Jump to content

Linkzelda's Image Streaming Guide


Recommended Posts

We are discussing semantics, since we're talking about what would be a practical way of assorting certain words, symbols, and such. Also, I didn't click "Change All" during that Microsoft Spelling & Grammar Check, that was just to show that it wasn't riddled with piles of correction needed. So I don't know how those few instances equals bad grammar in general.

 

As for the image where you showed where I could do a page break, wouldn't it be inconsistent to have a page left completely blank, or mostly blank? This brings back to what I mentioned that moving things up or down from Sands' suggestions would probably make things problematic. But seeing how doing that page break you provided an image for would shift the "Word Pair Exercise" down way too much, I guess that wouldn't make it a weird style to you, so duly noted on this as well.

 

Some of your practices might be condoned by some style guides (though I doubt that's the case for most) but American style guides differ as much from each other as from British ones.

 

And that brings back to the point where it really is just semantics at this point, since the different standards of American, British, German, etc. is prevalent. Though if you weren't complaining by my usage of American spelling and styles, the only reason why you would presume I'd have bad grammar and styles would be because I didn't conform to what you would be used to, seems more like question begging here. Unless tulpa.info militantly follows a certain style (e.g. British), then a few capitalization and lower casing on words, and very small grammar errors that probably wouldn't be errors depending on which standard is utilized really won't affect the readability of the guide submission.

 

 

Note: I am going to reconsider these suggestions either way, it's just that it was kind of over hyping on the bad grammar and style, especially when you were using circular reasoning that it would be bad for a different standard, but not for another, but it would still be bad either way, and also using that most won't accept a certain style (which would be obvious if certain styles that have different standards would conflict at some point).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We are discussing semantics, since we're talking about what would be a practical way of assorting certain words, symbols, and such.

 

American Heritage says

Linguistics: The study or science of meaning in language.

 

No, capitalisation in your titles has nothing to do with meaning. It is stylistic only.

 

 

 

Also, I didn't click "Change All" during that Microsoft Spelling & Grammar Check, that was just to show that it wasn't riddled with piles of correction needed. So I don't know how those few instances equals bad grammar in general.

 

Was a joke. But like I said there's lots of stuff that Word won't pick up.

 

 

 

As for the image where you showed where I could do a page break, wouldn't it be inconsistent to have a page left completely blank, or mostly blank? This brings back to what I mentioned that moving things up or down from Sands' suggestions would probably make things problematic. But seeing how doing that page break you provided an image for would shift the "Word Pair Exercise" down way too much, I guess that wouldn't make it a weird style to you, so duly noted on this as well.

 

Well, it's true that you don't use page breaks elsewhere but then I think that's a bad idea as well. Yes, you should enforce page breaks consistently throughout your text.

 

But no, leaving a lot of space doesn't make a page break a bad idea. It's just an inevitable consequence of using it.

 

 

 

And that brings back to the point where it really is just semantics at this point, since the different standards of American, British, German, etc. is prevalent. Though if you weren't complaining by my usage of American spelling and styles, the only reason why you would presume I'd have bad grammar and styles would be because I didn't conform to what you would be used to, seems more like question begging here.

 

I have to tell you something Linkzelda. You've been living a lie your whole life.

 

There is no standardised German style guide for the English language.

 

It was a joke. And I'm pretty sure I spent a few sentences telling you how "British standards" and "American standards" don't make sense for style. Spellings are different between British and American English and there are some minor grammatical differences. But style varies from author to author, and there is no standard "British" or "American" style.

 

No, your style doesn't conform to what I'm used to because it doesn't conform to any commonly-used style as far as I am aware. I have pointed out where a correction could be objectionable in some styles, and also made it clear in some examples where there is no such possibility.

 

 

 

Unless tulpa.info militantly follows a certain style (e.g. British), then a few capitalization and lower casing on words, and very small grammar errors that probably wouldn't be errors depending on which standard is utilized really won't affect the readability of the guide submission.

 

No, we're just being pedantic. It doesn't affect how well I can read it but it does affect how much I enjoy reading it.

 

 

 

you were using circular reasoning that it would be bad for a different standard, but not for another, but it would still be bad either way, and also using that most won't accept a certain style (which would be obvious if certain styles that have different standards would conflict at some point).

