Imagination? Or psychosis?

I might have partially misunderstood, and also not expressed myself well either since I was having a hard time putting things into words this morning

This is what confused me, but I think I get what you're saying now. The problem is people who believe their dolls have souls that have no religious basis for it, claiming a religious basis anyway to avoid getting beat up on? That's perfectly possible, though unless you knew them personally, I'm not sure how you'd verify that as usually discussions dealing with religion are pretty heavily restricted here. If people claim a religious basis, and they never declared anything differently, then I would assume they meant it. I am curious though, are you basing this off of experiences with actual people here, or just the assumption that people who hold those spiritual beliefs are a really tiny minority therefore people must be claiming religion insincerely? Because I do think that there is more than a handful out there that do have beliefs that could support the idea that their dolls had souls/spirits (not saying they do or don't hold that belief with dolls, but it wouldn't necessarily be illogical). I know a handful, and there's so many people here I don't know that it kind of stands to reason that there are quite a few more lurking around. That's not to say that the people you are describing don't exist--I just wouldn't be so sure about the actual percentage they make up, and I certainly wouldn't be comfortable trying to guess who was being genuine about religion or not.

 

I think you're equating 'soul' with 'life' in the way that biological things are alive and need food and have nerve endings and the like. I don't see it quite that way...I see the doll body as being sort of a house for the spirit rather than a whole biological entity. This does effect how I treat my dolls, sure, but that's me...

Things like animal and child abuse can be proven, because they are biologically alive and have specific needs that biological things have that are either being met or not. Dolls having souls--that's something that exists only in the spiritual realm. Whether or not a doll has a soul, it doesn't have biological needs like eating and breathing. You can't prove it has a soul--so no matter what an individual might feel about it, it will always stay in the realm of the personal rather than be a community issue. That's just being realistic. And, sorry, but I've got to ask... What do you think would happen if someone suddenly started a dolly rights campaign on here? Really? People do not like to be told what to believe and how to treat their dolls, so what good would raising a stink do aside from getting the offending party thrown off DoA? I may believe my dolls have some sort of spirits attached, but I'm also part of the mundane world and have a pretty realistic view of other people.

See above, please. Also it depends, as I said before, on how you think something came by it's soul--is it something inherent, or something that the owner gives it through their energy and attention (in that case would all dolls even have souls)? What constitutes abusive behavior? Can the spirit inhabiting the doll leave if it chooses? By equating an inhabited doll with animals, you are really limiting the scope of things and leaving out whole chunks of beliefs that really do play a part in this. If someone sees a doll as being = to say, a dog, then abuse would be a logical issue. If a person equates the doll with more of the residence of the spirit/soul/what have you and is not biological in nature, then that's a different can or worms. Likewise whether a soul/spirit can leave or is always tied to that doll can also make a huge difference in this. You really need to widen your view.

You know, I actually agree with this, but not as it pertains to this topic, because I think there are some things you're really missing here.

Those are both important distinctions to make, as they can really impact how people view other owners/other owners' dolls.

But the problem is, is that it's the minefield you have to walk through. What you say about people having different criteria is very true, but by generalizing the issue you're painting everyone with the same brush, and it's causing you not to understand other people's thought processes (they aren't as illogical as they seem).

 

LOL, I'm jaded. I've been in hobby groups where people faked their own deaths.

Going back to your prior post, I am a skeptic in the same places as you are - namely, inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, if someone was obviously ignorant of the details of their illness or religion.

It's the same sort of subtle and unsubtle ways that you'd know someone was making an excuse or telling a story about anything else. She said she'd shipped the item on Halloween, but the postmark is a week later. A guy on the street tried to steal a doll right out of his car, and the owner punched him in the face... believable enough until the part about a passing cop congratulating him on protecting his "kid." A mean girl smashed a doll's face in because it was an unpopular brand, but the security guards didn't do anything and no one else was there to witness it.... and there are no pictures at all of the broken doll anywhere. A neighbor stole a doll off the porch, and this ended up with the owner in a diabetic coma while a Japanese friend logged in and gave updates on her increasingly critical condition in very unauthentic broken English. Even though people have said these things are true, would you genuinely believe them?

