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.

less a bucket on a wild fire and more drops in a bucket. our best weapon is education, get people on the same page. i went round and round with myself on this for years. cygnus can tell you we have spent hours debating the finer points of definitions and their deeper meanings and while not always agreeing i feel we can still derive a similar enpugh understanding to teach a unified idea which is far more important. each person we educate is another drop in that bucket and it may take a long time, perhaps longer than i even have, but eventually that bucket will over flow and people will understand. in the end, as someone who has proposed new terms myself, i have to ask what would this term actually contribute? a word to describe what we already have adequate language amd descriptions for? to combat a seemingly insurmountable wall of disinformation, spread and manufactured by those who fail to understand it or wantonly ignore it anyways? Perhaps something like this will have a place in the future but right now i don't see it. there is one important bit for your examples you liken this to, things like synesthesia, adhd, etc. have commonly understood and established definitions in the public zeitgeist before people sought to refine them. we are at a far more foundational level right now, the fight is for very heart and identity of therianthropy, not to describe and break down its sub parts so it can be discussed clinically. lets get the clinician talking about it (constructively) first.

(2026-03-20 20:44)Nachtfox Wrote:  @Baumarius A bit off topic, but I'm actually curious as to how therians in China view themselves/the community, and how they're defining it :0

I have a lot to say about this topic. First of all, in China one of Chinese words for “therian” is “半兽人”, the literal meaning of “半兽人” is “half-animal human”. Personally this is the worst translation I’ve ever seen. It just sounds like insisting “you're human through and through” and denying therianthropy. The worst news is that this translation has spread extremely widely, further increasing the misunderstanding of therianthropy among other people.
（PS: I know Therianthropy is therion + anthropos, Chinese tends to place important, main content at the end of phrases and sentences,which, as far as I know, is the opposite of English. Secondly, “半兽人” actually is orc/ork , and “兽人” often means Furry. So, all in all, that's why I'm so dissatisfied with this translation — I can't think of a worse one.）

How we view ourselves, just like how therians here view themselves.

When information about therianthropy first began circulating on the Chinese internet, it attracted a large number of young students just like what happened on tiktok — many of them quite young. They would “join” therian and made up experiences for themselves. Later, after some therians pointed out that this kind of “joining” behavior was inappropriate, some of these individuals started identifying as otherlinks instead (I honestly find this utterly ridiculous). These people who “join” otherlink looks just playing RP... I see no genuine sense of identity.

Although the online environment for Chinese Therians is not good, many Therians are still working hard to improve it, trying to give us a more private space to discuss, exchange ideas and help new members. Some of us publish content so that the public can reduce discrimination, misunderstanding, and stigmatization of Therians.[/b]

Me from Chinese therian community:

(2026-03-20 0:08)Baumarius Wrote:  A lot of young people in China, for example, think that "therian" is a fandom they can join. Younger folks globally should know that becoming more aware of the happenings in their consciousness is the point - not joining a fandom or getting likes on TikTok.

(2026-03-20 8:26)Baumarius Wrote:  In countries like China, it's becoming a fandom.

Not exactly. In the early time when Chinese just started to get in touch with therianthropy in a large scale (in the early 2025), it is true that therianthropy is seen as cool quadrobics and masks, and seem like a fandom. However, as the community develops, most members now hold the correct definition, and gradually form a consensus.

(2026-03-20 19:28)Baumarius Wrote:  You can't translate therianthropy directly into Chinese - it means "orcification." Therian means "orcs." The closest version of it means "animalhuman," which is hilarious to them. As I continue to work on my translations, "therianthropy" feels more and more like what "pineapple" did to "ananas."

At first, the translation of therianthropy is indeed "lf animal half person"; however, we now have a more precise translation, and is being widely used. More and more members are using 兽自识 as therianthropy, 有兽识者 as therian. Actually, this translation works has been done in the last year's November.

(2026-03-21 9:18)KeweyTanuki Wrote:  BTW I've seen a proposed Chinese word for "therianthropy" which glosses back to English as "beast self-awareness", therian is "have beast-self person". I believe that's coming from Chinese speakers themselves too.

The words themselves.

Exactly like this.

(2026-03-21 1:23)Baumarius Wrote:  

(2026-03-20 20:44)Nachtfox Wrote:  @Baumarius A bit off topic, but I'm actually curious as to how therians in China view themselves/the community, and how they're defining it :0

1. They keep "therian" untranslated, avoiding using Chinese characters for it, and often use "poorly translated" (in their own words) definitions from sites like TG.
2. Many of them think it's a roleplay/quadrobics-based fandom, like furries but feral. There are actual therians there, but from what they have described to me, it is disproportionately skewed toward the former.

1.As I said, we already translated.
2.These misunderstanding are consistently and gradually being corrected. From my point, more members are using "actually" definition.

兽自识（therianthropy）is already a word refers to inner non-human experience, so as therianthropy itself, while 有兽识者（therian）is an identity. I can't tell the subtle differences between English words, so I don't have enough argument to say if I support this new word. However, from the Chinese characters perspective, I thinks a new word is not necessary, and will confuse members in return.

Also what I want to point out is, Chinese therian community have the ability to development by itself, and our communities might be much more similar than you thought. I understand you want to promote global therian community development, but no matter if you realized you are actually implying this, but we are not dependent on help to being "correct". I'm not criticizing, and I don't want to argue; it's just a reminder.