-----

[waffles]

I realise how absurd it is to argue with you over the meaning of what you wrote. However, remember that if I say "I don't like ..." I mean the same as if I said "I dislike ...". The same applies to you, reasonably speaking. Especially with your emphatic use of "ever".

 

In any case consider your attempt at expressing your uncertainty initially unsuccessful. But obviously I no longer think you defeatist. Only illiterate.

[Kiahdaj]

Perhaps it is a blunder of mine that I tend to mean what I say, and don't account for other people making assumptions about what I really meant.

[waffles]

That is generally a mistake. Not taking into account how other people will read what you say leads to miscommunication, as seen. Especially if those people make assumptions like that you use English like everyone else.

[Linkzelda]

In the end, a tulpa is an offshoot of yourself, and as such every tulpa is essentially one and the same as each other as they are to you.

 

It seems that based on the OP, the title of the thread, and this ending statement, you’re subscribing towards a few ontological arguments in relation to monism (probably neutral monism). Or in short, the view that the myriad of existing things can be conceptualized from a single reality or substance (i.e. “you” and your tulpas deriving from “you”). In a way, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you’re leaving vague ontological statements on what would validate “you,” or your identity.

 

You see, the challenge you’re putting yourself here is explaining the hidden dualism implied within your post without introducing reductive ontology (i.e. how that even though there’s a monistic approach on tulpas, you would be viewing them in dualistic terms, or to put it bluntly, learning how to conceptualize yourself in a different experience).

 

But like others have argued that with their own ontological arguments (mostly personality and such), their tulpas wouldn’t have hard similarities or relatedness to their host (but obviously for something beyond the host's conscious awareness and how they would ontologically define themselves. Which means there would be some reductive ontology, or related to distinction involved to support that).

 

Here’s a simple reductive principle that makes the monistic approach you’re skewing around with a bit fallacious (seeing how you’re probably leaning towards ontologically defining “you” as in identity rather than whatever “consciousness” argument you could bring up):

 

A (you) --> B (Tulpa #1)

B (Tulpa #1) --> A (You)

C (Tulpa #2) --> A (You) and C (Tulpa #2) --> B (Tulpa #1)

 

Add more tulpas into that equation, (D, E, F, and so on), you would think that would solve the contradiction you’ve made within your post, but it just ends up in a paralogism (and no one in their right mind would create 100+ tulpas to solve saturation issues with how they all lead to "you"). Because you would still have to explain the relation/correlation between A (you) & B (Tulpa #1) without explaining the hidden dualism.

 

Which means if you can’t explain the hidden dualism, you pretty much shot yourself in the foot without some implication of a reductive ontology, or something like that which would explain some subtle differences of your tulpa from you (identity “you”). But if you’re really meaning “you” as in a generalized consciousness people have their own interpretations on, maybe you should expound more on why you feel 1+1+1 =…1???

 

We could talk about things like qualia (which would be another way to debunk your OP), hard/soft arguments of consciousness, or even how people try to give a neurological or even neurobiological ontology on tulpas (i.e. firing of neurons and those neurons emulating qualities of sentience and what have you). But until then, maybe you should take some time to articulate your thoughts and probably give us more scenarios and examples to support your OP.

[Guest]

-----

[Guest Anonymous]

intellectual masturbation

 

Can you do us all a favor and relax your diction? Linkzelda, it's getting awful.

[Linkzelda]

Middle school logic for you and the imaginary populace you're setting up? Nah, no thanks.

[Guest Anonymous]

Middle school logic? Nah, no thanks.

 

No, really. I can't understand anything you're spewing out. Like how this even relates. This isn't the first post you've waved your intellectual cock in others faces and I'm not the only one to yell at you about it.

 

I'm not going to argue further about this. You can take my little advice or not: Stop with the choice words and elitism.

[Guest MegaBusta]

Middle school logic for you and the imaginary populace you're setting up? Nah, no thanks.

 

Part of professionalism is being able to explain your reasoning in simpler terms for those who can't understand them. You, of all people, should know this.

