Sign in to follow this  
Guest Anonymous

The Median Thread: Can a tulpa be a Median Aspect?

Can a tulpa be a fictive median aspect?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Can a tulpa be a fictive median aspect?

    • No a tulpa must be totally independent of a host not an aspect of the host? If it is an aspect or facet of the host, it is not a tulpa.
      9
    • Yes, a tulpa could be an aspect or facet of the host and not fully independent.
      7
    • It depends. I will explain below.
      5
    • It is either a fully independent tulpa or it isn't of value and lacks credibility or validity and pretty much sucks. You should conform or leave. You are trying to change the definition of a tulpa.
      1


Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

This was originally in a PM, but I thought it was such a good point, I wanted to post it here....

 

Melian has a dual nature, she is part role playing character and part of me as an aspect. Melian and I keep using the example of the actor Leonard Nimoy and Spock. In his book, I am Spock, Nimoy explained that the character Spock had become part of him over the years and an expression of himself. Spock still remained a fictional character, but he thought of Spock as a person in his mind and Spock spoke to him. Some people have the ability to consider an imaginary being an expressive person. Nimoy and Spock would carry on conversations within his mind.

 

Psycologist Carl Jung experienced an internal persona he called Philemon. He recognized Philemon as an imaginary figment, but also an aspect of himself or facet of himself. He would carry on conversations with Philemon in his mind, who became a private guru or muse. He never considered Philemon to be real, but still valued him.

 

A thoughtform does not need to be real to be considered persistent, profound and significant to the person who creates them in the mind. The creator can decide to treat a figment persona as a real person, even though they realize they are not actually real in fact.

 

The poll is not doing well [not in favor of fictive median tulpas] because tulpamancers in general fail to recognize that as a possibility. To many tulpamancers, it is either real and it matters, or it is fake and trivial. It is a false dichotomy and false assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll is not doing well [not in favor of fictive median tulpas] because tulpamancers in general fail to recognize that as a possibility. To many tulpamancers, it is either real and it matters, or it is fake and trivial. It is a false dichotomy and false assumption.

Well, let me explain what I understood of all this conversation and stuff about median vs. tulpas (correct me if you think I'm wrong, I am used to be). Maybe some of the problem is about definitions: we, I mean, most people in the community (as seen in the poll), DEFINE a thoughtform as a "tulpa" when it has some degree of independence (where the "enough independence" is subjective) in relation to the host, and we DEFINE a median system where the people involved are aspects of just one person.

 

So, at least in a semantical way, speaking of a "median tulpa" just doesn't make sense at all, because they are oposite definitions. I voted the first option "No a tulpa must be totally independent of a host not an aspect of the host? If it is an aspect or facet of the host, it is not a tulpa" because it's what it's said, tulpas by definition can't be classified just as an aspect because then this would be a median system. About the "tulpamancers in general fail to recognize it as a possibility" seems to me more like saying tulpamancers or doesn't recognize median systems or tulpa systems. From this I think the thing about "median tulpa" is just a pseudo-problem. (hasn't Melian even not recognized herself as a tulpa anymore and more a median system because of this?)

 

Now, about the thing about "it's real and it matters, or it's false and trivial", well this is a different problem and idk what to think about it. There is the classifications tulpa - median system - anothers plurality types, but these classifications doesn't make one of the types more trivial and less "valid" (I'll not use the word real because I'm not really sure how you are defining it here) than others (althought you claim that many tulpamancers think this is true, no comments about that because I don't really know what most of others think). I agree in some aspects that what matters is the significance of the one to other headmates.

Well these were my two cents.


Cecilia is the only tulpa, is about my age (in form), changes it once in a while and just enjoys to see the circus catch fire :P

I go by Ephemeral because it's a nice word, but maybe just Ephe is shorter. A guy who likes doing math and programming and dreaming.

"You're not a drop in the ocean, but the entire ocean in a drop"--Rumi

PR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Well, let me explain what I understood of all this conversation and stuff about median vs. tulpas (correct me if you think I'm wrong, I am used to be). Maybe some of the problem is about definitions: we, I mean, most people in the community (as seen in the poll), DEFINE a thoughtform as a "tulpa" when it has some degree of independence (where the "enough independence" is subjective) in relation to the host, and we DEFINE a median system where the people involved are aspects of just one person.

