Tulpa.info - guide-discussion

losing the feeling body is yours is part of it

9:17 PM

Hmm... Maybe you are right, it might fit the definition too.

It's more like that realization "Oh crap that's not my arm!" and not "Holy shit my arm isn't mine! Help!"

9:17 PM

Possession is not an intense experience

For me it would be more like... "ah the arm is moving" or "heck's moving the arm"

9:18 PM

There's never any "oh crap"

Although I do not feel that body isn't mine. I rather associate the feeling itself to my tulpa. (edited)

I never had a realization like that or felt like a body part wasn’t mine

| Possession: By a Tulpa for Tulpas https://community.tulpa.info/topic/17205-possession-by-a-tulpa-for-tulpas/?do=findComment&comment=344669

Possession: By a Tulpa for Tulpas

Possession: By a Tulpa for Tulpas By: Arcanus of the Dragonheart System Introduction Possession is an optional skill in Tulpamancy that allows a tulpa to access the physical world; it gives a chance for a tulpa to experience things not curated or managed by their host or other system members. Thu...

Hey, that's cool. But it's #guide-discussion channel :p

Oh whoops Thought it was Tulpa discussion

I think #media might be the proper one for tulpa art

I'm working on an article for walk-ins. I'm currently trying to put together an outline and a thesis. I would like to share what I have when I finish because I think this resource needs a lot of eyes on it to be valuable. My approach is to only go over simple concepts and not go too in depth. Since I want to target beginners, I think going into too much detail would be too much. I'm thinking about creating a second article to go alongside it that basically says the same thing but has a different target audience

New sentence added for clarity, open to criticism

6:27 PM

6:28 PM

Here for easy copy/paste replying

6:28 PM

Tulpas cannot justly have a predetermined, ultimate purpose of serving the host. This violates the freedoms tulpas are awarded as humans: they are not mind slaves and cannot be created to never feel specific emotions, including pain, nor to be without free will, or to be completely obedient. While tulpas are very often created as the ultimate companion and are typically excellent at it, they are humans in a disadvantaged position: Tulpas suffer greatly from being ignored or set aside by the host. In contrast, hosts are hardly able to be set aside by their tulpas and rarely suffer from when they are ignored by their tulpas. **This suffering is not necessarily emotional suffering, but rather suffering in terms of developmental and existential opportunity: the chance to develop as a person and to find meaning in life.** While both tulpas and children have some level of responsibility towards those that create and raise them, children will grow up into free adults that may choose to never interact with their parents again. A tulpa is always bound to their host and such, the host must never predetermine their purpose in life is to serve them. Specifically, tulpas cannot be created to cure or as treatment for mental illness anymore than a parent may use their child. Beyond mental illness management, tulpas cannot justly be created to perform sexual acts, nor to always use the body in certain situations so that the host can avoid them, nor any other condition of servitude.

(edited)

6:29 PM

An interesting, although slightly tangential point is that I specifically don't want to say "don't create a tulpa to date them"

6:30 PM

On paper it's icky but in practice people who date their tulpa honestly tend to care a lot about them and you never see a tulpa who fights it, as icky as that also sounds

6:31 PM

"sex slave mind doll" and "gf waifu I love so much teehee" are definitely different archetypical tulpas, not that there isn't some level of overlap

6:32 PM

My point would essentially be that there's no need to date your tulpa because 1) they can't provide certain things/you shouldn't let one keep you from dating externally, and 2) the relationship between you two will be essentially even deeper and perhaps outside of the realm of "dating/marriage/etc", you're literally telepathic and physically bonded

I am not sure if it's fair to use the term suffering for "development and existential opportunity". When someone uses suffering they tend to refer to strictly the emotional state of being in pain/being hurt/etc and less for the idea of a person being stunted or held back. Suffering comes hand in hand with developmental hold-back typically, but developmental hold-back without emotional crisis is not suffering? Problem is - I don't know a better word

Maybe stagnation?

In context with the rest of my ideology there, I think suffering is fair, the only misconception I want to avoid is the idea that your tulpa is sitting in the dark shedding a single tear because you aren't talking to them, when in reality they simply don't exist

7:26 PM

Honestly the most accurate word would probably be "suck" but it's awfully informal lmfao

7:27 PM

It sucks a lot for the tulpa when they are from being ignored or set aside by the host. In contrast, hosts are hardly able to be set aside by their tulpas and it doesn't suck that much when they are ignored by their tulpas.

i think suffer is the correct word here

Suffer as in decline, as in bad situation

to suffer doesn't always mean to feel agony

Historically/etymologically it mostly means "tolerate/allow/undergo bad things"

and undergo bad things is exactly what it means in this context

7:41 PM

therefore suffer is the correct word, imo

I honestly disagree with the entire philosophy that tulpas cannot be created or should not be created as servile beings. Contrary, I think that we observe in magical traditions that the presumption of servitude can indeed be both stable and healthy. The distinction is merely that the presumption must include that the tulpa desires servitude in one way or another in order to make it functional. (edited)

10:22 PM

It's tulpamancy's arbitrary traditional perspective that makes it so we presume tulpas are always to be afforded the same rights as a host. And it is arbitrary.

