On Tulpas—an essay about plurality in general and tulpamancy in particular

[Shinyuu]

Tulpas. A community with questionable ideas and goals, united by a mystical word. Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, trying to cope with their disorders. They are united by a goal to create what Wikipedia calls “an imaginary friend”. But what are those tulpas?

 

Humanity tries to figure how consciousness works for a long time, creating and disproving hundreds of theories. Are some people more suited to be “multiples”, to house more than a single consciousness in their mind? Are others bound to be singlets?

 

Continue Reading →

 

Note from GAT: While the page linked is clean/SFW, other pages/articles on Shinyuu's blog are not. Tread carefully if you are at work/school or are a minor.

 

waffles noted you want a backup link too. I'm experimenting with off-site copies on medium.com, so this article will exist even if I die (unless medium dies first).

[Candybell]

Absolutely no comments... that's interesting.

 

A community with questionable ideas and goals

questionable? I don't think most reasons to make tulpas are or should be described as such

 

Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, trying to cope with their disorders

I will note that, since I feel this is directed to people unfamiliar with the community, that "forcing" is very much so a word new people will not be familiar with. I will also note that "cope with their disorders" is quite unlike the others other than the fact it's a mostly internal process. I don't think it's fair to exclude a more positive outlook on this though, several people just want a friend to talk to a big titty monika gf.

 

Your introduction in general leaves me somewhat confused where this is going. I suppose I'm expecting tulpas to be explained through a lens of it's introspective qualities yet even that I'm unsure of.

 

Humanity tries to figure how consciousness works for a long time, creating and disproving hundreds of theories.

Humanity has tried* for proper tense. Figure out* or learn* would also probably flow better. The following two sentences also have very little to do with this topic sentence. I'm certain most assume singular is default, natural, etc.

 

Was that past you the same as the one that got to the shop?

I had feared from the two stories before this that this is where this was going. As based and redpilled this would be, such an assertion is as silly and absurd as the people who freak out thinking about split-brain patients showing how tulpas work. It's a misunderstanding of a perfectly explainable psychological phenomenon shoe horned into a plurality box. Just, now, instead of misunderstanding the importance of one's Corpus Callosum, these are mistakes based in a "woke" understanding of memory.

 

This theory further falls apart when you consider that most systems can remember things just fine, regardless of their status as host or tulpa. When memory issues come into play, it is Dissociative Identity Disorder, not tulpas. I would argue that just presenting this claim is enough to keep this from getting approved.

 

subconscious

I think you know roughly what I'd say here ;o

 

This brings us to what tulpas are.

It strikes me as unusual to not talk about this before talking about the process of a tulpa developing

 

remember—that one dies and gets re-created a thousand times a day too

noooooo. Your personality isn't really that much different than the rest of your brain: it's a pattern of neurons firing. By doing a particular pattern more, dendrite paths become more refined as someone gets older. It doesn't all whisk away and suddenly come back. This is why tulpas take time, your brain needs to get a new personality pattern in order.

 

tulpas have to be younger than the physical body, which creates a feeling of superiority for the host

This is unusual and deeply concerns me. I know you refute it but I feel like this line could be rephrased somehow to make it clearer that this is a typical pattern you observe or something along those lines. I also don't think the fact that tulpas are 2 weeks old really fully hits a lot of people, as most tulpas will act about the age of their hosts.

 

It is incorrect to see tulpas as lesser beings only based on them not being able to control the physical body, or preferring wonderland to physical world

tell those ableists! Joking aside, I think this paragraph could make it clearer that tulpas will eventually grow to be just as capable as you, if you give them the time.

 

any of those things require subconscious acting as there is no individual awareness involved. I suppose that the brain develops several subconsciousnesses for every individual.

The behavior you describe is almost certainly the work of the unconscious mind

 

There is one way the physical body can ultimately react to external stimuli, so which subconscious is involved is decided by the “fronting”—which consciousness was the last active one. Invoking actions from a distinct subconsciousness might reinforce the owning personality in mind, making it simpler for them to become self-aware.

um... what? I'm legitimately confused what I just read here.

 

few, if any, tulpas had to learn how to keep the balance while walking

Their* or a* would both be a better word here.

 

The entire next paragraph is on something about subconscious that I seriously cannot comprehend. If I, the psych student well immersed in tulpas, cannot understand it, I'm not so sure newcomers to this will be able to either

 

Whenever you practice tulpamancy for fun, loneliness or curiosity

I think you meant whether*

 

Becoming a multiple is a double-edged blade, and something you cannot unlearn—the practice stays with you, similar to the ability to ride a bike.

Well, you're not precisely wrong here, but knowing the practice doesn't stop you from dropping it entirely.

