tulpa001

Tulpa's DIY tulpamancy guide

Recommended Posts

Update complete! (V2.1)

 

Changelog:

--Removed the troublesome chapter two.

--Whack of minor fixes.

--Removed some personal anecdotes.

--Fixed up very frequently asked questions section.

--Added new introductory paragraph.

--Expanded faith versus doubt section.

 

@Sands: I didn't read your most recent comment yet. Still working through the stuff you said in your second to last comment for this update.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made a few additional minor improvements.

 

...just love others. Like, jesus.

Heh.

 

Reminder that we only proofread things meant for .info. Your word choices make me think that you are just trying to use this service to change the parts you think are wrong and then post this elsewhere with the things we object to when this doesn't get approved, because you never planned on it getting approved.

This is not a service to me. It is me trying to get this thing approved. Though if you feel it is not going to get approved at this rate, you don't have to read it so frequently.

 

Uh the short words go uncapitalized rule I am trying to follow: (not sure where your three letter thing is coming from)

# Capitalize the first and the last word.

# Capitalize nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinate conjunctions.

# Lowercase articles (a, an, the),coordinating conjunctions, and prepositions.

# Lowercase the "to" in an infinitive.

 

fixed a few mistakes. Two "is" and a "do". Table of contents will update next revision.

 

Oh, uh, looks like you were right the first time.

 

The Start

[hidden]

 

If you have actual scientific research backing up your claims or a big enough study group (a hundred is very little, more is better but a hundred is definitely better than say, 5), go ahead. If you only have the word of a handful of people or things you write are something that maybe happened to you, you need to realize what they are: personal experiences that may or may not be the case always.

The majority of the bibliography would consist of links to blog articles. That's where I did my research.

 

Community chapter zapped. Hated it.

 

Okay, sure. Are you claiming it to be a staple, though? (brain family)

It is not. Pretty rare

 

I hope you have read my absence of disbelief text detailing this mindset.

link if you think it is relevant.

 

Are you reading what you're writing? No but yes? (you are your unconscious)

You are greater than your parts. This is a rectangle is not a square type semantic debate. But, given I still have difficulty understanding your concern with the unconscious as used in this guide, I don't know if relevant.

 

I think you need a rewording if this is what you mean, it was unclear.

I added the word pure in front of imagination to disambiguate the meaning.

 

Some people also use "real" to mean physical, in which case tulpas aren't physical unless they're currently using the body.

I am not using this meaning. Rather my point is there is a difference between speaking russian and imagining you are speaking russian, under the circumstance you don't actually know russian. This definition of real has nothing to do with physical, but is instead a synonym for actual.

 

(in your metaphor, it is like someone swimming in their imagination when they don't know how to swim)

 

This is relevant to thoughtforms, and I am highly annoyed by the implication that my cognition may not be actual cognition, but rather imaginary cognition because I am a tulpa.

 

That is not at all what is translates to. I suggest not using vague phrases that can easily be taken to mean something completely different. Cut from the same cloth means you are similar, of same nature. To me your sentence implies the tulpa and I will have similar personalities, not that we are identical physically.

Have I fixed this part?

 

But it is not true. Well, it's true in that it can happen. It's not true in that it will happen. There was a time in the community when skipping personality forcing was very popular and there weren't really any more issues than what people currently have.

It is my belief that this will happen, if the subconscious mind does not choose a personality for the tulpa instead of the host. For I cannot see how a tulpa with no personality at all will possibly be able to do any of those things until the tulpa manages to get one.

 

I guess the question is, is this belief that tulpas without personalities will take longer to get going cancerous even if true? I also object to the word cancerous. That seems uh, like an inappropriate analogy.

 

Don't put your theories down as a fact. Nowhere did you state "I have a theory that…", you said "this happens".

What is your competing theory? Yeah, sometimes a tulpa to be gets no personality at all. Then they just sit there and do nothing.

 

Buddy. That ain't how it works. You can't claim a thing and then ask others for proof when they challenge your claims. The burden of proof is on you. (by the way, THE SUBCONSCIOUS as you treat it has not been scientifically proven, either)

I don't need proof. I need a reason to take your argument seriously, so I can evaluate it and incorporate your recommendations without feeling like an idiot for blindly rewriting my guide at the behest of others without checking the correctness of the changes.

 

Oh, and that is correct. Behaviourists refuse to even look at things like that as they are not physically testable. Oh, same with tulpas.

 

Then please, please listen and think long and hard why I keep objecting to you doing this thing only for you to go UM EXCUSE ME BUT I THINK THIS AND I'M NOT CHANGING IT.

Oh, come on. All writers do that. And I am changing things, at the rate I figure them out.

 

name one--

Sure. How about yours truly right here?

Oh, come on not fair.

 

This is the mind. And the mind of us human beings is very powerful. I am sure you have heard of placebo. Feed a person a pill that is just sugar but tell them it's medicine that will heal them, and if they believe it, they will be healed. Scientifically proven.

I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. The list of symptoms that placebo is effective on is pretty short.

 

Sometimes there is real work to do. The only thing placebo gives you in those cases is confidence. This includes the mind. The mind itself is not a magical wonderland. It is an engine. A scientific instrument. Belief is not magic.

 

You know, talking about real PTSD here too that requires therapy and not tumblr PTSD where you get PTSD for someone spritzing your face with water or not tagging pomegranates as gore.

Honestly can't tell how serious some of the accounts are.

[/hidden]

 

The Middle

[hidden]

meditation stuff

fixed (ish)

 

It has not been scientifically proven, yes. People have claimed that it happens, that is anecdotal. So, it is still anecdotal until it is properly tested. (yawning and alertness)

You sure about that? Like I said, the tv and internet said it was.

 

Eh, wikipedia does not even mention this.

 

(commments about you)

deleted

 

Your need to mention how you did something or felt something is very distracting when reading this guide, as it doesn't add much and looks like you're needy for attention. This is basically the point where it got so annoying I had to point it out after reading your whole guide in one go.

Point out the rest. If it serves no purpose to the guide it needs to go.

 

(Add dogs to the running man exercize.)

Hmmm... mmmm... eeehh... um, I'll think about it.

 

More subconscious talk.

'Cause modern psychologists are talking about something different when they talk about unconscious stuff. The whole thing about "don't use subconscious" comes out of the psychoanalytic tradition, which by the way I am not touching with a ten foot pole. The governing common usage is subconscious over unconscious. I cannot tell if switching to unconscious would be excessively pedantic or not.

 

I myself am not adverse to new agey stuff. So long as it is not all spiritual, I don't think it is inappropriate for this site. (The pyramid power stuff, you may note I neglected to mention.)

 

Ugh, but the use of the subconscious in that exercize is metaphorical. Like symbolism. Symbolic of the subconscious unconscious processes in your brain that unconsciously regulate things like mood and memory.

 

By training these processes, we can get them to work for us rather than against us, so they automatically feed into our young tulpa, rather than try to destroy our young tulpa as foreign thoughts that have outlived their usefulness.

 

How do I fix that exercise without deleting it?

 

You are definitely treating this THE SUBCONSCIOUS as a thing, which it is not. At least, it has never been proven to be something like this. Keep in mind that Freud was the one who made the term popular and he was wrong about oh, everything and his models are no longer used. He wasn't wrong about us having unconscious thoughts and them shaping us and you know, being a part of us, but he wasn't the first one to come up with the idea.

Haha, no, Freud hated the term subconscious. He pretty much explicitly called anyone using the subconscious instead of the eminently superiour the unconscious or the preconscious, depending on the exact phenomenon you are referring to a hack.

 

He was wrong about unconscious thoughts. His theory of an unconscious mind is in dispute. Some say it does not even exist.

 

Preconscious thoughts definitely exist though.

 

pictures

Nice.

 

You make it separate. But it's not. Our unconscious thoughts, memories, dreams, fears, likes and dislikes make us – and when things stop being conscious, they become unconscious, but they don't have to stay unconscious if we think about them.

I don't believe in unconscious thoughts, memories, dreams, fears, likes or dislikes. That's psychoanalytic BS. I only believe in subconscious unconscious processes.

 

Well, thoughts can be preconscious.

 

But I think that in this exercise, you need to start with "imagine that all your unconscious thoughts and feelings have formed a separate entity we will now refer to as the subconscious" or something like that.

hmmmm, but that's off. A little bit. Because we aren't manipulating our preconscious thoughts. Mindfulness exercises are what we'd use to do that. With this exercise, we are installing a new subconscious unconscious process.

 

"do I have to label it more clearly"

Label-ified

 

It's not even a question, it is an exasperated statement because I don't even.

What is this? I was wrong, by the way. They call it body image, not body map. Though, modern science has made the whole thing more complicated by separating out the concept of body schema from body image, which throws a wrench in my theory. Half my text refers to the one and half to the other. ... They're supposed to be the same thing.

 

In formal writing you are supposed to put a question mark at the end of rhetorical questions as well.

 

> It (body image) is super closely connected to identity by default. (I don't think everyone connects their body image to their identity)

Yes. But I think my host and I are rare exceptions.

 

>By toying with the idea of changing this body image, we are reaching deep into the esoteric arts, and doing things no person is supposed to do. (this should be obvious like, what are you even talking about?)

What, it's just a little dramatic language.

 

[fact check dunderhead!] (voice and identity)

Well, the relevant wikipedia article only alluded to this. It will take time tracking down any scientific research that has actually been done here. *inserts pin*

 

"Soul" is not scientific. Don't claim people have souls when it has not been proven.

That is correct. But given the extremely unlikely odds that everyone is a philosophical zombie, I feel confident in assuming souls exist.

 

The Dark Arts exercise still has to go.

:/ What if I rename it?

 

Then say it. Say who it is meant for. (bubble ship)

Um, but it already does. You are critiquing the paragraph that describes the circumstance under which the exercise is useful.

 

"More connected" and "capable" because they were being of the mind rather than beings so closely connected to the physical world, so they were believed to have an edge over us.

Oh, ew, that's all new-agey.

 

The early tuppers definitely were very capable and strong, even when young. The idea that they wouldn't be able to think on their own once developed was completely foreign and so, none of the tuppers actually were like that until later on when the illusion of strength was broken, perhaps.

Heh, funny that. You know what I heard? I heard that like all tuppers back then couldn't even speak for a month, and sometimes a year. Something of a rarity these days. And that people thought they weren't even sentient until they could talk perfectly.

 

Well, these days, young tulpas are usually under the age of a month. They can talk fine, and they usually have trouble thinking unless being thought about. In fact I think it happens to all of them.

 

Also, who you callin' weak. I'll have you know, that I have better control over our body than my host does.

 

Because my (and the tupper's, one could assume) mindset was that the tupper doesn't need me, maybe that's why he doesn't need me in the way you describe, never has. That's the power of our mindsets.

That's not a mindset. That's a belief. Also not relevant, as primacy of thinking happens regardless of how independent your thinking is of each other.

 

That tulpa.info is a scientific community.

That is not what you are trying to say, because that is not criticism of my text. It is a criticism of some of the intended audience.

 

they could also do it in real life (joint wonderlanding)

Addressed.

 

>You are about to let someone else into your head – figuratively.

I think our beliefs on this differ. I am saying they could go in there and mess stuff up. This is an intimate form of contact.

[/hidden]

The end

[hidden]

It reads like "young tulpas can't do it".

If they're young enough, they can't.

 

It is and exercise with clear steps. (intrusive thoughts)

Been addressed.

 

There's many ways we might not even be thinking about... (communication)

Been reworded.

 

Probably not something you should be having in your guide, especially not when you don't say what it is (testimonials of personal experience) and present it more as a fact. (what a tulpa is)

... But people keep telling me this stuff.

