Library - Kinmunity Jump to content
  • Fictionkin

    Sign in to follow this  
    Articles here apply strictly to the fictionkin community. Fictionkin typically identify as beings from works of fiction.
    Creative Commons License BY-NC
    Firstly, for those who don't know the term 'fictotype', which I use quite often -
    The older Kinmunity definiton - Similar to "kintype". The term "fictotype" refers to the particular type of being a fictionkin identifies as. This term is especially used for fictionkin who identify as human characters, as the term "kintype" does not apply; otherkin must be non-human identities.
    --
    This started off as an initial 'do you just relate to them or not' article, then just devolved into a bit of everything.
    As I've seen around here and other sites for a while, it is easy to mistake a connection with a character/species as an identity as that character/species. In fact I would say the most common question I've seen asked on character-specific fictionkin intros is 'How do you know you aren't just relating with the character, as opposed to identifying as them?'.
    Connecting with something can range from a complete love of a character to going as far as roleplay and making up 'headcanon' ideas/theories. Since characters are made to be related to, it is often how quickly people with new fictotypes seem to crop up, and also seem to come in "waves" when a piece of popular media comes out.
    --
    Below is an explanation on one of the lesser-known terms used in the fictionkin community - Fictionflicker - that is a temporary alternative to being fictionkin and fiction-hearted, and is often seen as more than just a cameo shift.
     
    On the Fictionkin.com forum (one of the main fictionkin sites) as a definition for 'fictionflicker' - " A nebulous experience of shifting through identities as fictional characters and/or temporarily “becoming” a fictional character and the shift in identity and perception this may involve, with or without the experience of memories or past-life leanings if such beliefs apply to the person. This could be likened to a “temporary kintype” that comes and goes. " 
    (Definiton from - http://fictionkin.com/glossary-of-common-terms/).
    This is closely touched on from the description of a fictionflicker LiveJournal site (http://fictionflickers.livejournal.com/profile), and varied at the last few sentences to include - " If you've ever felt yourself "imprinted on" by a fictional identity, if you've ever spent a day or a week feeling like a character, if you've ever momentarily expected to see a different, yet familiar, face in the mirror -- if you've ever felt flickers of fiction in your identity -- this may be a helpful, or at the very least interesting, community. "
    Fictionflicking is listed differently on InCanon (a smaller fictionkin forum which was discontinued in late 2016) as " a temporary shift, where a fictional character may appear for a brief or temporary amount of time (generally caused by circumstance). May be related/similar to soulbonds in some cases. " 
    (Definition from - http://incanon.tumblr.com/post/148947330579/what-is-a-fictionflicker).
    With the InCanon definition - the definition does not go into whether this is seen as a personal identity, just a glorified/extended cameo shift, or in fact related to living character/soulbonds.
    With the Fictionkin.com definition - this can also be seen by some as 'experience taking' which isn't just fictionkin-related, but also doesn't explain how a fictionflicker is different to a long-lasting identity aside from being 'temporary'.
     
    So it seems that there is no 'steady' definition, but the Fictionkin.com definition is the one you are most likely to see around due to the size of the site and its members.
    With fictionflicking, the fact that these can apparently last a while can often throw an identity into question, similar to a cameo shift, and can often stay even after you disconnect from your source material and any associated media, which is often used as a way of 'confirming' an identity as opposed to the identity only coming into focus when the media is found/accessed. 
    When you step away from any source material or associated media, see if your sense of identity fades away or persists through the times. If it fades away completely, chances are it was a fictionflicker, if it persists then more stock would be in the idea of this identity being genuine.
    --
    In games where you can customize the playable character, this falls into more of a gray area, as you could always run the risk of unconsciously pouring yourself into said character. This may require extra questioning in order to get to the bottom of 'is it an identity, or is it just because they are modeled after myself?'
    Questioning might not be the easiest at times, especially if you're like me and want to pick your identity to pieces... I could say that it's much easier to ask questions on a fictionkin forum than an Otherkin one, but sometimes the questions remain the same throughout the communities, give or take the different identities. And of course, you get 'fluff' in both communities, but fictionkin seem to get grilled harder due to it.
     
    So, what do you question? Where do you start?
    That seems to be it right there.
     
    - As said before, taking time away from any source material or media connected to the identity in question can help immensely as to whether it's just a 'trend' or not. The sense of identity may fade away to nothing, or it may persist through the times you're away from the source material. Although at times it may be dampened down to such a low level that it doesn't feel like it is there, but chances are there will still be a feeling of a different identity, or other signs.
    - In slight contradiction, returning to said source material may also reinforce the feeling of identity in regards to the feelings of deja vu or 'instinctual' reactions to events and/or other characters. Most people run the trial of leaving their source material for a few months/years, and then returning, in order to attempt to rule out anything false.
    - Think of how you felt before you found your source material, even though the majority of the time everything seems to 'click together' after finding said material, some claim to experience shifts, memories, and/or a sense of identity before they find their source material.
    - Similar to Otherkin/Therians, the more fictotypes you claim to have, the less you're likely to be believed. The saving grace is how much detail you can give in explaining your identity for every fictotype, and not just going off something like 'oh I just feel a connection to them'. The same question may even be asked a few times, just styled differently, or maybe in a different approach than the run-of-the-mill wording.
    - One way in order to question would be to document everything - every shift, every memory, every instance of even childhood that might have a chance of lining up with the identity in question. Document it, and then question why it's that way, if it could be something else, see if it's a reoccurring factor.
     
