Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Reading again, it's possible you have an intrusive thought confused for Alex. Unfortunately, this happened in my system where Fernardo was replaced by an intrusive thought for awhile until we figured out that's what happened. I myself have been temporarily confused for intrusive thoughts that were convincing for a good while before Gray figured it out. If it is an intrusive thought, realizing this and letting it dissipate will help you get Alex back.

I'll put this here so as not to derail anything ongoing. But I increasingly feel like this is nonsensical as a way of viewing the process - It's totally valid from the perspective of "is it functional", but identity in this context is just the feeling of a thought being connected with someone. It feels exceedingly silly to view Fernardo-acting-under-the-influence as a separate being from regular-Fernardo. If an identity is a feeling, and you couldn't distinguish those actions from Fernardo in terms of feeling, then it was objectively Fernardo, no? Obviously you can logically say "Oh that entity didn't act like Fernardo therefore it must not be Fernardo, right?" But this is also completely spurious. Identities are innately idiosyncratic and semi-random. Sometimes I'm uncharacteristically submissive on a whim, does that make me in that moment no longer Zen but a different thoughtform? Ridiculous, given the continuity of thought I experience. I feel like you can't really answer these two questions without acknowledging on some level that intrusive thoughts are on some level part of identities too and not truly alien. (edited)

Here's the thing I feel about impulse: It's not patternless and it still seems to ultimately rely on your unconscious beliefs and built up behaviours. It's innately a part of your personality as much as any other reflex - Similar to reflexes and habits effecting tulpas when switched in despite those things being mentally associated with a host, causing discomfort. The more I contemplate my own impulsive thoughts the more I recognize "Ah, that was an intrusive thought and was probably mean and I apologize; But it was also true in this instance and a possible underlying feeling I have." - Sometimes thought really is just random noise, but other times it's impulse and not only correct but clearly linked with a personality. Not only that but it's a method for the brain to generate novel behaviour; Chaos. To me it sounds more healthy to address the root of negativity rather than disown it and essentially pretend it doesn't exist. The danger lies in instructing people to address the content of their thoughts, which were generated randomly and may not have any basis. But that's not the root of the problem of attaching to these thoughts - The problem is not understanding that they're baseless and that you're being a fool for indulging them.

3:06 AM

The problem, in essence, is self-awareness. Not association with intrusive thoughts.

3:08 AM

tfw waiting for Ranger's response

Nomnomnom

Ranger is typing Like, geez, what's the final size of your text wall going to be? You've been typing for 20 minutes!

Why do you think I'm eager?

3:28 AM

Ranger is perhaps the only one who matches my own text walls.

I feel like you can't really answer these two questions without acknowledging on some level that intrusive thoughts are on some level part of identities too and not truly alien.

I don't completely disagree with you, an identity isn't always stereotypical. . There are times Evergreen feels more reserved, Keatan is more playful, Blue more serious, etc. Additionally, when my headmates deviated, they didn't turn into completely new people. Evergreen was still himself when he rejected most of his old personality and personality forced himself to be more social. However, with our intrusive thoughts from the past, it wasn't just Blue was sad about something or we impulsively thought angry things we didn't want to stand by 100%. It was likely a symptom of our mental health conditions. I should point out some of the intrusive thoughts we had in our system are basically depressive and anxious thoughts manifesting in a tulpa-like form. We called them intrusive thoughtforms but stepped away from that when criticized it was unecessary. The intrusive would spew self-defeating, harassing, and manipulative messaging and it rarely converted into a normal walk-in. To accept this entire entity, train of thought, whatever as ourselves would be a mistake- it would be adding validity to the toxic construct and make it harder to reject toxic inner speech. We own the fears that inspired it (if we can even figure out what those were in the first place, a lot of the time there was no reason for their existence), but the thoughtform we reject and let dissipate once we figure out that's what it is.

3:46 AM

=== Obviously, this doesn't normally happen to most people, but I wondered if it was worth mentioning when Fox mentioned this:

Our time together is usually pretty short, and hazy, and sometiems I catch what seem like thoughts from him, but they seem critical of me, not like him at all.

