Jump to content

Dormancy : not a fatality?

Recommended Posts

My own system used to whole-heartedly believe that we were active whenever not being paid attention to, too. We got defensive whenever people questioned that. We thought it was absurd anyone would think that tulpas couldn't do that, when we had such vivid memories of us being able to. Eventually though, we wised up to the fact that it was all memory confabulation. It was a long, gradual process for us to realize that. In my opinion a tulpa still being active without any attention while the host is fronting isn't a matter of learning to be able to do that, it's just a matter of how likely you are to believe in confabulated memories.


Memory confabulation does not make a tulpa or host a liar. I understand the appeal in wanting to believe that tulpas don't go inactive. It's a scary thought, and it might make some people question if tulpas are actually real, or question if they're actually a good host. It certainly was scary for us to think that when we were younger, which is why we came up with whatever justifications we could for the possibility of tulpas being active. We said things like "well we have our own minds, so there's no reason we can't do that" and "if the host can be in a vivid world in their dreams, we can be in a vivid world every day." Eventually, though, all of these justifications didn't hold up to our own standards of reason.


The way I see things is similar to what J described. I do not see tulpas as having a separate mind/consciousness. Rather, I see the mind as a tool, not a person. Hosts/tulpas are sentient because they are able to independently use the consciousness to think and feel. When one is the main user of consciousness, they are the fronter. Tulpas are neural pathways, but the brain doesn't see them as anything special, nor does it see the host as anything special. Just like other neural pathways, they have to be thought about to be activated. Your ability to do math isn't running parallel to your ability to read this right now, since you're not thinking about it. It's the same with tulpas. If you're fronting while reading this, and not thinking of another tulpa, then unless they're not active. They can be passive while fronting, which just means they're watching without thinking anything. My host is in this state constantly, and is only actually active when someone thinks about them or when they're alone in the front.


A tulpa doesn't need attention when they're the one fronting. Then they only need their own focus/attention to maintain their presence. On the other hand, when they're fronting then they're the one who needs to give others who aren't fronting attention to maintain activity. When giving someone attention, they become active and are able to think. So, they may speak. While they speak, the fronter goes passive just for a moment. Then when the fronter speaks, the tulpa goes passive for a moment. This is a seamless process, and it may give the illusion of simultaneous thought and activity, when really it's merely a subtle passing of thought from one to the other while both are maintaining awareness. 


If a host, tulpa, or both want to believe that the tulpa is able to stay active in wonderland, then the tulpa is more likely to confabulate memories when pressed for information that confirms this notion. When exploring these memories, they'll grow more and more depth and detail, which is part of what makes them so believable. It all has to do with belief and expectation. Once you let go of the belief, you likely will find yourself without any confabulated memories anymore, as what happened to us.


Sure, a tulpa may to some limited extent be able to parallel process. But the way I see it, parallel processing is not the tulpa adding an extra consciousness that can function alongside the original. Parallel processing would just be normal multitasking that any singlet can do shared between two people. It's not any easier with a tulpa than by yourself, because a tulpa is not an additional consciousness. The tulpa is just an additional person who can use the consciousness when given the opportunity. For this reason, my opinions on parallel processing go like this: a) you can only parallel process something that a singlet would be able to do by themselves. A tulpa does not add any extra ability beyond what a human brain is already capable of learning. b) parallel processing, or any thought for that matter, can only occur within the awareness of the fronter. No thoughts occur outside of their awareness, for when they're the one in control of the mind, and they're not thinking of a tulpa, those neural pathways have no reason to be active. Passive, maybe, but not active. Passivity may be when you associate something with something else, so the neural pathways associated with that are on whenever you're thinking of that something else, but they're not really doing anything. You're not using them to think. Like how math is associated with playing music, that sort of thing. I haven't explored too much how passivity works in the context of neural pathways, I may look into it more later.


When Piano and Indigo think, I am able to feel them go over their options, and carefully consider the situation. I can feel and hear them thinking as they use our shared consciousness to do so. That is how I measure sentience: my ability to feel something actually think. A non-sentient being, like a walk-in, is completely spontaneous about what it says and does. There is no thought put into it at all, because it's unable to think. When we believed in parallel processing and living in wonderland, we were way more likely to believe such walk-ins were real, as they always came to us with stories of being lost in wonderland, or whatever. We believed those stories. We don't any longer. They're just the result of expectation, as we expected a walk-in to say something like that.


