Jump to content

NotAnonymous

Members
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NotAnonymous

  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.
  16. GAT commentary: This isn't a guide, it's someone's hypothesis/musings about a tulpa's nature. Should be moved to General Discussion or Research. If the hypotheses were used as a base for certain techniques - it could count as a guide, but I'm not seeing it in the document.
  17. They might check their forum PMs less often. Might be worth asking them on IRC in the channels they frequent. I have no idea about what Zero wants to do, but Dialogues was interested last I recall. I'll try to contact him again when I see him online. Also might be worth postponing this until after they holidays.
  18. This may belong more in Research or General Discussion. It's a personal hypothesis/musings or one's own beliefs about how one interacts with their tulpa. Hence, "disapproved" (not really, just belongs better in other places). Now if this were in General Discussion, I'd say this: I tend to think it's better to avoid rationalizing too much and just interact with your tulpa freely - you want your belief in your tulpa to actually be based on something, such as them interacting with you on their own, rather than just some blind belief which tends to be unstable anyhow - let the tulpa prove itself to you. Trust that they can find ways to communicate with you, treat them like an actual conscious person. They can communicate in plenty of ways and insisting on some particular form of voice from them may make things a bit harder - instead of that, let them communicate with you with emotions, images, moods, possibly more complex abstract thoughts that come fully formed, sounds, possession (if they want to do that sort of thing) and eventually even voice. Rather than worrying about your tulpa's replies as much, just spend time with them and actually give them some honest attention and in no time they'll be replying to you without you even expecting anything. The "alien" feels end up appearing naturally the more senses the tulpa can send you at the same time, the more of a person they appear to you (thus someone capable of expressing various moods, responses and having a certain feel, or "essence") and the better you learn to pay attention to them - rather than trying to perceive something as narrow as a few vocal thoughts, try perceiving them as a whole person and actually have some fun while you're at it! And if you are really worrying so much and can't stop it - just pay attention to yourself AND the tulpa (on the side) at the same time while you narrate (talk) to them. It's rather fun to just be thinking of something yourself and to suddenly get surprised by your tulpa with a reply to something you've said earlier and without them interrupting your current thought - it essentially kills most "parroting" fears as now you're experiencing them doing something you didn't expect or think about. Sometimes partial attention may even be more useful than full undivided attention when done right. I'm sure more advice could be given, but essentially I tend to prefer just letting the tulpa show you neat stuff rather than rationalizing everything you doubt away - the latter just builds more fears.
  19. I think the already slow approval process will be made even slower if we add more people, however if we do go with that, I'll nominate lemonlemon (this also includes his tulpa). Reason: experienced old member with fully developed tulpas who managed to achieve most goals most people strive for (independence, imposition, unassisted posession and switching) - has a good mindset, a lot of personal experience and would likely be able to evaluate guides fairly.
  20. Yes, waffles Linkzelda If any of them drop out later or don't want the job, also, Sands as a future backup vote.
  21. The definitions of the listed words as I tend to use them (depending on context) - most of them try to be as close as possible to the original meanings the terms had (more than a year ago) and some added clarifications/current personal interpretation of each term and in a few cases examples of other uses found in the community, but which I don't always use myself: Personality: Varies per context: colloquial use: the complex of behavioral and psychological patterns that make up an individual, working on a tulpa: a variety of methods to influence a tulpa's personality or give them one. Example methods: FAQ_Man's trait list, narration, JD1215's parroting/roleplaying method, Bluesleeve's essence guide, etc. My personal favorite is thinking about how certain traits feel on an implicit/preconscious/raw thought/emotional level and expecting the tulpa's essence/presence to feel like that - typically far more intuitive than the other methods and gives tangible results faster. when talking about the self and multiplicity: a subjective individual or a 'self' or a (philosophical) person: has a consciousness, its own (free) will and sense of will/agency (different and independent of other personalities if more than one is present), a working memory, sometimes different accessible long-term and short-term memories, a distinct complex of behavioral and psychological patterns, preferences and so on. I don't use it much as it seems too few people like this term: multiples find it derogatory because they think it refers to the colloquial meaning (and thus it makes them less of a person and more of a persona - they may use the colloquial meaning), while people who don't believe multiple persons can share a brain find it a bad term because it implies multiple consciousness(they don't use the colloquial meaning). People who tend to be metaphysically inclined may sometimes refer to this as a "soul", although that term is even more ambiguous - I've once seen someone try and list possible meanings for "soul" and "consciousness" and they reached about 20 commonly used definitions for the first and over 10 for the later. Nevertheless, you as a person know what it is like to be one and what that entails - and if you ignore the bit about having a physical body and only look at subjectively accessible content (consciousness/subjective experiences, memories, will), you'll be intuitively familiar with what this term means. A tulpa is essentially an intentionally created