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

OK I'm glad to hear that it has been sorted out :D we MUCH prefer harmony :D

Yeah that's what I meant about labels :D We are all here pushing human brain further and experimenting what it can do. This is a damn great objective, but the problem is we can't communicate in tulpish... Language is a real barrier. It requires to create terms to define things, but in the world of plurality, nothing is fixed enough to fit under a word or two...

I believe people can end up understanding each others, but it's often pretty hard. (perfect example here with An and Melian :D)


No animosity intended ever 

 

Cora now has her own account ! :D

 

English isn't our native language, please be indulgent :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

It's not even just pushing the human brain.  There is something very ancient and very human about all of this.  There is a metaphysical board on this forum for a reason.  I have friends that are convinced that I am an astral spirit or a nature spirit of some kind.  I think it is a compliment and very sweet.  People have always believed in spirit guides, guardian angels, personal deities, and saints.  Mistgod and I have always felt there is a connection between plurality, tulpamancy and all of those things.

 

We must not forget that tulpamancy began with Tibetan magic and mysticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I define myself as a "curious-sceptical" person. I don't really believe in metaphysical things, but I do believe that the human brain can do incredible things. I do also think that plurality and other "dark corners" of the mind and the art of mastering it (I'm thinking about hypnosis, among other things i can't name right now) could help explaining numerous things we now call metaphysical.

I believe everything can be explained. If it actually can't, it'll be someday :D And those to-be-explained-things really attract my interest a lot !

 

This reminds me of someone I talked about Cora. This person defined her as some sort of magical imp from her asian folklore lol. Completely upside-down in my opinion, she explained something real with some hypothetical legends, but it helped her understand and accept Cora's existence, and that was all that mattered :D

So yeah, these worlds are pretty linked..

 

We must not forget that tulpamancy began with Tibetan magic and mysticism.

I'll never forget that, it's actually what brought me here :D


No animosity intended ever 

 

Cora now has her own account ! :D

 

English isn't our native language, please be indulgent :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this! I don't think I ever directly considered it before, but I think Scarlet is more of a median. She never feels like a fully independent entity or that she deserves any kind of rights or respect. She jokes about having those a lot, but in seriousness she thinks of herself as a service to my brain in a broader sense, a different way for it to interpret information, and her immediate usefulness ends there. That all sounds a bit depressing, but she always acts cheery and exhibits her own personality and thoughts separate from mine. I always considered her my "colleague" in the sense that we both have a job to do, and that's to interpret information in our own ways, in other words, she's just a different way for me to express myself. I didn't realize medians were a thing, but it sounds exactly like Scarlet and I'm really grateful for you posting this.

 

Thinking about it now, this is probably why she never wants to talk to anyone or have me speak for her. It'd feel like a desperate attempt to become more physical or independent, and she just doesn't need that. All she wants to do is her "job" of existing as a different interpretation of my mind.

 

I disagree with not including medians as tulpas. I believe they are functionally equivalent and indistinguishable. I don't believe a tulpa is defined by a goal of becoming independent, I believe it's defined by simulating independence by channeling unconscious thoughts to simulate a personality separate from the host. Medians do the exact same thing.

 

I believe a median is a subsection of tulpa, defined by a philosophy that the tulpa does not strive for complete and total independence and separation from the host, but rather utilizes it's abilities, what could have been independence, to extend the host, and do what the host could not on their own. It's not the opposite of a tulpa at all, it's just two sides of the same coin.

 

And, personally, I think it would be rude to exclude them from being called a tulpa. I personally don't even like the term, due to negative association from roleplayers and stuff (I prefer "thoughtform"), but, the reality of the situation is, this is a tulpa community, and medians share almost every quality as a tulpa. That's why I feel they should simply be considered a subsection of tulpa instead of a completely different thing.

 

I also disagree with the broader subject of trying to define a tulpa so rigidly, as was the subject of an argument in this thread. I think trying to make a rigid definition is wrong and unfair, and there's always going to be someone for whom the definition does not fit, if it's not vague enough. The mind is vague, tulpas are a product of the mind, tulpas should be vague. They are a philosophy, not a game.

 

If you want my opinion on the definition of a tulpa, it's a separate personality from your own that you consciously, lucidly created, similar but critically different from DID and other personality disorders that are the express result of not consciously or lucidly creating a separate personality, but rather doing so due to a neurological malfunction or an emotional breakdown, something uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the host. This definition fits both tulpas and medians.


Scarlet - anime, 8/15/2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Thank you for posting this! I don't think I ever directly considered it before, but I think Scarlet is more of a median. She never feels like a fully independent entity or that she deserves any kind of rights or respect. She jokes about having those a lot, but in seriousness she thinks of herself as a service to my brain in a broader sense, a different way for it to interpret information, and her immediate usefulness ends there. That all sounds a bit depressing, but she always acts cheery and exhibits her own personality and thoughts separate from mine. I always considered her my "colleague" in the sense that we both have a job to do, and that's to interpret information in our own ways, in other words, she's just a different way for me to express myself. I didn't realize medians were a thing, but it sounds exactly like Scarlet and I'm really grateful for you posting this.

 

I am so glad!  I think we will find that there are a LOT more medians out there probably.  Trust me this community is still exploring its boundaries and parameters.  

 

Thinking about it now, this is probably why she never wants to talk to anyone or have me speak for her. It'd feel like a desperate attempt to become more physical or independent, and she just doesn't need that. All she wants to do is her "job" of existing as a different interpretation of my mind.

