I’m not sure, I tried comparing experience betwen my depersonalisation and tulpa’s switching and the reports are different but I suspect it is the case
That also depends on what you mean. Dissociation is the act of not being aware of a process that's happening. You do that all the time in a number of different ways. In this context though it sounds like you're talking about "total" sensory dissociation. The kind you achieve in deep meditation.
12:56 AM
It's a side effect of being in a trance state or in various states in and around sleep
12:57 AM
There are other forms, including identity dissociation. Depersonalization and derealization are both forms of dissociation that are distinct from simple sensory dissociation.
12:57 AM
Although unlike sensory dissociation they are usually perceived as negative.
12:58 AM
Identity dissociation meanwhile is what I think the mechanism behind tulpamancy actually is. The brain being able to make identities then make them feel real or not real is the core component.
1:00 AM
Switching only requires identity dissociation, not some sort of full body trance. Switching only requires you to shift the primary source of thought, which is as simple as "becoming" your tulpa. Roleplay them, basically, and believe in the switch. In the same way as parroting, there's more to it because it's believed as real. Usually people also do a little symbolic visualized ritual to switch, and this can help, but it's not necessary at all.
1:01 AM
The symbolism is basically just there to get you suggested into a state where you accept "ahh, this doesn't feel normal anymore, and therefore it is real." and that takes different levels of time based on who you are. But once you understand how to switch you can do it rapidly if you wish as long as you don't have any doubts in your ability to do so I guess.
I don't know how your system works, but most don't describe it as anything like roleplaying their tulpa. Just the tulpa becoming more of a prominent presence and taking more mental "space" while the host sits in the backseat so to speak.
I'm not saying it's like roleplay. I've said it before but my stance is switching is to roleplay what tulpas are to your run of the mill empathy constructs. Switching is defined by strong experiential differences... BUT... Can you actually point to something in deep roleplay that's meaningfully different in terms of practice to switching? Any attempts at describing it other than experientially all boil down to "I become them." Which is what you do in roleplay.
1:09 AM
Better yet, have you ever gotten deep into a role, lol? It's easy to talk smack about roleplay but if I had to describe a form of emotional bleed I experienced before tulpamancy it comes from roleplay.
Fair. But I still think that's entirely the same in roleplay. Though I suppose I should couch that in the notion there are definitely levels of roleplay. What I'm talking about is basically method acting. There are other directorial stances to roleplay where you are less dissociated.
1:12 AM
I think it might hold more water as an analogy than proxi's various individual faces of the same person being a meaningful switch.
Tulpa Switching Experiences Study – Conclusions By bduddy Introduction The topic of “switching” is a frequently discussed one in the tulpa community and other plural communities. However, if you observe these discussions for any amount of time, it is obvious that there are different views on w...
2:13 AM
What zen describes looks like "identity switching" here, which is just one of 6 categories of reported experiences
I define switching to be the tulpa and host trading places where the tulpa gains a host-like experience and the host gains a tulpa-like experience. This can mean a lot of different things depending on the context of the tulpa system, hence why experiences vary so much. I don't know if seriously looking into switching and coming up with your own definition would be super useful right now because Nyx is only a few days old. I don't think you and Nyx have had the chance to study what Nyx's experiences are as a tulpa yet. I also think she's too young to switch in general
On switching categories- I think they are useful for comparing other's experiences and helping you figure out what you want in switching, but the categories themselves are entirely subjective and based on what you think makes one's switching different from someone else's.(edited)
Yeah the only distinction between these categories is A: Cohosting, and B-F: Different ways of describing and internally rationalizing switching. The abstract rationalization is irrelvant here.
2:45 AM
One way or another you're acting like your tulpa.
2:45 AM
Only A has a meaningful distinction in terms of actual action because it implies you are not intentionally acting only as one identity.
we need more precise language to describe fronting states before we can really gauge what sorts of experiences people have. all the data gathered in that survey is pretty much useless because there is no consistency in the language that people use to describe their experience, so the different reports can't really be compared
To me the only reason people are afraid of the notion of calling it roleplay is a similar reactionary response to having tulpas called characters. But again, they absolutely are those things but with greater breadth of experience.
Experience is entirely suggestible, and what you feel is almost meaningless other than to recognize that the reason we view tulpas are tulpas vs characters is because they typically come with greater experience. The actual level of experience though, can change from person to person.
These descriptions are all just synonyms with some suggestion of different experiential effects. Some get the sense their tulpa is somehow in more control (when control is always arbitrary); some get the notion that they feel like a tulpa, or feel pushed to the "back", or may get wonderland visualizations that are slightly stronger than expected by default. They don't actually describe different actions or any meaningful difference in mechanism. The experiential differences are as irrelevant as calling a god-form made through religion not a tulpa because it causes interesting and specific hallucinations.
Most importantly though it's important to always remember you simply cannot derive any sort of external truth from internal experience. It just doesn't work. You can't just posit you feel different therefore you're doing something different, because that's just not true.(edited)
2:59 AM
Your brain can feel however the hell it wants at any time.
3:03 AM
But practically what is the brain doing if not assuming a role? In concrete terms. One way or another you're dissociating yourself from the "front" and associating your tulpa with it. Or at least trying to both associate. And again, you do that in roleplay. You originate thought from the perspective of a character; you don't just distantly imagine what a character is doing, you feel in lieu of them.