 

Regardless, in it's current state, this is not getting approval and would probably require massive overhauls if not a full rewrite to receive approval.

[Clo]

Thank you for your submission. I may not be the most eloquent writer or reviewer, but I do intend to give your article a fair shot and approach it with an open mindset.

 

... A community with questionable ideas and goals...

 

Starting off with a slight negative doesn't have a good effect and makes it come off as something somewhat malicious due to the psychological nature of tulpas.

 

Suggestion: Change "questionable ideas" to "unique ideas." Using that word tends to set my mind into skeptical mode, which helps out your article in general. Perhaps adding a line about the controversial nature of tulpas and how they are created/utilized could help further the first paragraph in general. It's a solid hook, despite that.

 

 

Are some people more suited to be “multiples”, to house more than a single consciousness in their mind? Are others bound to be singlets?

 

A bit of a personal thing here, I always found "singlets" and "multiples" to be a bit of an odd term. Since this article seems to be focused toward those who don't know what tulpas are exactly, it might be a good idea to define these right there and then instead of proceeding to explain it. Check what I mentioned in regards to a line later in your article and my review, referring to how some actors create multiples with how in-depth they get into their roles.

 

 

You walk down the street, and your thoughts jump to something else, to the shopping list, then to the class assignment for tomorrow, to the game, you watched yesterday.

 

This is quite confusing, but I do like how it ties into the "scattered mess of thoughts" idea you bring up toward the end of the paragraph. I like it, though it can come off as somewhat messy to the average reader.

 

Change: "you watched yesterday" seems to tie in a show or the game, but I'm not sure due to the punctuation between the game and that statement. Putting "a show" or "a movie" will fix this.

 

 

Some psychologists consider consciousness to be interruptible

 

This is really interesting and I would like to read up on this. Perhaps a source could be referenced somewhere.

 

Change: Rewrite the first sentence akin to something like "Some psychologists consider consciousness to be a process that can be interrupted, not a  process that starts with your birth and ends with your passing" as it fixes the grammar. Feel free to use that sentence, if anything.

 

 

--Everything from my previous quote to "But for multiples the story is different."--

 

We have gone on what we call "autopilot mode," which is essentially what you described in this. Kind of not thinking and just "doing," like a low power state to not really use up a lot of energy. As I was reading this, I became a bit confused between what message was being conveyed, ranging from this autopilot mode and DID.

 

 

Multiples are common outside of the tulpa community. Writers think like their characters. Actors get so into their roles that their mannerisms change even after shooting.

 

This is a really solid example of multiples, and because of this, I think I understand what they really are. Despite that, it kind of summarizes a few of the past paragraphs in a bite sized chunk of information.

 

Suggestion: Make this the initial "point" of the section and build upon it, as well as move prior paragraphs around to help define it instead of leaving it for last

 

 

---The same paragraph after the line I quoted above---

 

I must admit, I'm getting a bit confused with the hopping back and forth between Multiples and DID. Once again, it all feels a bit fragmented.

 

 

"The key to plurality"  paragraph

 

Quite an eloquent paragraph. Good job.

 

 

...any tulpa can grow to the same mental level as a host, surpass, or even replace them.

 

I do think they can do both of the first things you mentioned, but replacing them entirely is difficult. I personally feel like if they're switched 24/7 they become the host, yes, but replacing them entirely essentially comes off to me as the person grew up or developed into someone they want to be. It's a bit weird to describe, and certainly controversial, hence I don't know how talk about it and about how I feel about this statement. I feel like since you mentioned tulpas are a mechanical response within your article, the brain adapts into that personality overall and shoves all the others away into the recycle bin. Bleh, I opened a can a worms perhaps, all while being confusing.

 

 

There is one way the physical body can ultimately react to external stimuli, so which subconscious is involved is decided by the “fronting”—which consciousness was the last active one. Invoking actions from a distinct subconsciousness might reinforce the owning personality in mind, making it simpler for them to become self-aware.

 

Hopefully this makes sense to me after reading it a few times. From what I gather, fronting is essentially conveying your tulpa on your body and your speech, therefore, causing your brain to make the tulpa the dominant thinker by tricking yourself.

 

Change: Revise this to be more concise. If what I interpreted is incorrect, do try explaining a bit further.

 

 

The "subconscious actions aren’t fully isolated" paragraph

 

This is a really, really good explanation for muscle memory and how tulpas can "merge" with the body through switching or possession. Anecdote: I was pretty alright at video games initially due to my reaction times, and my host's muscle memory helped out with knowing how to operate and manipulate controls efficiently.  There is an system-injoke that I'm better at him in video games, and I do stand by that.

