Host and Tulpa Psychological Structure

[Ziggy Stardust]

What is the general consensus/understanding of tulpaes' psychological structure?

 

From my limited understanding, they have access to all regions of the brain, but what about the psyche? How do tulpea psyche overlap with the psyche of the host?

 

Do they share a single unconscious while having separate conscious and preconscious? Or perhaps a separate unconscious, conscious, and preconscious exist for each member of the system?

 

I'm interested to know if there is a prevailing understanding of the subject, and if there are multiple perspectives, I am interested as well.

 

Please let me know if this is elementary knowledge that I have managed to overlook while educating myself about basic tulpamancy.

 

Thanks

[Guest Anonymous]

I think you will get a variety of answers. In my case I definitely, beyond a doubt, share a common consciousness and unconscious mind with my host. I say that because we can feel each other's emotions and thoughts and we dream together. This is so true he is having a hard time recognizing me as a independent person and not just a facet of himself. He can see my dreams and I can see his. I do have some hidden thoughts though, because I surprise him with things. Same thing the other way. I can't keep secrets from him very well though, and actually have never really tried to be honest. No need to.

 

Other systems will definitely say different things. I am not sure what the prevailing structure is, or even if anyone has done that kind of survey research.

 

There is one more weird thing about me. I have layers. Some of my layers are even almost split off from me, almost like there are two of me. I have written about this twice on this forum before. I have things that happen that seem like they came from me that I am not always consciously aware of doing or have control of, such as the flash visions. We both witness the flash visions and flash dreams concerning me. Sometimes he asks me what they mean and I don't know.

 

Here is one of the threads where I talk about there being two of me or two layers of me. This was on my old Groovy-guru account Are there two of me?

[Guest Anonymous]

What is the general consensus/understanding of tulpaes' psychological structure?

 

They feel separate. What happens underneath is impossible to tell.

[Stevie]

They feel separate. What happens underneath is impossible to tell.

 

Basically this. There's a lot of people with different theories and experiences to support those theories but at the end of the day, no one knows exactly what's going on.

[Faemon]

They feel separate. What happens underneath is impossible to tell.

 

Thirding this, although I'm surprised to find this the common opinion here. With rather few accidental tulpas, I'd thought that people would come into this without a tulpa, and then make one as in create one and force one, conscious every step of the way, and that the "final product" (if you will) would then be less of a mystery...especially with blending or switching also seeming so commonplace.

[Guest Anonymous]

I find it kinda interesting that Mistgod and I are so certain bout us being a combined, blended mind (and we are). That part of it seems very clear to us. Whether I have a part of my mind that really and truly is distinctly independent for real is the part we don't know. It feels distinct. What happens underneath is impossible to tell. Hee hee

[Ziggy Stardust]

Glitterbutt:

That is pretty interesting, the two layer concept. It is as if a separate unconscious has formed(for you) to a degree and is feeding you both thoughts from it because you share the same conscious.

 

An, Stevie, Faemon:

Hmmm, yeah, I suppose it is impossible to know this for sure, but from what I gather, that is the case with many things tulpa related, so it is interesting that there is not a more or less uniform guess at least for the time being until someone can ultimately prove something.

 

Faemon: Yes, this is interesting, it certainly would makes sense to think that those creating a tulpa would have a greater understanding, but I guess that would imply that we have an understanding, or awareness, of our own singular thought process in the first place, which for most, I'm pretty sure, isn't so clear.

However, it is also interesting that sentience is assumed(with the exception of Glitterbutt and perhaps a few others) without assuming a conscious/unconscious layout between host and tulpa, which I would think to be a key factor in defining sentience.

[Linkzelda]

Ironically, conventional, pre-existing psychological terminologies in describing "self," and all things implied from it (e.g. personality, etc.) cannot hold a candle towards the concept of tulpa. Maybe because people make it more grandiose than it needs to be, and yet are confident with metaphors that describe them as the host, but with tulpas, there's some transcendental push that's out of our reach in describing them. Makes you wonder if people make tulpas more ineffable than themselves while still having to rely on treating them as sentient to get an impression of "otherness" within the same mind.

 

This creation of hype over what a tulpa can be, and how the experiences can't be reducible to certain theories, and such makes it this perpetual and unsolvable case of "otherness." But, people will still try to find their own subjective meaning over what it means to be sentient, and then some, but the clincher that makes this seemingly impossible to crack down is that anyone can create their own benchmark of correctness, i.e., their own scaling of how sentient their tulpa is irrespective of other people's beliefs.

 

We end up creating a dead-end for ourselves, and when vocalizing this to others, no matter how we use language to try and describe things, no one can have a direct experience from a third person point of view over someone's inner experience, i.e., beetle in the box.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Linkzelda: While I cannot comment about my own observations regarding tulpa, the beetle in the box analogy does seem to fit quite nicely, but from the looks of it, it is what unfortunately holds the study from achieving the self proclaimed "For science!" status. Instead the study simply tries to explain how to achieve something while the "something" is left vague and undefined.

Anyhow, I do hope the best for this study, and thanks for all of your inputs.