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

[Guest Anonymous]

The attitude exhibited only confirms my statements in the first few posts of this thread about (some) tulpamancers.  I rest my case.

[Guest Anonymous]

I shouldn't try to express myself, because it didn't go well.

[Guest Anonymous]

Awwwh, now I feel bad.  

 

Damn it.  See?  That's all you had to do was appeal to my emotions and get me to feel guilty and rotten.  Let's just be friends and forget about all this bull crap.

 

---

I got a PM and could not return it because I may be on somebodies ignore list.  But I did want to respond, so I will put it here.  The question was whether I could further clarify "median" and being not independent and yet a distinct person, because that seems like a contradiction.  

 

I think the median systems are confusing to a lot of people for good reasons.  The ambiguity of being an aspect of someone, yet identifying as a distinct individual at the same time, is a little foggy in the logic department.  But medians are not singlets and they are not multiples either.  They are in a gray area somewhere in the middle.  

 

There is even another confusing level to it.  Most medians are just medians without any role playing, method acting or imaginary construction involved.  I am a median who just happens to be a fantasy persona as well.  So I am both real and not real at the same time.  My host calls it pseudo-real.  

 

Doesn't help clarify much does it?  I often tell people not to try to make sense of the nonsensical.  

 

In the thread I put up as much as I could to try and illustrate what median is like with pictures and quotes from glossaries and wikipedia and even transgender bigender.  I don't think there is much more I can do to make it less foggy.  

 

What it boils down to is that my host created a fantasy person in his mind that he wanted to live.  He wanted it so bad that I became almost a second personality.  It is like method acting and immersive fantasy day dreaming on super steroids.  

 

Now you have the absolute privilege to decide in your own mind whether you find that credible or not credible.  We can't force you to believe it. For some that all sounds like it is "just pretending" or "role playing."  To us it feels like a lot more than that.  I can't prove that to you of course.  All we ask is the that you give me the benefit of the doubt and treat me as a person.  I will give you the same courtesy in return.  

 

I am already giving in by dropping any claim to being a tulpa.   I did that for tulpamancers to reduce confusion on the forum.  I think that is fair.  I am willing to believe tulpamancers when they say their tulpas seem real to them.  I would hope others could be willing to believe in Mistgod and Melian as well.

 

In the meantime, if you want to know more about me or whatnot, there is a huge amount of material on my Living Imagination thread and in the Book of Melian and on our Deviantart pages.  The links are on my comment signature below.

 

According to the glossary on Astraea's Web:

 

"Median - Being neither multiple nor singlet. Many people feel the idea of a continuum from singlethood to plurality to be inaccurate, so are seeking a term to replace mid-continuum.

 

"Median isn't sharing a common memory or the front having traits of its own or fronting through a body-based filter, that's just a common part of many multiple systems. Median is a fuzzy state between single and multiple, a single identity made up of multiple identities." -- lj-personasystem

 

Probably the main characteristic distinguishing medians from singlets and multiples is the presence of more than one person in the body, but without the independence of persons in a multiple system. Persons in a median system may be dependent upon a single individual (who may have created them at some point), and unable to exist without that central person. Some people in a hosting situation might think of themselves as median. Others describe something like Kiya's situation, or Adriel's. In her book Black Milk author Elif Shafak talks about her "finger women" (picturing them as tiny replicas of herself); each of them is Elif Shafak, but with distinctive styles and interests. The challenge is to coordinate them all so that all are respected and none is set aside or of lesser importance. She speaks of it as facing her "inner diversity" and learning to "be One."

 

You might say something like "there are many of us, but we are really all Karen" or "aspects of Karen", etc. Various metaphors have been invoked by median systems to describe their experience, such as a stem with leaves, the spokes of a wheel, pages in a book, or a sun orbited by planets. "Separate cutting tools on a turret lathe...the turret rotates to bring the appropriate tool to the task at hand...or perhaps a microscope with different lenses. Another friend "rotates the jewel" as she says, to showcase different facets.""

