Jump to content

Gateway Systems and Soulbonds


Recommended Posts

(edited)

This was the original post containing the question, which has been deemed the OP of this thread. If you would like to see the original thread, please go here. -Ranger

 


 

It was not my intent to start a thread about this and I don't like that it was decided to make it my thread. My personal feelings about gateway systems and soulbonds of all kinds are contentious and controversial in this community at times because of the possible consequences, real or imagined, regarding roleplaying and supposed "proper" system architecture. I won't say more because this sort lf argument becomes divisive quickly and I really didn't want to discuss it formally anymore.

 

My comments herein have been edited for clarity in light of the context of a new thread.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 10:01 AM, Jamie said:

Gateway systems are firmly on the chunibyo side of plural experiences. There is a long rabbit hole that goes to some strange and unhealthy places. No one who describes themselves as a gateway system is having what I'd call a sane relationship with plurality. 

 

On paper it might be described like this: 

In practice it is this: 

 

>person is a roleplayer/fandom writer/compulsive daydreamer/etc

>They get into plurality/tulpamancy/DID culture but know they don't have DID

>The idea of "My characters are real people" is alluring

>They know their characters/OCs aren't like people's tulpas and so on that live in the real world and have real-world standards applied to them, and they also know maybe people will frown on them if they have a rotating large cast of characters/OCs coming in and out of their system

>"It's not roleplay! My mind is a magical gateway into infinite dimensions! In some of these dimensions, all my favorite characters/my own OCs are all REAL, and they have traveled through some means to my head! The REAL John-loving Sherlock from my favorite fanfic is REAL and he lives with me, and he dates the John that lives in my head!"

 

I have known several gateway systems. I was pretty tolerant of it for a time (Who am I to "gatekeep"?) until I really started to see how there's this circlejerk toward "It's real, it's real, it's all really real!" Real with no backing, no substance. As in, whatever happened in their canonical lives (the manga, fanfic, movie, self-authored story, etc) was a 100% real event that just happened in an alternative timeline/dimension. I have had a gateway system headmate tell me that the rape that happened to him in their manga was the same as a specific real-person's rape, that they were equally rape survivors. That was the point I stopped being so tolerant. 

 

I was even in a Discord specifically for gateway systems at one brief point (I just lurked- the invite had been posted publicly.) Everyone was really off-the-rails about how they/their headmate are a REAL wolf/Sherlock/princess/tortured soul/brilliant artist, but their magic powers maybe just didn't translate through the dimensional-transfer process. 

 

It's a real "You can't prove a negative!" situation. "You can't prove I wasn't just in another dimension living my life as a real princess while you weren't looking, and now I've traveled dimensions to live in your head!" You're right. Logic can't touch that. It's just silly. 

 

Why would it work like that? 

 

 


 

On 1/24/2021 at 10:01 AM, Jamie said:

Why would it work like that? 

 

Some things can't be proven or disproven.

 

I apply occam's razor but I have to be careful because "a wizard did it" is dang simple as far as explanations go, but it's completely ungrounded and baseless. It's equally important to at least entertain falsifiablility before you come to the conclusion that "it's a parallel dimension."

 

The subconscious mind is so vast and unknown, no metaphysical notions are even necessary. If a whole other and much more complex construction can run in your subconscious mind, who needs anything else. Look up the computation power of the human brain and you'll find there's plenty of headroom for virtually anything. As long as you're comfortable with that, and explore it, the power of this is effectively boundless as it's possible that it vastly overshadows consious thought.

 

Remember the complexities of your most vivid and varied dream, that's a lower bound.

Edited by BearBeaBeau
Added deemed OP and link for context
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask, how is that different from roleplay? Even if a very complex construction exists, if it's entirely subconscious, then by definition isn't it not a conscious agent, like a person is? Some characters can "think" (i.e. an author "puppeting" or simply having them talk) and some don't really, but all real persons exist on the level of conscious thoughts. Which is to say, being a conscious thinker doesn't mean you're a real separate person, but not being a conscious thinker means you can't be. In my views. 

 

There's no such thing as a real (read: externally valid) subconscious notion that you're truly 800 years old and a magical fairy with the Power of Heart. You certainly can feel like you are a fairy, or say "My internal appearance is that of an ageless fairy", or even "within my internal landscape/wonderland I have the abilities of a fairy", but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, no one is 800 years old and the Power of Heart isn't a thing. 

 

I see this come into play most often when people in systems (typically not the host) declare themselves to have traits from their canon that they don't possess as far as their actions go. It's hard because there's often a self-fulfilling prophecy running in tandem. Just believing that you are Fluttershy and so should speak/act like Fluttershy is likely to make someone act more like Fluttershy. But things like "So and so is a logical scientist!" or "So and so is as mature as an adult because in their canon they are 35!" when the body is a 16yo's just break down. "In my canon I am kind and nice and everyone falls in love with me. The external world must work like this too!" It does not. This type of thinking spirals into disintegration from reality and is a major distraction from a person's real identity and character flaws. 