 

 

walk-ins

 

I don't think this is a good think to get into. Honestly, I don't believe in walk-ins without any prior forcing. Sure, since you were able to create a tulpa your mind has access to creating other tulpas easier, but walk-ins come off more as kind of like a passing thought. It's as if the wonderland (assuming this happens in a wonderland) daydreams on its own.

 

Suggestion: Remove the walk-in section.Suggesting walk-ins subconsciously plants that thought in your head. The same can be applied for toxic in-groups/friend circles/tulpa servers that promote unhealthy practices, such as constantly being attacked by some sort of mysterious force or assuming all walk-ins are tulpas.

 

 

---

 

 

Overall, this feels quite fragmented. It's an okay article and introduction to tulpas for those with DID, multiples, and all that sorts of jazz who want to distinguish what a tulpa is and isn't. For a casual internet user or a so called "normal" person, it will probably make them scree and run off, ultimately dismissing it. I feel like changing a few things up can really solve it, but I would highly suggest a rewrite in order to make the article more clear and concise. In its current state, it's a good drawing board and an average draft that requires significant refining. You're on the right path and the have right mindset. I hope to see an ironed out version of this article that I can consider giving an official Clo Seal of Approval to.

[Luminesce]

The heck is up with your opening paragraph? I skimmed a lot of the rest, it's probably fine (or at least others' advice above may be), but that opening is not okay. First of all, "Questionable ideas and goals" is pretty lame of you. But that's not my problem. "Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, trying to cope with their disorders.", on the other hand, is enough reason to not approve this entire submission, and I don't know why it wasn't pointed out before.

 

You literally said later that tulpas are "mechanically created". It's not a disorder. You know it's not a disorder, so why did you say that? I'm not part of any other multiple/plurality communities, but I know full well they don't like mixing actual disorders and tulpamancy together. "Traumagenic" and all that. And believe it or not, we don't like people calling tulpamancy a disorder, either. Because it's not. A disorder must interfere negatively with your life. Being a bit mean might interfere negatively with your life naturally, but it's not a disorder either. So if you're thinking the potential for a tulpa-host interaction to upset them at any point qualifies it as a disorder, you're being ridiculous. Otherwise I don't know why you said that.

 

(Maybe, just maybe it was an incomplete sentence, and "trying to cope with their disorders" was only meant to be one of many things on the list applying only to people who have them - in which case it's worded horribly and still should be removed entirely to avoid giving the idea that tulpamancy is highly related to disorders of any kind)

[Shinyuu]

It's not a disorder. You know it's not a disorder, so why did you say that? I'm not part of any other multiple/plurality communities, but I know full well they don't like mixing actual disorders and tulpamancy together.

I'm not sure how you read that as me considering tulpamancy a disorder; that's obviously not the statement the opening makes.

[Lucilyn]

well based on how grammar works, it could be read that way.. it also seems really inclusive of every example given, 'cus I thought about adding an "or" at the end but then you think they're not necessarily doing all of them, but then that implies they all have disorders. almost seems like it needs an "and/or" lol

 

I didn't necessarily read it like that, but obviously Lumi did.. so it stands to reason others could too, right? can you at least add an "or"? or is it not really editable

[Indigo Blue]

[align=justify]Your blog contains NSFW material on certain pages. The GAT may edit your submissions with a warning about the material, as a heads-up.

 

The two people (not counting Lumi since he wasn't a GAT member) who reviewed are no longer on the GAT, and since this submission is still up for review, we're not counting their votes. However, their critiques are still relevant nonetheless (as is Lumi's of course).

 

Anyway, on to the review

 

Content review

[hidden]

Tulpas. A community with questionable ideas and goals, united by a mystical word.

I don't know why you put it like that, "questionable" and "mystical." "Tulpas" aren't a community, also. This could use reworking.

 

Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, trying to cope with their disorders.

I think it's more than "dozens," lol. Not sure why the "disorders" point was brought up.

 

They are united by a goal to create what Wikipedia calls “an imaginary friend”. But what are those tulpas?

This first paragraph kind of makes it sound like tulpas are a community trying to make imaginary friends, but you're actually saying that tulpas are imaginary friends. Wikipedia is inaccurate in calling tulpas "imaginary friends," and that makes this article inaccurate too. 

 

Are some people more suited to be “multiples”, to house more than a single consciousness in their mind?

Imo, it is inaccurate to portray multiples as having multiple consciousnesses. One consciousness, just different people to use said consciousness.

 

But what if I’d tell you that you’re unconscious even more often? Every time you are not aware of what you’re doing? Every time your thoughts drift away to imagine something that will happen in future, every time you remember good or bad memories of the past?

This isn't what "unconscious" means. If you were thinking, you were conscious, even if your awareness wasn't on what you were doing.

