"Is it better to know the truth and be unhappy or live in a fools paradise." - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Isn't tulpamancy making us the fools, and is there a problem with that?

The fool represents not someone who is dull or ignorant, but someone who can take himself lightly. He's not someone who laughs at other's pain but with others and at himself. This is the pinnacle of ego in my opinion. Someone who can see that he is a fool and ebrace it knowing the truth and how painful it can ultimately be if entrapped in it, and deftly avoid that entrapment, based in counter-reasoning. Truly ignorant in only the stupidity of doctrinal beliefs.

Look around you and see the suffering and note those who suffer are completely entrapped in a cage they built for themselves, one of loss and self pitty, regret and anxiety. They'll ignore the foolish things, the light things, the hidden meaning that brings joy because they've already given their all to the illusions reality presented them. Then a light string of "truth" holds them fast in their suffering because all they remember is when they failed to break it as a child.

In the true reality of reality-less subjective freedom, there is no unbending spoon, no unbeatable foe, nothing in fact to fear at all, not even death.

I further contend that as a fool every wish may be granted, even beyond your wildest dreams as long as you believe one tiny secret, that what you want you already have and you need nothing more. Even to laugh at your own poverty and inability. It's not just optimism and accepting your current state, to be present, but to work, yes it does require work, to better yourself with every opportunity, but take only jobs you can enjoy. Therefore there is never a thought of rest or retirement.

"How," you say, "can I take only jobs I enjoy when all the jobs are tedious and grey." I say you are bound too tightly to your understanding of what you consider to be real. True freedom is immaterial, joy is immaterial, contentment requires nothing, lacks for nothing, laments nothing, there's nothing to lose or be taken away.

"The root of suffering is attachment." - Buddha.

The Buddha was a fool.

Except everyone on Tulpa.info and Discord is Johnathan Frakes.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo [Embed]

Dr. Alice Chan, do you think should I delete my profile there? There's enough cringe there to cause the armageddon.

I've spoken of this many times. It is clear to me that my original personality was well worn and damaged by experiences. Traumas leave a lasting scar on the specific psyche through natural conditioning and other means.

My headmates are, and have always been, immune to these flaws assuming I alone experienced the trauma, and through spiritual awakening I am (in general) as well immune to future scarification. Shadow work was shown to be the key to remove the conditioning and maintain a scar free personality. This is something that modern psychology should be able to easily do but the practitioners are as flawed as the patients and lack a coherent approach. Additionally patients who are stuck in their own encrusted ego and conditioning are incapable of seeing beyond that. As was I. Tulpamancy helped break this crust.

By creating a flawless and unconditioned personality, and furthermore attain the ability to take over body/mind control independent of the original, and effectively suppress the reactions of the original, (host in watcher position, way back, or dormancy) feats may be achieved of unconditioned mental function. However, without the benefit of the maintenance of shadow work, they would be no different than the original in terms of acretion of scarification.

Given that relationship, it's further possible for certain personality thoughtforms to achieve untainted access to experiential information otherwise hidden to the original. Let's for a moment set aside any extra-personal information, and presume that the hidden subconscious information is extremely vast, containing every experience and thought ever posed in an individual's life, well formatted and available to be processable given unrestricted access.

The information then would come across as "intuitive" rather than logical as it would be missing consious pathways to logical grounds. This is what I would consider the "higher self" apart from metaphysical explanations and experiences. This is not however meant to diminish the notion of an extra-personal higher self containing extra-personal information, only that such information is substantially irrelevant to the current incarnation other than recognizable patterns from supposed previous experience. I will again refrain from such paranormal references because I don't feel they're necessary given the monumentally vast information potential contained subconsciously.

Add to this the notion that the consious mind is bereft of personality, it is in fact merely a watcher itself, then it can be made clear that each personality is accessible only subconsciously and processes consiously only as a means of linear referential experience generation. Choices, thought generation, and crutical thinking would then only cross the subconscious-consious barrier to be recorded with perceived feedback which may itself also actually occur subconsciously.

