Goldsmith

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Regardless of that, it changes other things and I think we should discuss it more for that reason.

 

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.

What part of my post were you responding to here?

 

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.

If a tulpa that we create was already there and we "pulled" it out of somewhere, then why doesn't it have memories of that previous state, when they can have memories of the time the creator started working on them or decided to start working on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Except that they try to prove it or talk about how they could prove it and do research. That's what I am interested in hearing here as well, otherwise just theorizing does, in fact, not change anything. I could theorize that I am the only real person and everyone else is just a figment of my imagination as well. Perhaps it is so, perhaps it isn't, but I can't prove it and in the end it doesn't even matter.

 

On tulpa.info, presenting your ideas like this doesn't change anything. Everyone has their own theories and they aren't going to change them based on what you say. If we simplify what I agree with you here, it is that my tupper is not any different from me. It is how it seems, but I can't say anything for sure. But I don't worry about it, because it doesn't matter.

 

It is easy to say that tuppers exist, but it is much harder to say what tuppers are. I could tell you what they are, but it would only be my own opinion, just like your version would only be your own opinion. I would like to see you guys figuring out how you can show people facts so something would actually change, what with this being the research board and all. But you know, good luck with that. It's pretty impossible, but it would be what really helps.

 

Hell, I could also say here for no real reason that I do have a friend who apparently does have plenty of mind people in his head, but he doesn't see them as separate beings at all. To him, they are a part of him and he wouldn't be himself without them, so his theory would suggest the same thing as Bluesleeve's, or something. To him, they have always been there, no forcing required.


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

 

 

If a tulpa that we create was already there and we "pulled" it out of somewhere, then why doesn't it have memories of that previous state, when they can have memories of the time the creator started working on them or decided to start working on them?

 

Why doesn't a baby remember its time in the womb?

 

Also, I think you are misunderstanding me here. Bluesleeve says that Tulpa was already there and we 'pull' them out.

 

My idea is a contrast to that: Yes, there are things that are already there, that effects us just as much as the Tulpa. These things probably have a huge effect both us and the Tulpa, regardless of whether one has a Tulpa or not. You know, the concept of a general unconscious in our mind. Tulpa are not created: They are born.

 

I am trying to propose they share the same metaphorical 'womb' in the mind that our own conscious/identity/personality emerged from.


 

 

 

On tulpa.info, presenting your ideas like this doesn't change anything.

 

 

Wrong. It improves the community and encourages people to post and be more open about their own ideas, and encourages discussion, whether it be criticism or otherwise.

 

Your several multiple paragraph responses to this very thread is evidence of that.

 

Also, asking why and considering or brainstorming possibilities should never be a problem under any circumstance, and is never useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why doesn't a baby remember its time in the womb?

It could be because the brain isn't developed enough yet to carry a consciousness at the time or it takes longer to create the (really) first consciousness like we have observed with our mindfolk.

 

Also, I think you are misunderstanding me here. Bluesleeve says that Tulpa was already there and we 'pull' them out.

 

My idea is a contrast to that: Yes, there are things that are already there, that effects us just as much as the Tulpa. These things probably have a huge effect both us and the Tulpa, regardless of whether one has a Tulpa or not. You know, the concept of a general unconscious in our mind. Tulpa are not created: They are born.

 

I am trying to propose they share the same metaphorical 'womb' in the mind that our own conscious/identity/personality emerged from.

If they are born from metaphorical womb, then aren't you taking them (or pulling out) from it, thus making this part same as Bluesleeve's theory? If not, then could you explain the differences better?

 

Also why are we not going to discuss my theory more? I don't see why we should just ignore it, unless you don't want this thread to be only about your and Bluesleeve's (similar) theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can discuss your theory if you want. It is sound and I have no problems with it.

 

I was only thinking about defending my theory, sorry about that.

 

Anyway, Bluesleeve believes everything about the Tulpa is already there.

 

 

In contrast, I feel that the 'origins' of the Tulpa and us, come from the same part of the mind: That is, there are these things that are biologically/mentally hardcoded and/or learned/developed that shapes who we are, and our Tulpa too.

 

For example, siblings have certain strains of Identical DNA sequences, because they inherited these from the same source, more over, both come from the same origin- the mother.

 

What Bluesleeve is saying is that - they came from the mother, so they ARE the mother. Or alternatively, he is saying that the Mother and the sibling are both parts of you, as opposed to truly being their own entities.