 

You stop being yourself for that little moment until you are self-conscious again.

This is kind of a weird portrayal of "being yourself," you're yourself even if you're not consciously aware of it.

 

Writers think like their characters. Actors get so into their roles that their mannerisms change even after shooting.

Sometimes, writers and actors are plural. Not always, though. I think this can be included as one way the brain can simulate different personalities, but not actually having different personalities.

 

People suffering from DID become self-aware only to know that their alters did something they have no memory about.

Confusing. They only become self-aware to do that? How is that being self-aware, anyway? Just seems like memory loss.

 

Tulpas are mechanically induced consciousnesses, that, for all means and purposes, have same capabilities than the original body-born consciousness (remember—that one dies and gets re-created a thousand times a day too).

Calling tulpas "mechanically created" is weird. As stated, I don't think tulpas are their own consciousness. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that one dies and gets recreated, also. That seemed to be more like food for thought, not actual statement of fact.

 

The only thing that set tulpas apart is that they are created artificially via the tulpamancy practice.

I don't think "artificially" is the best word to use. Perhaps change to "later in life."

 

It would be unreasonable to ask a two-year-old tulpa to be a perfect hiker, even though they can relate to twenty years of previous host’s hiking experience—personal experiences are stronger and more efficient than ones of your systemmates.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the tulpa will inherit the same knowledge/skills as the host due to sharing the same brain. Only difference would be in the level of enthusiasm for it, really.

 

Many of those things require subconscious acting as there is no individual awareness involved. I suppose that the brain develops several subconsciousnesses for every individual.

"Subconscious" is bunk psychology, it should be "unconscious." Perhaps also change to "several unconscious processes for every individual."

 

so which subconscious is involved is decided by the “fronting”—which consciousness was the last active one

Confusing.

 

Tulpas evolve into the same unique personalities as hosts.

I know what you're saying here, but a newbie might misinterpret this as meaning they actually become the same personality as the host. Consider rewording.

 

They might be different in how they see themselves in the mind’s eye, the languages they talk to themselves in the head, but they are as capable.

Consider changing this to something along the lines of "They may have different ways of thinking and behaving, but they are just as capable as the host."

 

why some practitioners report walk-ins more actively after they create tulpas

I think that walk-ins are intrusive thought. Maybe you do too? That's not clear here.

 

and something you cannot unlearn—the practice stays with you

This is too bold of a claim.

 

when you limit your tulpas to cute anime girls that are bound to be nice and love you

Lmao, I really love this. However, a newbie might not get what you mean or what this has to do with your point. Perhaps elaborate or cut it.

[/hidden]

 

Grammar review

[hidden]

You tend to put the comma/period after the quotation mark in a lot of sentences. The comma/period should come first, then the quotation mark.

 

When you list three things, it should be "x, y, and z" not "x, y and z," unless y and z are supposed to go together.

 

A lot of sentences start with "But." Some start with "Yet," "And," or "Because." Consider rewriting. Some sentences are not a complete thought, such as the first one, which is just "Tulpas." 

 

"But what are those tulpas?" Is confusing wording, consider rewriting.

 

"Humanity tries to figure how consciousness" consider rewriting to "Humanity has tried to figure out how consciousness"

 

The thought experiment paragraphs could probably have the sentences combined with colons and commas, rather than all periods.

 

"Every moment you become self-aware the brain" add a comma after self-aware

 

There's a lot of weird wording or punctuation errors, I don't really want to go through all of them. It's good to proofread one's work for such errors.

[/hidden]

 

There is some good stuff in here, however it seems to miss the mark in a few too many places. The points about self-awareness, going "unconscious," and "subconsciousnesses" just feel way too off-base to me. Some stuff is inaccurate, like calling tulpas "imaginary friends" and the part about a two-year-old tulpa not being able to be a good hiker. The examples about going into one's house or going shopping don't add much to the overall point, in fact I'm not entirely sure what the overall point was. It needs more work, overall, before I'd be comfortable approving it.[/align]

[YukariTelepath]

Here's my review of the article.

 

 

I agree with the critiques others have made on the first paragraph. As for "coping with disorders," yes, there are a lot of tulpamancers with depression and other disorders, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the practice of tulpamancy. Certainly not the way forcing or meditation are directly connected to tulpa creation.

 

(Hiding some longer excerpts to save space)

[hidden]Was that past you the same as the one that got to the shop?

 

Some psychologists consider consciousness to be interruptible and not a process that starts with your birth and ends with your death. It’s simple to agree with that – you’re unconscious when you’re asleep. You can come up with dozens of common reasons why you can temporarily lose your consciousness.