 

(widespread misconception about autism)

I'm using the word myth in the technical sense of an oft circulated falsehood. Take your own advice.

 

Then please state who it is meant for instead of just saying "this happens". (neglect)

I'd say it's obvious. But I think I changed it. Is it fixed?

 

So lemme get this straight. Because you haven't heard of other drugs being used for this, it means everything else is either useless or harmful? Are you really thinking what you write through?

Of course I'm thinking it through. Hmmm... Yep. I make the claim that a phenomenon that I have heard no substantiated accounts of does not exist. Until proven wrong.

 

About diet: yes, definitely cite your sources and do look on both sides of the issue, not only the studies that back you up. Something like wheat for example, is currently very controversial (low carb diets were just a fad and gluten is now the devil). There really are studies going both ways, saying that wheat (whole wheat only, really) is good and ones that say it can be safely skipped or should be skipped.

Ugh. Deleted because I don't want to bother defending nutrition science in a document mostly about tulpas. I hope you're happy.

 

Also, you shouldn't buy into new age nutritionism. (of which low carb and gluten free count. (exception for genuine sufferers of Coeliac disease))

 

If it is your personal experience, state it. Do not treat it as a fact. (napping)

Err, deleted.

 

Why was it good? Why did you sleep at noon? Was it before you forced? After you forced? In between? What was the logic behind it? How can we use this tip when our schedules are different?

I had a lot of trouble sticking around all day. Napping fixed the problem, and I could go twenty-four seven. It also enhanced lesson retention for the skills I'd learned in the morning.

 

Just like saying you need to have x amount of progress in y amount of years or you should SEEK HELP.

I chose a point at which I thought most people would have succeeded and the rest should ask for supplementary advice. (x3)

 

While in your reword it doesn't quite read like it will happen, it might be good to remind people that it might not happen. Because it certainly doesn't happen to everyone.

Honestly, I think if a thoughtform can remember an instruction for five minutes and then carry it out, all while the host is not paying attention, they are way too independent to count as a "child" tulpa. Consider it a defining characteristic of a tulpa this young.

 

I don't know how, but your tulpa apparently started as a fully formed adult. :/

 

To you, maybe. To some who buy into this mindset and use it as symbolism, maybe. But do not claim it as a fact because it is a negative one (read: if you are not a "primary thinker", you will have harder time possessing, when this is untrue)

Totally true. The body feels heavier when you do it that way. It's like weightlifting.

 

Anyway, I don't see how this is a negative mindset. You think people are not going to possess because they think it is harder because they heard about someone else who found an easier way? This logic is really convoluted.

 

Should I fabricate truths in order to induce ideal mindsets in young tulpamancers?

 

The primary thinker tends to have the ability to control who can move the body. And as a strange twist, whoever is controlling the body tends to slip into being the primary thinker. You can force a different arrangement though.

Can you please not try to bring such bad mindsets from other communities into tulpa.info, thanks. We don't want something this bad to spread and make people think it is normal and that it will happen to them, because it is us who then have to try to get them out of that slump.

What bad mindset from other communities? Actually, what about this entirely true and factual paragraph counts as a mindset? And if it does not contain a mindset, how does it induce one?

 

Who knows. Their own experiences. Just like how you get the idea that there is a "primary thinker" who has the ability to decide who moves the body and such. Crazy talk, amirite?

Um, this is the entire reason why a host needs to back off the body to allow a tulpa to take over. If the tulpa becomes primary, then it would be the tulpa who needs to back off or the host won't be able to control the body. Training can change this, however.

 

Unfortunately, possession alone does not have the distinction. If a tulpa would be writing this message, for example, they could say they were possessing whether they were only moving the hands or the entire body. Hence why there are terms "partial possession" and "full body possession". You have a strange habit of bringing in words from other communities or claiming that words you use are widely accepted, but then you snuff out actual terms this community uses?

Honestly would stare sideways at someone who told me they were possessing their host, only to later learn, no, they were possessing their host's arm.

 

Also, personally, I never tell people I am "full body possessing". Seems so, um, excessive. Instead I say I am possessing.

 

Then don't use it. We both object to its usage, it's poorly worded and implies things neither of us want to imply. So why imply it? (state of the tulpa)

I only mention it because it is the common usage and it is the definition in the official tulpa.info glossary. I'd look like a complete idiot if I didn't mention it.

 

How about listening to me then, as the self-appointed anti switching redefiner enforcer. At this point it might as well be the only reason why I'm in GAT.

Fix your site's glossary then we can talk about that.

 

[/hidden]


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a hectic last few days, so this was the earliest I could get back to this. If you're really going to work towards getting this accepted then sure, I'll stick around. That's what I do. I'll just take your word for it, not much else I could really take.

 

I'll just assume you checked your titles for the CORRECT CAPITALIZATION and focused more on other things this time, but we'll take a look at them again later to check I guess.

 

 

Beginning

[hidden]

The majority of the bibliography would consist of links to blog articles. That's where I did my research.

 

Decided to put this at the start to address it right away. A blog article is not exactly proof unless they have conducted research. You can use it as "these people have said something like this has happened" thing, but not "this will happen" or "this has been tested and proven" (if it isn't) kind of stuff, alright?

 

Also quickly addressing this even though I have linked it like about a bajillion times now, absence of disbelief text.

 

Back to the guide.

 

 

That what am I doing feeling.

 

This actually made me stumble for a while as I read. Maybe do something to make the bit stand out, italics or quotes like that "what am I doing" feeling?

 

Including in evidence of the large number of non-tulpa plurals out there…

 

I'd reconsider using a word like "plural" that is not exactly tulpa.info terminology right at the start where you might already lose readers. I assume you wanted this to be newbie friendly, yeah? It would require restructuring your sentence, though. "Non-tulpa groups" doesn't necessarily mean that they do have tuppers or something, for example. Non-tulpa groups with other types of thoughtforms or somesuch might work with the current sentence structure.

 

…all beliefs are false until proven true.

 

This kinda stuck out for me this time around. Not really? If it can't be proven true, even if there's things that back it up, it's a theory. It can be proven wrong, of course. Or just something that is unlikely based on everything we know this far.

 

Soulbonds have fictional origins. They are otherwise so similar to tulpas that Accidental Tulpa is used interchangeably with soulbond.

 

What? I think the second sentence is a bit odd and I'm not sure what you're trying to tell us. Also why not use something like "fictive" I've seen people using to mean this, which does not have the baggage of the word soulbond? (and is slightly less meta-sounding)

 

Also what's with the caps in Accidental Tulpa?

 

More belief means less doubt.

 

I know these are theories and all and I like the bit you wrote about this chapter, but I feel like you might want to address that more belief can also easily lead to more doubt. Like you kinda address it, saying that less belief leads to less doubt but this chapter kinda reads like less belief = less doubt but also more belief = less doubt, because you never said it doesn't after you brought it up the first time. Kinda contradicting or just not getting the point across all that well?

 

Your subconscious will be given full freedom to breathe as much life as it wants into your tulpa.

 

Your personal theories should not be presented as facts in a guide.

 

See, if your tulpa grows too fast, they will have stability problems. Stability problems will manifest as them changing their personality, their appearance, and maybe even their opinions on a whim. At the worst, they will suddenly disappear.

 

Huh?

 

I don't know if we know what would be "too fast", also might want to avoid words like "will" when dealing with something like this. Literally the first time I have heard of this.

 

See, one moment you are there, then you take a break from the head for a day. Then you come back.

 

What does this mean?

 

 

Have I fixed this part? (cut from the same cloth)

 

No! You did the exact thing you weren't supposed to do! I said you were implying that they will be similar, when they might not be (probably even "most likely will not be"). And what did you do?

 

Your tulpa is cut from the same cloth you are. So they will be similar to you.

 

You said it outright. No. They will not be similar to you. And from the same part:

 

They will usually be devoted to you, to an irrational degree. They will usually embrace their starting personality and not change much. They will move towards your unconscious heart's desire.

 

Will will will will. Will is a strong word, even when used with "usually". Might. May. Could. Not will.

 

Decide on parroting or puppeting or not. You want your tulpa to do all the work? They aren't even there at first. This means they will need a little help to get started

 

No, they "will" not need a little help. They might. "You want your tulpa to do all the work?" is also quite blaming in tone.

 

Chapter 3.3 and 3.4 should not be where they are. 3.2 leads up to the exercises with the ending text, but then you have some stuff in the way that cuts the flow. Restructuring or rewording? I suggest you give it a few reads. I can't really see 3.3 and 3.4 coming before 3.2 which is the planning step, but it feels a bit odd the way it is right now.

 

It is my belief that this will happen, if the subconscious mind does not choose a personality for the tulpa instead of the host. For I cannot see how a tulpa with no personality at all will possibly be able to do any of those things until the tulpa manages to get one.

 

Guides aren't meant for you to air out your beliefs. They are meant to help newcomers to make tuppers, not to give them weird ideas that you present as facts that are accepted in the community or even proven when they're your personal beliefs.

 

I guess the question is, is this belief that tulpas without personalities will take longer to get going cancerous even if true? I also object to the word cancerous. That seems uh, like an inappropriate analogy.

 

I use the word because it is the best one to describe exactly what it is you're doing.

 

For example, "is it cancerous even if true"? No, it's cancerous because it is not true and it is a harmful idea. It is an idea you try to implant in the heads of people who don't know better, where it will grow and inhibit their progress until it is cut out – and that won't be easy.

 

Also, another way to look at personality forcing, not a theory of mine or anything but a thing to consider: does it even do anything in the first place? You treat it as something that makes a tulpa's personality unless THE SUBSCONSCIOUS creates it for them!!!, but does it? We have always known about deviation and we have always accepted it. Said it should be allowed to happen and that it's great, even. But those would be things that go against the personality you are forcing. Sometimes you end up with a completely different tupper than you had in mind. Did the personality forcing really do much, or was it just narration and attention? Would you have gotten the same end result if you had just spent time with them and talked to them about things, skipping the personality aspects completely?

 

What is your competing theory? Yeah, sometimes a tulpa to be gets no personality at all. Then they just sit there and do nothing.

 

"My way or it wouldn't be able to happen in any way!!!". I told you how I saw it. Time. Experience. We experience things, we think, we grow. Those all change who we are and that is what I could see making us into who we are, rather than some mystery entity shitting out a personality for us out of nowhere.

 

Fun thing about personalities in general, genetics also play a part. Siblings aren't likely to be similar at all, but twins, even when growing apart and never having seen each other, tend to have similar personality traits. Scientifically tested, by the way. However, even though we're basically identical to a tupper in genetics, we still tend to be very different. Strange thing, eh?

 

I need a reason to take your argument seriously, so I can evaluate it and incorporate your recommendations without feeling like an idiot for blindly rewriting my guide at the behest of others without checking the correctness of the changes.

 

Do. Not. Write. Your. Personal. Beliefs. As. Facts. In. Guides.

 

They do not belong in guides. Newcomers are impressionable and think you know more than you know. You can present theories if you say they are your personal beliefs that you may or may not have proof for, but you can't say x is a thing when it very well might not be a thing.

 

Oh, and that is correct. Behaviourists refuse to even look at things like that as they are not physically testable. Oh, same with tulpas.

 

Good thing I said physically testable, right? Oh wait I didn't, how about that.

 

There's more ways to prove things, or at the very least, study them and gather enough data to have a pattern.

 

Oh, come on not fair.

 

You asked, your rules. I provided. Are you going to move the goalposts now?

 

I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. The list of symptoms that placebo is effective on is pretty short.