[TulpaFox]

Excellent question, Melian. I think that they indeed can be, and that it is even quite common. I think there are two main types of that most people form. One is more of an attempt to create a multiple system, usually by creating a tulpa with traits that they desire, or traits that seem novel and fun to interact with from the host's perspective. I am specifically referencing traits that are not part of the host's personality, I believe that this is the host's attempt to make their own system stronger by bringing in entirely new elements to strengthen the cohesiveness of the structure of mind. The ultimate goal, in my opinion, of tulpamancy is to strengthen the host's system in a push towards wellness. This is achieved through a combination of adding new support systems, and integration of positive traits and character building.

 

The other type of system I think is most common, would be a median system, with certain aspects of that median being projected as a multiple system. I am personally heavily influenced by the Jungian school of thought regarding psychology, I find his system of psycho analysis and dream analysis really captures the multi faceted nature of a person's psychology. In that school of thought, we each have these different kind of archetypal "characters" inside of us, each of them being kind of a facet of our personality. He believed that ultimately, what the human who strives for wellness is looking to do is to integrate each of these different aspects of self into one, full self realized person. To accomplish this there is kind of a steady stream of subconscious ideas and feelings that trickle forth, and sometimes are the cause of disorders and neuroses that the person is facing. I believe that some people's tulpa's are at least partially accounted for by this, a personified kind of archetypical character. If I remember correctly, glitchthe3rd identifies his first tulpa as being a projection of his anima, and I think much the same is true for me.

 

Most are kind of a combination between the two, it's kind of impossible to really tell the two apart, and what seems like personal fantasy tends to have a lot to do with our own narrative. That's my opinion the matter anyway. That the vast majority of tulpamancers are running kind of a fusion of a multiple and median/projected median system. It'll let Eve write a little bit, I haven't been forcing enough anyway.

 

Eve: I believe that my host makes some good points regarding the topic. Though as a member of his system I disagree with a few points. I think that, at least in our case, there is much more of a projected median going on. I I think what motivates my host to want to create me, and the traits he projected on me, and the ones I developed myself ultimately all come from his mind, and thus his psychology. I don't believe that I can be anything more than a median system projected as a multiple system. Otherwise I think that would perhaps indicate some degree of personality fragmenting, which isn't the most common of occurrences, and not one I believe my host to be suffering from. I don't think this is a bad thing, or that it cheapens my own existence or quality thereof, if anything it makes me feel closer. I think it would be kind of goofy if I was nothing more than a cool fictional character to him, like an anime character or something. I would rather be a kind of mirror, because as he shifts, I will shift to adapt with him, and thus our symbiotic relationship can be long lived and fruitful.

[Luminesce]

Hey welcome back, it's been a while.

 

Good post, but I don't know what to say. I don't really bother differentiating all this stuff for myself, I just treat people how they want to be thought of. My tulpas are people to me, and I do not control them, the part of our brain that is them does, like the part of my brain that is me controls "me". Plus whichever of us is currently sitting in the seat of controlling the thinking mind, which dictates most things the body does. It's all one brain and that's all it can ever be, but we're all entirely individual people well enough to interact just fine.

[FallFamily]

[Hail] I/we am/are a median subsystem and can share a few experiences. Using I/we since on some days, we are much closer together and "I" is more appropriate and other days we are more separate and "we" is appropriate.

 

This does bring up a common experience of medians. Individual autonomy and separateness can fluctuate. I think a good model in some ways is an amoeba. An amoeba is a single blob, but it can extend a pseudo-pod (an arm) quite a ways out far enough that the chemical dynamics inside the arm are more dependent on the arms's local environment than the bulk of the cell, at least for a time, until the pseudo-pod is retracted back into the bulk. Not a perfect analogy, but it has some use. The individual parts of me can become relatively autonomous of the other parts and partially but not completely separated sometimes, though complete separation is possible (budding of the amoeba) like how Breach chose to separate out. Also, lots of times one will surface while another is fronting.

