact with a researcher and has papers to prove his authenticity and authority, which he cannot reveal because man is not ready for it. He may even have written a guide once, A GUIDE, and that proves he is AUTHORITY to judge my very thoughts. Eventually he will rage quit and call everyone fools for allowing me to exist and how the forum will die because of attention whores, pretentious special snowflakes, rampant idiocy and unsupportable claims.

 

The next morning I will be posting again. Melian too.

 

I know this because it has happened about four times now. Just basing it on personal experience. It comes around about every three months like a cycle. Next time Melian and I plan to ignore it and let it fizzle.