Jump to content

How do You Define Tulpa Terminology?


GrayTheCat

Recommended Posts

Some of the Tulpa Wiki definitions are nice, but it's missing stuff like Eclipsing, Fronting, Blending, Co-fronting, Walk-ins, and stuff that seems to fall into that "wishy-washy" category really quickly. Having more specific terms can be useful so people can provide more accurate advice.

 

If you're not already familiar with it, Tulpa.io offers a glossary with all of those terms (and more) and is far more wordier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you're going to use a word in an attempt to define things 'officially', I think it's best to know what it means. This one probably isn't needed in your glossary, but it's been bothering me for a couple of months that everyone else seems to be using a definition from science fiction rather than a definition from science:

 

Sentience: The capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Draft 1

 

Animals have been sentient by law in the European Union since 1997. If the ability to experience emotion is sufficient to qualify a thoughtform as a tulpa, then I suppose you could use 'sentient' in the definition. But if more human-like capacities are required, 'self-aware' or 'sapient' would be better terms.

 

I'm not completely satisfied with the following definition, but I'll amend Cat's version anyway:

 

Tulpa: A Tulpa is an independent and self-aware entity created by a Host or another system mate. Draft 1

 

I agree with Cat that a number of (newer?) terms are used ambiguously. Some terms have probably drifted in usage over the years. There are terms we use in-system that we did not come up with ourselves that vary wildly from the typical usage of this community. Personally, I would like to see terms that distinguish between attempted/incomplete imposition and hallucinatory imposition.

 

-Vesper

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only fundemental difference between a tulpa and a host is that the host is original, I think that it would be more confusing if they were defined completely differently because it would highlight a non-existent difference between them. I also don't like saying "created" in the tulpa definition because not all tulpas are intentional. I also don't like how the .info definition says that a tulpa thinks parallel to the host because that implies parallel processing and I don't like how it directly refers to the reader

 

I also don't like having 2 different definitions for host because that is just confusing and the second definition is rarely used.

 

So far I still favor my second draft for the definition of tulpa

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only fundemental difference between a tulpa and a host is that the host is original, I think that it would be more confusing if they were defined completely differently because it would highlight a non-existent difference between them. I also don't like saying "created" in the tulpa definition because not all tulpas are intentional. I also don't like how the .info definition says that a tulpa thinks parallel to the host because that implies parallel processing and I don't like how it directly refers to the reader

 

I also don't like having 2 different definitions for host because that is just confusing and the second definition is rarely used.

 

So far I still favor my second draft for the definition of tulpa

 

For some people there is a difference between a tulpa and a host. Just because it isn't true to you doesn't mean it should be the case for everyone and vice versa. I personally do feel a strong difference between the two and would absolutely hate to be called "the first tulpa of the system" because of it. In most cases, as far as I know, tulpas are reliant on their host at least in the beginning of their lives. They can be dissipated and forgotten, put into stasis, created in a certain way, while in most cases tulpas can't do that to a host.

Most tulpas are created. You don't have to like having a word in a definition for it to be accurate. It has been specified that tulpas can be unintentional so I really don't see the problem, but then again I might just be insensitive.

 

I don't think saying that a tulpa thinks parallel to the host necessarily means full parallel processing, just that the two exist at the same time and can have conversations from different points of view with one another. (At least how I interpret it)

 

EDIT: Oh and I'm not saying that because I feel tulpas are different from hosts that they're somehow not equal as far as sentience, sapience, validity, etc, goes. Tulpas and hosts have different origins; hosts - when talking about the first person in a system - are born and grown biologically while tulpas and other thoughtforms form later in life without a physical appearance outside of their host's head. Whether or not they become the dominant person within a system later on doesn't change that, and the origin alone, for me, is enough to make the distinction.

Iro - He/they - 30th April 1997 - Host of the system - Speaker if there's no tag

Desmond - He/him - 21st April 2014

L - He/him - 5th May 2014

Nevira - She/her - 14th December 2014

Misa - She/her - 5th December 2015

Roska - He/him - 22nd July 2019

Danyla - They/them - 13th July 2020

Asha - He/him - 13th June 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not already familiar with it, Tulpa.io offers a glossary with all of those terms (and more) and is far more wordier.

 

I'll need more time to give this glossary a fair review. I think this is a good glossary though just skimming through it.

 

I took a peek at their definition for Eclipsing:

 

Eclipsing: A form of co-fronting different from possession, but that often has possession occurring alongside it. Like possession, it is another way for one or more people to control the body while someone else is at the front. Rather than directly moving the body like possession, the eclipser makes the person in front move the body for them, essentially turning the person in the front into a remote control puppet. Eclipsing often includes substantial blending. Eclipsing sometimes operates by making the person at the front want to do the things that the eclipse is trying to do, which then causes the person at the front to automatically do them.

 

This is actually pretty confusing. Proxying is doing things for your Tulpa, right? Then why would Eclipsing have possession going on at the same time? Is Eclipsing (assuming the Tulpa is doing it) a stronger form of control than possession? The "remote control puppet" thing also never made any sense to me. (Somehow I get the feeling I read this before.)