 

I don't know, Linkzelda, I just don't know. I didn't really say that. I said "Some of your practices might be condoned by some style guides (though I doubt that's the case for most)". I said that because I haven't read every style guide out there, not because I know of any particular styles that you are consistent with.

 

Actually, if you are using a particular style guide then just tell me and I won't complain if you're following it properly. I'm not going to say "tulpa.info won't accept such-and-such style", because, as you seem to agree, that's a Bad Thing. But when your writing conflicts with every style guide there is, I will correct it. No circular reasoning there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to tell you something Linkzelda. You've been living a lie your whole life.

There is no standardised German style guide for the English language.

 

Where did I imply that I thought there was a standardized German style guide for the English language? Anyway, I just find it hard to distinguish sarcasm on your end, but I had a nagging feeling it (the joke) could be the case, but I’m just not used to how you joke around I guess.

 

No' date=' your style doesn't conform to what I'm used to because it doesn't conform to any commonly-used style as far as I am aware.[/quote']

 

Alright, but this still raises the question on which commonly-used style(s) you’re aware of that should be implemented in future guide submissions in tulpa.info. If me and other users are left in the dust of which one would really be used (based on your experiences), then there will be confusion at some point.

 

But how you formatted this sentence in general implies that what you were aware of would be commonly used in general, and that would be a matter of disposition. This implies that you would’ve sorted out almost everything, and you stated that you didn’t later on in your post, so it’s just question begging on what should really be “commonly-used style.”

 

No' date=' we're just being pedantic. It doesn't affect how well I can read it but it does affect how much I enjoy reading it.[/quote']

 

This seems to make seeing the guide submissions with less of an objective perspective, since what is “enjoyable” is now a matter of personal preference. And if that’s the case, that kind of undermines the general premises of the GAT system. At this point, it’s kind of creating an imaginary populace if you feel your spectrum of enjoying certain submissions would apply to other people.

 

Because this would require the individual making the guide to make a guide entry that has as much people enjoying reading it vs. people getting the general idea, but not necessarily having their own personal feelings (e.g. enjoyment) into this. It would be akin to a newcomer that wants to create a tulpa, but not really enjoying the fact that they have to go through threads, and learn for themselves, and such to start somewhere.

 

I don't know' date=' Linkzelda, I just don't know. I didn't really say that. I said "Some of your practices might be condoned by some style guides (though I doubt that's the case for most)". I said that because I haven't read every style guide out there, not because I know of any particular styles that you are consistent with.[/quote']

 

But in order for you to state

(though I doubt that’s the case for most)

 

would require some knowledge of all styles in general (which would really just be personal opinions at this point). This is why I mentioned that different standards for different styles (when conflating them) obviously wouldn’t condone a style an individual is using, since this conflation would really just be your own personal mix of a style guide.

 

It wasn’t referring to any styles I’m consistent with, it was just directing to when you presumed there would be doubting that there would be condoning for most. I just find it a bit contradicting for you to make that presumption is all.

 

Actually' date=' if you are using a particular style guide then just tell me and I won't complain if you're following it properly.[/quote']

 

Not really using a specific style guide here (more of a myriad of style guides I guess), and I’m not really seeing this as you complaining, since you’re just doing your thing as a GAT member.

 

I'm not going to say "tulpa.info won't accept such-and-such style"' date=' because, as you seem to agree, that's a Bad Thing.[/quote']

 

I never stated that if tulpa.info makes a certain standard of acceptable styles that it would be a bad thing. I merely stated that:

 

Unless tulpa.info militantly follows a certain style (e.g. British)' date=' then a few capitalization and lower casing on words, and very small grammar errors that probably wouldn't be errors depending on which standard is utilized really won't affect the readability of the guide submission.[/quote']

 

It’s just about readability, that’s all. Not about how the individual enjoys reading it, just if it’s readable in general from an objective standpoint (e.g. reducing implications of subjective standpoints on the level of enjoyment when reading it, since we can’t make over-generalizations of what other people would enjoy based on what we presume is enjoyable or not).