And that's not a bold statement. If you ask anyone who's properly spent time seriously roleplaying they will tell you of instances of bleed where they experienced real sorrow or anger in lieu of a character who is very very different from them. Even when they as themselves oppose the philosophy of that character. And they have to re-assert control and step back from it.(edited)
Zen
To me the only reason people are afraid of the notion of calling it roleplay is a similar reactionary response to having tulpas called characters. But again, they absolutely are those things but with greater breadth of experience.
Experience is entirely suggestible, and what you feel is almost meaningless other than to recognize that the reason we view tulpas are tulpas vs characters is because they typically come with greater experience. The actual level of experience though, can change from person to person.
These descriptions are all just synonyms with some suggestion of different experiential effects. Some get the sense their tulpa is somehow in more control (when control is always arbitrary); some get the notion that they feel like a tulpa, or feel pushed to the "back", or may get wonderland visualizations that are slightly stronger than expected by default. They don't actually describe different actions or any meaningful difference in mechanism. The experiential differences are as irrelevant as calling a god-form made through religion not a tulpa because it causes interesting and specific hallucinations.
Most importantly though it's important to always remember you simply cannot derive any sort of external truth from internal experience. It just doesn't work. You can't just posit you feel different therefore you're doing something different, because that's just not true. (edited)
When I saw Proxi's comment on switching earlier, I thought initially "blah! Switching isn't swapping out identity masks!" and then I thought about it more and felt that they're probably right. While I don't think every case of "the you who works" is going to be related to switching, it's possible character acting or putting on an extreme professional mask is the same as our switching. At the very least, I never felt like I needed to be a completely different person to do what I do, even while working at the front desk at my job. It really depends on the context of the roleplay/mask and the switching one is referring too.
I consider being switched-in being the "default" personality and inspired by Aya's comment, I now call it "the usual" if you are the switched-in personality when the body wakes up (most of the time).
I still don't like the idea of you "becoming the front", only because I think of the front as a thing you can get close to or be in, not something you can necessarily become. The front is more like a room you can walk around in, and to be out of the front would be to leave the room. Being the room doesn't make as much sense to me. We do have the occasional doubt where we think we're not any individual and think we're in a new personality mode, but that's more along the thinking "I am the brain and entire body" rather than "I am a personality", I still wouldn't think "I am the front".(edited)
theory of structural dissociation (which is a model that not all psychologists agree with) claims that children do have a set of different ego states (for playing, for being hungry, angry etc) which naturally integrates at the age of around 7-9. If the process is disturbed, you end up with DID/osdd.
So your idea was kind of similar with the difference that there is no ego state/identity that “wins”, they all become one (edited)
I'm not sure I have much to add. I suppose the question would be: What benefit does it have, and how would we prove it?
I don't think I have any real reason to suspect children associate more strongly with various identities they make experientially.
In infants below 1? Honestly I have no idea the why - But we know they don't because they don't interact with memory in the same way as children above that age. If you're not reading and writing to working memory any sort of consistent behaviour is impossible outside of your existing instincts.
6:06 PM
The brain continually physically grows until the 20-ish age. It's entirely possible it's just a matter that it's not fully developed at that point.
It's also notable that several mental conditions can form permanent changes in the brain if done early on in childhood, including DID. And not just in relation to having the condition.
uɐɹɐs
Hi all! Any good advice for a beginner tulpamancer?
Hi there.
The most important thing to me is to have fun. Don't let things become a chore. It'll work better and it'll hurt less. Do things because you want to do them, not because it's some disciplined meditative practice that you need to rigorously do.
I say that a children's mind has a not unified thought form bc
6:10 PM
Trauma in children is more likely to cause DID
6:10 PM
Than in adults
6:12 PM
There isnt really a way to prove it but it makes senSe
Zen
Hi there.
The most important thing to me is to have fun. Don't let things become a chore. It'll work better and it'll hurt less. Do things because you want to do them, not because it's some disciplined meditative practice that you need to rigorously do.
my situation is kinda different from a beginner cos I've been talking to my future tulpa since the age of 7-8 till now 39, she always were a part of me but I dunno if she's sentient or not cos I never really ponder if I was just parroting her...
But imo things such as the unity strengthen over time
6:13 PM
Just how the hosts identity and any other thlught form identity does
uɐɹɐs
my situation is kinda different from a beginner cos I've been talking to my future tulpa since the age of 7-8 till now 39, she always were a part of me but I dunno if she's sentient or not cos I never really ponder if I was just parroting her...
Interesting. On the topic of sentience: I personally think that every thoughtform we make, including really basic ones like the ones we use for empathy are innately sentient. I think it's a trick of the brain that we dissociate from these things in order to maintain a cohesive perspective and personality. The alternative is, effectively, psychosis, where you cannot reduce the volume of these thoughts to a safe level.
As for parroting, it's something you can test if you're doing. Intentionally move their form for them. Then allow them to automatically move.
uɐɹɐs
my situation is kinda different from a beginner cos I've been talking to my future tulpa since the age of 7-8 till now 39, she always were a part of me but I dunno if she's sentient or not cos I never really ponder if I was just parroting her...
2
