wonderlands as real places...

[solarchariot]

I don't if it's best to lead with the premise and set up, or just give the question, if you read the premise, yay, it may give you more context... there are assumptions in this questions, some of it I can't filter out, but the obvious, if you're responding to this I suspect you have a fairly solid wonderland.

 

question: could the wonderland be a real place, more than just imagination... but if you thought it was just imagination, and someone could convince you otherwise, what would that mean for you?

 

 

Behind the question, in its present form, I was listening to an Art Bell episode, interview with Ingo Swann, primarily discussing remote viewing. This part interest me because it seems clear from some of the talks, and some the stuff in the books, once imagination gets in the way, people stop getting real information. Couch that, we'll come back to it. Bob Monroe developed a protocol for out of body experiences, and I think there are a sufficient number of people who have used his protocols with reported success, with people reporting back on 'places' so consistently that there is enough consensus to call it a 'place.' you don't have to accept dallas is a real place, but if hear enough reports about dallas, in books or from others, maybe there is dallas.

 

Both technique above are kind of related, you have to be in particular state of mind to access information. This seems to me, the same as wonderlands. I go into a state, I experience things. This is where I am little befuddled. I know I have interacted with this, altering landscapes and adding stuff, which is clearly my imagination... but there is also reasonable consistency between visits... I wouldn't say it's a hundred percent, but then I am not looking at everything a hundred percent of the time under a magnifying glass... In lucid dreaming, a dream check is reading things twice to look for change... I know there are books in my wonderlands, but I am not certain if they are static are not with a hundred percent certainty. I have more homework; maybe I just remember it being static, just like in non lucid dreams I can read something and what I take away, whether that was actually written or not, is just what remember.

 

Even if it is not a hundred percent, I doesn't make it less of a place, I suppose the test would be to have students of Robert Monroe see if they could travel to our wonderlands, or if we could other people's wonderlands and report back, but then the problem is how do you rule out telepathic transmission of information versus, you went somewhere real...

 

Sorry, if this is too much, just kind of processing out loud.

[Guest]

Wonderlands are real, dynamic, and changable. The notion that there is only a real world that is static, dirty, harsh, and often dissapointing, is too rediculous to be the truth.

 

Follow this:

Just as our tulpas enjoy to have us in wonderland, and tulpas are real people, that shows that wonderland is a real place you can visit. I've been there many times myself. This can be done on day one of tulpa creation. Doesn't it seem odd that it takes a very long time and a ton of effort to bring a tulpa into the 'real world?' (Perfect Imposition)

 

Tulpas can be thought of as pure energy, and we are a mass of smelly fluids and solids, wouldn't you think it would be harder to bring this mass of cells into wonderland than to bring a whisp of pure energy into this world?

 

Tulpas can be thought of as a conjoined twin, one that shares the whole body. You can switch who is in control in this world. Can you switch who is in control in wonderland? Yes, but you wouldn't need to, there are distinct beings with distinct bodies in wonderland. Therefore wonderland is a fuller expression of reality.

 

You can be anything in wonderland

Wonderland is infinite.

 

You are restricted in reality.

Reality is finite.

 

Finite is a subset of infinite by definition.

 

Therefore, as i suspected years ago, wonderland is the 'real' universe, and reality is a static construct instance of wonderland. Our senses in reality are imperfect. Our senses in wonderland are perfect, efficient, and not restricted.

 

It can be said that Tulpas exist and are 'born' in wonderland, while we are born in reality, but i contend we are born in both because we can exist in both and form real experiences in both.

 

Furthermore i propose we are in a lesser state here than in wonderland. Such as, finite can only ever be insignificant as compared to infinite, we are thus insignificant here as compared to our wonderland form.  

 

If we truly exist in wonderland, the mind, our purpose is to explore the real world (a construct) as a challenge to our spirit and soul to overcome adversity as long as we can. This is a game. We start with nothing and gain levels and items in this construct. Reality is an MMRPG.

 

In the end game, we will turn off the construct and continue on in wonderland (heaven equivalent).

 

To quote Mark Twain,

"If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there."

 

My adaptation:

"If wonderland isn't heaven I shall not stay there."

 

We were told we would find fulfillment and peace in heaven. I can't imagine such notions without wonderland. My tulpas are real and i am real, or neither is true.

 

That's my ultimatum for existence. I have a one way ticket home, and some day i will use it, guaranteed. I do not wish to live in reality forever, i do not plan to retire here as an old and pain ridden beast, such a notion is as inane as it is insane.

[Reisen]

Limiting that idea to wonderlands seems a bit constricting, Bear, or to tulpamancy too. Tulpamancy doesn't need to encompass everything. "Wonderlands" should probably be replaced with "imagination" or "imaginary worlds"?

[Guest]

Limiting that idea to wonderlands seems a bit constricting, Bear, or to tulpamancy too. Tulpamancy doesn't need to encompass everything. "Wonderlands" should probably be replaced with "imagination" or "imaginary worlds"?