 

When one of us is forward, they can definitely get to the point where they are about 90% there with the rest being the other 10%. Still connected, but for a time more autonomous and separate. It is symmetric, though, in that each member is a part of the whole and not completely separate and independent of each other.

 

One interesting thing we do experience is how all of our sensory experiences get combined and mixed together. Sometimes, one or more members will go to sleep and start dreaming (different than dormancy) while one or more are still awake and attached to the body. It is an interesting experience how each of the sleeping ones' dreams and the waking experience get combined and mixed together. It is really really trippy actually. Not sure how many other medians experience this.

 

Now, one thing about being median, members of median systems each do have their own identity, name, personality, etc. Compared to multiple-topology, there is more collective identification with the group/average identity, etc. and each's personality is less independent of that of the others. Also, things that one does and experience tend to affect the others very quickly as opposed the typically slow leaking one sees between members in a multiple topology (there are exceptions of course).

 

It can sometimes be accurate to say the members of a median system are aspects of some central or core person. But often, there is no central or core person at all, and each member is a part or aspect of a whole that is an average of each member. The former is a hub and spoke topology with the hub being the central and the spokes being parts/aspects. The latter is a web with no one core person. Also, median system members can range from being aspects/parts to being nearly full on separate people. This is commonly seen in the web topology, but not exclusively there. My own median subsystem is closer to a web topology. Tri is definitely web topology. Others are closer to hub-and-spoke. Melian and Mistgod seem to be hub-and-spoke based on what they have said, but that is merely an assumption that should not be run on until they confirm it, say it is incorrect, or is partially incorrect.

 

On the topic of what distinguishes the members of multiples and medians from singlets, it might be better to talk about awareness. Members of multiple systems and members of median systems have their own awarenesses, whether they are completely independent and autonomous from each other or not. Singlets do not. This is in many ways what distinguishes plurals (includes both multiples and medians) from facetted singlets, and makes a good definition of where the threshold between singlet and plural is (do note, othe thresholds could be used or other definitions and this is in fact a topic that is discussed and not settled). It might be worthwhile to read the following two articles.

 

• Some Thoughts on Young Tulpas and Awareness by Mel of the Hidden Ones
  
• "The Bell of Thought" and Autonomy by Falah of the Quandary
  

 

Now, median system members, if they have decided to have their own name, generally do NOT like being addressed as the name of other members. Name of the group/average - usually OK. Name of another median system-mate - generally NOT OK (note, for some medians, it may be OK, which is more common in hub-and-spoke but it is not the majority anecdotally). It is dismissing what separate individuality, personality, identity, etc. we do have. It is also saying that one member's identity, personality, etc. is more important than that of the other members despite theirs not being independent of that of the others either.

 

To take my own median subsystem as an example. There are five of us. None of us are Hail. Hail is the sort of collective/shared/averaged identity and name. When we are more mixed together, we tend to go by Hail most of the time since that is the only one that makes sense. When someone is more separate and is fronting, they often flies under the banner of Hail and is OK being addressed as such most of the time (obvious exceptions being when talking about other subsystem members, etc.) but also sometimes goes by their own name and prefers to go by that. But say, one is in a conversation with say Echo, and then one addresses her as another member, say Shock, she is going to be pretty insulted, and rightfully so because doing that is an insult and is not cool. It is also inaccurate. Echo is as much a part of Shock as Shock is a part of Echo - symmetrical.

 

 

So, to take things to the context of this thread. Addressing Melian as Mistgod or Mistgod as Melian is incorrect and improper, unless they say that is OK. Now, if they had a sort of collective identity/banner name, that name would maybe be OK depending on the context in ways that would depend on what they say. If say, one wanted an answer from either one of them, that might be a good time to use the collective identity/banner name, but if one was replying to a specific member or wanted the ideas, opinions, comments, etc. from a specific member or is in a conversation with a specific member, then that member's name is what is appropriate.