 

But when your writing conflicts with every style guide there is' date=' I will correct it. No circular reasoning there.[/quote']

 

But why state that my writing might be condoned by a few (which seems to be just your personal collection of what’s acceptable or not), and then state that it conflicts with every style guide there is? This is really based on every style guide you’re aware of, not being aware of the totality of style guides possible. This is circular reasoning on your end, because it’s begging the question, i.e., the original premise of yours that presumes the writing conflicts with every style guide there is because of one’s that you’re aware of, and thus the writing is conflicting. Whether you state a generalization about American Heritage, or some other source, it obviously wouldn't be sources that can direct to all style guides possible since it's just a presumption on your end.

 

In layman’s terms, you’re trying to prove that your presumption that the writing conflicts with every writing style guide possible is true because it conflicts with every style guide you’re aware of (compared to actually showing the totality of possible style guides there is, and seeing how it would conflict with them individually rather than just grabbing bits and pieces of ones you’re aware of, and ones that you’re aware of doesn’t necessarily mean how you make your own list would be commonly used). There's a difference in doing a comparative analysis of my writing with every style guides possible individually vs. making generalizations, and grabbing parts of every style guide you're aware of, and presuming they would all conflict based on that alone.

 

Your premises entails your conclusion (e.g. writing style conflicts with every writing style there is), but said premises are questionable (e.g. you stating about style guides and such that you’re personally aware of which would be limited unless you actually knew the totality of style guides possible).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, but this still raises the question on which commonly-used style(s) you’re aware of that should be implemented in future guide submissions in tulpa.info. If me and other users are left in the dust of which one would really be used (based on your experiences), then there will be confusion at some point.

 

Honestly, I don't really care. As long as someone's submission corresponds to some commonly-used style guide (there aren't that many and they're all pretty similar) then it's fine by me. It'll be consistent and aesthetically acceptable, so there's nothing to complain about.

 

 

 

But how you formatted this sentence in general implies that what you were aware of would be commonly used in general, and that would be a matter of disposition. This implies that you would’ve sorted out almost everything, and you stated that you didn’t later on in your post, so it’s just question begging on what should really be “commonly-used style.”

 

Actually, I am aware of what is commonly used. Because I read and have read in the past a reasonable sample of items written in the English language, I should be able to judge fairly objectively from that what kind of style is commonly used. It's not really a matter of disposition, unless you think that I choose to read only material that conforms to styles I prefer (I don't).

 

 

 

This seems to make seeing the guide submissions with less of an objective perspective, since what is “enjoyable” is now a matter of personal preference. And if that’s the case, that kind of undermines the general premises of the GAT system. At this point, it’s kind of creating an imaginary populace if you feel your spectrum of enjoying certain submissions would apply to other people.

 

Well, if what you're saying is that perfect style isn't important relative to other factors then yes, I'll concede that. It's for this reason that I approved this thing despite there being numerous stylistic heresies.

 

 

 

But in order for you to state

(though I doubt that’s the case for most)

would require some knowledge of all styles in general (which would really just be personal opinions at this point). This is why I mentioned that different standards for different styles (when conflating them) obviously wouldn’t condone a style an individual is using, since this conflation would really just be your own personal mix of a style guide.

 

It wasn’t referring to any styles I’m consistent with, it was just directing to when you presumed there would be doubting that there would be condoning for most. I just find it a bit contradicting for you to make that presumption is all.

 

I'm sorry, my clarification was a bit weird there. I said what I said because I'm not sure that all of the mistakes that were pointed out are wrong in the eyes of every recommended style. But I am sure that most of them are wrong in the eyes of most styles.

 

 

 

But why state that my writing might be condoned by a few (which seems to be just your personal collection of what’s acceptable or not), and then state that it conflicts with every style guide there is?

 

I guess the clarification I gave right above here should clear that up. Some of your 'mistakes' might have been condoned by a few. But I will definitely correct that which is not.

 

No, I have not read every page of every manual of style. Yes, I am making an assumption based on those which are commonly used. I know that there might be some guidance somewhere that condones some of your practices, despite seeing no evidence for it; that's why I said it myself as quoted numerous times.

 

Maybe you wanted me to have said "when your writing conflicts with every commonly-used style guide there is", but I don't really see why it matters if you weren't following any consistent style anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Tonight I was practicing an exercise that I created very similar to your music association. It really works, and several times my mind was abruptly interrupt with titles of Bach's songs that I didn't even remember and I assume Johann indicated me them.