 

are you

 

Dude. You're saying you don't believe in placebo. It's not some cure-all, they don't exist. No one is claiming them to be such. If you have a tumor you're still going to need to cut it off and hope you'll survive and such. There are, of course, many, many things much more effective than placebo medicine.

 

However, placebo is A SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED AND PROVEN PHENOMENA, as is nocebo. Saying you don't believe in it is pretty foolish. This is why ALL medicine has to go through placebo tests before it is allowed on the market! They have to prove that they work better than nothing at all! That is how strong placebo can be, working better than actual chemicals you pump into your body. Just how dense are you?[/hidden]

 

Exercises bit. I didn't comb through the actual file that much this time as you wanted to focus on the other parts first, but I'll address the issues we're already going through:

[hidden]

Meditation stuff

 

Eh I guess that's better.

 

You sure about that? Like I said, the tv and internet said it was. (yawning)

 

The tv and the internet says a lot of things. Sometimes satirical news and studies are used as the basis of a legit news article, too. Best thing our buddy pal Wikipedia has:

 

Nervousness has also been suggested as a possible reason. Nervousness often indicates the perception of an impending need for action. Anecdotal evidence suggests that yawning helps increase the state of alertness of a person. Paratroopers have been noted to yawn in the moments before they exit the aircraft.

 

(Add dogs to the running man exercize.)

 

Just "animals" would do. A dog would run and get over objects in a much different way than a cat, which is different compared to a bear, which is different to a gorilla, which is different to an ostrich, which is different to the world's most agile imaginary lizard… All got their own movements that make it a fresh new exercise.

 

The governing common usage is subconscious over unconscious.

 

The common plural for tulpa in this community was "tulpae", until we managed to eradicate it for the most part. People also have used "octopi" (even my spellchecker thinks this is wrong!) as the plural of octopus for a really long time, but now I'm seeing a lot more "octopuses" and even the occasional "octopode", which is right though pedantic.

 

Subconscious is no longer used in professional, scientific communities. Even if we're not that, we can aim to be closer to it and avoid using such terms.

 

I cannot tell if switching to unconscious would be excessively pedantic or not.

 

No, it would not do a thing in your case. The issue is of you referring to it as the subconscious. Referring to it as the unconscious does not change anything. Here's my favorite Wikipedia quote from Erich Fromm:

 

"The term 'the unconscious' is actually a mystification (even though one might use it for reasons of convenience, as I am guilty of doing in these pages). There is no such thing as the unconscious; there are only experiences of which we are aware, and others of which we are not aware, that is, of which we are unconscious. If I hate a man because I am afraid of him, and if I am aware of my hate but not of my fear, we may say that my hate is conscious and that my fear is unconscious; still my fear does not lie in that mysterious place: 'the' unconscious."

 

I myself am not adverse to new agey stuff. So long as it is not all spiritual, I don't think it is inappropriate for this site.

 

As non-symbolism, it usually is. You are free to think what you want and no one can stop you, but unless you're willing for new age-y theories you present as totally legit and reel guise to be ripped apart by a more skeptical mind, you probably should avoid talking about it in the non-meta parts of the forum.

 

By training these processes, we can get them to work for us rather than against us, so they automatically feed into our young tulpa, rather than try to destroy our young tulpa as foreign thoughts that have outlived their usefulness.

 

There is no "the subconscious" that has agency to "destroy" our "foreign thoughts".

 

How do I fix that exercise without deleting it?

 

But I think that in this exercise, you need to start with "imagine that all your unconscious thoughts and feelings have formed a separate entity we will now refer to as the subconscious" or something like that.

 

But then you whined:

 

hmmmm, but that's off. A little bit. Because we aren't manipulating our preconscious thoughts. Mindfulness exercises are what we'd use to do that. With this exercise, we are installing a new unconscious process.

 

But my point still stands. That is the only thing you can do to save your exercise without making it you shoving your beliefs as facts down our throats.

 

Haha, no, Freud hated the term subconscious. He pretty much explicitly called anyone using the subconscious instead of the eminently superiour the unconscious or the preconscious, depending on the exact phenomenon you are referring to a hack.

 

It is indeed funny how he hates the term many use, but he still helped popularize it whether he wants it or not. However, the concept of a "the subconscious/unconscious" is him, the model you are using. That there is the conscious, the preconscious (the unconscious thoughts you can access) and the subconscious/unconscious (the unconscious things you can't and will never access). Change the words all you want, but your model is very close to his as far as I can tell – and nothing Freud has really come up with has stood up to scrutiny.

 

And don't treat our unconscious thoughts as a "place" or an "entity" or anything that has agency or thoughts of its own.

 

 

pictures

Nice.

 

Thanks.

 

I only believe in unconscious processes.

 

Same thing, different words. That is one way to lump them together easily, so thanks for the new term I'll yoink.

 

Well, thoughts can be preconscious.

 

Preconscious is mostly a Freudism (though at least he claims to not have come up with the word/definition) for his model where unconscious thoughts can't be accessed in any way. Preconscious would be the unconscious thoughts that can be accessed, in his model. But they both are unconscious thoughts in the sense that they are not conscious at the time you're not thinking of them, others just much more easy for you to notice.

 

Also I find the Wikipedia article funny considering how earlier you were like:

 

…psychoanalytic tradition, which by the way I am not touching with a ten foot pole.

 

And the Wikipedia page starts with:

 

In psychoanalysis, preconscious are the thoughts which are unconscious at the particular moment in question…

 

Listing Subconscious Communion as "esoteric" is kinda meh.

 

Though, modern science has made the whole thing more complicated by separating out the concept of body schema from body image, which throws a wrench in my theory. Half my text refers to the one and half to the other. ... They're supposed to be the same thing.

 

What's this? Your theories based on outdated ideas don't match what modern science thinks after actual research and you refuse to take into account the new findings? Stop the presses!

 

In formal writing you are supposed to put a question mark at the end of rhetorical questions as well.

 

Not a question. A exasperated statement.

 

(I don't think everyone connects their body image to their identity)

Yes. But I think my host and I are rare exceptions.

 

No. No you are not.

 

>By toying with the idea of changing this body image, we are reaching deep into the esoteric arts, and doing things no person is supposed to do. (this should be obvious like, what are you even talking about?)

What, it's just a little dramatic language.

 

You don't say it's a joke and it's not crazy enough to be assumed to be a joke in this crazy community (especially knowing your beliefs), so you don't get away with it without adding "I kid" or something there.

 

Rewrite body shaped soul. I would also suggest a "symbolism" category you add to your symbolic exercises.

 

That is correct. But given the extremely unlikely odds that everyone is a philosophical zombie, I feel confident in assuming souls exist.

 

Again, "my way or it couldn't work in any way!!!". I don't think I have a soul. That doesn't mean I'm not a person. I don't think you have a soul. You're probably a person, too.

 

Soul is not something that has been proven to exist scientifically. Don't present your opinions as facts in guides.

 

:/ What if I rename it? (Dark Arts)

 

It doesn't belong on this side of the forum. Put it in the meta board.

 

Um, but it already does. You are critiquing the paragraph that describes the circumstance under which the exercise is useful. (bubble ship)

 

Let's see the lead up.

 

It has no relevance until your tulpa learns to be the primary thinker.

 

No. Axe it, there are no primary thinkers and we do not want this cancerous mindset here.

 

Anyway. Your implication that there is a "primary" and a "nonprimary" creates a very bad environment for tulpas and hosts. After all, primary is the highest, the first. There can't be two. So, one will have to always be lesser. And we would all want our tuppers to be strong (probably?!), so your implications are that when they do become this, then you start getting issues. I suggested a better lead up after you remove the tumor that is primary thinker syndrome from this exercise.

 

Maybe a lead up, "if your tulpa has problems thinking and it feels like they're not quite strong as you…" or something to that effect?

 

Heh, funny that. You know what I heard? I heard that like all tuppers back then couldn't even speak for a month, and sometimes a year.

 

Right and wrong. The thing was, back then vocality meant complete auditory imposition coming out of nowhere without you even trying to hear it and any other kind of form of communication was not known about or looked for. People started realizing there were signs earlier on and these people you could thank for the community we got today. Otherwise there'd still be like, a handful of vocal tuppers in this community.

 

Sapience was also highly linked to vocality because that first contact was supposed to be so alien and out of your control, that there would be absolutely no room for doubt anymore. Tuppers back then had to work really hard, huh?

 

They can talk fine, and they usually have trouble thinking unless being thought about. In fact I think it happens to all of them.

 

Wasn't an issue BACK IN THE DAY once methods for looking for other signs of vocality were a thing, so there's stories of "prevocal" and young tuppers being independent. In fact, pretty much all of the tuppers then very much had their own things they did in the wonderland when not paid attention to. It was something that was expected out of them and only later did more and more issues with the inability to do much when not paid attention to.

 

Also, who you callin' weak. I'll have you know, that I have better control over our body than my host does.

 

Thank you for this extremely important piece of information that adds so much to this conversation.

 

That's not a mindset.

 

In decision theory and general systems theory' date=' a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notations held by one or more people or groups of people that is so established that it creates a powerful incentive within these people or groups to continue to adopt or accept prior behaviors, choices, or tools.[/quote']

 

Also not relevant, as primacy of thinking happens regardless of how independent your thinking is of each other.

 

No. No it does not. Primary thinker syndrome is an awful disease of the mind. Only you can prevent its spread.

 

That is not what you are trying to say, because that is not criticism of my text. ("If you believe that jumping between systems is possible…")

 

I am saying that as a scientific community, such things don't belong in guides because a scientific community wouldn't exactly believe in something like that. People have tried doing things like this, people have failed. People who claim to be able to do it refuse to prove it when you challenge them. It's pretty much a busted theory.

 

I think our beliefs on this differ. I am saying they could go in there and mess stuff up. This is an intimate form of contact.

 

Such beliefs belong in the meta board.[/hidden]

 

End:

[hidden]

If they're young enough, they can't.

 

What is young enough? Do you know? Do I know? Does the tulpa know? Does the host know? They do not. They can only try and you shouldn't already tell them that they won't be able to do it.

 

Been reworded. (aphantasia)

 

I suggest you still tell people to try out all kinds of things they might think works too, not just possession. Just because we don't know of other methods doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd honestly remove the bit about where you "think" they'll be stuck.

 

... But people keep telling me this stuff. (what/how a tulpa is)

 

They can tell you whatever they want. It does not mean you can present ~~their personal experiences~~ as facts. You don't say this or that might happen. You say tulpas are this and that. You are saying their personality will be like this. That's like just because I have had the pleasure of going back and forth with you with this guide for a very long time, I'd write all tuppers are stubborn and consider their opinions to be the best and rightest of them all.

 

I'm using the word myth in the technical sense of an oft circulated falsehood. Take your own advice.

 

I have a hard time seeing empathy being strong in this community. I see lots of emotions. When you call this community empathic, I honestly don't see this community in those words at all. Overemotional though, yes.

 

PS. the falsehood that an autistic person tends to have trouble reading social cues which then in turn translates to having trouble knowing what others think, which in turn can cause them to have a hard time empathizing with them because they didn't read the feeling? Such falsehoods, oh my.

 

Neglect

 

I have rewording suggestions:

 

Devoting full attention to your tulpa for five minutes a day and talking to them is probably sufficient to prevent any potential damage.

 

But this happens very slowly, if it happens.

 

thoughtforms can and will survive several days without damage.

 

And uh, more. Reminder that it's not healthy for people to be alone and neglected here, because tuppers are people and that's probably much more important than them disappearing.

