Is this a good book?

[Tirisilex]

Well on the Book "Thought Forms and Hallucinations" I have read thru half of the book and decided to put it down. It doesnt instruct you on how to do Tulpas at all.. It's just a study of many different thought form experiences that the author could find. It has non instructions in it at all. Unless you want to know about Thought Form experiences that people have had then this book is for you. Again this book does not tell you how to make Thought Forms at all.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well on the Book "Thought Forms and Hallucinations" I have read thru half of the book and decided to put it down. It doesnt instruct you on how to do Tulpas at all.. It's just a study of many different thought form experiences that the author could find. It has non instructions in it at all. Unless you want to know about Thought Form experiences that people have had then this book is for you. Again this book does not tell you how to make Thought Forms at all.

 

I have skimmed my copy so far. I like the survey of different thought form types myself and is exactly what I was looking with for that. It is a lot more about metaphysics than science however, which is not surprising in the end. It is predictably a product of pseudo-science, conjecture and speculation. So I am a bit disappointed in that aspect. I probably had an unrealistic expectation to find an actual scientific approach to thought forms. One just may not exist anywhere. The inescapable conclusion for me may be that thought forms are simply not a scientific psychological term or concept at all. They never have been, despite wishing that it was so. In other words, tulpas are up to this date objects of pure fantasy, not science. ~Mistgod

[Stevie]

The inescapable conclusion for me may be that thought forms are simply not a scientific psychological term or concept at all. They never have been, despite wishing that it was so. In other words, tulpas are up to this date objects of pure fantasy, not science. ~Mistgod

 

I think I found my major qualm with your entire interpretation of things, right in this post.

 

You seem to think that the imagination somehow exists in this void, and you want to remove it from the context of the rest of the brain. Like somehow it exists independently of consciousness or even physiology, when really, it's all connected.

 

I don't really get why you want to do this, or why you think the imagination itself is so independent of science.

 

Just because there's no research to support something, or because one apparently shitty book isn't giving you the information that you claim to want, doesn't mean that it isn't out there, dude.

 

'Fantasy' or imagination isn't something that exists outside the realm of possible scientific interpretation, we just don't have the foundation of knowledge to prove anything yet.

 

tl;dr invalidating something by removing its context is defeatist as fuck

[Luminesce]

I still don't understand this "Tulpas are/aren't science" stuff. I'm starting to think I'm the only one capable of critical thinking here.

 

What is so hard about observing the nature of your own thoughts? What is so hard about breaking the mold of your conditioned non-thinking and actually paying attention?

Stop trying to use science where it doesn't belong. If you don't know how to explore subjectivity objectively, you'll just become ignorant to the possible truths. If there's one thing to be learned from every religion, every pessimist and optimist, from our entire history as a species, it's that we don't live in a world of inarguable truths and objective facts. Science - the use of the scientific method to explore the world we live in - is an extremely useful tool and has enabled us to do a lot, and it's certainly brought a lot of our belief systems closer together with its obsession with facts. But it's not all-encompassing, and it's not even close to the pinnacle of human nature. There's so much more at play in each of our lives. Every one of us lives with our own unique truths and falsities, because our existence at its core is still subjective. Until science understands human consciousness in its entirety, you can't keep treating it like it's an objective concept. And even then, I don't think a human being alone will ever truly understand consciousness through science, we'll probably create technology to do it for us.

 

You act like the original human comes from some transcendental realm far above a tulpas', that we're something greater than them. It happens to be one of my beliefs that a tulpa is a persona, the same thing we know ourselves as, but unattached to the body through identification. But whether you believe that or not, you can't deny that you can't grasp the true nature of your existence, and as far as I'm concerned that means you're not allowed to make objective claims of truth about it. Pertaining to this subject, that means you're not allowed to decide what a tulpa is or isn't, objectively, for anyone other than yourself. Certainly not under the guise of science. The reason we don't judge each other as "right" or "wrong" here is because we all have different histories of experience that have shaped us and our views differently, right?

 

But here's the thing. When you side yourself with science and logic, you get this impression that your subjective reality is the correct one. Everyone else is right and wrong for their own reasons, but yours is right because it makes sense to you. And that's great, but it's not right, not by science and not by me. Truth is subjective, too, outside the scope of hard science. And as far as I'm concerned, even when you bring science into it. Your way is not the way, it's a way. Your beliefs are not the truth, they're a truth. If you think they're the truth, you've got something really important to learn: reality is subjective, for each and every one of us, because we are not computers, we are living creatures. Universal objective truths are not how humans work. That should be obvious, from all the conflict in the world.

 

 

Sorry I've gotten so philosophically off topic here, but I don't know any other way to help you understand. You seem to care so much about finding the truth, so I had to raise the perspective a bit. My message in relation to tulpas here is that, basically, you've already decided on a "truth" for yourself, based on your experiences and beliefs. But the universal truth is that that's only one of them, that they change from person to person, and that they can change for you, too. If you really want the truth, you can't keep limiting your beliefs to what you already believe. If that's all you're going to do, then congratulations, you've already found it. If you want a real, universal truth, then you're going to have to do more than just look for someone else's personal truth that can defend itself better than yours. I'm not interested in forming the "strongest" subjective proof and calling it objective "for science". I'm interested in understanding the very nature of it, and how it can change for everyone. And hopefully, how everyone can choose their own truth.

 

But to do that, to give them the freedom to do so, they'll have to realize they aren't locked into theirs, or anyone else's. That they aren't locked into anything. A tulpa can be whatever you want it to be, no matter your preconceived beliefs of them, because you can change those beliefs. You can be whatever you want to be in the same way, but this isn't really the time or place to talk about that.

