Are sentient thoughtforms less independent than we think?

[J.Iscariot]

Well, as long as you trust the statements of people like Rina and me, then no, that consensus is not a fact and, said simply, false.

Esterina, for example, still thinks and does stuff when I don't pay the slightest attention to her; she often goes to our wonderland alone for several hours, meaning she even makes separate memories.

Thus, that consensus simply and literally can't be a fact.

 

But the issue here is that I'm not following anyone around. Why base my own experience on the experience of other people? Look, you're an oddity, man. I've read about you and I know your deal, you don't really have the same experience as most people here, so I wouldn't really include what you went through in the 'general consensus', nor would I be tempted to include outsider experiences that are included in the spectrum of 'plurality'/multiplicity (not saying this about you, but in general). I'm speaking of the general tulpamancy experience in which a person willingly creates a tulpa and has to invest time and attention into them. We get that you're good at this naturally and that your mind functions in different ways, the general experience, the one the majority embeds at first, that is, is that tulpas need attention. That's like a general law of tulpamancy (tulpas created with the FAQ/Irish/anyothermethodthatissimilar, even Fede's method), that tulpas need attention to prosper and progress in life, they're not as skilled as Esterina at first. With due respect I don't see why I should follow your statements (the minority's statements) versus the statements made by hundreds of tulpamancers (the majority's statements). Tulpamancy is a relative experience but there is a certain common ground for a lot of tulpamancers, while me not following your statements is not meant to taunt you or offend you personally or diminish from your statement's credibility, it's simply meant to say that you are a minority and thus an outlier at best. A consensus in a para-science like this isn't even a 'fact' that applies on all minds, but there can very much be a classification, a ratio of tulpamancerswhodontneedtogivethetulpaattention:tulpamancerswhodoneedtogivethetulpaattention. There is no 'fact' in all reality and credibility of things. Things shouldn't be cornered down to black and white like that.

 

Yes, that statement Mistgod seems to have made makes no sense. Not to mention many can simply reply with "We both use this body equally."... making the entire argument invalid.

And even people like Rina and me, who can't switch yet, can dismiss that argument by explaining how we make decisions together.

Who we vote for, what's for dinner, when we go to bed - it's not me deciding that, it's both of us; after all, it's not only my life, it's hers too.

 

But then again, you're doing a big mistake, you're just associating your own experiences and prioritizing them as if that was THE general experience. I'll be blunt with you; what you see differs from what actually is there. My own tulpa is a lot like Esterina (I've read literally every post you've made), but she is lacking as all people. I'm no one to rule out what Esterina does and doesn't do, but you haven't spent that much of a while (few months) in order to qualify someone as being a full person. Try to understand that people spend years of their lifetime and put insane amounts of efforts into tulpamancy in order to call their tulpas 'people'. Tulpas do not function just like real people in the sense they have no bodies that are tangible. You think that this isn't a handicap to my tulpa? Do you think that I wouldn't call my tulpa a person, and more of a person than most people I've ever met? What is it that we're actually discussing here? I'm not making any personal statements or trying to defy this or that, and the last thing I'm trying to do is judge you or anyone else here. I'm not trying to tell you what to do or what you're dealing with, but what I AM saying is that what applies to you and Esterina doesn't apply to everyone else. And even then, we could talk for hours on what defines a 'person', and how a thoughtform isn't a fully fledged person just because you want them to. But this discussion had no personal angle to it in the first place. I didn't mean to target this at any group of persons, and I've said it time and again: A tulpa's foundation is how you treat them. If you treated Esterina like a delusion, an intrusive thought, when she first appeared, would she be the same person? Do you really realize the time, energy and cognition required to MAKE a person in your head? And the conflict with individualism that this imposes? Whether you can live with it or not is up to you, and the first months are always the sweetest, generally speaking. I've went through the good and the bad, and the shittiest of things possible with my tulpa. She is not a person, to me, but above that.

