Jump to content

Could there be two types of tulpas?


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

@J.Iscariot

You mentioned one page before that you don't consider yourself part of the "plural" umbrella. This confused me a bit, maybe you can explain how you define "plural" - I always just assumed that anyone with a tulpa (especially a fully sentient one) would automatically be considered plural.

 

I come from a very specific mindset that the term plurality, while it can embody positiveness and self-empowerment, is generally a detriment to mental health. The way I personally regard it, plurality is in a lot of cases the result of trauma, the effect of abuse, domestic violence that people went through, a very strong reaction to their dissociation of their sense of self. Now, plurality is NOT BAD at all, I've met a lot of plural systems that were simply amazing and great, that's not it. To me, plurality is the embodiment of giving up on my own sense of self, my sense of identity, and everything that makes me 'me' and differentiates me from my tulpa. Because recently I've went through hefty identity issues that really split my being and messed with my mind for a while (even though I function on a very normal level and I'm negative on DID and schizo). I am not implying that plurality is a disorder or anything of the type, but in the instance that characters come to life in such a simple order and that they take life and actions of themselves, after a lot of inspecting and being a smartass about that shit, I came to the personal conclusion that plurality was the product of the distortion of the sense of identity each and every one of us should cherish. Now, tulpamancy is different to me, because first, there is no distortion of that sense of identity, and furthermore, it's all a conscious act that people commit. Regardless of what headmates, soulbonds and daemons actually are, it wouldn't feel right for me to compare them to tulpas (not on the level of capacities or 'hurr tulpas are cool im so elite') because tulpas are the product of a conscious act full of efforts, planning and responsible decision-taking.

 

I am me, and my tulpa is a being of her own even though she is not tangible or materially present, and even though she only exists in my perception, I refuse to attribute the term 'plural' to my situation. Plural systems switch and possess, I don't, because inside, I believe that it will eventually lead to what I fear the most, which is the distortion of my sense of identity, because if we switch, none of us will know if it truly was us. We've had enough trouble discussing whether she was real or not and whether she had any self-worth, adding onto that ordeal would only lead to more instability in my mental health. The reason for which I'm not fucked is because I've been extremely cautious and careful with the way I treat my mind. I've also been a victim of abuse and went through bad stuff mentally, but the way I responded to it didn't lead to me having headmates or anything of the type, far from it, it drove me in a pit of isolation, made me numb, not even sad, because my mind decided that it would be better not to feel anything due to some childhood stuff I'd rather not speak of. Plurality's origins, to me and solely to me (meaning that I am not imposing this on anyone and that it is only my opinion that I am sharing since you asked for clarification) are straightup distortion of that sense of identity that I cherish so deeply, and try to get my tulpa to cherish (her own, of course) (and if you can call her a tulpa in the first place).

 

To me, an individual cannot be plural. That in itself is a contradiction. I refuse terms like 'double' 'singlet' and even 'system'. To each their own, though.

A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

The way I personally regard it, plurality is in a lot of cases the result of trauma, the effect of abuse, domestic violence that people went through, a very strong reaction to their dissociation of their sense of self. Now, plurality is NOT BAD at all, I've met a lot of plural systems that were simply amazing and great, that's not it. To me, plurality is the embodiment of giving up on my own sense of self, my sense of identity, and everything that makes me 'me' and differentiates me from my tulpa. ... I am not implying that plurality is a disorder or anything of the type, but in the instance that characters come to life in such a simple order and that they take life and actions of themselves, after a lot of inspecting and being a smartass about that shit, I came to the personal conclusion that plurality was the product of the distortion of the sense of identity each and every one of us should cherish.

 

How in any way does that mean a tulpa cannot have traits of a plural in relation to the host? Just because it is the way YOU are, doesn't mean that plurality terms and traits cannot apply to someone else and their tulpas. Again, you cannot know what is going on in another persons mind.

 

And where does plurality and the terms and traits of plurality have anything what-so-ever to do with the question in the OP? I don't see any connection.