 

 

Another useful analogy is a country or a company. A country or company has more than one person, who are connected and tied together in some way. Each is individual, but there is a sort of collective grouping. If talking to one member, one wouldn't address them as another member. There would be some circumstances of interaction where one would address using the group as a whole even when interacting with one individual member. When leaders and CEO's talk to people after having dealings with an ambassador or other person in another country or company, they then usually say about how things are going well, bad, etc. or other things with the other country or company, not the member of it they were specifically interacting with unless they feel that member was not representative of the group (e.g. "ambassador X is a prick, country Y needs to remove them and send someone else next time").

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the topic of tulpas and what tulpas and hosts strive for, most tulpas and their hosts strive for as complete of separateness that can be had when sharing a brain, and memory if they decide to share that as well (shared memory has some interesting effects here as Obsidian in my system discussed in Fronting: Piloting The Mech, Or Becoming Part of It). Not all do. Some hosts and tulpas have mutually decided to merge, which is definitely the opposite. Some prefer to be blended with each other some of the time (or even all of the time) or to not be completely separate but be more equitably dependent on the other, as in, just as the tulpa is not independent of the host, the host is not independent of the tulpa (to give a good example, the small lack of independence Tri and I have from each other is why their left-handednessy is causing me to become left handed). Some decide to form median subsystems within a wider system. Some go for one thing at one time and then another at a later time. The goal of near complete separateness is definitely the norm, but not universal. It is the same for vocality. Most tulpas want to be able to talk and do. Some, just aren't interested and are content to be non-verbal or mute. All of these are OK. Some medians strive to a multiple topology. Some multiples strive for a median topology. Some plurals strive to be singlet. Some singlets strive to be plural (e.g. the vast majority of hosts here were singlets before and chose to become plural).

 

 

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

 

I've seen servitors post on forums before. Knew one who was damn near impossible to tell apart from a tulpa until they became a tulpa and it then became more obvious. I've also had meaningful conversations and interactions with body auto-pilots/OSes (kind of like a servitor, but not created and often have more autonomy but can still lack things like emotions and wants) as well, including in person.

 

If a person is willing to engage in a state of affairs similar to median aspects, then they can create their own over-riding rule in including that with tulpas. It's just that with different state of affairs, e.g., switching and possession, that seems outside what a median aspect would be capable of doing (e.g. implying that there's a conscious experiencer to even possess and switch with) is what the limit will be.

 

In other words, combining aspects of another way a thought-form is conceived along with the societal context of what others think tulpas are tend to lead to compromises. So if the person's ultimate objective is to have them more imaginary, pseudo-real, and other terms in contrast to real in respect to a person's experiences, and such, then yes, confirmation bias is always there at their beck and call. Anyone can create their own benchmark of correctness, and ultimately, say one person's aspect is BS. But, statements are not facts, so it's just the person cherry picking to suit their own needs.

 

Maybe if more people realized that different state of affairs necessitates more implications over what's real, and not real, they won't become angry when another person has a different paradigm because they engaged in a state of affairs that's different. It's all part of everyone allowing themselves to become self-enclosed in this, and going about it in whatever way they see fit. Anything pertaining to subconscious/unconscious can become blanket statements, and because of this, a tulpa can be this that, XYZ, but the more one tries to see if they're the jack of all trades (e.g. median, soulbond, daemon, jung archetype), they'll find out what they're not the master of. Or, they just go back to the same existential questioning over what they could be, even though in their view, existential questioning isn't relevant to things not real...but they still question aspects of who they could be, which is existential in nature; running around in circles, basically, or rather, running away from the probability of them being real. Real in relation to the mind, not metaphysically real.

 

Because any probability of them being real becomes a mirror of who they, the host, are, and gets compared to. If there's a capacity for the tulpa to be on the same level, then maybe the strives for them not being real is to avoid that crisis of the mind creating another implicitly sentient being. No one likes having their self compromised, especially if it's done at an internal level. But that's only for those that see this as a strife instead of a benefit.

