Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

How do You Define Tulpa Terminology?
#1
The original purpose of this thread was to create a complete glossary that gave specific definition to some of the "whishy washy" definitions, but I now realize I was at best foolish in thinking that completely re-writing an entire Glossary was a good idea.

I don't think it's a bad idea to ask members "what do you think this term means" so other people can debate and discuss their opinions and help each other clear up misconceptions. If this thread contributes to the original Tulpa.info glossary, it would be extending the "more" pages. https://wiki.tulpa.info/wiki/Glossary

I find it frustrating when people don't agree on what the same term means, and I find it frustrating when terms from other plural or outside communities are good to be aware of but I don't understand when and how to use them appropriately. For example, the latest possession guide uses fronting and possession interchangeably. On top of that, some newer people coming in don't fit the traditional mold of a singlet creating one Tulpa and giving up, rather some are at risk of creating too many Tulpas! I feel like the terminology to describe and help people in this situation is more limited since those terms were designed around the traditional mold.

I also want to point out that I truly still am a noob in the Tulpamancy community only have been around for almost a year and really only starting to get involved around June. A lot of this is revealing (my arrogance and stupidity) but also my confusion over what terms I am supposed to use and which ones to avoid. If all else fails, I hope this thread can be used for clarifying the terminology for newer users have a better understanding of the terminology.

The original post is hidden here.
This thread was originally called "Creating an Official Tulpamancy Glossary: Community Input".

Members Apollo and Ponytail had a really good idea and submitted this draft of an official Tulpamancy Glossary. One of the flaws of this attempt is two people working hard to make a big community guide has limitations, and I do not know if they are interested in reviving their submission or not.

As a community, I want everyone to post their personal definitions of what they believe all of the terms mean. Then, we can argue, discuss, vote, and finalize an official glossary so when people describe complex concepts like switching, everyone can now be on the same page.

It's okay if people want to add words they think the community should adopt or critique words that shouldn't be used, and you may want to check out jean-luc's thread about challenging the terminology.

No one has to post all of their definitions all at once. The only requirements are you either bold or underline the word, following up with a colon or dash, type your definition, and most importantly type Draft n so people can keep track if you changed your definition.

If people don't think your definition is right or you are new to Tulpamancy and you don't trust your understanding, that's totally fine! This recourse wouldn't have a ton of value if it didn't address misconceptions, and different opinions should be voiced here!

Voting: Type the member's name, the word they used, what draft their definition is, and give it a rank from 1 to 5. This is to prevent one person from determining the vote, and it does not depend on majority rule. Whoever's definition gets the most points will be the one that ends up in the final draft.

Once at least 15 definitions have at least 9 points in value, then a final vote can be cast on the draft. I will collect all of the data and post a google doc as well as a copy of the draft directly into the thread of the created Glossary. To vote, type "Final Vote" using underline, bold, or italics, the draft number, and then add a rank from 1 to 5. Once at least 20 Systems vote, the average point count at minimum must be 3.5 per system in order to pass as official. If the draft fails to meet that requirement, then a new draft of the final copy will be created based on revised definitions and it will go through the same process again.



Final note: these requirements are negotiable. If the above requirements are too strict, stingy, or just plain dumb, please give your opinion and we can discuss it. I'm assuming there is not enough active GAT for this to work using the GAT system and I want everyone's involvement. I will update this post with the most popular results bellow and post the potential final drafts here
as well. I suppose the GAT could look at the final version of the draft, but I'm not sure if doing that would be redundant.
My Wonderland form minus the glasses and the fur. I'm not a hippo, I promise.
I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.

My other Tulpas have their own account now.
Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

#2
Let's start with the most fundemental of words

Tulpa: a personality that exists within the mind, and that is able to think independently of other personalities. Draft 1.
I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
Reply
#3
Breloomancer: Wouldn't  non-tulpa hosts also fit under that definition?

How about:
Tulpa: a person created by another (usaully, a non-tulpa host), which exists within the mind of a host, and is recognized and perceived as a seperate identity from the host or other system members. Draft 1.

I prefer "person" over "personality" because a person can assume a different personality without being another person. Typing with all exclamation points instead of full stops is a change in personality- saying "My name is Josh and I am not Cindy" is a change in a person's identity. "Personality" sounds too much like role-playing to my ear (though "a person's identity" sounds a bit like DID...)

Now, the issue with this definition is that, as well as being a bit clunky, imaginary friends fit the bill. It's missing something about self-awareness or... something. 