This was my first exercise burning time with him and my experience was pretty good, I feel we had a lovely communication, with him sending me thoughts about his feelings related to the songs playing.

I'm going to read your guide and hope it helps. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed, at least for me, that using binaural beats and isochronic tones helps a lot with getting in certain states mentally (e.g. alpha, theta). The thing with the music is that even if it's instrumental, sometimes the pacing can throw you off if you're not accustomed to typing/writing/speaking out what goes on in your head. In my first attempts with that, I played a few songs that were a bit too fast, or just had so much variety in pacing. This is why I felt putting that method after the others because one would probably have to know how to let unconscious thoughts come to their awareness quickly, and still have time to describe what's going on.

 

I hope it works out for you, and speaking from experience, doing the method as if you have no life for a few days you may have off helps out a lot. It'll get to the point where you can do this stuff on the fly naturally. It could be related to doing passive forcing (if you're associating your tulpa(s) with the image streaming) when you're not confining yourself to sitting down and all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Well well, this thread hasn't seen action in a while, so let me practice some necromancy along with my tulpamancy :-)

 

I wanted to say thanks for the guide, first of all. Someone on /r/tulpas told me about image streaming when I described something I experienced while forcing. Basically, I was doing the exercise where you visualise the tupper writing numbers on a canvas from 1 to 100. When I reached 100, I suggested to my tupper River, "Why don't you start choosing simple shapes and colors to draw so that we can practice your sentience?" River was happy to oblige, and I narrated in mindvoice what I saw her draw. However, within a few minutes, she was presenting me with 3D shapes that jumped off the canvas, and minutes later, my mind seemed to just flood with all sorts of different images. I couldn't even tell what came from me or from River, but I simply narrated what I saw. After 20-30 minutes of this, I was exhausted, it was late, and I went right to sleep! The next night, I did it again and we went longer. I want to emphasise that all I did was ask River to draw shapes and colors; I did not intentionally cause this experience the first time.

 

I usually force sitting in front of the computer, with the screen dimmed and facing away from the screen. I seem to always be aware of the blackness on the back of my eyelids and the faint sound of the cooling fan, but during this experience, I completely forgot about those.

 

The thread on /r/tulpas is here:

 

I got a reply suggesting I learn about your Image Streaming guide, so here I am! I've read it start to finish, and it does sound quite a bit like what my system did on our own.

 

***

 

Oh, and here's a SWE I did today. I narrated it to my tupper Rocky, so this is a memory-dump.

 

I first greeted my three tuppers River, Dante, and Rocky in wonderland and invited Rocky to go on this mind-adventure with me because I don't give him enough attention. He has the form of a small red dragon and we were soon flying thru space with him perched upon my shoulder and we landed upon a rocky planet. "Let's explore that extinct volcano in front of us!" We climb to the cusp of the caldera and see a castle in the middle. We approach the castle and step into a shadow where I feel very cold, but Rocky keeps me warm with his magical dragon powers. I also come to a moat surrounding the castle and swim across while Rocky flies overhead. I follow a breast-stroke pattern, taking three long strokes between breaths. Finally, Rocky and I arrive at the castle.

 

I tell Rocky that I am unarmed and I feel vulnerable, but I trust him to use his dragon powers to keep me safe. We enter the castle and are confronted with a horrible monster. I couldn't even visualise it clearly except to say that it spat flames and toxic fumes everywhere. Rocky used his magic dragon powers to freeze and shatter the monster. Then, in a scene exactly like in "Terminator 2: Judgement Day", the monster reassembled itself into the figure of a man who taunted us that he would keep hurting us forever and we could never be rid of him. So, Rocky froze the monster again and we placed it in a box. We picked up the box and flew together to the dark side of the planet where it is freezing code. We used sledgehammers to smash the monster into tiny pieces where it wouldn't be able to unfreeze itself. We then cast the pieces off to the stars in different directions so they could never be reassembled.

 

We lauded ourselves as heroes.

 

***

 

After that, I did some of the two word association exercise with Dante. Then, I felt the sandman tugging at my eyelids, so I reposed for an hour-long nap.

