Hello from Soulbonding

[moondragon]

Hi..The reason why I found this site was because there is a link to it on a Soul Bonding website. I first heard the term Soul Bond in January of this year..One of my friend's bitchy facebook friends posted a comment about how all fandoms have crazy fans.She went on to list the kind of people she judged as "crazy", and then someone asked her what Soul Bonding was..She put up a link explaining it..I was shocked..Because what soul bonding was described as a lot like I have been doing in secret for a long time. And, a lot like what some of you have described when talking about communicating with your tulpas. And, yes, I had seen the term tulpa used before, as well as the term "thoughtform", I have even met a few people who have created their own tulpas..I was just shocked that there were online communities of people with these experiences, and I think that is pretty cool. I know from experience, it is nice to have people to talk to about things that other people would call you crazy for believing. And, ALSO is right, it can not be proven or disproven that soul bonding or tulpas exist. Some people are more interested in science, some in metaphysics. And, there are some like me who are open to studying both. I say this because I saw the debate at the beginning of this thread, and it bummed me out. I have had people I thought I could trust call me delusional before, when I told them a little bit about what I have experienced..I know how it feels to be made fun of for what you believe...And, I also know Atheists at this other message board I post at, who would take one look at what people post here, call it bad science, and make fun of it and the people who post here..Not because they can disprove the existence of tulpas, but because the idea does not fit into their concept of reality, and anything that doesn't fit their concept of reality is automatically dangerous, delusional, or rediculous. I once bitched these people out, after they ripped apart a new poster for saying he was interested in astral projection.

 

I think that the people who create tulpas, and the people who call what they experienced Soul Bonding could learn a lot from eachother.

[Guest]

Maybe remotely.

 

Can't learn anything from metaphysics, though.

[ThatOneGuy]

Yeah, we generally keep a psychological view over here. I'm not really interested in a 'metaphysical' or mystical view on tuppers either.

[Bjorna]

Hi I am new here. I would like to talk about soulbonding but from a metaphysical perspective. Would that be inappropriate here? Should I start a thread in the metaphysical section?

[solarchariot]

Hi I am new here. I would like to talk about soulbonding but from a metaphysical perspective. Would that be inappropriate here? Should I start a thread in the metaphysical section?

 

Bjorna, I, too, was thinking about reviving this thread by posting on it myself, and I think discussing the metaphysical is certainly reasonable, given the original post brought up the concept of multiple universes. Even if there is a perfectly logical, psychological explanation, there is absolutely metaphysical implications underlying all of quantum physics, and if people smarter than us can discuss them in theory, I don't see why they should be shunned, ignored, or otherwise dismiss. The whole theory of multiple universes, the universe splitting with every decision, or every decay of an atom, (see Schrodinger's cat,) is what led Max Tegmark to apply a complex topology of universes. (multiverse) Lots of solid theorist have been arguing over the profundity of the Copenhagen interpretation. So, either we live in a remarkable universe full with an impossibly absurd number of coincidences, or all potential realities are mapped out, and we just happen to be in one of the universes where everything was copacetic to existence.

 

I like wondering, what if I didn't create my tulpa, but I tuned into her, like a medium channeling, and she exist in her world, and in her world, she's channeling me. Applying Occam's razor, it's probably exactly what people believe here, that it's an artificial personality construct. (I don't like artificial construct, because that has implications. Heck, so does any normative explanation that this practice is just a mundane, routine, psychological quirk of being human.)

 

So, the post leads with soul bounds, and how maybe they're tulpas. Have you ever watched a youtube video where someone with a soulbound switched? Did you ever see a video of someone with a tulpa switching? If not, you should. They seem pretty similar. But I would also go as far and say, watch some of the mediums who report they are channeling other entities and tell me they aren't 'switching.' I am not saying they are channeling aliens are spirits, I am just saying it looks exactly the same to me. Maybe they got tulpas, too. Maybe we should all be talking, regardless of paradigms, because we're discovering some pretty amazing things!

[Chupi]

In general, metaphysical discussion should be in the Metaphysics and Parapsychology subforum.

[solarchariot]

In general, metaphysical discussion should be in the Metaphysics and Parapsychology subforum.

 

We could probably shift this entire item over to metaphysics, and no one would probably notice. I think it died, even though maybe two of us would like to see it revived; or at least an aspect of it revived. I never know if I should chime in if the last post was like a year or more ago...

 

I wonder if 'this' is a thing. 'This' being the following: some people, when responding, will articulate something to the effect of 'most of us here aren't really interested in metaphysics' or 'most of us here prefer the psychological perspective.' It feels like a tangible, social fact we hit up against in navigating our discussions. I am hitting this 'thing,' too, and respond to it with 'I tend to lean towards the metaphysical aspects,' which almost feels like an apology. (Apology in the strictest, Platonic sort of way, not in the present day vernacular use of apology.)

 

Look, I get it. 'This' conversation is dangerous. Speaking about 'this' regardless of which paradigm we couch it under is dangerous. I work in the MH field, and even using a psychological explanation for 'this' puts me at serious risk for being invalidated as a professional. We want 'this' to have validation, and so we 'need' to lean towards some semblance of credibility, which is found under the psychological umbrella. I would say this fits more under the transpersonal umbrella, which is under the psychological umbrella, but probably the less accepted, weird cousin of psychology that mainstream doesn't want to acknowledge is related, because psychology is still trying to get the hard science to recognize their validity. 'This' is meaningful. 'This' is probably the most meaningful exercise I have ever participated in. When I first started seeing success, I thought I was probably not going to return to tulpa forum, because I now had an internal way of getting my needs met; something society has failed me, or I have failed by not finding a way to engage society. Interestingly enough, engaging my tulpa companion and the wonderlands seems to have increased my need for socialization. As my general mood and personal mental health improves, there is corresponding increase in the need for socialization. But then, who am I going to talk to? Who is Loxy going to talk to? Community requires more than two? And community, by definition, needs an external component to increase objectivity.  I returned to tulpa.info, which actually made all of 'this' possible. (Well, yeah, my consistent engagement made it possible, but the community here seriously helped/influenced 'this.')

 

Maybe 'this' needs to be discussed. Maybe 'this' has been discussed to death. Maybe there is no way to discuss 'this' because we keep going in circles with no obvious way to have clear resolution on what 'this' means, because we all bring something unique to it. We live in an objectively subjective reality. There is an objective world. Two people can experience that world in two very different, subjective ways. We, here, can agree that tulpas exist. The further removed from this community, the less agreement one might find on that. My fear is that if we don't discuss 'this,' we might not survive as a group. Sociologically speaking, if a group can not sustain growth, it tends to go away, just a passing fad that didn't catch. I don't want that for this group. 'This' is more than a fad! 'This' is bigger than that. 'This' is bigger than us, and yet I can't figure out how to have that conversation without sounding fanatical at best, psychotic at worse. I don't know, 'this' seems like a conversation that needs to be had, because as number of posts decline, then membership might decline, and then... I don't know, where does 'this' go from here? We need to have that talk. Maybe we need to correspond to the soulbound groups and include them in a greater discussion. Maybe we, counting myself in that group, need to take a few more risks at bringing outsiders into this conversation. If we open up to the metaphysical minded folks, that takes us one way. If we just keep insisting this only a psychological paradigm, then we go another way. We need both. We need balance. And we need others, even others that think this is nothing but pretend, not so we can prove to them it isn't, but so we can have dialogue, and growth.

 

Hopefully in expressing 'this' I am not found too crazy. But if it helps, my friend Billy Joel ensures me, it's okay, it may just be a lunatic you're looking for... :)