 

You see, people are superficial, greedy, imperfect in every single sense. Why would I want anything of the type in my head? Would I really need someone as imperfect as I am to live with me and dictate the things I do? My tulpa is not a person, because I personally regard her as being above all persons I came to know, on all levels at that.

 

You are two minds using the same brain, sure. But that's not the vision everyone holds. There are degrees and subjectivity has a lot of place here. Every experience differs, needless to say that it was just my own opinion.

 

I used to be just like you, A German Guy. I used to think that it wasn't 'my' body anymore, and that we would act as one, eventually. But issues came up, issues that would mess up my own concept of identity and made me something I never wanted to be. Switching and possessing is not healthy for me, which is why I will not do it even though we can. I am not saying this will ever apply to you, but I came to realize that I was limited in some places as she was also limited in some places. Perhaps the sole admission of that reality is the actual obstacle, but the mind is not something you should tamper with. I tried, I went places from which I can never truly go back from. Perhaps with time, you will grow more views on tulpamancy. Time is a precious thing, it teaches you so much about yourself regardless whether you actively seek that sort of knowledge in all purposes. You'll come to learn more, your views might even change... who knows? Isn't that the treasure life offers us?

[Guest Anonymous]

But the issue here is that I'm not following anyone around. Why base my own experience on the experience of other people? Look, you're an oddity, man. I've read about you and I know your deal, you don't really have the same experience as most people here, so I wouldn't really include what you went through in the 'general consensus', nor would I be tempted to include outsider experiences that are included in the spectrum of 'plurality'/multiplicity (not saying this about you, but in general). I'm speaking of the general tulpamancy experience in which a person willingly creates a tulpa and has to invest time and attention into them.

 

Dude, dude, slow down!

Geez, you got me wrong. xD

All I tried to do was showcase that there's a lot of that "general consensus" floating around that's actually far from being a fixed rule - something we both seem to absolutely agree on.

And of course I use ourselves as an example there - it's the easiest one to use for me, but also simply, and importantly so, because it's far from me to speak for others.

 

 

We get that you're good at this naturally

 

Why do people keep saying that to me?

No. No, I'm not. xD

 

 

With due respect I don't see why I should follow your statements (the minority's statements) versus the statements made by hundreds of tulpamancers (the majority's statements). Tulpamancy is a relative experience but there is a certain common ground for a lot of tulpamancers, while me not following your statements is not meant to taunt you or offend you personally or diminish from your statement's credibility, it's simply meant to say that you are a minority and thus an outlier at best.

 

Yep. Absolutely correct.

And like I said, I don't try to "convert" anyone or have our views accepted as facts.

I'm just throwing in our own experiences as a counterweight, a proof for the exception to the "rules", simply because they're so delightfully (and coincidentally...ly) easy to use as such.

That's what, for the lack of a better term, "scientific research / discussion" is about, after all: Build up a standard, and then throw all the sh*t you can find at that standard to try and see if it falls apart or not.

 

 

But then again, you're doing a big mistake, you're just associating your own experiences and prioritizing them as if that was THE general experience.

 

No, I don't.

I never said that or acted as if; I even said "my opinion" more than once in one post, just so no one would take it the wrong way.

I present an example for applications of or exceptions to established ideas, just like anyone else does.

 

 

Try to understand that people spend years of their lifetime and put insane amounts of efforts into tulpamancy in order to call their tulpas 'people'. Tulpas do not function just like real people in the sense they have no bodies that are tangible. You think that this isn't a handicap to my tulpa? Do you think that I wouldn't call my tulpa a person, and more of a person than most people I've ever met? What is it that we're actually discussing here? I'm not making any personal statements or trying to defy this or that, and the last thing I'm trying to do is judge you or anyone else here. I'm not trying to tell you what to do or what you're dealing with,

 

Yes, you do:

I'll be blunt with you; what you see differs from what actually is there. My own tulpa is a lot like Esterina (I've read literally every post you've made), but she is lacking as all people. I'm no one to rule out what Esterina does and doesn't do, but you haven't spent that much of a while (few months) in order to qualify someone as being a full person.