    As with any Otherkin/therian, some fictionkin don't have memories, or might not shift, or might not experience home/'canon'-sickness or a sense of instant familiarity. As with the other communities, it isn't a requirement, but due to the nature of fictionkin (character-specific or not, spiritual or psychological or a mix), it is usually put under more interrogation. And yes it can put some people off if you can't answer it 'correctly'.
     
    In contrast, saying you're '100% sure and don't doubt anything at all' may get you a few odd looks. Because that could mean that you blindly accept it without questioning and discovering more of yourself. 
     
    Long story short, a lot of questioning techniques used by Otherkin/Therians can often be used for fictionkin, just with a few minor tweaks.

    Creative Commons License BY-NC-ND
    Preface: This article provides background information to the Multiverse of Minds hypothesis. If you'd like additional sources to be reviewed, please comment. I'll try to take a look at them, but it might need some time.
    Motivation and Scope
    Considering oneself fictionkin, e.g. being member of the dragon species which has been reported by cultures all over the world, but was never actually proven to have existed, calls for an explanation model other than the concept of reincarnation. One such model is provided by the so-called „multiverse hypothesis“, which is commonly adopted by fictionkin. It is also one amongst many theories in physics which aim to explain effects of classical mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics, as well as observations made by physical cosmology. This blog entry will summarize and assess basic and also non-scientific online literature about the multiverse hypothesis as related to otherkin, but eventually also physical cosmology. In addition, related concepts, like e.g. the anthropic principle, are covered.
    The multiverse in physics and philosophy
    Wikipedia (publisher): „Multiverse“, Online, accessed 14.01.2019
    This Wikipedia article is a summary of the multiverse hypothesis as discussed by physical cosmology. The term „multiverse“ is defined as „hypothetical group of multiple universes including the universe in which we live“, which in total would comprise everything that „exists“. The hypothesis was first proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1952. It is stated that prominent physicists are of divided opinion about the hypothesis; the main critisizm is that the theory can not be tested, which disqualifies it as a scientific hypothesis and puts it in the realm of philosophy. However, there are also prominent proponents of the hypothesis including Stephen Hawking (see below).
    Furthermore, the article explains a classification related to multiverses as proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark which comprises four levels. Level I states that the multiverse is comprised of an infinite number of so-called Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and constants, but otherwise different configurations. Level II foresees the existence of sub-universes with different physical constants. Level III relates to a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics by Hugh Everett, where each possible observation made from a quantum mechanical system corresponds to a different universe. Level IV is a mathematical interpretation: it considers all universes to be equally real and describable by different mathematical structures.
    Another classification covered by the article is discussed by Brian Greene, who basically describes multiverse models which relate to other physical theories, including the Level 3 multiverse, or the string theory.
    University of Cambridge (publisher): „Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang“, Online, accessed 14.01.2019
    This article contains a short summary of the last scientific paper of the late Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog about inflation of the physically observable universe. The article states that the results would, if confirmed by further work, indicate the existence of a non-infinite multiverse, which basically makes the multiverse theory more predictive and testable. Hertog believes that gravitational waves are a possible means for testing the theory.
    Wikipedia (publisher): “Anthropic principle”. Online, accessed 14.01.2019
    The Antrophic principle s a philosophical consideration which generally states that the observable universe must provide all requirements needed to host the life of the observer, and that this is the reason as to why the physical conditions within the universe are happening to be just right for supporting life. The term was introduced in 1973 by cosmologist Brandon Carter, and has been subject to controversial discussion since. It has especially been critizised that the principle wouldn't be falsifiable, thus be a non-scientific concept, and also that weaker formulations of the principle are truisms (statements that prove true by their formulation alone, e.g. “one is equal to one”). Today, there are multiple interpretations of the principle which can be classified into weak and strong interpretations. Weak interpretations generally use the principle as argument why nature has fine-tuned all physical constants exactly such as to support life in the universe. Strong interpretations go one step further and postulate that the existence of the universe itself is reasoned by conscious life as its purpose. One strong interpretation was formulated by John Archibald Wheeler and is called “participatory anthropic principle” (PAP). The PAP postulates that observers are essentially necessary in order to create the universe, and that only universes with conscious observers can exist. This strongly relates to quantum mechanics, where conscious observation (obtained by a measurement carried out by a living observer) itself changes the behaviour of quantum particles or waves. This leads to the postulation that the universe can only become “real” by the observation itself. In other words, the universe would collapse without a living conscious observer. This interpretation is controversially discussed. The principle has been connected to the multiverse hypothesis and string theory. It is especially conceived that the PAP could significantly reduce the number of possible universes in the multiverse, because only universes which could host a conscious observer could exist. The limitation of the set of universes again puts multiverse hypothesis on a firmer scientifical ground (cp. above: Taming the multiverse - Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang, 2018).