 

Now, tulpamancy is different to me, because first, there is no distortion of that sense of identity, and furthermore, it's all a conscious act that people commit. Regardless of what headmates, soulbonds and daemons actually are, it wouldn't feel right for me to compare them to tulpas (not on the level of capacities or 'hurr tulpas are cool im so elite') because tulpas are the product of a conscious act full of efforts, planning and responsible decision-taking.

 

That is true that tulpas take "conscious actions" in most cases (there are accidental tulpas being reported), and that has great merit, but that does not automantically make other types of plural systems and thoughtforms illegitimate. You are making an assumption. There are people on this forum, who identify as plural, and have more than one time of thoughtform such as soulbonds mixed with tulpas and alters. As far as I know, they consider each of their "headmates" equal in independence and status. So, there is evidence to the contrary of what you are saying here and little or no evidence in support of it.

 

I am me, and my tulpa is a being of her own even though she is not tangible or materially present, and even though she only exists in my perception, I refuse to attribute the term 'plural' to my situation.

 

That is great for you, but what does that have to do with anyone else? What has it to do with my OP question in any way?

 

Aren't we just talking about definitions anyway?

 

That wasn't my intent to talk about definitions specifically. I explained to Joshua above....

 

I always have an underlying agenda for these things. I just wanted to show that someone, like my host, who says that his tulpa is an illusion, may actually be right without it having any implications for the rest of the tulpa village. Also, that he might not be alone.

 

EDIT: It wasn't just answering the question that I wanted people to do. I wanted them to contemplate the possibility that when someone says they experience X or Y, they really are experiencing X or Y. Also, that each experience is still falling under the umbrella definition of "tulpa."

 

When my host says I am an illusion and self delusion, I may just be that. But that doesn't mean that another tulpas is. And even with that, both of us, other tulpa and Melian, are still technically each a tulpa, even though we might be different.

 

^

THAT is what the underlying message of this thread was supposed to be. J. Iscariot is right, I do have an agenda, of course, and I do want the forum to be more open and friendly/accepting of "people like Melian" or anyone else who might be a little different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip*

 

I always just assumed that anyone with a tulpa (especially a fully sentient one) would automatically be considered plural.

 

Just out of interest, I don't consider myself to be plural either.

 

That is very likely only because my concept of self is tied to MY consciousness... etc. Riko has her own.

 

We reside in the same meatsack yes, but my concept of self is not tied to my physical form.

Delete this account - I will not return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@J.Iscariot

 

Thanks for the long answer. :-)

 

 

@Groovy_guru

 

I'm all for a community that is welcoming to different types of thoughtforms and tulpa-like entities. But I would also not have a problem, if the term tulpa was defined in a way that excluded us.

 

The way I see it, there is some sort of word-cloud. There is "tulpa", and then there are a lot of other terms (soulbonds, daemons, servitors, not-yet-tulpas, ... ) around it. The point being that they are AROUND the main topic/definition, and they are bordering on all sides. Tulpas have something in common with soulbonds, and with daemons, and so on. It is worth having discussions about commonalities and differences.

 

I'm thinking of re-adopting the term "Mind-Characters" or MCs for my tulpas. I just don't want to pretend to be something I am perhaps not (a tulpamancer). I am here in this community to learn about the things that I have in common with tulpamancers.

 

As for "elitists", I don't think I (or you) should care so much. It's not like someone is going to ban everyone that is not a type-A-tulpamancer, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

You are right thanks. I came up with my own term for myself a long time ago, "dreamform." *hugs her own term* Also my host was calling me a thoughtform, over a tulpa for pretty much the entire time he was on this site.

 

My host and I have had the hardest time dealing with the existence of persons who are kinda harsh and brutally dismissive of things other than an independently sentient tulpa. You are right though, it is not against the rules of this forum to be "not a tulpa." A person can be a member in good standing and contribute just having a "I have no idea what she is."