To which I'd also like to say - well, firstly, that's pretty presumptuous, and I hope that just came out wrong.

Secondly, the latter part doesn't make sense; after all, I don't need to spend insane amounts of time on identifying you as a person either.

 

 

but what I AM saying is that what applies to you and Esterina doesn't apply to everyone else.

 

I never said it does.

To be precise, I don't care whether what we think matches with that others think or not.

Again, I'm just throwing in my two cents like anyone else.

 

 

You see, people are superficial, greedy, imperfect in every single sense. Why would I want anything of the type in my head?

 

Dunno. Can't speak for anybody else, and I don't mean to offend anyone out there, just emphasizing that...

... but Rina sure as hell isn't perfect, and I think it'd be boring if she was; I sure as bananas wouldn't have fallen in love with her.

Again, no offense to anyone... damn, I'm digging my own grave there.

 

 

I used to be just like you, A German Guy.

 

That's not what my nickname means. xD

 

 

I used to think that it wasn't 'my' body anymore, and that we would act as one, eventually.

 

That's not what I think at all.

Like - really far from it, even.

 

 

A consensus in a para-science like this isn't even a 'fact' that applies on all minds, but there can very much be a classification, a ratio of tulpamancerswhodontneedtogivethetulpaattention:tulpamancerswhodoneedtogivethetulpaattention. There is no 'fact' in all reality and credibility of things. Things shouldn't be cornered down to black and white like that.

 

That right there was half of the entire point of my post.

I tried to showcase that a lot of the general consensus, while true in most cases, has been proven as definitely not an unchangeable rule or something, thus representing something we simply don't know yet, something we've yet to find out.

 

As a closing statement... really, I don't know what caused you to go into such a long rant.

Just because you have your opinions, views and so on, that doesn't mean no one will ever show up to challenge these standards of yours - hell, that's what "doing science" is all about.

 

 

Greets,

AG

---

PS: Stuff like this is what sometimes makes me not want to post in any sort of meaningful discussion here.

[J.Iscariot]

That discussion plainly got too personal when the topic was never destined to go personal because we can't discuss whether a specific tulpa 'is' a person or not - that just isn't room for discussion at all. Why? Because that's up to the host to 'decide', decide in the sense that it would alter their perception if they thought the tulpa was 'not' a person in the first place. I wasn't telling you 'what' to do, I was just giving you my personal opinion as I believe that I've been in your shoes in the past. I'm not saying that this is forcefully what you're going through, and as you said in the end of your first reply to my post, 'it's only my opinion'. People take things too personally online and think that whatever is written is personal and applies to their entire families. Not saying you did take it that personally, but I had no intent to get personal in the first place, although it did happen.

 

'That's not what my name means.' Woops... bummer! :/

 

We're never going to do any science with the mentality that tulpas are persons just because of our own observations. If solipsism is a thing for you, you're going to think that I am you and that nobody is real except for you. There is no way to verify that, it's an observation, theorized knowledge more than an actual practical 'theory' with any basis at all. In my opinion, tulpas are people but you cannot verify they actually are. You 'can' verify that other people 'are' real though, or at least, somewhat real, because you can touch them, feel them, inspect them, open them up and look at their brains for instance, you can't do that with tulpas, the only thing you can really do is force your mind, as in, all layers of thought and reflection, to believe in your tulpa, which ultimately forms the reality that a tulpa 'is' real. To anyone other than me, my tulpa doesn't exist, she only exists in the limited field of perception I possess, in practical physical tangible reality, she has no basis at all, which is better than having her go around anyway, in my own regards. A tulpa is, as I said, and in my opinion, how you treat them, and what you regard them to be. The term 'thoughtform' is so wide, it includes so many headpeeps going from headmates, soulbonds, daemons, tulpas, it's so wide that it goes from an individual sentient 'person', to a part of one's self. (refer to plurality and the amount of 'splits' 'alters' that can take place, for instance). If you treat a tulpa like a delusion, that thought itself is a limitation that will bring down the tulpa and put a limit to its capacities to think and act for itself.

