i’m recovering from assholery @synclu-satan - Tumblr Blog

oh god not the punk discourse making it to hot takes blogs about being anti endo

which "punk value" does being pro endo conflict with exactly?? where even is the list of punk values? sure there's some stuff most punks seen to agree on, but that's hardly the same as a defined value system.

anyway i severely doubt online discourse about plurality would make it on the list. if there was a list. which there decidedly is not.

#really?#come on people #syscourse

sophieinwonderland

r/FakeDisorderCringe doesn't know what biblical canon is, atheists are offended by saying God is plural, and other people casually throwing out some blasphemies and ableism!

👎

For uncreative title.

Atheists Pretending To Be Deeply Offended...

So, let me guess, you're not actually Christian are you?

Those guys sure aren't.

So weird how people pretend to be offended over a religion they aren't even a part of.

(Let's be real though, that's most of the tulpa discourse.)

Oh... you considered converting.

That clearly gives you a say in this conversation. /s

Meanwhile, my host actually lived the religion. He was Christian through his teenage years, and as a child helped his mom teach Sunday School and went to sleep every night on a Noah's Ark pillow.

Sorry, I distracted from your point. We're thieves stealing from a religion. 🙄

Okay, let's talk "canon!"

I just... I LOVE this whole conversation! 🤣

THIS is actual cringe.

Does anyone see the issue here?

I'll let u/AdSuccessful3533 spell it out. Possibly the only person with sense in the thread.

It's not just Catholic Canon either, but Biblical Canon! Like, there's a whole Wikipedia article on it!

The sheer self-righteous ignorance of r/Fakerdisordercringe (and r/systemscringe) never ceases to amaze me.

All of these people so bent out of shape over the use of "canon" to describe biblical text as if that's not been in use for hundreds of years!

"Something a middle schooler would say."

The Heresies!

That's correct. This is NOT the modalism heresy.

Modalism suggests God is a single unified being who reveals himself in different forms. God being plural would mean that God is three beings in one. This is completely in-line with the views of Trinitarianism.

An example of the modalism heresy would be more like this...

Comparing God to Optimus Prime, arguing that they're just different forms like Optimus Prime in a truck form vs him in a robot form, is modalism.

But if modalism isn't enough, we've got some tritheism too!

Besides the tritheism... it's really hard to take people who are calling tulpas appropriative seriously when they don't even know basic facts about the most popular religion in the world.

Also, the part about System not being a term for a person with DID is technically correct. System is, rather, the term used for the total collection of all the alters. But it is very much a term used by psychologists and it's accurate to refer to the Trinity as a system in this way.

Also, if the Tritheism bothers you, don't worry! We're going to go right back to modalism.

The H2O metaphor is controversial for the same reason as comparing God to Optimus Prime. It suggests God is simply changing form to become these different things.

Miscellaneous

Can you show me that rabbit hole?

I'm the one who Tweeted that, and have NEVER been on the OSDD sub.

Who do you think I am?

No... it definitely doesn't sound right. Religion shouldn't just be a thing for neurotypicals.

If one believes in God, then surely God made all people, including those of us who have mental illnesses. Why should Christianity and biblical references be kept away from people with mental illness other than ableism?

I mean, if by in peace, you mean without endogenic systems, then no. You can't.

We're here and we aren't going away. Ever.

And we exist in all spaces, including in your churches and your religious communities. And Christian systems shouldn't be expected to hide who they are because our existence bothers bigots like you.

We're going to share this world, and we're going to share spaces. And that includes churches and religious spaces too. Deal with it. 🤷‍♀️

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank everyone at r/fakedisordercringe for giving me the free material. For a subreddit that's designed to laugh at people for supposed "cringe," you all sure are a goldmine for it! 😜

polyfragmentdid

People really need to learn how to acknowledge systems outside their own comfort zone.

There are systems with a lot of introjects (yes including fictives) that are 100% fucking real.

There are systems with complex and vivid innerworlds that are 100% real.