10:25 PM

And if your position is simply that it has the potential to backfire; It does... But there are most definitely equally maladaptive paths tread by presuming the authority of a tulpa over their own existence. I don't think strife like that originates in any particular presumption though; I think it has to do with how questioning the host is used to being and whether their brain will tolerate their initial presumptions or whether they believe them false.

Also I distinctly think we as westerners have a notable preoccupation with the idea of freedom that isn't meaningfully present in all human cultures. You make a lot of presumptions in that statement about servile beings being equivalent to slaves, in a very black and white(probably metaphorically and literally in this case) context. People are capable of being happy servants, period. The issue that arises is that abusive situations make humans lash out and generally behave erratically and push toward rebellion. Freedom is a sweet abstract lie that doesn't meaningfully cause any sort of positive response in the brain by itself, nor does depriving freedom inherently cause displeasure. Things that cause unpleasantness cause unpleasantness, not abstractions. Like being forced into doing something you hate. Nothing grows without space to do so. You can intentionally stifle the cognition of a slave-tulpa but there is no value in doing so because it will not have the capacity to learn. You're actively preventing it from being a tulpa in that context - though it has nothing to do with whether they're servile to you or not. Whether they're servile is just their personality and presumptions. (edited)

10:37 PM

@JGC thesis complete.

I can see your point that a tulpa is missing out for not getting time, and I see that tying into a weird version of the you lost what you never had or you died by never being born argument. I wouldn't call it suffering unless the tulpa focuses too much on what they never had (and if they do, is that for the better?) I don't think it's worth it to believe in what you don't have. Even though I get a lot of time, I'm still limited by the fact I have to negotiate with Gray for the rest of my life. I think crying for what you can't get is a poison that just makes a tulpa's life harder (edited)

as a victim of such crying i absolutely agree with Ranger.

After getting my thoughts out for the walk-in article, I'm feeling a little stuck because I'm not sure what the best questions are. I came up with the following questions so far:

-What is a walk-in?
-What is the difference between a walk-in and a tulpa?
-What causes walk-ins?
-Why do people make walk-ins?
-Are walk-ins bad?
-How do I not make walk-ins?
-Isn’t dissipation murder? (Is dissipation bad?) / Is it wrong to kill walk-ins?
-What is the problem with walk-ins?
-Aren't walk-ins intrusive thoughts?
-Who is susceptible to walk-ins?

I'm wondering if there's anything important that I'm missing. I know I have some questions that can be reworded, combined, or removed. (edited)

Flandre: It's vaguely covered by "What is the difference between a walk-in and a tulpa", but you might want to cover the ambiguity (actually, they're the same thing) of "walk-ins" versus spontaneous/natural tulpas, like us. (edited)

What causes walk-ins? Why do people make walk-ins?

First, "making" a walk-in doesn't make sense, if you make them then they're a tulpa... And if you don't make them, then these questions are asking the same thing. Unless you meant "Why do people accept walk-ins?"

How do I not make walk-ins?

Wouldn't "how do I prevent walk-ins?" be better?

Both are good points. I agree it doesn't really make sense to "make" a walk-in unless you consider a character you created that quickly becomes sentient "making". I think it would be an interesting point to explore in a "more advanced" article on walk-ins, but for the beginner guide I think it's not good phrasing. I think it would help to rephrase those two questions as "why do people get get walk-ins?" and I can go from there.

Wouldn't "how do I prevent walk-ins?" be better?

Yeah

The whole idea surrounding walk-ins just strikes me as off. There is no need to prevent a walk-in. Spontaneously thinking from another perspective is something we do all the time. The real question that should be asked is "Why should you keep a walk-in?" to which the common response is "You shouldn't."