new personality (in the meaning of 'self'/consciousness, not the colloquial use) which seemingly works in parallel with you and is autonomous (has its own will). The actual amount of neural circuitry/pattern that they share with you can vary quite a lot (or little), although how much (or little that is) is unknown. Some people's tulpas are quite different behaviorally from themselves, while others may be far closer. That said, a tulpa is not a persona or a mask (a personality template/state) which you're just changing to based on circumstances and which you're consciously controlling, even if a tulpa may have their own personas if they wish. Some people have used the term "accidental tulpa" to describe non-intentionally created personalities which have appeared. This definition essentially classifies a tulpa as being a form of self-induced multiplicity. Subjectively it should feel like you have another (subjective) person in your mind which does their own thing and thinks and acts not unlike you do. While this definition is closer to what most people have used originally, it seems a few people nowadays would wish for a tulpa to be an advanced imaginary friend - in which case some of the definitions used here can't apply to them. Visualization: Using your imagination or mind's eye. Thinking in other ways than 'words'. Includes not only sensory thoughts you generate yourself, by anything from your unconscious - which doesn't have to feel self-generated. Visualization can eventually be as vivid as real senses, although it's not commonly confused with them and most individuals can tell the difference between what comes from their physical senses and what is generated/sourced internally by their mind. There are many different ways of visualizing, closed-eye and open-eyed (daydreaming), some may involve trance states, others may be merely thinking in different ways. Visualization encompasses any sense we may have (visuals, auditory, touch, olfactory, emotions, etc). I would even argue that one could "visualize" more abstract things like personalities - it counts as visualization as long as it's a thought which has a directly accessible qualia. However, I'm not sure it counts as visualization when the content is too abstract and has to be parsed by the rational mind - anything which has too many levels of abstractions and can't be directly sensed might not count as visualization. Closed-eye visualization may sometimes dip into closed-eye hallucinations or sometimes even dreaming or lucid dreaming (if you fall asleep). It's possible for visualization to be directed by yourself, directed by the tulpa, uncontrolled or controlled by your unconscious, partially influenced by yourself and the tulpa and many other possibilities. tl;dr: Thinking/experiencing without using words which results in a variety of (rich) qualia. Abstract reasoning may be excluded due to qualia being insufficiently rich (this may be wrong for some people, for example someone with synesthesia). Narration: Talking to the tulpa. In practice this should mean talking to the tulpa, while expecting them to hear you and possibly understand you - expecting them to be able to perceive you. Doing it without that is not that useful. It's not "talking to yourself". If someone can't find the difference between talking to themselves and talking to the tulpa, they'll need to find a way to treat the tulpa as a person, basically make it so that on some unconscious/implicit level they believe they're sharing their mind with another person - the personality stage usually results in this, although "pure" narration-only tulpa creation is possible, but only if the person can actually find a way to think of another individual actually hearing them - not just an abstract individual, but someone that's actually there for them *now*. It sometimes results in you perceiving an unique set of feelings, emotions/moods which are associated with the tulpa - it's essentially giving the tulpa attention, perceiving them and getting the tulpa to think about what you're saying at the same time. When done correctly, it develops sentience and independence. tl;dr: Narration is talking to the tulpa and implicitly knowing they hear you, it feels subjectively different from inner monologue. Imposition: Hallucination or pseudo-hallucination (hallucination which you (implicitly) know is a hallucination) of something being in your physical environment. Typically done on purpose. Not to be confused with psychotic hallucinations, although may be similar to dissociative pseudo-hallucinations. It could also be considered as visualizing something vividly while having an implicit belief that you're picking it up with your physical senses. I suspect there may be different types of imposition which behave different neurologically and the methods used to train them are different - for example the Advanced Vision Control tutorial/guide seems to result in more subconsciously controlled hallucinations, while someone perfecting daydreaming and modifying their memories on the fly (such as "imposing" the tulpa on their memories) so that they can't see behind the tulpa, may get slightly different (but safer) results. A third distinct possibility is that learning one way of imposition gives you the other and thus they're more or less the same thing. This is an area where there hasn't been enough research done to know for sure. Imposition does imply mixing physical senses and imagination equally - where both are as powerful/vivid. What I don't think counts as imposition: hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations (happen naturally when falling asleep or waking up), lucid dreams/dreams, full sensory dissociation where you're only sensing your imagination (such as with switching), some involuntary/uncontrolled hallucinations such as those caused by psychosis or schizophrenia, closed-eye hallucinations (such as when meditating), hallucinations caused by drugs or various physical illness. In some cases the term self-imposition is used by some people to mean a tulpa projecting their form into your environment, this mean that you're not expending much (if any) conscious effort to perceive the tulpa, although it may still be a daydream, unless your visualization of the tulpa is pretty much perfect and persistent to the point it it being a