Goldsmith

Theory: One, Yet Many. A World of Thought.

Recommended Posts

First, let us preface this with some required reading.

 

http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/33112132377/you-said-whatever-a-tulpa-is-it-is-not-a-new

 

http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/32809660849/when-you-are-your-tulpa

 

http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/31397429287/you-are-many

 

I have been reading into Bluesleeve's beliefs and ideas on Tulpa, and I have to say, I agree with him on many fronts, but with several key differences. Bluesleeve states that a Tulpa is a preexisting aspect of your personality given form, and 'pulled out'. Allowing you to experience this aspect of yourself in a more direct and personal way.

 

However, he also believes that this means that a Tulpa is not a completely separate, and I can agree with that, but he also goes on to state that a Tulpa is likely not an autonomous consciousness of its own. Here is where I begin to disagree. For one, with logic.

 

1. Bluesleeve's theory states that we are actually composed of numerous personality traits that disagree with each other. The ego acts as a silent judge to this, and chooses which of the suggestions it likes the most.

 

2. Quote Drop: "A Tulpa is never parroted. As you know you are also “controlled” by the parts of your personality, since they give you suggestions all day long. Since you control your Tulpa, your parts will unconsciously influence it and express itself in the movements.

After a while this process will be automated, and the Tulpa process takes place beyond your control. You don’t think about it anymore but it still happens."

 

3. This means a Tulpa is the exact same as you. You are controlled by these aspects, and so is your Tulpa. To state with his theory that the Tulpa is not an autonomous consciousness is to also state the host is as well, unless Bluesleeve makes some sort of revision to his statements.

 

So where am I going with this?

I am saying for the most part, he is right, except for the bit I pointed out above. We are the same sort of mental construct as our Tulpa, or at the very least, a very similar construct. However, what sort of mental construct are we?

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present The World of Thought Theory.

 

We are not merely a construct of personality aspects, but rather the result of entire 'imaginary' worlds, concepts, thought forms and 'people'. Carl Jung explored this idea and referred to it as Archetypes. I am going to go a bit further, and say that these archetypes are not limited just to the type of characters we may meet in our head, but also the locations, environments, and concepts we may come across. Furthermore, I propose that these archetypes are unique and vary from person to person. While in some cases their may be some similarity, what exists in one persons mental universe will be very different from another persons mental universe, which of course, constructs a different mental state/mental core for that persons personality. This universe effects who we are, and we effect that universe with our experiences.

 

For example, Sock at one point had an issue with a black bird terrorizing his wonderland. It turned out that this bird was a representation/creation of his negative emotions. I theorize that it is totally possible for, say, someone to have a warrior character representing their will/resolve/problem-solving/forcefulness, in their wonderland/mind somewhere, and when that person is faced with a problem in real life, it could materialize in wonderland/the mind as a monster or some other entity, which the warrior character fights. It is this part of you that is fighting the concept of the problem. This usually occurs unconsciously, however, through wonderlands and Tulpa, we seem to finally be able to perceive such phenomena. It is also possible that none of this is actually happening, and such experiences are merely abstract representations of more complex processes shown to us in a way that we can understand. Either way, this is the way we see and perceive it.

 

What is our Tulpa then? It is a thought form created with the goal of being close to or similar to us, and we seem to succeed at it- Our Tulpa is another being like us, that is also influenced by this mental universe.

 

So in other words, Bluesleeve is right, we are one, yet many. However, I believe that instead of our Tulpa being one of those many 'pulled out', I believe that it is another being similar to us, also influenced by those many. I also have reason to believe, via my wonderland experiences and those of others, that the 'many' mentioned by Bluesleeve is much more expansive and dynamic than his initial description implies.

 

That said, this is all theory, and there is no way to prove anything either way at this point. However, I would love to hear comments, support, testimonials, rebuttals, constructive criticism, evidence, discussion, and what have you in reply. Just keep it on topic, ok guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add other than "i don't approve of the Umineko quote, but otherwise completely agree with you". I also don't believe tulpae to be more stereotyped than we are, or that we possess any kind of complexity other than what we can find in our mental world for that matter. And oh boy, the things we can find. Enough material to keep bringing consciousnesses to life without any limitations other than how many you can tolerate to have, or at least that's my theory (i don't know about trying to prove it, though). At least i personally don't see much difference between what we're doing here and actual DID, other than the fact that we're not being a dick to each other inside our own head. It's not like possession without consent by the host is something you have to reach in years, for example, since it happened to me yesterday (and i personally didn't mind). Here, it happened again, shit's cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those imaginary worlds, concepts, thought forms and people are rather a representation of what is happening in one's mind or consciousness with the exception of sentient beings that are independent from us and thus can move freely in those imaginary worlds. I believe tulpae are such sentient beings and I also believe they are separate from us except for being in the same body, so for me we aren't 'one but many', but just many (if you don't count the physical body, which is only one).

 

I certainly agree that we aren't just merely personalities, but we are also formed by our memories, ideas (if this is what you meant with concepts, then remove it from my first sentence in this post) and our form (like the one tulpae have). Why do I say form? Because Tess has a form very different from her body (her form is a Vulpix) and she feels what an animal would feel from time to time and another member reported that they can feel their mindscape form while they get back to body from a meditation during which he was in mindscape in a nonhumanoid form.