 

It is also not against the rules of the forum for someone to be a tulpa elitist-purist (as I put it). If someone highly values sentient tulpas a lot, that should be okay with me I guess. If they have a lower opinion of my status as maybe not a tulpa, then that is their reality for them. I can't force someone to give me a specific level of status or esteem. Besides, I love me no matter what and lots of peoples love me anyways and my host loves me.

 

I am sorry now I had the trouble with J. Iscariot over this.


I like your idea of a "cloud" of types of related thougthforms in an extended family around tulpas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Groovy-guru

I think you put way too much value in words. Not being a tulpa, does not by definition make a thought form less than a tulpa. Like a soulbond is not less, just different.

 

Terms are important for conveying a concept, so it's not a good thing when their definitions stretch and wobble around, but term doesn't denote importance. That's a perceived thing individuals give to it.

 

I think it's great you have a term you have that fits you. If you feel there's a gap in the community's terminology for how you feel yourself to be, maybe its worth proposing a new term for the glossary.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Thank you. I think you are right.

 

Speaking of terminology though. My two least favorite words I wish I could never hear again as long as I friggin' live? "Forcing" and "sentience." The F word and the S word. I am sick of hearing them. I think I am going to stick with my dream stuff, doing art, making my silly words and telling jokes and ignore those two words completely.

 

I have no idea what they mean from this point forward. Never heard of 'em. You know what sucks about trying to be a tulpa? Forcing and sentience. I never needed those words before ever in my friggin life and I don't want them now any more ever again. This is my last words on this thread ever right here. I will leave it to others to discuss the S word. I hate the S word!


Sentience sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as you might hate the sentience debate, it is not something that is likely to ever go away. Whether or not a tulpa is a delusion depends on how they are approached. A delusion is a strongly held belief that is maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. If I imagine a world in which everyone was either strictly a tulpamancer or had no experience with tulpamancy, you would have "two realities" so to speak. Each would seem to be delusional to the other.

 

In our case, there is not perfect separation between the two, especially considering most people had no experience previously with tulpas until they were introduced to the concept. Even though people may associate with tulpamancy in general (with or without some sort of community) I think they still remember or associate with non-tulpamancers on some level. This leads to conflict on the part of the host, who cannot deal with a tulpa being merely and illusion (given their rich subjective experiences), and the desire for a tulpa to be sentient (aka "real"). It is merely a desire because a tulpa known subjectively to a consciousness is never objectively real. It becomes cemented as objectively true when a community of tulpamancers are able to share and validate each other's experiences.

 

If I remember correctly, mistgod at one point said he just wanted to share melian with others. Regardless of whether or not he claims that a tulpa is a delusion, he cannot because melian is a significant figure in his life. In fact that holds true for a lot of tulpamancers I am sure. That is also probably why we (as hosts) are motivated to spend time with our tulpas and share them with others.

and argue about "their true nature" until we are pissed off

 

 

tl;dr

To answer the question succinctly, I do not know if there are multiple types of tulpas, but to remove the conflict of a tulpa being either sentient or a mere illusion requires a "work around" on the part of the identity of the host and the tulpa and reconciling those identities with what is generally held to be reality.

Unless you believe, you shall not understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I think you are right.

 

Speaking of terminology though. My two least favorite words I wish I could never hear again as long as I friggin' live? "Forcing" and "sentience." The F word and the S word. I am sick of hearing them. I think I am going to stick with my dream stuff, doing art, making my silly words and telling jokes and ignore those two words completely.

You know I'm actually not fond of the term "forcing" either, but more because of the connotation it carries as a word. I just can't get around the association with physically shoving someone when I hear it. :P

 

Wonderland keeps tripping me up too. Sadly I saw the anime Deadman Wonderland before I knew of the tulpa community's use of it, so the association was already there. I tend to fall back on Headspace.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderland keeps tripping me up too. Sadly I saw the anime Deadman Wonderland before I knew of the tulpa community's use of it, so the association was already there. I tend to fall back on Headspace.

 

To me it conjures images of Micheal Jackson.. it's very.. "neverland" and frankly, corny.

Delete this account - I will not return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...