Really, fudging the reason why you are so attached to your dolls to it a bit more a palatable...? Comparatively small beans.

 

Yow, I guess there's a reason why I don't hang around many message boards outside the bjd community, lol.

Gotcha, I guess I don't ever hear enough from the same people regarding religious beliefs to be able to ever get a clear enough picture--or I'm hanging out in the wrong threads??? I'll tend to see where somebody said something in one place and that's it, and there never seems to be anything to contradict or not contradict (or I just don't see it, which is completely possible). That's why I just think "ok" and go on my way. It's such a huge board, that unless they post a lot or I've met them in real life, I can't really tell people apart so well.

 

These kind of statements are precisely what I was talking about. Why is there an assumption that others "need" to widen their view to accommodate you? Or that they must be "missing something" if they do not agree? Not agreeing does not mean not understanding. I comprehend your arguments fine. But where you see fact, I do not. Hence, we disagree.

I think much of where we disagree simply comes down to a fundamental differences in world view and religion. I do not perceive a difference between life and soul, as least not as it would pertain to the context of this debate. To me, all things with souls are to be considered alive. That's why my words blur those boundaries, even though yours may not. I also do not grok the idea that some examples of a specific type might have have a soul while others do not. In my world view, souls are inherent in things, not inserted by others. In other words, either dolls have souls, or they don't. To me, it seems as odd to state that "some do and some don't" as it would to make that statement about humans or cats.

So far no one has made a convincing argument to make me change my stance. There have been, however, a number of implied comments about my lack of tolerance -- an interesting tactic to use, since I tolerate the other side quite well, thanks. Until this recent series of debate threads came up that asked my opinion on the matter, I don't think anyone knew where I stood on doll souls at all. If I was so intolerant, one would think that at some point over the last five years someone would have noticed me treating those who believe in doll-souls in a different manner than everyone else. I don't. And I'm not going to start now.

We disagree on doll souls. Perhaps we would disagree in musical tastes, fashion, and politics, as well. But I don't "need" to widen my view to please you in those areas any more than I do in the area of doll souls. Nor, for the record, do you "need" to adjust your view to accept mine. If I have implied such, it was an error of the greatest magnitude. My intention was always to explain and debate my position rather than attempt to force or shame others into accepting it.

One thing I will say about this thread, is that it is fascinating to read other people's takes on this idea. I may not accept those other views for myself, but that doesn't mean I don't find them thought-provoking.

 

I said you needed to widen your view, because your examples only seemed to address one small aspect of belief when it comes to the possibility of dolls being more than just dolls. It felt that your last post was overgeneralizing in a way that was not going to lead to any kind of understanding.

That's perfectly fair, and I would never tell you to change your belief because of me. However, I do ask that you try and see where I'm coming from too. It might not be what you believe personally, but it explains why I react to things the way that I do. It is unfair to expect me to give you the respect and understanding while refusing to do the same for me and others.

To be honest, 'soul' is a really loaded word, which is why I sometimes say 'spirit' but I don't really have a lot of good words to use, and I'm sure it doesn't help any.

For the record, if I had wanted to accuse you of intolerance, I would have said "you're being intolerant." Rather I thought that there were some aspects of people's beliefs that you were not taking into account.

The last I knew, I was participating in a debate thread, which usually features disagreeing with other people. I've tried very hard, as I usually try, to not be rude or nasty to you or anyone else. I was simply responding to your opinion, that I happen to disagree with--and disagree strongly, because it's basically saying that my own belief system is BS. That was what your last post seemed to imply, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that there were some issues that you just weren't taking into account. No where have I ever said once, that everyone should hold the same view point as myself. All I ever suggested was that there is more than one way to look at this, and maybe you should take another gander before judging others too harshly.

I agree completely, which is why I'm more than a little surprised to be attacked.

 

I certainly never called anyone or any religion names. I am sorry that you have taken my position as a personal attack.

That said, I don't know too many people who don't find the religions they do not belong to a bit odd, silly, or illogical. That is why they are not followers of those faiths. I'm sure you would find a number of tenants of my own faith to be ridiculous and/or illogical. I don't get upset with people who feel that way, because I'm secure enough in my own belief not to be offended when non-followers criticize it. In fact, I expect them to, especially when my faith directly contradicts their faith.

