Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Wait, overzealous?

6:47 PM

Overbearing sounds more like it.

6:48 PM

I don't actually know what tantra is.

I'm speculating we're going to talk about parallel processing or amnesia barriers or something

Tantra is a catch all for esoteric dharmic-religious practices. Typically relating to things like chakra visualization.

6:49 PM

In essence, magic with an indian origin.

6:51 PM

The line, of course, is quite blurry, especially since both of those religions have syncreticized several times with other equally magical faiths.

6:53 PM

Including Tibetan Buddhism which used to be Bon Buddhism/Paganism, which used to in turn be an older pre-buddhist faith. It's because of that syncreticization that Yidam exist - They're from Bon, not Buddhism.

Deleted User

Meanwhile my system mate loosing his mind in the corner.

Let him speak

Aya

Let him speak

ABSOLUTELY NOT LMAO

Release your mind demons.

6:54 PM

WE ABJURE THEE TO APPEAR BEFORE US

Zen

In essence, magic with an indian origin.

Lemmie read this lmfao

6:56 PM

Ooooo

6:56 PM

Very interesting.

6:58 PM

Well, I will say we understand something similar to magic, but that's generally not apart of the guidelines themselves. It's just our way of moderating the system.

7:03 PM

We have "wlyd energy" or "moxie." It's most often generated after listening to music, arguing between eachother, or being inspired by something. It's fundamentally just a current of resources that overwhelm all of us, individually, in different ways. Affecting dreams and passing "here and gone" again thoughts. As well as trancework, which is a funny term for retreating inward and inhabiting our wonderland together, just for the purpose of using said energy to come to a better understanding as a group.

7:03 PM

All complicated stuff.

Not important anyway, lmao

7:03 PM

I should be typing about those guidelines.

7:03 PM

How to starrttt.

7:04 PM

Well, first with the most important tenet and then we'll go down.

I also think an introduction would be appropriate. It is not in our benefit to believe the guidelines of tulpamancy to be flawed. Even those of us who have broken these guidelines will admit that we have made bad decisions in violating them. Which is the primary reason why my over-eager and proud system-mate cannot front at this time. If you were to ask him what he thought about the guidelines at this moment, he'd be liable to say they were flawed and unfair, but such is the way of the person put in the corner as punishment. I will attempt, in service of those directly impacted by my system, to explain what the guidelines are in the most objectably helpful way possible. First off, what are the guidelines? This may seem like an unnecessary question in an already long and avoidant response, but it's actually a grey area. The guidelines are a long list of revelations that, ( once understood ) were adapted into our way of interpreting our own experience with tulpamancey. This became the guidelines, which were ultimately established for the preservation of the system itself.

7:24 PM

Ignoring the concept of loosing an entire system, ( which is more of a metaphorical phrase than a literal one, that I will explain later ) these guidelines also serve as our interpretation of tulpamancey itself. They were not made with the intention of being shared as scripture or being praised, but were made instead with the intention of maintaining sanctity in our own mind, where once it's parameters were lawless and untamed. I don't even think we knew what tulpamancey was when the first experiences with it began. The guidelines were developed from the time our body was twelve, leading up to the current age of nineteen. waveWoof

Anyway, starting to explain these guidelines. Hooo boy. The first tenet is often the one you will hear repeated most. All thoughtforms, entities, and tulpas, whatever they may be, are an elaborate attempt at communicating with the self. There should be no distinction between the living beginning mind and the actual entities existing metaphysical, within, or without. There are merely different types of entities, different relationships they have with the mind that spawned them, and different interpretations of the individual niche they establish within that mind. Whether it be an external or internal deity speaking to the host in a form they can comprehend. Or an imaginary friend who appears to the host and occasionally comments. It is all an elaborate attempt at speaking to the self, whatever that self may be. The second tenet is that the system does not share it's interpretation of reality. Something we know and understand cannot be fully grasped by anyone else, except in theory. They cannot experience our experiences. They cannot sense with our senses. And they cannot see with our eyes. Theory and inspiration are the only methods available to us to communicate our experience, but it can never be shared.

