1. Due to hosting difficulties, difficulty maintaining the forum, time issues, etc.; some time later than a week from now (June 9, 2018) but within the next month, this site will be changing adminstrators from us (Fall Family) to the Quandary and moved, and the forum either migrated to other software or ended. If the forum is ended, static versions of the guides and other resources will be preserved. For more information, see Upcoming Administration Change and Possible End of Forum.

Inaccurate Statement on the Front Page

Discussion in 'Site Technical Help & Feedback' started by Melian, Apr 23, 2016.

  1. Melian

    Melian The Girl from a Dream Median System Is a median facet

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2015
    Messages:
    199
    System/Host:
    Mistgod
    Pronouns:
    She/Her
    The front page states:

    "Could you thus, in much the same way you craft an idea, craft a whole other person–one who thinks and acts independently of you–to share your mind with? A psychological companion?

    As bizarre as it may sound–yes. Jung, Socrates, and many fiction writers have had them."

    This is misleading and inaccurate.

    Carl Jung wrote about visions that he called "fantasies." In his writings he clearly stated that the personas that he encountered in these fantasies (such as his inner guru Philemon and his anima) seemed to be sometimes like a real person. He did not state they were actually indepedant thinking beings. Jung did not report having a tulpa. It would have been more accurate to write "craft a whole other person - one who seems to think and act independently of you" if you are going to use Jung as an example. Also, it should be made clear Jung did not write specifically about tulpas.

    Socrates did not have anything like a "psychological companion." Sacrates had a personal daemon, which was a metaphysical spirit in ancient Greek mythology and religion. It is a bit of a stretch to assume this was anything like a tulpa. There is not much to support that conclusion. Again this is misleading to use Socrates as an example. If you are going to do that, then every animal spirit guide in Native American religions were actually tulpas for example. Again, there is no conclusive evidence for that. We just can't know that such a thing is a fact.

    Using examples out of literary and historical context or in an inaccurate way, leaving out key information, and presenting assumptions as fact, are all examples of methods used in pseudo-science.

    I suggest this be rewritten to be more accurate and factual.

    The front page also states that "many fiction writers have had them." This is true. Many fiction writers have explicitly stated they have a tulpa, if we are including members of the tulpa community who are also authors. Beyond the tulpa community, authors have reported having characters that again, seem to have some autonomous behavior. This has been documented in the Illusion of Independent Agency research from the University of Oregon. I am not sure if that is what the statement on the front page is referring to or not. But, the authors investigated in that particular study do not seem to report that they think these seemingly autonomous characters are actually independently sentient beings or that they are tulpas. In fact, that research had nothing to do with tulpas.

    Do we know of any examples of authors, who are not tulpamancers or soulbonders (the recently founded internet communities), reporting having what they think are independent thinking people in their heads? Or do we have examples of authors who reported something that only seemed independent sometimes? I know of no authors outside of the tulpa/soulbond community reporting characters becoming independent sentient beings.

    We cannot put words into the mouths of these "many authors." What did these authors actually report?

    In a side note not directly related to the front page issue, I want to point out that the only persons who have ever stated tulpas are psychologically based real independent sentient beings are the modern day internet tulpamancers. Most sources before this, before about six years ago, such as Alexandra David Neel, reported that tulpas were creations of magic and mysticism and illusory, metaphysical manifestations or related to occult phenomenon.

    I challenge anyone to find a source outside of the tulpa/soulbond internet community where it is explicitly stated that tulpas are a psychological phenomenon that creates a real independent sentient entity within your body. My host and I will be happy to be proven wrong on that.

    Our evidence for the existence of independant sentient tulpas is pretty much limited to anecdotal evidence from within the tulpa community itself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2016
  2. Watcher

    Watcher Somewhere Between Motivated and Cold

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Messages:
    118
    System/Host:
    The Outlaws
    Pronouns:
    He/Him, They/Them
    The thing about the introduction page is that it's meant to introduce people to unfamiliar concepts by citing familiar (or at the very least, relateable) examples. While it's true that in many cases we can't empirically prove the stated examples are examples of tulpamancy per se, they do illustrate that plurality at large, tulpamancy included, has been present throughout history. Frankly, as a member of a not-tulpamancy system, I think tulpamancy systems, and all systems, should be allowed to identify with other potential systems throughout history regardless of whether they may or may not "actually" be tulpamancy systems. The alternative would require explicit terminologies that in many instances had not been invented yet, were invented but not accessible at the time, or were not present across cultures to be used, which would mean that... well, pretty much no plural systems to speak of would be able to identify with any historical accounts of plurality whatsoever unless the specific terminology relating to their specific experience was employed in the source.

    Aside from that, you appear to be treating metaphysical tulpamancy practices and psychological ones as inherently and fundamentally different. However, if you read through David-Neel's Magic and Mystery in Tibet for example, you will encounter passages such as these, which bear striking similarities to the practicalities of modern tulpamancy practice:

    As such, the metaphysical nature of tulpas is not one of quality, but of perspective, and to assume that tulpas created from a metaphysical standpoint cannot be equated with tulpas created from a psychological standpoint really only serves to deepen the psychological/metaphysical divide within tulpamancy circles, one systems like ourselves, Kettu, and the late system of Ashlynn and company have been working to repair for some time now.