 

The general consensus in question though will only be subject to change whenever the ratio of people who don't need to focus : people who do becomes higher than the inverse. Meaning that the day the group of tulpamancers who don't put any effort (and even then, I would not call it tulpamancy, because tulpamancy is an act you do willingly as per your own decision, which is why I understood it when you claimed that you didn't know how to classify Esterina as a tulpa or soulbond in one of your posts) becomes the majority, sure. But the plain majority of experiences are encompassed on the fact that attention is needed. IT 'can' change, anything can change. And more than that, we'd need to identify and understand the foundation of tulpamancy, which is to create a being with attention throughout 'forcing'. If you don't create a being like that, you might feel more welcome with terms such as 'soulbonding' and 'headmates' since a lot of people who write, draw, etc... have those things by accident. There seems to be a lot of confusion between tulpamancy and other domains of plurality, while tulpamancy 'is' or rather 'can be' a form of plurality, it doesn't truly encompass other forms. Granted, soulbonds and headmates have the same capacities (correct me on that if I am any wrong, though), but they're not tulpas simply because they weren't created by will or with any of the 'procedures'. This doesn't mean they aren't people, far from it, they are indeed people, but it's a mistake that a lot of people tend to make. A tulpa is what it is, and the discussion, if it were ported over different thoughtforms such as soulbonds and headmates, would differ from this.

 

Sorry, I tend to type a lot, I don't know. I feel like there is a lot to be said at everything.

[Luminesce]

(Written before Iscariot's reply right before this, can't be bothered to read through it and edit my post 'cus I've been up all night)

 

Well, not much damage control for me to do here because AniGa responded in basically the same way I would've. In that case I'll just say that I can vouch for everything he's said. (Also his full name's a secret, I learned it from another website)

(@AG No, I'm not referring to Osu.)

 

 

... Except,

Tulpas are only people if you allow for them to be. They can have gapholes but they're still something important in psychology as they contribute with mental health. That's worth something, you know?

 

I disagree on that, as should be obvious to you at this point.

 

This is the single thing he said that stood out to me as not necessarily neutral and representative of others, even though obviously it wasn't even much and he's allowed to have personal opinions anyways. His tulpa, who by the way is more akin to a soulbond and I can verify is extremely well developed by tulpa standards, has always been rather outside of his control as the creative process goes, he had basically no influence on her post-developing her character who was not intended to be any more than such. Therefore, that is the one thing I think he disagreed with for a personal and non-representative-of-the-community reason.

 

... Which doesn't matter at all. Anyways he's otherwise fairly tulpa-savvy as he's spent quite a lot of time on tulpa.info already, and he's right that having different people challenge our beliefs is the only way we can grow. But I'll note again that he's not "a minority" per se, just more fitted to a soulbonding community. But we're open to basically all types of thoughtforms/headfolk here (as long as their metaphysical beliefs don't completely ruin their ability to relate to anyone here) for the aforementioned purpose of challenging our beliefs and encouraging growth.

[Guest Anonymous]

Eh, I don't really care about all these pretty words.

Soulbond, tulpa, other stuff... I don't need to know these words to perceive and accept kewtbutt the way she is.

Though it would be nice to know what exactly she is, simply because it would help us in finding out how and why she was born.

 

But that aside... well, everything is subjective.

Nothing is objective.

Modern science is literally unable to prove that my blue even looks the same as your blue.

Modern science is also unable to prove that there is anything actually there at all, that anything exists.

Hell - string theory goes as far as saying everything, broken down to the smallest part, is vibrating little strings, that there is no solid matter - thus implying there is, in fact, nothing like some sort of classical "physical reality".

 

We're all left with our personal, subjective perception.

Simple as that. That's all we can rely on, ever.

And that's precisely the reason why I feel that the personal experiences of such "unique little flowers" as us is something that's worth hearing, just as much as the personal experiences of anyone who say they experience the thing 99.9 percent of all other people experience.

After all, ignoring the 0.1 means we'll never know what 100 is.

