Zoesthesia & Therianthropy

(2026-03-21 10:25)DustWolf Wrote:  I'm curious why synesthesia doesn't have this problem though? Maybe it does, maybe there's a population of kids out there who wear it like a cool label, the way it's modern to wear therianthropy these days, and to them synesthesia is a choice that you show off in public by wearing colorful clothing or something.

LP,
Dusty

The majority of the time, they say "I wish I had your kind of synesthesia, I just see letters in color" or "Wow, that looks very close to what I experience." There is often a combination of profound amazement and disappointment when they watch my simulations, and only rarely do I see anyone claiming that it's a spiritual thing. When they do, everyone groans.

(2026-03-21 7:56)Baumarius Wrote:  You're right in that there should be an emphasis on the embodied experience of feeling "animal." I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term.

That is not what I was talking about at all..

I was not suggesting that you expand that term to try to generalize the experiences described by therians or any other group to apply to everyone else under the Alterhuman umbrella; these groups have their own views and understandings that should not be broadly juxtaposed and presented as interchangeable. I am suggesting you drop this term completely because it has the potential to degrade our ability to communicate effectively and will further confuse the distinctions between these groups if you promote this. You're descriptions present this as if all the communities grouped under the Alterhuman umbrella share broadly comparable and similar ideas when they really don't.. If you present the experiences of multiple groups--some of which are describing ideas that are in direct opposition to each other--as if they are one homogenized shared concept, that will be interpreted as your term suggesting broad equivalencies between everything people use it to describe, as well as the communities those things derived from. That will neither help laypersons nor researchers understand what anyone is saying.

People drawing false-equivalencies are a frequent problem in these communities and I think we need to avoid creating them to the best of our ability...

(2026-03-21 16:11)Cygnus Wrote:  

(2026-03-21 7:56)Baumarius Wrote:  You're right in that there should be an emphasis on the embodied experience of feeling "animal." I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term.

That is not what I was talking about at all..

I was not suggesting that you expand that term to try to generalize the experiences described by therians or any other group to apply to everyone else under the Alterhuman umbrella; these groups have their own views and understandings that should not be broadly juxtaposed and presented as interchangeable. I am suggesting you drop this term completely because it has the potential to degrade our ability to communicate effectively and will further confuse the distinctions between these groups if you promote this. You're descriptions present this as if all the communities grouped under the Alterhuman umbrella share broadly comparable and similar ideas when they really don't.. If you present the experiences of multiple groups--some of which are describing ideas that are in direct opposition to each other--as if they are one homogenized shared concept, that will be interpreted as your term suggesting broad equivalencies between everything people use it to describe, as well as the communities those things derived from. That will neither help laypersons nor researchers understand what anyone is saying.

People drawing false-equivalencies are a frequent problem in these communities and I think we need to avoid creating them to the best of our ability...

WIth my own theory of consciousness, I struggle to see a scientifically measurable difference in what might be occurring under the hood - at least between therianthropy and otherkinity, even if the difference is "spiritual" vs psychological. It feels like otherkinity might take more steps, perhaps? But if the difference is "this feels more real and this feels less real," that means nothing. We do not have, and it is impossible to create, a "realometer." Interpretation of one's experiences is based on knowledge of the external world and one's previous experiences, which can include knowledge of how a particular earthly species behaves just as much as knowledge of how some mythical thing is described. How does anyone infer with certainty which thing they seem to be most like? There's millions of species on this planet and we've discovered a mere fraction of them. I'd wager that heuristics plays a big part in this process, regardless of which camp you're in.

My understanding of spirituality comes into play here too. If you take into account how your brain is recreating an inaccurate representation of the external world in its neurons, spirituality is literally just firsthand experience and however you interpret it. Dogma is its polar opposite, which has to do with believing someone else's word. It could be said that everything that isn't dogma is spiritual, and everything that isn't your raw awareness is made up with some measure of belief. If you don't believe me, think about that for a minute. Even the things you "know" - how do you "know" them? To "know" is to believe that you do. This may seem pedantic for everyday conversation, but in the context of psychology - which seeks to understand the world through empiricism, the underlying mechanisms that drive us to interpret our feelings and perceptions as "animal/other" are quite likely not all that different from each other.

Also, in my definition, there is no mention of alterhumanity or any of the other identifying terms. It's supposed to avoid them all. That's the point.

(2026-03-21 20:46)Baumarius Wrote:  WIth my own theory of consciousness, I struggle to see a scientifically measurable difference in what might be occurring under the hood - at least between therianthropy and otherkinity, even if the difference is "spiritual" vs psychological. It feels like otherkinity might take more steps, perhaps? But if the difference is "this feels more real and this feels less real," that means nothing. We do not have, and it is impossible to create, a "realometer." Interpretation of one's experiences is based on knowledge of the external world and one's previous experiences, which can include knowledge of how a particular earthly species behaves just as much as knowledge of how some mythical thing is described. How does anyone infer with certainty which thing they seem to be most like? There's millions of species on this planet and we've discovered a mere fraction of them. I'd wager that heuristics plays a big part in this process, regardless of which camp you're in.

