Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

That's what we have to call them now, obviously.

ob

gyn

Friendly reminder this is #tulpa-discussion

Mary doesn't like when I read guides/tips about tulpa Maybe it makes her self conscious

The point of many guides is to make tulpas self conscious. The best way to get a tulpa talking is to embarrass them.

1

Jack likes it when i read about tulpa stuff but its sometimes a bit complex and borring for me to read it

She feels better about it after I explained it to her

What was it she didn't like about it?

FairyHank

She feels better about it after I explained it to her

Good talking about it will help

Cerys

What was it she didn't like about it?

I think it made her feel less real, but I explained to her why I look at them and it doesn't make her any less real, and that made her feel better

Can you switch while driving without crashing the car?

I would not want to do that, I think we could crash the car if we tried to switch. Even if we knew how to drive, our ritual involves a lot of time thinking about not driving. Even if our switch was more like the bus stop switch we did, it would be really distracting

Luckily they didn't give the same answer or else I would have had to find a different example.

(edited)

The act of possession wouldn't be distracting enough for us to disrupt driving, aside from the possessor having a hard time focusing once possessing (edited)

I think forcing switching while driving could cause some deconcentration.

I think any switching that can be done quickly and isn't symbolically intensive won't be too distracting.

1:24 AM

I think that's less related to switching itself and more related to doing something distracting

Yeah, but I mean an act of forcing it, thinking about switching with your tulpa while driving could be distracting itself, if anything.

When you switch with your tulpa and you no longer are there as a host, do you consider what tulpa experiences as your experience too?

Unless it's something like working where it's easy to confuse who's who, no, Ranger's fronting experiences feel like her experiences. I guess we're used to having her switch in enough she has her own fronting vibe for lack of better words.

We actually consider most of our experience shared.

1:47 AM

It's our experience

I like that our sense of taste is more or less independent from possession or switching. I do have to associate with the body, but it is rewarding to have a unique experience different from Gray or Ranger.

1:51 AM

My time possessing feels like me, but I don't switch.

Kanade

We actually consider most of our experience shared.

It certainly makes things easier and resolves a lot of what would be issues otherwise, doesn't it?

Probably

We whined about that too much. We had other issues and I think we threw our plurality under the bus.

2:10 AM

If we're good at anything, it's taking something normally perfectly fine and making it seem like the worst thing in the world. We should be more careful to point out our anxiety is distorting the big picture.

Gray | Shadow System

If we're good at anything, it's taking something normally perfectly fine and making it seem like the worst thing in the world. We should be more careful to point out our anxiety is distorting the big picture.

Oh I can resonate with that, usually it's caused by me overcomplicating things, what helps me is simplifying things

It seemed a little off-topic so I'll argue it here-

Tulpamancy community: "Believing in walk-ins is what causes walk-ins"

While that is a common belief about walk-ins, I disagree that it's purely how walk-ins work. I believe the main cause of walk-ins is simply learning how to create tulpas. Once the brain can create the first tulpa, the process can be automated. However, in order for the walk-ins to stick around, a couple factors have to come into play- -The host is still open to calling intrusive thoughts not them. This could have happened because the host recently acquired this mindset or had to work hard to achieve this mindset. -The host accepts the walk-in as a tulpa. If walk-ins are rejected, they can't cause further problems. This is where the belief in walk-ins advice comes into play. -The host continues to give it attention. If the host spends time with the walk-in, natural dissipation becomes more and more unlikely. The thoughtform also becomes stronger, making them more tulpa-like. -Anything that makes it difficult for the host to manage intrusive thoughts will make dealing with walk-ins more difficult. I believe mental health is one of the biggest factors in this. While I think believing in walk-ins certainly doesn't help the problem, I think there's more to it than that. I see it all of the time, it's definitely a common phenomenon.

A long kiss goodnight

It seemed a little off-topic so I'll argue it here-

Tulpamancy community: "Believing in walk-ins is what causes walk-ins"

While that is a common belief about walk-ins, I disagree that it's purely how walk-ins work. I believe the main cause of walk-ins is simply learning how to create tulpas. Once the brain can create the first tulpa, the process can be automated. However, in order for the walk-ins to stick around, a couple factors have to come into play- -The host is still open to calling intrusive thoughts not them. This could have happened because the host recently acquired this mindset or had to work hard to achieve this mindset. -The host accepts the walk-in as a tulpa. If walk-ins are rejected, they can't cause further problems. This is where the belief in walk-ins advice comes into play. -The host continues to give it attention. If the host spends time with the walk-in, natural dissipation becomes more and more unlikely. The thoughtform also becomes stronger, making them more tulpa-like. -Anything that makes it difficult for the host to manage intrusive thoughts will make dealing with walk-ins more difficult. I believe mental health is one of the biggest factors in this. While I think believing in walk-ins certainly doesn't help the problem, I think there's more to it than that. I see it all of the time, it's definitely a common phenomenon.