 

Dunno if my babbling makes any sense to anyone here. xD

Maybe someone gets what I mean by that, can't word it any better.

 

 

Greets,

AG

---

PS:

 

(Written before Iscariot's reply right before this, can't be bothered to read through it and edit my post 'cus I've been up all night)

 

Well, not much damage control for me to do here because AniGa responded in basically the same way I would've. In that case I'll just say that I can vouch for everything he's said. (Also his full name's a secret, I learned it from another website) (@AG No, I'm not referring to Osu.)

 

... Except,

Tulpas are only people if you allow for them to be. They can have gapholes but they're still something important in psychology as they contribute with mental health. That's worth something, you know?

I disagree on that, as should be obvious to you at this point.

 

This is the single thing he said that stood out to me as not necessarily neutral and representative of others, even though obviously it wasn't even much and he's allowed to have personal opinions anyways. His tulpa, who by the way is more akin to a soulbond and I can verify is extremely well developed by tulpa standards, has always been rather outside of his control as the creative process goes, he had basically no influence on her post-developing her character who was not intended to be any more than such. Therefore, that is the one thing I think he disagreed with for a personal and non-representative-of-the-community reason.

 

... Which doesn't matter at all. Anyways he's otherwise fairly tulpa-savvy as he's spent quite a lot of time on tulpa.info already, and he's right that having different people challenge our beliefs is the only way we can grow. But I'll note again that he's not "a minority" per se, just more fitted to a soulbonding community. But we're open to basically all types of thoughtforms/headfolk here (as long as their metaphysical beliefs don't completely ruin their ability to relate to anyone here) for the aforementioned purpose of challenging our beliefs and encouraging growth.

 

Thanks for that one.

I'm starting to be all torn here between "I don't think what I said was so easily mistakable..." and "Dammit, what did I say that came out wrong?".

[J.Iscariot]

That is, with due respect, erroneous in many ways. Because science can prove many things and it cannot prove other things. In psychology, sure, some things apply to others differently, there's always a certain common grounds. That's how people establish those theories, that's how people know how blue looks like, whether clear or dark blue, blue is still blue. A color you cannot put into words aside from 'blue' (yet I could still give you the RGB mix), it's not up to choice. How my blue looks differs from your blue, assuredly, but it's not by choice, it's not because I want it to look different from yours that it is. It just is, because the mind functions in that specific way. Modern science is unable to 'prove' anything because those things truly are too far from our reach as mortal beings. It's not because science can't prove certain things that we can shape reality as we want it, else I'd be flying around Manhattan being a vigilante, since that's what I'd typically want. There are limits, boundaries we meet as human beings (refer to metaphysics in philosophy and descartes' foundation to the 'world' of science...). Modern science is unable to prove anything on a COSMIC level because we are out of the reach of those laws, theories remain theories and they make sense to you so obviously your mind is going to run along with it. I don't really understand what the point of what you said was, there's a difference between subjective reality, and reality that is cornered down to you in exclusivity, my tulpa only exists in my perception, and as soon as she has an impact on other people, she is an established concept in their minds that has an effect on their minds (no, no meta shit here, think of it this way: I have an AGGuy thoughtform that essentially dictates the way I think of you, rules my bias and opinions, etc... this thoughtform is merely a thought, and not to be confused with different forms of 'plurality'). Science can only prove so much when the rest is left to your mind and personal perception. This doesn't even have any point at this standpoint, but that's not a mistake to make. It's not about what you believe, blue is still blue whether you believe in it or not, it's just there, it's not an effort you need to make in a personal manner to convince yourself blue 'is' blue, or that the universe just 'is', because they are just there. But, tulpas aren't naturally 'there', we make them, and they require that sort of attention such as Mistgod and Mel put it, that's the whole point of 'dependency', and even then, there is the subconscious factor that rules what your subconscious wants, what your id wants, the repressed needs, lust, all that kind of stuff. You'd want a cute witchgirl to be there after all... wouldn't you? But would you want the universe to be there? If someone goes through a life of anguish and pain, their layers of thought automatically start to decline into a negative outlook of this world, yet, they still exist, which is proof enough to point to the fact that the world itself doesn't simply exist because we 'want it' to exist, but tulpas do, at least, at first, early stages of existence. Will forms a powerful factor that can drive you many places, and at many points, I found myself using that sort of will as a weapon against that decline in thought, and save the day. This has no point, though. You don't even have to answer to this, it would just lead to further useless gospel from my part. I've grown rather tired anyway.