We're not discussing scientific measurements or having a legitimacy debate.. You said you were grouping *all* of Alterhumanity(there are numerous unrelated groups under this), not just Otherkin. Otherkin is the only other community we share a similar basic concept with, which is why there's theriomythic to straddle between them. Anyway, there's no need to do the thing you're describing, nobody is having trouble simply referring to their experiences as what they are; experiences--and hopefully they're explaining them, which is way more important.

Quote:My understanding of spirituality comes into play here too. If you take into account how your brain is recreating an inaccurate representation of the external world in its neurons, spirituality is literally just firsthand experience and however you interpret it. Dogma is its polar opposite, which has to do with believing someone else's word. It could be said that everything that isn't dogma is spiritual, and everything that isn't your raw awareness is made up with some measure of belief. If you don't believe me, think about that for a minute. Even the things you "know" - how do you "know" them? To "know" is to believe that you do. This may seem pedantic for everyday conversation, but in the context of psychology - which seeks to understand the world through empiricism, the underlying mechanisms that drive us to interpret our feelings and perceptions as "animal/other" are quite likely not all that different from each other.

You are drawing false equivalencies again.. Those from the Therian and Otherkin communities are unique from both a principle and metaphysical perspective; they reach into different places, source from their own wells, and have homes in their own places in existence and the spirit world. I'm unsure why you switched mid-argument to purely philosophical and then psychological explanations..but they are not necessarily separate; the brain can be viewed as a filter for objective reality (at least, in some philosophical views).

However, your arguing from two opposing views here: that knowing is dogma and empiricism is truth...but knowing is only dogma if it is held without seeking evidence, and most metaphysics deals with attempts to derive truths empirically by seeking that evidence or through testing--like in magick or with many of us during awakening when we seek to understand the things we learn about ourselves. Regardless, none of this is the primary point of why you shouldn't just bunch together therian and otherkin experiences and call them the same; even if you don't understand the myriad of differences you should respect that we are not identical. It is, in fact, the principle of the matter.

Quote:Also, in my definition, there is no mention of alterhumanity or any of the other identifying terms. It's supposed to avoid them all. That's the point.

You explicitly stated the purpose of this term several times throughout this thread and in your previous post.
This was your previous quote:
"I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term."

(2026-03-22 5:19)Cygnus Wrote:  We're not discussing scientific measurements or having a legitimacy debate.. You said you were grouping *all* of Alterhumanity(there are numerous unrelated groups under this), not just Otherkin. Otherkin is the only other community we share a similar basic concept with, which is why there's theriomythic to straddle between them. Anyway, there's no need to do the thing you're describing, nobody is having trouble simply referring to their experiences as what they are; experiences--and hopefully they're explaining them, which is way more important.

I see what you're saying. In that regard, perhaps I went too far.

I stand by what I said about spirituality, though. Even saying that therians and otherkin have "different homes in the spirit world" is a belief that can't currently be tested. Judging from your response, I'm not sure if you understood my point about dogma vs spirituality. Though what you've said may be based on firsthand experiences, they're not my firsthand experiences or those of an interested researcher - and therefore, whether or not they are "true" is something that external observers have the choice to believe, and should keep a healthy dose of skepticism about.

It's been said that magic is science we just don't understand yet or have the tools to measure - I agree with that. The way I tend to process reality is not through the lens of "most metaphysics," but through methodological solipsism, which is what I'm getting at. I am agnostic - on most things, I decline to believe and not believe. I do think that scientists should approach their research, as well as their understanding of concepts such as therianthropy and otherkinity, from this framework - and I think that zoesthesia would serve that purpose well. I also think the international community would benefit from a more experience-focused discourse, and whatever these concepts are translated to will often be in a different form than the terms we know. Examining the differences between the related communities is probably more of a sociological thing than a psychological one.

If any of this is not meshing with things I have previously stated, it is likely because it is complex enough to try to logically group these experiences into one basal phenomenon, and I have been thinking through these things and expanding/adjusting my views as we go along. What I communicate is often a fraction of what I perceive. That doesn't mean I think it can't be done, but there's more research I need to do and more voices I need to hear from.

Respectfully, I'm dropping this for the time being. It's what everyone wants, anyway - but honestly, I'm already in a bit of a rush to prepare the materials for a grant application for my synesthesia simulator (April 2 deadline), and I need to drive like hell for the next two weeks to make ends meet. I appreciate all of your input on this subject. It's been a long time since I've been active on TG, but maybe you'll see more of me soon. If you respond again, I will read when I am able. Thank you.