You assume that I know nothing about the other side's view, and that I am not reading and listening. I am. For goodness sake, I have gone to other continents to study religion and anthropology, including a six month research trip on animism in particular. I have heard the arguments -- both those presented here, and those presented worldwide by religious leaders and professional academics. I'm not sure what I have to do for those on the other side of the debate to realize that this isn't an issue of arguments falling on deaf ears. I can hear fine. I just don't agree. It's not personal. And it's not "harsh" to decide that the arguments aren't working for me.

Taco, I'd like to state once again that I am not attacking you. Most of my statements in this thread have been generalized, and I've been trying to respond more to the general position you have taken than to you in particular. Thus, when I have said "some users" have stated or implied something, I mean just that. It's not code for "Taco" in particular. I don't have anything against you personally, not for your beliefs and not for anything you've said in this thread. If I met you on the street I would treat you no differently than I do any of the others in my community, who represent a range of faiths with which I do not always agree. I think you are seeing persecution where there is none. There is simply a different side of a philosophical coin.

 

Lizzard, ok look, I don't know what you know or what you don't know, because I know nothing about you. Really. I only know what you address in posts, so I assume nothing either way. Nor was I particularly over sensitive--I didn't feel attacked until you got upset that I disagreed with your post and accused me of various things. If you post a strongly worded critique about a set of beliefs in a debate thread, expect people to respond, and I was never rude to you. I think there is a communication issue here, but it's not on my end. Go back and read your last couple of posts and think about how they come off--I think they're probably saying something a little different than you intended them to say. Also, you only ever discussed one POV in your post--the one you ascribe to, despite the fact people where bringing up a lot of variations, so there was no way for me to know if you understood what I was saying or not--you simply didn't address it and went into an overgeneralized argument that never touched on other issues.

I don't want to drag this OT, so I'm going leave it at that.

 

This thread continues to evolve in fascinating ways. And, as usual, I find myself having "eureka" moments over some statements and giggling wildly at others!

Excellent way to describe it! Everything that IS has energy, actually, at the molecular level. The non-animate things like dolls have a different sort of energy than those of us who go around leaving traces of our thoughts for other people to read I really like this description because it allows for all sorts of interpretations that are non-threatening.

This, though, made me break into silly giggles along the lines of: "Well then he (or she...I do still have a FEW girl dolls) will have excellent company!"


It *is* a touchy subject, no matter how we dance around it, because it does get into very personal spiritual and religious beliefs. I've gone back recently to reading some of Joseph Campbell's early works in mythology and belief systems throughout human history (and prehistory). While his very obvious early-20th century white male scholar biases are sometimes enough to set your teeth on edge, he does make it very clear that humans *have* believed in animism in some places, and in others believing that animals often housed the spirits of humans simply going through another cycle of life -- and many other variants, quite literally thousands of years before any of our modern religions were shaped. My personal favorite variation on a theme is the description of some aspects of shamanism - where even though the participants in a ceremony know perfectly well that the guy dancing around the fire is someone they know, wearing a bear suit -- for that moment of time he IS the bear. (That's how I like to think about my dolls. By gosh, I know perfectly well they're sculpted plastic, but when I'm doing a photoshoot with them they ARE the character I'm depicting them as. Selective and purposeful suspension of disbelief.)

My point in this is to say who is any one of us, with our fewer than 100 years of experience each, to say that any one belief system is more correct than another? Maybe our dolls DO have souls, who knows? All we can do is be clear in our own minds what we personally believe, and respect the beliefs of others who do not agree with us.

Because I can pretty much bet my puny existence that none of us really has the answer to any of these Big Questions. Not if we're honest with ourselves.

 

I feel like we are reading two different threads. All I can do at this point is repeat what I said in my last post. "I think you are seeing persecution where there is none. There is simply a different side of a philosophical coin." I will certainly reread my posts and evaluate where I could have expressed myself better in order to avoid causing this kind of consternation in the future, and hope you will do the same.

