Granted, I have realized now the difference between visualizing your tulpa and imagining something -- and I haven't exactly mastered visualization enough to visualize my wonderland
To me, my wonderland would simply be my imagination, and I know Celeste doesn't wait there, she's always present and I just have to acknowledge here. So like most things here, interpretation of wonderland is subjective -- so you don't have to worry about the concrete definition of it.
I think active forcing needs neither wonderland nor "imagining" in the real world. Once they're vocal, have a good chat. That seems more effective to me than any visual or other sensory interaction.
10:32 AM
Okay, so question. Do you guys ever have your tulpa address you with their own name? Because sometimes when Cee initiates a conversation, they'll go, "Cee?" or "Hey, Cee?" Then they'll realise they've made a mistake. It annoys them. Or sometimes, while switched, the same thing will happen. I'm thinking it's just the brain's habit because it's something I, the main fronter, do so often. Not sure though. What do you all think?
Hasn't happened yet, but I have spoken the second she speaks. She says my name as I say hers, we get confused, I feel as if we switched, and then I shrug it off.
personality forcing is overrated. But seriously, just treat her like a person. And listening to her is absolutely important. It's understandable why that would make someone upset, right?
It's not overrated. It's essentially like teaching a toddler what's right and wrong in a way. It's a period where you influence them to be a better person, as long as you don't hover over them and depict every little part of their personality. Put in a fewpositive/neutral traits, such as being honest and brash. It can possibly open up new perspectives for you.
I found that article very interesting, but am confused about one of its most important parts:
1:34 AM
"If you make another category adjacent to that self and call it “my tulpa,” but don’t put anything into that category, it’s going to just sit there and not do anything. You have to be willing to break open your sense of self and sense of being and share it across the new categories if you want them to do something."
1:35 AM
What exactly does that mean? What does this look like in forcing? What does not doing this look like?
Man with a hammer looking for nails here, but it may be talking a bit about the idea that the host needs to be "reduced" in scope and looked at more as a personality itself in order to have more success with tulpamancy.
What would an example of "sharing your sense of self across new categories" look like, though?
3:13 AM
Because the core of creating a tulpa is directing attention/talking at something you label as "not me", and I don't see where what the article said comes into that
I imagine there is a higher purpose to the words somewhere, but a lot of times people say things more because it sounds good and to inspire a certain mindset than to actually communicate a meaning
3:18 AM
Looking at the article, the idea of a category is that we categorize physical objects even though they don't necessarily exist as an object. Or that the categories we use are always flawed. I don't know how a sense might be "shared" between those categories, but it's more than likely that the article is saying that however you define "yourself" is similarly flawed and you could spread that definition into other areas?