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

The term "Co-fronting"
#1
Information 
So, "co-fronting" isn't and never was a Tulpamancy term, but some people recently wanna use it. You can see it on Tulpa.io's Glossary, although even though they had "shard-feeding" under tulpamancy, co-fronting was under "plurality at large".. 'cus it's not a tulpamancy term.. but, if you guys want to use it, we need to define it!

Sooo, what does "Co-fronting" mean to you?

"Fronting" as a Tulpamancy term refers to a system member having the most control over the body so that they could be considered "the one in front", it's not actually a tulpamancy term either and probably meant something else outside our community, but since no one was sure what it meant here it just came to be an umbrella term for switching and/or full-body possession. Even the term fronting is weird here and not an official term so that makes this a little weirder (here's our Glossary that honestly idek how to access normally, the tulpawiki.org link on Tulpa.info is defunct and should probably be replaced with this one)

So if that's how "fronting" is used on .info (it is trust me our system's read basically every thread on this whole darn site), what should co-fronting mean? If anyone's from one of the communities that uses those terms instead of possession/switching, it'd be helpful if you could explain what it's like too, otherwise if you're just a tulpamancy system that uses the term you should also explain what it means to you!

Remember this isn't necessarily to make an official definition since they really aren't our words, so they probably won't go in our Glossary (we don't have any resources/guides/etc. talking about them to support that change), but since plurality is becoming a lot more mixed these days we're probably going to see a lot more of terms that aren't "ours" being used, and at the moment this is the one in question!

So uh, help define it, 'cus I have no idea what it means! What is "co-fronting" to you?
Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.
All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written
Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
Reply

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

#2
I guess it could mean just at least two active system members being in control of the body at once. We use it to mean that more than one of us is in the body and each of us can quickly take control and swap what body parts we're in control of. We haven't done it much. Only a few minutes at a time ever.
Someone System: Azure, Chloe, Damien, Jade, Rouge, Spark, Torea

[PR] [Chat] [Ask Someone] [Don’t Release the Manatee]

“We need MOAR FLUFFY TOASTERS!!!” - Torea
Reply
#3
I would think it wouldn't make too much sense to say that "co-fronting" has ties to parallel processing, so I think we can rule that out (at least for the purposes of Tulpa.info). If both go hand-in-hand, then "co-fronting" would be another way of saying parallel processing, case closed.

If two system mates are thinking and exchanging ideas back and forth, then it could be because of an active discussion, but I wouldn't call that co-fronting, it would be active / passive forcing. If both system mates were fronting to try and perform the same task, that to me sounds more like "co-fronting", and I would expect some blending going on. If one system mate were telling the other what to do, then to me that's "backseat fronting" not "co-fronting".
I'm Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's Tulpa and I love Hippos (but see, I'm not a hippo)! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.
My other head-mates have their own account now.
Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!
Reply
#4
I've found it to be a lot less confusing (both for myself and newcomers) to say that a specific individual is "in control of the body" (or to just say something like "possessing" or "switching" which are more specific and have been around for years) instead of "fronting" or being the "fronter"; the more you inject vague terms into the community, the harder it will be for newcomers to understand the concept as a whole. Not only that, but things like "fronting", "shard-feeding" and "eclipsing" sound like the kinds of things you'd see in a bad young adult sci-fi novel, and I don't think that this community needs more ridiculous-sounding shit. 

From what I've seen, "co-fronting" is a blanket term used for anything that deals with two people in a "system" being aware of their surroundings at the same time.
Reply
#5
(11-30-2018, 05:04 PM)Vos Wrote: From what I've seen, "co-fronting" is a blanket term used for anything that deals with two people in a "system" being aware of their surroundings at the same time.

This sums up how I've been using it and how I assumed it was meant to be used initially when I joined.
~ We are Venny, the host, and Viper, my soul! ~
        Click here! Come join us on the chat!
Reply
#6
To me, co-fronting is fundamentally “that thing Lance and Reilyn do”, as their usage of the term anchored my understanding of it . My system doesn’t experience what they do. But by definition, it would seem to be multiple headmates having nearly equal potential control of the body simultaneously and sustainably.

Co-fronting is not just co-consciousness. Co-consciousness is a prerequisite to realtime communication between headmates and is a normal feature of forcing.

Co-fronting is not just shared awareness of the body. As far as I know, awareness of the body by non-fronting headmates is normal, even if headmates can dissociate. I don't think we need a special term for that.

Co-fronting is not possession. Possession is asymmetrical and maintains a power inequality. One headmate identifies with the body while the other exerts influence over it.

Co-fronting is not proxying or backseat fronting for the same reasons it isn’t possession.