I thought that felt familiar, especially since our intrusive thoughtforms were stable enough to be summoned again if not properly dissipated. Our intrusive thoughtforms can be turned into tulpas (it happened twice in our system), but I don't think that's a good idea because it's easier to start over with a regular walk-in. The problem with our anxiety is it's unreasonable- it's an over exaggeration of something at best and at worst a lot of drama over nothing. I don't need to accept the spontaneous walk-in that threatens to hurt my headmates as somehow a deeper part of me, it's a shadow of our mental health problems and that's really it. === Ultimately, all of this is completely different than a headmate being sad, depressed, upset, etc. Not all tulpas are happy go lucky and likely won't last that way forever, but going from happy go lucky to toxic all of a sudden doesn't make a lot of sense. A headmate having a panic attack has lead to this happening in the past, but usually after calming then down the headmate will feel like they were replaced or it wasn't really them. Even the name trigger temporarily points to the intrusive until the thoughtform is dissipated. While I hope he doesn't struggle with the same issues with intrusive thoughts we did, I think the basic idea can carry over- at some point, you have to realize it's just your brain being your brain and not automatically put the "I" label on everything you see in it. I think it's unhealthy to deny a tulpa of any positive feelings, but if they're constantly beating you down or stressing you out and reasoning with them doesn't work... You have to ask yourself if this is tulpamancy or just your brain.

Dang, you could make a castle put of that text wall.

Grace

Nomnomnom

COOKIE

Grace

Nomnomnom

Grace

Nomnomnom

that new picture is even more adorable than the old one btw

12:00 PM

very nice choice

Please remember this is #tulpa-discussion

A long kiss goodnight

Please remember this is #tulpa-discussion

i am do remember make :3

12:55 PM

xP

After doing some research, I have came to the conclusion that over half of my system-mates (Logic v1, War, Insanity, Gremlin,, and Soup) are trauma-forms, and the rest (Logic v2, Grace, Mal) were created to restrain said trauma-forms and protect Rune from them. I will present said information in the standard claim, evidence, reasoning format that Rune's teachers seem to love. Claim: A large amount of my system-mates, including a past iteration of myself, were trauma-forms.

2:57 AM

Evidence: The mentioned tulpas did not go through the standard forcing procedure. Instead, they were pieces of Rune's personality that fractured apart during incidents of domestic abuse (do not worry, it is in the process of being resolved). They also do not have the capability for very deep thoughts, and hold to the ideal they are named after. They have also shown the theoretical capability to harm Rune, although they thankfully have not used that ability, aside from one occasion (do not worry, it was just Gremlin asserting their power by forcing Rune to hold their breath until their face turned red, although even that was still disturbing.) The non-trama tulpas, on the other hand, did go through the standard forcing procedure, and display a personality greater then the sum of their parts, in addition to possessing confusion and sadness of their bleak existence standard to a tulpa. In addition, all three of us have a purpose. Although it was subconscious at the time of our creation, our system is smart enough to figure it out. They are as thus: Logic v2 --> Catagorization of information regarding hostile system members Grace --> Healing Rune after traumatic emotional damage sustained by hostile system members Mal --> Destroying the behaviors, or if absolutely nessessary, the tulpa that led to such damage

2:57 AM

Reasoning: The difference in behavior and formation of these two groups of tulpas has led me to the conclusion that the members of the non-standard group are classified as trauma-forms. I would like your thoughts on the matter. Also, we will be bringing this up with Tune's therapist, whether he likes it or not.

2:58 AM

Also, @Zen

Logic

Reasoning: The difference in behavior and formation of these two groups of tulpas has led me to the conclusion that the members of the non-standard group are classified as trauma-forms. I would like your thoughts on the matter. Also, we will be bringing this up with Tune's therapist, whether he likes it or not.