 

Thank you thank you thank you for this guide. Have you come up with anything in particular in the years since that we might find useful?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It's kind of hard for him to give a response to that question because it would assume he has enough intellect to know how far a person can advance through this method alone. That, and the fact that whatever advice or experiential learning he gives to you will absolutely have no empirical bearing whatsoever. It's going to be, in his personal opinion (and something I agree with), one of those things where you either trust the process to take you forward wherever you want to do in relation to handling new bits of information for more difficult endeavors...or it's a method you casually do without worrying about all of that.

 

Don't get me wrong, we still do this stuff, but it's more of spread out throughout the day rather than waiting for a day, or two for a time sink on. Though, the time sinks can be useful to do every once in a blue moon.

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 Reisen
      Guided meditations often have someone lead you through a walk in the forest or along the beach or some such, effectively describing an environment for you to visualize with words. They might even add natural sounds to help. But for a lot of people, that sort of thing feels too weird, or otherwise uncomfortable. In the context of practicing visualization, there's really no reason someone has to specifically guide you through it - intentionally, at least.
       
      Guided visualization can be as simple as closing your eyes while watching a Youtube video. Any type of video you're comfortable with really, but in our case, we do best with video game let's plays. As an example, we are intimately familiar with Super Mario 64, and are a big fan of the Game Grumps, and their let's play of it. Crude language warning, if you decide to watch them. Earlier I spent 40 minutes 'watching' the first three episodes, except I had my eyes closed. Just based on the game's sounds, and sometimes the grumps' reactions, I visualized what I thought was going on in my mind the entire time. Sometimes I opened my eyes for a moment just to check what was actually going on, and understandably was off by a bit. But there's nothing wrong with that, all that matters is that you're practicing visualization! You can almost forget you're even doing it for practice and treat it like a game, for fun. You may want to find a less chatty let's player if you have trouble filtering out their conversations though.
       
      Or you know, don't even watch a let's player. I would say the possibilities for this are pretty much endless. For video games, it may help to actually be familiar with the game you're trying to imagine (though I suppose you could also try it blind). But for anything dealing more with "real life", all you need is your imagination. You probably won't be visualizing what's actually going on very accurately, but again, that's not the goal. If you want to be more accurate, open your eyes/check the video every so often. It's not cheating, and if you have particularly poor visualization it might help give you something to work with. In the case of video games it'll probably end up being a necessity to stay in the same place as the video, but that's fine.
       
      Other examples of videos that may "guide your visualization" include sports (play-by-play announcers help a ton), TV shows or cartoons/anime (again being familiar with them can help, or you can go in blind), perhaps how-to style videos where someone details what they're doing every step of the way, and really anything else where either the talking or the environmental sounds provide enough information to form a continuous mental image.
       
      It probably goes without saying that audiobooks (or just generally books being read aloud) are the epitome of guided visualizations that aren't directly telling you to imagine something. I'm not sponsored by Audible though, so I definitely won't tell you to check out that site. But most big Youtubers will, and come with some kind of discount too.
       
      Lastly, I want to note that you don't have to be sitting in front of a screen to listen to a video, nor do your eyes have to be closed. You can download an MP3 of a Youtube video (or just play it) and put it on your ipod/phone and take it with you, perhaps on a walk. You can also practice open-eye visualization by simply not looking at the source of whatever you're listening to, perhaps on a walk. Seems like that would take quite a lot of focus however, so sitting down in front of a screen might be better if you can't get sufficient visuals in whatever activity you do with it. In the end, all that matters is there's a picture in your mind. Accuracy and content are only as important as you want them to be.
       
      Good luck! Aside from wonderlanding, this is the only visualization practice we've ever done. Ours is too poor for more standalone methods, and that's why I thought of this one.
    • By sushi
      In the past I've put art guides in the art forum, but this is art aimed at playing a trick on your mind, so I think it fits the guide section better.
       
      So you have a form for your tulpa, but it's difficult to visualize because you have no reference images? Then this is the guide for you.
       
      Example pictures (NSFW!):
       
       
      Why are there naked people in my guide? To that, I can only answer: Why doesn't everyone have naked people in their guides?
       
      Actually, these people aren't naked. See?
       
       
      This technique comes from Japan, where it's known as 水玉コラ (Mizutama Kora) or "Bubble Collage". It works because your brain is so good at filling in missing information that it does it automatically. It's how you can (sometimes) understand what the other person is saying when their cell phone is breaking up, or how you can piece together that the shopping list is asking for "a dozen eggs" even though in your girlfriend's handwriting Gs look like Ws.
       
