What do I call these characters?

[GrayTheCat]

Your perspective sounds reasonable to me. Perspective can never really be unreasonable, because you see what you see from where you are... if that makes sense.

 

What to do with the 'grays...' better than having the blues, I suppose. Definitely better than fifty shades of grays... There was a song I knew... also the title of the first book of river world series, by phillip jose farmer.... "To your Scattered Bodies Go." What would happen if you just let them go where they want to go. So, when I think about you alter egos, I imagine I hear the words 'upgrades.' so, for example, you are not your six year old self, but according to some psychoanalytical theorist, that 6 year old still exist within your psyche and so you could interact with it and change present disposition by changing or helping six year old meet the needs that didn't get met by family of origin or environment. It seems like, our entire nature is to learn and add to our understanding, and or change or adapt our understanding, and so every thought you have encountered or inspired as either been integrated or caused divergence... this is normal. those old paradigm or divergence path still exist, or you wouldn't be able to account for present location and trajectory.   ummm, thinking on it. Hope this is helpful.

 

You should make a list of all the things "Grays" could mean before Squarewave does.

 

Not too long ago, a peer from my English class said she had some kind of mental relationship with younger-aged versions of herself. I don't believe it is unreasonable to assume that this falls under a similar category. However, not all younger versions of a Host necessarily are alter egos but are actual Tulpas, so it depends on whether the Host thinks the character represents themself or thinks the character is their own person.

 

My "Grays" work differently from the younger-versions concept, at least not obviously. None of them are children (well, Hope and maybe Jasper are weird exceptions), and their emotional perspectives are not as obvious as "Anger" or "Sadness". I do have an emphasis on evil/good, so "Grays" like Blue (used to be named Gold) have light magic where Grays more similar to Moltosha (I have no idea why I named him that) have dark magic. The problem is they change over time so Dark Gray went from being a stereotypical evil personality to a mellow almost father figure where Fernardo went 180 one way and then 180 back to where he started. Even with all of the extra layers of complicated, the same basic idea still holds: they all represent myself in some way but have a different train of thought or perspective on things.

[GrayTheCat]

I wanted to necro this thread instead of creating a new one.

 

After posting this thread, I feel confident in my beliefs of what to call "the Grays". They are thoughtforms whos personalities and sentience are sourced from my concious and subconcious commands and desires. Over time, I have come to realize explaining how these guys work can further support ideology already accepted by the community and have the potential to resolve some questions and concerns about Tulpamancy. For example, a Tulpamancer could create thoughtforms similar to the Grays to make their mindscape more interesting without the additional risk of making more Tulpas.

 

Ultimately, I would like to write a guide on thoughtforms like the Grays. However, I want to use terminology the community wouldn't mind using to describe these guys.

 

I like the idea of calling them Character Servitors. If you want to propose a diffrent name, please post it here. I want at least 10 different systems to give their perspectives and then I will tally up the votes.

 

Character Servitor +1

[Redacted System]

We say go ahead and call them character servitors if that's what you want to call them.

[Breloomancer]

Character servator seems fine to me, though I don't like how servators connect to occult practices. I don't really have any better ideas though, so +1 to character servator

[GrayTheCat]

Character servator seems fine to me, though I don't like how servators connect to occult practices.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by occult practices.

 

Servitors used to mean an empty shell thoughtform that was the result of "failure" of forcing. This philosophy was eventually rejected and servitor then came to mean an autonomous thoughtform that did not have sentience and was designed for a specific function, such as being able to switch with it and have it drive a car for you. I am not an expert on how servitors work, but that's my general understanding.

 

Since the Grays are more similar to the first definition, but are still very different from the current definition of servitors, I wanted to add character in front of servitor. Saying character by itself can confuse a Gray for a fictive (a Tulpa based on a story) or just any story character ideas and thoughtforms in general. Therefore, I didn't want to call them just "characters". Hence "Character Servitor", a blend of these two separate concepts.

 

I felt NPC was the closest definition, but NPC suggests they are designed for a temporary role or purpose, and didn't encompass the fact that the Grays can have in-depth personalities.