 

The only thing that I can connect to here is Lucylin saying that Eclipsing is "a mess". We felt like one before when Ranger tried to front and I tried to not fall asleep, but Ranger didn't continue "eclipsing?" because I asked him to stop.

 

If you're going to use a word in an attempt to define things 'officially', I think it's best to know what it means. This one probably isn't needed in your glossary, but it's been bothering me for a couple of months that everyone else seems to be using a definition from science fiction rather than a definition from science:

 

Sentience: The capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Draft 1

 

Animals have been sentient by law in the European Union since 1997. If the ability to experience emotion is sufficient to qualify a thoughtform as a tulpa, then I suppose you could use 'sentient' in the definition. But if more human-like capacities are required, 'self-aware' or 'sapient' would be better terms.

 

It's a fair point. I think the "self-aware" sci-fi connotation may exclusively American or something. I don't have a problem describing Tulpas as both sentient and self-aware.

 

The only fundemental difference between a tulpa and a host is that the host is original, I think that it would be more confusing if they were defined completely differently because it would highlight a non-existent difference between them. I also don't like saying "created" in the tulpa definition because not all tulpas are intentional.

 

I think the conflict here is the terms apply differently depending on the context of the system. For example, "Host" and "Tulpa" make sense when a new Host is learning how to create their first Tulpa, me creating Ranger by accident still works with the "Host" and "Tulpa" mold because I still forced him like the former Tulpamancer, only I didn't know that's where that would lead to. When you start introducing Soulbonds and Walk-ins, that's where things get muddy, and I agree with Breloomancer that the "created" part really only applies to the stereotypical Tulpamancer.

 

I also don't like how the .info definition says that a tulpa thinks parallel to the host because that implies parallel processing and I don't like how it directly refers to the reader.

 

Yeah... agreed.

 

I also don't like having 2 different definitions for host because that is just confusing and the second definition is rarely used.

 

The problem here is what would we call the Tulpa acting as the Host? We could throw the whole "Host" and "Tulpa" dynamic out the window and use "Dominant" and "Not-Dominant" or "First Tulpa" and "Tulpa" , but that may make things more complicated

and may get repercussions. It's an interesting thought though.

 

Otherwise, I think someone acting as the host of their system should be called the host, and I like the idea of using two definitions so we don't accidently discriminate against those systems by labeling them as something else.

Meow. You may see my headmates call me Gray or sometimes Cat.

I used to speak in pink and Ranger used to speak in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). She loves to chat.

 

Our system account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most tulpas are created. You don't have to like having a word in a definition for it to be accurate. It has been specified that tulpas can be unintentional so I really don't see the problem, but then again I might just be insensitive.

 

I don't think saying that a tulpa thinks parallel to the host necessarily means full parallel processing, just that the two exist at the same time and can have conversations from different points of view with one another. (At least how I interpret it)

 

EDIT: Oh and I'm not saying that because I feel tulpas are different from hosts that they're somehow not equal as far as sentience, sapience, validity, etc, goes. Tulpas and hosts have different origins; hosts - when talking about the first person in a system - are born and grown biologically while tulpas and other thoughtforms form later in life without a physical appearance outside of their host's head. Whether or not they become the dominant person within a system later on doesn't change that, and the origin alone, for me, is enough to make the distinction.

 

It's not accurate to say that all tulpas are created I'd only most of them are, I don't like it because it isn't accurate. Maybe it could say that most tulpas are created (though I don't like that either because I think that hosts are also tulpas) but it sjoushoul say that they all are.

 

Thinking parallel could be interpreted as being able to talk to tulpas, but I don't think that it adds much to say it and it certainly makes it more confusing.

 

I would argue that the host does not have any more of a phisical appearance than a tulpa does, the host is most likely to associate with the appearance of the body, however that appearance is not theirs, it belongs to the body. Furthermore I am not saying to remove the distinction of host entirely, rather I just want it to be a subgroup of tulpa

 

The problem here is what would we call the Tulpa acting as the Host? We could throw the whole "Host" and "Tulpa" dynamic out the window and use "Dominant" and "Not-Dominant" or "First Tulpa" and "Tulpa" , but that may make things more complicated

and may get repercussions. It's an interesting thought though.

 

Otherwise, I think someone acting as the host of their system should be called the host, and I like the idea of using two definitions so we don't accidently discriminate against those systems by labeling them as something else.

 

I think that we should keep host and say "primary fronter" for the systemmate who controls the body the most.

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

@the tulpa definition: I honestly feel there's nothing wrong with the word creation in that regard? Unintentional or not, it's still creation. It can be purposeful creation, or unintentional creation, but it's still creation.

~ We are Venny, the host, and Viper, my soul! ~

        Click here! Come join us on the chat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what of systems such as Bears where it seems as though the tulpas were never created, but simply exist?

 

As a vote:

Cat_ShadowGriffin, system, draft 1. Points: 5.

I like it because it is short, simple, to the point, and accurate.

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can just exist. They came into existence at one point, even if that point is the birth of the host or some ambiguous, uncertain creation time... it's still creation imo. The word fits just fine to describe any situation if you ask me. Even if you consider hosts tulpas as well. Birth is a synonym to creation.

~ We are Venny, the host, and Viper, my soul! ~

        Click here! Come join us on the chat!

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...