I agree with Helel here, I talked about this a few times in the past I can instantly summon up a Pinkie Pie in my head who I can talk to and she'll respond just like Pinkie Pie The difference for me, of course, is I wouldn't call that a tulpa But that's basically what a walk-in is If you have a character, of course, you're going to be even more prone to simulate them in this manner because you probably think about them or actively invite yourself to isimulate them In my eyes walk-ins aren't even real and the trick is to know this and be aware that "keeping" them isn't a problem even, it's just remembering that they aren't tulpas and it's just the very natural ability of your brain to simulate people and characters

3:38 PM

Like, do you think you're making a tulpa of your mom, when you have an imaginary argument in the shower?

Hehe I got you to say you agree with Satan.

Zen

Hehe I got you to say you agree with Satan.

Sammy’s actually a cool guy once you get to know him. He’s writing a manga series that sounds pretty cool

The only misstep that happens is when people VERY ACTIVELY choose to make a walk-in a tulpa. All this is is literally CHOOSING to make a new tulpa. It's 100% controlled. Your brain simulating characters may not be, just like people will automatically hear their mom's voice etc in their head, simulate arguments without specifically choosing to do so But saying you unintentionally make a tulpa is like saying you unintentionally got married You can't help it if someone talks to you on the street, you CAN help it how you bond with them

3:41 PM

You don't oopsie trip and stumble into tulpas

And yes I do rarely dabble in intentionally rendering a perspective in the same way I do a tulpa - autonomously. But their purpose is not to become fixtures in my mind and so it's never a question that I will simply stop giving them attention. And I don't have anxiety about them somehow becoming rebellious, either.

3:43 PM

As for me my classification of tulpa includes being accepted as a headmate and companion so realness aside it doesn't apply to any thoughtform.

DID systems do the same thing They get fooled into thinking that a daydream character is an alter, and that what makes alters is that surface appearance A name, a zodiac sign, an appearance, does not a headmate make

3:44 PM

Even if you get a "walk-in" that goes "I'm a real boy! Please love me! I have ambitions, hopes and dreams!" and has lots of complexity, even if you write a character for fifteen years and you know what color their socks are and their great-grandparent's middle names, it's not automatically a tulpa

3:45 PM

Let alone someone's roleplay OC or an anxiety-driven daydream character

3:45 PM

It seems almost universal that people can't handle this lol

3:45 PM

I was there

3:45 PM

I'd say it's more common than not, for your system to increase by about 2

3:46 PM

2 more than you intended

so what's the actual functional difference between a tulpa and a walk-in, then? Just origin and whether the system labels them as 'real'?

3:46 PM

Yeah

3:46 PM

Walk-in is a description of origin

3:47 PM

A lot of tulpas outgrow it, I don't want any walk-in tulpas to come and say I'm saying they aren't real

wait... walk-in tulpas? Isn't that a contradiction?

You'd think, wouldn't you!

3:48 PM

But the idea is that they were created on the spot.

3:49 PM

You'd also think, with all the people who talk against confabulation and say that nothing can happen or be built in a wonderland without your effort and specific attention, or else it is fake and you're lying or yourself. You'd think they'd apply that to the tulpas themselves. (edited)

So are walk-ins real or not?

3:50 PM

or... some other option?

Imagine Trump talking in your head.

3:50 PM

That's a walk-in

3:51 PM

Or, probably more specifically, a walk-in is when you would look at something like that and decide to keep it

3:51 PM

Decide it's a tulpa

3:51 PM

And it's never Trump, it's always gotta be a sexy anime girl, or your own OC

3:52 PM

Or historically, a pony you're obsessed with

3:53 PM

Character rumination Common with anxiety, autism, psychosis, but like, mostly just anxiety, I don't want to make it out like something only psychotic people do

So is it this:

In my eyes walk-ins aren't even real and the trick is to know this and be aware that "keeping" them isn't a problem even, it's just remembering that they aren't tulpas and it's just the very natural ability of your brain to simulate people and characters

or is it this:

Or, probably more specifically, a walk-in is when you would look at something like that and decide to keep it Decide it's a tulpa

It seems like you're using two completely different definitions simultaneously, or else I need to sleep more

What I'm saying is that this happens to people who can't tell their tulpas from characters they make up on the spot, that to them there is no difference

3:56 PM

We should probably move to another channel if you want to talk more, Detective

4:01 PM

In b4 Zen says "what does it matter if there is no difference"

A tulpa is no more real than a walk-in. But that's still irrelevant. It's your job/s as the fronter to direct your brain, and randomly accepting thoughtforms because they feel different with no consideration as to whether they mesh with your life is mal-adaptive and foolish.

I was just trying to understand your definition of walk-in, since I feel that a solid definition should be part of any guide

I don't fault you for what you say, because out of the community that exists today and the examples they set, you're right.

