• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Bluesleeve

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Sex
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It would be "Die Tulpa". However, that would mean 'tulip' in English. 'Tulpas' is also being used by Germans as a translation for the English equivalent, and is actually correct in German.
  2. Perhaps it is a bit late to enter this discussion, but I will anyway. First off, some thoughts on the Analogy you mentioned, motorheadlk. Sure, it is nice to think of the mind and the host as soil and plants, but that isn't getting us anywhere because it is not the actual thing we are talking about. We could talk about plants and leaves as well, or of an animal and its offspring, or a cloud and its rain. The point is, it's not going to get us anywhere, and using it as an argument is ridiculous. That Tulpas are a 'consciousness' or 'sentient' is a belief, even if it is mentioned on the first page of It is another belief, that a Tulpa is not conscious and 'unsentient', not a 'being'. If one likes to think so, he can, but he should also be aware that his opinion is not more belief than the other. Let's get away from the completely obvious. There are some points which aren't stressed enough, and waffles already mentioned one of them: How can a belief affect a consciousness up to the point it disappears? We know this isn't possible with 'our' consciousness, if we were to believe that a Tulpa is something close to a consciousness. So, what can a Tulpa be? We can agree, that a Tulpa displays the same qualities as a person when possessing the host's body, but still has to be maintained by the host. It's the same case as with switching, but so far I only know of one single person, who has performed this ominous switching everyone keeps talking about, but no one has achieved, not even Oguigi. What is the host? Is the host the consciousness itself, or is it something referred to as an 'identity', a pattern of thought, which is going to affect the body's actions. The second is more appropriate, since a consciousness only exists, but does not have any other attributes to it. So far we can assume, that every body has at least one consciousness, whether it does not have the ability to sense anything or not. Simply because a body is built the way it is, there is a consciousness brought into being. Now, we know that we need at least one consciousness and one identity for the body to act like a person. One consciousness is always there, because that's how the brain works. One consciousness without an identity is not going to do anything but exist. The thing with identities is, that there can be several in a person. Several behavioral patterns for a consciousness are completely possible, multiple consciousnesses are more complicated, since these might actually interfere with each other, assuming there are physical prerequisites to them. What so wrong to assume a Tulpa is nothing more than an identity? It would be completely logical, and the most likely possibility, because a consciousness does not exist out of will, but because it has to. Choosing to not assume an identity is the equivalent of ignoring a Tulpa. Choosing to act like a Tulpa identity would be the equivalent of possession (or 'switching') Choosing to 'delete' memories would be to choosing to ignore these memories-- not associating them with your identity. etc. Those people who thin of Tulpas as consciousnesses are the ones to use the analogies. Of course they do, it is a very romanticized view on this topic, but from a logical standpoint it is the most unlikely. It is highly unlikely such a thing as 'severing your connection' to your senses, or going into the unconscious happens. It is the pure belief and indoctrinating oneself because you choose to believe such things. They are perceived as true by you, but only because you chose to believe them. When people choose to create an identity which you think is 'conscious' of course it will say it is, because that's how the identity is believed to be. If someone were to create a Tulpa identity, and believes it is an illusion, the Tulpa will answer it is one. motorheadlk, to come back to your original hypothesis concerning switching. To put it nicely, it is something you chose to believe, but it is constructed around the reports of this forums, not by logical thought. I suggest you get your tulpa to speak first, and you might have a different outlook on all these things mentioned, including your hypothesis.
  3. Making additional voices would be downright stupid. Schizophrenia is believed to have physiological causes, so it is very likely a Tulpa will end up as a part of a psychotic episode.
  4. Yes, these spasms are directly related to the dissipation. It's true a Tulpa entity is more than a 'normal' imaginary friend, and also more dangerous when it comes to that. I'm not sure where they come from, but it might either be related to stress of dissipation or creating something that can control the host's body. I will send you a PM as soon as I have time.
  5. Jimmy, if you don't want to feel like you are talking trough them, you have to establish the belief that it is them. You can reach this by telling yourself it is not you. At the same time you have to make your Tulpas reassure you that it's not you parroting them. Stop questioning their behavior, and they will appear more separate. However, you might not get rid of this feeling completely, since you and your Tulpas are the same thing.
  6. I found this post to be an enjoyable read, and look forward to entries in the future! There was, however, one point, which I didn't quite agree with: What exactly is a "separate yet internal consciousness"? Sure, we are capable of maintaining several identities or adapting these "modes" you mentioned, but that doesn't imply anything about another consciousness. How do you conclude it's not just an identity that is being created, but a wholly new consciousness?