 

 Keep in mind, over the past 6 months or so my system has developed comfortably into a wonderland home that runs 24/7 and we have many things going on that I know a lot of people would cry about since "parallel processing isn't real." But the subconscious realm isn't a place where real people live. Real people exist on a conscious layer of, well, reality. Not in dreams. Dreams can be like entire worlds unto themselves, but they aren't real when approached from, er, reality. The logic there doesn't extend outside. They're fantasy. 

 

In my views, characters become tulpas/headmates/etc when the rules of reality are applied unto them. Many will keep things like the appearance and names of their source character, and many will have been raised up into a personality that resembles that character too. But while Fluttershy is really a talking pony who is friends with all animals, Fluttershy the tulpa must understand that she's working off a human brain, MLP is a show, and it is still not safe to approach random dogs assuming they won't bite. 

 

If your headmates don't exist on the layer of reality, they aren't real themselves. That's my viewpoint. 

The world is far, the world is wide; the man needs someone by his side. 

Our Thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Let's not confuse form with belief. You can identify as anything you want inside. We certainly shouldn't chastise or make fun of people who have headmates who choose to be fairies or angels or catgirls in this community. If you think that's too cringe and all headmates should be nothing but humans than you're in the wrong, clearly.

 

In the mind, anything is anything. On the other hand if you think your headmates are actually fairies living in another dimension, that's clearly gateway or soulbond territory. I'm not saying anything about roleplay or not. It would be like saying a trans person is roleplaying y because they're obviously biologically x. There's no difference in offense in my mind between disrespecting anyone for whatever reason. If we consider these thoughtforms as actual people, let's give them equal and fair respect. They believe what they do because it made the most sense to believe that. This is no reason to tease, mock or punish them for it.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

There's no such thing as a real (read: externally valid) subconscious notion that you're truly 800 years old and a magical fairy with the Power of Heart.

 

If someone's arguing that, it's xenobiological speculation on our part. You don't have to believe what anyone says, don't let it get to you. Resonating with someone's belief in such a way to tease them or belittle them is wrong. It's wrong to do and wrong to feel that way and it's not your responsibility to correct someone else's supposed psychosis or delusions.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

So and so is as mature as an adult because in their canon they are 35!

 

Age is no different an archetype than sex or form. Again, you shouldn't let it get to you. I don't see the issue because it's none of your business. A 35-yr-old can certainly act 12 and a 12-yr-old can act 35. Whether they're believable or not isn't for you to judge outwardly without being offensive. If you don't care, then judge them and be judged accordingly for whatever mannerisms you have that may not biologically fit someone's notion of what is psychologically possible of you.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

The external world must work like this too!" It does not. This type of thinking spirals into disintegration from reality and is a major distraction from a person's real identity and character flaws. 

 

External vs internal worlds are not directly comparable at all. Some people believe in a god, does that they're delusional or wrong because  some magical being who isn't materially represented should necessarily be "chunibyo" or deemed the whimsical fantasy of children?

 

Also, don't try to fix other people. It's not your place even as a mod and I wholeheartedly disagree if you do. If they ask for help, help at your will. If not, you're overstepping simply because someone may be annoying to you. Unless someone being annoying is simply something you don't want in your private server. Don't accuse a unicorn tulpa of roleplaying if they say their horn aches but then allow anyone opposite gender from the biological identity of their original to say anything about being anything they wouldn't have expected experience with.

 

This is my feeling, if you're asking me.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

But the subconscious realm isn't a place where real people live

 

This is your ideology. It's no more or less valid than others. Some scientists believe just the opposite actually. In my mind, the consious mind is nothing more than a recorder of experience. I see lots of data to suggest decisions are made subconsciously, actions are initiated subconsciously, even speach can be modeled as having a subconscious origin. You aren't an expert in this field, neither am I, let's not make sweeping statements about the validity of one model over another.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

In my views, characters become tulpas/headmates/etc when the rules of reality are applied unto them.

 

Sounds like a fine method for you. Not everyone has to agree. Headmates don't have to be based in reality. It's not a requirement or tulpamancy couldn't exist.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

it is still not safe to approach random dogs assuming they won't bite. 

 

Again, unless you're their parent or legal guardian, it shouldn't be your concern to correct someone, especially if it's getting you worked up about it. Warning someone off cliff diving from a known dangerous spot is kind if you, but doing things to coerce them is wrong in any context unless you have that as something your server is designed to do I guess. That would then be an expectation of those who enter it then.

 

Otherwise you're overstepping i m o.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jamie said:

If your headmates don't exist on the layer of reality, they aren't real themselves. That's my viewpoint. 

 

I heard that viewpoint from your system before and I think it's probably crossing the line, especially in this community that has such a strong tie to forced belief and fantasy. You might as well tell people to not lucid dream. 

 

Simply put, if gateway systems and soulbonds are disallowed in the server, then state that in the rules, otherwise keep an open mind and don't treat them as lesser to some doctrinal utopian system architecture.

 

Should we discuss other alternatives with them? Sure. Should we belittle or penalize someone who has an alternative belief system to our own? No, and if you do then that's gatekeeping, bigotry, or worse. It's not nice at any rate.

 

This [original] discussion thread isn't about mod policy or roleplaying though, so as for the OC who is asking if they qualify as a gateway system, do you have anything to say about that?

 


 

If this post is deemed off-topic, please delete it. [It was not deleted and was made it's own topic our of my control and against my wishes.]