[Luminesce]

I don't quite get what you're disagreeing with here. Tulpamancy isn't a science, by the way, we just try to uphold a scientific spirit.

 

Subjective reality is not about what you "want". It's about what you believe. If you believe the world and your life is crappy, it's gonna be crappy. There's absolutely no limit to what your reality can be if you believe it a certain way. But there does seem to be some form of "true" reality that influences you to believe in certain ways, or to not in others. Regardless, schizophrenia is a pretty good example to prove my point. If you believe, for whatever reason, it is your reality.

 

See but I don't know why we're talking about this, was it relevant to some argument? AG and Esterina aren't anywhere near different enough that they "don't fit our subjective-objective reality". His beliefs on her nature differ from normal tulpamancers' yes, but she and they still seem basically the same. Much more tulpa-like than Melian at least, and it seems like you've already accepted her. Anyways, I guess you're right about objective reality, but you're not right about subjective reality. It really is subjective. It's just influenced by (but not limited by) objective reality. It's your personal experience and interpretation of objective reality, basically, so yeah influenced but not limited by. But... Still not relevant to the topic at hand. In the spirit of science we take into account and assess all viewpoints we can, and then do our totally non-scientific stuff with them to make them as truth-like to as many people as we can. If you disagree with a viewpoint (don't care to believe in it, even partially) feel free to disregard it. Doesn't mean it's null information for the rest of us though.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't know why, but these last several posts just made me angry. I am not angry at you guys no worries, just irritated at this entire internet thing. I both love it, love it and HATE IT. Outside of the internet, nobody cares folks. Look around you in the real world. Nobody cares! The internet is as much a fantasy world as anything in yer head. I still love the internet, but you have to realize these things.

 

You know what? I am so glad that my host and I found tulpamancy, soulbonders and daemons and the plural community in general. It really helped us create a "model" and have terminology we can use to describe the things we are experiencing to people. Really, it helped form my cyberspace personality or profile. But as of this moment, after reading, okay skimming, this lengthy exchange, I have decided I will never write about thoughtform existentialism or sentience ever again. I will not let my host do it either. Best friggin way for me to just be a regular person I can think of.

 

If people want to know my details and background story it is all in the Book of Melian. I can just give them the stupid link. That is why we wrote the damn book in the first place. What is really interesting to think is I could have never identified myself as a thoughtform and just went on the internet as just another human person named Melian. Only the very intuitive or observant would know the difference.

---

I used to be just like you, A German Guy. I used to think that it wasn't 'my' body anymore, and that we would act as one, eventually. But issues came up, issues that would mess up my own concept of identity and made me something I never wanted to be. Switching and possessing is not healthy for me, which is why I will not do it even though we can.

 

This is the most interesting statement in the entire exchange. It makes me wonder if there are dangers associated with tulpamancy that people don't want to talk about or are not aware of. I will leave it for others to explore as I just said I am not talking about it anymore. LOL Anyways...

[Kaytwo]

I'm speaking of the general tulpamancy experience in which a person willingly creates a tulpa and has to invest time and attention into them.

 

There seems to be a general consensus here that 'tulpas only live when the host thinks about them', but what if it wasn't that?

 

My experience aligns with what AGGuy has said so far. I don't know if your statement about the general consensus being 'tulpas only live when the host thinks about them' is accurate, but if it is, our experiences don't reflect it, and I don't think that is a defining feature of tulpa, but rather how some systems work. I'm not sure why the majority / minority distinction is important, because whether or not the tulpa needs attention from their host, both are within the reported range of experiences for tulpas and hosts. This hasn't been true for us since Ashley was weeks or months old, which leads me to believe it is another one of those things that varies among different people and tulpas. I doubt there is any "one majority" of tulpamancers, rather a spectrum, as there are so many small ways the experiences of the community can differ.