 

Of course I'm thinking it through. Hmmm... Yep. I make the claim that a phenomenon that I have heard no substantiated accounts of does not exist. Until proven wrong. (all other drugs except the ones listed are useless or hamrful to creating tulpas)

 

Then why not say that you don't know if anything else works, but are interested in hearing if someone does have tested something else? You are creating nocebo here by saying this will not happen or will harm you – especially when people these days tend to take medicine for their various ailments and they aren't psychedelic drugs! What if someone becomes worried the medicine for their heart problem is going to hurt their tulpa process – and then it will?

 

Ugh. Deleted because I don't want to bother defending nutrition science in a document mostly about tulpas. I hope you're happy.

 

It's for the best.

 

Also, you shouldn't buy into new age nutritionism. (of which low carb and gluten free count. (exception for genuine sufferers of Coeliac disease))

 

If they have done actual scientific studies, it's all worth taking into account for closer inspection. Even if it's against your own beliefs.

 

Honestly, I think if a thoughtform can remember an instruction for five minutes and then carry it out, all while the host is not paying attention, they are way too independent to count as a "child" tulpa. Consider it a defining characteristic of a tulpa this young.

 

Sounds like a pretty foreign concept to me.

 

I don't know how, but your tulpa apparently started as a fully formed adult. :/

 

Hahaha I don't think any of us would have used the word "adult" to describe that dunce.

 

Totally true. The body feels heavier when you do it that way. It's like weightlifting.(suffering from primary thinker syndrome and the effects it has on possession)

 

Your personal experience (which is not a fact even if you try to present it as such).

 

Just before you try to object to that, no, I'm not saying you're lying. You experienced it. But it does not mean everyone else experiences it, or that they should. You might be creating these experiences for them by saying it is something that will happen.

 

Anyway, I don't see how this is a negative mindset. You think people are not going to possess because they think it is harder because they heard about someone else who found an easier way? This logic is really convoluted.

 

It is negative because it implies these people will have a harder time possessing when you make them suffer from primary thinker syndrome. Not that they think and quit, that their mindset makes it harder even when it doesn't have to be. Because of your words.

 

Should I fabricate truths in order to induce ideal mindsets in young tulpamancers?

 

Nah. But you also shouldn't fabricate falsehoods that you present as truth.

 

What bad mindset from other communities? Actually, what about this entirely true and factual paragraph counts as a mindset? And if it does not contain a mindset, how does it induce one?

 

Your primary thinker syndrome. It is 1. a mindset and 2 a bad mindset at that, and it definitely is not from tulpa.info, so it must come from elsewhere. Or are you saying you made it up completely based on your own experiences, so it didn't come from a community but came from you, personally?

 

"Primary" implies the highest. The first. There can't be more than one primary. Everything else not the primary according to your mindset is lesser. This is a poor mindset for hosts and tulpas, because it is not true that one of them will be superior.

 

Um, this is the entire reason why a host needs to back off the body to allow a tulpa to take over. If the tulpa becomes primary, then it would be the tulpa who needs to back off or the host won't be able to control the body. Training can change this, however.

 

No. A host doesn't need to back off. We do it, especially for new tuppers who have no experience, to make it easier for them. Otherwise they'd have to wrestle it out of our metaphorical hands (didn't you even have an exercise that was about this?) and then the host might still be in control in the background there, leading to confusion about movements. But there's hosts who don't know how to let go, either. Those tuppers have to learn to make do and they often "push" the other out of the way. The host then might do the same unless the tupper knows how to let go. Once a tupper is good at possession then they're set, and hopefully the host would also know how to do the same.

 

I'd say me and the tupperino are good at the possession thing. Letting go is courtesy to just allow the other to come in and continue from there. It doesn't feel too good if you're forced out of the way, honestly.

 

But no way does that make either of us "secondary". Training is experience. Once there is experience, your "primary" theory falls flat on its face.

 

Honestly would stare sideways at someone who told me they were possessing their host, only to later learn, no, they were possessing their host's arm.

 

You can do whatever you want, but it is what it is.

 

Also, personally, I never tell people I am "full body possessing". Seems so, um, excessive. Instead I say I am possessing.

 

You don't have to. You are possessing. It is what it is. It might prompt someone to ask the question "full body?" though, and that would be a completely logical follow-up.

 

I only mention it because it is the common usage and it is the definition in the official tulpa.info glossary. I'd look like a complete idiot if I didn't mention it. (state of the tulpa)

 

Our old friend "tulpa-like state" that is from those early days where a tulpa was seen as the superior being when it came to mind things? The word we want to destroy? This is the thing you want to refer to in your modern guide?

 

No one really uses it anymore. Well, if they use it, they're quickly corrected because it's a dumb term. No one even seemed to know we had a glossary until I pointed it out.

 

Fix your site's glossary then we can talk about that.

 

My site?

 

Well sure I guess I can tell Kiahdaj to copypasta my definitions from somewhere, maybe he'd like that?![/hidden]

 

Tons of "tulpamancy" and "tulpamancer" stuff still, some suggestions for now:

[hidden]Parts where "tulpamancer" can easily be changed to host:

Illusion of Sentience

Deciding

Your FAQ section

 

…tulpamancy communities…

Tulpa communities.

 

…other plurality communities… (etc all the rest of the use of plural and such)

Pretty early for "plurality" as your readers might not really know what it is. It sure sounds silly to an outsider of such communities, like myself. Might want to think of coming up with another term or defining that you will use "plural" to mean non-tupper groups in the intro section the first time you use it to save yourself the headache. To be henceforth referred to as plurality or something.

 

Tulpamancy has its roots in eighteen hundreds spiritualism.

Tulpa creation has…

 

Dissociation is indeed highly relevant to tulpamancy.

Creating tulpas.

 

Relating back to tulpamancy,

Tulpa creation or creating tulpas works here too.

 

The most likely extra side effects that can impact plural systems are loss of control…

 

Hey it's not tulpamancy or tulpamancer, what is this?! I suggest "can impact the host and the tulpa(s)"…[/hidden]


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 2.2 is here...

 

-Added section on differences in architecture

-Added FAQ question about running out of things to talk about.

-Deleted change versus stability section as under researched.

-A bunch more minor edits.

 

Having added that last question I forgot to the very frequently asked questions section, I am now happy with the entire guide. I don't think I will be making any more major changes to it.

 

To be addressed:

-A problem with dates in the what is a tulpa chapter. Will need to be researched, but I forgot my original sources.

-Research to confirm link between voice and identification.

 

section 2.6 preserved for future reference in case it becomes better supported:

[hidden]

2.6. Change versus Stability

A basic one, and one that will test your patience. See, if your tulpa grows too fast, they will have stability problems. Stability problems will manifest as them changing their personality, their appearance, and maybe even their opinions on a whim. At the worst, they will suddenly disappear.

 

From the inside, stability problems are even worse. They are a fundamental challenge to your continuity of self. This is some serious ship of Thesus difficulty here. See, if you care about whether you are alive or dead, whether you exist or not, then you probably care if you become someone different or not. Because is that person you? This is also a problem for transporter anxiety. Which can happen to thoughtforms too. See, one moment you are there, then you take a break from the head for a day. Then you come back. Are you the same person? It's worse when you behave slightly differently after you get back.

 

The cure is to work on stability. To try and become stronger as a persistent entity. To exercise your ability to stick around and be aware of yourself. To learn who you are and to know yourself. To relax, and take things slow.

 

The best advice I can give is do not force before bed, if you have intrusive thought problems. Force after bed. Avoid interacting while tired. This will minimize odd behaviour and sudden outbursts and maximize your control. After you improve your stability, start forcing before bed again.

[/hidden]

 


 

Responses to sands:

 

Schrödinger's tulpa:

[hidden]

It was decided that doubt is the killer.

I detect some doubt from you on this point. But it is all theory. There is not strong enough evidence across the tulpas on record to say anything other than tulpas grow over time.

 

They never got over the hurdle where they truly could believe in the tulpa after a lot of work, thinking and dedication, because they thought they never had to jump and the jump would be made for them later on. And once the host got to this point, the jump no longer was possible in their eyes.

What jump? I've heard people talk about this before. I think it is based on faulty reasoning. On the idea that a tulpa must be believed in in order to exist. What do they call it? "Pretend until it's real." IDK

 

Oh, you just conflated trust with belief.

 

Sudden switch to use of the word sapient.

 

That, and you probably have to think that there is something actually listening to you or there is no reason to keep talking to your tulpa, right?

Maybe?

 

At this point I am convinced tulpas become sentient before they become sapient.

[/hidden]

 

Stuff I am still considering:

[hidden]

Modified the stuff before this.

 

…all beliefs are false until proven true.

This kinda stuck out for me this time around. Not really? If it can't be proven true, even if there's things that back it up, it's a theory. It can be proven wrong, of course. Or just something that is unlikely based on everything we know this far.

You are correct. This is discussing the origin of a stigma. Stigmas are not rational. They are propagated by the irrational thinkers in our society. Which is pretty much everyone. Even a good scientist, who is very careful in the lab and very organized, will usually demonstrate irrational thought when discussing subject matter outside their domain of expertise.

 

What? I think the second sentence is a bit odd and I'm not sure what you're trying to tell us. Also why not use something like "fictive" I've seen people using to mean this, which does not have the baggage of the word soulbond? (and is slightly less meta-sounding)

Since you ask. A soulbond is a type of fictive. Fictive refers to any thoughtform with fictional origins. (this is in comparison with factives, which are based on historical persons). But a fictive is not a soulbond.

 

I am already using the word soulbond in this document. In the event that I import the word fictive, I will expand the glossary, and need to explain the context of the word.

 

I don't know if we know what would be "too fast", also might want to avoid words like "will" when dealing with something like this. Literally the first time I have heard of this. (stability)

Will review. Surprised you didn't notice it the last few times you looked.

 

See, one moment you are there, then you take a break from the head for a day. Then you come back.

It means you disappear for the day.

 

No! You did the exact thing you weren't supposed to do! I said you were implying that they will be similar, when they might not be (probably even "most likely will not be"). And what did you do?

Wait. That is your complaint? I feel like you flip-flopped. Okay, I'll reverse it.

 

Will will will will. Will is a strong word, even when used with "usually". Might. May. Could. Not will.

You mentioned that already.

 

(chapters 3.3 and 3.4)

I disagree. Their placement is logical. You are correct that 3.2 ends with the recommendation to jump to chapter 5. 3.3 and 3.4 are for persons who need to ignore much of the advice in 3.2, due to already having a thoughtform.

 

You asked, your rules. I provided. Are you going to move the goalposts now?

Misses joke.

 

Dude. You're saying you don't believe in placebo.

You are correct. I am literally saying that the active method through which placebo works is belief modification. Belief modification results in improved mood, which aids some symptoms, and false reporting of improvement, in cases where improvement is self reported, as opposed to evaluated scientifically. Same with nocebo.

 

I am not prepared to reduce myself to a perceived phenomenon of mood modification and false reporting. A tulpa is not this.

 

 

(yawning talk)

Actually the best wikipedia has is a link to this:

 

How yawning switches the default-mode network to the attentional network by activating the cerebrospinal fluid flow. (The most recent hypothesis)

 

This new theory involves...

Unfortunately, it doesn't describe how much research has gone into this theory so far.

 

By toying with the idea of changing this body image, we are reaching deep into the esoteric arts, and doing things no person is supposed to do. (this should be obvious like, what are you even talking about?)

What, it's just a little dramatic language.

You don't say it's a joke and it's not crazy enough to be assumed to be a joke in this crazy community (especially knowing your beliefs), so you don't get away with it without adding "I kid" or something there.

It's not a joke. It's dramatic language. If I rewrote it, I'd say the exact same thing but boring like.