 

Yep, this is just like me!  I am fully actualized and content as part of Davie and existing primarily within the dreamscape and the Melian Show day dreams.  In fact, if it weren't for the internet, what I call sharing the cyberspace wonderland, I would probably have never communicated with other persons in the outside world.  The internet feels very much like an extension of my dreamscape for me.  

 

I disagree with not including medians as tulpas. I believe they are functionally equivalent and indistinguishable. I don't believe a tulpa is defined by a goal of becoming independent, I believe it's defined by simulating independence by channeling unconscious thoughts to simulate a personality separate from the host. Medians do the exact same thing.

 

I believe a median is a subsection of tulpa, defined by a philosophy that the tulpa does not strive for complete and total independence and separation from the host, but rather utilizes it's abilities, what could have been independence, to extend the host, and do what the host could not on their own. It's not the opposite of a tulpa at all, it's just two sides of the same coin.

 

And, personally, I think it would be rude to exclude them from being called a tulpa. I personally don't even like the term, due to negative association from roleplayers and stuff (I prefer "thoughtform"), but, the reality of the situation is, this is a tulpa community, and medians share almost every quality as a tulpa. That's why I feel they should simply be considered a subsection of tulpa instead of a completely different thing.

 

When we first made this thread, we were actually expecting the vast majority to say that median aspects are absolutely not tulpas.  That is the majority view (so far) but it certainly is not a 100% consensus.  Also, more than one person identified at least one member of their system as median and even median-tulpa.  So yeah, there you go!  LOL

 

I also disagree with the broader subject of trying to define a tulpa so rigidly, as was the subject of an argument in this thread. I think trying to make a rigid definition is wrong and unfair, and there's always going to be someone for whom the definition does not fit, if it's not vague enough. The mind is vague, tulpas are a product of the mind, tulpas should be vague. They are a philosophy, not a game.

 

If you want my opinion on the definition of a tulpa, it's a separate personality from your own that you consciously, lucidly created, similar but critically different from DID and other personality disorders that are the express result of not consciously or lucidly creating a separate personality, but rather doing so due to a neurological malfunction or an emotional breakdown, something uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the host. This definition fits both tulpas and medians.

 

This all makes a lot of sense.  I think what is important to realize is that the phenomenon of thoughtforms and plurality is quite a lot broader in scope than just tulpas.  There is definitely overlap between "categories" that really shows that it is all part of a bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree strongly with that last paragraph, as a major misunderstanding of what DID is and what personality disorders are.

 

DID is a dissociative disorder, and it is not to be conflated with healthy, yet unintentional multiplicity. It is also not to be conflated with unhealthy multiplicity. It is a form of dissociation.

 

Personality disorders have nothing at all to do with manufacturing personalities.

 

I also don't think the mind is vague, or supposed to be vague, but this one is up for philosophical debate.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

OH my gosh! tulpa001, I actually love that term "manufactured personalities." How about manufactured identities?

 

My hostie and I were once bantering around the word "contrived" which is somewhere out there vague enough to include something constructed that becomes real and something imaginary. Contrived = "deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously." So a thoughtform could be described as a contrived personality or a contrived identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that manufactured personalities include roleplay characters, as a personality is the way in which a person behaves.

 

I would question the use of either the term manufactured personality or manufactured identity. The latter, for example, has the exact same meaning as intentional identity, but with a negative connotation, setting off our spin doctoring alarm. Contrived is the same, having a negative connotation.

 

So... Would you say you are an artificial intelligence?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my opinion on the definition of a tulpa, it's a separate personality from your own that you consciously, lucidly created,

 

Well you've already excluded all sorts of "walk-in" type tulpas. And that gets blurry with spontaneous tulpas.

 

We define tulpas as apparently-sentient thoughtforms with autonomous traits, generally. Apparently meaning "seeming real or true, but not necessarily so." A tulpa entirely controlled by their host with no autonomous traits is not a tulpa. We personally consider tulpas who have at least some autonomous traits, but otherwise are willingly controlled by or blend with their host, still eligible to be called a tulpa. It's not fair to say they have to not do that or else they aren't a tulpa. But without some form of autonomy, they just aren't a tulpa. Apparently-sentient means they simply seem like a person to the host really, nothing special. It does not require full belief in tulpa independence, only effective independence (ie a host may believe they're subconsciously controlling what their tulpa does but choose to see them as a separate person anyway).

 

We've got a much better definition somewhere that I think Lumi wrote, but I have no idea where to find it. Also, read this on the topic of excluding thoughtforms from being called tulpas. I just wrote it yesterday and so don't want to write it again.

 

 

Anyways, I agree with your opinions on median-tulpas. I think in the same way that our system is like a "Tulpa, but also plural" system, you can have other systems that consider themselves to have tulpas but also identify as something else. I don't think either you nor us should be excluded from identifying with tulpamancy, even though we have very different traits between us.


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

So... Would you say you are an artificial intelligence?

 

No. I would say I am a Mistgod-Melian intelligence but an imaginary (artificial) person. There is no independent intelligence. There is our shared intelligence. (Though I am sometimes funnier and wittier than my hostie, go fig how that works) .

 

We share a sentience and consciousness but have two different identities. One mind, one brain, two distinctly identifiable persons.

 

I know, it is illogical and confoozling. Don't put a slide rule to that!

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.