You just described all the things that would be affected by an infohazard

10:30 PM

The idea of walk-ins are probably one of the best examples of infohazards in the tulpamancy community, at least whats still somewhat relevant in the modern one. Looks like they've been slowly getting purged. Like "having to visualize your tulpa naked or they won't be able to change clothes" and other ridiculous ideas

10:32 PM

Oh yeah, another great example is the fact that it used to take MUCH MUCH longer to create tulpas than today

I have not experienced anything resembling a walk-in. I have always on some level intentionally triggered an automated response, and when I receive one from a thoughtform they do not instantly get recognized as somehow "tulpas".

people over complicated it and today people over simplified it, seems like we cant have a nice medium

The idea that all autonomous thoughtforms are tulpas is the infohazard here

10:33 PM

That's what a walk-in is.

Yeppers

There's no accepting something that's irrelevant when you don't recognize it as a tulpa to begin with just because it's automated.

Rusty

people over complicated it and today people over simplified it, seems like we cant have a nice medium

What do you think oversimplification takes away from tulpamancy?

Oh for sure, someone once got really upset with me and acted like i was the most horrible person in existence and they felt 'sorry for' my characters because I have characters who are treated like characters who have some but not all traits of a tulpa

Did community is full of infohazards that I’m tired of listing

‍

️

1

proxi

What do you think oversimplification takes away from tulpamancy?

you get people labeling literally everything as a tulpa and then people think im abusive for having characters and there are people thinking they have 50 tulpas because they think everything is a tulpa

Rusty

you get people labeling literally everything as a tulpa and then people think im abusive for having characters and there are people thinking they have 50 tulpas because they think everything is a tulpa

It sounds like it’s not simple enough!

What boxes does a thoughtform need to check in order for you to consider it a tulpa? Anyone can reply.

The skill of turning off dissociation to make thoughts closer to the realness of your own thoughts is just that, a skill. I don't think it has anything to do with how we define the development of a tulpa directly. And therefore any use of it does not automatically mean you're generating some sort of complex thoughtform. Thoughtforms are a dime a dozen by themselves too. (edited)

Abvieon {Alex}

What boxes does a thoughtform need to check in order for you to consider it a tulpa? Anyone can reply.

1. You must accept it as roughly an equal; a companion, a sentient. 2. There is no two.

proxi

What do you think oversimplification takes away from tulpamancy?

I think oversimplification can cause people to box themselves off from possibilities, they think it's a sort of cookie-cutter experience without too many interesting roads and twists.

It's arbitrary, but self-reinforcing. You're accepting the realness of a construct to make it real.

10:40 PM

Now, if you want to nit-pick though, I would say a tulpa's development is not complete until you have trained them into reflex somewhat. But that's about having a fully developed tulpa; not just having a tulpa.

10:41 PM

That can take a long time and is not really necessary for them to be considered an equal in complexity.

Abvieon {Alex}

I think oversimplification can cause people to box themselves off from possibilities, they think it's a sort of cookie-cutter experience without too many interesting roads and twists.

I think keeping things simple actually leaves a lot more room for people/systems to come up with their own shit rather than having every little facet (pun somewhat intended) dictated to them.

1

My thoughts exactly vixie

To be honest I'm not sure that would work for me. I'm too skeptical and interested in the nuances of things. Tulpamancy is a puzzle to solve to me.

Abvieon {Alex}

What boxes does a thoughtform need to check in order for you to consider it a tulpa? Anyone can reply.

Since I have a lot of characters who seem to act on their own i need to be more strict on this. The ability to react to things outside of their own story. The ability to refuse to act within their story.

Characters getting out of control for writers is quite common though

Yes but trying to interact with things not part of their story isnt

vixiUwU

I think keeping things simple actually leaves a lot more room for people/systems to come up with their own shit rather than having every little facet (pun somewhat intended) dictated to them.

That's true, I just think it's important for people to be aware of possibilities that go beyond the basics, so they know it's possible. As long as they understand they don't need to follow a single universal process to get there, and that not everybody will have the same experience of whatever the skill is.

Out of control is a strong concept with characters. It's more that they become automated within their context.

Rusty

Yes but trying to interact with things not part of their story isnt

Some writers interact with their characters outside the story too.

Abvieon {Alex}

That's true, I just think it's important for people to be aware of possibilities that go beyond the basics, so they know it's possible. As long as they understand they don't need to follow a single universal process to get there, and that not everybody will have the same experience of whatever the skill is.

In other words, keeping it simple

‍♀️

then in my opinion thats going into the side of tulpamancy

proxi

Characters getting out of control for writers is quite common though

I wonder if characters are more likely to get out of control for people that feel like they think up what their characters do rather than "becoming" that character or "intuiting" what they do, if that makes sense. Basically I wonder if the rate at which that happens depends on how the author views their characters

vixiUwU

I wonder if characters are more likely to get out of control for people that feel like they think up what their characters do rather than "becoming" that character or "intuiting" what they do, if that makes sense. Basically I wonder if the rate at which that happens depends on how the author views their characters

Hmmm interesting

To be blunt Rusty you're just making an arbitrary distinction with an extra step in order to achieve the step 1 that I mentioned (which is equally arbitrary). There's nothing different from a visualized space, or wonderland; and the space of a story. Also I think that the thoughtforms in stories are indicative of how strong initial presumptions can be when they are not being challenged - There's no question that most characters simply don't realize they're in a brain, or not experiencing time fluidly or not behaving internally consistent in some cases.