 

Again, "my way or it couldn't work in any way!!!". I don't think I have a soul. That doesn't mean I'm not a person. I don't think you have a soul. You're probably a person, too.

 

Soul is not something that has been proven to exist scientifically. Don't present your opinions as facts in guides.

:/ I don't think you understand. By a standard definition of "soul", your statement translates to "I don't think I have a soul, but that doesn't mean I don't have a soul."

 

It is impossible to prove souls. On a technicality. You seem to be confusing belief in souls with belief in philosophical dualism.

 

No. Axe it, there are no primary thinkers and we do not want this cancerous mindset here.

... (frustration building) I can't axe it if the reason to do so is based on your unfounded belief that there are no primary thinkers, OR your unfounded belief that there is a cancerous mindset here. I don't even see what the cancerous mindset could be.

 

Anyway. Your implication that there is a "primary" and a "nonprimary" creates a very bad environment for tulpas and hosts. After all, primary is the highest, the first.

I'm running out of legitimate synonyms for dominance of thought to describe this very real and accurate phenomenon. Still constantly surprised you never experienced it. I thought most people had trouble keeping everyone in the system thinking at full tilt twenty-four seven.

 

I guess those systems of seven plus tulpas where everyone has full and complete lives in the wonderland are the norm. It just seemed so far-fetched.

 

Hmmm. Then why do people think it is possible to dissipate a tulpa by starving it of attention? It doesn't make sense. The tulpa can just hide in the wonderland and continue thinking.

 

There can't be two. So, one will have to always be lesser.

Two what? You can solve the problem by mastering parallel thought. Or you can just take turns? Why is this so hard to understand?

 

And we would all want our tuppers to be strong (probably?!), so your implications are that when they do become this, then you start getting issues.

Um, no? Random issues? What issues? I have implications?

 

I suggested a better lead up after you remove the tumor that is primary thinker syndrome from this exercise.

Oh, I think I see. You see this new idea as a tumour in your perfect theory of tulpas. I finally get it. "Cancerous mindset."

 

The thing was, back then vocality meant complete auditory imposition coming out of nowhere without you even trying to hear it...

Standard vocality. Got it.

 

Otherwise there'd still be like, a handful of vocal tuppers in this community.

Wait... Are you saying this is rare? No... Everyone gets this. With a small number of exceptions.

 

Wasn't an issue BACK IN THE DAY

Amazing. What changed, that then, tulpas could think whenever they chose, and had imaginary tea parties, and now they can't until many months old?

 

Could it be, maybe, the theory of manufactured wonderland memory is true? Nah.

 

Honestly, I don't know as I never bothered to create a proper wonderland for myself.

 

[mindsets are from decision theory]

Thank you wikipedia. [citation needed] Though your definition is a bit strange.

 

No. No it does not. Primary thinker syndrome is an awful disease of the mind. Only you can prevent its spread.

Only you can prevent the spread of foreign ideas. Not Invented Here.

 

I am saying they could go in there and mess stuff up.

Such beliefs belong in the meta board.

Your definition is really broad for what counts as meta. Like, I think we can drop any pretense of it actually being about metaphysical beliefs at this point. You don't even want me talking about certain physical theories out of psychology. Such as hypnotism and stockholm syndrome.

 

Or in the case of a certain exercise, plain old vanilla learning theory.

 

What is young enough? Do you know? Do I know? Does the tulpa know? Does the host know? They do not. They can only try and you shouldn't already tell them that they won't be able to do it. (fight off intrusive thoughts)

That's a lot of words to say cancerous mindset. You are riding this topic so hard. The idea of cancerous mindsets. It looks like you are jumping at shadows from my perspective. As if you had a really sour experience in the past, and would do anything at all, at any cost, to prevent anyone else from going through it.

 

I worry about the other damage the changes you are recommending to my guide will cause. Like, if I tell a tulpamancer they can rely on their young tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts, that tulpamancer is going to have an absolutely terrible first few months, running off false expectations. And if they don't kill off their tulpa in an effort to escape tulpamancy and the intrusive thoughts plaguing them, I will have lost all credibility in their eyes and they will not trust anything else I say.

 

I feel like I am getting bad advice.

 

They can tell you whatever they want. It does not mean you can present ~~their personal experiences~~ as facts.

I'd probably agree with you on that point if the rest of the approved guides weren't doing the exact same thing. I know my host is riding me pretty hard on this point. But it is my guide, not hers. She says formal scientific documents only make supported claims, through use of a bibliography. But, the approved guides so far do not stand up to inspection at that degree of rigour.

 

But this happens very slowly, if it happens. (atrophe)

Knowing what I do about the brain's mechanisms of functioning makes it very hard for me to believe it won't happen eventually.

 

What if someone becomes worried the medicine for their heart problem is going to hurt their tulpa process – and then it will?

Never heard of any symptoms from pain meds. That's not how nocebo works. As nocebo functions on belief, it can only cause problems with your tulpa if your tulpa is imaginary and not real.

 

If they have done actual scientific studies, it's all worth taking into account for closer inspection. Even if it's against your own beliefs.

Have they? Wikipedia does not even mention any studies. But given its record on these topics, I'm feeling this debate is way beyond mere encyclopediac knowledge of how things work.

 

What it does mention is the incredible nutritional profile of wheat, and heaps praise on all the healthy foods made with wheat.

 

Sounds like a pretty foreign concept to me. (tulpas remembering instructions)

I guess you never did parallel processing research back when you were active in the community.

 

(suffering from primary thinker syndrome and the effects it has on possession)

 

Your personal experience.

... Right. Imagine me and my host didn't go into this without expectations. More disease talk and the unsubstantiated belief that mindsets affect forcing results to this degree.

 

You might be creating these experiences for them by saying it is something that will happen.

If mindsets affected forcing results to this degree, there would be only one logical conclusion. Tulpas are imaginary. They don't actually exist, and are just self induced delusions.

 

It is negative because it implies these people will have a harder time possessing when you make them suffer from primary thinker syndrome.

Your logical flaws are showing.

 

Here. Let me help. You meant to say that the mindset induced by primary thinker disease will cause people to have a harder time forcing. And you are evil for forcing it on people.

 

Nah. But you also shouldn't fabricate falsehoods that you present as truth.

It's not false. Unless you can defend this position, you go beyond your responsibilities as reviewer.

 

Your primary thinker syndrome. It is 1. a mindset and 2 a bad mindset at that, and it definitely is not from tulpa.info, so it must come from elsewhere. Or are you saying you made it up completely based on your own experiences, so it didn't come from a community but came from you, personally?

I feel like you are out of touch with the community. Please stop repeating yourself in your arguments.

 

"Primary" implies the highest. The first. There can't be more than one primary. Everything else not the primary according to your mindset is lesser. This is a poor mindset for hosts and tulpas, because it is not true that one of them will be superior.

You'd argue water is not wet. Hey. You're not helping me to come up with a better term here.

 

No. A host doesn't need to back off. We do it, especially for new tuppers who have no experience, to make it easier for them.

You are correct. But I feel you lack awareness of the details of what is going on here. A tupper may struggle to control the body due to inexperience. Or a tupper may struggle to control the body because the host is sitting on that part of the brain. The logical conclusion is obvious.

 

But no way does that make either of us "secondary". Training is experience. Once there is experience, your "primary" theory falls flat on its face.

What.

 

No one really uses it anymore. Well, if they use it, they're quickly corrected because it's a dumb term. No one even seemed to know we had a glossary until I pointed it out.

What you mean to say, is there is so much argumentation over this term that whenever someone brings it up, no one says anything at all for fear of starting the argument all over again and scaring the newbs away.

 

No one really has any idea what this term means, as anyone who puts forward a specific definition is always shot down by at least one "authority" in the community.

 

No one even seemed to know we had a glossary until I pointed it out.

I feel rather special. Wow, I was so young back then.

[/hidden]

 

AUTISM MYTHS:

[hidden]

I cannot believe how hard you are digging yourself into a hole here, given you rely on your credibility here to get me to believe your advice is useful to my guide. Yet you insist on defending a myth I happen to know is false for a fact, even though I am giving you clear signs that I know bullshit when I see it in this particular area, and have very blatantly stated you are going down the wrong hole.

 

Defending this particular myth is also going to ruin your moral credibility with me, as your most recent defence of your position is a particularly insidious type of stereotype, one that uses language to spin a person as less worthy in a very subtle and dismissing way. This is a type of subtle language that gets me angry, and sets off warning flags. You now have my full attention.

 

It is a myth that autism causes a person to experience less empathy than others. The hypersensitivity common to the conditioun can mean they experience more empathic responses than others, and typically leads to trouble dealing with them. Large variance in experience within the group means this is not true for the entire population.

 

I can't even touch this level of confidence when it comes to the empathy levels of this community. I'm mainly going based on what I have heard some others say about this community, and a few corroborating observations I have made. You should have led with that.

[/hidden]

 

 

THE SUBCONSCIOUS:

[hidden]

I should note that I edited the faith verses doubt section further. So depending on when you read it, you could be seeing one of two versions.

 

[you explained belief and doubt wrong]

Hmmm, maybe? But your interpretation appears no more correct to me at this time.

 

[subconscious BS]

I believe your perspective on the issue of Subconscious BS is biased. If you are wondering why I am not going along with any of the things you say here.

 

Guides aren't meant for you to air out your beliefs. They are meant to help newcomers to make tuppers, not to give them weird ideas that you present as facts that are accepted in the community or even proven when they're your personal beliefs.

On the other hand, they are meant to present newcomers with perfectly normal field tested ideas that should aid in creating a tulpa. These ideas are weird to you only because you disbelieve them. (And because I used the word subconscious)

 

No, it's cancerous because it is not true and it is a harmful idea.

Which is it? Is it cancerous because it is not true or cancerous because it is a harmful idea?

 

Also, it's true. It's not your job to decide which forcing theory is the most correct. Show me that it's cancerous.

 

[Does personality forcing even do anithing?]

From the perspective of faster forcing, I have seen no statistically significant correlation. From the perspective of having more control over your tulpa's eventual personality, I have seen this to be true.

 

What happens in the cases where a personality is not forced, is your subconscious creates one based on your idle thoughts mostly.

 

I told you how I saw it. Time. Experience. We experience things, we think, we grow. Those all change who we are and that is what I could see making us into who we are, rather than some mystery entity shitting out a personality for us out of nowhere.

Forcing under this theory would probably result in a tulpa that takes a really long time to grow and form.

 

I bet in some cases, the tulpamancer would get so worn down, waiting for the tulpa to do anything without guidance, that they begin to think the whole thing is fake, and essentially lock themselves out of ever getting a tulpa with poisonous thoughts. <-- This is a theory by the way. I wonder if I would find evidence of it by looking at older accounts of tulpamancy.

 

What is the definition of a cancerous mindset?

 

The burden of proof is on you. (subconscious plays a role in tulpa development)

Do. Not. Write. Your. Personal. Beliefs. As. Facts. In. Guides.

Substantiate your argument. Why do you think my theory is personal belief? Why should I avoid including something that works from my guide? What alternative can I put in the guide? How are you so sure my theory is not factual? (Other than I mentioned the word THE SUBCONSCIOUS)

 

OTHERWISE: I can't do anything with your advice. I can't research it. I can't verify it. I can't translate it into revision text. Your advice is unusable.

 

CONCRIT

 

The common plural for tulpa in this community was "tulpae", until we managed to eradicate it for the most part. People also have used "octopi"...

Octopi... Hahaha! Thought everyone knew it's octopodes.

 

Well, if it was the common usage, why is tulpae not good?

 

[call it the subconscious and you make it magic BS]

But I'm already not doing that? This was one of the things I reviewed my text repeatedly to search for and destroy. But I found no instance of this.