-J

Edit: Grammar
Reply
#4
In my definition it was intentional that the host would be a tulpa, because then the definition of host would be a lot simpler because it could just be "the first tulpa in a system". I'll take another shot at defining tulpa

Tulpa: a person that exists within the mind, that is recognized as a separate entity from others, that has the ability to think independently from others. Draft 2.
I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
Reply
#5
I don't really see a reason to make the host a tulpa by definition. It just adds confusion, when "host" can simply mean the first/original personality/person in the body. That doesn't in any way invalidate systems where the host is switched out most of the time or even all the time, at least not in my opinion. The host is, in most cases, a literal host for tulpas to live in.
Desmond - 21st April 2014 (Also has his own account)
L - 5th May 2014
Nevira - 14th December 2014
Misa - 5th December 2015
Roska - 22nd July 2019
Progress report
Art thread
Reply
#6
The front page of Tulpa.info -->

Tulpa.info Wrote:A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you.

We may as well throw this definition into the ring. You guys can vote on this definition if you want, or you can base your definition off of this one. You don't need to refer to a draft for this one.

Tulpa: A Tulpa is an independent and sentient entity created by a Host or another system mate. Draft 1

Host: The first personality or the dominant personality of a system who represents the identity provided by their family or community. Draft 1

System: All entities living in the same body. Draft 1

Thoughtform: An imagined construct or idea given a visual form. Any entity can represent themselves as a thoughtform in the mind. Draft 1

Some afterthoughts-

I may need to replace "personality" with "entity". Not sure though. Also with the Host definition, we may need to specify that there's two ways to interpret "Host", or we should just break both meanings up into two words- Host and Standing Host, or something else. (I'm not committed to "Standing Host", but basically it means someone else who isn't the original entity is acting as the host of their system). I also realized that saying "Standing Host" to separate these systems out can be kind of mean, so it may be better to just say Host has 2 definitions:

Host: 1) The first entity of a system who developed since the birth of the body. They are expected to represent the identity provided by their family or community.
         2) The dominant entity acting as the Host. This may be because the Host no longer acts as the dominant entity or the original Host dissipated. [Draft 2]
My Wonderland form minus the glasses and the fur. I'm not a hippo, I promise.
I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.

My other Tulpas have their own account now.
Reply
#7
Maybe I'm old fashioned or just don't like muddling already established definitions, but I definitely prefer to keep the front page definition of tulpa as it is or with minimal changes. Not gonna do any voting just yet, don't wanna even try to mess with bold and what not on mobile and I want to see more suggestions, but still feel like throwing in some of my thoughts.

I feel like we shouldn't call every thoughtform a tulpa immediately, it's a term for a type of a thoughtform but not every thoughtform is necessarily a tulpa. It doesn't mean they're less valid or not welcome on this site, though. Where that line is drawn is ultimately up to the system I suppose, but we're talking about terminology for an entire community here.

It's worth keeping in mind that everyone's experiences are different, so keeping the definitions specific but relatively flexible might also be worth trying.
Desmond - 21st April 2014 (Also has his own account)
L - 5th May 2014
Nevira - 14th December 2014
Misa - 5th December 2015
Roska - 22nd July 2019
Progress report
Art thread
Reply
#8
I agree, I think thoughtform is an umbrella term that applies to multiple things such as NPCs.

Having multiple definitions listed might be a compromise between rigidness and flexibility, maybe not. What I don't want to happen is one person says "proxying" and they really mean "back seat fronting" or one says "switching" when they mean "possession" or all of it is the same or all of it's backwards.

If a new concept comes about, why not call it something new?
My Wonderland form minus the glasses and the fur. I'm not a hippo, I promise.
I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.

My other Tulpas have their own account now.
Reply
#9
The existing glossary does a good job of defining commonly used terms without being verbose. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind seeing discussions about revising terms if the majority of the community takes issue with them, but from what I've seen lately I get the impression that this project is going to be pretty redundant overall. The only term that holds enough weight for me to recommend it is "dissociation", but that should already be clear cut and is probably an unnecessary addition as well.
Reply
#10
Some of the Tulpa Wiki definitions are nice, but it's missing stuff like Eclipsing, Fronting, Blending, Co-fronting, Walk-ins, and stuff that seems to fall into that "wishy-washy" category really quickly. Having more specific terms can be useful so people can provide more accurate advice.

I won't mind if this guide gives three or four sentence definitions for some of these terms to account for completeness. I also envisioned this glossary to contain awareness of general misconceptions and confusion of the terminology and give direct, agreed-upon answers.
My Wonderland form minus the glasses and the fur. I'm not a hippo, I promise.
I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.

My other Tulpas have their own account now.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to