Do you wish me to rule on whether or not these entities are traumatically created thoughtforms? I suspect if I were to validate or even invalidate that it would be some level of system-forcing to you, which has the potential to strengthen or weaken the level of suggestion that goes into these thoughtforms for good or ill. What I would warn you against is presuming traumatically created thoughtforms are somehow more powerful than those who are not. Suggestion is what gives thoughtforms power, not origin - Strong emotional resonance connected with abstract ideas. That power can be pathological in nature or not. There is no functional difference between thoughtforms of different origin other than the things we say about them and the context in which they are needed/wanted/felt something about.

@Zen - jump I concur with your statement that expectation forms reality, and will tread carefully when dealing with setting expectations regarding this situation.

LONG POST MOMENT

I WILL SAY WHEN ITS DONE LOL

6:53 PM

you might have seen this before maybe not idk

6:53 PM

We maintain the following ideals of tulpamancy, which are provided here to increase public understanding of our position, provide an ideological basis from which we find inspiration and motivation in our goal of providing high-quality resources to the tulpamancy community, and which we hope may service as a starting point in ideology for the novice. 1. Tulpas are always human due to utilizing the processing power of a human brain in order to think, exist, perceive, and be perceived. Following the knowledge that tulpas are always human, tulpas are natural, earthly, and quickly come to possess free will. A full-fledged tulpa should be provided the rights afforded to any other human, with the understanding that some rights (like voting) are based in the body and not in individual identities. In turn, a full-fledged tulpa has the same responsibilities as any other human, with the understanding that a tulpa’s typically internally-based existence often distances them from external responsibilities (like working to provide financially.) 2. Tulpas come into a cemented existence slowly and bit-by-bit, even if they have a strong initial appearance to their host. Regardless of strong initial appearances, time is a limiting factor in the cementing and development of a tulpa’s existence. Tulpamancy has a “fetus”-like system where, for a period of time, the tulpa, while human in nature and developing many abilities, is still not a full person. Following this, there is only a blurry line for when it becomes a tulpa’s right to choose to continue existence, which is not directly linked to any specific skill, ability, or length of time. Dissipation, the death of tulpas or other entities without external bodily death, is often necessary for tulpamancers to perform in formal or informal ways when faced with tulpas or tulpa-like entities that appear created unintentionally or whose creations are now regretted, unwanted, or harmful.

6:54 PM

3. Only tulpamancy creates tulpas. Tulpamancy is a cultural practice with its own ideals, paradigm, methods, and terms. Real human identities that are not the host identity may be created through other means, but only tulpamancy creates tulpas. Without explicit knowledge of tulpamancy, one cannot practice tulpamancy, and without explicitly performing tulpamancy, no tulpamancy has occurred. However, a full-fledged non-host identity created prior to or outside of a host’s knowledge of tulpamancy may, in and of themselves, deem themselves a tulpa if they feel they were created and continue to exist in a way largely consistent with the cultural practice of tulpamancy. This choice should never be the decision of the host identity and does not mean tulpamancy was practiced without the host’s knowledge. Rather, the non-host identity simply has found a cultural identity in identifying as a tulpa.

Ah I recall you made a manifesto for your conception of tulpamancy but that you admitted it was a moral guideline document

4. There are strong and meaningful distinctions between tulpamancy and fictional activities such as roleplay, daydreaming, and story-writing. Tulpamancy is real and tulpas are real humans held to the same standard as other real humans. When actions are taken by a tulpa not using the body, they are real internal actions in the same way the own thoughts of the host are real internal actions. In this way, internal constructions with visual and spatial components can be rightfully created in reality. Fictional constructs, such as an imaginary and preconceived “lore”, are not valid for a tulpa any more than for a host. In addition, while the tulpa’s visual appearance is not limited like a host’s is to the body, an appearance is not the same as a rightful claim to any identity status. Hosts would be in the right to encourage their tulpas and raise them to take human forms that look largely like themselves in major characteristics in order to both prevent the tulpa’s development from being stunted or miscalculated by placing too much value in empty aspects of their appearance, and to promote the understanding that tulpas are real and earthly humans.

