Afternoon of January 15, 2015. Thursday. (Personal journal rant.)

This journal entry examines, without an attempt to belittle anyone's beliefs or personal experiences, one of the most infuriatingly ignorant things I have ever read regarding the nature of dreams. It is the bizarre erroneous idea that "your mind cannot create new people". I am not sure of the origin of this, but it actually surpasses so-called dream dictionaries as something so absurd that it is not something I would even consider addressing had I not seen it in several locations only recently (as of the beginning of this year). How could such a belief or idea even come about let alone be propagated or "approved" by anyone with even minimal experience in life? This is especially considering those who have worked with tulpas since childhood (though in my case, the primary tulpa turned out to be the same essence of an unlikely real person I did not know of at the time, the beautiful "dream girl" I ended up marrying). I am in this rant only because I have randomly read it in three different locations in the past week alone. Although it is true that credibility is virtually nonexistent in most dream literature I have read since the 1960s, I really do think this one is over the top in its silliness. In a way, this idea seems almost conspiratorial in its defeatist implications (as if it was propagated on purpose to dumb down the public).

In fact, saying that your mind cannot create new people is like saying your mind (in dream states, or for that matter, even with waking imagination) cannot create personally unique unusual-looking monsters (one person even said to me years ago that a particular Incubus-associated monster someone saw in their dream state had to be real because they did not think the mind could create such things - this was an adult that said this) or aliens or androids, or much of anything else, so let's be fully open and honest at just how ignorant and pointless this idea is and of course - the real mystery is why anyone would promote this. Why would people be so ridiculous? Is it to test others? Due to extensive trolling being fairly common on the Internet, I am never sure myself if people really believe what they are promoting and thus am never truly one to debate, but perhaps I will a bit more this year (if only in soliloquy), though it is certainly not my intent to annoy (or again, belittle) anyone - this coming from someone who has had thousands of validated remote viewing (and precognitive) experiences (too detailed, layered, and significant to be coincidence - and based on the stratum-like nature of cause and effect reality and of factorials as well) which hardly anyone takes seriously in modern mainstream society, but it has been successful for me so I have no need (especially now that I am older) to be humanly validated. That has never been a goal even as a child.

Although composites of real people (as many as three or more into one entity) and synthesized or combined personas are fairly common in my dreams - and even that dissolves the idea of "new" people being unable to be created even if typical dream characters are composites (the very nature of dream synthesis to be honest), there are characters that are completely and inherently fictional, including visually, especially in speedily morphing hypnagogia, where hundreds of unfamiliar and "new" people can be rendered within a short time - even more fictional new people in several minutes created in hypnagogia than the number of real people you have seen your entire life - thus exposing the "cannot create new people" as the extreme opposite to the truth (as with much of mainstream dream literature including media myths). Such an image (or even interacting with them) does not have to be "based" on something you already saw. In fact, this goes against the very nature of thought synthesis promoted by most educators. But seriously, why does someone such as myself even need to explain something so inherently obvious and visible?

Again, the very nature of dreams is synthesis and composite thought (people often make the mistake of claiming that dreams are based on residual memories or "the remains of the day" - this is not always true, other than at times, with the associated Tetris effect at various levels of both conscious and subconscious focus). This includes composite characters and especially composite locations. If I were to look back on my more substantial 40,000+ dreams, I would have to honestly state that hardly any shared the exact same nuances of a particular location. For example, even though I still often dream of my Cubitis home after not having been there since 1978, there are always subtle differences, including directional orientation of either the whole house or of a particular room or area (and sometimes it is just the front yard or backyard - or both and from two other different areas - that is from elsewhere). My dream's composite locations are even more different from dream to dream (often combining particular features of both Australian and American as well as yes - fictional - locations), which sometimes contain four or more different discernible locations combined as one, and also as set apart from bilocated perspectives (such as with my "eternity bridge" recurring theme). For example, the back door normally associated with one home is the front door to another or my home is mirror-imaged or rotated perpendicularly or with other unique variations in any combination possible.

People who are unfortunate enough not to believe in the power of the mind and imagination (or even have any faith in themselves; even their own legitimate experiences) could still deliberately create a dream-based tulpa that is an entirely "new" (and inherently fictional) person, though to be honest, still seen prior to the dream, but this is to make a point here. You can create a "new" person by using a morphing program (such as "Sqirlz Morph") and combine two people as dreams typically do in various facets of proportion (such as sixty-forty if you are so inclined, but the default as half-and-half). If you do not want to stop there, you can take that half-and-half morph and merge it within another half-and-half morph (also as dreams sometimes do), even until you have a hundred different people making up your new sole composite. It is not even that difficult (though time-wasting, and you will probably eventually discover something quite odd if you keep going, which I will not bother to explain or even get into here).

Years ago, when I read a lot of gibberish related to certain (at the time) popular spiritual concepts in the late 1980s, I had a meditation experience where a supposed unique "alien" and my brother Earl (as one composite character) were an immediate on-the-spot "answer" to an experiment - in other words - as a new on-demand situational composite as being my supposed "guide". Yes, about half of the image was my brother Earl (though only partly discernible), but it was still a new creation I had not seen before, his visage well-integrated within the unfamiliar "alien face".

Now I suppose there are going to be people who carry the idea ranted against here one step further - in claiming that a person cannot dream of imaginary animals unless they had seen the exact same one before. (Sigh.) I am sure that I am not the only one who has dreamed of mother/sister, father/brother, actor/friend, and so on, composites, sometimes integrated with completely unknown additional features. Sometimes, although I am not a conspiracy theorist, I really would like to discover the "man behind the curtain" that represents everyman - or more-so, the elusive myth maker.

Again, dreams often (with unlimited potential, it seems) express the very nature of composite synthesis. Please remember that it is not my goal or intent to "instruct", as I can only write what I know of. I am not even interested in changing people's minds as again, I only document what I know, and I have lived long enough to understand that people will believe whatever they wish to even for some reason if they only randomly read it somewhere on the Internet. However, I would never take something I read and present it as personal belief or second-hand "evidence" (or even "fact") - especially as being reflective of my own experiential-based journal - though I understand the majority of people seem to enjoy sharing something they read somewhere for whatever reason. Peace and Blessings.