10:49 PM

These are all technically contradictions but because they're not questioned at any point because that's nonsense within the context of the simulation alone there's no reason for that belief to be broken unless you tell them, or indicate to them somehow that they are indeed, characters.

A well developed character is its own type of thoughtform and one that is 'related' to tulpas for sure. there is a lot of overlap and for many it can be very hard to separate the two. It is important for any person involved in writing and tulpamancy to set guidelines for themselves and stick to them to avoid a massive system. There really is no firm way to understand what is what, it goes on case by case and for us we stay very black and white.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned but I do write as well, and for me the knowledge that I am simply in control is sufficient.

10:50 PM

All I have to acknowledge is that I won't be making any additional tulpas.

1

If a character cannot do the things i listed without being prompted in any way it will never be considered a tulpa

10:51 PM

Ink and Error did so, so they are tulpas, no one else has done it without being pushed to do so which i do not count

The things you listed are arbitrary. I can trigger a brand new thoughtform to react to me at will. Or imagine a thoughtform who is aware of itself and who refuses to act within the story. And then I can take that away.

10:52 PM

In fact, I have.

That is something you made to be like that, that is prompting it to act in that way.

10:53 PM

I am talking about my characters who were made to be characters only existing in their world not meant to know anything about me or anything else.

10:54 PM

Also im not sure what you are arguing for? These are the things that work within our system. I have already said many times now and in the past that each person with this issue must make their own guidelines on what they think is and isnt a tulpa

On the contrary, while I have prompted several to give me that response, Rhys was that, unintentionally. However again, there was no difficulty for me in taking away his knowledge that he was a construct. It was the same process as jumping to a different AU or spot in time within his story, which I was used to doing anyway.

10:55 PM

But that's also arbitrary

10:55 PM

It's just an impulsive thought

Yeah, we tend to lean that way too.

And yes, I don't want to argue against your system model, but from a purely big-picture standpoint it's... a step of extra abstraction that's actually clearly irrelevant. While being perfectly healthy and functional in the complete sense and in maintaining control. (edited)

Wonderland switching recipe: -get a character -convince them they are outside of the story so they become a tulpa -tell tulpa to do the opposite with you -profit

1

I'm essentially just saying that control doesn't require that sort of arbitrary abstraction. You can just accept that you have control. Because you can see you have control already just by generating this abstraction.

Mmm I like it.

Though perhaps this might just be because feeling in control comes naturally to me.

10:59 PM

Perhaps it doesn't suit other personalities...

I want to answer the question for us then that how we distinguish what is a tulpa/headmate is one that has been inducted onto the dictatorial council of brain decisions.

That's closer to how I see it, yes. A tulpa is defined by being afforded a role as a real personality in the brain.

I am not someone who has grown up feeling like i am in control of anything and that has stuck with me. I also do not like to see myself of the leader of the system, I avoid trying to see myself as more important than other members because I am the host. Also my view of how characters work just in general has a lot more overlap with tulpas than normal people would. Because of all these things I must be strict and have my list of rules on what is and isnt a tulpa

I think tulpas are characters full stop. I don't really delineate between any type of thoughtform in the literal sense. Characters aren't to tulpas what baby humans are to adult ones. The only difference between them to my reckoning is context, though context naturally informs experience.

11:03 PM

A character can be more developed than a tulpa too in terms of actual complexity too.

11:03 PM

It's mostly the experiential stuff that separates them in practice, and that's all a matter of suggestion. (edited)

I can't believe I feel like I understood that

Which again, I think shows because I can hold these two things in unison means that it isn't necessary to strictly define them.

11:05 PM

Though judging from your description your method is possibly more logical with your personality.

11:05 PM

I just mean broadly

You and your funny labels

11:06 PM

What boxes does a thoughtform need to check in order for you to consider it a tulpa? Anyone can reply.

@Abvieon {Alex} - jump A tulpa is whatever you want a tulpa to be. I think the bare-bones obvious requirement is it has to be something that was created in the mind. Beyond that, what separates a tulpa from anything else is completely subjective. Some people may define tulpas as characters you make up in the mind, or they may argue they're separate individuals. A lot of people believe tulpas have a sense of independent agency to some extent.

11:20 PM

=== I think it's important for people to find their own definitions because not everyone wants and needs the same thing. I think the problem comes from people not realizing they need to change their beliefs.

Have we actually seen anyone claim tulpas are entirely characters? Wasn't that Fede's extremely unpopular position?