How many of you believe that the TF theory is real?

[Shinsoo]

I do. I met mine on this very site for a short time.

The pull, the etheric sex, the hand sliding up my leg when I first awoke, the dreams the visions—and of course the FEELINGS.

Too much happened to think it was anything but.

That said, not all twin flames were meant to be. Mine arrived with a lot less work to do and developed a lot faster, leaving me behind for another.

All is not lost for me though, I’ve met a soulmate who has really been my rock and we are creating a beautiful future together. :)

[happyhaunts03]

I believe because it feels right. I believed the theory of TF before I even heard the term because I have experienced it firsthand. It wasn't until later that I saw the label, which describes everything I have been through with my TF. I think it's a lot like religion and spirituality in general--you find beliefs that fit you and there is no right or wrong because spirituality is unique to each individual.

[ocean breeze]

Originally Posted by LunaBlue

unlike Jesus and religion this is a tactile experience as much as it is a soulful

Hence the fascination. Even i get caught up in the fantasy of it. Jesus and religion are more outdated.

[Gem]

I don't think it can be real, because epistemology functions as a symbolic reference system, but TF theory could be as good a way as any of making an understanding of what is going on.

When it comes to experience, the experience is what it is, and what we say about the experience is not the experience - TF is what we say about experience.

I have been in the knowledge game, and I know how it all works, and all we have are narratives which 'explain' what's happening. None of them are real and all of them are used to 'make sense of' experience.

[Nature Grows]

I saw Gem ^ with his Twin Flame holding hands, skipping down the street together giggling, he believes in it you guys, he does.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Yesterday I read another splat on the web that didn't make much sense - laden with assumptions, a few contradictions, misuse of words. It doesn't take a lot of discrimination to realise it was just another snare to the unwary. Of course, money was involved. It was couched in a quasi-academic style to sound plausible and to justify a variation of the theosophist "theory". I hoped to be informed as it emanated from someone calling themselves an ascended master. I wasn't.

Almost every blurb I found expounds a different version of the "theory". No more than one can be right - which one is anyone's guess.

So I believe twin flames are possible on the very rare occasion that a couple believe the same thing and their eternal destiny. It's just a belief but everyone is entitled to their beliefs. When two can submit to the doctrine then the twin flame designation applies (if they choose to call it that).

For me the doctrine doesn't work because
- I'm uncomfortable with eternal spiritual marriage. Though multiple lives may be possible I've been unable to validate the few glimpses I've had as fragments from past or future lives; plus the topology of being doesn't seem to work (if one thinks about it) across multiple lives.
- I don't believe the universe even wants to take over my free will
- I don't believe this universe thingie looks upon us individually and of itself guides our lives. Universe in the new age arena is synonymous with God (and I spent much effort shaking off views of God keeping watch on us all.)
- I believe the universe/God is indifferent to the workings of humans.
- I don't believe that one is born with an incomplete soul.
- I believe most emotions I encounter are the result of conditioning and taboo that prevents a natural expression between the genders (doesn't mean you're after sex all the time or even at all, etc). They emanate from yearning and neediness.
- our emotions are our responsibility and property. So are our actions.
- I believe the doctrine comes with expectations about the emotions and conduct of another (which is a part of every relationship likely to become intimate or is intimate) but twin flame expectations include quasi-spiritual stuff above and beyond the ordinary spirituality of a relationship - like it's ordained by an external divine agency that will regulate twins' lives. There pervades a feeling of control of another, an ownership probably because one or both twins feel they've surrendered their bit of the composite soul to the other.
- it's a doctrine, a religion.

Well, I could go on. Some while ago I quoted from a few articles I picked up on the web to indicate false logic, contradiction, supposition and the fallacy of factoids.

So... LOL, I don't believe any of these theories are applicable to me but I remain openminded.

Lorelyen, I think there's a lot of value to what you're saying here but there's something I'm curious about: You say it's a belief system, but what do you make of people's claims to telepathy with their twin, to an intense enegetic connection, and to being able to to feel what the other is feeling? To my mind this suggests that it isn't based purely on belief, that there's something more tangible to it than pure mental supposition.

Regardless, my view of the whole twin flame theory is that it's an attempt to conceptualise and explain an actual lived experience, a bond that seems, at least on the face of it, to be different in certain key respects to a 'normal' relationship. To my mind it's an attempt to assign meaning to this bond and to make sense of it, and in that sense it is like a religion in my opinion. Whether there's anything to the notion of a 'mission', the split-soul theory, ascension, and whatnot - I'm sceptical, I really couldn't say either way at this moment in time. I think it's too easy to get distracted by this stuff, rather than do the inner work that needs to be done.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't think it can be real, because epistemology functions as a symbolic reference system, but TF theory could be as good a way as any of making an understanding of what is going on.

When it comes to experience, the experience is what it is, and what we say about the experience is not the experience - TF is what we say about experience.

I have been in the knowledge game, and I know how it all works, and all we have are narratives which 'explain' what's happening. None of them are real and all of them are used to 'make sense of' experience.

This is spot on for me, particularly the bit in bold.

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

I saw Gem ^ with his Twin Flame holding hands, skipping down the street together giggling, he believes in it you guys, he does.

I think the most implausible bit of that is the idea of Gem skipping - Gem don't skip, bro, I'm not buying that for a second

Originally Posted by A human Being

Lorelyen, I think there's a lot of value to what you're saying here but there's something I'm curious about: You say it's a belief system, but what do you make of people's claims to telepathy with their twin, to an intense enegetic connection, and to being able to to feel what the other is feeling? To my mind this suggests that it isn't based purely on belief, that there's something more tangible to it than pure mental supposition.

