• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Flock

  • Rank
  1. Our wonderland (which still has no name) started off as two discrete places. First was a large garden with a lawn surrounded by trees. In the garden there is a fountain and a statue. The statue looks different for everyone who sees it. The other part was a room like an old library; old wooden book-cases on all the walls, a fireplace, some comfy leather chairs, and windows that look out over the garden. Over time, the room became part of a house and the garden became part of a larger estate and what we now basically have is an English mansion with a couple of hundred acres of land including woodland, pasture and a lake.
  2. You can, but you'll often find that some of those traits will change over time as you get to know your tulpa better. This happened to me with Karl; he started off as a character I wrote for a roleplaying game. He's kept some of the traits he started with but others have gradually changed over time. For example he's more serious than he used to be in the beginning. Likes and dislikes will often surprise you as they are discovered. I was very surprised to find that Maitimo (who is really a soulbond rather than a tulpa, based on Maedhros from The Silmarillion) really likes chocolate. A LOT. And Karl is afraid of spiders, which I also didn't expect.
  3. The appearance (and first name) of one of mine is based on the actor Karl Urban. But they are not the same, and Karl knows that. He even chose a different last name for himself, to keep the distinction clear. It's more like having a tulpa based on a character that Karl Urban has played in a movie that doesn't exist.
  4. O.o I looked at this thread and thought "where's the answer I wrote?" Turns out I answered the same question elsewhere. But I'll repost it here for the benefit of those who are here and not there. I think there are definitely some similarities between tulpamancy and other types of plurality. And I don't necessarily think that the entities themselves are any different from one another. My system over the years has comprised of tulpas, soulbonds, walk-ins and DID alters, and ultimately they all feel the same. Only the mechanism of their creation/arrival is different. The one that comes to mind first for me is soulbonding in particular. Soulbonding isn't always a deliberate act of creation but very often it is, as it certainly was with our Maitimo. The main difference it seems to me is that with tulpamancy there isn't always a clear idea of what the "finished" entity will be like, whereas with soulbonding, there is a very clear impression of that from the very beginning. DID splits/alters seem less tulpa-like to me because in this case there's no deliberate act of creation. Nevertheless they are created (subconsciously) so it could be argued that tulpamancy is the same process but carried out under deliberate control instead of spontaneously. Walk-ins are the least tulpa-like in my opinion, because they aren't created at all; they are entities (spirits, if you like) that already existed and have literally walked into the system from elsewhere. I think this is all down to degree of control, both in the creation process and afterwards, in interaction. I recently read an article in which Professor Luhrmann compared tulpamancers and psychics with diagnosed schizophrenics and found that the most significant difference was personal attitude to their experiences. The psychics and tulpamancers were more positive and regarded their headmates as a good thing whereas those diagnosed with schzophrenia were more negative about it and regarded it as an aspect of disorder. Now I'm not conflating schizophrenia with DID here but it would make sense that those people who have DID and are struggling with it are similar in that they have a more negative attitude to their experiences. Sharing your head with friends, and sharing it with people you are afraid of, are going to lead to very different outcomes. How, I am not entirely certain. I know that it does, but I also know that it isn't consistent. Many of my past and present headmates have been characters that I've written, either for stories or for roleplaying. The more intense the story/roleplay, the more likely it is that the character will become sentient. And yet, there are characters I've written that have been very intense and yet have never made that leap to sentience, and I don't know why. I have a theory that it's to do with neural pathways, and it was my headmate Karl that got me thinking this way. Karl can be a bit of a grumpy bastard sometimes, and he has some very particular facial expressions, the way he glares, the way he sets his jaw etc. His frown, his smile. The more he fronted in our system, the more I noticed his expressions and mannerisms appearing in the body, to the point now that I can tell when he's close to front purely by the way our face feels. I've often likened it to the partitioning of a hard drive (yes, this is going back a bit, nobody does that any more). The mind is very good at compartmentalising and I think that's what's going on here. By creating a tulpa (or a soulbond or alter) we're effectively creating a compartment in the mind and filling it with particular features unique to that particular entity. This kind of fits in with my theory of forming new neural pathways within a compartment. By directing stimuli at the new imagined thing (compartment) you're re-mapping some of the neural pathways in the brain and re-shaping them to function in new ways. What makes plurality specific though, is the compartments. However I do think there's more to it than just neural pathways in the brain, and before we get true answers we will need to wait until science has a better understanding of how consciousness works and how it is created.
  5. Summer, your comment reminds me of my Maitimo, who is a total chocolate addict. So one time when it was his birthday, I took him to a local cafe to have some chocolate cake. So there was me, sitting apparently alone at this table, with Timo co-fronting so he could enjoy the cake, and he was making all kinds of rude and funny comments (mostly comparing chocolate with sex) that made me actually laugh out loud. That got me some weird looks from some of the other customers.
  6. Two of mine are "walk ins" that arrived already fully developed, and I don't consider them to be tulpas because I didn't create them. Casteylan came about because of what I can only describe as memories of a past life. He's from another world with very clear and vivid memories of his past life there. Maitimo is a walk-in/soulbond combination, in that he was fully developed on arrival and is also from a fictional source (in his case, the Silmarillion). Soulbonds are kind of a blurred case though in my opinion; I think it's fair to say that they probably are created, though more on a subconscious level. No-one ever had a soulbond whose source material was something the host has never read/seen/heard-of, so I think soulbonds are (or can be) somewhat marginal tulpas.
  7. I've had Cas in my head for 20 years and it hasn't "got old" yet. Physical friends may come and go, but he will always be there and to me, that's a comforting thought, not something to be dreaded. I wouldn't describe it as a romantic relationship as there's no sexual element to it at all, though it's certainly as close as that. Intimate, but not sexual.
  8. Ah, in that case, Timo is very definitely a Soulbond (he is Maitimo, aka Maedhros, originally created by Tolkien). Cas is kind of borderline; he is attached to a fictional canon but both he and his canon are original and created by me. Karl is just... complicated.
  9. I'm familiar with soulbonding and did hang around on such a community for a while. Actually to be fair, it was mostly Cas who participated in that; he got involved via the otherkin community, given that he's an elf rather than human. I think it was around 1999 or so when he started that. Good lord, that makes me feel old! How do you define the difference between "muse" and "tulpa"? And also between "soulbond", if you also consider those to be different?
  10. None of mine have ever had any romantic attraction to me, but the friendships are close. However, some of them have been romantically involved with each other at various times.
  11. Well this is a surprise. I recently stumbled across the word "tulpa" elsewhere on the 'net, and though I had never heard about it before, the context was very familiar, so I did a little googling, and ended up here. I am a writer; I've been writing since childhood (I'm now on the far side of 50). Over the years, some of my characters have, shall we say, very much taken on lives of their own, to the point that some of them have become very distinct people who happen to inhabit my head. My oldest such character was created more than 30 years ago. I am certainly not alone amongst writers; we tend to call them "muses", particularly those with fanfiction connections. I have three main characters/tulpas/muses that I consider "permanent", they have been with me for many years and are very much part of my life. But, as with any story, I also have "minor characters" that will come and go, maybe staying for a short while as I work on a particular project and then fading away once that project is done. I chose the name "flock" because several of my characters are or have been associated with birds. -Lewis writer of Cas, Timo and Karl