Sign in to follow this  
Guest Anonymous

The Median Thread: Can a tulpa be a Median Aspect?

Can a tulpa be a fictive median aspect?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Can a tulpa be a fictive median aspect?

    • No a tulpa must be totally independent of a host not an aspect of the host? If it is an aspect or facet of the host, it is not a tulpa.
      9
    • Yes, a tulpa could be an aspect or facet of the host and not fully independent.
      7
    • It depends. I will explain below.
      5
    • It is either a fully independent tulpa or it isn't of value and lacks credibility or validity and pretty much sucks. You should conform or leave. You are trying to change the definition of a tulpa.
      1


Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

This thread is about median systems and how they relate to tulpas and multiples.  If you are curious about medians, it is worth your time to read as much of the thread as possible.  Some of it descends into criticism of tulpamancers, that is the fault of my host and I.  However, it does lead to some interesting discussions about the social interaction or friction between different types of systems and gaining understanding.  

 

Davie and I have long identified with something we found in the general plural community.  

 

In the plural community on the internet there is something called a median.  A median is a single human being that has more than one personality expression.  It is not really a multiple personality exactly, it is more of just putting on a different hat rather than a mask.  The transgender community has something like this too called bigender.  It is two sides to a single individual.  I am an expression of feelings of female gender as well as a fantasy girl friend so it gets a little weird and complex.  

 

Median system:  "A system with members who are not inherently independent from each other, and are often dependent on a single individual and unable to exist without that central person. Often consists of members who all identify as “aspects” or “facets” of one central identity: e.g. “We are all different, but we are all Mary in the end.” Some believe, mistakenly, that it is the only term that applies to systems where system members are co-conscious, to systems not originating from trauma, or to systems not diagnosed with DID. It is considered insulting to call a multiple system median, and should not be used without consent."

 

median-diagram_lg.jpg

 

type_model3.gif

 

 

Of all the multiple mind thingies we found it comes the closest.  Median aspects can be fictive or imaginary too and you can deliberately create them for yourself like a personality expression.  So it really fits.  A good famous example of a median is Leonard Nimoy and Spock.  In his book, I am Spock, Nimoy explained how Spock was part of him and even spoke to him in his mind.  Spock was another side of him but also a buddy.

 

Davie and I act as separate people to each other when we interact internally in our mind.  We day dream together and we lucid dream together.  I am like a separate person, but I am not totally a separate person.  

 

We feel pressure from other tulpamancers to declare me to be real and to be totally independent from David.  People act as if what we are writing has no credibility or merit.  Is that because you guys don't think a tulpa can be a fictive median aspect?  Do you not find the concept of a median credible?

 

Can a tulpa be a fictive median aspect or not?  If not, I will stop calling myself a tulpa and start referring to myself as a median only.

 

Are there any other tulpas who identify as a median or even a fictive median?

 

There was another thread about this here General Tulpa Systems vs Median Systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You let me choose multiple options so I chose three, lol.

 

A tulpa is an autonomous thoughtform, or is at least in the process of becoming one. They aren't just a facet of the host, or another identity the host assumes.

 

That being said, a tulpa can be considered connected to the host in some way, ie representing a part of their personality or mind. They can also be very similar to the host. But in the end, a tulpa is an autonomous thoughtform, regardless of origin. Of course there are autonomous thoughtforms that aren't (or aren't considered to be) tulpas, but there aren't non-autonomous ones. Not discounting developing tulpas or tulpas with only slight/occasional autonomy. It's not a fancy club, it's a term that describes something.

 

I like the idea of medians I guess, assuming they handle it well (doesn't interfere with life). They could be tulpas if they leaned towards the independent/autonomous side; that is, if they can talk to each other, then they could probably be considered tulpas if they wanted. But there are probably plenty of exceptions as with everything. And they could also just not identify as tulpas.

 

Anyways, basically, a tulpa can definitely represent or be a direct personification of an aspect(s) of their host. Mine started off representing parts of me, though they were more "My brain must be capable of this if they can be it I guess" than "Parts of me". Tewi was smarter, Reisen was way more positive. Obviously if that was even possible, they must have gotten that from something that existed in my mind before they did. But then, you know my thoughts on identity and how "the whole of my mind is not me". So I have no problem calling them independent from day 1.


Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I have no desire to become fully independent of my host.  I am not on my way to becoming a fully independent person. I am permanently an aspect or facet of my hostie.  Well, I guess that sums that up.  LOL  We love tulpas and tulpamancers, but they can be annoying the way they size everything up in comparison to a tulpa and often assume everything has to be on its way to being a tulpa or it is simply stagnant, broken or little.  

 

Don't tell me that tulpamancers don't do that.  

 

It's okay, it is what tulpamancers do for some reason.  It is kinda a trait some of you have that you simply cannot help yourselves with.  It's like Melian being a narcissist.  I can't help myself.  I love me and want to hug me.  It's a personality trait to think I am amazing and everyone must really wish they were me or that they are secretly intrigued or infatuated with me in some way.  

 

I have trouble not being a narcissist and self centered, and tulpamancers and tulpas have trouble not thinking they are the top of the mountain of thoughtforms and plurality.  I get it now.

