Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NotAnonymous

  • Rank


  • Sex
  1. Quilten +1 - Phaneron does seem quite young, but the way he handles himself in the posts seems fine. I would have preferred to know more about his tulpa's progress/experiences and see some more actual critique from him though. sushi +1 - I think he can do the job, but I don't know if he has the time, also at the same time, I really would like to see him spend more time with his tulpa - which should be far more personally valuable to him than always answering other people's questions/threads on the forum! Dog +1 - I've already seem him critique one guide and seemed mostly fine, even if slightly blunt. Has a sort of troll-ish past, but he seems somewhat changed, so I'm willing to give him a chance. swashy +1 - he could probably do the job, but again, I'd like to hear about that tulpa progress more and see more actual guide critique. Kronkleberry +1 - has some really amazing tulpa experiences(if you've read his PR), and has enough experience dealing with the tulpa community (mostly r/tulpas). I think he'd be very good for it, if he wants to put the time into it. Likely has more tulpa experience/progress than 80% of the nominations, which is something I was worried some of nominees may be lacking in. Joshua +1 - yet another person with really good tulpa development and experiences, coming from r/tulpas part of the community, however much newer to it than Kronkleberry, which may provide a good contrast in viewpoints ("older" or "newer"), if such a thing even exists!
  2. I do recall a certain /jp/ anon maintaining a large collection of such clips/archives, mostly around 2011 or earlier. They were somewhat fun to listen to, but I hadn't thought about them as much in the recent years. As luck would have it, a week or more ago, I encountered a similar collection, this time made by some /a/ anon, and listened to a few clips. Results: binaural clips made me pay a lot of attention to the spatial position of the voice and a lot of qualities of the voice, sometimes results in ASMR, which itself makes me remember the voices and how they feel in 3D space much better. End result: improved auditory/vocal imagination. Early on, I would do something like this, but not with those kinds of voice recordings, as most are fairly NSFW, but instead I just loaded episodes of shows or anime in Aegisub and just played lines over and over while having myself or the tulpa try to imagine saying them. The most surprising result for me was that the next day when I interacted with her, she was able to do all the detailed vocal qualities I had heard the previous day while listening to those recordings, she could do it naturally from memory without even having to practice it - I just had to pay attention to her, and it was quite an amazing surprise to me. Of course, she has had plenty of earlier times when she did have a detailed voice, but lately she was slacking off on it, and examples like that reminded her she could aim much higher as to how realistic or detailed her voice sounds. I can say without a doubt she improved her voice in new ways after this. I don't see how listening to more samples that get one to better understand various unique vocal qualities or how voices work in 3D space would ever be harmful if you want your tulpa to learn to have a detailed voice. Having the tulpa change their voice entirely is of course an entirely different cup of tea, but it's not like they have to be limited to one form or one voice, or that they have to take an entire voice as is, rather than just incorporate qualities they like. In either case, the pros/cons of using these Japanese "voice" recordings for the purpose to improving or developing a tulpa's voice, as I see them: Pros: - Large variety of recordings (in the thousands) - Large choice in voice actors - Decent sample length: 20-60min+ - Decent quality/detail of voices - Helps with spatial recognition of voice - Helps with volume of voice and other qualities (for example, whispering, shouting, speaking softly, speaking loudly, and so on) - If ASMR is caused, may make retaining memories of them easier (oh, a tulpa may be able to easily replicate this too!) - Trains your auditory imagination Cons: - Not everyone knows Japanese, if someone doesn't understand what is being spoken that may limit how much they can get out of it. - Usually commercial, although short samples are typically available, and as with most Japanese media, some of it may be found on various imageboards and their archives, but I'm not going to link that here for obvious reasons. Could go other way: - Most recordings are for lewd/ero purposes (even a lot of "SFW" ones). Could result in awkward times if tulpa picks up habits from them.
