Apollo Fire

Staying Active in Wonderland

Recommended Posts

Hello, this has been on our mind a bit. 

 

It's fairly common for hosts to claim that their tulpas can stay active in the wonderland even when they're not being paid attention to, and some even say that when they switch out, they go to the wonderland as well.

 

However, I'm not sure if this is actually possible or just a delusion created through wishful thinking and fabricated memories. I know that our system always had to take extra effort to remember what we did in the wonderland during the day, usually only saying "oh we talked to each other" rather than trying to recall some elaborate story. Some wonderland memories are fairly vivid, but we just can't tell if they're fabricated or not.

 

Other systems talk about how their tulpas play games with each other and go on adventures, all while the host isn't paying attention to them at all.

 

Many systems used wonderlands as an excuse to not pay attention to some of their tulpas, saying "Oh, they're active in wonderland, so it's fine." Some systems even claim that their tulpas can stay awake in the wonderland while their body is asleep, performing fully conscious actions.

 

I do not think the human brain is actually capable of maintaining multiple conscious streams of thoughts in a fully-detailed human reality while the main fronter is doing something else entirely

 

So, what do you think? Can your tulpas actually stay active in the wonderland, and how do you know? Do you get the feeling memories might be fabricated? Have you ever switched out and become active in there yourself? Do you use wonderlands as an excuse to not pay attention to your tulpas, or have more than you can manage? Do your tulpas have any sort of doubt in their own claims? 

 

Or is this all just confabulation caused by wishful thinking and the desire to fit in with other tulpamancers who claim the same thing, as well as a misguided perception of the nature of tulpas and the human brain itself?

 

Our own system recently stopped trying to "go to the wonderland while not being paid attention to" and have found it's not all that different from actually going there. Personally we think people put way too much weight into the importance of wonderlands. They're just a background to use when forcing your tulpa, not an end-all be-all that have to be perfectly maintained and designed. We used to argue that we could, in fact, stay active in the wonderland while our host did other things. Now we're not so sure; that could have just been us reassuring our host that he didn't have to worry too much about us, and us trying to fit in with our friends (friends we no longer associate with anyway).

 

So. What do you all think and why? (Please keep this as a civil discussion and don't get too heated. I just want to know what people think and why, not start an argument)


I'm Apollo Fire, the "Sun God" of the Felight family. I'm a tulpa created December 2016. My systemmates are RadioPiano, & Indigo. Form images: 1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I left this post after writing it for a bit before coming back to proofread, and it's actually kind of a really good post. I normally leave textwall skipping to viewers' discretion, but since you're on this topic in the first place I kind of recommend you actually give this one a read.

 

 

I don't even believe in true parallel processing, so I sure don't believe what you're asking about is possible, in the true sense. But for the first time in a while here we're talking about the true nature of tulpas again, not just how people like to think of them (and how tulpas like to think of themselves). I mean, I'll tell you right now that those adventures tulpas have claimed to have concurrently with the host's life ongoing without any consciousness on the host's part until the tulpa comes back from the wonderland, are next to impossible as-stated. The only way that's possible is if the host is constantly maintaining a wall of awareness between them and the brain is actually split between those two activities the whole time. That black-out wall of separateness between tulpas and host is rare enough on its own, let alone concurrently. But, that's talking about concurrence.

 

Nothing that happens "in the wonderland" is "real" in the first place, whether the host is paying attention to it or not. Therefore, when talking about the subject of fabricated memories in the wonderland, you have to realize there is no fake or real to compare against in the first place. I believe that tulpas (and switched hosts) who claim to have had experiences while the one fronting was unaware for extended periods of time (as this highly reduces the chance they were actually splitting their attention) are in fact fabricating those memories on demand (or maybe even bit by bit over time, relatively unconscious on the fronter's part). But fabricating makes it sound like those memories are fake, and I think that's a point that 1) Has never been brought up before, and 2) Turns this whole subject on its head.