 

I am saying that the Mother is the mother, the sibling is the sibling, and you are you. Yes there are similarities, yes there is inheritance. Yes, all of these things effect each other and are tied to each other in very strong ways, especially earlier on while one is growing and developing and is dependent on the 'elder' individuals in the scenario. For example, the Mother would be the hardcoding in the brain that effects us on a subconscious and unconscious level, We would be the elder sibling, and the Tulpa is the newer born younger sibling, who we are teaching and raising and caring for, because Mom is kind of busy and old now.

 

This isn't a perfect analogy, but hopefully it makes enough sense for you to understand the concepts I am rolling out, and how they differ quite significantly from what Bluesleeve is saying, regardless of me agreeing with some of Bluesleeves concepts - as I disagree almost entirely with his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to discuss my theory because it was also meant as a response to your theory.

 

I think the analogy might not be the best, but it makes it easy to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I would like to mention, that everything on Tulpas is getting rearranged in a way, which makes me understand people in a different way.

 

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.

 

The "controlled" in the quote above is put in an apastrophy, because I didn't know any other term to describe it. The Ego can't come up with ideas on it own. Therefore we can only choose the suggestions of parts of our personality.

There is one problem here. I don't know myself how dynamic these "structures" of identity are and what they are made of. I tend to see it as an analogy to a "person", which makes it easier to work with.

 

The Tulpa itself does not seem to have such a diversity of suggestions, because we forced it to have a certain personality. (Expectations)

Even though you could say, that the Tulpa has an ego itself, I do not believe that. I think our ego unconsciously chooses for the Tulpa. It would mean that the Tulpa is more of an automatism than a conscious being. A part of the host, which is seen as something alien. (There will be something on my blog soon) The host has dissociated.

 

I'm looking forward to clarify my ideas in a few blog posts.

 

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.

 

I believe we have to see our mind as something consisting of metaphors and analogies. These sort of things (black bird etc.) can only be seen when we want to, so I highly doubt this is playing out on an unconscious level. We just see it that way when we play with our imagination.

It's very interesting to see what exists in people's minds, and that's why Jung goes into the direction of a collective unconscious. The more I personally think about this topic, people's personalities seem to stem from an origin, which is very similar.

 

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 opinion is that even these attributes have been with us all along, they just didn't really surface before.

 

Also, I think you are misunderstanding me here. Bluesleeve says that Tulpa was already there and we 'pull' them out.

 

My idea is a contrast to that: Yes, there are things that are already there, that effects us just as much as the Tulpa. These things probably have a huge effect both us and the Tulpa, regardless of whether one has a Tulpa or not. You know, the concept of a general unconscious in our mind. Tulpa are not created: They are born.

 

What if I told you that the Tulpa could just be you? I know people are going to hate me for that, but it seems like a Tulpa is just simple dissociation. Nothing new is created, we just perceive certain things differently.

 

In contrast, I feel that the 'origins' of the Tulpa and us, come from the same part of the mind: That is, there are these things that are biologically/mentally hardcoded and/or learned/developed that shapes who we are, and our Tulpa too.

 

For example, siblings have certain strains of Identical DNA sequences, because they inherited these from the same source, more over, both come from the same origin- the mother.

 

What Bluesleeve is saying is that - they came from the mother, so they ARE the mother. Or alternatively, he is saying that the Mother and the sibling are both parts of you, as opposed to truly being their own entities.

 

Our current situation is, that you believe that a Tulpa can become completely autonomous and conscious and i believe that this is not possible.

 

The analogy fits for your theory, but you can't falsify a theory with it. I said it was the Host who "pulls out" certain parts of his personality and manifests them in a Tulpa.

I would describe it like a child, which plays with puppets. He determines the personality of the puppets and plays them accordingly. Even though it is hard to empathize with the characters the child quickly gets the hang of it. After that the child can choose to believe ifhis puppets are autonomous, or if they are still him. (Our community chooses autonomous consciousness)

 

I could be spiteful and say this analogy to your conclusions:

A child believes puppets come to life when he plays with them.

 

It seems like the Puppet has been born, but its opportunities for action are limited to the ones of the host.