  3. Thanks for the prompt response/update/fix. I don't really do that much web dev, but can do it if/when needed. That's great to hear! I haven't installed MyBB locally to test, but nesting did seem to work if the bbcode tag expansion is done recursively. I don't really see much point in nesting aside from maybe allowing hiding some quotes or something, but that sort of thing could get messy. A plugin that allows the user to configure it would indeed be the cleanest way to do it, although if bandwidth concerns are high, one can always just put all the styles in the theme CSS and the JavaScript in its own .js file, or simply in the tag. Even without doing so, it would likely be possible to make the code much simpler using the already used by the forum, jQuery library, however at the cost of some slowdown as the hide/show/toggle functions do a little bit more than the current code that was used (as they're meant to be generically usable).
  4. People do post long, rambling posts without needing them. They may sometimes put a summary or "tl;dr" at the end, for those not wanting to read the longposts. Anyhow, "hidden" section features tend to be accessibility nightmares in the majority of their implementations as far as them working without JavaScript enabled. (Their meaner cousins "registered-only users", or "pay xx points" to view are far worse, but luckily they don't exist here yet). They're still bad for accessibility even with JavaScript enabled - sometimes you want to expand all the hidden tags on sites that abuse them heavily and you have to click through a lot of them - or write some code to expand them for you! It's worth noting that the forum/site degrades quite gracefully when JavaScript is off for most features, remaining still quite usable for most things (I don't recall when I had to enable JavaScript last time for it to work). However, seeing as this system was implemented here, I could at least petition that the accessibility be improved (along with providing working example code, to save the site staff time): It's usually better to have no "display:none" styles when first rendering the page(on anything the user may want to actually read), so that if JavaScript is disabled, it would still be displayed - then the script would hide them as needed at load time. Here's my attempt at changing the code written by Chupi, with a few small additions to improve accessibility when JavaScript is turned off: [HIDDEN] <-- Click to show/hide hidden text $1 (close hidden text) or "minified": [HIDDEN] <-- Click to show/hide hidden text$1(close hidden text) What's changed? Text is shown when JavaScript is disabled (by default) "hiddentext" and "jsonly" classes added to simplify some of the code, and provide a class for user css to hook on, if someone wanted to change the default from "always hidden" to "always shown", or even have "always hidden" when javascript is off. Links that require JavaScript to function: "[HIDDEN]" "Click to show/hide hidden text" "(close hidden text)" are only shown when JavaScript is enabled, otherwise style is set to "display:none". A script is added after the 2 divs, which locates the parent div, and enables the links that require JavaScript (class "jsonly"), while hiding the content (class "hiddentext"). Other comments: anonymous function wrapper is there to prevent any environment/activation context pollution, the check for getElementsByClassName is there to have things degrade gracefully when in very ancient browsers (IE5-8, FireFox 2.x, and some really old versions of Opera (under 9.x)) which don't support looking up the class name without requiring a more resource intensive DOM walking - for those old browsers, hidden text works the same way that it would if JavaScript were off (although, other JavaScript features will work fine on those browsers, hence the graceful degradation of functionality). Another way of implementing this would be to remove the last script block and simply provide a block for the text that was hidden with "display: none" styles, however doing this means that the original text has 2 instances/copies in the generated page, which has implications for the bandwidth cost, especially if people were to abuse these hidden tags too much. On the subject of bandwidth, regardless of which implementation one uses (original, my modified one, or one that uses a noscript tag), a MyCode version will always duplicate the code (styles and JavaScript) for each use, thus it'll be more costly than having it as part of the site's styles and static scripts (or just part of the theme), which do get cached - a plugin would handle this more efficiently, as far as bandwidth is concerned, however, please keep in mind, most implementations of "hidden" sections in forums have accessibility issues and may have to be tweaked to avoid them, although most of the time, tweaking isn't terribly hard, as can be seen above, and in a few other cases (contact me for other examples, or if you need any help with this).