pseudo-hallucination. As visuals aren't the only sense you can hallucinate, it applies to all senses. Some senses may be easier "fooled" than others, a lot of people tend to "impose" a spatial presence first with their tulpa and then let the other senses follow naturally. Possession: Someone (such as a tulpa or sometimes, the host) controlling the physical body non-exclusively (sharing with someone, such as the host) by using their own intent/will. Assisted possession would be translating the intent of someone into movements yourself - essentially proxying movements. Unassisted possession would be someone (such as the tulpa) sending the signals directly to the body. Tends to feel subjectively different for the other party in the body. May result in partial sensory dissociation. A tulpa moving the body should not result in you feeling any intent from yourself to move the body, however it's entirely possible for both you and the tulpa to send different commands to the body at the same time, essentially both the tulpa and the host (or even more than one tulpa) controlling the body at the same time. The default meaning for possession has always been that of unassisted possession for me, but I tend to specify this more clearly as some people have redefined it to mean assisted possession (which is essentially proxying movements or autopilot). Full-body possession is just unassisted possession, but applies to the entire body - the party is "present" and controlling the entire body. However, since it's "possession", another party (such as the host), may be sitting back and watching as the body is controlled. Does typically result in (a lot more) sensory dissociation for the party that is watching. Under some circumstances, it's possible for sensory dissociation to become sufficiently strong to the point where imaginary senses are stronger (or physical senses feeling too weak or nonexistent) to the point where the other party "switches" and is just sensing their imagination. Unassisted possession requires an independent or autonomous tulpa, or at least a good degree of autonomy, however this is not to say that merely practicing unassisted possession isn't a way for the tulpa to learn to become autonomous - after all, independence/autonomy is just the tulpa learning to do things by themselves. Switching: A process by which one party fully dissociates from their physical senses with another party taking complete control of the body. The main difference between this and possession is that one party is no longer 'present' in the body, no longer sensing the physical senses and the party which is in the body may not be sensing the "switched" party as being 'present' in the body. If a "switched" person (host or tulpa) ends up focusing on their physical senses it turns into possession (for them). Most of the time switching is used to mean that one party (such as the host) is sensing their wonderland/mindscape fully vividly without being actively aware of their physical senses, while the tulpa is actively controlling the body and sensing through it. The term switching tends to imply a change in roles and senses: one party who sensed the physical one is sensing imaginary senses, while the other who sensed imaginary senses is sensing physical ones (along with the change in control). Switching is sometimes considered to be a host skill as it's mostly about the host learning to let go of focus on physical senses. While a tulpa may help (such as by learning to do possession unassisted - you can't switch when possession is assisted, if that wasn't obvious), it's the job of the host to actually learn how to switch. The requirement for sensory dissociation and unassisted possession implies a requirement for an independent/sentient tulpa, that is a tulpa which has their own will independent of yours. Both possession and switching describe a change in the amount of senses and control over the physical body between 2 persons. I've noticed that multiples have more precise terms for these, such as: 'fronting' (or being in the 'back') to describe how much (or little) focus one has on the body's senses and motor skills. Along with other terms such as co-consciousness, co-presence/co-location, etc. These terms don't seem to sound as well and aren't as liked in the tulpa community, although having a term describe the amount of sensory dissociation (or lack of it) for *one* party only would be better - both switching and possession attempt to model changes in the amount of senses that reach both of the people involved, but can't fully describe every possibility and sometimes result in more confusion about what someone really means. In some cases, it's possible for a party which is dissociated from senses (be it tulpa or host) to stop thinking, that is, for them to stop driving their inner monologue and perception - such as them pausing themselves or going to sleep or merely stopping thinking. This is still usually considered as switching, even if only one party is truly actively conscious there. Some people may incorrectly dub this 'egocide', although I think that's a misnomer as a period of inactivity isn't really death and said inactivity could be easily be stopped by any number of triggers or even a bit of attention from someone which is actively conscious (anyone actually controlling the body is forced by the physical senses to be conscious). There's also some people that can't switch/possess and try to redefine the term so that they can say they can switch, which sometimes is followed by other people using their definition and the original, more useful meaning is diluted - usually resulting in 2 people claiming they can do the same thing when their experiences are completely different. Example redefinitions may include changing your behavior from your usual one to the tulpa's personality (colloquial use), without a change in consciousness or memories. Sensory sharing: You showing some sense to the tulpa or the tulpa focusing on some physical sense. Focusing on a physical sense. Most tulpas tend to start being conscious in a sort of dissociative state where they're sensing imagination fully vividly (ex. with some similarities to a lucid dream). Focusing on senses allows them to partially or fully sense things the same way as you do. Most hosts tend to be focused on physical