neiviele

[neiviele]

To add to the headspace Discourse(tm), we are a gateway collective and believe our headspace (preferred term: inner world) to be real in at least some sense. There's differing opinions between us, largely depending on each collectivite's origin and their interaction with the inner world.

Whether or not this is a literal reality doesn't really impact our belief; we have no way of knowing, and assuming it's fictional or mentally generated and enforcing that belief would be harmful to collectivites who are from there, have family there, or have ongoing lives there.

Also: it isn't hurting anyone. Most people don't even know about our inner world, because what they see is the front, which is usually all that's relevant. We write about events that go on there in a personal locked journal, but again, it's certainly not anything we're forcing on anyone or trying to 'prove' in any way.

I think the discourse around the realness or unrealness of headspaces and inner worlds and the way it's framed is really indicative of how certain subsections of the syscourse community view the morality of sanity. We are naturally inclined to seeing the critical axis of judgement of any action or belief as 'is it harmful'. As long as someone isn't actually harming people, having an odd or untrue belief doesn't have any inherent moral weight, in our eyes. Especially for internal experiences. Someone believing they're hearing the voice of God or angels and not making that anyone else's problem is not hurting us. But are we judging discourse on real harm, or are we judging harm based on objective truth or 'sanity'? Who defines sanity and insanity, and are we reinforcing a certain worldview by reinforcing those judgements? Are we recreating ableist and saneist systems of oppression within our own communities on accident by bringing in unconscious biases about what is real or sane, and what is 'impossible' (or, if we were being more honest, what is 'insane'.)

[neiviele]

I know this wasn't the topic of the debate but even young children can have paracosms and come up with stuff unprovoked. Intrusive thoughts can appear and disturb someone, you don't have to consciously think a thought or a situation for it to appear in your head. We know maladaptive daydreaming exists, and people often have feelings about the situations happening in their daydreams, and they can even return to prior daydream happenings. Why wouldn't it be possible for someone to have a headspace that just appeared one day, or a complex innerworld that functions like real life? The psychological processes are all there, I don't think it makes sense to insist that it can't be done.

(Also if it involves dissociation I would expect the process to happen apart from the conscious mind anyway. That is what dissociation is lol)

The wildest thing about headspace discourse is that you're basically arguing about whether people can have concepts appear in their head unprovoked (they can) whether children can think (they can) whether people can have strong emotions over imagined situations (they can) and whether these situations can be recalled enough to give a cohesive narrative (they can).

[neiviele]

The wildest thing about headspace discourse is that you're basically arguing about whether people can have concepts appear in their head unprovoked (they can) whether children can think (they can) whether people can have strong emotions over imagined situations (they can) and whether these situations can be recalled enough to give a cohesive narrative (they can).

[neiviele]

this whole community takes things SO literally it feels like its on purpose

[neiviele]

Important in the innerworld discussion:

Perception =/= Reality.

Some things in systems can be discussed as ones perception of reality without it needing to be the perfect scientific reality. It is real to them and that's what matters.

For us we don't have any memories of our innerworld not existing or of creating it intentionally(even though we have a great memory that goes back to the age of 2 long before our trauma started). For us it has always existed. Does that mean the literal interpretation of it must have existed since birth? No but our perception is that it exists naturally without us having any intention in forming it.

Another point we see brought up all the time is that it isn't real and to that who cares. We can accept it isn't "real" while experiencing it as real. We form headmates fairly frequently but don't switch often so for many of us the world out here seems like the more fake one since they have little to know experience living in it. It doesn't help that our innerworld is the exact level of detailed and realistic as the world out here(except for a couple of things that break the laws of physic like superheroes and things that wouldn't make sense out here like talking animals) so it is really easy for someone who hasn't fronted for more than one hour in our close to 25 years of life to see the innerworld as more real to them.

It doesn't need to match with your experiences to be perceived as real to someone else. There are plenty of good reasons it can be seen as real without taking the literal definitions of all the words. Innerworlds can be different experiences for different people and neither of the experiences I talked about are uncommon. I've known plenty of other trauma formed systems with the same or similar experiences as mine here. Just because it can't literally happen doesn't mean it can't be the best way for one to describe their perception of their experience. It is very important to acknowledge the systems perception in these discussions.