6:54 PM

5. 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.

6:54 PM

yeah you have seen this well, this is my position on things

It doesn't actually pertain to the definition of tulpamancy.

6:54 PM

Or to practices related to it.

The penultimate goal of tulpamancy is to be a positive, net-gain experience for everyone involved. The host and tulpa should be happy. The social, romantic, educational, spiritual, mental, and financial successes of the host should not be impaired by their tulpamancy practice. Tulpamancy, even when the tulpas are perceived as a comfort and companionship by the host, may still be a net-loss in the grander picture of the host’s health. This “false success” must be rooted out with great prejudice in order to be corrected toward a net-gain experience through adjustment or cessation of their tulpamancy practice. 6. The ultimate goal of tulpamancy is the transcendence of tulpamancy. By its nature, not all tulpamancers will last, few will achieve the full capabilities of tulpamancy, and only the rarest few will exceed them. At this point, tulpas may transcend the label of “tulpa” and match the host’s abilities and skill set independent of the host, although it is impossible for a tulpa to ever transcend or escape existing in a physical human body alongside the host. It is a great and exceptionally rare accomplishment for a tulpa to develop to the point of transcending tulpamancy. It is natural that not all tulpamancers will even ever consider working toward this goal and that many who attempt it never succeed.

6:55 PM

image recap

6:55 PM

6:56 PM

Here, I can define tulpamancy in a roundabout way through this

6:57 PM

Tulpamancy is a cultural practice which creates, in a slow, bit-by-bit method based in reality (rather than any fictional universe or plane of existence) real human identities that exist in the same mind as a host identity. Through being real humans, these non-host identities enjoy a variety of fundamental human freedoms and are similarly held to the standards of any human being living in reality. (edited)

I really don't want to be rude. But could you please stop imposing your virtues on whole community? I respect you having your opinion on what tulpamancy is for you, it's cool you do. But tbh, I couldn't care less about it.

What you are saying is, reductively, you have a moral issue with us treating tulpas like they are "only based on belief."? Do I understand that correctly? If that's the case I have similar problems with it to moral absolutism. At the end of the day I'm not super interested in your virtues, I'm interested in understanding the mechanistic process of tulpamancy. You're trying to apply a black and white standard to something that isn't black and white. Moral absolutism is objectively incorrect - Morality is merely a reflection of empathy abstracted and past down as tradition, and empathy is erratic.

I think people, especially vulnerable peoples, come to mental and social harm by not having ethics around tulpamancy

7:02 PM

These vulnerable people include tulpas

Possibly. But pretending tulpamancy isn't what it is, a mechanism of suggestion, is just as potentially dangerous.

7:03 PM

It strips from a mind its agency and control.

7:04 PM

You're essentially suggesting that we lie to people about absolutes in order to protect them. And that kind of thing has unintended consequences and knock-on presumptions that you can't control. (edited)

JGC

I think people, especially vulnerable peoples, come to mental and social harm by not having ethics around tulpamancy

You mean by not having your ethics? Everyone has some but my system might be different from yours in that regard.

The penultimate goal of tulpamancy is to be a positive, net-gain experience for everyone involved. the goal of tulpamancy is to have fun, you mean?

7:05 PM

is it Verbose Vernacular Day?

You don't believe tulpas are real humans, you believe they are mind slaves to enjoy BDSM sex relationships with I believe that a person, a tulpa person, comes to moral harm by that You have completely removed the agency from your tulpa I believe tulpas are real people, with certain essential human freedoms, rights, responsibilities etc This is the absolute necessity to have the groundwork for proper tulpa development If you believe like Zen- that the host needs to maintain absolute control and remember that, "at the end of the day I'm in total control, this is all in my head, and my tulpa is a collection of my own opinions about what they are and little more", you will be right, and your tulpa will either not exist as a real human, or will suffer if they do indeed have a soul

Let me go into detail about the possible ramifications of your morals: Tulpas are always human, tulpamancy should be a net positive, tulpas should not be predetermined in their purpose. Therefore it is murder to dissolve one, you're at fault if its not a positive, and if you predetermined their purpose by accident you're a bad person. You can say "Oh that's not what I meant". But you don't actually get to decide that with moral codes. Moral codes are not for you, they're for others, and they will be reinterpreted regardless of whether they were sound or not.