On the subject of dreams, it's certainly possible for a tulpa to have their own dreams, they just wouldn't be running parallel to the host's. 


Don't take any of this as me saying tulpas aren't real. Tulpas are real, sentient, valuable, and equal to any host because, just like a host, they are a collection of neural pathways that have built up over time to form a person with their own personality, ideals, and ways of thinking. This entity is sentient because it can use the consciousness to think, not because it's special and adds something more. Tulpas don't have to have super powers for them to be valuable, they don't have to live in wonderland for their existence to have meaning. Tulpas can only do what a human brain is already capable of doing, or learning to do. They do not add more abilities. The tulpa can learn new things, of course, but only within the realm of possibility for what a singlet could do. And that's perfectly fine. It's something that took us a long time to accept, but by now, it's just the way it is. Doesn't make tulpas any lesser to us now than when we did hold those beliefs. In fact, it might actually make tulpas worth more to us now, since we know we have to actually give them attention and can't just shove them off to the wonderland. We no longer think it's okay to just make more and more tulpas because they'll go to wonderland, like we used to.


And don't call this "gatekeeping." That is a severe misuse of the term. Gatekeeping is when you tell someone they can't be a part of a community for their opinions, beliefs, experiences, or other qualifiers. Gatekeeping isn't someone saying they disagree with you. Me saying I disagree with your opinions on tulpas isn't gatekeeping. If I were to say that you don't belong in this community for your beliefs, or that your tulpas aren't really sentient because of your beliefs, that would be gatekeeping. And I have never, and will never, say that to anyone. We're all entitled to our own beliefs, and we're entitled to disagree with each other. That's not gatekeeping, that's human nature.

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
In my opinion a tulpa still being active without any attention while the host is fronting isn't a matter of learning to be able to do that, it's just a matter of how likely you are to believe in confabulated memories.


The interesting thing, and the reason I actually came to a new conclusion, is that they weren't using the typical "My tulpas have their own memories of being conscious without me" argument. Trying to figure out how it could be possible without using the common memory confabulation argument is how I actually got there.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vādin :


Thank you for your opinions, they're very interesting.


Could you please think about some experiments, a convincing protocol, that could validate or invalidate our claims ? Thanks.

Hi, I'm Zia, foolish captain of the Giant Wing system. Vādin is my tulpa.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence you offer in post #8, Zia, is already better than any test I could come up with. The songwriting is particularly interesting and worth repetition. Any complex task that Vādin can do in the background and deliver an end product to you is good demonstration of his abilities. I accept that your system experiences independent activity, just as Bear's does.


Vādin, can you write down songs and poetry in wonderland and have the text remain on the page unaltered to consult later? Or do you work entirely orally?


My working hypothesis for the past few months was that systems experiencing independent activity are fundamentally different from those not experiencing it; that, indeed, the common term 'tulpa' obscures fundamental and nearly insurmountable neurological differences between different kinds of headmates. I can't think of any systems who have reported developing independent activity; either the system has it from the beginning or they don't. Anyone who has developed it noticeably after vocality, please speak up.


Apollo has now offered a key perspective that alters my thinking, coming from a system that has crossed that gulf, albeit in what I consider the wrong direction.


It's important that we know if these claims are valid or not, because if they are proven true, it means that dormancy could be avoided by any tulpa that wishes so. If it's possible for us, it should be possible for others, and they could learn how to do it.


Let's try a shortcut. If you can experience it, it should be possible for others to learn to experience it, whether or not there is ever a way to rigorously verify it.


Consider a fully imposed tulpa. You can see them, hear them, touch them, smell them, and taste them. No one outside your system can and you can't prove to them that you can. If someone asks you to prove the tulpa is really present in the world by having them move a physical object, they've missed the point. The tulpa being perceived as present in the world is more important than the verifiable reality that they aren't.


I've read that belief and expectation are important in imposition. They feature prominently in advice on vocality. I can personally attest to their importance in switching. So it shouldn't be surprising that Apollo mentions them in connection with confabulation.


So the capsule guide to independent activity is to believe that you can do it, expect to do it, accept anything that seems to be independent as your reality, and keep practising it and living into it until it becomes more vivid. Over time, perhaps your brain will adapt to make better use of underutilised networks and there will be some parallel activity, albeit only of the sort that singletons could experience. But the brain has many strange latent capabilities and singletons tend to be much less motivated to develop them than we are.