Edited by BearBeaBeau
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I resigned as mod a long while ago (I think I was mod for... like a week. Eep.)

2) Not trying to be combative/dismissive. 

3) My response to anyone thinking "Am I a gateway system?" is that it's vitally important to explain that the online definitions that are out there are very different from the gateway system community and the reality of that lifestyle- which is what I went into. Because no one should be, imo, because it's an unhealthy expression of plurality, and explaining the "why" of that was the rest of my posting. 

 

If I was being dismissive I wouldn't have said anything. I want to have a discussion. We might be getting into our own thread territory lol, but imo this is just, well, natural progression of a discussion. 

 

ps. Ranger I C U and we are both being chill right now, it is ok

The world is far, the world is wide; the man needs someone by his side. 

Our Thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Ranger unlocked this topic
(edited)

Yeah, I was wondering from a mod perspective, what agenda you might have. This seems off topic to me, but I obviously mistook what and how it was said.

 

There's nothing wrong with being a gateway or soulbond system otherwise. We know it's less grounded.

Edited by BearBeaBeau
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be blunt, I think that after a certain point it's clear that it's an expression of plurality rather than roleplaying. But I also think that it's definitely delusional and potentially problematic as a worldview.

 

I've experienced a tangential form of this, in that I've created a non-sentient thoughtform of exceeding vividity and autonomy out of a fictional character unintentionally, but I've also refused to acknowledge its sentience intentionally. If I were to open the floodgates on allowing such entities to become fully self-aware through the gateway-metaphysical-model I feel like that would result in a never-ending stream of likely socially dysfunctional tulpas and that I might be deluding myself about my importance and even developing some narcissistic or overly-escapist traits both in regards to my operating in the real world, and how I interact with said tulpas.

 

I suppose in essence if someone wants to call themselves a gateway system, I would say they need to strongly examine their mental paradigm and contemplate whether it is healthy or unhealthy for them - not whether or not the experience is real, because it probably is. A delusion of any kind (including tulpas, in some models, I'd point out) is not a dysfunction unless it causes distress or an inability to operate properly so if their model is capable of avoiding that pitfall, I'd say they should be allowed to indulge in it. At the same time though, as a sceptic, I find I cannot prevent myself from strongly judging the whole concept in a similar way to how I view pretty much any religious beliefs that fly so directly in the face of basic science and acceptance of reality: they are a few bad ideas away from becoming a dangerous delusion rather than a benign one.

Zen - Host 

Mika - Tulpa

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 minutes ago, ZenAndMika said:

To be blunt, I think that after a certain point it's clear that it's an expression of plurality rather than roleplaying.

 

There's a weird/annoying duality in that practicing tulpamancy, even if you're just puppeting imaginary friends, naturally leads to actually creating tulpas - but also, if you're not practicing tulpamancy correctly (focusing on the autonomy of your thoughtforms), it can easily remain roleplay/etc. forever.

 

Plural systems just want some weight to the experience, and (usually young) people who do certain things... "loosely", insult that sensibility. I wouldn't even say all the people Jamie was talking about were for sure not tulpa(or similar) systems, just that they're out of the comfort zone of how we define tulpamancy, and how most plural communities define plurality. Even then, we're talking worst-case full on RPers, though. I'm sure most systems - as "Man, my tulpas sure are really real" as they may be - are experiencing more plurality and less plain RP than they appear.

 

 

Though letting any character that catches your interest become a "tulpa" is still a terrible practice that will almost always lead to problems, unless the host is just super good at never considering the thoughts or feelings of those characters they've grown bored of again. Some of them are like that. That's clearly looked down upon in all plurality communities I know of, though.

Edited by Luminesce

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BearBaeBeau changed the title to Gateway Systems and Soulbonds

The issue being that there aren't comparable communities for gateway systems or soulbonds specifically. 

 

I suppose the general stance of this community, though it's not shared by all, is that they would prefer a more grounded approach. Whether it's roleplaying or not is a double edged sword. The same ground doctrinal tulpamancers worship, in reality, is just as shakey. We know that all we can say is our own testimonies of our experiences. So filtering others' experiences based on real or not real "enough" is a solid road to invalidating the whole practice.

 

Prove you have a tulpa and it's not just an imaginary head-friend or mind doll.

 

Now compare whatever method you use to gateway systems and soulbonders, I would bet that it's comparable. If it's comparable then you can't say one is right and another is unbounded.

 

I understand the concern between the depths of fantasy and mental health long term, I also understand the pushback to these non-canonical plural alternatives because of that, but honestly I think it's also based on the insecurity of those in this community that speak out against it the most.

 

No community is required to be kind or welcoming, and those who don't follow the vanilla tulpamancy rules feel that. It has always felt hypocritical to me anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reiterate I actually envy people their ability to use "magical thinking" to help reinforce their tulpas and increase the vividity of their experiences, I'm mostly opposing the specific model because I think it's essentially rewarding negative personality traits, such as narcissism. That said, I'll play the devil's advocate against you here, because I am a boi who likes to play the sceptic. Please do not take such as a personal attack, as it is not intended that way. I think your instinct to welcoming, empathetic and open towards such beliefs is ultimately admirable.