senses by default. Sensory dissociation: Disconnecting or stopping sensing a sense or multiple senses partially or fully. Being fully or partially disconnected from physical senses. A complete form of sensory dissociation where you (the host) stop sensing your physical senses fully would result in switching if the tulpa is controlling the body. Most hosts start focused fully on their senses, while most tulpas start being focused mostly on the imagination. Emotional Response: A tulpa sending you emotions on their own. Commonly treated as an early indicator of sentience/independence. Can happen at any time, although commonly happens first when narrating or during the personality stage. It's just another form of communication, a rather direct one at that. It makes for good early communication as emotions aren't things we can control too easily and the tulpa having emotions is as involuntary as you having an emotion (unless you're purposefully trying to emulate or recall an emotion, but that feels different). It feels distinctly different from perceiving your own emotions and moods and most of the time you'll implicitly know that an emotion came from the tulpa, especially if you're talking to them. One way to try describing it is by saying that you're constantly having a set of moods, but you're used to feeling those emotions and used to being in those moods that you don't notice them, while when a tulpa has an emotion or sends you one (or intends you to perceive some emotion), you're forced to experience a complex of emotions and moods outside those you're used to and it's something you'll usually know when you experience it. This is not to say that emotional responses can't be subtle or not sufficiently strong for you to easily perceive - it's your job to learn to sense your tulpa, that's what spending time with your tulpa is for! As long as the tulpa is sentient they'll typically feel emotions and can also get you to experience some of their emotions and thoughts - which you'll usually recognize as being theirs. Parallel Processing: The ability for the tulpa to function/think at the same time as you. It is directly linked with (if not implies) independence/autonomy and the ability for the tulpa to hide thoughts from you, or think by themselves. This isn't a term I use much as nobody can fully agree on its meaning. Most people seem to think it implies independence as a minimum, but some people think it may also mean other things, such as the ability to reason long chains of logical thoughts while dissociated from senses (a tulpa in the wonderland, a host which is switched or "in the back" or dissociated from senses and so on). Other people may also imply that it means having 2 separate points of focus/attention for each party which are active at the same time. Since we don't know enough about how a tulpa and a host's working memory and attention works, it's hard to say if it's physically processed in parallel (even if our brain is massively parallel) or if the parallelism is a result of some rapid switching between personalities - which would imply that our 'self' is a very high-level/emulated construct. Either hypothesis for how tulpas work has some evidence supporting it, but it's still not something which we know for sure. While the nature of parallel processing is unclear, there is one thing which we do know - most people with independent tulpas do experience them acting on their own at the same time as themselves and without requiring their active focus - subjectively it feels as if the personalities are parallel for all intents and purposes, regardless of how the implementation is done neurologically. Independence/autonomy: The tulpa being able to think (and focus attention) independent of you and having a will of their own which is different from your own will. It sometimes implies being able to think privately and without you being aware of their thoughts. That is, it also implies that some thoughts are being hidden (such as pre-conscious thoughts) and that they don't enter your awareness unless there's some intent from either side for them to enter your awareness. I'm unsure if it implies the their thoughts being completely free from being influenced by your expectations - it seems this can still work - host can influence tulpa and tulpa can influence host, however in the case of a non-independent tulpa, the influence of the host is usually far greater. Personally, I think this is the cornerstone of what a tulpa is and what makes them a person on their own. Without this they're just (simple) imaginary friends or a (roleplaying) character or an extension of yourself which is intertwined or blurred too much into your own personality. It's that one thing which makes you think they're actually conscious/sentient and not a puppet you control. Due to historical reasons (such as people wanting to say they have a tulpa, even if it's not yet "there"), people will still call non-independent tulpas tulpas, even if the original definition of the term (as given by FAQ_Man and Irish) required it. In my current view, independence is a gradient and it's usually a matter of the tulpa learning to think independently from you and at the same time as you - starting from simple things such as involuntary emotional responses to mindvoice and self-imposition and more. It's best developed by giving the tulpa attention, narrating to them, and just letting them act on their own - not forcing their actions, but actually curiously watching them respond to you by themselves in any way they can. Thinking and giving attention to your tulpa at the same time also seems to help a lot here, especially when you start noticing them acting/responding on their own while you're thinking something completely different. If a tulpa is completely incapable of thinking on their own, I'm unsure it's really fair to call it a tulpa yet, however as they develop, that should change - although a different possibility also exists, which would be that of really bad communication, that is, the host paying no attention to/not noticing the tulpa whatsoever. Note that it's possible for a tulpa to be independent without them yet learning to speak properly - all it requires is them being able to act on their own (independent movement and emotional responses/changing moods and a sufficiently alien