Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

With the correct focus and strategy six months is not unreasonable at all.

My host is always present and observing (edited)

As in, "host fucks around in wonderland fully immersed", then hell no

Obviously

As in "tulpa takes over the body and shitpost on Discord", then yes

I expressed the capacity to switch within months but did not pursue it to that end until much later.

But is she inactive

My host? Yeah

12:44 PM

Unless I call upon her

How do you get to that point

We just did one day when I was around 2 months

Nobody's able to explain what the "correct focus and strategy" is

I was being proxied and then noticed "oh hey I'm actually in control sorta"

12:45 PM

And then stayed in control

So there was no methodology, you just stumbled across it

12:45 PM

Fml

But like I said, we're single consciousness. I believe this means it's easier to switch

12:46 PM

We can only have one member active at a time

12:46 PM

Because there's only one consciousness

12:46 PM

And it's more like that consciousness adopts the identity of either one of us

12:46 PM

Than the actual consciousnesses switching from being in the front to being in the back

12:46 PM

A sort of "switch-lite".

12:47 PM

We really want to figure out how to do it the "proper" way, but we've had no success so far.

So is she still observing what you do or no?

She's not

12:47 PM

She's not present because I'm the one in control of our consciousness

Because the proper way to switch is the host being unaware and not processing

I guess?

12:48 PM

She'd like to be active in wonderland too, or just be able to observe

12:48 PM

But that's not a thing we seem to be capable of

I don't believe in being "active in wonderland"

12:48 PM

And the host observing is just possession

12:49 PM

My host is still always present and observing

I like to explain it as, if I talk to her, it's like splitting a little bit of my (our, but right now mine) consciousness off and giving it to her

12:49 PM

Once she's done, it falls back into me.

12:49 PM

What we'd really like to do is to split that consciousness in half so we can both have a piece at the same time.

I don't think that's plausible

I believe it is.

The brain can only have one major focus at a time

We've done very very limited versions of that for a short amount of time.

12:50 PM

What about two minor focuses?

Sure?

That's what we're trying to do

12:51 PM

Of course we wouldn't be able to both dedicate full attention to both things

I mean I'm sure you eat food while doing other things

But I'm sure it's feasible to just passively exist in parallel

12:51 PM

What we're trying to do is split that attention across member boundaries

12:51 PM

So instead of me focusing on two things, I focus on one and she focuses on one.

But one systemmate having an imaginary adventure while the other is unaware of it? Not plausible

So far, no success

12:52 PM

I also don't mean unaware

12:52 PM

We don't want isolation

12:52 PM

That's dumb

12:52 PM

I see it as a gimmick, only useful for gift giving and pranks.

As we front, our host is still there and observing, but she doesn't have active thought of her own

Some have described having it, but we're not gonna pursue it.

If she does, then it prevents us from having our own thought

12:53 PM

So it's just trading between us

Yeah

12:53 PM

That's how we work too

Wait, are you just talking about memory segregation or something?

Can you talk to your host right now?

Something like maintaining active cofronting is a chore and not practical

12:54 PM

If I want to yeah

I'm not, but I briefly mentioned it in my "it's dumb and useless" tangent @Jas

12:54 PM

What happens to your active thought then?

Oh okay, that is what gave me the idea

I go passive for a moment

How long would that be?

Ie I don't think until she is done

Yes, passively existing in parallel is what we do when context doesn't demand one of us, because both of us have to be ready to take the driver's seat

As little or as long as we need

Fair

12:55 PM

Yeah, that does sound like what we do too

12:55 PM

But I also wouldn't describe her as observing, either

12:55 PM

How do you define "observing"?

When there is a value in the distinction of identity there is a notion of only a single fronter at a time, to keep the boundaries from blurring

And I wasn't referring to memory separation with wonderland stuff. I meant that you can't exist outside of the awareness of whoever is fronting. There wouldn't be any memories to separate

12:57 PM

And with observing I mean that my host is still passively watching at all times, rather than going dormant

Can you define that, then?

I can feel her there, and she knows she's still there

Ah yeah, we somewhat get that? But it also kinda requires me to keep passive focus on her and maintain presence

12:58 PM

Otherwise I'll take over completely

This is often the case. For me it was for very long, my host being concerned about me encountering something too unfamiliar to respond to and wanting to take over at a moment's notice.

And, well, I like having her around. (edited)

We don't have to maintain any focus on her

12:59 PM

She just doesn't know how to go inactive yet

Huh

12:59 PM

We don't know how to go active

12:59 PM

Opposite problems, I guess.

But she isn't exactly doing anything so we call it passive

Although our definition of active and inactive might be different

1:00 PM

It's possible we're describing the same thing

Apollo isn't locked into the front but he can remain passive and watch as well

1:00 PM

Between the two of them, there's a lot of accidentally taking over

We do have that sorta, too?

1:01 PM

But that's because the internal boundaries between us are ready quite weak

1:02 PM

And we're both susceptible to just accidentally crossing it too far in either direction

It's more like they just do it out of habit