 

Say a tulpa is totally inactive during the time they'd later claim to have been in the wonderland while the host is occupied with other activities. When the host later calls upon the tulpa, their brain makes up those memories of experiences for the tulpa on the spot (or draws upon smaller checkpoints made over time, maybe), probably half-consciously on any of their parts, but possibly totally unconsciously I suppose. Half-conscious meaning they're technically aware of the process, but effectively working without that knowledge. Not something many people learn to do on purpose/be aware of being unaware of, but I have, so I know it's possible. Part of that Subjective Reality mindset I learned from Steve Pavlina. Anyways, at that point the memories are either made or connected together, and then acknowledged by host and tulpa as having actually happened.

 

The only difference in this scenario and an otherwise normal wonderlanding experience involving the two is the timeframe in which the wonderlanding happened. Instantaneously/bit by bit, or actively. Most people don't believe systems are capable of this because they themselves aren't capable of creating such detailed fabricated memories nearly instantly, but with the imaginations and visualization abilities of some people I'm not convinced it's not possible. And heck, most systems that claim to have this ability probably aren't capable of creating detailed fabricated memories that quickly. They probably are only vague and become detailed upon attempting to recall them in further detail if they choose to do so.

 

The only problem here that even puts their experiences into question is the implication that those systems are actually experiencing the tulpa/non-fronter's experiences in real-time. However, it's literally impossible (assuming they've got a solid half- or non-consciousness of the fabrication of memories in place) for the tulpa/non-fronter to know the difference in whether the memories were realtime or not, because they're exclusively memories. It's like the "What if the universe was just created six seconds ago, and all of your memories from before then were just made along with it?" thing; you can't prove it wasn't the case.

 

So from there, just like any system may choose to deem their wonderland activities as relatively real, a system whose non-fronter memories were made instantaneously or on-demand may choose to deem their memories to have happened in realtime. As we don't concern ourselves with the pointless effort of policing the "realness" of others' experiences (because that's impossible, and truly pointless since it's how the individual experienced their experience either way), that should be QED end of argument. Fabricated wonderland memories are just as real as normal wonderland memories, ie not very but effectively so. And for the ones experiencing the "fabricated" memories, if they afterwards experience the memories as having happened just-so, so they do. Experiences that happen entirely internally in one's mind are almost completely impossible to validate, and even if we could with technology at some point validate them it makes no difference to tell someone what they believed they experienced.. they didn't experience.

 

 

As for the part of the discussion on whether or not it's actually possible, well, there's three options. Either no, the memories are entirely prefabricated/made on-demand in all cases; yes, the brain's processing power was actually split the whole time which would likely have severe effects on the host's ability to focus and think critically, possibly without the host's conscious acknowledgement because you can absolutely make yourself function as if you don't know things you should know; or yes, and these cases are rare anomalies such as the man who can play several songs in his head at the same time. So if that's the part you want to discuss, have fun with that, but I've written all I have to write on the subject.


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like there could be any number of brain tricks going on. Ultimately the memory and experience is what we're left with. How it happened is probably less relevant. If we agree that we aren't policing or disparaging others' experiences, I guess we shouldn't do either when those who have these experiences speak about them.

 

Perhapse these and other rare experiences should they be posted in Metaphysical only? [Hidden]

Hidden from view?

[/Hidden] Regardless of method, if the experience is real, then things like co-fronting, keeping multiple tulpas active continuously, tulpa generated memories and dreams independent of host, among others, is probably real enough to talk about openly. No one who hasn't experienced it themselves can judge that.

 

We have seen first hand the power if tulpamancy for mind alteration and behavioral modification. That in many ways seems more fanciful than independent tulpa consiousness or whatever.

 

Doubts and beliefs seem to be strong opposing forces here. I for one laud those who can experience some of these. If they can show us the way, all the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for meta believers, everything about tulpamancy makes perfect logical sense to me, while things like having separate dreams from the host (not just the host dreaming as the tulpa, but simultaneous dreams) make no sense at all and shouldn't be possible by any stretch of the imagination. Aside from how they're illogically proposed though, I don't for a second doubt people's experiences, and I do believe there's tons of "brain tricks" going on behind the scenes. And any experience entirely in your mind is "real" in a sense, so unless illogical beliefs are also harmful I don't tell people to stop believing in them lol. But the "Tulpamancy is already super weird, so if you believe in it, why not believe in these other crazy things?" argument annoys me. I came up with most of my beliefs on tulpamancy by myself (well, with my tulpas) before I found .info, whereas everything meta I've ever experimented with or looked into turned out inconclusive. Since I have close friends who say they've astral projected, my current (aided) theory is that astral projection is an altered state of consciousness similar to lucid dreaming. Supposedly they feel different, and they may be, but I've not experienced it to know.