  5. I could approve this for Resources (count it as a vote for that), but as others have mentioned, it may make more sense to have this as an article, or something to be discussed upon with others (such as in General Discussion). As for the actual contents of this article: I would say that few people are under the impression that tulpas are anything like schizophrenia, even if newcomers and a few trolls tend to use that one *chan meme of tulpas being "self-induced schizophrenia". Does that meme have any merits? If tulpas were to be a psychological disorder, they'd be closest to dissociative disorders (leaving aside the part that tulpas don't really cause distress or impaired functioning for most people). Do those disorders have any similarities to schizophrenia or psychosis? Some would say so - there are documented cases of DID and other dissociative disorders being misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders, see the "Differential diagnostic considerations between DDs and Psychotic Disorders" section in this paper: http://www.grumblesandrumbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Spiegel-et-al_Dissociative-Disorders.pdf Not only that, there are some symptoms that can be shared between (healthy or otherwise) multiplicity (which I'm considering tulpas to be part of, as long as sufficiently developed) and psychosis, as that paper illustrates, such as First Rank Symptoms. That paper also shows that on a neurological level (later pages), other cognitive disorders function differently from DD, for example, hypnosis and suggestion can be used to influence someone with a DD (or someone with a tulpa), but wouldn't work on someone with a cognitive disorder. Also, obviously, a person taking anti-psychotics wouldn't really end up losing their tulpa - unless they truly believed they would (placebo/nocebo or so called "frontloading" effects). I can think of at least one example of someone in this community that confirmed that taking anti-psychotics didn't affect their tulpa much. The closest thing to schizophrenia that the tulpa process could have would be imposition (which is optional). Without going into full detail into it, I hypothesize that there are 2 kinds of imposition, one which is dissociative - where one focuses harder on their imagination to the point of it seeming real and overriding one's senses (partially), and the other which feels indistinguishable from reality for all intents and purposes (you wouldn't know if something was generated internally or not). Basically a pseudo-hallucination vs a hallucination. It's yet unclear if the two types of imposition are truly one and the same (I've had long debates on IRC over this) or if they result in the same thing. However, the way of training them is different, one is excessive daydreaming with the intent of perceiving something as real (and with some help from the tulpa 'imposing' themselves), while the other involves mismatching existing senses into something else we want to perceive. The first, pseudo-hallucinatory method usually results in a sensory-override where one doesn't see behind their imposed tulpa, but one could see behind if they wished or tried. As for the second method, here's an example guide which teaches it: http://www.dreamviews.com/f32/advanced-vision-control-tutorial-80879/ http://www.bio.net/hypermail/neur-sci/1996-June/024159.html http://www.bio.net/hypermail/neuroscience/1996-January/021907.html http://www.shaman-australis.com/~claude/dreams.html or as someone's collection of PDFs: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3645517/Self-induced-hallucinations Other methods not centered around vision involve using white noise (sound or visuals) and trying to expect to see something in it until one can control it. Doing that enough can eventually result in one truly hallucinating something to the point of not being able to tell that it's mentally generated (perceived as if it's a physical sense). I'm not even sure if the second method can be unlearned once mastered, although the first does seem like it can - I do know of a case of someone that stopped imposing their tulpas and they had difficulty doing it again after the long break. There are also a few cases of people who upon learning imposition (using something similar to the second method, by trying to "see" things in the dark) ended up having uncontrolled hallucinations and other mismatched senses (there's also one case of someone doing the equivalent of that by trying to "hear" things while listening to white noise which resulted in similar issues). While I wouldn't call either of those psychosis or schizophrenia, there's certainly some unusual things going on there, but they do usually lack all the other symptoms required to qualify. Could schizophrenia be self-induced? You seem to be very sure it cannot be, but I'll side with waffles here and say that we don't yet have sufficient evidence to make a claim that it couldn't be induced. HPPD can be "induced" by consuming large quantities of hallucinogens, although not reliably. If I had to make a bet, I would find it surprising if inducing schizophrenia could be done merely by thinking the right things, without involving various other factors (genetics, physical/chemical environmental factors, etc), however I do think it may be possible for someone to learn to hallucinate and have difficulty unlearning that skill (without also getting other symptoms).