The second tenet is that the system does not share it's interpretation of reality. Something we know and understand cannot be fully grasped by anyone else, except in theory. They cannot experience our experiences. They cannot sense with our senses. And they cannot see with our eyes. Theory and inspiration are the only methods available to us to communicate our experience, but it can never be shared.

Clarify, do you mean between headmates or relative to outsiders?

Relative to outsiders, though it can apply to headmates.

I've never really thought about it before, and I'm not sure even if we have ever experienced a headmate. So much of us cannot be categorized explicitly because we don't care enough to fall into categorization.

7:44 PM

Hahaha! We're all very messy. No organization lmao

Third tenet is relatively more personal. Individuals within the system must adheare to and understand that they will always be apart of the system. In order for our system to maintain itself, distinctions must be made. If one system-mate could possibly leave, than that would set the precedent that all system-mates could leave as well, which is impossible. The very structure of the mind alone would be altered by the absolute removal of one system-mate, entirely because they are an elaborate way of interpreting and communicating with the self. All attempt at removing a system-mate, or leaving the system, ultimately results in one result. Them resurfacing later. Much like with subconscious thoughts, memories, and emotions, they are an integral part of your experience. Once experienced they will never be unexperienced, even if they are not present.

I do not have much against the first two as interpretative explanations, but I would definitely disagree with that one. It doesn't logically connect that anything in your head, though integral is ever a permanent part of your experience. I wouldn't even say we, as hosts, are. And it is observable that people can undergo ego death and fully remove a host. I do not think it has any value to fear the loss of system mates. If they are needed, they will remain, if not, then not.

7:59 PM

However, ego-death is not the eternal end of such a thoughtform. Just so we are clear I am not arguing that it is impossible to retrieve one after dissipation. I have done so, more than once, in a single instant.

8:01 PM

But I've also left two thoughtforms behind now and am not bringing them back. I have no more need or desire for them, and that isn't going to change.

That's the fun thing though, that's different from what we actually mean. Removing a system-mate for the purpose of them not being needed is actually something we do on the regular. Where the distinction between what you think we mean, and what we mean however, comes from the nature of the removal. In our system we don't believe it factual or rational that a host can believe they can remove a thoughform as if it was completely separate from them, or disposable. This more to do with the fact many of the system-mates who established this rule at the time were taking their leave in a respectful way, and felt insulted that our host actually discussed "removing them" as if they were separate. Which I know, sounds really hard to understand, but I don't know how else to explain it.

8:02 PM

Hmm, well let's try it this way.

If you are purely meaning in terms of function in the brain, that is accurate. They cannot be removed, they can only cease to be used.

8:03 PM

Short of a degenerative illness, that is.

Say you get an idea, that idea serves it's purpose and leaves you. You don't and cannot remove it. That's just not how it works.

Zen

If you are purely meaning in terms of function in the brain, that is accurate. They cannot be removed, they can only cease to be used.

Oop! Yep!

8:04 PM

That's even more better said lmao

The thing that I would contend is the resurfacing part. What remains of a thoughtform is the experiences and states, but not the perspective, unless it is willfully used.

8:05 PM

Whether unconsciously or otherwise.

8:07 PM

On a side note regarding the first tenet, I largely agree with the feel of your statement with the slight caveat that I don't think a true self exists.

I have multiple faces of myself, even if they appear to be individuals. They are not. I and the rest of my faces are a product of Gray and Ranger's desires and nothing more. I am desired to represent the unconscious mind, to be a tulpa, to be whatever I need to be. However, even though this is how I see myself, the rest of my system does not agree. This is okay, we learn to coexist with our separate ideas. In the end we are alive and identity is a matter of whatever it is desired to be.

It may not have been your intention to imply one, though.