      And of course because this is the internet, this interesting illusion has been used almost entirely for porn.
       
      Well, let's divorce it from porn now. Here's how you can use the same technique to help you visualize your tulpa.
       
      Take a look at this woman:
       

       
      Would you believe that she's really six women stitched together like Frakenstein's monster?
       
      Well yeah, probably, because you're reading a guide about that, and also there are differences in skin tone and the pieces don't always fit together quite right, and also I showed too much of that one elbow. But this was a rush job so that I'd have an example for the guide, and the point is that at first glance, she looks like a normal person.
       
      The bubbles were obviously added by bubbleimage.net. She should really have a bubble separating her face from her hair, because they're from two different sources, but they blended together well enough that I didn't feel like I needed it.
       
      Here's what she looked like before the bubbles:
       
      [hidden][/hidden]
       
      That image was put together with Pixlr Express using only the "Add image" and "History" tools. I'm sure you can do better if you want to used paid apps like Photoshop, or if you wanted to learn to use more than two tools, but I wanted to show how this can be done easy and free.
       
      And here's what she looked like before that: 123456
       
      As always, I use Shutterstock for stock images because it allows you to search by model, for when you find a model you like, but you need her in a different pose or in different clothes. Shutterstock does have watermarks on the images, but you can usually avoid them -- I cut all the watermarks out of my example, except the one on her pants (and a little bit in her hair). I'm sure I could have found a good photo of pants without a watermark on them, but I took the lazy way out.
    • By Nikodemos
      So, another visualization guide, meant for those who have difficulties seeing anything at all with their mind's eye. It is quite simple and involves using actual physical objects.
       
      First, pick up an object. It can be a marble, a tennis ball, a Rubik's cube, your piggy bank or anything similar as long as it's relatively simple in shape and fits in your hands. Once you have found an appropriate object, start to examine it thoroughly, feel it's bumps, dips and texture, listen to the voices it makes, smell it's scent, see how it fits in your hand. Do this for as long as you need to in order to have a good feel of it. Once you're done with that, stretch out your arms forward in a way that you can see your object without looking down. Remember where that object and your arms are located in your vision, and close your eyes. Next, start imagining that objects, it's bumps, dips and other properties in the same place in your mind's eye, along with your hands alternatively.
       
      You should see something, the edges of the object, the color of the object or even a fully imagined, 3D object. Repeat this process a few times a day until you can see it clearly. When you have a solid feel for the object, next you should try and manipulate it. Roll it, twist it, squeeze it, anything you can do with your hands, whilst keeping your eyes closed and simply imagining how your manipulation affects the object. Opening your eyes occasionally to see how close you got to the real object looks like when you manipulated it physically with your hands.
       
      Once you feel like you have mastered this, the next step would be to do these exact same things, but not using as many senses this time. You could place it on a table and simply look at it, then visualize it in your minds eye again, moving and manipulating it. Keep this up, gradually moving to more complex shaped objects, until you are able to simply imagine all the objects you want within your minds eye without external input.
       
      This is meant as a guide to practice visualization, and it should help yoh visualize objects better. It worked for me, and I hope it works for you too. Any questions you have regarding this guide, feel free to contact me and ask. Good luck!
       
      -Niko
       
      TL;DR: Get as many senses as possible to visualizing objects, such as touch smell, hearing etc. Gradually work yourself to not needing senses for visualizing in your wonderland.
    • By Squir
      This is a technique that I found helpful, and I think it'd help people whether they're good or not at visualization. Visualization can easily get really vivid for me, and this should be a good way for building up details. This should also work for lucid dreams. This involves your dreamworld, so just basically imagine yourself doing stuff in an imaginary place to start off with.
       
      Imagine a huge computer/television screen in your dreamworld, possibly like a huge magical wall stretching off infinitely wide, or whatever comes most naturally. Imagine your Tulpa being drawn on the screen. This is normally easier than imagining them in "thin air", because it's more logical to see them in a "picture". Start with the most basic, low-quality picture you can think of, and gradually increase the quality by reading/thinking details "into" your tulpa, like refining a drawing or loading a video/JPEG, except knowing that you're downloading it from your dreamworld. This step is useful because it can start from practically 0 detail, and it can show visualization progress.
       