  7. As soon as this discussion included conscious, subconscious and unconscious altogether, I couldn't follow it anymore. Maybe it does make sense to you, but you seem to use completely different definitions of these terms, and move within borders of your own beliefs and/or theories. Parallel processing is when the host thinks of one thing and his Tulpa of another. E.g. Host and Tulpa can solve two different mathematical problems at the same time. It's this community's dreadful habit to think of new fancy terms, instead of looking for more descriptive or existing words for something. Especially what people call 'frontloading' is nothing more than a placebo in application.
  8. Yeah, this is kind of how I think of Tulpas, but in my opinion perception and identity play a much greater role. I might post a few consecutive blog posts with illustrations this weekend to show what I meant by that. That's where we split, I don't think a Tulpa has a separate thought process from our own, because we are one person. It's us who perform these actions (same consciousness) but under a different identity. (identity could be translated to 'layer of deception') Yes. Yes Host unmakes identity (=destroys deception). All the actions former attributed to the Tulpa are attributed to him. What else? (First) emotional response: Usually attributed as a sign of sentience. Also with your theory in mind, Albatross, I see it as the first sign of deception or establishment of the new identity. It is the first time we perceive our own feelings as though they are from someone else. Parroting: Host fails to establish new identity, but experiences his Tulpa just like a person with a Tulpa. The Tulpa feels parroted, but only because it is still seen as a part of you. (e.g. identity is not yet established) What happens during dissociation is, that we talk us into believing our Tulpa would be a sentient being and is supposed to be out of control (when it truly isn't). Well, I don't see where he avoided questions. It's his job to defend his theory, that's why he's here. I also see some some things that are 'errors' from my point of view, but I'm going to post something concerning that anyways. Concerning parallel processing - who successfully and reliably did this before? From my perspective a Tulpa might let unconscious thought processes surface, but these take place in a person without a Tulpa as well. I would be very grateful if you could link some sources here.
  9. Well, Jimmy summed it up pretty well. I'm not judging you, but you should maintain a more healthy stance concerning the protectiveness towards your Tulpa.
  10. Memory recall and what users describe as 'parallel processing', have to be trained separately. That's what a Tulpa feels like in the beginning. It will feel more separate from you, but never completely separate. There are those people, who believe a Tulpa is a separate consciousness, and those, who believe a Tulpa is nothing more but an illusion. Your choice. Well, yes. You have to truly believe that your Tulpa is not you.
  11. It wasn't my intention to disprove autonomy. Besides, there are also cases of DID, who can communicate with their alters without having to switch. There isn't always a lapse in memory. The identity isn't aware of anything, the ego is. These actions (breathing etc.) are unconscious automatisms, but they are still 'me'. Of course they are associated with my identity. Even though only a small part of these 11kk bits is being consciously perceived, we can actually recall more information, because it has been unconsciously processed. These memories are now part of my identity, because I can recall sitting on the chair - therefore they are associated with 'me'. The consciousness is one thing. The identity is another. The consciousness can have another identity. If an identity becomes conscious, its actions are associated with said identity, but cannot be recalled by another. (different brain areas) We both know, that DID is a very controversial topic, and that's why we might not come to the same conclusion here. However, when we talk about alters, we don't talk about consciousnesses, but about identities. Just because there are different behavior patterns it doesn't mean a different ego or consciousness performs it, but another identity is now prevalent.
