Tulpa Forums
[Misc] Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Printable Version

+- Tulpa Forums (https://community.tulpa.info)
+-- Forum: Tulpas (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-tulpas)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-general-discussion)
+--- Thread: [Misc] Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge (/thread-misc-shifting-definitions-removing-challenge)

Pages: 1 2

Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Piano Soul - 10-12-2018

Something that's been taking place in the tulpa community over time is the gradual shifting of definitions in such a way to make it easier for people to claim that they've achieved certain things. It seems that people are moving the goalpost by means of changing the meanings of words, so that there's way less of a challenge in accomplishing such skills.

The first example of this being "imposition." I never really know what people exactly mean by imposition, as sometimes they might use the original definition (a self-induced hallucination), but a lot of the time they just mean "visualizing over the real world" as opposed to visualizing in the wonderland. I always have to ask people to clarify which one they mean when they say they can impose the tulpa. Now to me, using "imposition" to just mean "visualization" is very misleading. Visualizing over the real world is not nearly as difficult as somehow intentionally hallucinating, but the term has shifted to mean that. I can understand why, though, since saying "imposition" is much easier than saying "visualizing over the real world." Though personally I'd just call it "overlay visualization."

The second example is with the term "switching." Now, we've had people try to pressure us into adopting the shifted definition of switching so that we can say that we've switched, even though we do not believe we have. Today, people say "switching" to just mean "full-body possession" with the host still present. However I don't understand how you could even call that a switch, if you have only one person changing where they are (the tulpa) and the other staying in place. People keep telling us "if you full body possess then that means you are switching," and we just don't believe that, it would feel really wrong to move the goalpost like that just to feel like we've accomplished something when really we haven't. That's why I feel these terms have changed in general -- people want to say they've switched without actually having their host switch out, so instead they just consider full-body possession to be switching. However, full-body possession, like overlay imposition, is basically child's play, it's so easy. Switching is challenging, and apparently they don't want a challenge?

I don't know about most people, but changing the definition of a word to fit my current situation would not be gratifying at all. If others can actually fully switch, then we can too, someday, without resorting to something like changing what a word means.


RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Breloomancer - 10-12-2018

I think that it is terrible because switching is a much different experience from possession, and if definitions changed like that then people won't even know that switching is possible, they would really be missing out I think.

I think that if the new definition becomes the most used then it would probably be easiest to just use new words for these concepts instead of fighting everyone who uses the new definitions

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Bear - 10-12-2018

I totally agree, we need to do our part to educate, and correct others who use an alternate definition. I have found multiple definitions of Thoughtform and Soulbond, and i defined them as i understood them in my PR, but i'd like to know the generally accepted definition of such things. I've beem told "according to your definition" without offering an alternative definition.

Is there a 'sticky' we can make for a simple list of definitions? Or, does one exist outside of guides?

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Breloomancer - 10-12-2018

I think that there are a few lists, but most people don't read them

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Cat_ShadowGriffin - 10-12-2018

I agree that definitions get really soupy and can lead to confusion.

Visualizing your Tulpa irl? I've mastered that skill since I was a kid. I frequently visualize Ranger irl as a first step for presence and touch imposition, not a replacement for visual imposition. In my mind, true imposition is hallucinating, and that can apply to sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, temperature, weight, etc. Visualizing your Tulpa- or me gazing out the car window watching Kai the ninja skateboarding on the side rails auto-scroll style- is something I want to call "drawing over", not imposition.

I also think switching and posession get really soupy too. Posession, in some guides, is really a soft version of switching. However, Posession can also be interpreted as an expanded version of fronting. As for switching, I believe that's an experience that's very different from posession, and that's why there are so few true switching guides (Breloomancer, save us!)

Ranger and I wanted to add the "character" as a type of thoughtform because when I came here, I panicked because there was no way for me to describe the Grays. However, having that terminology can be extremely useful because knowing how they work could possibly solve a bunch of problems: system inflation, wanting to create characters just for the heck of it without having to create a Tulpa, give insight how "walk-ins" work, etc. Since "servitor" no longer really means it's old meaning, here's "character" to fill in the vacuum.

I don't want "character" to be confused for "soulbond". In my mind, "soulbond" is a Tulpa that came from another dimension or plane of existence, where a "character" is a non-sentient thoughtform that is parroted and puppeted to give off the illusion of sentience. To explain how I think "Walk-ins" work, they start of as "characters", and then they are promoted from "character" to "Tulpa" via forcing. A soulbond in my mind can't really escape it's metaphysical definition because if the "Soulbond" didn't come from another world, they would be called a "Fictive" or just a plain old "Tulpa".

And speaking of "Fictive"... Is "Fictive" going to mean "A Tulpa who was originally based on a fictional character from another source", or does it mean "character" but with the extra context?

"Daemon" does not mean "Demon", like the creatures from Hell. "Daemon" I believe refers to either an Animal based Tulpa, or a spirit animal who operates as a soul extension or works like a soulbond. Even this definition could use some clarifying.

Also, I get why "eclipsing" can fall out of use, so I won't advocate too hard for that one because the difference between "eclipsing" and "possession by fronting" or "fronting" are similar enough that I'm comfortable calling them the same thing.

