Jump to content

PsiQss' thought's relocation as a general forcing booster


PsiQss
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, 'moving' the thoughts around, I agree, is symbolism. Relocating on the other hand (at least that's how I see it) is not necessarily 'moving'. It is getting an idea of the thought and re-creating it, basically thinking it again, but this time the same way you perceive reality. Think of it as copy-paste. I know, symbolism again, but I'm finding it hard to explain things in a non-symbolic way.

 

As for the vote, I consider this method of mine a trick, really. So if anything, it wouldn't feel right to put it in the guides section anyway. The way we perceive thoughts is very personal by definition, so I don't expect it to work the same for everyone, nor to find any evidence or anything.

"Tulpamancy? It's a way of life.

More than one..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

But I'm finding it hard to explain things in a non-symbolic way.

 

It's alright because I highly doubt there's going to be guide submissions that will be purely non-symbolic. It gets to a point where we would have to weigh in anecdotal and experiential cases (which seems to be overlooked at times) and other aspects instead of just going by what 4 guys stated, and conflating that as the general populace of the tulpa community (whether it was stated in jest, or actually serious).

 

Things can get personal in meaning, though I figured that if people are gregarious enough, they can find correlation through other examples and means of conceptualizing methods like this.

 

Maybe if more people respond and provide some testimonials in the future, there may be someone that can get the underlying concept, and provide an explanation of the end result behind the method you've submitted. I mean, the end result is obvious for me, though giving an interpretation on my end would probably have the translation skewed, or just not fitted for the one that submitted in the first place.

 

I'd approve for tips as it is now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, 'moving' the thoughts around, I agree, is symbolism. Relocating on the other hand (at least that's how I see it) is not necessarily 'moving'. It is getting an idea of the thought and re-creating it, basically thinking it again, but this time the same way you perceive reality. Think of it as copy-paste. I know, symbolism again, but I'm finding it hard to explain things in a non-symbolic way.

 

Okay, yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that not everyone even feels thoughts differently like you do. That is, they perceive thoughts about reality in the same way as thoughts about hypotheticals. This would mean that your guide here wouldn't literally be applicable, even if some more fundamental aspects like what I mentioned would be.

 

Still, we agree on the end result so I guess that's okay.

 

 

It's alright because I highly doubt there's going to be guide submissions that will be purely non-symbolic. It gets to a point where we would have to weigh in anecdotal and experiential cases (which seems to be overlooked at times) and other aspects instead of just going by what 4 guys stated, and conflating that as the general populace of the tulpa community (whether it was stated in jest, or actually serious).

 

Baseless libel. My research is as serious as it is rigorous.

 

Seriously though, I did actually survey myself and three other people and the results were as I stated. I don't have any reason to believe that my admittedly small sample is atypical, at least in the surveyed aspect. I'm not claiming that this result is definitive or rigorous but for me it's at least significant to warrant more than "it doesn't represent the majority of the community". You're welcome to do your own slighly-less-ad-hoc research, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not claiming that this result is definitive or rigorous but for me it's at least significant to warrant more than "it doesn't represent the majority of the community".

You're welcome to do your own slighly-less-ad-hoc research, of course.

 

 

TL;DR at the bottom:

 

I never thought that the consensus from a few people felt they had empirical foundations, or had rigorous study in the first place to come up with objective results. I do apologize if my wording implied anything you stated of lesser value, which isn't the case since communal generalizations, whether small or grand is all we have for the communities related to tulpas anyway.

 

It's just that when it comes to finding non-symbolic, or at least things that require more exposition from symbolic methods, it would imply that the person would try to make some association with their presumptions with pre-existing knowledge. Because even if the symbolism is explained as objectively as possible (but doesn't have to be absolute of course), if people find the associations silly, it's setting up a dead end for the person submitting the entry.

 

This is where testimonials, anecdotal/experiential cases come in since it's pretty much putting good faith that there's some potential in said methods that are symbolic, and what have you.