Co-fronting is not switching as traditionally defined in this community as it does not involve dissociation. Switching in my system does not involve a separate dissociation step, rather non-fronting headmates will simply fall unconscious without attention. Co-fronting also apparently lacks that feature.

Co-fronting is not parallel processing. I’ve most often seen parallel processing referenced in the context of one headmate being active in the physical world while another is active in the mindscape independently.

Co-fronting may not require parallel processing. If control of the body can be handed off as easily as control of the mind voice, again and again every few seconds, I still think it should count.

I don’t think I’ve seen any systems of more than two identify with co-fronting. Given that Vesper tends to get “kicked out of working memory” almost every time Iris speaks, it may be much more difficult for larger systems.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply
#7
So first, just talking about our terms..
I was going to concede in the previous thread that the glossary definition of possession was simple and open enough that it fit, no matter how I felt about the word. Ambiguity was a helper there. Then I was told that senses/experiences/whatever feel secondhand from that point of view (how was it put? the difference between feeling the body and being the body), and that seemed to be what was considered normal, not just one opinion or one persons experience so that was out the window for us.

The glossary term that .info uses for switching is "Letting the tulpa take full control of the body while the previous controller steps out of control. Usually the previous controller then enters a tulpa-like state", except I have never heard anyone mention switching and not experience the "usually the previous controller then enters a tulpa-like state". I was even under the impression there were no exceptions because the defining characteristic seemed to be "original controller is not there anymore", as in at best their experiences are now the same secondhand experiences as a possessing tulpa might have.

So Lance and I found ourselves halfway between those two terms. With subjectivity in mind, either could stretch to fit I guess. It could be possession that gives a firsthand experience along with a feeling and sense that the body is a natural, born-into extension of them like any host/core. Or it could be switching with the distinction that the previous controller doesn't go anywhere and looses no sense of being, perception or influence of the body. As though the tulpa steps up to gain complete control of the body but the host didn't actually leave. Except, instead of predictably shunting the tulpa back out, it works anyway and leaves both in a situation where each could interchangeably be considered the host. Having to fight off blendy feelings to ensure individuality isn't lost from time to time is a thing too.

As to plurality terms..

I'll list my sources first, so anyone who wants a more direct read can do so. Comparing OSDD-1 and DID, Switching and Passive Influence, What is co-fronting and blending?, What is co-consciousness?
A LOT of this stuff blends over into our terms or feels like it might apply to all of us all the time (I guess?), so look for the differences with tulpamancers, not the similarities.
I'm going to assume DID and OSDD-1a don't apply to any of us. DID requires fugue, or states of amnesia (and please don't get into cases where people are amnesiac about their amnesia, ugh) to exist between alters. With OSDD-1a the alters are considered fragments of the host personality instead of fully developed alters.

So, starting with OSDD-1b, "...individuals with OSDD-1b do not black out or lose time. They may or may not have dissociative amnesia for aspects of their trauma history, but information flow between alters in an OSDD-1b system is much more consistent. While someone with DID might not realize that or when they lose time, someone with OSDD-1b is usually fully aware of their alters' activities and is very unlikely to find any evidence of unremembered activities...","Because alters for individuals with DID are more dissociated from each other, individuals with DID are able to have fewer alters co-conscious at once. While someone with OSDD-1b might be able to have all of their parts present and aware of each other and the outside world at once".

Switching: Switching refers to one alter taking control of the body at the expense of another alter, being given control by another alter, or gaining prominence over another alter. Switches can be consensual, forced, or triggered. If two alters choose to switch with one another, they usually have some degree of coconsciousness with each other and could both choose to remain at front, or actively aware of the outside world, after the switch. However, even with consensual switches, the alter who takes a step back, so to speak, may then retreat inside for whatever reason.

The article on switching goes into a lot of detail on triggers which may cause involuntary switching, how long switching may take, rapid switching, even a bit on passive switching, which is sort of like back-seat fronting.

Co-Fronting: "Co-fronting or co-hosting refers to a process where more than one part is out, inhabiting the body at the same time."
Though this is subjective (everything involving plurality is), I figured I'd put several quotes up to try and explain the experience..
"The 'front', or 'fronting' is when one personality is in control of the body. 'Co-consciousness' is when two or more personalities are aware of each other and can interact. Some people are even able to 'co-front', where two personalities control the body in tandem, although this can be difficult.", "when we co-front it feels like both of us has a controller and we're both trying to control the body at the same time."