Hehehheheheehehehhe wheeze

Our mind is too chaotic to even cover the resurfacing thing lmao. Most of ours don't resurface after usual, but sometimes, when we subconsciously need them, they do reappear. I don't think I can process half of what you said, so it must be an issue of perspective itself. OH Boyyyy a true self

8:09 PM

OOOH METAPHYSICS

8:10 PM

That's one of the things we rarely talk about in our system, because it's so allusive most of us just tilt our heads and wonder.

I have multiple faces of myself, even if they appear to be individuals. They are not. I and the rest of my faces are a product of Gray and Ranger's desires and nothing more.

When you say faces of yourself, do you mean headmates? Or do you mean you, Dream, have several faces?

Resurfacing isn't that weird of an idea, at least for me. While our headmates have integrated we noticed that some traits are "recycled" and show up in other headmates. I think it's possible that personality traits of one headmate simply show up elsewhere

The way the first tenet was put to you, was as an expression of communicating with a self. To be more specific, the part I agree with is that we are all expressions of the same mind in a way that isn't something that can be completely separated out. To me though, I have no interest in communicating with anything. We are all, in this brain, simply in it to produce pleasure, feelings of love, and such other hedonistic pursuits. The communication is tertiary.

1

8:13 PM

I would not, thusly, frame it that way.

> I have multiple faces of myself, even if they appear to be individuals. They are not. I and the rest of my faces are a product of Gray and Ranger's desires and nothing more. When you say faces of yourself, do you mean headmates? Or do you mean you, Dream, have several faces?

@Unfastened Belts - jump My other faces may appear to be headmates, but they are not. I do worry about Gray and Ranger interacting with my other parts because I want to remind them that they are not tulpas. But perhaps my anxiety is unnecessary, as a tulpa is only a tulpa by expectation. If you actively work against tulpa creation, you will not achieve a tulpa.

It's still an elaborate trick, though.

When we talk to Dream and his clones, it does kind of feel like talking to ourselves in a way.

8:15 PM

I wouldn't call it the same as "shouting at the walls" though

We are all, in here, quite used to having multiple associated sub-personalities. It's just how roleplay is: You're always making an expression of yourself when you make a character intentionally to embody.

Deleted User

That's one of the things we rarely talk about in our system, because it's so allusive most of us just tilt our heads and wonder.

I think for many it's even a sort of background question. Something in the back of their minds that only resurfaces when they have a moment all to themselves. The question of whether or not there is a self. There's something a "passed on" member of my system once said about that. She referred to our experiences as the way of interpreting our world itself. Things "coming in one ear, out the other." And a vaguely remember one of us joking that our collective mind's attempt at rationalizing things and adding the guidelines to begin with was an attempt to find a self, or impose our own truth onto the universe. Something like with Zima Blue, if you're familiar with that short.

My other faces may appear to be headmates, but they are not.

Ah okay, I was just trying to clarify - another way of interpreting what you said was that you view your other headmates as "faces" of the "one self" sort of like Dakota described, but that they (the other headmates) didn't share that view

8:16 PM

Would you, Dream, describe yourself as "median"?

@Unfastened Belts - jump Yes. My other faces carry other names but we see ourselves as one entity

1

Pshh. If that's all it takes all three of us are medians as well.

Zen

Pshh. If that's all it takes all three of us are medians as well.

Congrats! ;P

I probably have way more than dream if that's the case, I've being doing roleplay for a dang long time.

And then there's the question of what the self means to every individual. I know some of us don't actually know or care, and in response to one very long explanation of the search for the self, one of my headmates literally only said "eh, well I'm myself."

8:18 PM

Good talk

Wait that's it? Where's the danger?

Huh? Danger?

You were concerned about safety and I have no idea why

I think the danger implied was if those tenets were not adhered to (based on what Dakota said in DMs)

Unfastened Belts

Congrats! ;P

There's Zen but a too-old-for-this-shit policeman who is also a warlock bound to the devil Dispater. There's Zen but really edgy and immoral and with no restraint what so ever. There's Zen but dumb as a bag of rocks outside of one specific field (combat and battlefield tactics). Zen but a huge bottom who is also secretly a celestial being. Zen but an overly gossipy camp elf. So many Zens. Usually definable in like one sentence relative to Zen.