[neiviele]

Systems I'm curious...

[neiviele]

(Long story short, we're worried about how that could be potentially reinforcing delusions.)

I can understand the worry, but if someone is purposefully doing it I would think it's different from delusions, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but delusions are often harmful and not willed, like you can't wake up one day and decide you're going to become delusional about a topic. Tulpamancy is purposeful and isn't supposed to be harmful, so it's fairly likely most people there aren't experiencing delusions.

But also even if someone were to be experiencing a delusion, unless they're actively asking for help or expressing distress in the server it might be beyond the scope of anybody online to help them. Delusional people have the freedom to do as they want (provided it's not harming anyone) and if a delusional person was engaging in that, assuming they're not distressed or suffering I would think it would be okay to leave them be?

Plus the way it was worded and generally treated seemed like they were treating it like an alter, which we have VERY strong opinions on. Tulpas, real or not, are not alters, and seeing them treated as though they are so often is infuriating.

Tulpas aren't alters, but they often function independently of the host and have their own minds, plus can front. They aren't typically causing amnesia or clinical dissociation so they aren't really functioning like alters, but they can still have trouble differentiating themselves or blend from time to time, which is likely what they were talking about in the server. It's kinda expected since tulpas are made and are trying to separate themselves from the host, instead of merge with them.

And again, we HIGHLY doubt that tulpas (the western idea of them anyway, the original Buddhist idea we have no issue with whatsoever and do believe) exist in the first place, and I'm just generally disturbed by how they're treated in endo spaces.

There's some studies that suggest they exist, although yes they are very different from the Buddhist concept.

We definitely don't have a problem with people worshipping newer gods (We do that ourselves) but at the same time we can see that it could be harmful (it could be used to mock witchcraft, and viewing fictional characters as actual gods is a whole other can of worms)

Honestly, if someone wants to mock witchcraft, they'll use anything at their disposal. Before pop-paganism came onto the scene, people were also mocking witchcraft by saying those who practiced it were mentally ill, or children who hadn't grown up. If someone wants to mock a group of people, anything is fair game.

Okay, I recently went into a pro-endo discord server, in an attempt to help my polymind mutuals explain more about what polymind is, as well as try to scout out pro-endo spaces a bit more. I went in with an open mind, and I was willing to learn.

That was a mistake

IMMEDIATELY in their "resources" thing it described DID/OSDD as "disorders with plurality as their main features"

......Are you describing a Complex Dissociative Disorder or trying to sell a car?? Genuinely one of the worst descriptions of CDDs I've ever seen. What the fuck.

Then, as one was explaining polymindence to them, a bunch of them continuously compared it to median systems (Endos stop trying to tell polyminds they're systems challenge) eventually they got the idea, but after a bit one of the members said very odd things about "tulpamancers", claiming they were "the only ones who have their shit together" and that they "focus a lot on brain-hacking so a lot of their resources are very helpful to others" (Note: another polymind who was not involved, but was seeing us talk about this confirmed this was not the case, as they had seen many "tulpa" resources and pretty definitively said that it was not helpful at all to polyminds)

AND looking into a "tulpamancy" channel, I immediately saw someone asking for help on how to keep their "tulpas" from blending. What in the world are you people DOING.

Not to mention there was mentions of worshipping POP-CULTURE DEITIES in one of the channels. What. Why am I not surprised.

In general, 2/10, they were respectful and open to learning about polyminds, but other than that, VILE.

-Kaz, Xero, and Toby

[neiviele]

I've seen that description before! Last server I recall having that definition had DID/OSDD systems in it, so it might not be from complete unfamiliarity with the disorder.

I would agree that its inappropriate for them to try and push polyminds into medians or plurality once they understand it. Unfortunately I think syscourse has made it so that people assume that if you're not calling yourselves plural it's automatically because you feel invalid, and not because of genuine differing experiences. Tulpamancy resources can be helpful if you're looking to change the processing of the brain, but if you're not it will not be useful.