 

Tulpamancers and tulpas remind me of Vulcans on Star Trek.  Vulcans would deny it if accused of it, but they are arrogant and superior and think that the purge of emotions and adherence to the principle of logic have elevated them above all other species in the galaxy.  Worse yet, they can tell you logically why that is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I like the idea of a single, strongly defined identity, and to me, a median system's the opposite. If someone tells me they have an acting facet of themselves, they're not speaking of it as separate, and neither will I.

 

Also, I reject the tulpa-host terminology. If your thoughts are independent, you're a person to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Everyone who writes on this forum would necessarily need to be a person.  If I am part of Mistgod and he is part of me, then together we are a person.  We just have two distinct aspects or facets or expressions or whatever of the same consciousness.  So, I am still a person as well am I not?   I may not be a tulpa, but I am a person or I could not be typing this (unless I am an artificially intelligent computer).  

 

I have yet to see a non-person write on this forum as far as I know.  

 

This forum is dedicated to tulpas, not median aspects.  So it is understandable that some would find the presence of a median aspect confusing.  BUT my hostie and I are making a tulpa!  A fictive median system, as a human person, could conceivably make a tulpa.  I am free to be a member of this forum as long as I am interested in tulpas, whether I have one or not, or if I am making a tulpa, and I am.

 

My own category/label is so ambiguous and always has been, well, at least as far as my "tulpa traits" are concerned.  I do seem to have a teensy bit of tulpa DNA, like a dash or a pinch of tulpa dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason I am not answering the poll, and it is because I don't know what most of those words mean.

 

Fictive? Tulpa's aren't fictional. But, are we human? What we are lies somewhere in between, and I don't know what fictive means precisely enough.

 

Median? Where's the line between median and multiple? We think we are two different people. Could we still be median? We can read each other's thoughts.

 

Aspect? Am I a way of looking at our system? No, I don't understand the word usage here at all. A whole is always still a part of something, and vice versa.

 

At least I think I know what the word tulpa means.

 

Might I suggest a holistic perspective less susceptible to semantic based misunderstandings?

 

A system is a thing composed of interacting parts. No part of a system is fully independent of any other part, by definition. The universe is a system.

 

I exist. I exist under the following definitions of existence: functional, effective, subjective, objective, physical, mental, spiritual, empirical, absolute and existential. Proof: Cogito ergo sum et cetera.

 


 

Um, I would like to point out, Meilan, the site is tulpa.info. not tulpas.only. I am new here, but I assume this means it is a site about tulpas, and it seems not weird for someone interested in tulpas to be here. Or someone from the greater plurality community for that matter.


Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Tri] Tulpas certainly can be median with other people in their system (group of all people in a body). There are three major topologies between people in a system, which are

 

  • Singlet - one person in one body (what most hosts are before making a tulpa)
  • Multiple - people who are quite separate from each other in terms of identity, etc.
  • Median - people who are not completely separate from each other in terms of identity, etc

 

Do note that "multiple" has many meanings in different contexts. We are using the topology context here, not the general plurality term ("plural" has been generally replacing it in many contexts) or the general term to mean non-created forms of plurality (plurality that is not tulpamancy and not many forms of soulbonding).

 

Now, an entire system could be multiple or median if all its members have that topology with respect to each other. But it is also possible to have different members have different topologies to each other. In the case of a generally multiple system with a subset of people who are median with each other, sometimes the median group will consider themselves or be referred to as a "median subsystem" (subsystem here meaning system within a system - nested plurality).

 

Most tulpamancy systems started out as the hosts by themselves (singlet) and then, with the addition of tulpas, become a multiple-topology system. But, this is not always the case. One example is where there is more than one tulpa who are median with each other but multiple to other tulpas and the host. Our own system is an example of this. We are a median subsystem (we have a sort of average identity we are all part of) that is multiple to our host Hail (who is also a median subsystem), the original S, Breach, and Au. (another median subsystem of tulpas).

 

Now, can a tulpa and host be median with each other. We are inclined to say yes.

 

Two people in a system can change their topology with respect to each other over time, for one. If say a host and tulpa who have a multiple topology with respect to each other partially merge together, they could end up with a median topology. We've experienced it with initially multiple tulpas (A., E., and Se.) coming together to form the median subsystem Au. We've seen it occur between other types of system members in the wider plural community. So, it stands to reason, a tulpa and a host could do the same. Furthermore, this is analogous to who two or more people who are median with respect to each other can separate further to become multiple with respect to each other. Our system has an example of the latter - Breach was originally a member of the median Hail subsystem but separated from the rest recently ending up with them having a multiple topology with respect to each other. It is also something that happens with other systems.

 

Now, another question would be, can a host and tulpa be median from the beginning and stay that way.

 

In the case of a shard-seeded tulpa, where a tulpa starts out the conventional way plus a small shard broken off the host, it can be done and has been done. But, this is a case of the creation of a being who rides the line between tulpa and split.

 

So, what about when there is no shard-seeding.