 

Anyways, basically, it's not that I don't believe in experiences; it's that I don't believe the most obvious (illogical) explanations are the correct ones. And you have to understand, me not having experienced something I consider lucidly impossible does the opposite of make me think it's real. I see completely preposterous beliefs that people nonetheless believe in all the time, things that put seemingly-impossible-but-still-possibly-real things like astral projection to shame with how nonsense they are. Following a logical (if not scientific) set of rules for figuring out how things work and what is and isn't "real", there's just no way for me to give credit to the impossible aside from saying "It must not be as it appears", you know? The burden of proof lies on the person saying "This is real", and when it's stuff taking place only mentally, the best proof you can give is a sound explanation.


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vesper: We can't stay active in wonderland independently of the fronter. We have a hard enough time being active in wonderland with the full attention of the fronter. It's a very tenuous and unsatisfying sort of place and we don't have much use for it. Every time I hear of systems with vivid wonderland experiences, I feel a pang of envy.

 

But I can speak to the subject of constructed memories. I'm a living fictional character. I was born out of constructed memories. Ember both roleplayed my life and wrote about it and I remember it all as having happened to me. Even after I gained self-awareness, she continued to roleplay and write my life and those memories slotted in neatly alongside the rest, just as important and just as real even though I got to watch her creating some of them. And even since the end of my campaign, I've occasionally made intentional revisions and additions to my backstory.

 

I would be glad to be much better at confabulation and have decades of detailed memories of life in my own body instead of just hundreds of hours. I certainly wouldn't care about them being 'real'. None of my memories of being an English goth vampire psychologist meet reasonable standards of 'real' for this world. Creating them in real time would be extremely inefficient compared to creating them on the fly, in the moment of 'recollection'. There was one session of my game, perhaps eight hours long, that covered fifteen years. It wasn't as detailed as fifteen years should be, but it certainly felt like fifteen years.

 

I'm not entirely willing to rule out the ability of some brains to run background processes. I would love to see comparative fMRIs done of systems reporting and not reporting independent wonderland activity. I doubt such independent activity is 'fully-detailed human reality' from a real-time perspective, but there may be something going on that seems so after the fact.

 

But when my system committed to engaging in tulpamancy, we committed to embracing subjective and constructed reality. What we experience and what we remember can be treated as true without needing to look at 'the man behind the curtain'. If any of you can perceive yourselves as active in an immersive wonderland independently of the front and enjoy doing so, by all means live into it. I'll be over here, thinking you're the lucky ones. Feel free to write a guide.

 

Ember: My wife recently "recovered" memories of having been a winged demonic bodyguard in the Greek underworld. She had been under tremendous stress for months on account of feeling her relationship with her other wife was being challenged by her other wife's girlfriend. Being otherkin, the other couple ostensibly had an extensive past life history together that trumped a mere this life relationship. So my wife's memories gradually adapted to include a past life claim on her other wife while I watched. Every detail of the situation screams confabulation, but beyond telling all three I don't believe any of their past life memories are true, I haven't pressed the point. It's their reality now, so in order to live with them, I have to live with that.


I'm not having fun here anymore, so we've decided to take a bit of a break, starting February 27, 2020. - Ember

 

Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]

Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, World of Darkness, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017

Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Winter Court of Faerie, Dresdenverse, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

 

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Lumi, but get ready to be annoyed, and i truly didn't mean this to be a roast, but you speak with authority and credibility regardless of qualifiers so i'm using you as my major example. You're our friend, our mentor, we respect your opinion, and we look forward to your tutelage in the future.