  6. Cool. Maybe if I knew what the original art looked like, it'd finally 'click' for me why she looks so familiar. Nice. Since I'm not sure I understood your formula correctly, could you give some estimates for how much subjective time do you experience within, let's say, an hour or 4 hours of "daydreaming" here? So you would pick what you want to remember from here while going there, and vice-versa, try and remember certain facts about what happened there for when you come back? Or it's something far more natural, just attention is useful to make sure to not forget? Are you saying you ended up forgetting things from here after spending too much over there, such as the names of the months? This makes me wonder about something else: if you were to do something over there that could affect your physical body here, would that work? For example, within a Lucid Dream, it's possible to end up too excited and wake up thus ending/ruining the dream, or even raise your blood pressure and more. Alternatively, if someone tries to talk to you in real life, one can get interrupted and wake up - would such events drag you back, or do you have a fairly stable experience over there and can choose to come back voluntarily, and your actions over there wouldn't affect your physical body over here (such as due to psychosomatic reasons)? Basically what I'm getting at is how much awareness/connection do you still retain with the physical body here when you're "over there"? Can this connection be made very small or is there always a sort of passive awareness of what goes on in real life, even if you no longer directly sense it? I suppose you could try to recall how she felt and see if that drags her back to you, unless of course, you can no longer recall that about her? Why not get a new body or "bring it back to life" or whatever? Or are the rules you set too rigid for it to work? Also, about your 'phasing' tutorial, do you prefer to do this open-eyed or closed-eyed? Close to sleep, or just in a deep meditation/trance state (although given that you say it's done near-instantly now, I'm not sure it would be needed)? I think one of the trickiest problems for most people doing anything similar to your 'phasing' would be being able to consistently ignore physical senses over an extended period of time. Also, feel free to keep us informed about your progress on getting your tulpa back.
  7. Left? Sure, but that doesn't mean she's inaccessible to you entirely. Do you remember how she felt to you 'as a person'? Her "essence" or "emotional signature" or whatever you want to call it (I think in your long Progress Report you've once called it an "energy signature"), but it should be how you perceive other people at a preconscious/implicit level. If so, recall that and just talk to her (that feeling) while expecting her to be able to hear you and respond to you. You don't have to worry about it not being her as you know how she feels like (to you), thus you would be able to recognize a genuine answer from a fake one - just pay attention, don't panic and listen. I'm confident you could get her back if you try, but the question you should be asking yourself is why she left and if she wants to be back and if you could convince her to come back. I don't really think any of this would break any 'rules' you may have in place as your mind and hers are obviously always connected as you can remember each other, *especially* if you've spent time with her outside "her world" and more in "this world", here and now. I don't really think she could break such a bond, but it's obviously up to you to respect her choices, whatever they may be. I'm guessing your avatar is her? Did you draw it or is it derived from some source material? Her face and that art style seem utterly familiar to me for some reason, but I can't yet place it (or recall the larger pic if it existed) - if you do have it, feel free to post it (in the Art thread, or here, or in PM, as you see fit). I have a few questions about your story as various things in it are unclear to me, feel free to answer them if you wish: I'm wondering - did you base your daydreams on a certain cartoon that was airing at that time? Some of the names you use do resemble one a bit. Should I interpret this as if your daydreams have become more detailed, vivid, lucid-dream like, immersive to the point of not perceiving your physical senses at all, and they span a much higher subjective time duration than the actual physical time your body was actually spending "daydreaming"? Or are these experiences less immersive or lucid, but still feel like they take a very long time? I'm not sure I'm reading your equation correctly, but I'm interpreting this as the time you're spending "on the other side" being "time spent here" squared, that is, 4 hours meditating is 16 hours there, 5 hours here - 25 hours there, 1 hour here - 1 hour there and so on. If I'm incorrect, correct me here. Note that this reading of your 'formula' doesn't seem to be