    As a matter of fact, we do. Look up Fernando Pessoa and his "heteronyms". Also of note is actor Leonard Nimoy, whom if I remember correctly viewed the character Spock as existing outside of himself, as well as comic book writer Alvin Schwarz, whom in An Unlikely Prophet describes the development of Superman from an imaginary entity into a tulpa. Although his stance is primarily metaphysical, as has been established, from a practical level, metaphysical aspects are an issue of personal philosophy and perspective rather than an essential divergence between "metaphysical" entities and "not metaphysical" ones, thus I believe it still applies.

    In all, tulpa.io is a bridge between tulpamancy and wider plurality circles at large. The aim of this website is not to sequester individual examples of plurality throughout history into specific boxes, but to use every example of plurality as an avenue for greater learning and understanding. After all, if only information explicitly pertaining to tulpamancy and not other areas of plurality were allowed on the site, the majority of its resources and articles would not be hosted here, and users would be required to go elsewhere to access that information. This is not to say that we don't appreciate your suggestions, and we will gladly add more examples of tulpamancy throughout history, but when offering an introduction to plurality at large (with added emphasis on tulpamancy), I do not believe these other instances should be removed, as our readers should have the right to understand the historical foundation of plurality at large as well as tulpamancy itself.

    Lastly, re: pseudo-science. As a history major, one of the first things they teach you is that history cannot be, and never will be, an exact science. What we do have are our interpretations, which in many instances can be informed and altered by new understanding of modern phenomena as applied to the past (Black Death, for example, wasn't spread by cats as medieval people believed, but rats). This same pattern applies to the introduction page: applying modern understandings and interpretations to sources that existed in the past, interpretations that may not be empirical, but still have the potential to offer readers greater understanding of the subject matter at large.

    P.S. I am not the nicest sounding facet. My tone is terse but I mean no ill will.
     
  3. Melian

    Melian The Girl from a Dream Median System Is a median facet

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2015
    Messages:
    199
    System/Host:
    Mistgod
    Pronouns:
    She/Her
    Thank you so much! My host Mistgod and I collaborated on our post here. We were fully expecting to get intellectually clobbered especially after reading a couple of your earlier posts. We were already extremely impressed with your eloquent writing, rhetoric and knowledge. We write in ways that often seem to be challenging the central themes and precepts of tulpamancy because the feedback we get helps us really learn and grow and strengthens the depth of our understanding and appreciation for practice of tulpamancy and plurality in general. This case was no exception! I hope that this particular thread remains visible near the front page for new people to read, it is fantastic. I am proud to have been handed my hat here!

    I really like what you had to say about the attempts here on Tulpa.io to repair the rift between metaphysical and psychological aspects of tulpamancy. Bravo! We support that, even though it came off in our writing that we did not. That was not our intention. Mistgod and I have read Alexandra David Neel's book a couple of times and were aware of that passage, but somehow hadn't ever applied it specifically in our minds to bridging the "gap" between metaphysics and psychology. We forgot, mental figments can mean psychological figments as well as magical ones. Alexandra David Neel never referenced concepts from psychology explicitly, but it is clear she is talking about something physiological as well as metaphysical.

    We love the story of Leanord Nimoy and Spock and have used that example ourselves many times in trying to provide an example of a system similar to ours. Leonard Nimoy with Spock seemed to have what my host and I interpret as a fictive median system like ours. I was really excited that you were aware of that story. We are definitely going to look up your other examples.

    I really, really like what you said in the beginning of your response that the examples provided in brief on the front welcome page are examples of the phenomenon of possible plurality from history. One of our personal favorites to use is Joan of Arc. My host and I believe her voices may have been a form of thoughtform plurality. We have no way to prove that of course, it is just our own personal hunch. If you look into history there are hundreds of such cases and situations I am sure. Joan of Arc did think her voices were independent sentient minds, but coming from outside of her own mind and not from within. The same would be true of Socrates and his daemon of course.

    My host and I have often created friction by stating that it was a mistake for the tulpamancy community to over emphasize the independent sentience or realness of tulpas over the psychological figment theory. That is because there isn't a lot to support independent sentience or any way to really prove it empirically. Also, we believe that it is not necessary to believe a tulpa is a real independent mind in order to successfully create one. There are a lot of examples of tulpamancers who dismiss the realness of their tulpa but still have all of the benefits of having created one.

    Independent sentience of tulpas is a central precept of the practice in this community, established by consensus of opinion and a myriad of personal testimonials. But we love to point out that it is not the only way to approach it. We wish the welcome page and introduction would explain that there is varied opinions within the practice of tulpamancy and thoughtform plurality.

    Thank you for your comprehensive and informative response. We learned a few things from it that strengthens our commitment to this community and our respect for the practice of tulpamancy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2016