 

 

 

So, at least in a semantical way, speaking of a "median tulpa" just doesn't make sense at all, because they are oposite definitions. I voted the first option "No a tulpa must be totally independent of a host not an aspect of the host? If it is an aspect or facet of the host, it is not a tulpa" because it's what it's said, tulpas by definition can't be classified just as an aspect because then this would be a median system. About the "tulpamancers in general fail to recognize it as a possibility" seems to me more like saying tulpamancers or doesn't recognize median systems or tulpa systems. From this I think the thing about "median tulpa" is just a pseudo-problem. (haven't you even not recognized you as a tulpa anymore and more a median system because of this?)

 

I think I have to agree with you.  It is a very good point actually.  

 

 

Now, about the thing about "it's real and it matters, or it's false and trivial", well this is a different problem and idk what to think about it. There is the classifications tulpa - median system - anothers plurality types, but these classifications doesn't make one of the types more trivial and less "valid"

 

Tell that to An, who is refusing to address Melian directly now that we, once again, have talked about being a median system.  To me, that is basically deciding to be kind of a snobbish prick.  There is no good reason for that at all except to be a snobbish prick.  I just have never been able to deal with or abide the presence in this community of attitudes like that.  It just seems so asinine and idiotic.  I cannot respect that and it lowers my regard for this community another notch every time I see it out there on the IRC or on this forum.  Maybe I am too sensitive to it and have selective perception, but its like bugs in my soup.  Most of the soup is probably good, but just the thought of a nasty, squirmy, bug or two or three in it makes me want to throw out the entire pot full and give up on soup.  

 

 

Unless there's independent will and separation of identity, a thoughtform's part of someone else. "Mistgod" was first, so it's by that name I address you, whoever you are.

 

Whatever.  Melian and I will simply ignore you then as not worthy of a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Well, actually that is a good idea I think. Ignoring is that is. No drama that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that you have an independent will and separation of identity. That, I think is implied in the definition TRI gave of a median system. If there were no separate thoughts at all, then you would not be median, you would be singlet. A literal roleplay character. If they were all separate, you would be a multiple conclusively, because all of your thoughts clearly come from an other.

 

I assume this can be complicated by the fact that a thought can come in part from one, and in part from another. I think this is a major source of my anxieties.


Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Melian does seem to have her own apparent thoughts and apparently autonomous actions.  The only difference between me and tulpamancers is that is does not have to be actually real to matter to me.  I still consider her a median aspect of my self.  I refer you to the earlier comments about Leonard Nimoy and Spock.  

 

You guys are so stuck in the real sentience paradigm you cannot comprehend me at all.  Most of you are a universe away from understanding my mind.  

 

I am so tired of tulpamancers right now it isn't even funny.

 

EDIT:  The post was edited and cut way back to remove some of the unnecessary mental Mistgod-Melian drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are so stuck in the real sentience paradigm you cannot comprehend me at all.  Most of you are a universe away from understanding my mind.

I am so tired of tulpamancers right now it isn't even funny.

 

Hey man, we aren't even talking about tulpas, that discussion was entirely on plurality terms. Sentience wasn't involved either, just independence. They said "an independent will and separation of identity", which means the identity "Melian" and the will that she says very different things than you would all the time. "If there were no separate thoughts at all, then you would not be median, you would be singlet. A literal roleplay character. If they were all separate, you would be a multiple conclusively" was qualified with "If", as in that's what it would be, not what you are. You guys have thoughts that are accredited to one of you individually, because you do not say Melian's thoughts were "what you thought". They're from the other identity in the system. But because they are not fully independent/separate from you, you're not multiple either, which is total independence.

 

I don't know why people were talking about the if's of independence, but I assume it's because you said Melian was not independent or a separate identity. You're thinking in tulpa terms, so denying that would in fact make you a singlet, because there was no "Melian" to speak of. Identity in this case is something Melian is far from lacking in, and independent will in this context doesn't mean "sentience" (don't think the plurality communities much consider that concept), it means she does or thinks things that you wouldn't.


Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Thank you yes.  You are right.  Independence is a term for tulpas, not for medians.  Thanks for the clarification and help.  I am trying and it seems only a few are getting because of the struggle with terminology and concepts.  