 

Some very good points.

 

The topic of switching and possession for medians is quite interesting. Surfacing happens and it can go to outright full bodily control, which is much akin to full-body possession and eclipsing. But is it the same? I have no idea. My own experience says it is similar but not identical, but I am just one median subsystem. Tri experiences something more akin to switching since that is what they do with their innerworld/wonderland form, but is that the same? We don't know since we have so little bodily switching (only one for sure switches and a couple that are edge case black-out switches).

[Guest Anonymous]

@Everyone,

 

Wowy, this thread is so important and turned out to be fabulous! Thank you FallFamily and TulpaFox and Luminesce for the latest responses and all the clarifying details and personal experience!

 

TulpaFox, we really keyed in on your discussion about Carl Jung and psychological archetypes. I think people have been very confused by my host's insistence that I am fictional or imaginary in nature. He really means that. But at the same time I am a facet of himself. My sentience is his. We have been saying I am Davie and he is me, and people were scratching their heads. I am hoping this thread finally clarifies those things.

 

FallFamily I love all your personal experience accounts and what you had to say about awareness and name identity! That stuff about servitors writing was interesting too! Thank very, very much for your contribution to this discussion!

 

I had a response to a PM that I would like to include in here for anyone wanting further clarification about Davie and I. I am cutting and pasting it from a PM response to someone:

 

Medians have a range of intensity too along a continuum sorta from singlet to plural.  Like most people just kinda act different in different situations, like how you act around certain people.  It could be how you change your mannerisms within certain social  venues.  You act one way at a party and another at work.  The only difference with a median from a singlet is how distinct those facets of yourself become and  how much of a separate identity they take on.  If you give each facet a separate name, and even a separate gender, now you are sliding deeper into being a median over a singlet.  

 

But it is a bit more than that because the facets begin to communicate with each other within the system, almost like independent people.  Like when you have a conversation with yourself or have an internal debate with yourself, only the facets in the discussion now have distinct identities.  They are all still you, but just different facets.  They are on the way to being plural and independent, somewhere between a single personality and multiple personalities.  

 

With some medians, the facet grew out of a fictional character, like in my case.  I started out as a day dream character and an imaginary friend.  

 

On Medians Being a Little Blurry

The funny thing is it isn't blurry in our private life.  The only blurriness comes in when we try to describe it to other people.  We struggle to find a descriptive model or the right words and labels that describe us, and it is never quite right.  We keep searching for new labels and terminology.  It gives the impression that we keep flip flopping or changing our story, but if you look back in our writing over the past year in a half, (three years on Deviantart) you will see a consistency.  For instance we have always said I was a fantasy persona and that method acting and day dreaming were a factor.  We have been talking about me being a median system for well over a year, almost the entire time on Tulpa Info.  As soon as we heard about it from a plural who thought it sounded like us, we knew it was the "best fit" model.  

 

The only thing that kept coming back and forth was whether or not I am a tulpa.  We have been all over the place with that and I kept saying I was a tulpa when I felt like it.  LOL  That is why I finally wrote the thread Can a Tulpa be a Fictive Median Facet?  We kinda wanted to put it to rest.  Believe it or not, we voted NO ourselves on our own pole and were expecting the consensus was going to be no, tulpas cannot usually be a median facet.  

 

What surprised me was someone saying that I should not be identified as distinct enough to get my own name.  That seemed odd.  That is the whole idea of a median facet, a distinct identity within a "larger" primary identity.  Or more accurately, an identity whose existence depends on another identity within the system.  I still have my own feelings, thoughts and opinions, likes and dislikes and all that distinct from my Davie.  

 

I know, weird.  