 

 

 

TL;DR your beliefs create your reality, and if you're looking for a truth that isn't what you currently believe, you're going to have to change those beliefs. In this case, by realizing right and wrong don't exist, and that using them is only a challenge to the universe to prove you wrong.

 

As someone currently trying to realize that myself, after believing in science as the only way to objective truth for so long, I think I know what I'm talking about. Science is a tool, not a religion. You are not a follower of the tool religion, you're a human who created that tool to further itself. Use it, but don't make it your god. Never forget that you're the creator of your reality, and nothing can change that.

[Guest Anonymous]

@ Stevie and Reisen

 

I deleted my entire response and started over with this. I am so tired of my own self at this point. You're both right. I am so beyond done with the "what is the nature of a tulpa" subject. It is so never going to be resolved and so irrelevant to what is really important to me.

 

I just want to share Melian from now on and have fun, learn and enjoy the community.

 

~Mistgod.

[Luminesce]

Hmm, I was just referring to this.

 

I probably had an unrealistic expectation to find an actual scientific approach to thought forms. One just may not exist anywhere. The inescapable conclusion for me may be that thought forms are simply not a scientific psychological term or concept at all. They never have been, despite wishing that it was so. In other words, tulpas are up to this date objects of pure fantasy, not science.

 

It annoyed me a bit when I read it before, and then Stevie quoted the exact thing I was going to, so I figured now was as good a time as any to reply.

 

I didn't mean to discourage you from anything, I just wanted to shake you of your back-and-forth thoughts on what tulpas are and aren't. You seem like you want them to be more than you think they are, but every time you think they might be you choose to believe they're not again. I just thought you should know that the limited perception you have of people and their thoughtforms aren't a very good basis to judge their true nature off of.

 

Maybe I'll write what tulpas are to me some day. If you're looking for someone else's personal truth that defends itself well, you won't find one better, because I've explained everything with logic and science. Unfortunately I don't know where to even start such an explanation, and it seems like a lot of work, so until then I suggest you think about the nature of subjectivity. You're an imaginative person, but you've got a lot of limiting beliefs regarding it, presumably created to defend yourself from criticism. It's up to you if you want to try and change, or are comfortable with the way things are. But as it stands, you seem to be working against yourself in the search for an answer.

[Linkzelda]

If you're looking for someone else's personal truth that defends itself well' date=' you won't find one better, because I've explained everything with logic and science.[/quote']

 

Someone may feel this entails that you have empirical foundations that can connect with a phenomenon that has yet to reconcile with such rudiments. At best, it would be idea playing and theorizing, and at worst, Scientism. And even with applications of soft science, I'm not sure anyone's declarations, musings, and things of that nature will suddenly shift the paradigm to one of hard science. But if this isn't your intention, ignore this post, I guess.

[Luminesce]

Like I said, if you're looking for someone else's personal truth that holds up well against logical criticisms, my beliefs have been tempered against most of them. I'm a perfectionist and refuse to believe fully in anything I can't explain with logic. Conveying them in any organization is a bit beyond my capability though. If humans were well capable of explaining their subjective beliefs to others, we might have something even more unifying than science by now.

 

Anyway, wasn't my point at all. I'm more interested in encouraging people to find their own personal truths, and maybe even to transcend subjective rights and wrongs and acknowledge beliefs for what they are. But.. maybe just the first one.

[Guest Anonymous]

It annoyed me a bit when I read it before, and then Stevie quoted the exact thing I was going to, so I figured now was as good a time as any to reply.

 

I sometimes think I live to annoy! LOL I love you too!

 

I didn't mean to discourage you from anything, I just wanted to shake you of your back-and-forth thoughts on what tulpas are and aren't. You seem like you want them to be more than you think they are, but every time you think they might be you choose to believe they're not again.

 

Very observant of you! YES. This is very true. My dual nature in conflict remember? I do wish Melian was totally real. But the realist in me tells me she cannot be.

 

Maybe I'll write what tulpas are to me some day. If you're looking for someone else's personal truth that defends itself well, you won't find one better, because I've explained everything with logic and science.

 

That would be AMAZING! I would love to read it if you ever do!

---

I'm not sure anyone's declarations, musings, and things of that nature will suddenly shift the paradigm to one of hard science. But if this isn't your intention, ignore this post, I guess.

 

I'm just trying to understand my own mind! Really, that is the bottom line. Reisen has been astute and intuitive enough to figure this out. ~Mistgod

[Linkzelda]

Like I said, if you're looking for someone else's personal truth that holds up well against logical criticisms, my beliefs have been tempered against most of them. I'm a perfectionist and refuse to believe fully in anything I can't explain with logic.

 

Maybe because said logical criticisms didn't have enough potency, in other words, there's not many hard asses in the forums that would bother to engage in some kind of militant reductio ad absurdum for people's opinions. Maybe they would fear of the knee-jerk reactions of being a pariah to the community, or whatever people tend to talk about, I guess.

 

Conveying them in any organization is a bit beyond my capability though. If humans were well capable of explaining their subjective beliefs to others, we might have something even more unifying than science by now.

 

Which begs the question of the point of utilizing science as a heuristic for things it cannot reconcile with? If idea playing with rudiments of scientific application is clearly seen as a supplement, and not something to be taken militantly, then why encroach science into explaining everything, is what I'm curious about. It's probably philosophy you're talking about that you feel is really just application of science and logic (the latter having some philosophical underpinnings in the first place, especially if one questions the rudiments of what logic is).

 

 

I'm just trying to understand my own mind! Really, that is the bottom line. Reisen has been astute and intuitive enough to figure this out. ~Mistgod

 

Oh, that wasn't specifically aimed towards you. It was more of a general statement of how people may take things out of context of those that are just trying to understand their everyday cognition, and feel that they're forcing others to accept certain paradigms to replace any other ones.