I don't understand what's wrong with tulpas trying to avoid blending though? Even DID/OSDD systems ask for help with that sometimes. I also don't understand what's wrong with pop-culture dieties, it's a spiritual belief right? It's fine to me?

Okay, I recently went into a pro-endo discord server, in an attempt to help my polymind mutuals explain more about what polymind is, as well as try to scout out pro-endo spaces a bit more. I went in with an open mind, and I was willing to learn.

That was a mistake

IMMEDIATELY in their "resources" thing it described DID/OSDD as "disorders with plurality as their main features"

......Are you describing a Complex Dissociative Disorder or trying to sell a car?? Genuinely one of the worst descriptions of CDDs I've ever seen. What the fuck.

Then, as one was explaining polymindence to them, a bunch of them continuously compared it to median systems (Endos stop trying to tell polyminds they're systems challenge) eventually they got the idea, but after a bit one of the members said very odd things about "tulpamancers", claiming they were "the only ones who have their shit together" and that they "focus a lot on brain-hacking so a lot of their resources are very helpful to others" (Note: another polymind who was not involved, but was seeing us talk about this confirmed this was not the case, as they had seen many "tulpa" resources and pretty definitively said that it was not helpful at all to polyminds)

AND looking into a "tulpamancy" channel, I immediately saw someone asking for help on how to keep their "tulpas" from blending. What in the world are you people DOING.

Not to mention there was mentions of worshipping POP-CULTURE DEITIES in one of the channels. What. Why am I not surprised.

In general, 2/10, they were respectful and open to learning about polyminds, but other than that, VILE.

-Kaz, Xero, and Toby

[neiviele]

Being a complete asshole and then not caring that you are being a complete asshole is not the Cool Guy Syscourse W™ you think it is. It literally says more about you than it does the people who are calling you out on you being a complete asshole.

Seriously. At that point, genuinely, not being facetious, just log off.

[neiviele]

Just in case anyone hasn't put it together yet...

There's a bad parody blog of an endogenic system...

That is anti-willogenic...

But still claims to be run by an endogenic system...

And has a weird fixation on Okiimii Prime...

And made a post after the system-facts situation saying it was disrespectful for people (me!) to point out how system-facts so OBVIOSLY didn't actually die.

Real mystery who this is! 🙄

To be fair, I got an anon a while back suggesting that the translucent-system was system-facts and I dismissed it.

Although, I still stand by much of what I said in that post.

A lot of their attempts at "mocking" willogenic systems were basic and boring, and often just saying things actual systems would say.

I also still stand by the fact that I believe the anon was ALSO system-facts. It's such a random "rumor" to have heard with no explanation of where they heard it from. And sending an anon claiming they heard a rumor that one of their blogs was secretly themselves seems like a very system-facts thing to do.

Specifically, this line from the anon stuck out to me...

Just because I think a lot of actual pro-endos would be fine with people making systems for this reason.

I mean, it is a major life decision and shouldn't be taken lightly, but I think making a system because you would enjoy being plural is totally fine.

I also think most pro-endos would agree with me on this.

You know who wouldn't agree? Who would see just the very idea of making a system for fun as "mocking" systems?

System-facts.

By the way, I don't think @Okiimii Prime should feel too sorry for the death threats sent to translucent-system.

Because do you know what else is a very system-facts thing to do? Sending yourself death threats so you can blame them on Okiimii. I mean, they've already faked their death. They've already sent anons pretending to be other people. They pretended to be their own girlfriend.

There is no reason to believe these death threats weren't also written by them.

Do not trust a single thing you see on translucent-system's blog. Do not trust what they claim are their real opinions. Do not trust that the anons they receive are legitimate.

[neiviele]

Do you all (mainly looking at the ridiculous amount of hate anons, troll blogs, and accounts almost entirely focused on attacking specific people that have been here in the past month or two) really... not have anything better to do with your lives? Because that is what putting this much energy into doing things that have 0 productive value is giving to me. It's not helping anyone (probably not even the people doing it), it's not really proving any points or changing minds, it's not even really interesting to almost anyone, just vaguely annoying? All it does is unnecessarily spread hateful and negative bullshit with no good reason for it.

