Wednesday, January 11, 2012


I ponder this term quite often. A creature in existence solely due to a single thought shared between a mass of people, conglomerating into one entity. I used to think of this as sort of... a reverse Quantum Theory, multiple minds changing their universe rather than one mind making a new one.
From what I heartell (and by that I mean what I've been reading), bloggers such as a certain Robert Sagel popularized this theory behind the existence of our mutual Tallish Friend, in that the Tulpa Effect allowed said Tallish Friend to enter our world from Zirlikscht's (getting too long to type... hmm) own through our depictions of it. Or something like that, right?

Such a wonderful theory, too bad it's all wrong. Or perhaps just incomplete?

Consider for a moment: If the Tulpa Effect were real, why was TPF allowed in, rather than something else? Many of the people who know of HHIZ existence are killed by TPF or a Proxy anyway, so the following can't really be that large, right?
If that offhanded idea shared between a few people worked, then (to use some examples with a wider following) where are my dragons? Almost every culture in the world has at some point believed in the existence of dragons or equivalent creatures- the wyrm, the lung, the coatl, the wyvern, the lindworm, the zmey, the naga, not to mention anything that was given a NAME... Where are my unicorns? Where are my phoenixes, sphinxes, pegasi, kirin, gryphons, hippogryphs, dwarves, djinn, elementals, fair folk, smurfs and laser-mounted sharksI'mgettingsofarofftopic?
Assuming any of these live in the Astral Plane I've been hearing about, shouldn't they be able to cross over too, and probably in greater numbers to match a greater following?

But see, there's a difference: how far the belief goes. Not to be absolutely morbid, but how many of those people who believed in dragons took that idea to their graves? How many of them truly believed they were being KILLED by, or in the name of, a creature they've never actually seen before in this world?
Now the number drops to a few scattered and unrecorded incidents in the dark ages, doesn't it. Possibly even a smaller following than that of our Tallish Friend.

And now Dear Reader begins to see where I'm heading with this ball.

The problem is one can still tell the Tallish Friend shouldn't exist in this world, and never honestly believed in HHIZ existence until they saw TPF up close for themselves, so there's no natural reason to believe at time of death, right? "So how do you explain that away?"
Hasn't it already been said that TPF isn't affected by the same boundaries of time we are?

Let's call what I'm about to explain... Giles' Paradox Theory. Keyword being theory of course! Do feel free to criticize and call me a tool provide exceptions you've already noted.

It's really quite simple. You don't truly believe in 'The Construct'- at least, not enough for the Tulpa Effect's occurrence- until the moment you're about to die. You know how they say your life flashes before your eyes in that moment? Well, maybe not all of it, but certainly enough to ask yourself "how did it come to this point?" So you simultaneously see all instances of TPF's effect on your life in a second... and that one Essential Moment is all TPF needs to sneak into your life forever, a moment strong enough for it to truly exist. TPF takes a few steps back and plants the idea of its own existence in your mind earlier on- perhaps a video, a forum post, a hieroglyphic- which catalyzes when the Essential Moment occurs, ensuring HHIZ existence. An endless loop forms. The paradox in question. You are essentially screwed by destiny.

Which of course means that every time someone dies, TPF becomes a stronger part of this universe, because more and more people acknowledge 'The Construct' as their dying thought. Also, that the reason things like, oh... the Solstice wouldn't work, is that you have no influence over 'The Construct' until after these things should have already happened.
If I'm saying this right, then it might also mean that whenever a Proxy kills someone- at least, without telling them they're a Proxy, rather just going up and stabbing a guy without some big show for viewers with the attention spans of goldfish- there is a chance(!) that they weaken their own master.

Suddenly, "why don't you just shoot him" seems like less of a solid suggestion, doesn't it?

No comments:

Post a Comment