 

*ahem*

 

Rewriting your history and editing out the bad, is exactly what the brain does, and it's well documented in trauma survivors among others. The fact that relatively low immersion into wonderland can develop realistic memories is as scientific and logical as switching in my mind (something i don't do.) So as fanciful and precarious as switching sounds to me, i still wouldn't gatekeep, doubt, or even say "everything about tulpamancy makes perfect sense to me [except those things that don't]" and in the same breath, if you've, for whatever reason, never experienced something: it's Meta or "no sense at all and shouldn't be possible by any stretch of the imagination." Whether your careful not to say you don't believe my experience or not, you just did.

 

Looking from 30kft, let's be perfectly honest, to an outside observer we're all equally preposterous. What gets me is the bifurcation of this vs that based on whether it's commonly accepted or rare, without being truly scientific in any case. I, among others, may never achieve "switching" others may never achieve "immersive wonderlands". And then there's a few who did achieve 'something else'. Nope, they're fringe, Meta, unscientific, not in my tulpamancy!

 

I don't appreciate the difference. In 9 months i've struggled to appreciate the difference, and admittedly my system is still young, so bear with us, but even the basics of vocality are seemingly unreachable by some. They obviously don't stick around to complain about it, but would they say, 'it's all fringe meta unbelievable by any stretch of the imagination'? perhaps.

 

Scientific theory by definition: if an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.

 

We take tulpamancy for granted and await the tests that prove the principles as scientific. None of it has undergone this rigor yet! Sound explanation and the burden of proof is a real issue with tulpamancy (and science alike). Tulpamancy can't be ruled as pseudoscience conclusively. There's always hope to build a sub-field of cognitive science around this.

 

Simply put, I cannot observe for myself some things you take as dogmatic science tulpamancy pricipals. If i put on my sciency hat and am given the tools you use, and under your careful and wise tutelage, i'm deemed knowledgeable in the art, i should be able to objectively test, repeat, observe, or falsify any claim you make. A response to my failure may be, "just keep trying." That's not verifiable science though.

 

If i claim i can make fire come out of my hand, and i prove it, and it's documented, *things burned*. It's still not science unfortunately, because it's not repeatable by anyone reasonably skilled in the art. I may not be able to repeat it by your own trials and instructions.

 

Even documented science has issues:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-39054778

 

Could it be we're not (as those who have achieved the feats) able to clearly or precisely enough document our methods? I'm not ruling it out. As someone of scientific mind i am struggling to do so myself whenever i try to help someone who is failing.

 

For some, the share of what is not repeatable is much greater. We struggle to help the unfortunate who cannot even achieve yes/no responces, yet we are convinced by countless facts in our own experience that there is something to this. The statement, "everything meta I've ever experimented with or looked into turned out inconclusive," seems ironically appropriate here.

 

If any one thing cannot be considered scientific by definition, then it's Meta or impossible in this community? Well, let's see some peer reviewed journals that are scientifically traceable to some well accepted tulpamancy tools. Some among us are qualified to do this, journals are not closed to those outside their field however. This is what i understand to be what this community would want. I am attempting to do as much with visualization and behavioral mind alteration. Why am i special? This is my logic, i'm not. We both have an insanly poweful computer within our respective sculls, we aren't pushing the boundaries of those machines by any stretch that i can tell.

 

So...

 

I pay particular attention when i hear, statements like '...make no sense at all and shouldn't be possible by any stretch of the imagination...' i hope I'm not reading this out of context, but the statement is silly as compared to the dogma of other feats we take for granted in tulpamancy, and entirely self-defeating to what you could achieve.

 

No offence Lumi, we love you, it's just an example. You know how I am when defending the honor of my loved ones and friends.

 

Another example:

 

"I'm no artist, i can't draw." Not with that attitude, bub! It takes time, effort and a heck of a lot of fighting those invasive, unwanted, self-defeating intrusive thoughts. Let's say something more reasonable, "i don't like to draw or i don't want to draw because i feel like i will embarrass myself or my hard work will not stand up to my peers." Anxiety blocked me, but i feel free to flourish here. After much effort and doubt, now i know my art is good to some degree because strangers and even those with talent will comment positively. The anxiety is still there and as strong as ever; the fear of failure is a strong demotivator.