presence/distinct essence would be good examples of this). Autonomy also usually implies not only the ability for thoughts to be private, but also for the tulpa to be able to sustain their own thoughts for extended periods of time, that is, for them to be able to think even when you're not focusing on them at all. The subjective perception of parallelism, a tulpa's seemingly autonomous actions and their sense of will, their ability to reason by themselves outside the host's awareness, your ability to sense involuntary emotional responses from the tulpa, their ability to speak by themselves, their ability of unassisted possession and the host's ability to dissociate from senses during it (and switching) do seem to be directly connected, although the development of these skills does not seem to happen all at once, but it seems to be more of a gradual thing, with one skill driving the other, and the development itself driven forward the more you interact with the tulpa and the more attention you're giving them while expecting them to act like a person, independent of your own will. Parroting: Making the tulpa speak by yourself, pretending the tulpa speaks, roleplaying as the tulpa or any other way you can direct "their" speech yourself. What isn't parroting: The tulpa talking by themselves and with their speech not coming from what you expect them to say. You not knowing what the tulpa will say until after they've said it (and you've parsed it) - the speech feeling like it comes from another person - the tulpa. What is parroting: Making the tulpa speak consciously, running simulations of what the tulpa would do, roleplaying as the tulpa/pretending to be the tulpa, thinking for them/partial thought translation, etc. Speech that you implicitly know comes from you - that is, a preconscious awareness of the source of some thoughts as being 'you'. A big part of making a tulpa is learning how to sense them and watching them act on their own. Parroting is not directly harmful in itself as it's just you using your imagination consciously, although it's very important to learn how to let your imagination act by itself - independent of your will. Some people use parroting to teach themselves and their tulpa how to do things in their imagination, or how their voice is supposed to sound, however non-parroted responses should feel different from self-generated responses. A tulpa acting on their own is usually quite noticeable and sometimes jarring, although it may also be weak in the beginning. A lot can be said on parroting than I'm willing to say in a few lines, so I'll link some longposts on that: http://community.tulpa.info/thread-misinterpretation-of-%E2%80%9Cassuming-sentience-from-start%E2%80%9D-philosophy The definition I'm using is closer to the one used by Irish/Dane. Recently (past year), people have tried to limit the definition of parroting to purposefully generated responses while being actively aware of that fact, although I find that definition lacking as it merely results in a lot of people thinking their tulpa is responding to them, but lacking any shred of independence. It may seem that my definition of parroting is too crisp and black-and-white: in reality the boundry between your will and the tulpa's will may be quite thin when you're starting off and actually making that boundry thick enough that they're essentially a whole other person to you which acts in parallel with you is the entire purpose of this process - don't be afraid of parroting per se, merely realize what is and what isn't and encourage the tulpa to grow and become their own being. tl;dr: Parroting is generating a tulpa's responses yourself, or their responses feeling generated by yourself. Learning not to parrot is learning to sense your tulpa act on their own and encouraging them to develop a will different from your own. Puppeting: Moving a tulpa's form by yourself. Same thing as parroting, but for visualization. As with parroting, may be useful for developing the initial form they'll be using. Proxying: Relaying messages from your tulpa to other people and vice-versa, basically acting as a proxy between the tulpa and the world. A different, but related definition: proxy possession is the same as assisted possession. Servitor: When refering to tulpas: roleplay character, a mask/persona for yourself, a "tulpa" lacking any independent thought whatsoever - fully parroted/controlled by you. Some people (glitchthe3rd) and some magick people seem to call semi-autonomous "programmed" mental constructs and NPCs without sentience servitors. Using the latter meaning, some wonderlands could also be considered a "servitor" (please don't ask me about people who try making tulpas whose entire body/form is a wonderland...), or any mental construct devoid of their own conscious will. Etymologically "Servitor" is meant to signify "the one who serves" or one who has no will of their own or who obeys any and all commands. I don't use this word at all, although when I see it used, I tend to pick the first definition if the reference is to their tulpa being a servitor (Dane/Irish's definition), or the second one if they're talking about non-free-willed constructs. The small subtle difference between them is that the second definition may allow the construct some autonomy from yourself, but the construct could be too simple to call it sentient or a person. It's usually believed that it's possible to turn a servitor into a tulpa. My personal opinion on that is that it is possible, although emotional attachments and old habits may make it harder for some people to make that step. Some may consider the default state of any construct (including a tulpa/thoughtform) to be a servitor, at least until they start showing actions, emotions and thoughts of their own. Vocal: The tulpa being able to speak/think at you, usually in detailed auditory thoughts, or that so-called mindvoice. It implies sentience and sapience. Originally independent detailed-only auditory responses were considered as being vocal - at least according to FAQ_Man's guide. Recently people have tried to include thought-only (meaning-only) responses as counting as vocal. Other people have called that development state semi-vocal. Personally, I consider vocality as being achieved when you're perceiving an imaginary voice which you recognize