Shinyuu

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shinyuu

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Everyone’s rushing to call tulpamancy a disorder, DID, or even schizophrenia as soon as they learn it’s not a practical joke and people actually practise tulpamancy. But is tulpamancy a disorder? Is it something you should be concerned about or treated for? Let’s begin with what tulpamancy is definitely not and that’s schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that is thought to have a significant but not solely genetic component; found in about 1% of the population worldwide. Schizophrenia involves a chronic psychosis, characterised by hallucinating (including multimodal hallucinations – i.e. affecting several senses at once), and thinking or believing things with no basis in reality. Contrary to the popular belief, people with schizophrenia do not have multiple personalities and the hallucinations they experience originate from the outwards. In other words people with schizophrenia might hear voices which they would fully perceive as coming from the outside, physically unable to relate to them as being within their mind alone. Tulpamancy, on the other hand, is primarily focused on multiple personality aspect, whereas visualisation and hallucination components are optional and not deemed crucial to the development of a tulpa. While some tulpamancers practise “imposition” also known as overlaying the visual looks of the tulpa over the real world or otherwise sensing them at best it results in pseudo-hallucinations and the tulpamancer has to apply a non-trivial effort to make the illusion stay. Now, though, what about dissociative identity disorder aka DID? Read the article Note from Shinyuus: While the page linked is clean/SFW, other pages/articles on my blog are not. I'm working on that but for now stay aware of this if you thread out of the tulpamancy category. A Medium mirror link pending.
  2. I'm not sure how you read that as me considering tulpamancy a disorder; that's obviously not the statement the opening makes.
  3. Yeahs; I might need to look again into that definition. I'm not really fond of the "traditional" active & passive forcing definitions but the initial review of this article showed that people are getting confused if I used my own wording. Well duh. Thanks for pointing it out.
  4. I've been advised in my GAT submission thread that I might find a better discussion platform in the general section. Granted I never really was an active user in here and I don't know your local customs I'd like to throw in a link to my recent post on forcing and see if it sprouts any good discussion. So here you go: On Forcing
  5. This is a right thread. It's a submission for the "articles".
  6. Yeah; you kinda nailed what I tried to communicate with that word; it seems to carry the meaning I envisioned originally. But again; I'm not a scientist.
  7. Thanks for the feedback y'all! Overall the process seems much smoother and useful than where the GAT was two years ago so you're doing a good job. Keep it up. On the individual feedback. Re. Kitsune in Yellow's notes: Everything is valid. I'm not a neuroscientist so for me it feels natural to use the words based on their definitions; e.g. subconscious is "of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings." (Oxford Dictionary) as compared to the unconscious: "the part of the mind which is inaccessible to the conscious mind but which affects behaviour and emotions." In my article I refer to the former concept. It's also known in Buddhism as a monkey mind but thinking about that I find it burdensome to pull in and explain buddhist terminology too when there's an English word that fits the spot. I can understand how it might not be proper use for you as a scientist but I'm not a scientist; I don't write a scientific publication; and .info isn't a peer-reviewed magazine. I would gladly accept another word as a substitute but I'd need some guidance as for "unconscious" doesn't seem to fit into the context of what I'm describing. Given your "I think this has some good ideas, but I'm rejecting it until the grammar is fixed and the practical advice on stress management is improved" I'll consider this as a positive vote as I can and definitely should improve on both. Re. Candybell's notes: "It's impossible to view things perfectly objectively regardless of who and where you are" – yeahs; this is something that absolutely should be improved. I've been somewhat more idealistic two years ago I guess and the article didn't age well. Given the general premise of it still stands it's something I can work on; though. Given your "Approved for Articles" I'll consider this as a positive vote. Re. Breloomancer's notes: I addressed the subconscious vs. unconscious issue above and I'm up for any suggestions. Given the "I'll approve for guides once you fix the thing about subconscious" I consider this as a positive vote. Re. AZ's notes: As it sums up the notes above and the summary of "I’ll be happy to approve this for articles" given the other notes above are addressed I consider this as a positive vote. Re. Piano's notes: I'd like to address your grammatical fixes in particular noting that while you spent your time doing rewriting and fixing it's completely useless for me as a writer as I need to hunt them sentence by sentence and it's simpler to ignore them all. While some writers appreciate editors doing the full editing most prefer the highlighter to point them at where they goofed. I acknowledge that the article might be lacking on a bunch of points raised. I don't plan to do a