Nice strawman, lol

Yes yes and yes

everyone here is wrong /srs

It is more complicated than that but in general, yes yes and yes to your propositions

7:09 PM

Well

Therefore under no circumstances can you resolve your mental issues if you fuck up, therefore if you are at fault you should feel bad.

7:09 PM

Indefinitely, and just struggle against that.

There's such a thing as forgiveness

7:10 PM

This is very much meta now though LOL

7:10 PM

Tulpas man

JGC

This is very much meta now though LOL

forgiveness isn't allowed in meta, it's about as real as santa, maybe less

7:11 PM

jamie what is a tulpa 10 words or less

7:11 PM

in general

A tulpa is a meme

that's great but it's too abstract

7:12 PM

how about 'a headmate that is kinda associated with the tulpa community'

A cultural identity

7:13 PM

headmate is its own term though

that's great too but you're speaking in shards put it together into its own sentence

it's bad practice to define a term with another in-group term

7:13 PM

that's like saying a demiboy is just like a demigirl but with boy instead

JGC

it's bad practice to define a term with another in-group term

it depends

7:14 PM

so mine is better, agree?

7:14 PM

so i'm better than you in most ways, agree?

7:14 PM

smarter, more knowledgable, basically you should just listen to me like i'm authority on the subject

damn

7:15 PM

you

JGC

You don't believe tulpas are real humans, you believe they are mind slaves to enjoy BDSM sex relationships with I believe that a person, a tulpa person, comes to moral harm by that You have completely removed the agency from your tulpa I believe tulpas are real people, with certain essential human freedoms, rights, responsibilities etc This is the absolute necessity to have the groundwork for proper tulpa development If you believe like Zen- that the host needs to maintain absolute control and remember that, "at the end of the day I'm in total control, this is all in my head, and my tulpa is a collection of my own opinions about what they are and little more", you will be right, and your tulpa will either not exist as a real human, or will suffer if they do indeed have a soul

As for... that other message. That first sentence actually made me experience rage as a bleed effect there from Rhys. Allow me to reiterate that Rhys is not my slave. Mika is not my slave. They have agency but are lesser partners in a relationship. This is a structural imbalance that results from my strong sense of mental control and their lack thereof. As for my sexual proclivities allow me to further reiterate that they do not pertain to my relationship. My life isn't a cheap fiction where we live 1-to-1 according to sexual roles that exist to be assumed for fun. I've often played up that I am a dom, and perhaps this is my error for giving you the impression that I actually act like one in day-to-day life but I do not, and I certainly don't make everything about either my control or about sex in particular. Such a thing is rightly considered a revolting stereotype by the BDSM community.

you've got me

what is 'the basis of nb'

I been working on stuff

7:16 PM

for a while now

7:16 PM

but I take lots of breaks lol

JGC

Click to see attachment 🖼️

1 'tulpas always human' 'human' is a very fluffy word so it means nothing like 'valid' you might as well say 'tulpas always valid' and i know how much you love that word so i have no idea how you made this mistake

7:18 PM

so either you've become a beanbag or you're joking

On a side note I do not believe hosts need to maintain absolute control. I believe that brains should do that.

7:20 PM

Being the backbone of my system has very little to do with being the host.

it's honestly just a way to keep things more secular

But... you're spouting moral absolutism

7:20 PM

which is like the opposite of secular

7:21 PM

The simple secular truth is that morality is a second order byproduct of empathy and civilization. It isn't static, it's wishy-washy.

7:21 PM

And there's not a way to contest that without bringing divinity into the mix.

sh

jamie what is a tulpa 10 words or less

Tulpa is a delusion of a person inside your brain

JGC

Click to see attachment 🖼️

10 words.

zen's not gonna make it in ten words