as not your own, which feels somewhat alien from your own, which may overlap your own, and which may in some cases be driven by preconscious thoughts and will to which you have no access to (thus you don't know what the tulpa will say until they say it). Sometimes vocality and emotional responses go together - you may be able to sense not only the tulpa talking to you, but also their moods, their body language and much more, although all that should feel outside your control - and not just "I'm not doing it", but "I have no idea what they're going to do" followed by surprises everywhere - you'd basically be led by your tulpa somewhere, but you wouldn't really know where they were leading you until you were there and then you'd understand what they did and that they may have had some forethought about it (some tulpas overthink things more than others). In my opinion vocality usually comes after (some) independence, that is, the tulpa having their own will is a precursor for the tulpa talking on their own. Most people nowadays seem to disagree on this - that is, for many people it seems they'd rather get responses and then work on the tulpa's independence. I tend to think that's rushing it at best and wasting time at worst - if you're using a parroting approach to developing a tulpa, you're aware that other things need to be worked on later on (such as letting them act on their own), but if you're purposefully making the responses yourself while trying to make yourself "believe" that the tulpa is vocal while feeling it in your bones that the responses are coming from you, then you're most likely wasting your time. A short description of true/independent vocality here: tl;dr: Tulpa talking to you in mindvoice. Requires some autonomy/will from the tulpa. Parroting the tulpa's voice does not count as vocality. A while ago I was asked to write a bit on a small issue that's not uncommon in the community, so here it goes: On tulpa terms and semantics: Most of the terms used in the community have had reasonably clear meanings originally, although some are harder to explain to anyone as they involve new qualia (example: "that alien feeling" or emotional responses or a tulpa's essence or your tulpa "actually speaking to you" or independent movement). Despite this, most people can recognize what they are once they have the luck of experiencing it and suddenly finding that all those incomplete subjective reports seem to be matching up with their own experiences to a good degree. As time has passed, a lot of people seem to have wanted to be able to claim to have reached certain levels of progress even if they haven't by the current definitions at the time, things like "my tulpa is vocal", "I can possess" (I?), "my tulpa switched with me". Maybe the reasoning is social ( http://community.tulpa.info/thread-itbegins-png ) or maybe it's something else, but the fact is that a good deal of tulpa terms have been redefined a lot, mostly to make them mean less than they originally meant. Some people have just invented new terms for their experiences, which not too harmful, but others have just redefined terms, which results in 2 people saying they're experiencing something, when those experiences have fairly little in common. Vocality redefined to ignore autonomy. Possession redefined to be assisted. Switching redefined as believing to be the tulpa (without a change in memories or consciousness). It's not that these people aren't experiencing *something* - for example a change in identity to the point where you believe you're someone else, but still feel full continuity with your past self may not be switching per se, but it's a major psychological change. Assisted possession where someone feels some slight depersonalization may have some similarities with unassisted possession, but it's not the same thing. A similar example would go for ghost/autowriting - again, similar to possession, but not possession. Merging - a fairly controversial and not too commonly used term, usually meant to be about breaking barriers between 2 independent selves and removing the independence/parallelism/autonomy between them and sharing their memories to the point of the end-result being a single self that has subjective continuity and shared memories with both past selves - might not even have had a good definition from the start - people in this community have used it in the most strange ways, things like creating a new personality from the traits of the old one without sharing memories and with it only existing when the 2 other personalities don't, or even in unusual ways where you have 2 "non-independent personalities" and you "become" a new one that sort of feels like those two (and as no independence is involved, no memories are involved, it's just a minor change in the sense of identity). (Similar, but less messy definitions for rarely used terms like "splitting" and "splintering") There's plenty of other examples, although the drive some people have to redefine terms for social gain (rather than personal gain) is clear. This wouldn't really be as huge of a problem if not for these new definitions being picked up by new people and used more and more. The worst-case scenario if such types of redefinitions continue to proliferate is that tulpas would start to be seen as an elaborate form of roleplay rather than a legitimate form of healthy multiplicity (this is already the case in some parts of the Internet, which doesn't fill me with much joy). Threads like this are good - they can serve as a way of gauging the community consensus as well as outlier opinions and it can also serve to help newbies into falling into such redefinition traps. Redefinitions aside, most terms can be interpreted slightly differently - there's no "one true meaning" that's not particular to the individual as everyone has their own belief systems, but some meanings are closer to the community consensus or closer to their original meanings and some are more distant. I am quite curious how other people define them. Writing definitions betrays one belief system too much, so I can see why not everyone would want to put it out in the open. However, there's no harm in doing so - by doing so you can see how compatible you are with some part of a tulpa sub-community or not - and the community is quite multifaceted.