[Linkzelda]

TL;DR at the bottom

 

No' date=' really. I can't understand anything you're spewing out. Like how this even relates. This isn't the first post you've waved your intellectual rooster in others faces and I'm not the only one to yell at you about it. [/quote']

 

Well it is a discussion, and seeing how I’ll just interpret that as you asking for clarification:

 

The concept Xeare was presenting was something everyone would easily get with tulpas being a part of themselves. However, the 1+1+1 = 1 that I was taking with a grain of salt implies that he’s probably referencing how they’re an offshoot of him in relation to his self-schema (like literally feeding off only of his conscious focus of them, and his 6 months of preparation for that). This would be very different to what others would generally conceptualize as the unconscious (not implying the term as a monolithic being of course). The host’s self-schema, or what he would ontologically define himself (the nature of his existence), would be an understatement of what tulpas derive from.

 

If he made a theory on how tulpas being an offshoot of us in relation to utilizing the confines of his mind rather than the “offshoot” that implies only what he consciously perceives, that would make the idea of monism he’s using more plausible (along with the other combinations of philosophies and standpoints he probably has). Because with how complicated the rest of our minds are compared to what we consciously perceive, in order for us to understand the nature of our tulpas, we would have to see them in dualistic terms to some extent (this is just following his line of logic with monism).

 

But at the same time, the host would know their tulpas leads back to them as the source (as in the totality of their consciousness/mind/etc. instead of their self-schema/personality/persona/etc.). This presents another idea of how he’s probably using neutral monism to explain his points (i.e. him being the source in which his tulpas derive from, but because the 1+1+1=1 doesn’t seem to show any sign of that, that’s where he shot himself in the foot).

 

The 1+1+1 =1 would have people questioning the relationship between the host and tulpa (the reductive principle I gave that was pretty basic), and the “offshoot of yourself” that seemed to be talking about his self-schema/personality/etc. would be too limited, since he would have to take into consideration of things like:

 

• Deviation – He couldn’t possibly be multifaceted in personality/persona/self-schema for his tulpas to literally just take a part of that (and not including the rest of the mind as well), and not have deviation occur at some point.

 

• Qualia (i.e. how much of “red” his tulpa would see in red compared to him; if his tulpa interprets the same perception differently, it would make his theory that I’m implying is about self-schema only a bit contradicting). Basically, it’s one aspect of a sentient being capable of experiencing subjectivity. The same Qualia term would be applied for things like vocality, and how people present arguments on tulpas using raw thoughts, and using it as a crutch instead of making their own distinct voice. Just a few examples if anyone didn’t know what the vocab of qualia meant.

 

• The theory along with the title implies the concept of irreducible minds, and he’s made in the past of a few neurological statements of neurons firing and simulating the process of tulpas that would cause more contradictions. Because most neurological statements would see the process as mechanical, and this would have newcomers that fixate on that idea, which may make them have a difficult time of understanding if sentience is truly possible for tulpas.

 

• And should he ever, or anyone here use a neurological standpoint in explaining the “offshoot” (be it self-schema/personality or just consciousness in general), I was going to ask him questions on things in relation to that. But seeing how he was half-asleep and ill-prepared (like he stated), I knew he was trying to get at something, but him having to put it in simpler terms in a few posts clearly would be difficult for him. Which leads me to my next point.

 

I'm not going to argue further about this. You can take my little advice or not: Stop with the choice words and elitism.

 

Seeing how you were a previous staff member, I would assume that you read the rules in how people should engage in discourse. However, there weren’t militant guidelines on how one should utilize their modes of diction, syntax, and linguistics in general. Because the general rule of thumb, if you read those rules, is that if someone doesn’t understand something, they should take the initiative to ask for more clarification (instead of asking someone in an aggressive manner to spoon-feed it to them). That's just part of constructive feedback.