major rewrite and I think it still conveys the emotions I tried to put into it so I will consider "I can't approve it in its current state" as a negative vote. Unfortunately I cannot act on this feedback at all. Re. Ranger's notes: The feedback is very good and indeed the wording must be improved as the communicated meaning is off. Thanks for pointing that out. I elaborated on the advertising above and given I don't plan and never intended to post the text in full on .info I will consider "If you fix all the issues including the advertising issue" as a negative vote. Re. Clo's notes: "If a tulpa stays within their wonderland all the time and rarely, if at all interacts with the outside world and avoids interaction with it, I feel like they won't be able to develop these sorts of things efficiently and won't flesh them out" this is exactly how I feel! If you got this concern while reading my article it must be improved until this is gone. This is vary much one of the fundamental things about tulpas I believe in! Based on the advertisement concern raised again and acknowledging that the references to my blog must go to get an approval in "Once you adjust and change a few things, most notably the advertising" I'll consider this as a negative vote. Summing up; I don't feel like Piano's feedback was actionable and I have fundamental disagreements on the points required by Clo and Ranger I will consider the vote spread not in my favour even with the requested amendments. Thus I'm withdrawing my submission from further review. As a followup note I'd like to see a wider GAT statement on advertising; including the definition of what they consider advertising to start with (it might be feasible for me to withdraw the other articles too before you spend your time reading them).
  8. I think I explained my reasoning quite clearly in the discussion above. Besides; I don't see why there's an "or" between helping people and growing a blog. And there's no need to twist my words; I'm not refusing to host content locally on .info; I'm refusing to host the content on the medium which is webforum. If Pleeb had grabbed a custom Medium subdomain when they were offering the service for articles.tulpa.info I'd be the first one to jump on the bandwagon.
  9. yeah; I'm sorry if I sounded rude there but that comment confused me because I didn't remember who's on GAT and who's not and I thought the voting is over.
  10. I actually tired that! The click-through rate was nonexistent so I gave up on that strategy. I have no issues with posting my whole stories on e.g. FA or sofurry: after all they build my audience on those websites – the users can track my profile; they will rate my writing; they'll get notified when I post more. But those websites are designed to make content accessible and searchable; they give the artists a great visibility. These forums are just different.
  11. In general it's not as handy for me; I post my articles on my blog and cross-post the full text to Medium but I get the reading numbers from both. Crossposting the full content without any visibility on the readers isn't helpful when I decide what I'm planning to write next. For my articles that are posted elsewhere (e.g. I got a couple of those translated) I have very low return rate to my website. In general I try to be more expressive with my stories lately and having a consistent way to publish those helps a lot – I don't need to do the images twice; it's all markdown; etc. I can understand your disappointment when as a reader you click on a story and only get a link to follow; though. I have no good answer for that yet. But I don't feel that forums are a good medium for articles to start with.
  12. While I'm waiting on the last critique I want to get a GAT summary on what constitutes "advertising". I'm not making money off those posts but I also have no interest in posting on .info without any accreditation of my work; specifically: You can copy and paste your finished draft into submissions and leave out the last two paragraphs linking to your other stuff, or you can leave everything on your blog and not have this work on Tulpa.info. if this is a hard requirement then I'm going to save your time. As for the other feedback; thanks a lot; you all were very helpful; especially Kitsune and their notes on "subconscious" vs. "unconscious" and the bad grammar (I have no excuses for that). With the current votes of four to two I'll wait until the last one to see if I will do any major edits to the article (it's not worth rewriting it if I can't address all the points and make you happy). Also on Kopase's point: I think it should be approved. Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to note that it'd be better for everyone if you wouldn't give your suggestions as to approval of the article within this topic given you're not on the GAT team. The feedback is reasonable; though; I'll see what I can do.
  13. “Can I create a tulpa only by passive forcing?” This question pops up constantly on tulpa forums and discussion groups. It often comes from a thought that “active forcing” requires you to dedicate time to your tulpa, and you ain’t got time for that shite (you still want to have a tulpa, though). I decided to tap into the applied neuroscience and make a bridge between forcing and mindfulness; expanding into the brain idling states and pointing out the best strategies to develop a tulpa. Read the article Note from GAT: While the page linked is clean/SFW, other pages/articles on Shinyuu's blog are not. Tread carefully if you are at work/school or are a minor or read the mirrored version on Medium.