    Wikipedia (publisher): “Introduction to M-theory”. Online, accessed 14.01.2019;
    Wikipedia (publisher): “M-theory”. Online, accessed 21.02.2019;
    C. Moskowitz: "String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought", Online, accessed 21.02.2019
    The string theory is a mathematical model in theoretical physics which introduces hypothetical building blocks for our universe which only have one dimension (length), the so-called "strings". Hence it extends the classical particle physics, which works with zero-dimensional building blocks (point particles). According to string theory, strings are vibrating and interacting with each other within a universe with 10 dimensions, only four of which could be detected by human observers (length, width, height and time). Any observables in our universe, like matter, light or gravity, are a result of vibration of the strings within the 10 dimensions.
    String theory came up in the 1980's; but with time, five versions of it were formulated which first seemed contradictory. Later it was discovered that the versions would relate to each other and could be transformed into each other. In 1995, theoretical physicist Edward Witten made a surprising proposal by stating that the five different string theories could be unified by assuming that strings are one-dimensional slices of two-dimensional membranes which vibrate within an 11-dimensional universe. This theory is called "M-theory", but is so far incomplete and not experimentally verified. M-theory is a candidate for provision of a great unified theory of theoretical physics which explains all fundamental forces of the universe as we know it, essentially combining the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
    String theory predicts the existence of some 10^500 versions of spacetime, making up a huge multiverse. The versions come up as different solutions to string theory equations. Many physicists are put off by the idea of such a high number of universes because literally everything is possible, which makes it hard to explain the existence of our specific universe. Still, others accept the possibility that emergence of our specific universe is just a random effect. Recently (2018) it has been discussed that some of the versions could be mathematically inconsistent or wrong.
    Application of multiverse hypothesis to fictionkin
    Infinitedraconity: „Soul of a Dragon“, Tumblr, Online, original post dated 25.04.2016, accessed 14.01.2019
    This tumblr post is an answer to the question about how „does one think that they were a fictional character in a past life“. The answer proposes a multiverse with an infinite number of alternate universes and argues that, by the infinite nature, there must be at least one universe where a specific fictional plot would happen. This basically relates to the classic multiverse hypothesis as known from theoretical physical cosmology, adapted to the existence of fictionkin. The described multiverse is a Level III multiverse according to Tegmark's classification. However, the post does not relate the alternate fictional universe to our known physically observable universe or earth. The posting mentions the concept of „souls“, but fails to provide an explanation model as to how exactly fictionkin would appear on earth.
    Micheleknight (publisher): „Your Quantum Soul. Just Where Are You in the Multiverse?“, Online, accessed 21.02.2019
    Michio Kaku is a popular theoretical physicist who has been working on string theory and is known for his popular scientific presentations and media presence. The article named above suggests that Kaku has made a thought experiment in which he assumes that the soul is not hosted within the human body, but somewhere else. He suggests that our souls are multidimensional entities which could transit between parallel universes; however, no statement is made as to how the souls manifest within these universes.
    Isonder: „Substitute To The Multiverse Theory“, Online, originally dated 28.03.2018, accessed 14.01.2019
    This document aims at finding a substitute to the multiverse theory as used in the fictionkin community because it is „too flawed an argument to really keep“ and „not backed up by much scientific evidence“. The proposed substitute assumes that „souls“, obviously including fictionkin souls, would travel through the physically observable universe adhering to the laws of general relativity, i.e. not faster than light speed.
    The work accordingly estimates the size of the observable physical universe, taking the expansion of this universe into account. Furthermore, the number of habitable planets in this universe as well as the number of life forms on these planets is estimated. It is assumed that 0.001% of the souls of life forms having died would travel to another planet 'to make an otherkin'. Finally, the number of otherkin humans on earth emerging by this model is estimated to 10.000 – 50.000. However, the likeliness that a specific fictionkin (e.g. Naruto) would emerge by this mechanism is still conceived very low.
    This theory has a few drawbacks. First of all, it omits the classical multiverse theory by the statement that it is „flawed“ and „not backed up by much scientific evidence“. This is generally true, but by no means a valid reason to completely omit the theory as a working thesis - unless an alternative working thesis is found which is better suited to explain physically observable phenomena. This does not seem to be the case for the proposed substitution, as is stated by the autor himself. Second, the assumption of „souls“ traversing through space at maximum light speed is also not backed up by any scientifical evidence; hence, the proposed substitute does not seem to provide a model which has more scientifical backup than the original theory. Third, the calculation fails to realize that modern quantum physics indicates that information can be transmitted instantaneously by quantum teleportation. There is no evidence that the transmission of „soul“ information would need a physical communication channel. If it would base on quantum teleportation, then the limitation set by the speed of light would be obsolete. Hence, the result as calculated by Isonder can only be considered a lower estimate. Last but not least, the assumption that a „soul“ would be an entity bound by the currently known laws of physics seems quite a strict conceptual limitation, and again is not backed up by evidence. It would actually seem more intuitive to assume that „souls“ are not generally limited by known physical rules, since physics fails to explain their existence in the first place.
     
     

    Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...