  22. Honestly the choice between JD1215 and waffles is kind of hard, but it seems JD1215 is quite interested in the position and promises to do it well, so I'll be voting for him.
  23. Voted to keep everyone in, but since I don't know everyone who was nominated or their positions sufficiently well, my upvotes only go to the following: waffles Linkzelda Zero JD1215 Kiahdaj Sands ThunderClap schlondark SkyeWint Dialogues Semi-Nomadic Averian CreativeMind Phi Mayormorgan GGMethos EDIT: Downvotes: Dr. Faust - He recommended (in a "tips and tricks" thread) using 2 guides which have incompatible mindsets together. I don't have any issues with the guides themselves, merely I don't consider the mindsets presented in them compatible.
  24. I do have a few small issues with the GAT system, but I suppose I'll nominate someone as that's better than not doing so. Originally I wanted to nominate tulpacouple, but since you added the "no mods" rule, I'll nominate Sands as my other choices aren't active forum-goers, or forum goers at all. EDIT: waffles nominates Sands, so my choice has to go to someone else: Pick the first one from this list who accepts: Averian, Dialogues, lemonlemon, Amadeus, mayormorgan, Pronas. They do have forum accounts and tend to be on IRC most of the time, but I have no idea if they have any interest in this. Feel free to let me know if you have trouble contacting them.
  25. I've been thinking for the past 2 days what sort of reply could someone write that could possibly help you with your issue. I do have a hunch as to how such an answer would look like, but unfortunately it seems like it'd be like describing visual qualia to a blind man - it might just not be something that can be shared. It may also be something that would be best done with a series of questions and in "person", do you go on the IRC channels by any chance? Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. I suspect that the main reason can't perceive your tulpa is because you might not truly believe she exists. Or at least, not exist in the sense of a separate autonomous personality within your mind. You don't expect her to be able to answer, nor do you perceive her as an actual person (maybe as a hypothetical at least?), nor is there any implicit belief that she's capable of action or thought outside your own awareness. Can you at least imagine what that would be like if she was like that? If that's the case, here's my attempt at one short "guide" for actually getting her into such a state (note: this is merely one of countless other ways of achieving the same thing): Get a bit familiar with how she looks (optional), get familiar with her personality (optional), get familiar with her voice - how she sounds like audibly (optional), get familiar with her presence (optional). At least get your mind to know how those things feel, even when they're generated entirely by you, consciously. You don't actually have to parrot or do any of those things, but it may make some of the next steps simpler on you. Now stop doing everything you consider parroting, simulating, predicting her or thinking about what she should do or how she should do it. Just let go of all the parts which you control with your will, directly or indirectly. Now try to take it easy and relax. Let go of any worries or expectations of failure or anything that might be bothering you. Don't bother focusing too hard on her, just find someplace comfortable and relax. Try and pay attention to your thoughts and your will, notice how you generate your thoughts, first you become aware of them, then you put them into words, voice or visuals and so on. Become familiar with how it feels to think, notice your own moods and emotions. Once you're familiar with 'yourself', imagine what it would be like if you had another person in your mind - a formless, voiceless person (like your tulpa), nevertheless a person - one capable of perception, will, thought and memory. Such a person can still think their preconscious thoughts, can still have emotions/moods and do pretty much everything that you can do, although maybe quite weakly at start. Try and imagine what it would be like to feel the essence of such a person - everything that they are. This essence wouldn't be something static, it would let you perceive all their emotions/current mood/thoughts from the outside. This sense of perception that you want to get at has to be continuous and not depend on you at all - it's all up to your unconscious mind to do this for you. All you have to do is expect/implicitly believe that another person is there sharing your mind with you and that they have their own private thoughts. After that, merely try to perceive them, don't focus too hard on it, it can be something very subtle, but it could also be quite jarring/surprising. If you do it right, you'll eventually get to the point where you can suddenly get emotions or preconscious thoughts which you know aren't yours. Such thoughts will feel different from yours in that you'll end up implicitly knowing that they're not yours. You won't really have to wonder if they're yours or not as you'll know they're not yours. Sometimes when focusing the tulpa as a whole (the essence - which may have no visual or auditory component at