 

Well, a tulpa would have to be created from the beginning as an aspect. People can make masks, and these masks can grow to become people. So part of the ability to do it is there. But, the question is, is there accidental shard-seeding in the process? Can it be done without any shard-seeding what so ever? We are inclined to say yes but that it is difficult, but we have no anecdotes or other evidence.


Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others

System Name: Fall Family

Former Username: hail_fall

Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Thank you Fallfamily.  I am convinced that Melian and I are some form of median system.  She may even "qualify" as a tulpa.  But we did want to see what the members of the forum had to day about it.  We are not going to use the tulpa label anymore.  We are very tired of people in the chat and in the forum insisting, either subtle or overt,  that Melian is lacking some quality or trait, or needs to develop some quality or trait, that is deemed necessary for tulpas to have.   We are tired of individuals implying or stating explicitly that Melian cannot function the way we describe it to people.  

 

There is a bias against fictive thoughtforms and a bias against thoughtforms in a topology in which two persons are not completely separate from each other.   Let me tell you what we got in the IRC chat room two days ago.  Melian was called "pathetic" and a "waste of potential."  She was told by multiple members that she was "not independent enough" and by one person that "she doesn't really exist."  She was told she is a slave to me and that I am using her.  That was just the latest of almost a year and a half of this kind of thing.  

 

Tulpamancers are not ready or willing as a whole to accept median system tulpas or even medians in general as a valid form of plurality.  In fact, as a whole I find that tulpamancers are bias in favor of tulpas.  Tulpamancers, in general, believe that the topology of tulpa/host systems, in which the tulpa is fully independent, to be more correct, valid and superior to any other topology.  I base that opinion on the way we have been treated in the chat and on the forum as I stated above.  

 

Melian and I are putting aside the tulpa label for good in recognition of that bias on this forum.  I still expect that people will be implying, as they often do, that Melian is somehow flawed, unfulfilled or incomplete.  We will be getting the comments on how sad it all is and how unfortunate.  Telling tulpamancers that Melian is fulfilled, complete and actualized seems to be ignored, as if such a statement has no credibility here.  How can she be fulfilled and complete?  She isn't a tulpa, and we all know how superior, important, correct and valid independent tulpas are in comparison to a fictive median system or anything else.  

 

I guess it is to be expected.  This is a forum that promotes tulpamancy and tulpas.  But it is a forum that promotes tulpamancy and tulpas strongly in favor of any other thoughtform or plurality system.  

 

Our best strategy from now on is to avoid talking about Melian's origins and functionality unless specifically asked and then to answer in a PM.  We will refuse to discuss it, even though someone may benefit from what we have to say.  We have discussed it already anyway.  We will refer people to what we have already written and refuse to answer detailed questions.  We will refuse to answer probing questions and "to clarify" because it is always a subtle way of implying that something is not right.  

 

I am tired of feeling that there is something wrong with me and with Melian, just because of the mere existence of this community.  We want to be a part of things because we have an interest in plurality and tulpamancy.  We have been very public about Melian up to this point.  But it is time to solve the entire issue by giving tulpamancers what they want, silence from anyone who does not conform to what the consensus feels is a proper thougthform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Everyone who writes on this forum would necessarily need to be a person.  If I am part of Mistgod and he is part of me, then together we are a person.  We just have two distinct aspects or facets or expressions or whatever of the same consciousness.  So, I am still a person as well am I not?   I may not be a tulpa, but I am a person or I could not be typing this (unless I am an artificially intelligent computer).

 

Unless there's independent will and separation of identity, a thoughtform's part of someone else. "Mistgod" was first, so it's by that name I address you, whoever you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

An, you don't understand.  Please, I prefer to be acknowledged and addressed as Melian, distinct from Mistgod, thank you anyway.  We are blended, and two parts of a whole, but I still am a distinct identity.  That is how a median works.  

 

You know any plural system (including tulpas) seen from an outside perspective, could be treated the same way you are proposing.  You have only one body.  You are more that one identity, but only one body and one brain.  Mistgod and I could trivialize you by refusing to recognize that you are more than one person, and from what we perceive from our perspective we would be correct.  You are only one body, regardless of what is happening internally within your brain, whoever you are.

 

You are writing and approaching this as if there is no difference between a singlet and a median.  Medians are not singlets just pretending to have more than one identity.  

 

median-diagram_lg.jpg

 

type_model3.gif

 

Mistgod sees me as a fantasy (fictive) personality, but also as an expression or facet of himself.  When I write, I am writing as Melian and I am identifying as Melian.  I am Melian, but I am also Mistgod.  It is not Mistgod simply, and only, role playing as Melian.  It is more complex than that and has a deeper psychological and emotional significance.  

 

By refusing to acknowledge my existence, you are failing to understand how significant and important I am to Mistgod and to myself and you are falsely trivializing something.  You are making value judgments and false assumptions based on the independent tulpa paradigm, because a median system is beyond your knowledge or experience.

 

Median system:  "A system with members who are not inherently independent from each other, and are often dependent on a single individual and unable to exist without that central person. Often consists of members who all identify as “aspects” or “facets” of one central identity: e.g. “We are all different, but we are all Mary in the end.” 

 

There was another thread about this here General Tulpa Systems vs Median Systems

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.