 

but unless you're willing for new age-y theories you present as totally legit and reel guise to be ripped apart by a more skeptical mind...

Heh, there is no more sceptical mind here than my host. Only less rational and more stubborn.

 

...And, yeah, she is a little tough on me here. But this is my guide, not hers. (She says I am overconfident)

 

There is no "the subconscious" that has agency to "destroy" our "foreign thoughts.

Agency: The capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power; action or activity; operation.

 

Destroy: To remove data.

 

Foreign: Not characteristic of or naturally taken in by an organism or system.

 

(All definitions from wiktionary)

 

Counterexample: The process by which the mind chooses which memories get recorded for posterity and which are discarded is unconscious.

 

Consequently: the body of unconscious processes in your mind acts with agency to destroy thoughts it regards as foreign, and preserve those it does not.

 

Change the words all you want, but your model is very close to his as far as I can tell – and nothing Freud has really come up with has stood up to scrutiny.

It really isn't. He believed in repressed memories, dream symbolism, and inaccessible secret feelings of resentment against your father, all the product of an unconscious mind. None of these exist. There is no unconscious mind that is trying to tell you things in your sleep.

 

Yes, you can have all those things. But they don't exist within a magical unconscious mind.

 

His id, ego, superego theory is much stronger. But I think there were problems in his formulation there as well.

[/hidden]

 

Tulpamancy stuff:

[hidden]

Parts where "tulpamancer" can easily be changed to host:

No it can't. On checking, I was able to confirm that I am using these two words differently. They are synonyms, but can't be used as replacements for each other without screwing up the meaning of the sentences.

 

A tulpamancer is a person who practises tulpamancy or is a member of the community.

 

A host is a person who has a tulpa.

 

Neither is a perfect subset of the other.

 

There is no way I can fix this percieved linguistic "problem" without contorting the text into an inelegant mess that walks around the obvious clean language like some politician.

 

I know you and all the other tulpamancers here are exceedingly embarrased by the name of your discipline. Okay. What do you want to be called?

 

what is this?! (plural systems)

Oh, freudian slip. That's the context within which I think about this aspect of drug interaction.

 

A plural system is of course the most appropriate and correct term for any group within any plural community, including tulpamancy. I did point out I was drawing from a large sample size when compiling information on drug interactions? Larger than tulpas.

[/hidden]

 

Okay, that one was hard. I'd rather this not devolve into a flame war if at all possible.

 


 

Speaking of:

 

@everyone else: I feel as if I have a single person's perspective on the quality of this guide. I need more feedback, so I can guage its quality more accurately, and determine how many errors are left in it.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate how you take out bits that have a lot of promise like the Change versus Stability part that had some problems but also some solid bits, yet you keep a lot of your personal theorycrafting presented as facts in your guide that just brings the whole thing down.

 

 

Uguu talking to me about my article, did senpai notice me?!

[hidden]

I detect some doubt from you on this point. But it is all theory. There is not strong enough evidence across the tulpas on record to say anything other than tulpas grow over time.

 

Doubt on what from my point? I doubt that doubt is the killer? Yes. That I had doubt myself as I created a tulpa? Some perhaps, but I quickly adopted my absence of doubt mindset that helped me and never landed me in the doubt spirals many others went through.

 

Doubt is not a tulpa killer. That is the point of the text. The community at that time decided that it was and pushed pure belief.

 

What jump? I've heard people talk about this before. I think it is based on faulty reasoning. On the idea that a tulpa must be believed in in order to exist. What do they call it? "Pretend until it's real." IDK

 

The jump over the metaphorical hurdle. The one where the tulpa suddenly feels "real" for, well, real. It would be difficult for me to argue that this other person in my head isn't real, but that took time. At some point, however, it no longer was something I could doubt.

 

The "blind belief" method removes the time to build a healthy relationship and come to your own conclusions. It just tries to rush you to the end result without any work and then when you don't have that work to fall back on when you do start questioning things? That's where tons stop.

 

Indeed, a tulpa doesn't have to be believed in to exist. We both agree and we very much push the same idea: you don't have to believe, but you shouldn't just disbelieve and brush everything off until you know better. But I think in the end, all of us who do have tuppers end up believing in the existence of their tuppers. You don't need belief to get there, but in the end you tend to gain that belief.

 

But you definitely shouldn't try to jump right to the end without the work put into it, or you might very well fall into those nasty things I wrote about.

 

Oh, you just conflated trust with belief.

 

If it's "just believe in your tulpa" or "just trust in your tulpa" and the end result is the same (don't question your own feelings and thoughts, just believe/trust!!), it ends up being the same thing. Changing the word doesn't change anything if the message is the same. (same thing about your usage of subconscious, unconscious wouldn't fix it when you're still using it to mean the same thing)

 

Sudden switch to use of the word sapient.

 

"Sentient" in this community, especially back in the day, has been used to mean sapient. It's a pretty common thing, I'm sure you've seen a ton of "sentient" races (they should be called species, usually…) in various works of fiction and they clearly mean sapient. When I write what someone else has said in this text, I write it how they have said it: sentient. But when I write what I want to say, I write what they meant and what I want to write because I want it to be exact: sapient.

 

I haven't complained about your usage of sentient in your guide because you have clearly meant sentient and not sapient throughout. So congratulations, not many manage to do that. Though I'd argue it's important for tuppers to achieve sapience.

 

At this point I am convinced tulpas become sentient before they become sapient.

 

Could be. Who knows.[/hidden]

 

The main stuff

[hidden]

I am already using the word soulbond in this document. In the event that I import the word fictive, I will expand the glossary, and need to explain the context of the word.

 

I would honestly suggest you use the much easier to understand "fictive" that lacks the stupid baggage of soulbond, if you really need a word to describe them as in a tulpa guide. Fictive is broader and thus more useful than well, the mess that is a "soulbond". With all the baggage included.

 

Will review. Surprised you didn't notice it the last few times you looked.

 

Such is the unfortunate side effect of being presented with a 90 page guide. A shorter guide is just going to get more effort put into reading every sentence. Unless you'd be willing to wait like a week between each revision or something.

 

Wait. That is your complaint? I feel like you flip-flopped. Okay, I'll reverse it.

 

You said something along the lines of "tulpas and hosts are cut from the same cloth", and I objected because you made it sound like tulpas and hosts will be similar, when they might not be. Or probably won't be, there's a lot of different people in the same body (and honestly, would get real boring if we all were the same, right?). You "fixed" it by… Saying tulpas and hosts will be similar. Nice.

 

Your tulpa is cut from the same cloth you are. So will only take on a personality that you could conceivably have had if you had different life experiences.

 

This is garbage. What does it even mean? Remove the whole cut from the same cloth stuff that implies sameness when honestly we tend to be really different. We could be similar, sure. But we're people and we don't have any presets.

 

You mentioned that already. (using will when you should be using "might", "may", "could")

 

I did. You didn't fix it.

 

I disagree. Their placement is logical. You are correct that 3.2 ends with the recommendation to jump to chapter 5. 3.3 and 3.4 are for persons who need to ignore much of the advice in 3.2, due to already having a thoughtform.

 

Well, I'm not going to push it. I think it reads badly, but it's nothing severe.

 

You are correct. I am literally saying that the active method through which placebo works is belief modification. Belief modification results in improved mood, which aids some symptoms, and false reporting of improvement, in cases where improvement is self reported, as opposed to evaluated scientifically. Same with nocebo.

 

I am not prepared to reduce myself to a perceived phenomenon of mood modification and false reporting. A tulpa is not this.

 

About the physiological changes caused by placebo, article on Harvard University's site. Inb4 "but that says nothing about nocebo", summary of an article about placebo and nocebo (the two sides of the same coin) on US National Library of Medicine.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't describe how much research has gone into this theory so far. (yawning)

 

Indeed, that tends to be the issue. Not enough research.

 

It's not a joke. It's dramatic language. If I rewrote it, I'd say the exact same thing but boring like.

 

If boring like means it isn't dumb then go for it. It's not esoteric nor is it doing something no person is supposed to do. If you truly believe this then axe it from your guide, because we don't need your silly beliefs.

 

:/ I don't think you understand. By a standard definition of "soul", your statement translates to "I don't think I have a soul, but that doesn't mean I don't have a soul."

 

It is impossible to prove souls. On a technicality. You seem to be confusing belief in souls with belief in philosophical dualism.

 

Sure. I can't prove I don't have a soul. I can't prove there is no god. If someone one day proved those things to me, sure, I'll accept.

 

But until they are proven, you can't claim they exist in a scientific community, unless you are willing to handle an argument from someone who doesn't believe in what you believe. A guide is not a debate, so a guide can't really have debatable aspects like that in it. You're supposed to give the facts – or state when they are only your beliefs.

 

I can't axe it if the reason to do so is based on your unfounded belief that there are no primary thinkers, OR your unfounded belief that there is a cancerous mindset here. I don't even see what the cancerous mindset could be.

 

I am telling you to axe them based on your unfounded belief that there are definite primary thinkers and not being the primary thinker makes you worse at possession or your unfounded belief that there isn't a cancerous mindset here. So we're at a standstill here and will be until the end of time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Why it's dangerous:

Anyway. Your implication that there is a "primary" and a "nonprimary" creates a very bad environment for tulpas and hosts. After all, primary is the highest, the first.

There can't be two. So, one will have to always be lesser. (you asked two what, I mean two "primary thinkers": primary implies the highest)

 

I thought most people had trouble keeping everyone in the system thinking at full tilt twenty-four seven.

 

Certainly not what should be the end result and this is something you should work towards getting over asap. Your primary thinker syndrome makes it sound like the norm and something that should be lived with, when it's very much undesirable.

 

Though I would hope we get to sleep for some hours there and don't have to think 24/7.

 

I guess those systems of seven plus tulpas where everyone has full and complete lives in the wonderland are the norm. It just seemed so far-fetched.

 

Hard to say how many people can live together at the same strength in the same body. Too bad JDBar's not here, last I heard of him, he was experimenting on how many tulpas he could have that would do this. And mind you, all of his tulpas had their own wonderland lives. 5 seemed to be able to be done quite easily, according to his stories. Just living doesn't seem to be taking too much in the form of resources. Probably a different story if everyone tried doing advanced mathematics.

 

And we would all want our tuppers to be strong (probably?!)' date=' so your implications are that when they do become this, then you start getting issues.[/quote']

Um' date=' no? Random issues? What issues? I have implications?[/quote']

 

The implication of a "primary thinker" is that there can only be one. The implication is that when you're not a primary thinker as a host, you become something lesser and would then start having issues doing things you used to as a "primary thinker". This is untrue. You don't need to experience any issues. Some people might, but it's something to work to get rid of instead of something to be accepted as completely normal. Because they can overcome it. And should.

 

Hmmm. Then why do people think it is possible to dissipate a tulpa by starving it of attention? It doesn't make sense. The tulpa can just hide in the wonderland and continue thinking.

 

That is actually a very outdated idea – is it making a comeback? It was a consensus that dissipation would more or less be impossible. Similarly, "egodeath" and such probably aren't permanent either. We will only know if a death is permanent when the actual body dies and there is no possibility of them coming back. People in this community rarely stay dead after their many "suicides".

 

Oh, I think I see. You see this new idea as a tumour in your perfect theory of tulpas. I finally get it. "Cancerous mindset."

 

Or more like, ideas that are actively harmful because you make them sound like something that will happen, something that should be expected and is the norm. It is a phase at its best. Something to overcome. And people do and are better off because of that.

 

Standard vocality. Got it.

Wait... Are you saying this is rare? No... Everyone gets this. With a small number of exceptions.