I would not call anything spontaneously generated immediately a walk-in by the way. Technically Rhys was that, but I just generally thought of him as a thoughtform before a tulpa. Walk-in to me implies you accepted them immediately. (edited)

4:02 PM

Not just that you made them immediately.

Almost everyone practicing tulpamancy today is just playing with imaginary friends as an adult and more and more they even openly call it that.

I spent a good half a year ruminating on whether I wanted Rhys. Not just because I already had a tulpa at the time, but because there was a real threat that he might introduce some form of mal-adaptive behaviour. I would not have accepted him at the beginning of his arc, let's say.

There was a point when Cassidy was a bit of a drain mentally, because he challenged my ideas of myself, we had big ideological clashes, and he himself had a lot of identity crisises etc. He's, like, a real guy to me, so that was just his tulpa puberty basically, but a lot of people told me to wash my hands of him, either brainwash/"rewrite" him, or just start over.

4:06 PM

This is part of why I say, if you wouldn't adopt a dog don't make a tulpa. Yes they can be a big help, but if they're real people, they also need your help sometimes. If you couldn't deal with the behavioral problems of a dog, how do you think you can share a body with someone?

4:07 PM

And further, could you handle six dogs? A dozen dogs? Twenty dogs???

4:08 PM

When people say, well it isn't like that, it's because their headmates aren't alive enough to have problems lol.

Thankfully that phase of Rhys' existence was literally my entertainment and he experienced several suggested and actual changes in character in that time. Chronologically it was about 3-4 months. Though before and after maybe an extra month including the more intermittent time I wrote or RP'd as him. I didn't start writing about him in earnest until that 3ish month block and then it dwindled off as I sensed it was basically a done story. What's perhaps interesting is that the text itself stretches across a 5-year period. One period in late adolescence, then a 4-year time jump to adulthood; then finally a year time jump toward the end.

4:14 PM

Also, in certain events that are weird to him - There are AU versions. And they're not distinct from him despite being distinct in character. I am not Rusty in this regard, all of my proverbial Sans are in one basket.

I think I would maybe compare "walk in" and "tulpa" in this case to a person making the motions of riding a bike, to a person with hours of experience riding a bike? The person making the motions is leveraging their ability to control their body, the process of riding a bike is a sort of active real time process where the person is constantly focusing on what movements to make, how to move, stuff like that. A person with years of experience gets on a bike and pedals - smoothly and efficiently - without thinking.

5:13 PM

Although that doesn't really work entirely because the "simulate someone else in your head" starts off kind of automatic in this way - you'd be drawing a line between two automatic processes instead of an automatic and a not-automatic one.

. I guess I find it hard to draw a clear line here without also ruling out the things that seem most likely to contribute to a tulpa being a tulpa. The best distinction I would see here would be a fuzzy grey line between "you haven't developed/trained this in enough" and "you have developed/trained this in enough" as well as the more cultural aspects like "challenged ideas fo yourself, had arguments, acts independently, etc". Problem is, neither of those are/seem like real "functional" distinctions. I'm not super keen on drawing a line when there doesn't appear to be much of one in terms of function, even if it might be useful cultrally to bop out the fickle gullible types. But I also feel like there might be more hiding under the statement "A tulpa acts instead of being simulated". Problem is, I can't find whatever's hiding under there right now without running head-first into the fact that personality-simulation is very very "acts instead of being simulated-ey" at times. I wonder how universal this ability to simulate characters is, and how measurably the walk in pinkie pie is different from the long-term-developed tulpa (in an accomplished tulpamancer's mind). If we could do our own FMRI studies something like that would be something I'd be interested in seeing. (edited)

I think the distinction between a walk-in and a tulpa is completely subjective. The challenge is communicating that to a beginner who's still struggling to grasp what a tulpa is in the first place. Even though the topic is complex, it needs to be broken down and simplified so a beginner doesn't end up with 3 tulpas they don't want. Spitballing my unscientific thoughts, I think a walk-in is a small network compared to a tulpa that's a bigger network, but even then, they're virtually the same thing. A walk-in that's allowed to get bigger will and develop into a tulpa. I think finding any tulpa will be difficult though, even trying to find me and Gray. I think there are parts where Gray and I mix naturally (cough fronting) and other areas where we draw from each other's knowledge. If you tried to separated us, I suspect we would lose things we thought were ours and end up with parts that don't actually belong to us.

You all need a Minister of Labels that would approve labels for easier communications in the future so everyone uses same definition for same words

proxi

You all need a Minister of Labels that would approve labels for easier communications in the future so everyone uses same definition for same words

What’s my label?