A lot of definitions also depend on the philosophy of the Tulpamancer- so all of these definitions need some serious conversations to comb through...

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Bear - 10-12-2018

I wish there was a term for sentient non tulpa? I have what i call soulbonds, characters that i created from worlds that i created, through writing and visualization, who don't have the presence or gravitas of a tulpa or independant emotions, but otherwise pass sentience tests when i am not puppeting them. They can't be called tulpas (or proto tulpas) or writers are in big trouble. They've been sentient for literally years.

I hope this isn't too far off topic.

I would just like to know what to call them as well.

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Piano Soul - 10-12-2018

As far as I know, a fictive is supposed to be someone who identifies as a fictional character, and a factive is someone who identifies as an IRL person. To me though that's kind of strange as it implies the host just made them be like the character/person because they liked them, and don't actually want the tulpa to be their own person. Most people just call those "tulpas based on characters" though, so I don't know. It's hardly a word you ever hear around here, probably originated from Tumblr. I don't like the word "Soulbond" because of its meta origins, but to me a soulbond would be a character of yours that gained sentience over time. By contrast a fictive would probably be a character of someone else. However since soulbond is so meta I just say character-turned-tulpa.

Though this is getting a bit off-topic from the question at hand.

Possession isn't a "soft form of switching" or "an expansion of fronting." Possession is just... controlling the body. That's it. It doesn't matter if it's the host, or the tulpa, or if they're only possessing one part or the whole thing, it's all possession. If it's partial then they probably aren't fronting, which is why it's harder to do. If it's full body they most likely are fronting, which is why imo it's easier than partial. When you get to the point where the host is no longer active/present, then it's a switch, since the host is "switched out."

I really just don't understand calling full-body possession switching. "Switching" implies two people are trading places, though with full-body possession it's just a switch-in on the tulpa's end without a switch-out on the host's end. If the tulpa is controlling the mind/body entirely and the host is still there entirely then... it's not switching. Fronting doesn't imply switching. Fronting is fronting, switching is fronting without the host present anymore.

I'm not sure if the changing in definitions for possession/fronting/switching is entirely because of "ideology' and isn't just a way to make it easier for people to say that they've done it. Recently I saw a switching guide published elsewhere, and it was basically just a possession guide. They said that moving a single body part was possession, and controlling the full body was switching. That's just... not accurate, and it feels dirty to see people changing these words like this, to me.

Also I think that a character that seems sentient but isn't actually a tulpa would be an "automated character," to me. You can have automated people in your head without them being sentient. It's how we do things like have imaginary conversations with people we know in our heads. It doesn't require sentience, it just requires you knowing the character well enough for your brain to simulate their actions/reactions accurately or independently of your own input.

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Cat_ShadowGriffin - 10-12-2018

According to Yuki's guide, possession is very similar to switching: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-possession-possession-by-yuki

Linkzelda summed up his philosophy about switching / possessing in a paragraph:

Linkzelda Wrote:I’m sure people have their own means of distinguishing between possessions and switching, and I felt you went into the gray area a lot with mixing around terms between the two practices, but this isn’t to say that’s bad. I have a feeling that more submissions related to possession and switching will incorporate a blend of these terms, since in my personal opinion, possession and switching aren’t as different as night and day, i.e., black and white as some people may see it as.

Also, in that guide submission, Sands describes possession like this: http://i.imgur.com/s3LEyf3.png

The only other possession guide is yours, so there are no other posession guides that either support your philosophy or go against it. Because your philosophy on posession is very different from Yuki's guide and from the other accounts, it begs the question if you guys are even talking about the same thing.

We read your guide, and at the end of the day that guide inspired Ranger to consider and then pursue "possession". However, the version we learned from you guys isn't super helpful for us getting any closer to switching- and it's not because Ranger is struggling, it's because I am still uncomfortable with dissociation.

For this reason, I want to at the very least stress the difference from your version of possession and Yuki's definition of possession. They are different, and if "soft-switching" is too silly, then please call that "possession" and call "possession by fronting" something else.

I want "possession by fronting" and "fronting" to be separate, but that's more of a nitpick founded on confusion, and now I don't care if they are just called "fronting". When I first heard about "fronting" I was only told "they become the more powerful voice and take the front", but I didn't understand that also implied "possession by fronting".

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Piano Soul - 10-12-2018

Of course possession and switching are going to be the same... for the tulpa. The difference lies in what happens to the host. Yuki describes it as the host being able to go to wonderland. However this is a misguided and outdated ideology that most of the community is leaving. We don't think a host is supposed to do anything during switching, they'd be inactive the same way the tulpa can go inactive.

And of course our guide didn't help with switching, it wasn't a switching guide.

RE: Shifting Definitions - Removing Challenge - Breloomancer - 10-12-2018

The way that I see it, possession is the tulpa associating with the body, but the host stays associating with the body. In switching the tulpa associates with the body, but the host disassociates. If the host is a car then when a tulpa possesses the host is in the drivers seat, and the tulpa is trying to control the car through the passenger seat, in switching however the host is in he back seat and the tulpa is in the drivers seat.