I don't know if I was done making my point or whatever, but we have to go to work now so rather then save this somewhere and finish it later, I'm gonna just post it and add more stuff in a subsequent post. I have already posted a lot of our own personal experiences though, in the previous thread. Having to reconsider it and post it again might provide new insight though, it's not like I planned on writing any of it out.. My writing tends to just be unstructured blabbing and thinking through fingertips. Sometimes I'm discovering what I think about these things for the first time at the same time you guys are. XD
Reply
#8
(11-30-2018, 05:23 PM)Ember.Vesper Wrote: Co-fronting is not...

-Ember

Very good approach!
Reply
#9
Yeah, nice descriptions, Ember! I took a couple hours to write that wall of text and even then ran out of time so I didn't notice you had posted. I like your approach better. Anyway, you said it more plain and clearly but let me get my blurb in here on our current use of termanology and glossary definitions. It would seem that the glossary definitions for possession and switching need to be reviewed. Btw, this page https://wiki.tulpa.info/wiki/Dissociativ...y_Disorder is buried in the wiki with nothing linking to it, and it looks like most of what I dug up before is included in it already. The info seems pretty current, as it references the DSM-V, released in 2013. Definitions of DID before that were based on the DSM-IV and older information and they have changed between editions and OSDD was introduced.

Ok, on to the wiki's definitions and my comments on them..

Possession:
Short: "When a tulpa controls part or all of the physical body while the previous controller is still connected to the body senses."
Long: "Possession is a form of shared control of the body in which a tulpa or similar being moves the body. The main controller, the one who normally controls the body, usually maintains consciousness, awareness, and some degree of control themselves. Often used by the tulpamancy community to refer to the sharing of the body between a tulpa’s host and the tulpa without the host's disconnection from the physical senses. Possession can cover one or more body parts or the whole body, the latter of which is sometimes called full-body possession. Although similar but not to be confused with the likes of demonic possession, the experience of possession is relatively harmless."
"The defining characteristic that differentiates possession from switching is that the connection of the original to the senses remains. While switching, connection to the senses would be lost. Within greater plurality, this distinction often breaks down, with possession often only occurring alongside switching. In addition, these terms are often used loosely, and the distinction can be defined in very different ways."


Nowhere does the short definition or first paragraph of the long mention anything about a tulpa experiencing the body's senses at all. Firsthand, secondhand or otherwise. The specific words "controls" and "moves" are used in the definitions. In the last paragraph, however, it is stated that the defining characteristic which separates possession from switching is that the connection of senses to the original remain. Switching (mentioned below), swaps the current controller with someone else. Barring some kind of disassociation or additional terms/definitions/assumptions, whomever is the controller should experience everything firsthand along with a sense that they are the body. Because no sensory experience is mentioned in paragraph 1, this leaves the impression that possession is switching (as mentioned in paragraph 2) but now whoever is possessing experiences everything firsthand and has a sense they are the body while whoever is being possessed maintains their original feelings and sense of being.

The whole definition taken literally, there becomes no difference between experiences between whom is possessing and whom is being possessed. That said, the long definition mentions the original "maintains some degree of control themselves". "Maintains some" implies that control is given to the one possessing at the expense of the one being possessed.

In our experience it is not 50/50, or any other kind of split. We both maintain 100% control and a lack of active input from one at any given moment is enough to give the impression of who is fully in control but doesn't define it. Both of us are "in control", both have a sense that we are the body. Said plainly, there is no more host and no more tulpa, there are just two persons sharing the body fully and equally at all times. As stated before, this leads to occasional feelings of blending but ultimately getting a feeling for who is in currently providing input and who is not becomes as natural as figuring which mind voice belongs to who. Failing that, we ground ourselves, and the blendy feeling goes away.

Switching:
"Letting the tulpa take full control of the body while the previous controller steps out of control. Usually the previous controller then enters a tulpa-like state."

Lacking any long definition, this is all switching is stated to be. Back in the 2nd paragraph of the long definition of Possession, it's stated "While switching, connection to the senses would be lost." The definition should be expanded to include this distinction.

Lance doesn't loose any senses not feeling that he is the body when I am in clearly in control and doing stuff (like right now as I'm writing this, he is actively providing input and takes my pauses as opportunities to review and edit) so unless the definition is changed, what we have been calling co-fronting is not switching.


So because the current definition for possession contains what I think most people here consider a contradiction, the definition needs to be adjusted to make intentions more clear.

"Front" (or something like it) could be specified to mean that, excluding disassociation: "The current controller's direct perception of the body's senses, including the sense that they are the body or it belongs to them. In singlets this is the host by default." This would exclude the intended definition of possession, I think, and encompass whoever is switched in. So, to allow for a broader term to encompass different experiences, "Co-front" could be defined as "Two or more persons simultaneously receiving direct perception of the senses including the sense that they are the body or it belongs to them. Some or all of them may operate in tandem as the current controller. While a sense of blending can occasionally occur, they remain separate individuals." Or maybe both fronting and co-fronting could be tossed out due to their plural community baggage and co-front could be named "tandem" or something like that. A system "in tandem".

