Guest Anonymous

Categories or Types of Tulpa

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'm going to say what I said to you before in a different thread about a similar topic: you have no idea what these categories are or represent. They're just "neat" or "fun" labels that you think that you "need" for some reason, because it's a tea party or something. Yeah, we're not ancient philosophers, we know (at least, I know) that we can't just divide things up into categories that seem right and expect those to be useful or meaningful. If I asked someone, "Is your tulpa a dream persona tulpa or a soulbond tulpa?", they'd just look at be weird because, uh, what are those things? Does it matter? Do you need different categories for narration tulpas and parroting tulpas, for methodology? Or, like, alphabetically according to their names? Forms? Where does it end?

 

No, the question of whether there are categories of tulpa, or, more importantly, whether there exist different types, in a mechanistic sense, of tulpas, that are different in an underlying sense, is an interesting one. But these are not useful categories! It says nothing useful to say,

a tulpa that was formally a soulbond will have a literary fictional back history

because yep, both of those are circumstantial. And

I personally have the unusual trait of blending and mentally collaborating with my host.

well, no, that's actually pretty usual, I think.

 

 

What I'm saying is that you should think seriously about what you're talking about before you start to make dividing lines. I told you this a week ago, and since then you've not only forgotten about it but apparently have decided to make categories five times as arbitrary and silly. Yes, you said that they're arbitrary, so having acknowledged that, don't do it.

 

I realise that this post comes off as kinda crabby and no-fun, especially when I don't really suggest what I'd see as a category. But that would need me to write more words than you really care to read, because I think that you are just having fun with it rather than thinking seriously about it.

 

Tldr: stop having fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threads works better as "What type of tulpa/thoughtform do you consider yourself?" or something like that. Choose Your Own Label.

 

They're all tulpas to me no matter what the person calls them anyways. Autonomous mind person. Person in your mind that shows signs of activity that are not consciously decided by the host. If they aren't that, they aren't a tulpa, and they're not really relevant here.


Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Agreed. Yeah it would have been better with a different title maybe.


What I'm saying is that you should think seriously about what you're talking about before you start to make dividing lines. I told you this a week ago, and since then you've not only forgotten about it but apparently have decided to make categories five times as arbitrary and silly. Yes, you said that they're arbitrary, so having acknowledged that, don't do it.

 

I realise that this post comes off as kinda crabby and no-fun, especially when I don't really suggest what I'd see as a category. But that would need me to write more words than you really care to read, because I think that you are just having fun with it rather than thinking seriously about it.

 

Tldr: stop having fun!

 

FINE, I will try to think of more serious and different topics than being an anima or arbitrary tulpa categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we come up with mutually exclusive categories? I'm thinking something a bit like the Meyers-Briggs system. For example, one mutually exclusive division is your tulpa's origin. Tulpas that originated inside the mind include daemons, dream characters, accidental tulpas, conventional tulpas, and more. Tulpas that originated outside the mind include soulbonds, spirit guides, and more.

 

What other mutually exclusive divisions are there?


"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I like how you keyed in on the origin of the tulpa. It is pretty clear that seems to be the main thing we are talking about. I hadn't considered a further division of tulpas that originated outside from those that originated inside the mind. Trippy cool. I like my categories, even though some people are grumpy about me doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding more fuel to the fire, what about walk ins? I see "accidental tulpa", which is close, but we've seen plenty of distinctions between the two made far and wide throughout the collective tulpamancy communities.

 

I mean, half my total system is comprised of walk ins! Both from separate origins, at that. One completely random, one "seeded", both spawned from the ether spontaneously.

 

Once again, all of it is arbitrary and pretty pointless to say. Just trying to represent, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could we come up with mutually exclusive categories?

Yes please... if we are doing categories.

 

Though for every question you ask, there are (at least) four options: yes, no, don't know, neither.

 

Tulpas that originated inside the mind include daemons, dream characters, accidental tulpas, conventional tulpas, and more. Tulpas that originated outside the mind include soulbonds, spirit guides, and more.

I'm confused here. What do you mean by "outside the mind" - someone elses mind probably? But soulbonds don't fall in that category; they can also be made inside the host like a tulpa.

 

There could be categories for imposed/not imposed/not trying to impose, but as waffles, I don't really see the point in that right now.

 

I suppose it would be neat sometimes to have one-word-descriptors. Like, some of my headmates are "dreamborn" since I first met them in dreams... but ultimately, we already have too many words for (almost) the same things.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

HOLY SHIT I LIKE THAT WORD

 

Dreamborn. Sweeeet!

 

Man, I wish I had been born in a dream now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused here. What do you mean by "outside the mind" - someone elses mind probably? But soulbonds don't fall in that category; they can also be made inside the host like a tulpa.

 

What I mean is something metaphysical. As I understand it, it used to be a common belief in soulbonding communities that writers were tapping into another universe with their writing. So soulbonds would be different from character-based tulpas, because soulbonds were *real* beings in their own universe.

 

Of course such things can never be proven, and I may have gotten the theory wrong, but I thought it would make a neat binary classification. Though as you point out, it's not really binary.


"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rant rant rant

Thanks!

That saved me from doing this. Still have to add something.

We've already said it over and over - most problems regarding categories, in fact nearly all philosophical problems arise from bad semantics and or bad grammar / syntax.

Most philosophers failed to understand the difference between exact formal languages like mathematical logic and vague natural languages like the one we use in everyday life.

This inevitably leads to nonsense at some point as the terms we use lack absolute definitions. And no matter how many other terms you use to descibe them, the ambiguity persists.

As waffles said we cannot hope to define universal categories, they are always subjective and arbitrary, and only make sense if they provide useful information under the given circumstances.

And that's harder than it sounds. Especially in our case as we have yet to define what the term 'tulpa' actually is supposed to include / exclude.

 

Furthermore, especially in respect to tulpa 'origin' we need to distinguish between what people believe for themselves and what we discuss in a theoretical manner trying to establish a feasible theory.

The belief that something originated from another dimension / heaven / hell is understandable given that humans long to find answers for phenomena they fail to explain otherwise, yet I have already laid out multiple times why such hypotheses add nothing valuable to a scientific discussion. This is not about 'not having proof'

we have proof for nothing except some formal models

, this is about empirical falsifiable evidence, and testable predictions. A hypothesis that completely lies outside the fundamental laws of nature is useless as it is arbitrary and can be anything. It is a belief and should be treated as such. I am fine with whatever people believe but don't get me into a scientific discussion with that stuff.

 

As waffles said it would be interesting to know if 'walk ins' and natural multiple personalities work the same way as consciously created tulpas but I see no way of creating any solid evidence here over the internet. From the anecdotal evidence gathered here I fail to see any fundamental differences between any of those thoughtforms and lean towards the hypothesis that they are all more or less the same and have a similar neurological background.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.