 

But what if I’d tell you that you’re unconscious even more often? Every time you are not aware of what you’re doing? Every time your thoughts drift away to imagine something that will happen in the future, every time you remember good or bad memories of the past?

 

How does your body know it’s ‘you’ who it wakes up with? Why don’t you wake up as a completely different person? The reason lies in your experiences you’ve accumulated over the years you’ve been alive. When mind and matter create a thought that tells you who you are, that thought is fed with the memories you’ve had, with everything you’ve lived through.[/hidden]

 

Shifting one's awareness from a physical task like walking to the store to a daydream, is not a loss of awareness. You're aware of the daydream, or the internal monologue. You haven't become unconscious. What you're describing is autopilot, multitasking, and natural forgetting. The brain just doesn't put a lot of effort into remembering every detail of the day, especially when it comes to internal thoughts. There do seem to be short lapses in consciousness, when one loses a train of thought. This often goes unnoticed because the physical world continues as normal and is unchanged when you return. The overall point about continuity of identity over time and lapses in consciousness is fine and good.

 

[hidden]Every moment you become self-aware the brain sparks your consciousness by tapping into who you think you are and how you think you react; it bases your self-image on your reactions, applies your personal physical habits like posture and writing style from your subconscious. You become ‘you’ for some time, and then you drift away. You imagine you’re someone else – maybe a pirate, maybe a successful lawyer. You think of your crush and try to predict how they’d react to your valentine card. You stop being yourself for that little moment until you are self-conscious again.

 

Psychologists consider these moments of losing self-awareness normal, seeing them as a way to relax the brain that is very resource-hungry. The body often puts it in a low-power mode to keep the overall energy levels high; we all are naturally lazy thinkers.

 

Singlets expect to have one stream of consciousness. Even though sometimes they become self-aware as someone else, they never put much thought to it, and the brain restores the natural ‘I’ soon after.[/hidden]

 

Do you have a source for this claim that daydreaming saves energy for the brain?

I don't consider imagining being someone else, or predicting another person's behaviour to be losing self-awareness. You aren't becoming another person in those moments or becoming self-aware as someone else. Can you explain this concept of self-awareness? Are you saying that a tulpa's self-awareness is akin to a host imagining they are someone else?

 

[hidden]Multiples are common outside of the tulpa community. Writers think like their characters. Actors get so into their roles that their mannerisms change even after shooting. People suffering from DID become self-aware only to know that their alters did something they have no memory about.

 

The key to plurality is teaching the brain to address self-awareness to different personalities. As we discussed earlier, the brain does it by relying on the memories and experiences. For some, the alter-switching happens because of the traumatic events that one of the personalities forced itself to forget. The memories stay, but now the brain had to readdress them to someone else; so the alter is born. For others, simple thoughts of movie characters and their past are so vast, deep, and personal, that they are enough to flip them into a different stream of ‘who-I-am’.[/hidden]

 

I wouldn't generally consider writers or actors to be multiple, unless their characters have become autonomous and think on their own separate from the writer/actor. 

 

 

[hidden]Tulpamancy is a practice where you alter your single stream of consciousness and start to address some periods of self-awareness as belonging to someone else. You teach your brain to identify some periods of self-awareness with your tulpa by means of reinforcing their looks, personality, different senses or gender. More often than not tulpas are created with something that distinctly sets them out from hosts – so that it would be easier to self-identify.

 

The practice goes further, to give tulpas more memories and experiences, be those second-hand imaginary travels in wonderland or first-hand experiences of the physical world. As tulpas live those experiences from their own point of view, they reinforce the idea of who they are. Eventually, the brain stops needing a host-induced push to make tulpas react – tulpas become self-aware, and the brain learns the distinct set of thoughts that should belong to tulpas.[/hidden]

 

 

I'm still not sure what you mean by self-awareness. Up until now you've described it like one stream of consciousness changing their mode of thinking, like a writer writing their character or someone imagining being a pirate. You say, "tulpas live those experiences from their own point of view," but now that sounds quite different (and more in line with the usual goal of tulpamancy). What's the difference between a tulpa becoming self-aware and the self-awareness described everywhere else in the article?

 

Tulpas are mechanically induced consciousnesses, that, for all means and purposes, have same capabilities than the original body-born consciousness (remember – that one dies and gets re-created a thousand times a day too). The only thing that set tulpas apart is that they are created artificially via the tulpamancy practice. 

Mechanically and even artificial are inaccurate words to use for the process. There's not machine involved, and the word artificial doesn't apply to changing the brain's thought processes. It is completely natural, if unusual. " There doesn't need to be a dash after "remember." On the point of dying and being recreated, I guess you are referring to every time one "loses consciousness" and comes back? This is the first time you've referred to it as dying and it feels out of place. 