 

This is why I felt that if things appear to be silly for someone reading could be for many factors:

 

- The person probably doesn't have enough of a mental library to find associations, correlations, and such behind said symbolism (e.g. seeing the premise behind the method, and the end result, and knowing it's just one of many ways to reach that). Though I figured at some point an individual would have to be used to unorthodox ways of thinking from time to time with tulpas especially.

 

- Things that may cause strife for the individual (e.g. wording of "subconscious" that they feel might imply metaphysical, or other conflated and confusing terms), which prevents them from understanding the premise.

 

- The individual may not be accustomed to visualizing how they would go about doing the methods, or just being consistent. Especially those that may have their own system of methodology, and conceptualizing things related to tulpas

 

This is why submissions that may be considered to be mostly symbolic in methodology and such seem to suffer the fate of explanations that would require more presumptions even if they associated it with pre-existing knowledge of things like psychology, neuroscience, etc. In other words, their explanations may be considered pseudo-science, which would make things even worse and complicated than the content they had before, and may be presumed to be metaphysical, weird, or whatever label people see fit.

 

It's not me attacking you for feeling you think you made valid statements that had research and study into it, nor presuming you want OP to have empirical evidence at all. It's just these submissions that get confusing seem to indirectly demand empirical evidence and study in order to give any sense of assurance to other readers.

 

Especially with a submission like this that makes presumptions on locations of the brain that may be associated to communication and tulpas, they're working hypotheses at best that could for some, but not everyone. It's just a strawman to feel I would have less-than-ad-hoc research when I specifically stated before in other submissions (at least I hope that was the case) that we're going by good faith, anecdotal/experiential cases, and other factors when seeing the potential for submissions in general.

 

This isn't critiquing your rating, or anyone else because they're all informative and definitely have substance in helping the submission. It's just a common trend (the submissions and the confusion with symbolism, metaphors, etc.) that I've seen with anything where the scientific and philosophical underpinnings are non-existent.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

 

It's just a strawman (whether you presumed or not) to presume I would think I'd have evidence, and the same if I presumed you did from what was just a simple consensus from a few people. Especially if everything stated in this forum, and others would be ad hoc at best until something gets introduced in the domain of science for experimentation and further study.

 

This is why submissions implied as symbolically stepped methods, or just symbolism with no instruction reach an impasse when the submitter can't explain things better, i.e., the explanation would probably have to be associated to scientific underpinnings that could be criticized and considered pseudoscience, and make things worse than the original content of the submission. Not that the submission being shifted to Tips (if there's the right amount of approvals) would make it of lesser value for others looking for methods, it's just a little analysis on my end.

 

It was more of a generalized struggle that may occur in the near future with the tulpa phenomenon, so I do apologize if the post seemed to have directed mostly towards you, and the others you had a discussion with for the submission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That post is really hard to understand in parts and, without mincing words, reads like it was written by a mechanical translator in some parts and a spambot in others. I'm not picking on you or trying to devalue your post because I don't like what's in it; it really is that bad.

 

It's just these submissions that get confusing seem to indirectly demand empirical evidence and study in order to give any sense of assurance to other readers.

 

It's just a strawman to feel I would have less-than-ad-hoc research when I specifically stated before in other submissions (at least I hope that was the case) that we're going by good faith, anecdotal/experiential cases, and other factors when seeing the potential for submissions in general.

 

Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I was using my little survey to back up what I wrote, because I was actually generalising about how other people thought; it would be better I do that with weak evidence than no evidence. Normally neither you or I would need it because we'd have a better idea of things just from being around, but that doesn't apply here because this sort of thing never gets mentioned.

 

 

It's just that when it comes to finding non-symbolic, or at least things that require more exposition from symbolic methods, it would imply that the person would try to make some association with their presumptions with pre-existing knowledge. Because even if the symbolism is explained as objectively as possible (but doesn't have to be absolute of course), if people find the associations silly, it's setting up a dead end for the person submitting the entry.