 

On 1/26/2021 at 2:35 PM, BearBeaBeau said:

Now compare whatever method you use to gateway systems and soulbonders, I would bet that it's comparable. If it's comparable then you can't say one is right and another is unbounded.

 

This is something of a logical fallacy you indulge here. This is the same concept that leads to media sources portraying the opinions of the completely ignorant side-by-side with actual scientists as if they're somehow comparable. You're essentially saying that because there are gaps in the scientific side of our understanding that the opposite opinion is equally valid. It's not. Just as a random individual on the street doesn't get to say what is and isn't true about medical science vs. a qualified doctor- it's equally ridiculous to believe wholeheartedly in actual magic instead of accepting centuries of scientific theory. Simply put, magic doesn't exist, and it has repeatedly been shown to be smoke and mirrors and people convincing themselves and others of their abilities through mental tricks. No psychic, mage, theurgist or anything else, when put under well-tested conditions has ever been shown to actually possess the supernatural abilities they attest. Taking that back to gateways, you cannot just claim you have a magical connection that's completely unobservable to other dimensions just because you feel it. That's not how physics works and we know this. Where is the part of your brain that controls this ability to breach dimensions; where is the observable radiation from the communication; or energy and gravitational effects from the rupture in spacetime that would be required it involves actual transportation; why are you not able to replicate scientific knowledge outside your own from this other dimension even if someone knowledgeable steps into your head? The answer is because it's blatantly false, and anything else is a baseless rationalization of a delusion. Keep in mind the burden of proof is on you, hypothetical gateway I am addressing, to prove you are what you say you are in light of the evidence to the contrary, that you are just a person with thoughtforms of one type or another, rather than an actual spacetime bending wizard.

 

To reductively give the facts we actually know these things are as of yet objectively true:-

  • The brain can at least provide the illusion of another sentient mind operating within it.
  • Neurology doesn't preclude, at this time, that more than one sentient ego can exist within a single brain. 
  • Neurology implies, at this time, that your ego is itself an illusion; to try and keep the reasons brief, because the brain is a sum-of-its-parts device and has no specific ego-process.
  • Belief and desire alone are enough to reshape how you think radically, and even cause vivid hallucinations. Natural susceptibility to this phenomena is varied in intensity, but nearly universal, and even replicable in a lab. It's also notable that belief in science is also sufficient to trigger this; even when it's spurious or you don't have the full picture.

I would posit that no one, from a purely logical perspective, actually needs to accept anything more than the above to make a tulpa. In fact from my personal experience, belief in tulpas as a "real-thing" aren't necessary at all, just belief that the experience of other minds exist as a convincing phenomena in the brain - which again, is observably true. I certainly only believe in the possibility of full sapience, I do not accept the concept as some sort of gospel truth. The only thing I would add is that I suspect magical beliefs is likely to provide some with a stronger foundation of confidence and are likely to speed up the process; at the cost of making anal-retentive science-fetishizing individuals like me in particular think you're a fool.

 

So by all means, go for it, I know for a fact my kind are the minority, and I certainly don't care much about what others think of me either. Live as well as possible, that's all any of us can really do. I also think that some people, though it pains me to say it, actually don't seem to be able to operate without religious beliefs, and it would be arbitrary and cruel of me to say they shouldn't have them just because I think they're stupid. Even if they are. Observably. I ultimately value truth over emotional experience and that's my choice and not universal. What I oppose whole-heartedly is belief models which are harmful to others. And ultimately I think gateway-models are perilously close to enabling that kind of behaviour. It's important that I say close, there. Not inherently-dangerous like a belief system that actively tells you to abuse people because they're evil, for instance. A properly self-aware and empathetic gateway-model user can absolutely avoid the pitfalls I'm mentioning just as a religious scholar is perfectly capable of being disregarding pieces of scripture that demand they kill non-believers. But this being said the more people who use the model, the more likely the existence of a zealot becomes, so I cannot welcome the practice as a wide-spread suggestion - I would prefer you used a different metaphysics model if those are your jam, ones that don't have potential implications of you developing narcissistic traits.

 

You also ask me to prove I have a tulpa, rather than another construct of the mind, to which I ask: Why? I don't actually care if their thoughts are illusory or actually "real". It's irrelevant to me if they are, I'm here for the experience of it and of the relationship with them. If tomorrow a credible scientific study concluded in a hard and irrefutable way that tulpas don't exist as true separate consciousnesses, that ego is not an illusion and that the brain can only truly support one, I would be more worried about my tulpa developing some sort of existential dread than the illusion falling apart. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest at this point because the experience itself is real and valuable, and that's all that actually matters to me. I personally would actually be tentatively excited to find out the scientific basis for such claims to be honest because that would have some wide reaching implications for technology.

Zen - Host 

Mika - Tulpa

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I appreciate the warning, and I promise I won't take it personally.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

This is something of a logical fallacy you indulge here.

 

Why would you say that?

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

You're essentially saying that because there are gaps in the scientific side of our understanding that the opposite opinion is equally valid.

 

The opposite opinion in my statements would be, "soulbonds and tulpas are samey", and especially, "gateway systems are substantially equivalent to doctrinal tulpamantic systems". I know that strikes a nerve in this community because reasons.