 

I may have used the wrong term, or not understood the limitations of the definition of wonderland. Still, it better be accessible.

[solarchariot]

Ahh, Angry Bear, I think I share your conjecture, with the exception of this 'reality' being anything finite or reasonably substantial... So, hypothetically, as a sidebar way into an argument for other realities existing, there are some consistent features to NDE's across time and culture, even cultures that have not been influenced by the distribution of books and youtube commentary. There are more inconsistencies in reports from bystanders at an automotive accident than there are for NDE's, and the only safe thing we can conclude by the reports is that there was an automotive accident. So, I think we can safely conclude there is something beyond us, a place we can go, and I am confused by the fact that 'scientist' so readily argue against that as a possibility, even as they argue for the insubstantiality of the very fabric of space and time and particles which supposed encapsulate out being.

[Ranger]

The concept of the imagination connecting to another world...

 

Does the world have to be a stable place? Would all of these so called "imagined worlds" die if the person who thinks of them dies?

 

An imagined world could have it's own universe rules and could share the same space as another imagined world, but there would theoretically be no way to connect the worlds, any "crossover" would actually just be a new world since humans would require ESP or aliens doing magical shit to merge two imagined worlds together.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if infinity somehow could contain all of these worlds, but it's interesting to me how close and not close the "real" world is to the "imagined" world. In theory, an imagined world can not exist without a host. The only way the world can change is if the host actively thinks about that world. Whether or not the brain connects to a completely different independent universe would be an exception, but I'm trying to cover the general case where the imagined world is completely dependent on the host.

 

 

If a different entity were to somehow enter these other worlds, it would be equivalent to something along the line of mind control. This does not rule out that these imagined universes live in the same "dimensional plane" or whatever, only because we have no way of proving that these worlds can or cannot be connected.

 

This would either suggest that

 

a) Humans actually are partially connected to a different dimension they created or

b) The imagined world is a simulation and therefore fails the criteria for existing as a separate universe.

c) My assumptions are founded on ignorance and...infinity paradox magic cookie powers.

[solarchariot]

Well, there is some esoteric literature that supports your conjecture... So, I am not naming sources, as I am not home, but I suspect it is Monroe and Atwater, and some vague esoteric tome I have collected, that suggested all the worlds religions, especially the major five, have 'islands' where the people gather after death so that they are in the paradigm they supported, a thing that comes into existence after a certain threshold of believers, so it is basically a consensus reality... and so, since I am not in support of the major five, in any fundamental way, I would think I would more likely end up in a Rodenberry generated universe, and there are certainly as many fans of that universe as there are for any of the major five religions, and so, is the absence of any 'star trek' universe in the esoteric literature mean the theory needs tweaking? I, personally, have touched the 'trek' universe... but it wouldn't be precisely Rodenberry, but maybe a parallel parallel?

[Guest]

Ranger said something interesting (aside fron cussing like a sailor).

 

The only way the world can change is if the host actively thinks about that world.

 

In the context of the imagined world being similar to the real world, neither world would in fact exist unless you perceived it. You're sensors (eyes, ears) and your filters, (perceptional bias, experiential bonuses and deficiencies) make your workd unique to mine. We both have a mental map of our world, and those maps overlap in some ways, but if you didn't exist, your worlds, real and imagined, would also not exist.

 

So if it comes down to mental mapping and experience. The 'real' world has many orders over any imagined world. But for me at least, the memories seem very similar.

 

So that would infer that if i spent more time in my imaginary world than my real world, my imaginary world may feel more real eventually. If when i die, they're both gone, then is there a difference?

[solarchariot]

Ranger said something interesting (aside fron cussing like a sailor).

 

 

In the context of the imagined world being similar to the real world, neither world would in fact exist unless you perceived it. You're sensors (eyes, ears) and your filters, (perceptional bias, experiential bonuses and deficiencies) make your workd unique to mine. We both have a mental map of our world, and those maps overlap in some ways, but if you didn't exist, your worlds, real and imagined, would also not exist.

 

So if it comes down to mental mapping and experience. The 'real' world has many orders over any imagined world. But for me at least, the memories seem very similar.

 

So that would infer that if i spent more time in my imaginary world than my real world, my imaginary world may feel more real eventually. If when i die, they're both gone, then is there a difference?

 

If we conclude death is the end, absolutely. I am convinced death isn't the end, but I don't wish to try and convert you to this point, but we can argue further, at risk of resurrecting Carl Jung once again, that if the evidence for a collective unconscious is actually describing a real thing, then that in itself would be evidence that the imagination could extend past the originator to influence other and exist beyond the originator in some form or fashion, perhaps even evolve.

[Guest]

Synchronicity, coincidence, kismet, and the red thread of fate are all dissmissable and based initially on accounts. How they relate is that there seems to be something surreal about some people's reality that also can't be explained. To further my previous point, which reality is truly the real reality? Are we all just playing a game?