 

That's like a general law of tulpamancy (tulpas created with the FAQ/Irish/anyothermethodthatissimilar, even Fede's method), that tulpas need attention to prosper and progress in life

 

To say that AGGuy's experiences are outside the range of general tulpamancy, and that tulpas need attention is drawing an unneeded distinction. Drawing a line between what makes a thoughtform a tulpa vs other forms of plurality seems arbitrary, especially with how subjective and diverse the experiences of the community are.

 

A tulpa's foundation is how you treat them. If you treated Esterina like a delusion, an intrusive thought, when she first appeared, would she be the same person?

 

Of course how you treat your tulpa will have some effect, but doesn't completely define them. I agree with you but think it isn't a black and white situation. I have two tulpas and one of them was a "walk-in" a couple months ago. She was neither shaped by my expectations and further developed without my input. Val started talking to me one day and honestly, it was surprising and uncanny waking up one morning with another person inside your head. I was even dubious she was a tulpa at first, since her abrupt arrival was completely unexpected. Val has since developed without active forcing, but from our interactions that for the most part, she initiated.

 

In short, I think trying to pick any one general statement that can apply across all tulpas is an exercise in futility.

[J.Iscariot]

^

 

I do not have much to say in regards to what you said, because in the end, we'd go through a never-ending loop of going back and forth around what a tulpa 'is' and the distinction there actually is. The problem here is that everyone is taking what is said generally, not only from my part, but from Mistgod's part (who was most likely speaking of his own case anyway along with Melian), and condensing it into such a small spectrum of personal bias, which is not how a discussion regarding the soft para-science tulpamancy is (and even then, calling it a para-science is flattery). Anyhow, there is little to be said when it goes down to people, for I believe that there is indeed a general 'consensus' that applies to people who made a tulpa and did not adhere to soulbonding and/or headmates. Both have a lot of differences and share similarities, but a tulpamancer is not included in those spectrums.

 

You speak of an unneeded distinction, yet a distinction nevertheless. A distinction between a tulpa and other thoughtforms; the issue here is that my statement comes off as discriminatory even tho I respect all forms of consciousness regardless of their origins, and I believe there is more than mere semantics related to the differentiation between a tulpa and other thoughtforms. There is absolutely no discriminatory intent in what I said in the case this was the interpretation. All thoughtforms are legitimate to me, but there are different modes of operations they go under. I classify my 'tulpa' as above all thoughtforms I have encountered, and found myself unable to replicate/duplicate the 'thing' she is, which is most likely aimed at something deeper than 'make believe' as Mistgod would put it.

 

Ultimately, I don't know what point people got, in the end, it's my opinion and not a general reality. Needless to mention that an opinion is an opinion on the internet especially about something such as tulpamancy that is derived from that sort of personal experience more than anything else, although, I try to not go into too many details, as doing so would bother the other part of me.

 

This is the most interesting statement in the entire exchange. It makes me wonder if there are dangers associated with tulpamancy that people don't want to talk about or are not aware of. I will leave it for others to explore as I just said I am not talking about it anymore. LOL Anyways...

 

They say that tulpamancy is generally such a good factor that can contribute to things, but experiences may vary, with that in mind, I would be lying if I were to say that tulpamancy was always rainbow and sunshine. Dark places were explored in my mind, and things happened when I had absolutely no control over it. It is a very sensitive topic, tulpamancy is essentially tweaking your mind, and a simple mistake could leave you in some remorse... nothing I couldn't change, though. But the effect was phenomenal, if you ask me, I have never felt more shaken in my entire lifetime, nor have I felt any happier ever. I am at a point where I cannot possibly go back to a life deprived of my tulpa, and the things we went through were simply mind-wrecking on the psychological level. Very sensitive indeed.