 

I think you have no idea what an auditory hallucination is.

 

A mindvoice is not an auditory hallucination. A mindvoice very much comes from "inside" and you can tell it's happening "inside your head", so to speak.

 

An auditory hallucination is to mindvoice what full visual imposition (tupper can stand in front of you and block your physical sight) is to seeing them in your mind's eye. It would be like a physical person standing next to you and talking rather than a "voice in your head" – though some people definitely have auditory hallucinations as their "voices in their heads" in their various mental disorders, so take that to mean a literal voice coming from inside your head rather than a voice you could be fooled into thinking comes from "outside", if that makes any sense.

 

And people in this community are very lazy about imposition. Auditory imposition is a lot easier than visual imposition, but if you think everyone in this community can hear their tulpa like another real physical person from outside their head, then well… Nah. It's pretty advanced.

 

Amazing. What changed, that then, tulpas could think whenever they chose, and had imaginary tea parties, and now they can't until many months old?

 

The mindset. It used to be expected that tulpas could do this. It was expected that they would do this. They were thought to be "stronger".

 

We know they aren't, now. But I think right now we're stuck in a rut where people don't fully realize that they can do these things. Many think – even the tuppers themselves – that they're really weak when they're young and that they'll suddenly get stronger without ever trying. Possibly weaker than older ones, sure. But it doesn't mean they're helpless and they can always try. Trying just makes them practice.

 

Could it be, maybe, the theory of manufactured wonderland memory is true? Nah.

 

It could be. If we don't have any proof of someone else's memories, it's hard to say if they're real. Doesn't mean just tulpas, either. Fake memories are also a thing. Sometimes they're not lying, but they just believe something that never happened actually happened.

 

But what kind of stories will we believe? Will we assume all memories we haven't seen ourselves are fake? It's a slippery slope.

 

Think about that long and hard when your guide tells us to just trust our tuppers.

 

Thank you wikipedia. [citation needed]

Would you be happier with dictionary.com?

mind-set in Medicine

 

mindset mind·set or mind-set (mīnd'sět')

n.

 

1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations.

 

2. An inclination or a habit.

 

Only you can prevent the spread of foreign ideas. Not Invented Here.

 

Preventing foreign ideas that are bad is a good thing, yes. Not everything should be shared, especially not STDs.

 

You don't even want me talking about certain physical theories out of psychology. Such as hypnotism and stockholm syndrome.

 

You can talk about those freely. There's nothing magical about them and they are actual studied psychological phenomenons.

 

However, once "magic" enters the picture, you go way over the line. This is a scientific tulpa community. It wants things rooted in science, including help. Or maybe, especially help. Imagine if you had money troubles and were feeling bad, went looking for help and someone asked you if you had accepted Jesus as your lord and savior, because that'll fix all the issues? That might help someone, sure. But it doesn't help with the money troubles.

 

Scientific board, scientific topics and help. Not magic – unless you're willing to present a scientific look at magic.

 

As if you had a really sour experience in the past, and would do anything at all, at any cost, to prevent anyone else from going through it.

 

Myself, no. But I've seen many fall into similar pitfalls your whole guide likes to introduce and yes, I'd rather no one falls into them.

 

I worry about the other damage the changes you are recommending to my guide will cause. Like, if I tell a tulpamancer they can rely on their young tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts, that tulpamancer is going to have an absolutely terrible first few months, running off false expectations. And if they don't kill off their tulpa in an effort to escape tulpamancy and the intrusive thoughts plaguing them, I will have lost all credibility in their eyes and they will not trust anything else I say.

 

No. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts no matter the age. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa for anything. They are people. They can do what they want and they have different skills, no matter their age.

 

A tulpa can try to help if they want, young or old. A 2 month old tulpa might very well be better at it than a 2 year old or a 20 year old tulpa. Or not. They're different and you shouldn't be limiting them by telling them they are going to be bad, when they might not be.

 

I feel like I am getting bad advice.

 

I feel the same when I read your guide. If this was the guide presented to me when I had first started with tuppers, I'd… Well, first of all I'd be extremely turned off by all the weird terminology that sounds silly, but if I got over that, I'd run into primary thinker syndrome somewhere on the way. I wouldn't be here today if that had happened.

 

I'd probably agree with you on that point if the rest of the approved guides weren't doing the exact same thing.

 

You are always free to bring up any guides you feel don't fit the current standards so we can take another look. GAT is constantly evolving and different things will be expected at different points. Sometimes a guide that hasn't been completely up to standards has gotten through because the guide has been so old the author wasn't around anymore, but for the most part it was solid. You are also free to point out to an author if you think they have worded something poorly.

 

Of course, getting authors who are long gone to change anything is impossible and we won't change their guides for them. If the guide is otherwise very good, only something very serious would probably get it removed from approved. It's easier if the author is still around, then we can ask for revisions.

 

Knowing what I do about the brain's mechanisms of functioning makes it very hard for me to believe it won't happen eventually. (neglecting)

 

Sure. Things would atrophy when not used. But what if the tulpa keeps those pathways active by being active themselves?

 

Never heard of any symptoms from pain meds. That's not how nocebo works. As nocebo functions on belief, it can only cause problems with your tulpa if your tulpa is imaginary and not real.

 

I hope you read up on the links I provided about how placebo and nocebo cause actual physiological changes despite being just "belief".

 

Have they? Wikipedia does not even mention any studies. But given its record on these topics, I'm feeling this debate is way beyond mere encyclopediac knowledge of how things work.

 

What it does mention is the incredible nutritional profile of wheat, and heaps praise on all the healthy foods made with wheat.

 

Wikipedia rarely is a good list of all the studies done, yes. There of course is the usual concerns bit and the "low-carbohydrate diet" page has some findings about its effects, something you wouldn't achieve with a diet heavy in wheat. There also are of course other foods that have more of various nutrients and it's difficult for us to say if wheat would be the best bet if we're actually deficient in something another food would give us more.

 

This was a pretty interesting study about comparing ancient and modern wheat and their effects on IBS. Kinda off-topic but interesting, I felt.

 

I guess you never did parallel processing research back when you were active in the community.

 

More like it was a given that they would remember? Not that they always do because tuppers can also be scatterbrains just like anyone else. But I know mine had been pretty good at reminding me of things throughout his life.

 

... Right. Imagine me and my host didn't go into this without expectations. More disease talk and the unsubstantiated belief that mindsets affect forcing results to this degree.

 

Didn't go into it with expectations, I assume? Anything can happen, expectations or not. But if you expect something negative, it is more likely to actually happen.

 

If mindsets affected forcing results to this degree, there would be only one logical conclusion. Tulpas are imaginary. They don't actually exist, and are just self induced delusions.

 

You can affect yourself with mindsets. I think we all believe ourselves to be real more or less, not imaginary. Yet still it happens. As you force, you can block yourself from forcing properly by having a bad mindset. A tulpa might also inherit your bad mindset just like how a parent can pass on bad advice and ideas to their kids which then in turn will limit them. A child who has always been told they're worthless would have a really difficult time as an adult until they learn to understand that they're not worthless. A tulpa who believes they won't be able to think on their own will have a difficult time learning that unless they realize they can think on their own.

 

Here. Let me help. You meant to say that the mindset induced by primary thinker disease will cause people to have a harder time forcing. And you are evil for forcing it on people.

 

No.

 

You said the primary thinker will have an easier time possessing the body. We are talking about possession. So, if someone accept this mindset and isn't the "primary thinker", they would think they are worse at possession. And those thoughts might very well make them such. Forcing was not mentioned in this part of the conversation or the guide.

 

It's not false. Unless you can defend this position, you go beyond your responsibilities as reviewer.

 

Okay.

 

What about people who have never experienced primary thinker syndrome? I do believe primary thinker syndrome is a real mindset – but a limiting one, because it only gives you limitations without the strengths a mindset where you are equal would give. Because people who have never experienced it exist, it means there is no "rule" that you will suffer from primary thinker syndrome. Your guide does not make a point about how it's not something that happens to everyone or how it can and should be overcome, if it does happen.

 

I feel like you are out of touch with the community. Please stop repeating yourself in your arguments.

 

Maybe if you learned from when I say it just one time.

 

You're not helping me to come up with a better term here.

 

The term is half the issue. The entire idea is the biggest issue. I like primary thinker syndrome as a term, because it makes it what it is: an issue that you should and can overcome. It's not the expected end result nor is it something that will happen to everyone. Parallel processing problems for a term, if you like alliteration? Because that is what you are giving us. That wouldn't imply anything – as long as you make sure to note that it doesn't happen to everyone and that one can always get over the issues.

 

But axe your "primary thinker is better at possessiiinnng" stuff because that's symbolism and mostly harmful for the one that isn't the "primary thinker".

 

You are correct. But I feel you lack awareness of the details of what is going on here. A tupper may struggle to control the body due to inexperience. Or a tupper may struggle to control the body because the host is sitting on that part of the brain. The logical conclusion is obvious.

 

And nothing stops the tupper from "pushing" the host "sitting on that part of the brain", either. Assuming we're talking about controlling the body and not some primary thinker bullshit. People are pretty clever about finding their own ways when you encourage them.

 

What.

 

tl;dr there is no primary in our body and never was

 

I would also question if there is just one "mind" in a body that has two personalities and two sets of thought processes going on? Or more than two.

 

What you mean to say, is there is so much argumentation over this term that whenever someone brings it up, no one says anything at all for fear of starting the argument all over again and scaring the newbs away.

 

No one really has any idea what this term means, as anyone who puts forward a specific definition is always shot down by at least one "authority" in the community. (tulpa-like state)

 

The definition more or less is that which we use in our switching definition outside the outdated glossary: you would be in an imaginary wonderland where you experience imaginary things as if they were real. This term comes from the time when tulpas were thought to be those amazing superior mindbeings always dealing with the imaginary wonderland stuff and never really with the body. Possession was actually extremely rare when I came into the community and even earlier before my time it was thought to be impossible.

 

Why this term was bad and we wanted to get rid of it:

 

1. Hosts thought they would become "the tulpa". This is why "tulpa-like" anything shouldn't be used to describe anything hosts can do because some think it means something you didn't mean.

 

2. It implies tulpas have a role or a state that they should be in. It's like saying women belong in the kitchen and I don't think we should approve of that as people who deal with strong independent tuppers who need no man.[/hidden]

 

 

Autism

[hidden]I'm not saying autistic people can't feel empathy or feel less empathy when they feel it. You don't need to think I'm insulting you. However, empathy requires you to be able to read people to know how they are feeling. You have to be able to know what others are feeling to be able to feel what they are feeling. And if you have trouble doing that, you are going to have trouble being empathic. Are all autistic (I'll use this to refer to the whole spectrum in this text) people like this? No. Do some non-autistic people have issues with this too? Of course. But autistic people in general tend to have issues with social interaction. Alexithymia is pretty common in people with autism and other disorders in the spectrum.

 

Myers-Briggs type indicator is pretty silly, but INTJ isn't exactly the "empathic" type. Saying that this community is both full of INTJ and empathic people just is weird, when I can definitely see the INTJ and stereotypical autistic social interaction issues but less so the deeply empathic bit.[/hidden]

 

THE SUBCONSCIOUS

[hidden]

On the other hand, they are meant to present newcomers with perfectly normal field tested ideas that should aid in creating a tulpa. These ideas are weird to you only because you disbelieve them. (And because I used the word subconscious)

 

Not just "subconscious" – the subconscious. As tulpa.info is a scientific community, not only is there no place for such a word, there is no place for a theory that modern science doesn't believe in. That is the issue. You also don't present these as your theories but as statements one might assume are facts.