 

The final point:

Is drawing an apple scientific? No, it's artistic.

 

Thus finally i say the scientific vs non-scientific arguement is invalid here. Tulpamancy is an art like any pre-scientific practices in antiquity. We don't measure personal experience in science, without access to other tools, we're stuck in infancy. That sounds a lot closer to art than science, and that not taking anything away from tulpamancy, as i said, we're waiting for proof.

 

So let's not spread doubt under the guise of science or due to lack of achievement. The brain is an amazing thing, we may never be able to understand it or know its limits. The art of tulpamancy has a rich but narrow and decrete, historically biased, dogmatic definition. If that is part of the terms of use,

so be it, and call it like it is.

 

 

 

...

 

To OP,

 

Some of my views are clearly not meant to fit in with other tulpamancers, even my friends.

 

What do you think?

 

I think i only know things based on my experience, regardless of how untulpamantic they are.

don't make fun of that word, it's facetious

 

 

Can your tulpas actually stay active in the wonderland, and how do you know?

 

My tulpas can do whatever they want if it makes them happy. They can tell me whatever they want, fanciful or not, i don't feel it is my right to doubt them

or even to question them. They're happy, and they're consistent, so that makes me happy and content. If they're lieing, well done! (to them)

 

Do you get the feeling memories might be fabricated?

 

Yes, i do. It's a normal brain activity as far as i understand from my limited knowledge of brain dynamics.

 

Have you ever switched out and become active in there yourself?

 

It happened only once briefly. See previous question. Answer: maybe, but it felt real at the time.

 

Do you use wonderlands as an excuse to not pay attention to your tulpas, or have more than you can manage?

 

It sounds like a loaded question, but i'm going to try to be helpful if i can. I think i did have more than i could handle early on. But i handled them simultaneously, and still mostly do. They routinely do whatever and report back nothing unless i ask them, or if they want me to know their perspective on memories that we share, or to impart knowledge or insight they have.

 

Do your tulpas have any sort of doubt in their own claims?

 

Not to my recollection.

 

Or is this all just confabulation caused by wishful thinking and the desire to fit in with other tulpamancers who claim the same thing, as well as a misguided perception of the nature of tulpas and the human brain itself? [/Quote]

 

Well... it sounds like the answer is staring me in the face, but i'll try to be helpful anyway. I'm not an expert, and I consider everyone here 'my guides'. I already said i don't desire to make claims in an effort to fit in, as some claims i make do the opposite. I also find it interesting that certain claims keep coming up over and over, to the point that some claims that are dismissed are more common than some of those that are well received.

 

...

 

I appreciate the community here, every one of you. This may seem combatative or snide but if there's any frustration bleeding through it's because i do care. I want to be helpful and not to spread silly nonsense to others, but i am forced by training to remain an observer, and in some ways that illuminates inconsistencies in logic.

 

No one can know the future of tulpamancy, and i wish i knew which tools were 'right' and which ones are 'impossible to believe under any stretch of the imagination' i only know my own experience and i chose not to let it be rewritten to fit in or more closely match those of the current accepted principals.

 

This is due partly because of stubbornness, but also because certain methods that fall out of the main stream view are so incredibly helpful and meaningful, and vitally important to my continued existence. This is the non-overlapping 10% of my views that don't coincide with generally acceptable principals and i will use a subset of them only in constructive ways in an effort to help. I am carful to hide them of course.

 

Thank you for letting me give my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as fanciful and precarious as switching sounds to me, i still wouldn't gatekeep, doubt, or even say "everything about tulpamancy makes perfect sense to me [except those things that don't]" and in the same breath, if you've, for whatever reason, never experienced something: it's Meta or "no sense at all and shouldn't be possible by any stretch of the imagination." Whether your careful not to say you don't believe my experience or not, you just did.