 

You seem to be starting from the premise that a guide is already symbolic, in which case I can't help but agree that if readers don't like the symbolism then they won't like the guide. That's kind of why we have a problem with symbolic guides.

 

The reason I wrote what I did in my first post was to help the writer find a non-symbolic method behind this. I'm not saying he should be able to first try, but that's what we're here for, right.

 

 

I'm gonna move this to Tips now seeing as no-one else wants to chip in, and we're all in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't move this anywhere (well it already was moved) until we get enough votes, otherwise we've come to the point we wanted to avoid which is the minority of GAT deciding what gets approved and what doesn't. And that ain't right, sounds more like abuse of power. No votes means it's time for us to go back to tell the guys to look alive.

 

Now I think I have read something similar to the guide you have, Psi, because what you added sounds very familiar. I think it might be enough to actually tell us what this guide is about and gave us something less symbolic to work with. I'm not sure if the symbolism way is the same as the explanation you offered at the start, but I'll take your word that they are similar enough to be considered to share their roots, so to speak. But I do think I finally understand what you're trying to teach us, so I'm glad you added that thing.

 

I almost think that the guide you're looking for had been posted on .info before and we had to rate it, so I guess it should be here if it still exists. If you have already checked every guide then I don't know what has happened to it or if it just was another place where we both read it. I would approve of this for tips now (unless we suddenly find the other guide and they are somehow more or less identical which means one is redundant) if waffles actually decides to ask for votes. Which I think he should, even though I know he wants things to happen fast.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting tip. On the whole it seems like a more concrete way of describing mindfulness, made accessible to forcing without the abstract language of meditation guides. Good show.

 

But with respect to the lost guide, is this it? I remember seeing it while reading Garland's PR. Seems to fit your recollection.

Your thinking needs a readjust; total concentration is a must.

-Zecora

 

Imma Reportin Mah Progress!

 

And, please, call me Sparks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be starting from the premise that a guide is already symbolic, in which case I can't help but agree that if readers don't like the symbolism then they won't like the guide. That's kind of why we have a problem with symbolic guides.

 

I didn’t state anywhere that all guide submissions are inherently symbolic (be it through their methods, or without instruction at all). The ones that are presumed to be mostly symbolic in certain circumstances suffer a dead end sometimes when the OP can’t explain things better. I already mentioned that it’s unlikely to find submissions that are symbolic free, but that doesn’t mean entries with a small shred of symbolism is considered to be already symbolic (as in it mostly being symbolic), at least for me.

 

The reason I wrote what I did in my first post was to help the writer find a non-symbolic method behind this. I'm not saying he should be able to first try' date=' but that's what we're here for, right.[/quote']

 

There’s no need to justify or explain the logic behind the critique you gave since I’m not really against seeing another perspective in the first place that already provided a way for OP to build upon. I completely understand that OP may just need to give the submission a few more tries if they feel they can (whether it stays in Tips or is moved elsewhere), especially when more voices from others on their experiences may pop up in the future.

 

Again, typing late at night is a horrible habit of mind from the previous post, but hopefully this post shows that my previous post was just adding on to what you guys stated for the sake of OP hopefully seeing different perspectives on the guide submission in general. It wasn’t aimed to be a rebuttal on your posts. I just thought referencing to you guys every now and then would fit the implication that there’s group thinking involved, and nothing done in a negative manner for personal reasons.

 

-----

I agree with Sands that maybe more votes can be taken, though I worry if some would vote the submission as the bane of a newcomer’s journey for prosperity and success in the tulpa journey, or some weird logic like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I moved it back here. We have 3 votes and NotAnonymous told me what he was going to say a few days ago, but I guess we could wait for Methos or Averian to stir from their slumbers.

 

Man Linkzelda I'm not gonna take it personally if you say something that contradicts something I say. You know you get more of a group voice if we actually discuss things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approved for tips and tricks.

"Assert the supremacy of your Imaginal acts over facts and put all things in subjection to them... Nothing can take it from but your failure to persist in imagining the ideal realized."

 

-Neville Goddard

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...