 

Btw Sock has been ranting like he was talking to something although not specifically aimed at anyone (I just asked him, so I know for sure), which is very similar to what I and some others consider the necessary minimum to create a tulpa, that is talking like if you were talking to someone even if they aren't there (yet). This created Black and as I implied she is a tulpa. So you might want to use someone else as an example instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what difference does any of this make, were it true? Does it matter?

 

Seriously please explain.


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those imaginary worlds, concepts, thought forms and people are rather a representation of what is happening in one's mind or consciousness with the exception of sentient beings that are independent from us and thus can move freely in those imaginary worlds. I believe tulpae are such sentient beings and I also believe they are separate from us except for being in the same body, so for me we aren't 'one but many', but just many (if you don't count the physical body, which is only one).

 

I certainly agree that we aren't just merely personalities, but we are also formed by our memories, ideas (if this is what you meant with concepts, then remove it from my first sentence in this post) and our form (like the one tulpae have). Why do I say form? Because Tess has a form very different from her body (her form is a Vulpix) and she feels what an animal would feel from time to time and another member reported that they can feel their mindscape form while they get back to body from a meditation during which he was in mindscape in a nonhumanoid form.

 

Btw Sock has been ranting like he was talking to something although not specifically aimed at anyone (I just asked him, so I know for sure), which is very similar to what I and some others consider the necessary minimum to create a tulpa, that is talking like if you were talking to someone even if they aren't there (yet). This created Black and as I implied she is a tulpa. So you might want to use someone else as an example instead.

 

Whether or not they are representations of something else, that is still the way we perceive and experience such things, they are still created to be perceived and experienced in a real way. In other-words, regardless of the the why, the what and the how remain the same.

 

By concepts, I mean things we encounter in wonderland that seem to reflect abstract workings of the mind. My River Styx for example seems to be some sort of representation of some abstract way my mind deals with thought forms and ideas and imaginations.

 

I believe that it is possible that all of these are sentient in someway- and most have the capability to become conscious. Self Awareness of their situation and the ability to have their own thoughts and ideas separate from you is the key here. Regardless, I think it would be a tough case to make to try to claim that none of these things are 'alive' on some level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what difference does any of this make, were it true? Does it matter?

 

Seriously please explain.

 

For Science!


I have 10 tulpas, but I'm only actively working on Reah, my first tulpa currently.

Progress Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the stuff here, but question Bluesleeve's claim that a tulpa must have existed in you all along. Yeah, this is probably true of most tulpae, especially ones who appear quickly. But I do think one could create something entirely new and pull that out into a tulpa. It takes effort, but you can change your personality, sometimes pretty dramatically.

 

My point is that saying that creating a tulpa is always just pulling out something that was there all along, implies that what's there is a fixed thing. It isn't. I could see making something new, and rather than attaching it to my own personality, dissociating it into a tulpa's.


 

And what difference does any of this make, were it true? Does it matter?

 

As pointed out by Raetin, see the site banner and which board you're in. In addition to "how to make a tulpa for dummies", this community is about finding out new things about tulpae, including how they work. And that's exactly what this is.

 

Knowing how something works also often results in finding new better ways of doing stuff. This is often not obvious when the theory of how it works is first proposed.


Lyra: human female, ~17

Evan: boy, ~14, was an Eevee

Anera: anime-style girl, ~12; Lyra made her

My blog :: Time expectations are bad (forcing time targets are good though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the stuff here, but question Bluesleeve's claim that a tulpa must have existed in you all along. Yeah, this is probably true of most tulpae, especially ones who appear quickly. But I do think one could create something entirely new and pull that out into a tulpa. It takes effort, but you can change your personality, sometimes pretty dramatically.

 

My point is that saying that creating a tulpa is always just pulling out something that was there all along, implies that what's there is a fixed thing. It isn't. I could see making something new, and rather than attaching it to my own personality, dissociating it into a tulpa's.

 

 

Well, the core of what I am saying is that a Tulpa is the same type of being you are. If bluesleeve wants to say that a Tulpa is something that was already there and is 'pulled' out, then so are we.

 

I am also saying, if that is true, then what exactly are we pulling from, how do we experience that aspect of ourselves, ect. Which leads to the theory of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out by Raetin, see the site banner and which board you're in. In addition to "how to make a tulpa for dummies", this community is about finding out new things about tulpae, including how they work. And that's exactly what this is.

 

Knowing how something works also often results in finding new better ways of doing stuff. This is often not obvious when the theory of how it works is first proposed.

 

Well, good luck proving this somehow via SCIENCE. You can talk about it all you want, debate and give reasons, but it doesn't actually do anything. And if you go around saying this is how shit is, you are possibly giving misinformation and that is Very Bad.

 

Now, I'd be interested to hear about how you would find out if this is true or not, not about how you feel about something. Research, you know?


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, good luck proving this somehow via SCIENCE. You can talk about it all you want, debate and give reasons, but it doesn't actually do anything. And if you go around saying this is how shit is, you are possibly giving misinformation and that is Very Bad.

 

Now, I'd be interested to hear about how you would find out if this is true or not, not about how you feel about something. Research, you know?

 

I don't think you know how science works, nor understand the concept of theories. You could say the same exact thing to anyone who is theorizing on gravity or quantum mechanics, and nothing would change.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.