[Breloomancer]

It is my understanding that servitor was a term borrowed from occult lingo that later diverged in meaning within the tulpa community. Remember, this community was born from the paranormal board on 4chan. Regardless of the history though, it is definitely an occult term http://www.witchipedia.com/def:servitor

[Guest]

I wanted to call my tulpa-like characters soulbonds, but i have since abandoned that and am calling them 'Advanced Thoughtforms'.

 

I think of a servator as being somewhat characterless as in they just do their job and don't have much personality. So if you add a character or personality to one, they are thoughtforms that are advanced enough to be tulpa-like. Some would even say tulpa but not yet self aware.

 

This describes mine best at the moment, advanced thoughtform. It takes awsy connotations and lore associated with tulpas or servators, and makes you think, what's that? Exactly my point. Since everything to my understanding from an NPC to a Tulpa, is considered a thoughtform. (A tulpa, I believe has advanced beyond that term, but i see it used in this way.)

 

R is a PHD ABD in terms of her level. Truly if we allowed it, she'd be my tulpa. She's not because we disallow it. The question was once agsin up for debate recently, so i'm glad to see this discussion, as it effects my system as well.

[GrayTheCat]

I wanted to call my tulpa-like characters soulbonds, but i have since abandoned that and am calling them 'Advanced Thoughtforms'.

 

I think of a servator as being somewhat characterless as in they just do their job and don't have much personality. So if you add a character or personality to one, they are thoughtforms that are advanced enough to be tulpa-like. Some would even say tulpa but not yet self aware.

 

This describes mine best at the moment, advanced thoughtform. It takes awsy connotations and lore associated with tulpas or servators, and makes you think, what's that? Exactly my point. Since everything to my understanding from an NPC to a Tulpa, is considered a thoughtform. (A tulpa, I believe has advanced beyond that term, but i see it used in this way.)

 

R is a PHD ABD in terms of her level. Truly if we allowed it, she'd be my tulpa. She's not because we disallow it. The question was once agsin up for debate recently, so i'm glad to see this discussion, as it effects my system as well.

 

For this reason I don't love the label "Character Servitor". The term fits more with its older meaning rather than its newer meaning, and referencing its older meaning while its newer meaning still exists out there can cause confusion.

 

I don't want to use "Advanced Thoughtform" because I don't want to then have to explain what a "lesser" thoughtform is, or what "advanced" means as compared to "regular" thoughtform.

 

I also do not want to label the Grays or R in this case as "baby Tulpas", "undeveloped Tulpas", "Lesser Tulpas", "Proto Tulpas", etc. That labeling could imply that these guys are destined to be Tulpas, and if they were supposed to be Tulpas then they would just be called Tulpas and not what they are. These thoughtforms are fundamentally different because they are us, and I want to emphasize the difference between a thoughtform that represents you (the Grays and R) and a thoughtform that is their own independent entity (Tulpas).

 

I suppose using the term "Facet" as mentioned previously in this thread could be a compromise. It takes out the servitor part and it removes any references to Tulpas, and as a bonus the original definition lines up with what the thoughtform is. I know its not perfect, but I so far like this the best.

 

I redact my vote:

 

Servitor Characters -1

 

Facets +1

[Breloomancer]

Actually I like facet more than character servitor as well

-1 character servitor

+1 facet

[Ember.Vesper]

Character servitor -- a servitor whose function is to be a character

 

It makes a lot of sense to me. But if you write up a guide, Cat, don't neglect that to consider that self-awareness and independence may be continuums, making categories inherently fuzzy.

 

This is definitely the same concept that has most often been referred to as NPCs in the past and I think that is a decent term also.

 

For example, a Tulpamancer could create thoughtforms similar to the Grays to make their mindscape more interesting without the additional risk of making more Tulpas.

 

I think there is always some risk of them evolving beyond their original design, which is why we don't allow them. I was never intended to be a person at all. But maybe your guide can advance the field and contribute to making it safer over time.

 

I wanted to call my tulpa-like characters soulbonds, but i have since abandoned that and am calling them 'Advanced Thoughtforms'.

 

As a self-identified soulbond, I'm very glad of your terminology shift, Bear.

 

Since everything to my understanding from an NPC to a Tulpa, is considered a thoughtform. (A tulpa, I believe has advanced beyond that term, but i see it used in this way.)

 

I tend to use 'thoughtform' as an absolute catchall, including not only tulpas, but hosts as well.

 

-Vesper

 

Character Servitor +1