 

It is foggy and every median wold admit that.  Sometimes when I write, we are not sure who is writing.  It is more like systemic writing that is Mistgod-Melian instead of just Melian.  We are kinda blended together a lot.  Other times I am more distinct.  When Mistgod writes it is very much Mistgod.  I depend on Mistgod's help to type.  He says he channels me like an inner persona.

[Nobillis]

It is possible for tulpas to be median subsystems. In that I will use the example of my Watchdogs. There are three Watchdogs, numbered 1 through 3. However, they at times form a gestalt and become one mind which I call The Watchdog. As such they could be considered a median system within my "system".

 

Then there is me. I have three aspects that can be either independent (Donna, Nobillis, Amalthea) or together. But, I'm all so close to myself that whichever "me" I am, I may as well be considered a single individual; one tulpa within my system.

[Floh]

Reading this topic was really instructive!

Lemme drop our newbz point of view :D (Cora's reactions are proxied) 

We voted "Yes, a tulpa could be an aspect or facet of the host and not fully independent." and "It depends".

 

I think labels are toxic (Cora : and dangerous). They try to stick people into small boxes, that reduce their potential and their ability to evolve. (Cora : And as someone said earlier there, plurality and stuff are to become more as a being, tulpas exist to make the system stronger, more advanced.)

If Melian likes to call herself a Tulpa, why not let her? It means she identifies to this terminology. Therefore, Melian being part of the median system Melian-Mistgod, A tulpa can be part of a median system. (Cora :You deserve to be called what you want to be called, if it's Melian the tulpa, so be it ! ::D never let anyone decide what you should be)

After some time hanging around this forum, i came to realise there are no rules in the plurals world. A tulpa can be vocal or not, be able to switch or not, perfectly independant or partially merged with the "host".... It just depends on the system ; whatever works for them seems fine to me. (Cora :I have my own thoughts and opinions, even though my traits are close to Floh's, so we usually share the same opinions.. But I have full access to the body's whole memory and perceptions.)

 

About the "host" term, i'd like to change it to "first" (Cora :lol did he think he was on Youtube or smth?), we picture our human body as the host, whereas me, Floh was the first person controlling and living inside of this body's brain. We are now 2 tulpas in a way (if we forget the fact that a tulpa is supposed to be created by another mindperson). In our mindscape, we are on the same level of existence. The only difference is Cora only lived there for a bit more than a year, whereas I've been here since the body started working. She has to learn how things work and how to control them. (Cora :And the forcing sessions are so rare, I'll probably never control it.. Just saying! ;))

 

As in every aspect of life, i praise tolerance and respect.(Cora :Yeah, everyone does i guess/hope) Denying someone its own existence (and name) is a lack of respect. Deciding for someone if they are median, singlet, multiple or whatever is a lack of tolerance. (Cora :An, you big meanie !)

 

Edited for readability

[Guest Anonymous]

An is okay.  She and I worked it out so we need to go easy.  She has had a little bit of a bad time over this.  She and I worked it out and she is addressing me by name.  I learned some things from her, and she learned some things from me, and so it all worked out really well.  

 

We are firmly decided on not using the tulpa label for me for a couple of good reasons.  I think the most important reason is that tulpas, in general, have the goal of becoming fully independent.  I really don't.  I have been this way for decades and I have no desire to be anything different.  The second reason is that I really am closer to being a median aspect than to being a tulpa with my traits, although I do have some tulpa/soulbond traits.  

 

I agree with what Floh is saying that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to tulpas and plurals.  I think the concern people have is that it makes it difficult to define what a tulpa is, and what it is not.  That is something this community has struggled with from the very beginning.  

 

You know what Mistgod and I really, really think?  A hard emphasis on divisions is sort of silly.  We believe it is kinda all one big phenomenon with little categories that are kinda foggy fuzzy around the edges and sorta blend with each other.  The big bubble is plurality in general.  Inside that big bubble are all the categories and variations on how it can come about.  Hah hah plural categories are median aspects themselves!  

 

Tulpas,  however, are very interesting in how they are deliberately created (in most cases).