consistent with the time-frames you've given in another thread in the order of "trillions" of subjective years - at most you would be able to experience a few hundred subjective years if you spent a couple of hours each day meditating or if you were doing it 24/356/9 years, it would still not even reach 600k subjective years (not that I find it terribly plausible one could properly manage human memories in such a long time-frame). She was spending time with you in your daily life? (as I interpreted it previously) How is your day-to-day (here) memory during this? Do you adjust to regular life fine when you "come back"? Do you forget? Do you keep a journal to remind you what you have to do "in real life"? How are your memories of the other place? Do you only retain significant events? What about daily life, anything from that enter your memories? You had no control over being there? Why not choose to not daydream of that? Why not pick a more peaceful and relaxing world and take her with you? Is this your term for an OBE with more "metaphysical" connotations (such as traveling/being in that world?), is it the same as the experience you described before where you got "sucked into" your imagination, but this time done voluntarily? Does she doubt your "reality"/world as much as you doubt her own? You could say that 'reality' is indexical: I am me, here and now, thus reality happens to be *this* for *me*. You are you, thus reality happens to be *this* (somehow partially shared) to *you*, and so on. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism Or for more concrete/limited/"less fictional" versions of this (note that they are subtly different ontologies even if they may seem "the same" - the differences are subtle, but important): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html or http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html Personally, I tend to like the second publication as it starts from some commonsensical assumptions and derives the conclusions that follow from them, rather than assuming that some form of 'everything' must exist a priori. If fiction is more to your liking, maybe this book may broach the subject in an accessible manner: http://www.amazon.com/Permutation-City-Greg-Egan/dp/1857981758 It's worth noting that this class of hypotheses and your line of reasoning has one major problem: from the perspective of the observer - the world still functions around you and supports your functioning (if it didn't, you wouldn't be conscious to see this), quantum measurements still yield mostly expected statistical results (such as given by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule ), and you may wonder why you don't experience reality being a lot more unstable (while still somehow supporting you) or why an 'average reality' is more probable than a 'exceptional reality' as allowed by the total space of possibility some such Everything theory would allow. This is typically known as the "measure problem" with most such multiverse theories - one has to prove that the standard experienced reality is what's more probable for one to subjectively experience, rather than exceptional ones (as that's what most people do experience) - or that subjective/anthropic probabilities mostly match those derived by our local experimental physics, at least during normal functioning (there are some notable exceptions such as with quantum suicide, but I'll avoid taking this too far off-topic as it is). Was she imposing herself (such as appearing pseudo-hallucinatory to you), or was it more something you saw in your mind's eye? You do realize that even if these particular inner worlds are only accessible to you and not part of a shared "consensus reality", that doesn't make them any more or less real to you? If anything, if such a world were to be shared in full, it would have unlikely implications for our physics and metaphysics (using the word in the traditional philosophical meaning, as you can find on Wikipedia or in the dictionary). In a way, you matter to each other, and the ultimate physicality or lack of it shouldn't matter as long as you're 'real' to each other. Who? I'm guessing you had a different gender over there? Some of your listed "dimensions"' descriptions are a bit hard to understand: How does this differ from 6th? Why would they exist non-virtually (as in, outside someone's mind)? That's a bit contradictory. Either a world supports/contains you, or it doesn't. It doesn't stop being less real, but it may not be "real" to you or me. As I earlier explained, the term 'real' is indexical and usually refers to the observer's reality - usually one shared between multiple people, such as the one over which we're communicating right now - our consensus reality. Unless of course, I misunderstood what you meant by 'real' here - in case for example you were arguing about something more messy such as embedded/recursive 'realities'. It's always possible that they were just "your own manifestations" as she earlier