 

Which is it? Is it cancerous because it is not true or cancerous because it is a harmful idea?

 

Both. Just because it's not true doesn't mean it isn't harmful. Someone might say all muslims are terrorists. Clearly it is false, because not all are. But some would believe it and some do believe it. It won't make the lives of non-terrorist muslims any easier.

 

From the perspective of faster forcing, I have seen no statistically significant correlation.

 

Then why do you say this in your guide:

 

If you don't personality force, your tulpa will take more time to respond, talk, or do anything, really.

 

 

What happens in the cases where a personality is not forced, is your subconscious creates one based on your idle thoughts mostly.

 

That is your theory. You are again presenting it as a fact, as something that happens, rather than your theory.

 

Forcing under this theory would probably result in a tulpa that takes a really long time to grow and form. (that tulpas aren't magically pooped out by a the subconscious and instead grow and develop into their own people with time)

 

If you believe it to be like that, yes. If you don't believe it to be like that, no. A tulpa doesn't pop out with a perfect fully formed personality. A tulpa is when they are. When they exist, they can do things. And they learn and grow all the time, just like everyone else.

 

I bet in some cases, the tulpamancer would get so worn down, waiting for the tulpa to do anything without guidance, that they begin to think the whole thing is fake, and essentially lock themselves out of ever getting a tulpa with poisonous thoughts. <-- This is a theory by the way. I wonder if I would find evidence of it by looking at older accounts of tulpamancy.

 

It has happened.

 

However, the "old way" of creating tulpas was doing personality forcing. Irish was the first to create a guide without personality forcing, as far as the old guides go. Of which there were like, two. Neither really seemed to dominate the other in terms of how long it took, people just had their preferences. Those were the only two proper tulpa creation guides for a long time.

 

What is the definition of a cancerous mindset?

 

Harmful, possibly spreading and creating big issues that take a long time for others to remove so they can have a healthier mindset that doesn't bring them down.

 

Substantiate your argument. Why do you think my theory is personal belief? Why should I avoid including something that works from my guide? What alternative can I put in the guide? How are you so sure my theory is not factual?

 

There is no scientific basis in it. Modern science has not found any basis in "the subconscious" theory and now avoids the entire word – even without the "the". If scientists haven't found a way to prove your theory then I don't think you'll be proving it either. It's difficult to see where else it would have come except your own personal belief that this is what happened.

 

As long as it hasn't been proven, it's a theory at best. An extremely shaky theory with no scientific backing in this case. Still, it's not like a theory is a bad thing. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Both have a ton of proof for them, yet they still aren't accepted as the complete truth yet because there is so much we don't know.

 

However, if you wish to present your theories here in a form that is difficult to debate and comment on (most people will just read the guide and leave it at that, some possibly believing absolutely everything you wrote as a fact because you never made them question), you have to mark them as theories. When you have theories mixed with facts or common knowledge with no way of differentiating between them, you fool your readers. Remember when we talked about the theory of yawning raising alertness? You agreed to my points about it being anecdotal, yet you fight everything else based on the same principle: it has not been proven, yet you present it as a fact.

 

Well, if it was the common usage, why is tulpae not good?

 

Here.

 

His id, ego, superego theory is much stronger. But I think there were problems in his formulation there as well.

 

If by "problems" you mean "completely eradicated from modern psychology" then yes.

 

As for the rest, about "the subconscious":

 

There is no "the subconscious" accepted by science. I am also having a very difficult time understanding what it is you mean with this "the subconscious". I get some Freud bullshit, but you say it's not it. You agree with some of my points and then do a 180 and seem to say something that contradicts your earlier statements. This is the big issue behind the term "the subconscious". I have absolutely no idea what you mean with it anymore. None whatsoever. This is very bad in guides.[/hidden]

 

Tulpa"mancy"

[hidden]

A tulpamancer is a person who practises tulpamancy or is a member of the community.

A host is a person who has a tulpa.

 

What other is there to "tulpamancy" other than making a tulpa? Could you call a person who doesn't have a tulpa a "tulpamancer", because if you do… Well, I think that's false advertising? Like everyone calling themselves "tulpamancers" in their cringy ways has a tulpa.

 

Just like there is no "pre"-tulpa, a person considering making a tulpa and then starting to make one is a host. Referring to the person reading the guide as a "host" is not any worse than referring to a non-sapient, nonindependent, unvocal mind fetus as a "tulpa".

 

Of course, if the host stops before they get a tulpa, they would no longer be a host. A tulpa that isn't forced enough until they become a tulpa also never was a tulpa in the first place for real. Confusing perhaps, slightly. But for the most part we're a community of people who go through this, writing material for other people who we want to go through this. Is a mother a mother when they are pregnant or after they have given birth? What if the child was born dead or the child dies soon after?

 

I know you and all the other tulpamancers here are exceedingly embarrased by the name of your discipline. Okay. What do you want to be called?

 

People.

 

We're not in this to have a fancy group name. If you need to call us the tulpa.info community, go ahead. If you need to call something else the Reddit tulpa community or tulpa.io community, go ahead. You need to refer to us all, the tulpa communities? Sure. These communities tend to be different and our methods and mindsets are different, so lumping us all together should be done sparingly, especially if you are trying to present something from one community as a thing that is in all the communities. But we're people. Many people in a single body perhaps, but that doesn't make us more or less people. We're not different or special compared to people who are on their own in a body.

 

Maybe they'll even have other people in the same body one day, never know.[/hidden]

 

 

 

After a month of frequent and very long back and forths that have required a lot of time for cross referencing and fact studying but haven't gone anywhere, I am going to stop with the back and forth until there is a major revision that finally fixes the huge issues I have had throughout the guide. As the author has stated there probably won't be one, I doubt I will be continuing working on this unless I am proven wrong. Rest of the GAT can do their best.

 

Disapproved for Guides. Reasons: presenting personal beliefs and theories as facts alongside actual facts that will most definitely fool newcomers into believing these to be true. Pushing bad mindsets that only cause harm in the long run for easily impressionable people, which many newcomers tend to be. "Primary thinker" mindset is especially bad, throwing away the notion of equality between a host and tulpa(s), making the phase of having difficulties at parallel processing something "normal" that will happen. "The subconscious" theories are also grating and extremely unscientific for a community that has the tagline "for science!", not to mention difficult to understand: I still have no idea what is meant with this extremely vague concept and every attempt at trying to understand has contradicting responses ("it is symbolism", "it's not an entity" yet the text seems to imply that it is real and has some kind of mysterious powers and the ability to act). Some magic talk that doesn't belong in this side of the forum.

 

Lesser issue that does not have to be fixed necessarily, but looks bad: use of joke terms like tulpamancy and tulpamancer as legit terms when author has tried to make the guide look "professional". Lots of other non-tulpa.info words that could also be removed.

 

When this was still a compilation of different exercises, it was better because even though it had things that were off and some even completely awful, there was just less off and completely awful bits so it was better due to that alone. It's a real pity too, because there is a lot of really good stuff that would be helpful for the community. Unfortunately that good is sandwiched between bad that I consider so bad, it would outright harm the process of anyone trying to follow the guide.


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sands: Okay, I will keep your advice so far in mind for future revisions. However, whether or not I create a major revision and reformat of the document, which I will be entertaining the idea of over the summer, as you have officially disapproved of the guide, there is now no chance I will be addressing two of your concerns. First, your unfounded concern that this is a metaphysical guide. Second, your confusing and unintelligible concern(s) surrounding my use of the subconscious throughout the document.

 

Some of the downsides you note in my guide, I receive as necessary and critical upsides. The unification and inclusion of multiple tulpamancy communities. The standardisation of terms. The exploration of the diversity of the phenomenon. The analysis and correlating of differing theories. Warning users of bad things that might happen. Describing states and experiences that some tulpamancers go through. Cataloguing fun activities. Tolerance and acceptance. Disabusing people of the notion that the process is magical and will just happen if you believe. Explaining how it works, so people who can't believe can do it manually.

 

In addition, you make assumptions about what a tulpa should be, and label some mindsets as bad while simultaneously pushing other mindsets forward as ideal, while providing no solid reasoning for the difference. This implies bias in your perspective of the type I have actively and purposely tried to eliminate from this guide and from my interactions in this community as a priority.

 

If I do add a bibliography to defend some of the points I have made, it will be over the summer. However, doing so would be a nightmarish undertaking, given how little researched this phenomenon is, and how flooded with guesswork all the articles are. At this point, I think it may actually be impossible to do this for a tulpa creation guide.

 

To the rest of your criticism, I ask that you bone up on constructive criticism to improve your ability to aid young contributors.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What happens in the cases where a personality is not forced, is your subconscious creates one based on your idle thoughts mostly"

"That is your theory. You are again presenting it as a fact, as something that happens, rather than your theory."

 

If it doesn't come from the conscious mind OR the sub/unconscious mind, where does it come from then? Or are you just saying they might not necessarily get a personality at all, and the unconscious mind giving them one isn't guaranteed? I guess that's fair, but it seems a little nit-picky. I'm pretty sure most people who try not to give their tulpas a personality still end up with a tulpa with a unique personality.. But I'm not arguing that, just saying words

 

Anyways @Tulpa, you should just say the unconscious mind. Meaning, the rest of your mind you aren't aware of at any specific time. Implying there's a subconscious mind gives people the idea there's another working brain in their brain that can do all sorts of things against/without their will. Which like, isn't entirely untrue, but I guarantee you they use that as an excuse to let their imagination run wild. Like they just make stuff up ~unconsciously and run with it because "their subconscious did it" or something.

 

idk. I'm literally on both your sides and don't know how to contribute really. There's a need for "unconscious thoughts fill in the blanks", but also not implying there's a whole other brain instead of just what you're not aware of, and I'm certainly not the one to figure out how to separate them

 

@Tulpamancy/Tulpa001, in case you're wondering, you're not exactly in the wrong wanting to say the word tulpamancy/tulpamancer. It's definitely something people say. But Sands doesn't want it to be, and it'd help that cause if you weren't saying it in your guide I guess. I'd do what he wanted, actually we do do what he wanted, we don't really say tulpamancy/tulpamancer as much anymore. Tewi avoided the heck out of those words when dealing with the Mister Metokur people. I think it's not too late to start thinking about our outward image a little more, the Metokur thing is a reminder that what we the community are comfortable with isn't necessarily necessary or normal. I guess? I just say tulpa and host.

 

@Tulpae

"By giving a Tibetan word a Latin plural when using it in English, you're coming off as pretentious."

well there's some logic, can't really beat that. We normally just say "If you can't pronounce tulpae you shouldn't say it", and lol no one knows how to pronounce ae. Antennae? good luck

but yeah -ae being latin and unrelated to tibetan is kinda a nail in the coffin argument imo


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it doesn't come from the conscious mind OR the sub/unconscious mind' date=' where does it come from then? Or are you just saying they might not necessarily get a personality at all, and the unconscious mind giving them one isn't guaranteed? I guess that's fair, but it seems a little nit-picky. I'm pretty sure most people who try not to give their tulpas a personality still end up with a tulpa with a unique personality.. But I'm not arguing that, just saying words[/quote']

 

Where does a human's personality come from? I couldn't tell you. Modern science actually hasn't quite figured it out.

 

So claiming that you know it comes from this magical mysterious the subconscious when actual scientists haven't found any proof for that is pretty crazy if you ask me.

 

A tulpa will have a personality whether it is forced or not. How it is formed is the issue and presenting your theories as facts when there's no proof for it is not what a scientific community is supposed to be doing. Especially with concepts and terms modern psychology has abandoned for being outdated and redefined to mean nothing.


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

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.