There are systems with hundreds and thousands of alters that are fucking real.

Fun fact systems on social media are, in fact, real people and not just an entity that exists on the internet. Tumblr is a social media that houses real people, including systems, and so is any other social media a person can use. Just because you think something is "cringe" doesn't mean the person is faking their disorder.

Stop fucking fakeclaiming people, it doesn't help anyone and you look like an asshole.

feralsyscourse

Fuck anyone for telling you that you can’t get to the point that you’re legitimately friends with your alters after working on it for a long time.

sinful-elf

Western Tulpamancy is so fundamentally different from Buddhist Emanations that the two practices are only similar in name

This is the opinion of a Tibetan Buddhist who is quoted as being a "student of the words of Sogyal Rinpoche, student of Avalokitesvara, student of Kṣitigarbha," and a student of their own emanation (tulpa), Dharma Yokeyodasampa.

On May 11, 2022, this thread on Reddit was opened as an AMA for any member of r/Tulpas to ask questions regarding the Tibetan Buddhist practice of emanation.

The Buddhist (who did not give their own name or pronouns) has answered a couple questions regarding the use of the word "tulpa" as the tulpamancy/tulpa system community uses it. Screenshots of questions and answers with transcripts to follow. Emphasis added by myself for clarity, however, the quotes themselves remain unchanged.

[TRANSCRIPT:

How do you feel about this community, and by extension, other plural communities?

Answer: I have understood the western Tulpamancy culture for awhile, I’ve been on the old forums but I haven’t really interacted much with the community. I don’t view it negatively, as long as you live your life and treat all sentient beings with kindness, including your tulpa, I don’t see an issue.

How does your emanation/tulpa compare to the headmates of this community? Do you treat them differently in any way? How would you describe your relationship?

Answer: I believe the main difference between Dharma Yokeyodasampa and others, is his vows. He is an ascetic, by choice, and chooses to spend most of his time in my company or meditating in our mental space, which is the likeness of a monastery. He doesn’t indulge much in my world, other than discussing day to day troubles. He is like any other person I would guess, though he is deeply rooted in his spiritual practice, with most of the day up to 8 hours spent in meditation and repetition. Our relationship is like that of brothers, though we consider the other one his Teacher. Much can be learned from both our experiences, and much can be learned of ourselves by discussing ourselves.

How do you feel about this community using the term "tulpa"?

Answer: considering that, from what I understand, tulpa in the western sense is a different culture than that of Tibetan or other shared origin, I don’t see a specific claim to the word. I don’t mind it. It’s fascinating how such a concept has travelled and deviated from its original sources and grew into a practice distinct in culture and community.

/END TRANSCRIPT]

Considering the Buddhist in question had been in these circles for a long period of time before finally announcing themselves, they obviously have a good background of knowledge on the tulpamancy community as a whole. They do not see the community negatively. Their specific quote saying, "[the concept of tulpamancy] has travelled and deviated from its original sources and grew into a practice distinct in culture and community" suggests to me that they (and, by extension, more than likely other Tibetan Buddhists) see the key differences between Buddhist Emanations and Western Tulpamancy.

This distinction also becomes clear in the quote, "tulpa in the western sense is a different culture than that of Tibetan or other shared origin," so one can conclude we are not even pretending to practice the same emanation as Buddhists.

[TRANSCRIPT

Please be sure to “DM” me and I will retrieve some good reads for you.

In my personal understanding, not all tulpa are Bodhisattva or other enlightened beings. I believe western tulpas are incomplete variations or effects derived from Deity Yogic practices. That is to say, visualizing and maintaining a practice of meditating on -and with- the Buddhas/chosen deity or enlightened being, is meant to achieve an end goal such as purification, and realization of the true state of bliss.

While western tulpa seem to be made as companions with a secular division.

/END TRANSCRIPT]

This further places a distinction between Buddhist and western tulpa; Buddhist tulpa are created with a specific end goal in mind, whereas western tulpa are usually non-spiritual companions.