 

Due to this, tulpas have to be younger than the physical body, which creates a feeling of superiority for the host. But, in fact, no such superiority exists, and any tulpa can grow to the same mental level as a host, surpass, or even replace them.

The wording is clunky and could be rephrased. Tulpas are naturally younger than the host who creates them. I think a lot of the attitudes about tulpas being inferior to their host comes from thinking that a tulpa is something fundamentally different from a host. With an understanding that they are the same type of thing, the idea of superiority or inferiority goes away mostly. Then it's just a matter of how much development, experience, and opportunity a tulpa has to do the same things a host can do. How long it takes (minutes, hours, days) seems to be case by case. Muscle memory easily carries over for many tulpas who switch. This concept of tulpas having less experience/skill compared to the host conflicts with the earlier descriptions of multiplicity. If an actor gets really into his role, he doesn't suddenly have a hard time doing things he did when he wasn't in character.

 

It is incorrect to see tulpas as lesser beings only based on them not being able to control the physical body, or preferring wonderland to the physical world. You must consider the tulpa’s personal age and the amount of experience that the brain accumulated before they came to be. It would be unreasonable to ask a two-year-old tulpa to be a perfect hiker, even though they can relate to twenty years of previous host’s hiking experience – personal experiences are stronger and more efficient than ones of your systemmates.

The article talks about tulpas not being lesser for not being able to control the body, but it doesn't actually clarify that tulpas can learn to possess and switch. And the personal age of a tulpa doesn't matter that much, and even the article says tulpas can catch up quickly. 

 

Whenever you practise tulpamancy for fun, loneliness or curiosity, be careful. Becoming a multiple is a double-edged blade, and something you cannot unlearn – the practice stays with you, similar to the ability to ride a bike. You must understand that unconscious plurality – when you create characters from books to talk to them, when you role-play others in tabletop games, when you limit your tulpas to cute anime girls that are bound to be nice and love you – is still part of the same process and follows the same rules. Only your brain decides if those become full consciousnesses capable of self-awareness or not. And you are the one who can train your brain.

 

The last paragraph suddenly delves into a warning, which I think is an odd way to end the article. I don't understand the point on unconscious plurality. Accidental tulpas can from from writing and roleplaying, but the part about limiting tulpas to cute anime girls doesn't fit. Even if you mean a host unconsciously limits a tulpa to being cute and loving, you should explain more clearly.

 

Grammar notes

[hidden]

 

Humanity tries to figure how consciousness works for a long time

"Humanity has tried to figure out" would sound more natural. Present tense sounds off for something that has been going on for a long time.

 

 

to the game, you watched yesterday

There shouldn't be a comma after "game."

 

 

Think of twins – they share the same DNA (well, some of them)

To be more concise and accurate you could simply say identical twins and leave out the parentheses. 

 

 

Every moment you become self-aware the brain sparks your consciousness 

There should be a comma after "self-aware."

 

 

the brain does it by relying on the memories and experiences.

To me it would feel more natural to change "the memories" to just "memories." 

 

The practice goes further, to give tulpas more memories and experiences, be those second-hand imaginary travels in wonderland or first-hand experiences of the physical world.

The first comma here should be removed. Otherwise it's an incomplete sentence at its core: "To give tulpas memories..." 

"The practice goes further to give tulpas more memories" is complete, if that's what you meant to say.

 

But what if I’d tell you

"What if I would tell you" sounds awkward. I suggest "What if I told you."

 

 

Tulpas [...] have same capabilities than the original body-born consciousness

Here "same capabilities than" should be "the same capabilities as."

 

Some talk differently, others shift their weight in a distinct way as they walk, exhibit idiosyncratic writing styles.

Something is missing in front of "exhibit." Some suggestions: "or" "others" "others still"

 

so which subconscious is involved is decided by the ‘fronting’ – which consciousness was the last active one. Invoking actions from a distinct subconsciousness might reinforce the owning personality in mind, making it simpler for them to become self-aware.

"Fronting," do you mean "fronter"? The brain will determine what model of thought and behaviour are used according to who is fronting.

"In mind" should be "in the mind."

These two sentences are quite confusing.

 

 

fun, loneliness or curiosity

Oxford comma?

[/hidden]

 

Overall this article is unclear in many areas and I find the author's view and explanation of tulpa and plural identities to be confusing and inconsistent. The article would be improved by better explaining certain concepts like awareness and self-awareness. The entire time I was unsure if the author was saying daydream characters and tulpas were the same experience. The article needs a lot of reworking before I can approve.

[AZ]

Tulpas. A community with questionable ideas and goals, united by a mystical word. Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, trying to cope with their disorders. They are united by a goal to create what Wikipedia calls ‘an imaginary friend’. But what are those tulpas?