[neiviele]

i do think the no doubles thing is fascinating bc like.. i thought respecting boundaries was good why is it suddenly cringefail and evil to say "hey i have identity issues surrounding x character and as such am not willing to interact with you"

like is it bc im fictionkin that this seems, yeah maybe unhealthy sometimes, but.. fine? do you really need to be allowed to personally interact with. Every introject of the same character as you? is there actually seriously for real INHERENTLY something wrong with this one specifically when, like, "endos dni" is supposed to be respected for some reason???

im aware some people harass others (bad) and other people try to get others removed from social places like discord servers (bad) but why is everyone acting like having an issue with "doubles" is like the biggest problem of modern system society. Fictionkin can and have done that completely civilly (and not so civilly) for a long time and like, "doubles dont exist" is really only a nice sentiment for everyone who... already agrees with you. some other people will be like "well thats nice but i have a disorder. That makes me dissociate under circumstances that others might consider silly or ridiculous. Like when i see a double"

[neiviele]

a lot of this doubles discourse just reminds us that a lot of people don't actually give a damn about the experiences and perspectives of people who are psychotic.

it's all "recover at your own pace" until someone doesn't want what they see as doubles to interact with them because it triggers their psychosis in an unreality way.

it's all "source seperate at your own pace" until someone is delusional about it, then they have to do it immediately or else they get the label of anti recovery.

just because you think the things that trigger people are dumb or stupid and silly, doesn't make it any less of a trigger for people.

or, don't pretend you're a safe space for the psychotic systems of this community. if you're not a safe space, just say that.

and, be mindful that we all have limited perspectives because none of us are omniscient. just because you don't understand why someone would be triggered or uncomfortable by something, doesn't mean that the person doesn't have a reason. just because you can't think of a reason, based on your knowledge and experience, doesn't mean that there's not a reason out there.

[neiviele]

Sanism

Sanism, also known as mentalism, is a systematic prejudice, oppression, or discrimination against people who are perceived as mentally ill, neurodivergent, or otherwise "not sane" by societal standards.

It involves stigmatizing mental health conditions, dismissing lived experiences, and deny access to support.

Some examples of sanism can be:

Denying support for mental health needs

Using derogatory terms like "insane" or "psycho" to belittle someone.

Assuming someone with a mental health disorder is incapable, dangerous, or untrustworthy.

Over-medicalizing or discrediting someone's self-advocacy about their own mind and experiences.

How do endogenic systems face sanism?

The dismissal of their existence. Many people only recognize plurality through the lens of trauma. Endogenic systems are commonly dismissed as "not real" or accused of faking their experiences, which invalidates identities and autonomy.

Even when not seeking a clinical label, endogenic systems may be seen as inherently disordered or "sick."

Endogenic systems are commonly excluded from plural/system support spaces, which leads to isolation and a lack of resources.

Endogenic systems may face accusations that their plurality is a delusion or a symptom of psychosis, even when they function perfectly well and explicitly say otherwise.

Recognize that sanism is a subtype of ableism, but the term isn't as common, so we use ableism as an umbrella term.

[neiviele]

List of things other than the DSM and "generalized psychology" (for lack of a better term), that the plural community would benefit studying:

Psychonautics

Transcendent psychology

Anthropology

Phenomenology

Philosophy of self

What constitutes the area of psychology

Feel free to add more, there are more things that study plurality than just what is treated as the supreme field of the mind, which is a soft science.

I'm not saying you have to study those, but I think we should use all of these areas, I think it would benefit discussions.

If they don't accept psychology studies, then we should bring even more things to the table and connect all of these things to create an area of study for plurality as a spectrum, as an experience, as a state of being. - Nightmare Sans

Absolutely! Actually, the Stanford Tulpa Study is probably only happening because tulpamancers reached out to Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist, to talk about similarities between tulpas and the "God" evangelicals talk to in her book, When God Talks Back.

That really set the dominoes in motion that led to her teaming up with Michael Lifshitz and others for the neuroimaging study.

If someone from tulpa community hadn't read that anthropology book, there's a good possibility that this current study wouldn't be happening today.

Looking to different fields is extremely important in developing our understanding of plurality.