In conclusion, and to summarize:

Western tulpamancy and the practice of Tibetan Buddhist emanation are similar in basic method and name, but that is where the similarities stop

Western tulpa tend to be secular (non-religious) and psychological, in contrast with Tibetan Buddhist tulpa

Tibetan Buddhist tulpa are made with a specific end goal of enlightenment and/or purification, whereas Western tulpa are usually created with the intent of being companions

Tulpa simply means "an emanation" in this context and is a broad term

Cultural appropriation is not what is happening because we are not claiming our practice of Western tulpamancy to be the same as the advanced Deity Yoga of Tibetan Buddhism

#tulpamancy

fixing-pro-endo-posts

okay I'll bite. show us the science that says endo systems can't be systems (even though they are)

go on, I'll wait.

and no, some sysmed's carrd doesn't count

You cannot prove a negative. However all research into plurality currently shows it is traumagenic. So unless you can prove there is any reliable research showing that endogenic systems are scientifically a thing, I am going to stick to what science has actually proven about plurality. Which is that it is caused by childhood trauma that causes a person's brain to not properly integrate into a singular person.

sophieinwonderland

I'll actually make this even easier. Don't even show evidence. Just find an opinion from a doctor in psychology or psychiatry arguing against the existence of non-traumagenic plurality in a peer reviewed journal.

While you try to find this thing that doesn't exist, here's a quote from the founders of the theory of structural dissociation.

Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality. For example, Hilgard’s well-known “hidden observer,” as found in some highly hypnotizable subjects, involves a dissociative part of the personality that is endowed with consciousness and self-consciousness, but the phenomenon is disputed (e.g., Kihlstrom, 1998; Kirsch & Lynn, 1998). Mediumship may involve conscious and self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality (Braude, 1995).

Going forward from the idea of mediumship being dissociative identities is this:

Another study with Kardec mediums in São Paulo, Brazil by Negro, PalladinoNegro, and Louza (2002) reported that their mediums also attained high scores on dissociation (as assessed by the DES), and that there was a positive association between mediumship training and the control of the dissociated experiences. Hence, the capacity for dissociative self-experiences may play an important role in the ability to practice as a medium through differentiating and dissociating their normal identity states during their hypnotic-like procedures (Krippner, 2005).

And here's a study directly into a mix of non-disordered and disordered plurals where the author conclude the following:

Multiplicity can be placed along a continuum between identity disturbance and dissociative identity disorder (DID), although most systems function relatively well in everyday life. Further research is needed to explore this phenomenon, especially in terms of the extent to which multiplicity can be regarded as a healthy way of coping.

And one into tulpamancers...

Or Evangelicals who teach themselves to hold two-way conversations with "God" by "discerning" certain thoughts as belonging to God.

There are a ton of other observed phenomena in peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the experience of multiple self-conscious agents in a body (plurality) isn't something specific to OSDD or DID.

And what you won't find anywhere is one single paper disputing that fact.

Is the fact that no psychologist is disputing these phenomena proof in itself? Not really. And the explanations for these phenomena are still just theories, much like the theory that the reason DID forms is because children are naturally made up of multiple parts that integrate together by the time they reach adulthood. But it does show where every expert in the field is leaning.

#useful #syscourse #resources #links

frankly incredible that ive had three people respond to the same post and then all block me as soon as they reblogged it. you want to talk to me about how my community is an echo chamber, on your discourse blog (in two cases anyway), and then block me from interacting?

weird flex but ok. don’t know why you have a discourse blog if the discourse is the part you dont want 🤷🏻

hey just a thought for all the discourse blogs out there: discourse, by definition, requires at least two sides. if you don’t want or intend to actually discourse about the topic of your discourse blog, why do you have one??

#so confused #has syscourse in the name but gets mad at people for responding to syscourse tags #why are you like this

sparklingsyscourse

i bet pro-endos are anti-vax too lmao