 

Questionable ideas and goals / creating tulpas to cope with disorders may apply to some people within the community, but not the majority. I think it’s a bit unfair that you tarred everyone with the same brush and implied that this is the whole of what tulpamancy is about.

 

Here’s a thought experiment for you.

 

What you’re describing here is called ‘autopilot’. By reading the next part of the article, I can see how you think it’s relevant to tulpamancy based on your belief in the subconsciousness, but if the subconsciousness doesn’t exist as seems to be the case then this becomes irrelevant.

 

Was that past you the same as the one that got to the shop?

 

There’s no right answer for this, it all depends on your definition of self which differs wildly from person to person and culture to culture.

 

But what if I’d tell you that you’re unconscious even more often? Every time you are not aware of what you’re doing? Every time your thoughts drift away to imagine something that will happen in the future, every time you remember good or bad memories of the past?

 

You’re still conscious when you’re daydreaming though, it’s just that your attention is on something else. I think you may be confusing consciousness with lucidity.

 

Psychologists consider these moments of losing self-awareness normal, seeing them as a way to relax the brain that is very resource-hungry. The body often puts it in a low-power mode to keep the overall energy levels high; we all are naturally lazy thinkers.

 

I’d like to see a source on this because if true that’s very interesting.

 

I suppose that the brain develops several subconsciousnesses for every individual.

With that, subconscious actions aren’t fully isolated either.

 

Despite the existence of the subconsciousness being in question anyway, this seems like a contradiction. I see what you’re saying (let’s just assume that the subconsciousness does exist for sake of argument), but why would separate subconsciousnesses be required if they can all share with one another anyway? Individual subconsciousnesses would seem redundant. 

 

Despite a negative review, I didn't find your article to be all that bad and I still think that your views and opinions are valuable. Because this is an article and not a guide, I think your views are still valid, however I can’t give it the thumbs up due to my own conflicting views and opinions.

[Osaka]

I think the overall idea of the article is good. It's geared towards those who are unfamiliar with tulpamancy and provides a good insight as to how the "self" functions.

 

However, as others have noted, the article itself has quite a few problems. I've noted these problems here. Most are grammatical errors, but some things need clarification and rewriting.

 

As it stands now, I can't approve this guide. Work on fixing up the article and link it. I'll reread the article and give you an updated review.

 

-Nat

[Ranger]

I’m not sure what your thesis is. There are several topics introduced in your essay that lack transitions from topic to topic. I found the following topics in your essay:

 

• Tulpas and tulpamancers are questionable and mysterious
  
• Are some people more likely to become plural than others?
  
• Are you your thoughts?
  
• Are you unconscious when you are not aware of your own thoughts?
  
• How do you know you are you and how that relates to plurality
  
• Developing a personality and genetics
  
• Multiplicity outside of the tulpa community
  
• Tulpas and hosts are equal
  
• How do switching systems share experiences and abilities?
  
• How switching and the unconscious mind relate to each other
  
• Tulpa independence and the effects of tulpa creation
  
• Plurality as a double-edged sword and accidental tulpa creation
  

“On Tulpas” is too broad of a topic, and as a result you connected ideas that don’t relate to each other or loosely relate to each other, sometimes having this problem within a single paragraph. Each topic I listed can be its own essay. I broke down your essay topic-by-topic here.

 

All of these topics are interesting and what you have for some of them is a good start, but unfortunately you will have to re-build your essay from the ground up. There is not enough written for each topic to make up the core of an essay. On average, each topic had a couple paragraphs dedicated to it. I don't recommend picking multiple topics and writing a 20 page essay to cover the entire subject or breaking down a 10 page article into numerous short or incomplete essays.

 

I recommend using what you wrote on self-awareness and how that relates to plurality because you wrote the most on that topic. In the Google Doc, I labeled the topic [E] and highlighted the related paragraphs in green.

 

---

 

Some of these problems come from cramming topics together and not having a solid structure or thesis. Others came from unresolved logic.

 

Specific feedback:

 

[hidden]

A community with questionable ideas and goals, united by a mystical word.

 

Given that your core readers are most likely other tulpamancers, making fun of them them is a poor choice for an opening.

 

This also makes me wonder if your target audience is people who never heard of tulpas before. If so, you can build curiosity in your audience without painting tulpamancers in a negative light.

 

Some other reviewers got the impression your target audience was beginners, but I did not. Most of the time it felt like you expected your reader to know what tulpas were already because you used terms like forcing and switching without stopping to explain what those terms meant.

 

Humanity tries to figure how consciousness works for a long time, creating and disproving hundreds of theories. Are some people more suited to be ‘multiples’, to house more than a single consciousness in their mind? Are others bound to be singlets?