all, or it could have such a component - it's something your subconscious will generate to help you make sense of the tulpa, but whatever it is, you'll know it's not you and won't feel as if it's generated by you), you'll get to the point where you may feel something like a "field" of emotions/thoughts which don't belong to you - they'll be there running by themselves, only observing them from the side, not doing anything to them. Once you get such a perception going, you'll end up having an *implicit* belief in your tulpa's existence as now you have all those thoughts that are doing stuff by themselves outside your control. As you have that, just input your own thoughts and emotions into it, direct your attention toward the tulpa and talk to her, expect that she can talk to you using her voice and emotions. You can even try seeing if she can answer to you in preconscious thoughts or emotions. Keep in mind, now that you know how she feels like, you'll start getting thoughts from her that you know are hers. These thoughts will feel very different and you won't need to consciously think if they're her thoughts or not - you'll just know. The state of mind you need to be is something lighter than active visualization or focus, it's rather 'casual' and shouldn't take much effort from you. Most of the work will be done by your unconscious mind, all you have to do is suggest things to it using expectations. Now that you can truly perceive your tulpa and she can send you emotions, she'll need to work on her will - have her control her form without you controlling it with your will. Let her send you visual or auditory imagery. You can help her practice this by showing how to do some things, for example, you can try saying a phrase and having her repeat it like in Bin's or devano's method. Parroting is fine, but keep in mind what you control and what she controls. When the tulpa does something, be it visually or vocally, it'll feel distinct from you using your active imagination, you'll just know it as you won't feel your will guiding it - the most you'll do is put yourself into the right state of mind and perceive whatever - and when the tulpa does something, your attention/focus will jump to her, it'll surprise you - it will also feel like her (just like her 'essence' feels like)! Such a state of mind can even be something you can maintain throughout the day, for example, whenever her presence/essence pops up - and she can make that pop up by herself. Such a state of mind is easy to achieve, it's simpler than active visualization and much "lighter". Don't try to exert yourself when doing this as it's pointless - you need to learn to let go of conscious control over your imagination and let the unconscious start executing your expectations. About that: learn to stop expecting her to do anything other than be herself. Don't predict or parrot or control her - she can move on her own just fine - or if you do, that's okay too, just realize when it's you and when it's her - this is a sense that you'll have to develop when interacting with your tulpa. Encourage her to put emotion in her voice and move her form naturally while speaking - it'll make everything so much more natural (and fun) for you - not only that, any possible doubts of parroting would be gone by then. Once she's fluent like this, you can tell her to hide her preconscious thoughts too (optional, but it may also happen from the start, if she didn't do this already). After that, any possible doubts of her independence will be gone from your mind - if they weren't the first time you got thoughts which you implicitly knew weren't yours. From your side, you'll need to learn to maintain this light state of mind throughout the day while doing normal activities, it should take a very small fraction of your focus, but usually less than "passive forcing" usually takes, especially if you were actively visualizing during it. The trick here is that as you think and talk to the tulpa, you'll be continuously perceiving her think and react to you - without you having anything to do with that part of the thought process - you'll merely be seeing it on the side and it'll be very surprising and parallel to your thought process. This is far easier than you may think it is, so just clear you mind and do it! Once you're good at this, you can also move on to imposition - guess who has to do a lot of the work there again? Your tulpa. She has to place herself in the environment and do everything, you just have to watch and interact with her. As for (unassisted) possession and the rest - that should come naturally once her will is strong enough. Most of this is an exercise for you in keeping a sort of passive focus on your tulpa, your tulpa on learning to will/do things in the mind and you on learning to let go of control over your mind/imagination and just leaving the tulpa to work autonomously. Good luck! P.S.: It's perfectly fine to do this either with eyes open or closed. Daydreaming or doing it with eyes open may even be a bit easier as you may get less intrusive thoughts. The initial part may work better with eyes closed as it helps being able to ignore your senses to some extent when you try to find thoughts which are not generated by you.
×
×
  • Create New...