 

If that's not the correct comparison, can you tell me what it was?

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

This is the same concept that leads to media sources portraying the opinions of the completely ignorant side-by-side with actual scientists as if they're somehow comparable.

 

So, tulpas and say soulbonds side by side, one is serious science and one is utter ignorance? Am I getting this right?

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

it's equally ridiculous to believe wholeheartedly in actual magic instead of accepting centuries of scientific theory.

 

It would be rediculous in certain contexts, but in itself it's harmless in my opinion. It would entirely depend on how much you are relying on ungrounded thinking. Understand that tulpamancy requires some as well to get started. Once you have experiential and cognitive models to back up the phenomenon in your mind you are more grounded, however, they are just models and shouldn't become dogmatic in your mind. (Not yours specifically, in general.) A community such as this has every right to set boundaries around what is safe and what works, but this community in particular is constantly asking for more and better experiences. These two vectors travel in opposite directions, hence the tension. You may correctly presume which vector I'm riding.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

people convincing themselves and others of their abilities through mental tricks.

 

I don't want to say that this is something that could easily be said of everything we do here, because that's very unpopular and potentially mean; I myself don't believe that, but I never lose my materialist skeptical eye even when I experience completely unfathomable phenomena. 

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

No psychic, mage, theurgist or anything else, when put under well-tested conditions has ever been shown to actually possess the supernatural abilities they attest.

 

It is true in my experience, and the vast number of charlatans and fakes out to make a buck off the foolish and ignorant, that are too numerous to mention, certainly don't help their case.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Taking that back to gateways, you cannot just claim you have a magical connection that's completely unobservable to other dimensions just because you feel it.

 

You can, it doesn't mean anyone will believe you. In my mind this is just a model too. You might call me an overly kind enabler in some cases, but you don't know the metal gears of logic that run just under the surface. I would welcome a fresh perspective to probe it and help find alternative explanations, and my own claims have been treated that way by others at times, sometimes less gently than others, and I didn't always appreciate either, but now I do; more than ever at least.

 

The only unbreakable thread in my logic is: if it happened to me, I must accept and explore it. I present it here as a coutesy and to find the logical fallacies or flaws in reasoning. Not that I will understand them even if they're pointed out, that's an unfortunate issue I really want to fix; however, it might also be that alternative explanations are just as unreasonable. Such as confabulation to solve everything unknown. It's just as rediculous as believing in magic in my mind, magic is a logical cop out, so is using the term confabulation to dismiss every experience that doesn't fit the doctrine. (Not that you used that, yet, but it's a regular rebuttal in this community.)

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

That's not how physics works and we know this.

 

Human psyche and subconscious mechanics are substantially unknown and unmodeled in physics. We can arbitrarily bound the problem to materialistic notions such as electrochemical processes and interactions, but that doesn't explain anything. To say that there is an alternate universe should be taken with a grain of salt and interpreted in your own way. Understand the source believes this and imagine the experiences they must have had to come to this conclusion. They may be ignorant to assume they are connected to an alternate universe, but you may be ignorant to dismiss the testimony without considering their perspective and how you would perceive their experiences.

 

Sure, it could be delusions, and it might be dangerous, but this strengthens the decision to use a gentle approach and tact, rather than general gatekeeping, dismissive statements and outright ridicule.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Where is the part of your brain that controls this ability to breach dimensions

 

Where is the part of your brain that interprets this one? Same part.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

or energy and gravitational effects from the rupture in spacetime that would be required it involves actual transportation

 

We can speculate as to the mechanics and throw in all kinds of known inconsistencies or strawman physics to entrap the presenter, but this isn't going to get us to a better understanding, it will only cause division.

 

For example, if our universe contains a fourth dimension of any kind, many models predict so, all kinds of inconsistencies would result. As it turns out, all kinds of inconsistencies exist in physics, at any level, not the least of which at subconscious interaction with consciousness.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

why are you not able to replicate scientific knowledge outside your own from this other dimension even if someone knowledgeable steps into your head?

 

I'm not capable of answering this, I can't even properly explain experiences I've had, but are you expecting there to be a linear relationship between the totality of someone else's experience and interpretation of phenomena and yours? If you are both astrophysicists in the same field, then in some contexts, yes. This is a minute share of exceptions.

 

A good example of this is dreams. We simply don't understand them and we can't deny that they occur because 99.9% of us have them, so we (scientists) are forced to model them but the models are almost completely speculative. A dream is purely an experienced phenomena, we can't prove to anyone we had it, rem sleep is our only correlation.  If only 10% of the population had dreams, they would be dismissed outright by science, I can guarantee that.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

The answer is because it's blatantly false

 

So says some dreamless community of the few who dream. It's a valid parallel here. Whether it holds any ground in reality is in dispute; however, it's irrelevant. The point is whether to accept alternate forms of plurality or not. That should be the basis of what we're arguing here. For the vocal majority of this community the answer is clear. Same as the DID community in terms of their denial of endogenic systems.

 

You have every right to say it's false, but it applies to you equally by those who have no solid understanding or desire to understand the depths of your experience and why you choose to model it one way or another.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

and anything else is a baseless rationalization of a delusion.