 

What frustrates me is on two levels: One it is hard to find the right words.  I know what I am trying to explain but the correct terminology has always eluded m.  Two, instead of taking what I am saying at face value, most tulpamancers seem to want to compare it to what is right and true and correct for the consensus on tulpas.  If it doesn't fit  they try to correct me or influence me to think differently.

 

I am not sure of the exact motivation for this thread anymore.  Originally it was at least partly in order to determine if a tulpa could also be a median aspect.  I think we kinda already knew that the two just don't fit well together.  FallFamily seems to think just about anything is possible in a system, it just depends.  I like that.  But tulpas strive for independence, medians are not independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Actually, I take it back.  I went back and carefully read this thread again.  Mistgod did do some editing to tone down our typical over reactive drama, but it is in all a very good thread and some good points were made.  It is actually an interesting question and on topic to the forum "Can tulpas be fictive median aspects?"  It looks like the consensus is that NO they cannot.  There is some minority views that it may be possible, but perhaps difficult or unusual or even a phase that a young tulpa might pass through.  

 

Thank you everyone for your responses to my thread.  This was something very personally important to Mistgod and I and very volatile and likely to explode into another Mistgod-Melian freak out.  But instead it lead us to something very important for us.  We have been moving in that direction for a long while, though people on the forum are not aware of internal turmoil Mistgod and I had to work out.  

 

Another subtheme was going on in this thread related to tulpamancer attitudes.  Basically are tulpas superior to other thoughtforms?  I think the answer is yes and no.  It is YES they are superior if you are talking about what their function is.  If you are talking about independent mind and independent will then tulpas are pretty bad ass with that.  That is what tulpas do!  Tulpas ROCK ON and ROCK OUT with independent mind, autonomy and independent will.  They are the best of the best as far as thoughtforms are concerned with that, flat out.  

 

When you talk about who is superior when it comes to being a cutsie day dream star and blended median facet and fantasy girlie for Mistgod, that ain't no tulpa kiddies.  Tulpas would SUCK big wind at that.  Melian is far better and superior at that but maybe inferior when it comes to doing what a tulpa is supposed to do.  

 

It all comes down to PURPOSE  and FUNCTIONALITY.    

 

Am I functional to my purpose?  You bet your bippy I am or Davie wouldn't be so obsessed with me and we would not be here.  Are tupas functional to their purpose?  Absolutely.  

 

Okay, that is all.  Thank you all that responded and I love you guys so much.  We feel so much better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person is willing to engage in a state of affairs similar to median aspects, then they can create their own over-riding rule in including that with tulpas. It's just that with different state of affairs, e.g., switching and possession, that seems outside what a median aspect would be capable of doing (e.g. implying that there's a conscious experiencer to even possess and switch with) is what the limit will be.

 

In other words, combining aspects of another way a thought-form is conceived along with the societal context of what others think tulpas are tend to lead to compromises. So if the person's ultimate objective is to have them more imaginary, pseudo-real, and other terms in contrast to real in respect to a person's experiences, and such, then yes, confirmation bias is always there at their beck and call. Anyone can create their own benchmark of correctness, and ultimately, say one person's aspect is BS. But, statements are not facts, so it's just the person cherry picking to suit their own needs.

 

Maybe if more people realized that different state of affairs necessitates more implications over what's real, and not real, they won't become angry when another person has a different paradigm because they engaged in a state of affairs that's different. It's all part of everyone allowing themselves to become self-enclosed in this, and going about it in whatever way they see fit. Anything pertaining to subconscious/unconscious can become blanket statements, and because of this, a tulpa can be this that, XYZ, but the more one tries to see if they're the jack of all trades (e.g. median, soulbond, daemon, jung archetype), they'll find out what they're not the master of. Or, they just go back to the same existential questioning over what they could be, even though in their view, existential questioning isn't relevant to things not real...but they still question aspects of who they could be, which is existential in nature; running around in circles, basically, or rather, running away from the probability of them being real. Real in relation to the mind, not metaphysically real.

 

Because any probability of them being real becomes a mirror of who they, the host, are, and gets compared to. If there's a capacity for the tulpa to be on the same level, then maybe the strives for them not being real is to avoid that crisis of the mind creating another implicitly sentient being. No one likes having their self compromised, especially if it's done at an internal level. But that's only for those that see this as a strife instead of a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.