What is a Tulpa? Blog

Rainbow 'Alyx' Dash

Pronto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, bluesleeve: what do you think about those with MPD/DID? Do you believe that one personality is sentient, while the other is just a puppet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Tulpa itself does not seem to have such a diversity of suggestions, because we forced it to have a certain personality. (Expectations)

Even though you could say, that the Tulpa has an ego itself, I do not believe that. I think our ego unconsciously chooses for the Tulpa. It would mean that the Tulpa is more of an automatism than a conscious being. A part of the host, which is seen as something alien. (There will be something on my blog soon) The host has dissociated.

 

 

But what proof or evidence you have for any of this? We don't even have proof or evidence that an 'ego' in the sense that the psychological models are built after are even a thing, let alone whether or not a Tulpa has one. Further more, what proof or evidence do you have, assuming the assistance of an ego, that it is incapable of making decisions of its own, and has to take 'suggestions' from these traits?

 

Furthermore, what is the nature of these traits? How were they formed? How do they send the suggestions? Why? How do you explain more complex behaviors with this model you propose?

 

In addition, if we are the 'ego' and we receive suggestions from these traits, doesnt that make these traits more alive than we are?

 

I'm looking forward to clarify my ideas in a few blog posts.

 

 

I believe we have to see our mind as something consisting of metaphors and analogies. These sort of things (black bird etc.) can only be seen when we want to, so I highly doubt this is playing out on an unconscious level. We just see it that way when we play with our imagination.

It's very interesting to see what exists in people's minds, and that's why Jung goes into the direction of a collective unconscious. The more I personally think about this topic, people's personalities seem to stem from an origin, which is very similar.

 

I can agree with this. It sounds plausible and possible. However, I would vouch to say are imagination is strongly linked to our unconscious, and that it can and does show us things we don't want to see or things we were previously unaware of.

 

 

My opinion is that even these attributes have been with us all along, they just didn't really surface before.

 

 

What if I told you that the Tulpa could just be you? I know people are going to hate me for that, but it seems like a Tulpa is just simple dissociation. Nothing new is created, we just perceive certain things differently.

 

So you believe the son is the mother and his siblings?

If my Tulpa is just me, then why am I not my Tulpa?

Disassociation doesn't account for the myriad differences between host or Tulpa, or the new understandings and opportunities it opens to both..

 

Our current situation is, that you believe that a Tulpa can become completely autonomous and conscious and i believe that this is not possible.

 

Are you aware of what the word 'conscious' means in Psychology? The definition is: Anything you are aware of at any given time.

 

simply by having awareness, a Tulpa is conscious, and simply by us not being aware of everything our Tulpa is aware of, proves that this consciousness is not our own, but rather a conscious separate from us. There is a possibility that these consciousness's are linked and that one or both are dependent on the other, however.

 

autonomous means something can act on its own. Depending on how far you take this definition, nothing can be autonomous- a body cannot move without food to give it energy for example. But lets not talk ridiculous extremes here: a Tulpa has been shown to be fully capable of acting and deciding things on its own. Therefore it is autonomous. If you claim that it is just a trait sending things to our ego, I will counter by stating that according to your model we are also just a vast collection of traits sending things to our ego, and if a trait sending something to an ego does not count as an autonomous being, than we are not autonomous either, no human is.

 

The analogy fits for your theory, but you can't falsify a theory with it. I said it was the Host who "pulls out" certain parts of his personality and manifests them in a Tulpa.

I would describe it like a child, which plays with puppets. He determines the personality of the puppets and plays them accordingly. Even though it is hard to empathize with the characters the child quickly gets the hang of it. After that the child can choose to believe ifhis puppets are autonomous, or if they are still him. (Our community chooses autonomous consciousness)

 

I could be spiteful and say this analogy to your conclusions:

A child believes puppets come to life when he plays with them.

 

It seems like the Puppet has been born, but its opportunities for action are limited to the ones of the host.