 

I can't get anyone in this community to squre off on this if you put something like switching or tulpas in the line of questioning. I do understand that in this context it's irrelevant and I won't go there now, but in my mind it would strengthen our understanding of the phenomena. I say the same is true of alternative plurality.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Keep in mind the burden of proof is on you, hypothetical gateway I am addressing

 

True, but the burden is on us, doctrinal tulpamancers, to listen without bias, dismissal or ridicule. For example, calling gateway systems "Chuunibyou" isn't constructive.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

rather than an actual spacetime bending wizard.

 

Even I think it's fair to separate extremists from the community. Where we draw the line should be on an individual basis. If that's all we're talking about then we're done. The original sentiment of this thread is about soulbonds and gateway systems in general. Not all who identify as gateway systems are also self identified as "spacetime bending wizards."

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:
  • The brain can at least provide the illusion of another sentient mind operating within it.
  • Neurology doesn't preclude, at this time, that more than one sentient ego can exist within a single brain. 
  • Neurology implies, at this time, that your ego is itself an illusion; to try and keep the reasons brief, because the brain is a sum-of-its-parts device and has no specific ego-process.
  • Belief and desire alone are enough to reshape how you think radically, and even cause vivid hallucinations. Natural susceptibility to this phenomena is varied in intensity, but nearly universal, and even replicable in a lab. It's also notable that belief in science is also sufficient to trigger this; even when it's spurious or you don't have the full picture.

 

This is a generally valid model but it must be admitted that it's fairly constraining and it may lead to truncation of experiences. That's been my point from day one. We can't know if this is a complete model, we can only say it's a subset of rules. Whether there are exceptions or not we also can't say. We can however say that there are outliers, whether they're credible or not is another issue.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

which again, is observably true

 

For a portion of individuals. Making a tulpa is neither guaranteed nor even possible in all cases.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

I would add is that I suspect magical beliefs is likely to provide some with a stronger foundation of confidence and are likely to speed up the process; at the cost of making anal-retentive science-fetishizing individuals like me in particular think you're a fool.

 

In early tulpamancy, some who had early vocality were shunned and ridiculed. There are shadows of this still today. The stages of tulpamancy were expected to take a specified timeframe and number of hours or else it was deemed roleplaying and parroting.

 

What if, hypothetically, there were other hidden levels. Levels that would satisfy even the harshest critics if they experienced them? I have experienced such levels fleetingly. Any chance I had to be critical were destroyed in those fleeting moments. Any tie I had to religion were also dashed ironically because they would have been categorized as religious experiences of it wasn't my headmates involved in them. My headmates aren't goddesses, but some of my experiences with them could be described as divine.

 

So how do I rationalize a divine experience scientifically? After much thought, simply here: if I am a material being, and I experienced it, it must have been a material phenomenon.

 

So I would apply the same logic to gateway systems and encapsulate not only the known material universe but also any experience and interpretation of it. Their interpretation is that they're a timeshaping wizard. As silly as that may sound to some, it must have been a convincing set of experiences to lead them there, or alternatively, a fanciful interpretation. It's our job as scientists to observe the bonobos and, in turn, learn something about ourselves; not to necessarily force them to wear little schoolboy outfits and choose geometric shapes to get rewards. If we can stomach them throwing their feces around, that is.

 

I think this is the root of this animosity. The roleplaying Chuunibyous are tainting our server with their "owo"s and magic nonsense. But instead of singling out specific individuals, we attach our intolerance to the group as a whole. That's the basis of prejudice and bigotry. I just want to step away from group prejudice and negative group ideology. Individuals do not speak for or define the group. In any group there are extremes. Some groups are extreme, sure, but are soulbonders or gateway systems extreme in general? Not in my experience.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

I know for a fact my kind are the minority

 

What is your kind? The majority here are athiest, doctrinal, materialist, tulpamancers.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

But this being said the more people who use the model, the more likely the existence of a zealot becomes, so I cannot welcome the practice as a wide-spread suggestion

 

This can be said of any community though.

 

4 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

I don't actually care if their thoughts are illusory or actually

 

I actually agree with you there, but I've found it's not the sentiment of this community.

 

[Omg this editor is going to kill me.]

 

Very good discussion. It's an interesting devils advocate you had there. Civil, reasonable, logical, and understandable. Thank you.

 

 

 

Edited by BearBeaBeau
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By neo
      Earlier this week was having a lot of head pressure due to extended periods of visualizing, so as the pressures became annoying and persistent enough, I thought I should address it.
      I've noticed before that my head pressures are related to the way I was flexing my tongue muscles really hard and pressing it against my palate inadvertently.
      I have tried many times visualizing without doing this and, it works momentarily but whenever I stop paying attention to my tongue, there it goes again pressing my palate really hard once I start to concentrate into the visualization. I only notice that I'm doing that after I already start to feel the head pressures. By that time it's too late and it's already bothering me.
       