Heeey, there ya go? If you want a new term specifically for this kind of thing that is broad enough to not just mean the situation Lance and I are in..

Tandem:
(n)

2 : a group of two or more arranged one behind the other or used or acting in conjunction

in tandem
1 : in partnership or conjunction
2 : in a tandem arrangement

(adj)
2 : working or occurring in conjunction with each other

Yes, it could be said that all systems on here are in tandem but I'm proposing terminology with specific meaning to be added which is distinct from the plural community (as far as I'm aware). It even has a nice ring to it imo.
Reply
#10
Thank you for your DID/OSDD links, Reilyn. OSDD-1b systems may be neurologically almost identical to tulpamantic systems, except of course for the criterion that makes OSDD a disorder:

"...clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning..."

[quote="Reilyn" pid='226254' dateline='1543602355']
I was going to concede in the previous thread that the glossary definition of possession was simple and open enough that it fit, no matter how I felt about the word. Ambiguity was a helper there. Then I was told that senses/experiences/whatever feel secondhand from that point of view (how was it put? the difference between feeling the body and being the body), and that seemed to be what was considered normal, not just one opinion or one persons experience so that was out the window for us.

The actual sensory data doesn't change much for us. The person in control of the body is in control of the senses, which includes the ability to determine what sensory information is prioritized and what is ignored. Whatever the fronter chooses to perceive is what we all perceive, if we're awake, and remember, regardless, on an exactly equal basis. Vesper doesn't like sugar nearly as much as I do, so I'll perceive something I normally like as being far too sweet if she's fronting. But that's the extent of my understanding of Bre's "being the senses".

The wiki's possession and switching definitions are deficient in that they maintain a strict host/tulpa dichotomy. If possession is when a tulpa exercises partial control, what about when the tulpa switches in and the host subsequently resumes partial control? If switching is when a tulpa takes full control, what is it called when a host takes back full control? The proxying definition is just as bad.

I like "tandem". It has most of the advantage of terms like "aware" and "in control", in that it wouldn't be used too dramatically differently from the way it is used in regular speech.

******

My previous post was going to be significantly longer, but we made a discovery while writing it that invalidated much of it. I'll give the revised version now.

When my two wives became aware of one another five years ago, they wanted me to be able to appreciate their internal dialogue, so they started speaking a lot of it aloud. I simply assumed they were switching back and forth rapidly. They may have conceptualized it similarly; their system is significantly different now and I'm not sure if I can get a clear answer. But since we started switching, I've come to think maybe they weren't. In our system, "hard switching", while quick, requires a lot of concentration and is unpleasant to repeat, while "soft switching" requires several seconds and even more concentration. But maybe we're just bad at it.

On the other hand, my wives' voices, expressions, and even body language would change, so if they were using possession, they were using it well enough that I could never say who was actually switched in. In our system, possession is a jerky, spasmodic, unsatisfying affair. But maybe we're just bad at it.

I was about to describe their externalized internal dialogue as a potential example of co-fronting when Vesper said she thought we could manage it. I was skeptical. While I was fronting, she struggled to vocalize awkward sounds that trailed off into gibberish after a few words. I thought my view was validated, but she ordered me to lean back, close my eyes, and get out of her way. I did, and she spoke completely clearly in the same pitch and accent she uses when switched in.

After that, it was easy. I remained physically active while cooking a complicated meal and never lost any presence or clarity, but the three of us spoke aloud to one another, in three different sounding voices, progressively supported by different facial expressions and body language. There was a much stronger sense of equality than we've ever had before, each of us felt largely in control of the body, and each of us felt we only had to decide to break the balance in order to switch in without effort or concentration. (We just confirmed that to be true.) It wasn't as stable as switching -- we had to keep talking to maintain it, and not talk too long at a stretch without allowing someone else to reply, but it was a sustainable state. Going back to mind voice afterward actually took a little effort.

So now I can say our system engages in an activity that meets the equality and sustainability criteria I proposed for co-fronting. If anyone else cares to try it, I would be interested in how it compares to their other possession/fronting/switching experiences and if it makes other p/f/s efforts easier.

-Ember


EDIT:
I asked my wife (they prefer to live fused these days; can't relate) about her experiences in more detail. She says that co-fronting is very much a thing and different from possession and switching, but that they found it disorienting and unpleasant. She says that they were switching back and forth smoothly and rapidly to speak aloud and that it took them a lot of difficult practice to learn. I remember them achieving it very early in their journey, but a couple of months of hard work can seem much longer to those doing it than to those watching it.
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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