 

Baakay, you've just given me yet another nugget of belief to tuck into my magpie's nest of gathered philosophical and traditional viewpoints! Thank you for that thought - I've just had a "eureka" moment of my own, too.

 

But is there a line between imagining a personality for their dolls, and actually believing that their doll is a separate, sentient entity?

Absolutely yes there is a line. Your use of the words 'separate' and 'sentient' draws the line very cleanly.

It is one matter for a human to create a personality and 'story' and project this onto the doll. It is a whole other matter to believe that the doll exists as a distinct, thinking being that is separate from the person who made up the doll's story.

To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If someone whats to make the extraordinary claim that dolls are separate, sentient beings (with or without souls), they are going to have to present some extraordinary evidence more than just, "I have a feeling that they do. I can tell. I can sense it, etc. My spiritual beliefs say it is so."

There is no way to prove a religious belief. Give me proof beyond just 'feelings' or religious beliefs. I think it would be fantastic if dolls could have their own separate, thinking personalities, but I have never seen any proof of this. All I have seen are people who want to believe that this is true. I firmly believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want so long as they don't harm others, but merely believing something does not make it true.

 

i have always had a problem with personifying objects. heck, i cant even throw out an old shirt for worrying about hurting it's "feelings". with dolls it is the same. i am also an emotional person though, so maybe we put emotions in our dolls so they can feel things that we dont want to, like pain, sadness, missing a loved one, etc. we give them stories and little personalities so we can give them alittle bit of ourselves and not feel responsible. i did that with an RP character, antomry. he is a totally horny vampire because at the time i was entering puberty and didnt know what to do with these new emotions, so i put them in him so i didn't feel guilty for them. i guess you can call it crazy or whatever, but as long as they arent hurting anyone, let the crazies be.

 

I worry about this, mostly because of my age. I'm not a kid, but I'm still young. I worry that I live in 'imagination land' too much and 'adult world' not enough.

I feel like, if I were younger, the realm of imagination would be a lot farther-reaching. As a young adult, I should be more grounded in reality, but I definitely spend a lot of time in my head, thinking up stories and whatever.

I guess it because harmful when your imagination begins to interfere with your life in any way; shirking responsibilities, feelings of guilt for 'wronging' a doll, etc.

 

On the other hand, I believe there is a number of people who do state, "Dolls are alive and can feel. However, while it hurts me to my sould to see you treat yours as you do, I am socially competent enough and sufficiently aware of the conventional views in this matter in my society to not raise a stink about it. But I am not OK with it!"

Silence does not equate acquiescence.

 

To get back to the original question of when does our doll characters cross the line from imagination to psychosis, I think it has much less to do with whether or not we think the doll has a soul or our reasons for believing or not believing that. Crossing the line to me is when a person takes the personification of their doll to the point of preferring to be with the doll & it's accompaning world to the neglect of real people & the actual world.

In doing this, they have essencially created a type of schizophrenia, believing & living more in their fantasies than in life. And I must admit that sometimes the comments people make here cause me a bit of worry. Sure some escapism is fun but when that becomes your predominating reality, it gets a little scary.

 

Their personalities exist within my head, I am real, therefore they are real too.

Reality is a matter of perception, yours is likely different than mine.

 

Not necessarily. Even if you perceived you can fly, I bet the law of gravity will have something to say about that.

 

Never been hang gliding I take it.

 

This is an extremely interesting thread, I have to say!

Coming from a fanfiction background (Final Fantasy VIII, yes, I admit it), I'm struck repeatedly by the similarities between the writers I knew and the doll owners I now know. If you ask most writers, they, too, would say that their characters are real individuals that live and breathe in their own minds. Whether these characters are aspects of their own personality given free reign within the imagination and on paper (my own suspicion) or are the result of some kind of cosmic occurence or instance of channeling is open to debate. The fact that the resulting fiction/stories/plays are often brilliant and dynamic is not.

It sounds like an oxymoron, but I believe that fantasy, aka creative energy is necessary for maintaining one's sanity. If the result of that is what I see every day in the Galleries in various photostories, or every time I look at someone's face-up or handmade clothing or furniture thread, all the better!