hypothesized - you should be able to tell her true replies by how they feel - you do know how she feels after having spent years with her - they should have her "signature", her emotions and so on. I could imagine it would feel like there's a terrible hole in your mind when someone that you've shared a mental life for half a life just up and disappears, and I suppose tulpa emotions are particularly strong and one could even get addicted to them. You do realize it may be a bad idea to fight a "part of yourself" "made independent"? Wouldn't cooperating achieve more inner peace and solve other potential future problems? Again, if you can recall the feeling of her and establish some sort of "communication" with her, you would be able to sense any "fake" from real, and besides - you don't have to fight "fakes", you just ignore what isn't her and you focus on her and they'll eventually go away. Your situation is unusual, but may not be as uncommon as you may think it is - I do recall reading stories which have many similarities in kind with yours. Eventually, with the right mental discipline, you should be able to get what you want, and as long as your experiences aren't hindering your life, I doubt it would be a true disorder. As for your 'phasing' tutorial/guide, I have a few questions about it: What's a psi channel? Any references or idea on what would that mean? Or is it just an inner focus toward one's imagination? Are you referring to the body on the other side, not the physical "earthly" one, right? Why, or is that just your personal experience with it? Is it supposed to be a vivid, immersive experience? As in one would return to one's physical "earthly" senses? Are you saying future 'phasing' attempts can be done rapidly and effortlessly? Or did it take you a while to learn to easily switch perceptions? Are you referring to the "other" body here (not one's body here and now?). And what does ES and PEM mean, care to elaborate? I'm guessing it's something related to a psi/psionic belief system and this is about making the new body there stable and solid and persistent in whatever way one can? Overall the method as a whole resembles one WILD technique, except I'm assuming one is supposed to perform it while awake? To compare it with, a WILD technique that I found to work for me (mostly through random experimentation) is: Sit comfortable and relaxed (usually in bed). Don't think in 'words', thinking visually is okay as long as you don't "force" it, but not thinking at all is also fine. Eventually everything goes fully vivid and you find yourself somewhere, feel free to use your body and all that. If you don't find yourself somewhere and the experience is unstable, focusing on being more there by paying attention to the body and observing it/moving it around usually completes the process and makes one be "there" (some dream scape) and now you're having a lucid dream or an OBE. I've also read reports of at least 2 people using a very similar technique for the purposes of switching (being in some mental world or even an extensive world like yours) - the main difference there being that once the host either stopped thinking or managed to dissociate from senses, the tulpa would focus on the body and control it themselves. From my own personal experiences, the amount of time I've managed to spend in my dreamscapes is proportional to the amount of time spent sleeping (or just laying in bed, if not fully asleep), and the ratio isn't some huge variable number as in your own "time dilation" experiences, nor is the experience as easy to regain - you can wake up every few hours and you have to start all over, which is time consuming and tiring (I found various ways to get back fairly fast, but there are still rather imposing time limits as to how much time I can spend there). As far as people doing switching are concerned though, most of the limitations found in LDs seem to be gone as the tulpa fulfills the role of controlling the body, thus there is nothing dragging one back toward the body, and the switching process can be perfected to the point of being performed reasonably fast (I've heard of reports ranging from 20 minutes to perform for people who don't do it too often, to some doing it in minutes or near-instant if they have a lot of experience with it). Your line "You may be able to switch between your earth body, and your new body naturally." in particular seems interesting and intriguing - does that mean that you can transition between perceptions as fluidly as someone which is adept at switching, but without a tulpa actually being involved in the process? Have you found yourself able to control the rate at which time passes relative to local physical time? That is control the degree of "time dilation" (this is the name of the technique as used in this community usually). I suppose that's about it with the barrage of questions, so I'd like to thank you for sharing your experiences, and I wish you best of luck in getting Kum’pex back!