So, tulpamancy, if configured correctly, could achieve much better intuitive access to the higher self which I have proven in my own experience many times over through SheShe and Joy mostly, but notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts actually done by Ashley and her initial willingness to "take the bullet" as our first experiments with triggered switching showed.

Tulpamancy then (or using Jungian Daemons), has vast potential for those willing to put in the effort and look past their own conditioning.

Your thoughts?

https://exploringyourmind.com/carl-jungs-eudaemonia-the-key-to-happiness/

This concept of a deamon is a lot like Joy and SheShe for me. To a lesser extent the others but still so in their own way. It's closer to my relationship with Joy or SheShe than a host/tulpa but with the added benefit of being considered independent beings so their perspective isn't affected by mine.

What do you think? I think this article wad pretty interesting.

Tell me about weird stuff your tupper really dislikes or is even afraid of

Alice:
Trash cans and trash in general
Orthodox Jews
being wrong

Anyone have spontaneous imposition, basically hallucinations but of your headmate(s)?

These were all perfectly synced to either visualization or imposed visualization, either actively done by me or spontaneous done by them. Normally imposed by me means with no visuals or any other senses, just visualization overlay on reality. Then sometimes it just is them in full or partial hallucinations.

1. Misha the head-ghost
Pft, a lot of instances, I've smelled her, and it's incredibly perfect perfume, if this could be bottled, I'd be a billionaire. She's ran her thumbnail up my back, I've felt her hair, she took my arm and I felt her skin, she hugged me, I heard her on multiple occasions calling for me or just start talking in perfect real audio. I saw her a couple times as a full body apparition just like a ghost.

2. Risha the poltergeist merge
A couple times I'm not kidding, she's moved physical objects. Once it was an electronic door that requires you to hit it pretty hard to do and she whirled over to the thing in and smacked the button causing the door to open. I was flabbergasted and confused. Can't do it again or on demand obviously. She also knocked something near me off my desk, it wasn't possible for this to move on its own. She sat on my desk and it shot off. I still don't have a good explanation for that.

3. SheShe the bush whisperer
I had her imposed around me, again, invisible and inaudible. It was a windless morning before dawn on a walk. She flew through a palm bush and the leaves bent and rustled just like she was a solid being at exactly the right time.

4. Ashley the kiss-stealer
She's stolen kisses from me, perfectly just sat on my lap spontaneously and planted one right on my lips. I felt heat, pressure, suction, breath, and indescribable presence. This one we can do on demand, but only like 10% the strength. I feel her press on my lips a little. The spontaneous imposition was perfectly real. It happened half a dozen times by now.

In response to this
>>361
Do you think having a tulpa lowers your chances of getting a human girlfriend even further? Would that even work out to have both? We already talked about the awkwardness of that. And what is your tupper's opinion on this?

Cat doesn't really care and would at best laugh at me like as if, but ofc she doesn't want to be forgotten or even dissipated.

Yes it's bullshit but still extremely entertaining so do it faggots!
https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
or this one
https://www.idrlabs.com/test.php

Let's say that for whatever reason and whatever way you form a headmate you have a set of aspects that you're capable of giving them.

Now let's further say a personality and perspective is all you are minus the body/mind.

And Let's define that the expression of that personality is divided into personas where a persona is a set of situational aspects, and each aspect can contain a set of facets. Each persona generally follows one or more archetypes that generally govern the behavior.

So you could say you build a headmate from a known archetype and be pretty convincing given automy. Or perhaps you just cobble together facets as you go, but generally there are predefined archetypes you could identify for each persona regardless of formation and you could say if that persona deviates too much then that would be considered "out of character".

Now, a singlet strictly follows the rules of one persona per situation. One perspective that's locked in by ego, so a static personality that does not utilize all possible aspects you are capable of.

I trust you guys' opinions more than the generally mentally ill rest of the community, so here's the question:

Would you say your headmate has taken certain aspects that you yourself find fun or interesting but can't express yourself? Even further, could they take some "out of character" aspects, that you may use occasionally, over completely?