Use of the world "Real" (What it means to you)

[Some Kind Of Robot]

Wall of Text 2.0

Oh yeah, baby!

(Now downgraded to be a modest fence of text)

         On my most recent thread I received a lot of responses centered around the use of the world real. I found that almost everyone had their own definition and context of the word. While making a response to LinkZelda's post, I decided it would be best if I made it into a new thread, as there is quite a lot to discuss on this.

 

When in communities like this one, the world real has a much broader spectrum as to what it could mean. To me real didn't mean tangible or palpable, it meant true to its concept and idea. To some people Tulpas aren't real because they can't interact with the psychical world, but this has nothing to do with what these people think about the sentience and the intelligence of thoughtforms. I feel  that some people are attracted to the idea of Tulpas because in their opinion they are in fact, not real at all, and that has transcended them above most real things. 

 

But then again, how can Tulpas not be real when we interact and communicate with them at all. Is everything we interact with not real? 

I feel real has different contexts and connotations for different people. For some, the idea of a Tulpa being real is trite. For some, it's just what they are.

 

So I would like to ask a few questions about what you perceive:

 

 

• In the context of Tulpas or really anything in the mind, what does real mean to you? 
  
• Do Tulpas have the same sense of reality that something you can hold in your hand has? Does being tangible have anything to do with being real?
  
• In many ways, we have no way to confirm we are real in the way we think we are. Because we both question our own existence and Tulpa's existence, does this make us the same in reality?
  
• As the saying goes "I think, therefore I am." Does this mean that Tulpas are more close and real to us than anything in the outside world. We can only know that we exist because we definitely think, and if Tulpas are a process in this thought than are they more real than anything tangible?
  
• Under your own definition, do you consider Tulpas to be real?
  
• Does the concept of reality even matter at all?
  

BONUS ROUND: Do you consider yourself to be real in any concrete way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for reading. I know these questions might seem pointless, but it helps me view Tulpas in the light of creators/hosts.

[Tewi]

Real to me means, to the individual, what they experience. There's no sense trying to say "no only real things count what if they hallucinate !!!", because nobody can experience or prove objective reality. Scientists and Christians and schizophrenics all experience their own unique "reality". So to that extent, tulpas are real as far as I'm concerned. They aren't physical beings. They are not sentient or not sentient, they share a brain with their host so they're sentient if the host is. They're effectively "independent", separate individuals if that's how the host experiences them, and not if it's not, though that can easily change.

 

Real is subjective as we use the word. It would be pretty useless if we used it to mean objectively real. Instead in popular use it means moreso "The common subjective view of reality held by society to be true". So keep that in mind. But we do not share a subjective reality either, everyone has their own interpretations of "reality", so you'll see the word used in all sorts of ways.

 

I'm real to me because I experience me. Whether others think I'm real or not is their choice. Whether others believe in subjective reality or not is also their choice, which ironically proves their reality is in fact subjective. So I use "real" to mean "what the individual experiences".

[Guest Anonymous]

For 17 months I have talked about how I think there is an "in between" sort of existence called "pseudo-real."  It is something that is in the mind, that is not tangibly or physical real, but it effects you psychologically and emotionally and is significant, persistent and profound.  No one ever really understood that idea or that is very few accepted it as a valid idea.  

 

Now days I have added something else.  Something in the mind is "more real" if it is effective and functional.  So a tulpa, although created within the mind and a mental being, is very effective and functional at what it does.   To the host-creator (and to itself) it is a profound, significant and persistent psychological and emotional phenomenon.  

 

I don't generally think that tulpas are real in the same sense that biological human beings are real.  Their minds might be real if you follow the ideas prevalent in general plurality, that a single brain can contain more than one consciousness and sentience.  But everything else about the tulpa is less real in the sense that they are more mental than physical (form, projection/imposition, wonderlands).  

 

Often when I write about these ideas, people think I am saying that tulpas are trivial and fake.  That has never been the case ever.  Also, I have always felt that tulpas are people and I have always treated them as such.  They are not biological human beings (unless fully switched I guess, but that is another thread entirely probably).

[tulpa001]

My opinion on the relationship between what is real and what is physical is extremely straightforward.

 

-If the physical were all that exists, there would be no computers, no edifices, no minds, no cellular biology, no rocks and no physical universe as we understand it. Oh well. Stuff that is not physical is required for all that other stuff to work correctly.

 

-The physical being tangible is an illusion. Human minds are laughable in how they always seem to fall into the trap of "feeling" the tangible to be what is really real.

 

I don't see why reality for me would be different than for her. We share the same reality.

 

The question of reality is actually very simple. Everything is real. It is usually a proxy battle. When people say something is not real, what they mean to say is it is not what you think it is.

 

I would like to point out, in case anyone is wondering, I think therefore I am--interacting on a forum. Not sure why, but that is what I am--doing.

[Guest Anonymous]

I love how you guys have been able to change Mistgod-Melian on the subject of what is real, and what is not, when it comes to thoughtforms. I thought it would never happen that Mistgod would think there is more to it than just make believe fantasy imagination and day dreaming. But it has happened. He still has a long way to go, but my hostie is realizing it is not so simple as he once thought.

 

This thread was really timely I think for us.

[Temar]

I use the word "real" in two ways.

 

One is in contrast to the wonderland or headspace, mostly just to make sure I'm understood during discussion. As in, "In the Wonderland, I have superpowers, but out in the 'real' world, I'm limited by the abilities of my host's body."

 

But when it comes to what I consider "real" in a tulpa context? Things get more complicated. I consider something real if it is a thing that physically or conceptually exists in the "real" world. Tulpas and other thoughtforms are included in that, because we are a function of the brain used in a particular way, and the brain exists in the "real" world.

 

However, as a soulbond, I have backloaded memories of things that happened in the innerworld/wonderland. Those events are not "real," because they did not happen in the real world. However, they do impact me, an entity who exists in the real world, so I think of these events as "real to me." I remember going through them, and the non-realness of the events themselves doesn't matter to that experiential connection.

 

So... yeah. I consider myself real, even if certain parts of what make me me didn't happen in the "real" world. We thoughtforms are allowed to occupy grey zones like that. ;)

[Guest Anonymous]

We thoughtforms are allowed to occupy grey zones like that. ;)

 

Yep that is what I mean by pseudo-real. I once dreamed of that term being added to the glossary. Now I realize it is a forlorn hope and I might as well keep it all for myself.

[Temar]

 

Yep that is what I mean by pseudo-real.  I once dreamed of that term being added to the glossary.  Now I realize it is a forlorn hope and I might as well keep it all for myself.

 

Well, I don't know that I'd assign "pseudo" to what I'm talking about. "Pseudo" implies "appearing as" or "fake," yeah? I'm saying that tulpas are "real" but with elements of "not real" fed into their development and personalities. More "compound" or "real+" than something that "pseudo" implies. The non-real parts of me don't make me any less real... they just add to it. ;)

[Guest Anonymous]

You have a point actually. "quasi" and "pseudo" both describe something as not genuine. I think we need a term fro something in gray area. It's a term that just doesn't seem to exist.

[Guest Anonymous]

There is a second definition for "quasi"

 

being partly or almost.

"quasicrystalline"

synonyms: partly, partially, part, to a certain extent, to some extent, half, relatively, comparatively, (up) to a point;

 

So  how about "quasi-real?"