 

And part of that rule is also acknowledging that people don’t want to explain things twice. But if the clarification is asked in a nobler and professional way, rather than admitting that the choice of words is incompatible with the individual’s limited set of vocabulary (and lack of research to check for synonyms), the person would be more likely to explain things more. Which means elaboration is inevitable, and laconic/short responses often leaves a lot of gray and vague areas as much as the presumed diction of what you consider me to be an elitist in.

 

The laconic responses is good for the generic Q&A on how to tulpaforce and all that, but when it comes to theories like this, being more elaborate is inevitable. Whether it’s branched out in a series of post, or just in a few posts that require more clarification here and there.

 

There shouldn’t be any implication on your end (based on how I use my vocabulary) that I’m superior, or of higher intelligence compared to anyone in diction or anything of that nature. Just like everyone, I have to rely on (to some extent) the community for accumulating different insights and perspectives from others. I’m in an equal position just like everyone else, but how you’re demanding me to use words suitable for you is not a plausible justification for your inability to just find synonyms for whatever words I’m using.

 

In fact, you’re wanting me to cater to fitting only to the extreme of your diction and others (which is obviously going to vary, so you’re pretty much setting me up for a catch-22/dead end). So either way, if I go with one extreme or the other, you’re actually wanting me to please everyone, and we know that’s something that’s futile in this forum or any social medium.

 

That’s where the rule for asking for more clarification is there, which sparks discussion, and reduces the trends of others just posting for the sake that they don’t know without picking out parts or the whole. For instance:

 

• “Hey, I couldn’t understand what you were trying to get at for this part on hidden dualisms and monism. Were you trying to say that the host would be the source, and the tulpas would be derived from them and other areas of their mind? If not, could you expound/elaborate on this specific part?”

 

• “Okay, I understood some of what you were saying here, but words like “ontological arguments” and “reductive ontology” didn’t make sense to me. Could you provide more examples on what you meant by reductive ontology and ontology in general in relation to Xeare’s theory?”

 

 

It’s simple things like the examples stated above that fuels discussion and constructive feedback, and would in turn, portray how the community is striving for professionalism that ALL members should take into consideration. Everyone has a personal choice of words, and how people judge what would be deemed more intelligent varies. And demanding a person to use generalized terms is a matter of what’s really generalized (look in that "What's a Tulpa" thread you made before along with the totality of other threads of this forum, and you'll see terminologies are sporadic).

 

When someone asks something like that (to make generalized terms of terms that are still up for debate and critical discussion), they’re (you in this case) usually wanting them to be compatible and just limited to them surprisingly. That’s just as elitist on your end because it’s saying, “Hey, think you can fit my mindset/perception of diction Linkzelda, and every single person on this forum whom I've collected a consensus on what's really proper vocab even though people from the IRC and forum have ambiguity in those same terms?”

 

 

 

TL;DR: This is a nice intermission until Xeare responds (or anyone adding on to the theories made so far), and seeing how you don't want to argue anymore on diction, I'm not going to argue on this either, Derp. I'll just wait for Xeare, and anyone that wants to make discussions about tulpas. I'll also try to relax my diction, but just know that if people start questioning the more relaxed linguistics, it'll only support what I stated with how asking for clarification helps with dealing with all circumstances in usage of diction.

 

And seeing how you revised a thread on the rules for newcomers, especially the part with asking for more clarification (rather than stating you don't know what's stated and not also constructively picking out parts that bother you, and at least using simple cognitive abilities to deduce where the person was trying to get at), I'm surprised you would think people having a personal choice of words contributes to elitism. Everyone has their own words to use, but that's not just elitism, that's just a matter of preference. No need for you to parse/break down implications that usage of words validates intelligence in any way. I don't have a select group of people who I share those personal choice of words with, so you're really using the wrong term here (but it seems you have those select group of individuals though in that other forum).

 

If it was something like a secluded irc channel where I only talked to those people for the sake of confirmation bias and echo chambers, that is one example of elitism. But I don't go to the IRC every now and then for confirmation bias, or for secluded groups, I go there to just be part of the community in general.