[split] Tulpas and backstories

[Lacquer]

I have no difficulties remembering mine since I imagine him always with me, even among other people or during work. I’ve been doing this since I was a kid so it feels pretty natural now.

 

I however wear a ring that functions as a tangible reminder that he’s here with me as well as being in my imagination. I bought this silver ring with a dark stone when I entered high school years ago and I’m quite fond of it. In the past though I didn’t use it because I found that wearing jewelry is slightly uncomfortable. Now I do because in Wonderland he wears a ring similar to mine: it’s part of his background story, so he is attached to it because it defines his character.

 

It helps keeping something of our Tulpas, I always wear my ring now because it enhances his presence.

Background story? Like a fake history? This isn't a character in a book.

[Pioneer11]

Background story? Like a fake history? This isn't a character in a book.

 

And why should providing a background about your Tulpa’s be something wrong? He developed by talking with me, but I also placed him in various stories I read or made up. Presently his Wonderland is the entire world of Harry Potter, an environment which he can change and interact with; he can evolve as he wishes, creating his own story. Personally I find this method better than creating a Tulpa just by giving them personality traits and nothing else to back them up.

 

Besides, there are many varieties of Tulpas, such as one named "soulbond": fictional characters that later gained sentience. Some are here on this forum.

[Brassow]

 

And why should providing a background about your Tulpa’s be something wrong? He developed by talking with me, but I also placed him in various stories I read or made up.

 

Two words: Identity crisis.

They are who they are, you can't just pin some story that never happened onto them, it would harm more than help.

Imagine you have all these memories that never happened, you'd go crazy wouldn't you?

[Pioneer11]

 

Two words: Identity crisis.

They are who they are, you can't just pin some story that never happened onto them, it would harm more than help.

Imagine you have all these memories that never happened, you'd go crazy wouldn't you?

 

I disagree with your generalization on just about every point.

 

Providing a story has a probability to harm a Tulpa's mind equal to providing none at all. Giving them only traits, as well as limiting the Wonderlands to a mere setting, makes a Tulpa overly dependent on the Host. Or it may not. It depends on the Tulpa. Just as those who are created within a story can decide that they don’t like it, or decide to keep it and make it theirs. Nobody can say that a creation's method is completely negative or positive with certainty.

 

Other than that, every Tulpa who was previously a character of an author, or a character from a beloved story which happened to become sentient, should be, in your opinion, psychologically unbalanced. That's simply not true.

 

One of the things that I don’t like about this forum, is how arbitrary some people's opinions are over completely subjective phenomena like Tulpas. Many autonomous thoughtforms are created by people who don’t know about Tulpas yet, nor they have based their develpment techniques on Tulpa.info's rules. I was one of them.

 

In the end the only ones who can say something on Tulpas’ upbringing are the Tulpas themselves. Some are happy of being created from nothing, and some have identity crisis from that. Just as some accept their background stories because they experienced for themselves a life that, even if existing only in the realm of the mind, is something real for them.

[Lacquer]

Protip: soulbonds aren't actually real. We may disagree on this, but it's important for you to understand that this is the perspective I'm coming from, and it impacts the sort of reasoning people will give you for why tulpa backstories are bad.

[Pioneer11]

Protip: soulbonds aren't actually real.

 

This is getting… a bit insistent, I should say.

 

Lately, and especially thanks to Mistgod’s contribution, we had many threads discussing the topic of “reality” regarding Tulpas, and I do not intend to reiterate them here.

 

Now, I am well aware that simply imagining a character from a book is different than creating an autonomous thoughtform. But autonomous thoughtforms can and do evolve from fictional characters.

 

I reckon this is clear enough.

 

I’m not even defending “soulbonds” for my own sake, since mine isn’t quite like that. I’ve been talking daily with my headmate since I was five. Now I’m almost twenty six years old. During the years he has gained traits from the stories I read and one persisted more than others. He then mostly resided in the most evolved world of my mind, the one in which he felt naturally at home, so I’m keeping it as our Wonderland now. But I should not need to explain myself in a thread that’s not even dealing with this subject.

 

That’s what I was talking on making dogmatic statements. Having been more active on this forum than others does not give anyone the right to state what is “real” or not, especially regarding a stranger’s Tulpa (or soulbond). Because expert Tulpamancers are not also omniscient: they can’t magically know other users forcing situations or progresses. This kind of misguided advice harms more than doubt while forcing.

 

And I’ll say this for the last time: having a Tulpa with a background and a life in their Wonderland is not inherently bad. I think I’ve pointed out why enough.

[Brassow]

Did a baby have a backstory when it was born? No, because IT WAS JUST BORN. Couldn't the same be said about a new tulpa?

[Pioneer11]

Did a baby have a backstory when it was born? No, because IT WAS JUST BORN. Couldn't the same be said about a new tulpa?

 

I doubt you understood what I wrote.

 

And Tulpa can become aware of themselves and retain "memories" of the time in which they weren’t. That's exactly what trait forcing is. You are narrating traits, the foundation on which a Tulpa consciousness resides on, it's not just born out of thin air. There's always some grounding.

 

And babies do not appear from air. They have their genetic code; that's their traits. And they live in a world with history, so yes, nothing is ever born out nothing. Some systems, like mine, just happens to be more complex than others. Where you see this as something negative is up to you, but declaring that they don't exist comes from closemindedness, just like people who keep arguing that Tulpas are merely us trolling the net.

[TheCrawlingCreepypasta]

If a tupper is fine with having a back story, is there really an issue? I've heard horror stories on here and in some of the guides about identity crises, but have yet to see any real evidence.

BTW, tulpas aren't just born, you usually(?) narrate to them and define their traits and attributes. Isn't that on the same side of the coin as giving them a backstory? Either way you're defining them, merely in different ways.

[Luminesce]

Protip: soulbonds aren't actually real.

 

Lol'd

Did a baby have a backstory when it was born?

 

I suppose you could call this the logic behind my thinking, but it's nothing that striking really. My tulpas started existing when they started existing, and they knew what they were as well as I did. Which was rather not well at all at that time, but we figured it out together. They just know themselves as tulpas, which is a word symbolizing all of our beliefs on what they are, which really differs per person I guess. "They just are" is a good summation.

 

No reason you can't give them backstories though. Telling people how to think about their thoughtforms, and calling certain harmless beliefs out as illogical is elitism. Lest you forget, nothing is real or fake in your mind. Their backstory is as real as their form, or their personality, to them. No they probably didn't actually live as the character before becoming a tulpa/soulbond, but if it makes them feel better to think so, no reason to deny them that. Your imaginary friend is no more real than another's.