      Gradually imagine them like a digital model in a 3D program, rotating either them or the "camera" of the screen. Imagine lighting, the way light wind would sway their hair/clothes, and their weight on the ground. Imagine them just being there, giving them a (pleasant) interesting environment.
       
      Gradually imagine yourself importing sentience/AI into your tulpa in the "program", by imagining how they interact with their world, by imagining if they look back at you through the "screen", and imagining their response. If needed, have your information written in a list and read it "into" them like a programmer. Gradually increase the number of interactions they have with the world, situations and stuff they interact with. Throw in a pillow or something.
       
      Focus on making it feel like an interactive Youtube video, gradually increasing quality. Focus on all the steps above, then eventually reach your arms and hands into the screen in your mind. It can be invisible or visible, but it needs to be "your" hands. If your tulpa lets you touch them, do so, feeling them from top to bottom, every part that isn't awkward/distracting to touch. They should be reacting to your touch. Then, ask them to touch your arms and hands. Feel their hands on your skin, how they react to your touch. This type of interaction is actually very useful, since it convinces your mind that there's actual touch, actual events going on. Try things like poking their nose, etc.
       
      Once you get good with this, let the screen fade away, to where your whole body is a (possibly invisible) digital avatar in the same dreamworld level your tulpa is in. Interact with things the same ways your tulpa would, such as actually bending down to pick things up, in the presence of your tulpa. This will immerse you into the mindset that your tulpa is in, giving your mind information on how your tulpa thinks, since your tulpa will have to "imitate" your real world's physics when being imposed into it.
       
      Then start putting them into reality that same way, since your mind will have learned how to "impose", and use real life situations instead of fictional ones. Hope this helps.
       
      TLDR: Imagine a computer, imagine them into the screen, and start from there. Then start imagining them into reality the same way.
    • By devano
      I have read through a few blogs today and talked to a few of the users on the IRC channel to find out a common problem is that some are just not able to render their entire tulpa. They are only able to render a portion of the body, face, torso or legs. i learned a exercise during art school that helped us render entire images in our heads without forgetting bits, distorting portions or mixing things up.
       

      Take a look at this picture above and pay close attention to the lamp pole that has the cross walk signs on it.
      I want you to study this pole as best as you can. Try and study the stain right below the Hand stop sign. The bolts and everything about it. Now take about 10 minutes and think about this pole with your eyes closed. Only this pole.
      Try and cutoff other all other information from your brain such as how your day was or any other distraction. Its ok if you talk to yourself about the pole, I did this. "This pole is tall and dark. I see the red hand and the blackness next to it". As long as your focus remains on this single object.  You will need to focus on this pole for an average of 10 minutes about five times.  Be sure to examine the photo in between exercises. This process should Last you a day or two. You can attempt to do this first step all in an hour or half a day. This will not work. I don't know why, it just doesnt.
       
      now that you have completed the first step of memorizing the pole with the red hand sign start to examine the sidewalk. Only the sidewalk, ignore the trees, garbage bin and  all other objects on this sidewalk. If it helps you go ahead and imagine a flat concrete area where the building should be. focus on the edge front of the sidewalk and study this in as much detail as you have the pole. This process will take much much longer than the first step. Now close your eyes and do the same that you did with the pole but try and render the sidewalk as well. Keep both objects in as much detail as you can. You will have trouble focusing on tiny details such as where the paint has eroded on the sidewalk or the bolts on the pole. Focus on what you can and Render what you can. This will take much more than five or ten minutes. Spend at least fifteen to twenty minute each exercise. This time instead of doing it X many times you must do this until you can fully render the sidewalk and pole. This step may take three days to an entire week. Do not give up! Learning this can be far more useful than just visualizing your tulpa!
       
      Now rinse and repeat this step through the entire photo adding more and more objects each time. You can take your time by adding one object each session or you can add several objects during each session. The end result should you being able to Render that entire photo in your mind with ease. This first photo may of taken you up to two to three months to render. That is ok. Now I want you to find a new photo and do the same thing. It should be exponentially easier than the first. Your mind is already starting to examine and visualize multiple things at once. Not only are you able to render things better in your mind but your visual memorization has increased exponentially.
       
      i rushed this a bit and I will rewrite some bits of this later.
×
×
  • Create New...