  8. This starts off with the thread author wondering if self-hypnosis is useful for doing trait-based personality forcing. I would argue that self-hypnosis would be useful for personality forcing, or anything tulpa-related. Unfortunately the title and prologue don't really fit the format of a guide or a tip. As for the externally linked Self-hypnosis guide, I would certainly approve of that (for any section, but Guides works best). We've rated external guides before, and I do think that guide is useful. What about Guest's opinion that's part of this thread, but was appended to OP's post? Seems mostly fine, but it's also espousing some widely held, but not entirely uncontroversial opinions about "the subconscious". Due this this strange mix, of content in the original post, I'm not sure I can truly approve of it in full, but I can certainly approve of the guide parts, if OP's questions are ignored, otherwise, this may belong more in Q&A, or maybe even GD.
  9. Seems to be a hypothesis Jimmy had about visualization and imposition. Not complete enough for a guide, nor verified by the author. JD1215's "stages of visualization" is a more interesting way of looking at this, and more complete. Seeing as how the author himself is trying to figure it out, I think I'm fine with this being moved to General Discussion, even if I'm also fine with it being Disapproved (and staying in Submissions forever, unless of course, the author decides to rewrite it, but then, maybe an entire new guide would be in store?).
  10. Disapproval (by policy), Guides. I asked waffles about GAT's policy on foreign language guides which lack an English language translation and he said they can't ever be approved for obvious reasons (the user base of this site expects guides in English). If the guide author will grace us with a translation, we could vote again on this guide. Ignoring that, the guide itself seems to roughly follow what the author described in his initial post. There's a few original ideas: he uses new terms in the lines of "student", "learning" and "teacher" rather than tulpa, forcing and host, and the guide is structured in a way where the host teaches their tulpa how to develop. The guide itself is very imposition-oriented and has hour counts. I'm not even sure if the hour counts presented for imposition are sufficient for most people - there were something along the lines 8 hours total allocated for auditory imposition - as if that would be enough for most people (and of course, for people that were already skilled in that area, they'd need less). If this were to be in English, this would be a guide similar to FAQ_Man's, with a lot of structure to it, I would give that an approval, with maybe a few warnings about people having the option to pick and match things (that said, the guide has such a warning about not reading/following it literally).
  11. Just resize your browser window. You don't have to browse in fullscreen.
  12. I would approve of this for either Guides or Tips and Tricks, if it was edited a bit and some things changed around, however seeing as how this has 4 disapprovals already, it won't really pass. Spelling/grammar is pretty iffy, there's hardly any dots/sentence termination and there are a few typos. Overall, I do think "roman rooms", "memory palaces" and other generalized wonderlands/mindscapes/... are tulpa-related, in as much as meditation and visualization guides are tulpa-related. They are useful for both immersion and visualization-training purposes, to use as mnemonic devices to ways of interacting with your tulpa. Curious interpretation, but I suppose another way of writing this would be that either something changed due to some reason (such as your tulpa doing something), or it better changed to suit your intentions/expectations/desires, or that the memory isn't yet very stable. I don't see how it's any more or less safe than making a tulpa, visualizing anything or hypnotizing oneself. I suppose some people may have more romanticized views of what hypnosis is. Note that I'm not claiming anything is safe or unsafe - YMMV.
  13. Approved for Resources. I do enjoy people making professionally formatted versions of guides or even compilations of them. It makes for nice reading in a PDF viewer or even on paper if that's what you want to do. Justified text with proper formatting is usually far easier on the eyes than viewing things on a web page, however a lot of guides on the site aren't "up to standard" to truly deserve such treatment, so I suppose few people do bother making such compilations. The only thing I have against this is that you didn't publish the (La)TeX source code, so people can't edit it and would have to redo this work if they wanted to edit or fix something, or even add or remove some guides. Also, the attachment system isn't newbie friendly (Guests can't download), files should also be hosted externally.
  14. Approved for guides. Rather useful/well-known imposition method from someone that had mastered imposition a long time ago. Last Visit: 01-16-2014 I've also seen them post on the subreddit not too long ago.
  15. Approved for it being stickied in the New Members Section.
  • Create New...