(2026-03-22 6:32)Baumarius Wrote:  Respectfully, I'm dropping this for the time being. It's what everyone wants, anyway - but honestly, I'm already in a bit of a rush to prepare the materials for a grant application for my synesthesia simulator (April 2 deadline), and I need to drive like hell for the next two weeks to make ends meet. I appreciate all of your input on this subject. It's been a long time since I've been active on TG, but maybe you'll see more of me soon. If you respond again, I will read when I am able. Thank you.

No hard feelings, okay? This is just a discussion and that's what the forums are for.

I know I communicate a bit harshly but my purpose is to present my case just as you have yours and let the people who read this make up their own minds regarding what to believe. That's what they're going to do either way. Thing is, there have been other people who tried to come up with a new term, but ultimately this can only work if people who read this material see things your way and choose to use the new term.

I know TG has some authority in this regard because not everyone can edit the main site. I know we probably were the ones who seeded the community with the idea to split therianthropy into spiritual and psychological, but it was the people reading it who in the end decided to adopt this division and actually made it a thing.

The same thing goes for definitions and stuff and while the purpose of TG is to help educate people about therianthropy as actual therians experience it, I feel that this goal can only be achieved through the help of the community and that means conversations such as this one. You are an important part of this therian community as well.

LP,
Dusty

(2026-03-22 6:32)Baumarius Wrote:  I see what you're saying. In that regard, perhaps I went too far.

I stand by what I said about spirituality, though. Even saying that therians and otherkin have "different homes in the spirit world" is a belief that can't currently be tested. Judging from your response, I'm not sure if you understood my point about dogma vs spirituality. Though what you've said may be based on firsthand experiences, they're not my firsthand experiences or those of an interested researcher - and therefore, whether or not they are "true" is something that external observers have the choice to believe, and should keep a healthy dose of skepticism about.

Hm, I'm unsure if I did understand your point then; the way you wrote it was a bit winding and it was rather late for me.
You seemed to start off referring to the area of metaphysics that would deal with the soul/spirit, so I tried to address it within that context. This is the reason why I brought up ideas of "wells" and "homes"; they're common concepts shared across multiple cultures and traditions that have views of the spirit/soul, and from a view of it as comparative mythology each distant retelling of those archetypal concepts could be viewed as a data point. This is usually how I determine if something is likely representative of a truth about the nature of reality.

I was aware you were partly making a solipsistic argument, though I wasn't sure why you mentioned spirituality since that isn't the same as belief or firsthand experience. When you mentioned empiricism as a counterpoint I assumed you were trying to say that it was truth and classifying held-knowledge as dogma (it's opposite), since nothing outside the mind could be truly known from within a solipsistic view.

I don't really come from a solipsistic viewpoint, though I do view the mind as a filter for objective reality.. It's actually something I was having an interesting conversation about the other day regarding the way different cultures report seeing deities, spirits, and other features of reality; perhaps it is because of the mind presenting those archetypal features of reality in a more comprehensible way. ^^

Quote:It's been said that magic is science we just don't understand yet or have the tools to measure - I agree with that. The way I tend to process reality is not through the lens of "most metaphysics," but through methodological solipsism, which is what I'm getting at. I am agnostic - on most things, I decline to believe and not believe. I do think that scientists should approach their research, as well as their understanding of concepts such as therianthropy and otherkinity, from this framework - and I think that zoesthesia would serve that purpose well. I also think the international community would benefit from a more experience-focused discourse, and whatever these concepts are translated to will often be in a different form than the terms we know. Examining the differences between the related communities is probably more of a sociological thing than a psychological one.

I actually do agree with you on the first part, though I'm not agnostic. Much of what could be said to be supernatural I view as based in physical systems, their nature and influence, and the spirit world(etc) as an adjacent universe(or several) that seemed to match the branes described by M-Theory when I was younger. I've actually been retreading back through my old views of things recently in an attempt to figure out a more cohesive structural view of how things might be.

As for the international communities, perhaps reaching out to someone from their spaces and talking about concepts of experience might help; people learn best by seeing relatable examples.

Quote:...
Respectfully, I'm dropping this for the time being. It's what everyone wants, anyway - but honestly, I'm already in a bit of a rush to prepare the materials for a grant application for my synesthesia simulator (April 2 deadline), and I need to drive like hell for the next two weeks to make ends meet. I appreciate all of your input on this subject. It's been a long time since I've been active on TG, but maybe you'll see more of me soon. If you respond again, I will read when I am able. Thank you.

No problem, and my apologies if I came off as badgering through this and good luck on your grant.