 

The first sentence has nothing to do with the following ones. However, it makes it sound like multiplicity is a well studied and established concept when it is not. While there are various studies done on DID, there are almost no studies done on tulpamancy and other plural communities.

 

Some psychologists consider consciousness to be interruptible and not a process that starts with your birth and ends with your death. It’s simple to agree with that – you’re unconscious when you’re asleep. You can come up with dozens of common reasons why you can temporarily lose your consciousness.

 

The last sentence doesn't make sense with the rest of your paragraph and the statement itself does not make sense. Without the context of the debate over if you are conscious all the time or not, it sounds like you're asking your audience to come up with dozens of reasons for why they could black out. The lack of a topic sentence and smooth transition makes the last sentence feel out of place.

 

But what if I’d tell you that you’re unconscious even more often?

 

This is a heavily debated subject, so it may be worth mentioning that this is debated and not fact to prevent confusion.

 

Multiples are common outside of the tulpa community. Writers think like their characters. Actors get so into their roles that their mannerisms change even after shooting.

 

These assumptions are not founded on any solid evidence and not all writers and actors will create tulpas accidentally. To say that multiples are common is also an assumption.

 

The key to plurality is teaching the brain to address self-awareness to different personalities. As we discussed earlier, the brain does it by relying on the memories and experiences. For some, the alter-switching happens because of the traumatic events that one of the personalities forced itself to forget. The memories stay, but now the brain had to readdress them to someone else; so the alter is born. For others, simple thoughts of movie characters and their past are so vast, deep, and personal, that they are enough to flip them into a different stream of ‘who-I-am’.

 

The sentences related to alters do not belong. Alters can exist without universal self-awareness due to the effects of amnesia.

 

Eventually, the brain stops needing a host-induced push to make tulpas react – tulpas become self-aware, and the brain learns the distinct set of thoughts that should belong to tulpas.

 

This transition sentence has potential to introduce your next topic on hosts being equal to tulpas, but the next sentence and the following sentence that follows don't work for a complete transition.

 

This brings us to what tulpas are.

 

You should define what tulpas are in your introduction or immediately after your introduction. Your audience probably spent the last couple pages very confused assuming they don't know what tulpas are. If you do not intend on defining what tulpas are, take it out.

 

(remember – that one dies and gets re-created a thousand times a day too)

 

This doesn't make sense and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the paragraph it was in.

 

Tulpas are mechanically induced consciousnesses, that, for all means and purposes, have same capabilities than the original body-born consciousness (remember – that one dies and gets re-created a thousand times a day too). The only thing that set tulpas apart is that they are created artificially via the tulpamancy practice.

 

Based on your previous sentences, the last sentence does not make sense in this paragraph. A tulpa is set apart from being mechanically made because they are mechanically made does not make sense.

 

Describing tulpas as "mechanically induced consciousnesses" and "created artificially" makes it sound like tulpas are alien compared to their hosts, contradicting your point.

 

How does the bond to experiences form? Why can some systems switch and use each other’s skills easier than others? I’d think that has its roots in the memory separation, although the mechanisms that isolate entire experiences are not clear.

 

The first sentence is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, and it's odd you never answer your first question.

[/hidden]

 

Grammar errors:

 

[hidden]

Dozens of people practising forcing, hypnosis, altering their consciousness, meditating, and trying to cope with their disorders.

 

, and

 

They are united by a goal to create what Wikipedia calls ‘an imaginary friend’.

 

"the goal" not "a goal"

 

Humanity tries to figure how consciousness works for a long time, [...]

 

has tried not tries

 

You walk down the street, and your thoughts jump to something else- to the shopping list, then to the class assignment for tomorrow, to the game, you watched yesterday.

 

Add a hyphen after else, replace the second to last comma with ", and then", and remove the last comma

 

But when you try to remember what you were thinking of while you were walking, nothing

 

Add a comma there

 

Tulpas are mechanically induced consciousnesses, that, for all means and purposes, have same capabilities than the original body-born consciousness

 

[...] have the same capabilities of the [...]

 

[...] tulpa to be a perfect hiker. , e Even though they can relate [...]

 

Replace the comma with a period.

 

After all, few, if any, tulpas had to learn how to keep the balance while walking, [...]

 

their not the

[/hidden]

 

Regardless of which topic you choose, you will essentially be starting from scratch. Hopefully you can salvage what you already wrote for the next draft and save those other topics for future essays.

 

I know this is an older article, and your writing skills have improved a lot since then. I’m confident that you revisiting this work will lead to a much stronger submission and an interesting read.

 

I cannot approve this draft as is, but I look forward to your future submissions.