[neiviele]

Also with one of the studies I shared a few weeks ago, looking closer at it (since tbh it was a fairly complex study) it seems to explain what we all share in common, plurality-wise.

The study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12391

This study looked at trait dissociation (dissociation that's a genetic or personality trait) in a group of people. In particular, they focused on dissociative absorption, as that tends to be common in the population in a non-clinical form. In hypnotized people and those with DID, EEG scans show less connectivity in the brain, and researchers hypothesized that this might be the same for those with trait dissociation. As hypothesized, they found that those with more trait dissociative absorption actually had less connectivity than those without.

(I might be explaining it poorly, again the way they described it was a bit complex for me ^_^')

I think this study actually helps explain why we (protogenics, tulpas/willogenics and traumagenic systems) can all share the same symptom of "having headmates" despite totally different causes. Of particular note (bolding mine):

Notably, when looking at the full sample (see supplementary material), several short- range locations (central-parietal and temporal), evinced effects in the alpha band. This corresponds with previous studies mentioned in the introduction that demonstrated lower intra-hemispheric connectivity in the alpha band, roughly in the same regions; specifically, this was demonstrated in frontal-parietal regions among hypnotizable subjects (who also scored high on state dissociation) during hypnosis (Terhune et al., 2011) and in frontal, parietal, and temporal regions in “alters” of dissociative patients (Hopper et al., 2002).

All three groups (those with trait dissociation, hypnotizable patients, and DID patients) showed decreased connectivity in the brain, in the same areas as those with alters and hypnotized people. This means that what creates endogenic and willogenic systems might be dissociative absorption, or a tendency towards such.

I could be stretching the research beyond its bounds or misunderstanding it completely, but this is what I think. What about y'all?

[neiviele]

I don’t know what the culture is, where you’re from. But personally, I think it’s really bad to make fun of someone who is possibly dead.

• Umbreon (he/him)

IMO, there is no possibility that they're dead.

First, they've been dishonest in how they've argued this whole time. It's likely their whole pro-endogenic, anti-willogenic and anti-protogenic stance was a troll from the beginning. And of course, they created their $1000 "award" that they had no intention of ever paying out. Seriously, unless someone is a millionaire, they aren't going to be offering that type of money over the internet with a legitimate intent to pay out if proven wrong.

They've previously claimed their host is PrincessofEndos which was thoroughly debunked. If it wasn't obvious before that this was a lie though, the fact that system-facts is now claiming to be dead while PrincessOfEndos is still very alive should at least prove that one of these things were lies beyond any doubt.

But the truth is that both are lies. As is everything to come out of that blog.

I mean, their official story is that they wrote up that post and told their girlfriend to post it in the event they did take their life. And... can you just imagine that conversation?

"Hey honey, I may unalive myself soon so I wrote up a draft on my Tumblr blog I've had for less than a month to make these people I've been arguing with on the internet feel bad about it when I do. So can you just post it whenever I'm dead?"

"Sure Babe, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable request. Do you need anything else?"

"Nope. Literally just that. That's my top priority right now."

Like, I would be skeptical of this story even if they hadn't already proven themselves to be a pathological liar.

By the way, I should also add that there was a level of calculation to the lie about PrincessOfEndos being their host's blog. They first drummed up this drama of there being conflict with their host, claiming their host had banned them from using their blog. Then they made posts saying they were going to reveal their host's blog out of spite, and that their host would probably deny it. Then they claimed PrincessOfEndos was their host. And when PrincessOfEndos said they weren't, system-facts said that they called it and their host was denying it.

These are not spur-of-the-moment lies. They are not random and impulsive. They are calculated, spread across multiple posts and designed to maximize drama.

I'm willing to bet that they intended to fake their death from the moment they revived their cash prize. Because "dying" after people send sources to your ask box that you have no intent on reading is a very easy way out.

And that last anon I got proves it to me. Because WHO ELSE would send that anon after system-facts' supposed death but they themselves? They had no supporters on this site. But System-Facts had sent me multiple anons before, including as their "host."

TL;DR: Based on their track record and the general absurdity of the story, I don't believe there is even the slightest possibility they're gone.