 

But the puppet analogy fails. Because we do not stick our hands in the tulpas and move them around, they move on their own. This is more like Geppetto carving out the form for a puppet, but then he talks to the puppet, it talks back and moves on its own, without any input from Geppetto. The idea of the unconscious has already been proven. We already have evidence that our brain is capable of doing things outside of our conscious control. Likewise, we know that our brains are capable of creating a conscious, otherwise, we wouldn't be. So if a brain is capable of creating a conscious, and is capable of supporting things outside of that conscious, what evidence suggests that it is incapable of doing both at the same time? What do you have that somehow states that it can create a new conscious outside of an existing conscious. Also, you have to remember, the term unconscious, and in certain perspectives, conscious, is relative. The consciousness of myself, is part of your unconscious, because you are not consciously aware and observing my conscious activities and my thoughts first hand. However, to keep things under control and not ridiculous, let us keep these terms applied to individual minds. Your unconscious is everything you are not directly aware of. It is everything outside of your conscious. Regardless of how you try to splice things, without redefining psychology itself as it exists today, you cannot claim that Tulpa being conscious beings is not possible, or that it isn't indeed the case, when all evidence and knowledge in the field claims it is. You would actually have to willingly contradict everything we have learned and know about the human brain to this point in order to make claims on the level that you are making.

 

Are you going to go forward and do this without evidence to back this up?

 

I have spent the past month researching deeply into this. I have saved over a dozen articles in psychological and neuroscience journals on my computer in a nice little folder called 'Tulpa'. I am taking Psychology courses and have triple checked everything through my textbooks to make sure it all works out. I have an older cousin who went through Med School and works in a Psych Ward who has advised me and explained things for me, and has helped me the entire way through this Tulpa process- Learning, Creating, Experimenting, Researching.

 

Do not take what I say lightly. If you honestly want to claim that we are just puppet masters who have deluded ourselves into believing our puppets are real, then you will make absolutely no progress into understanding and discovering the truth behind Tulpa.

 

You will be making the same fatal mistake every prosecutor of great scientific discoveries have made. What did the experts of the time say to Galileo? "well, we can't observe a stellar parallax, so this can't be true! It makes more sense if we just believe it is this outdated belief for traditions sake! All of the experts believe in it! How can they be wrong!"

 

I will not take this sort of willful ignorance sitting down.

 

You have Tulpa bluesleeve. They both love you, I am sure. How can you sit there and say they are nothing more than puppets, dolls, that you play with like a child? Don't they deserve more respect and love than that Bluesleeve?

 

If you tell them right now, to their face, that they are puppets and dolls, and nothing more, that they are just playthings with no life or consciousness, that they aren't even in control of their own decisions, would they cry?

 

Do you have a heart and soul Bluesleeve? You have been at this longer than I have, if I remember correctly. How can you look at people who are so dependent upon you, and see them as nothing more than action figures representing yourself?

 

I bet you can't look at those people. I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to do something like shove them back in the metaphorical toy box, like some tool that has outlived its usefulness.

 

Do you really believe that they deserve that?

To be treated like that?

To be thought of like that?

To be considered something as low as a puppet controlled by its masters hands and nothing more?

 

You said it might get people to hate you, and for good reason: That is disgusting behavior. How could you look at another person like that?

Why would you look at another person like that?

Do you really believe the stuff you are saying?

Are you willing to step back and say that Dash and Pronto were just a Lie?

That it was all just a big puppet act?

That you were just a roleplayer who forgot he was roleplaying?

Can you really say that?

and if you do, do you honestly believe it?

 

Because I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Albatross_

 

A fucking huge wall of text, and then:

 

That is disgusting behavior. How could you look at another person like that?

Why would you look at another person like that?

Do you really believe the stuff you are saying?

Are you willing to step back and say that Dash and Pronto were just a Lie?

That it was all just a big puppet act?

That you were just a roleplayer who forgot he was roleplaying?

Can you really say that?

and if you do, do you honestly believe it?

 

Because I don't.

 

Edit: My first post was retarded, replacing.

 

Rather strong reaction, I think. Personally I agree with Bluesleeve. His thoughts parallel my own nearly to the letter.

 

I might look like a pleb casual because I'm replying to a massive wall of text with a ridiculously short simple statement that is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of the thread, but like the squire in the ear of the victorious Roman general, constantly whispering "Remember, sire, all glory fades...", I will go ahead and say:

Whatever the truth is, it doesn't matter because we perceive tulpae as real anyway. Whether we know, deep inside, that they are "simple dissocations" or something further does not change their uses.

 

And yes, I used the word "uses". In the end, I, the original consciousness, is all that remains. I did not want to come to terms with that for the longest time (and I tried

, oh my god do I try

), but it is the truth.

 

EDIT: Whoa, read this again and it looks like I'm dismissing the whole thread. Au contrare. This is easily the best thread I've seen in months. Awesome discussion here, and incredibly informing.

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.