Interesting point.
You do love to catch me out, don’t you?! .
Let’s see what excuse I can rummage up from my 64-byte brain, shaken up a bit with Zumba this morning.

Well, I do see the two as distinct. There’s the twin flame belief system (I really don’t know what else to call it. A doctrine? It isn’t a phenomenon - as many point out here it’s an experience so it can’t be observed independently; and it isn’t noumenal since it involves two interior worlds - like it or not, one can’t actually experience the experiences (except maybe grossly) of another which would subsume a huge backlog of common experiencing. I suppose it’s remotely possible but not on the strength of what seems philosophically plausible thus far…Perhaps I’m wrong.)

Anyway, that, and telepathy. It happens between people whether they’re twins or not. I’ve experienced it quite intensely with definitely not a twin flame. Same with empathy even over a distance… weird and wonderful as these things are they aren’t the exclusive province of twins. I’m also open to exceptionally people doing most of their communication this way.
(An unexpected empathy happened this very day.)

So I don’t see the items you describe as incompatible with twin flame as a theory or belief system - they're tools and 'facts' of relationships anyway. But your point is significant in a decision about the viability of twin flaming - can't deny that!

Regardless, my view of the whole twin flame theory is that it's an attempt to conceptualise and explain an actual lived experience, a bond that seems, at least on the face of it, to be different in certain key respects to a 'normal' relationship. To my mind it's an attempt to assign meaning to this bond and to make sense of it, and in that sense it is like a religion in my opinion. Whether there's anything to the notion of a 'mission', the split-soul theory, ascension, and whatnot - I'm sceptical, I really couldn't say either way at this moment in time. I think it's too easy to get distracted by this stuff, rather than do the inner work that needs to be done.

You could have hit on an answer or part of it - a special quality of relationship without the constraining demands and airy-fairy stuff that seem to come with the doctrine as I read it. The label comes with that doctrine so perhaps it's time to reduce the entry requirements (so to speak!). Is it any wonder people run scared from those demands? Perhaps those relationships that are heading for a lifetime of endurance, people so "used to" each other that they're inseparable would qualify. People who know each other as-good-as absolutely as to be "as one" and yet who, with passing days, can inspire the engagement of the other. Maybe a whole new list of "requirements" need be written and what's the bet it would reflect older values of duty and and fidelity!

Nice one, A human Being. Thank you for your response.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Interesting point.
You do love to catch me out, don’t you?! .
Let’s see what excuse I can rummage up from my 64-byte brain, shaken up a bit with Zumba this morning.

Just curious, 'onnist! As ever it's an interesting conversation, though I never seem to learn about the dangers of engaging in this whole thinking malarkey - you sure do extract a lot from your 64 bytes, I currently feel like I'm trying to play 'Call of Duty' on a Commodore 64

Well, I do see the two as distinct. There’s the twin flame belief system (I really don’t know what else to call it. A doctrine? It isn’t a phenomenon - as many point out here it’s an experience so it can’t be observed independently; and it isn’t noumenal since it involves two interior worlds - like it or not, one can’t actually experience the experiences (except maybe grossly) of another which would subsume a huge backlog of common experiencing. I suppose it’s remotely possible but not on the strength of what seems philosophically plausible thus far…Perhaps I’m wrong.)

My brain's turned to scrambled egg again Blimey that's some deep thinking, I'm not even sure how to begin unpacking that... sorry!

Anyway, that, and telepathy. It happens between people whether they’re twins or not. I’ve experienced it quite intensely with definitely not a twin flame. Same with empathy even over a distance… weird and wonderful as these things are they aren’t the exclusive province of twins. I’m also open to exceptionally people doing most of their communication this way.
(An unexpected empathy happened this very day.)

So I don’t see the items you describe as incompatible with twin flame as a theory or belief system - they're tools and 'facts' of relationships anyway. But your point is significant in a decision about the viability of twin flaming - can't deny that!

I'd agree, I don't think these experiences are limited to so-called twin flames - the conclusion I arrived at in the end was that you could potentially experience these things with anyone, provided you were both on the same wavelength, so to speak. Though I heard a theory recently about 'soul streams', the idea being that we're all part of the ocean of consciousness but that it branches off into tributaries, and so you'll naturally feel more of a connection to people within your particular 'stream'. Sounds kinda plausible, but God knows how much truth there is to it, really.

You could have hit on an answer or part of it - a special quality of relationship without the constraining demands and airy-fairy stuff that seem to come with the doctrine as I read it. The label comes with that doctrine so perhaps it's time to reduce the entry requirements (so to speak!). Is it any wonder people run scared from those demands? Perhaps those relationships that are heading for a lifetime of endurance, people so "used to" each other that they're inseparable would qualify. People who know each other as-good-as absolutely as to be "as one" and yet who, with passing days, can inspire the engagement of the other. Maybe a whole new list of "requirements" need be written and what's the bet it would reflect older values of duty and and fidelity!

Yeah, maybe I've become jaded but I definitely feel like it could stand to lose a lot of the baggage it seems to have accumulated. I think at the end of the day we all just yearn for authentic connection, and for mutual love and respect. I certainly wouldn't mind a return to those older values.

Nice one, A human Being. Thank you for your response.

Likewise you

[LunaBlue]

Originally Posted by Nature Grows

I saw Gem ^ with his Twin Flame holding hands, skipping down the street together giggling, he believes in it you guys, he does.

And Gem and his Twin were sprinkling sparkles and moonbeams and rainbows and marshmallow clouds and twinklythings