  12. You pose me questions, which i can't currently answer. An ego makes models easier to work with, simple as that. Of course you can assume it doesn't exist, because you can't see it - but i do because it makes sense to me. Perhaps you haven't heard of it, but I had a library of Tulpas, which I and my Tulpas were able to talk to. Apart from that, this model is still in work. It's all good your model seems to be finished, but as you can see mine isn't. Also: Well, in my opinion it clearly does. Which new understandings and opportunities are you talking of? Possession? Switching? Memory access? And you are your Tulpa, that is also elaborated in one of my blog posts. Regardless of how you try to splice things, without redefining psychology itself as it exists today, you cannot claim that Tulpa being conscious beings is not possible, or that it isn't indeed the case, when all evidence and knowledge in the field claims it is. You would actually have to willingly contradict everything we have learned and know about the human brain to this point in order to make claims on the level that you are making. Are you going to go forward and do this without evidence to back this up? Yes, I will. However, I would like to see your sources, which contradict my statements either in this topic or in a PM. No. We can't see the decision-making process of the Tulpa, so we can't tell if it is autonomous. (rather degree of autonomy) Unfortunately, there is only one analogy with a very negative connotation. A robot, which is controlled by a remote seems to act autnomous - but it isn't. A Tulpa behaves differently from the host. That's all we can really say up to this point. That's good for you, and it show that you have put effort into your work. I did talk to people from psychology forums and a few people who actually studied psychology. Those who studied it, even discouraged me from making one (I already had Pronto and Dash up to this point), because it would "certainly lead to disassociation and psychotic conditions. Only a fool would do that." One of them supervised a person, whose demon creation had gone wrong, and also had experience with MPD. Due to research about DID, these particular conversations and my experiences, it is highly unlikely I will suddenly start believing in fantasy worlds, which is a theory being brought up by you. Why did those I talked to come to a single conclusion, and your older cousin did not? Probably because he isn't a psychologist. He might be a good medical practitioner, but he certainly doesn't have the psychological knowledge you hope for. I am not trying to build a theory around Tulpas - like you do - but look for a model where they can be integrated successfully. If you really feel so offended by my statements, I don't mind. Nevertheless there is one difference between us and our beliefs. Yours are already ultimate, which will sooner or later lead you into a dead-end street. I'm sorry, I had to laugh. That last passage shows me how scared you are. All I take from the last third of your post is just that you frantically cling to the belief, that your Tulpa is another consciousness. Because I don't believe it works this way, you demonize my person - and even try to make me feel guilty. So, this is what you call an objective debate. Your "truth" is a very distorted, biased and romanticized one - and I'm very certain I'm not the ignorant person. The point with DID is, that there is only one person, who has many identities. It's more like a role the person assumes for this personality. He perceives these persons as something separate from him, even though they are parts of his personality. These identities can contain memories and feelings of the original personality. It is all one person. When these personalities are integrated, the original personality doesn't experience them as 'other personalities' but as his memories and his feelings, like a person without DID. It could very well be, that we also lock away feelings and memories in our Tulpas, but that is a different story. Question to you, Goldsmith: How do you explain emotional responses?
  13. First of all, I would like to mention, that everything on Tulpas is getting rearranged in a way, which makes me understand people in a different way. The "controlled" in the quote above is put in an apastrophy, because I didn't know any other term to describe it. The Ego can't come up with ideas on it own. Therefore we can only choose the suggestions of parts of our personality. There is one problem here. I don't know myself how dynamic these "structures" of identity are and what they are made of. I tend to see it as an analogy to a "person", which makes it easier to work with. The Tulpa itself does not seem to have such a diversity of suggestions, because we forced it to have a certain personality. (Expectations) Even though you could say, that the Tulpa has an ego itself, I do not believe that. I think our ego unconsciously chooses for the Tulpa. It would mean that the Tulpa is more of an automatism than a conscious being. A part of the host, which is seen as something alien. (There will be something on my blog soon) The host has dissociated. I'm looking forward to clarify my ideas in a few blog posts. I believe we have to see our mind as something consisting of metaphors and analogies. These sort of things (black bird etc.) can only be seen when we want to, so I highly doubt this is playing out on an unconscious level. We just see it that way when we play with our imagination. It's very interesting to see what exists in people's minds, and that's why Jung goes into the direction of a collective unconscious. The more I personally think about this topic, people's personalities seem to stem from an origin, which is very similar. My opinion is that even these attributes have been with us all along, they just didn't really surface before. What if I told you that the Tulpa could just be you? I know people are going to hate me for that, but it seems like a Tulpa is just simple dissociation. Nothing new is created, we just perceive certain things differently. Our current situation is, that you believe that a Tulpa can become completely autonomous and conscious and i believe that this is not possible. The analogy fits for your theory, but you can't falsify a theory with it. I said it was the Host who "pulls out" certain parts of his personality and manifests them in a Tulpa. I would describe it like a child, which plays with puppets. He determines the personality of the puppets and plays them accordingly. Even though it is hard to empathize with the characters the child quickly gets the hang of it. After that the child can choose to believe ifhis puppets are autonomous, or if they are still him. (Our community chooses autonomous consciousness) I could be spiteful and say this analogy to your conclusions: A child believes puppets come to life when he plays with them. It seems like the Puppet has been born, but its opportunities for action are limited to the ones of the host.
  14. Oh god, it had to be done.
  15. We should acknowledge, though, that Jung had been annoyed by a Tulpa-like entity, until he finally agreed to explore his inner world and write down everything he found there. After he was unable to continue his work, he had been using "alchemy" to suppress the voices and visions. It's also arguable to call him "father of modern psychology".