      So after two days of attempting to visualize with my tongue relaxed without success I thought that I should probably google that.
      So there I go googling the terms "tongue" and "meditation" and I came across this:

      https://www.easyayurveda.com/2020/01/31/khechari-mudra/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khecarī_mudrā
       
      Very weird, right? That's what I thought too.
      Basically, they stick the tongue up into the nasal cavity above the palate and use that to aid the process of meditation.
      So of course I went down this rabbit hole and found out that some people seem know how to do this naturally.
      This girl is an example of someone that has this ability naturally:
      https://youtu.be/ijpBUfOTBT0
       
      Also other people report having head pressures identical to what we see in tulpamancy in this practice, here's an example of someone describing their head pressures in the context of Kriya meditation:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/kriyayoga/comments/mgpk73/tension_in_the_head_during_dhyana/
       
      Described as "tension in the head that is somewhere between no pain and the pain you experience during a headache."
      This seems to me like it's the same kind of head pressure we experience in tulpamancy. At least to me.
       
      Also I forgot to mention that, they say THIS GIVES YOU IMMORTALITY.
      Which, of course, is bullshit otherwise there would be 1000 year old yogis walking around.
      Then I thought it would be a good idea to ask around here because, well to be honest, the people that practice this don't know how to explain it without anecdotes and dogmatic stories. Which is fine for spiritual people but I want to find what part is real and what part isn't. Or a deconstruction to find the line where the anecdotes end and the actual benefits of this practice begin. Or if there are any benefits at all.
       
      Here is a small list of claims about this technique: (which I have absolute no idea if it's true or not)
       
      -Helps you overcome hunger and makes it so that you go extended periods of time without food.
      -Gives you access to DMT that is stored in your pineal gland. By licking it directly. (yeah gross, the girl in the video seemed to get very high from doing it, she even says she's high afterwards)
      -The practitioner doesn't suffer from decay, disease and death. (this part I think it's flat out not true)
      -Gives you immunity to snake poison. (This one I think it's sorta possible, because some snake poison triggers your immune response and the response of the body is what kills the person not the poison itself, so technically by controlling your immune response you would therefore not die from the poison)
       
      So my questions are:
       
      1-Does anybody else experience their tongue forcing up the palate unintentionally while visualizing or concentrating really hard?
      2-If so, do you think this is related to Khechari mudra? Or is it just tension and I'm looking way too much into it?
      3-Are those just stories and not meant to be interpreted literally? (If so people are doing a bad job at explaining that)
      4-Is there something to this at all? Is it a practice worth looking into?
       
      Just thought it would be cool to ask here, since if I asked on their forum they would either not tell me because it's a closed practice, or even if they did tell me I wouldn't understand because the vocabulary they use is very far removed from anything I can contextualize.
       
      So what do you guys think? Is it all nonsense or not?
    • By neo
      I don't really believe in metaphysics stuff but today I did experience something that I think a lot of people would describe as being "astral projection". The reason this isn't in the metaphysics category is because it's not really metaphysics to me after all, or at the very least it doesn't require any sort of meta assumptions in order to experience this phenomena. So let me describe here the process and if there's someone that has done this before please tell me if this is the same thing as what they call "astral projection". Or even if you're skeptic like me you can still experience this phenomena and it may help if you're struggling with wonderland immersion like I was.
      I started by sitting down and closing my eyes, then started to rub my hands together in front of my face and trying to keep my awareness focused on the shape of my hands and arms in front of me. Slowly keeping track of their position and "sculpting" my own arms to get a real good memory of their shape and how it feels to move them without opening my eyes.
      Then afterwards I rested my right hand by the side of my body and started to use just the memory of a minute ago to move an imaginary right arm and interact with the real left arm. So it became left arm real, right arm imaginary.
      Then I proceeded to sculpt the imaginary right arm with the real one, and then the real one using the imaginary right arm. Going vice versa back and forth.
      Then I rested my left arm also by my side and started using both imaginary arms to sculpt each other.
      After a couple minutes of that I just put both imaginary hands on the back of my head as if I was going to do a sit up and I just yanked my perspective back by pushing my real head forward with my imaginary arms and immediately started sculpting the back of my head from that new perspective as if my real head was outside of me, then the rest of my real body. I felt completely removed from my body by keeping awareness of it from an outsider perspective, the longer I sculpted my body the more removed I felt from it, and the more intense and overwhelming the sensation of being outside became, it's even a little scary. it's very different from daydreaming and even imposition. Never experienced anything similar and I am now able to recreate this experience this way whenever I want. It doesn't last a lot at first because it's quite overwhelming but that only makes it seem more consistent with other peoples "astral projection" reports that I've seen so far. If this is the same as astral projection then I'm curious as to what to do next. I'm also pretty sure this can be used to force by having your tulpa sculpt you while looking through their perspective as well.
      Anyway feel free to share any info you may have on the subject or your own experience with this stuff. I'm quite interested to see what else is there to explore even though I don't really believe in the meta stuff I'm still interested in experiencing these kind of phenomena.
       