Yep.

Zen

There's Zen but a too-old-for-this-shit policeman who is also a warlock bound to the devil Dispater. There's Zen but really edgy and immoral and with no restraint what so ever. There's Zen but dumb as a bag of rocks outside of one specific field (combat and battlefield tactics). Zen but a huge bottom who is also secretly a celestial being. Zen but an overly gossipy camp elf. So many Zens. Usually definable in like one sentence relative to Zen.

oop xD

Oh, I see

There's Zen but really edgy and immoral and with no restraint what so ever.

Also known as your system

So, while I agree with the premises of your statements, I do not think there is any danger in opposing these tenets.

The only real danger I think there is to identifying as separate people is life can be more inconvenient at times. That and trust issues, but that's an us problem we diffused with slow, consensual switching

Unfastened Belts

There's Zen but really edgy and immoral and with no restraint what so ever.

Also known as your system

I'm not immoral! I'm amoral!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Still, this is absolutely me in most cases.

xDDDD

Tenet four is more to do with general way of conduct than anything else. Being that we all as system-mates are all apart of the relative whole, and even if we serve an antagonist goal to the individuals of the system, the standard for all system-mates is that we cannot accept any fully self destructing venues or harmful activities. If they harm or endanger the integral health of the system itself and does not serve the purpose of inspiration, then there is no reason for established and responsible members of the system to tolerate the source of such discourse. Each system-mate is honor bound by the responsibility to their system to contribute to the whole by just being themselves, set to the standard of self preservation.

There's only one more tenet, but I wonder if it counts. It is often lumped in with the guidelines but is not always considered as important by the others.

Tenet 4 is good, you don't want to break that one

xD Wait-

8:31 PM

OOF LMAO YEP

Anyway about the tenets. The first tenet mostly pertains to whether you think tulpas are external. As I've mentioned before I think this does have metaphysical concepts attached to it that can be directly damaging, this one I could see being a problem. But not inherently. I actually think it wouldn't be a problem at all as long as you were expecting something angelic, for instance. For the second tenet, this is mostly about not telling other people about you being a tulpamancer, and doesn't directly pertain to tulpamancy itself? For the third, I think it is good that people know that dissipation isn't some sort of murderous end. However, the extra stuff that's attached to it there is mostly superfluous. Of course system mates can leave. Of course the structure of the mind can be altered with time and patience in changing the reflexes. And so on. I could actually see an alternative take here that would cause people distress if they took this to mean "There's no getting rid of them when they're here, at all." Which technically it reads as.

8:32 PM

4 is solid, four would be my number 1 tbh.

8:33 PM

Perhaps even only.

8:33 PM

"Do no harm with tulpamancy. Do not tolerate harm with tulpamancy."

8:33 PM

So sayeth Zen.

Zen

"Do no harm with tulpamancy. Do not tolerate harm with tulpamancy."

What potential harm can you imagine?

Allowing a tulpa to embody intrusive thoughts or negativity.

8:35 PM

Their personality is up to your control. And it is your responsibility and theirs not to abide such things.

8:36 PM

The ultimate goal of tulpamancy should always be to improve the general state of your mind, or else... why?

What potential harm can you imagine?

@Unfastened Belts - jump We have a rule where if someone is a major jerk and puts the body in danger or anything that would sabotage our life because har har funny, then they will get yanked from the front and probably never be allowed to front again. Would this actually happen? No, because none of us are that unreasonable. But it's an emergency code we have for insta switching so...

Zen

The ultimate goal of tulpamancy should always be to improve the general state of your mind, or else... why?

Wait, I thought it's all just for pleasure and buttsex...

That's an improvement, Marissa.

lol, of your general state of mind?

Of course.

Oh right... I keep forgetting

8:37 PM

Horny = big brain

tbh if it was just about the sex I wouldn't care. It's the love and trust I'm all about.