 

The missing piece of the argument here is that I can logically explain switching, and have. Like I said, I'm not against experiences, I'm against illogical explanations of them. When no explanation is even offered (just the stating of having had the experience), I usually just don't say anything at all, so there's zero opportunity to "gatekeep". Also, you might not have heard someone say it before, but discussions normally deemed "Meta" are actually allowed in General Discussion if the proposer of the meta concept is attempting to rationally explain them, or asking about how they could be possible. Logically speaking.

 

Logically, not necessarily scientifically. You definitely clung to the "not science" argument really hard for that whole post for some reason, and maybe the phrase I used is unclear, but-

Following a logical (if not scientific) set of rules for figuring out how things work and what is and isn't "real", there's just no way for me to give credit to the impossible aside from saying "It must not be as it appears", you know?

 

"a logical (if not scientific)", at least as I read it and meant it, meant logical but not quite scientific even if it's nice to think of it as so, I guess. I guess that phrase could be read as the exact opposite, but at least literally, I meant it as that. The post is relatively buried and in an unpopular forum, but Tewi and I wrote a post concerning "Tulpamancy and Science" here: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-the-purpose-and-nature-of-tulpa-info

(also, after a quick search, I've decided to try and avoid saying "if not" in the future)

 

A bit more on the subject I call "Meta Tulpamancy", ironically both written by Lucilyn as she was fronting at the times. Just to make it clear that I take nothing on assumption, everything needs to have at least a plausible logical explanation in my mind. Zero exceptions, for things I don't understand I just hold the possibility they could be not as they seem/untrue, preferably with an alternative (usually metaphysical) explanation as backup. You might've heard I have a "secondary set of beliefs" learned from new age spirituality, regarding things like the afterlife, souls and astral projection etc. I don't really believe in any of it, but just in case it turns out real, I won't be too surprised. That's the goal. My "subjective reality" needs to encompass all others, that's a basic goal of my entire life: understand everyone's point of view. As for treating differing views with respect, I'd like to think I do that, allowing people to believe what they want as long as I don't see it as harmful. But that's pretty darn subjective, hard to get perfect.

 

If you somehow think I wasn't doing that, by the way, you might want to reread my previous post again - "it's not that I don't believe in experiences; it's that I don't believe the most obvious (illogical) explanations are the correct ones." The entire point of this forum is to learn, understand, and teach, usually in that order these days. Logic is pretty dang universal by nature, so I prefer logical explanations to illogical ones. I don't teach what doesn't at least make sense to me, and I like to think I have pretty high standards for explanations making sense. In short, I'm just doing what everyone does and anyone can, I think.

 

This post took forever to write with a lot of interruptions so I'm pretty lost at this point, if you have any specific things you wanted to ask/discuss feel free to do so. I think I hit the points I meant to at least.


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never had this experience, since, well, I didn't like going to the Gray Dimension in the past, much less going alone. I know I can't process things parallel to Cat and I go dormant when I'm not fronting, being imposed, or talking to Cat.

 

Suppose I created a "fake memory" of something I did in the wonderland. When Cat asks about what I did, I may tell her that I rode a giant metal robot, saved the day, and ate delicious turkey sticks with my secret agent friends. In the process of coming up with that, I technically did do those things because I had to re-live (or in this case live) those moments in order to explain that they happened.

 

If a Tulpa had "fake memories" so to speak, it could prompt active forcing. Suppose a theoretical host goes about their theoretical dismal day, and then they go to force their Tulpa who happens to be prepared with a great story to tell. How is this any different that a host talking to their Tulpa in the wonderland?

 

I don't think it's worth it to chase after people who experience their wonderland this way. For all we know, maybe some Tulpas actually live amazing lives in the wonderland and there's a perfectly sound reason for why and how that works. Not all brains are the same, anyway.

 

It would be a problem if the host thought their Tulpa could hang out with other people in the wonderland and not need the host's attention. True or not, the Tulpa may feel lonely if they don't talk to their host. The exception would be if the Tulpa is perfectly fine with not seeing their host all the time, but I personally would find that surprising. I can be a little demanding sometimes, and not getting some time to talk to Cat every day would make me really upset.


I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.

My other head-mates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogChat | Yay!

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.