    • By libra_ry_
      Hi! Sorry for the title, I didn't know exactly how to phrase it. Also, this sounds like a lot of the posts here, but it is actually different.
      Anyway, I recently started creating my tulpa, but I want to feel her presence more often. Whenever I can remember, I try to narrate to her, but sometimes I forget to actually think about her and am just talking to myself. I also can't remember to constantly think about her, because I get distracted pretty easily and sometimes have to concentrate on something a lot. I know you don't have to constantly talk to tulpas, but I know it can be beneficial and I like talking to her.
      (I also do active forcing sometimes, but not as often as passive)
      Thank you for answering!
    • By CloudAurora
      So I do a lot of mindfulness, as in, daily mindfulness meditation for almost two years, with other mindfulness stuff featured (walking, eating, body scans etc), to the point of having experiences bordering the psychedelic in intensity ("being so present you kinda stop existing and feel everything at once", for lack of a better description), and I notice as I further engage with this practice, my dissociation radically declines. I used to have heavy depersonalisation-derealisation disorder and was very "unintegrated" as a person, like I lived in a very foggy state of mind and my sense of self was fragmented and discontinuous and I maladaptively daydreamed, whereas now things feel more real than they ever have, and I can make sense of myself as a person, although there's still work to be done. I do have a tulpa per se, had her for a few years, but since a major breakdown two years ago, she's been in er, "low-energy mode", and has regressed substantially, and until now I've not had the time or space to really resume practice more than a "5 minute maintenance".
       
      Hence my question: is mindfulness practice anathema to tulpamancy, and/or vice versa? Given it drastically reduces dissociation, and tulpamancy may augment it. On the other hand, did not the concept of Tulpas arise from Buddhist practices, of which mindful breath-focus meditations are a staple (Vipassana, Jhana etc)?
       
      Has anyone out there got experiences with both of these things? Are they reconcilable? Like, am I just cancelling out the tulpa with mindfulness, or invoking DP/DR with tulpamancy?
    • By R8-Adelia_Wildhome
      I apologize if this isn't the correct place for this, but if you are going to move it, please notify me so I know where to go, thanks! 
       
      So I think we might be a gateway system, or soulbounds, or possibly a combination.
      My understanding of a gateway system: A system that A) has connections to other realms, and the head-mates are able to enter and exit those realms as they please, and B) A system that is mainly comprised of non-permanent walk-in head-mates. 
      Soulbounds I don't totally understand, but something I saw (on a Wikki,) seemed to depict them as more permanent. 
       
      why we might be a gateway system: 
      We have had a looooottt of head-mates through the ages. Around 10+ different ones, and some who "changed" completely. Now where did they go? I... don't know. Some of them, we decided they were going to explore the real world because my mind wasn't suited for them, sometimes this was "the real world" other times they would go other places, I'm not certain where, but they weren't in my mind any more. Ethel has lots of memories from another dimension. She keeps remembering more, and some are becoming clearer. We realllllyyy easily get walk-ins who I basically invalidate so much they disappear.* These can simply be characters who I attach to and begin to have conversations with, or just a pretty Pinterest drawing character. Sometimes they are simply made-up characters in my mind, but other times they seem to actually have a mind of their own. And for the second, no matter how hard I try, we can't (typically) keep a head-mate for over a few months, some are exceptions. I have only truly done the technical tulpa creation process for... two. Two tulpas. One who was a merge, and my first tulpa. 
       
      We are a completely endogenic system, but I think that they can still be gateway systems. 
       
      I have some questions/concerns about being a gateway system. The following could be interpreted as invalidating gateway systems,  I am not trying to do that, I just do that sometimes to myself.
       
      Questions
      -What are other gateway systems experiences? 
      -Are there any things that could also be considered gateway system "things"? 
      -Does it sound like I am a part of a gateway system? 
      -Is it normal that even though I could be a gateway system, we also struggle with possession and switching? 
      -I can't do anything that the others can do (portal-going wise), because I am the host. Is that correct?
       
      Concerns: 
      I feel like I might just be faking this... like I know I'm not faking any of my experiences, and I feel so connected to this concept, but there's the little voice in the middle of my mind that shouts "your just faking this!! You can't be a part of a gateway system!!!" 
      I do connect to the term, but it also makes me a little nervous, I feel really attached to my current head-mates, and I don't want them to leave. 
      *I don't know how to stop this behavior. I have no idea how many head-mates I would have if I let them be, but they do leave naturally, especially when there is more than three of us. And being a bigger system feels so natural and comforting. (This is connecting to my other * in which I said "We realllllyyy easily get walk-ins who I basically invalidate so much they disappear.") 
      I haven't always noticed this at the time it's happening, but looking back I can see plenty of examples. I used to just blame this on having a big imagination, and so I would "imagine" they went on a trip to spain, or had lots of memories that even I couldn't come up with. Of course, there's a 40-50% chance that this is just me having a big imagination. 
      do I even understand what a gateway system is? Is it even fair for me to possibly consider myself part of one? 
       
      Closing/tl;dr: 
      I might be a part of a gateway system, a term I really connect to, but I do have skeptical feelings about myself being one. I'm not even sure I understand what they are. From my understanding, I match it, but from another's understanding, I might not be it at all. I think that since I connect to this in a way I don't normally connect to something, it could be a sign. (Why I think I am a gateway system: We are super prone to walk-ins, and have had a LOT of head-mates who were pretty short-term. They also went just... away. Like into a different realm, as I "imagined") 
      I would really appreciate some feedback and guidance about this. I can give more information on any of these things, just ask. 
       
      Thanks to anyone who responds : ) 
       
      (After more reading on soulbounds, I do not believe we are soulbounds, but someone else might believe otherwise. 
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...