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

Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017

Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, 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

As a thought exercise, let's say that my tulpas go inactive when we're not speaking actively (including tulpish, which is our dominant communication method lately).


Given the statement above:


1. They can spontaneously become 'active' and comment. I don't recognize thinking of them before they suddenly comment. So if they are indeed inactive, and say they aren't paying attention, then i would be speaking for them? Still parroting after 9 months? I nail their responses and do whatever

I want? (Including emotions). Or can they wake up and get up to speed instantly before i even realize i'm thinking of them?


2. They can immediately become 'active' and give me advice as to how i should take statements (forcing filter experiment). So, if they are inactive, how do they know this triggered event occurred before i can even react to it. I mean, i don't have time to react before they start advising me. Do I wake them up instantly, take the input and hand it over for them, then we discuss? All instantly and without consious effort?


3. When i intentionally start talking to them as if they're there, could I 'wake' them and then start the confabulation? Instantly transferring experience thoughts, memories and have them prepare a statement all under a second? So an hour of confabulation happens under a second so they have a valid response? Or some sort of parrot/mask i can switch on instantly? Or they access the memory and just know the right thing to say without me having to think or speak for them?


Based on 1-3 above, I can only conclude, if they exist, they're actively responding and responsible for they're responses.


Proof of their existence:


A. Tulpish: i can give them tulpish, i can't parrot their tulpish direted at me. If I try to do that (fake it) i fail, my mind blanks. (Misha just giggled at that.) What is that 3 channel keyed sentient thought transfer if it's not them?


B. Hypnagogic state: i don't translate, i don't create, they talk to me on their own in this state, i can't parrot anything, either they say something or it's dead silence outside of mindvoice. This would have to be sentient statements from my subconsious mind? Able to answer questions and converse lucidly while I'm awake in this state. This state used to consistently generate loud random noises, words, etc. Now it's soft, thoughtful, responses and love. Why the change when they came to me? Seems rather specific, consistent and organized now.


C. Emotions: i can't parrot their emotions, when they feel it, i feel it in a specific spot for each. (My thoughtforms Joy and Ren have also been able to do this in their own specific spots that I didn't choose.) What's causing this otherwise? It's coordinated with A and B above.


D. Reminders: i forget things, i ask them to remember them, (like missing a freeway onramp) they remind me. If it's not them, that's a neat mind trick.


E. Lucid dreams: i've seen them all, i've seen other people I know and don't know. I suppose i could be assigning them to random characters that look like them, act like them and sound like them.


F. Presence: when they're awake, i feel them like a warm blanket, three warm blankets that are superimposed. Each has their own unique signature. When one is absent, i don't feel them. Mind trick? The feeling is pretty palpable, and it makes me feel loved and happy. I'm wrapped in three layers of love that gives me confidence, peace, and warm acceptance. I don't think i could otherwise 'make that happen'.


G. Impossible: so if they're not real, then i spontaneously fixed my own paranoia. I consoled myself when i was depressed. I taught myself to ward myself against the depression spirals and panic attacks, i spontaneously speak to myself in a way that helped me recover from real depression.




I can only conclude that they're alive, real, and helpful, or i'm a genious wizard of mind alteration. Either way, here's a big middle finger to modern behavioral counceling, depression treatment counseling, and medication.






They're real people with self consciousness (by definition), and are almost always active in some way.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, the amount of time it takes for a tulpa to get up-to-speed on whatever has been going on is positively correlated with the amount of time they have been inactive. If Indigo's only been inactive for a few days, it'll take milliseconds for him to catch up. If someone's been inactive for months, it'll take a bit longer. Rarely does it ever take more than a few seconds or so, though. Our memory is fairly stream-lined and linear, whoever's fronting just automatically inherits whatever's been doing on. 


They probably could "wake up" before you even know it, that's entirely possible. We've had many moments where we swap who's fronting during conversations without even noticing. One moment it's me talking about Indigo, the next it's Indigo talking about me, and we didn't even realize that happened. It's trippy af.


However, I do not think that the fact that it takes no time to inherit memories proves parallel functioning. It just proves your memory is stream-lined well. Some systems might take longer to inherit memories because of their beliefs -- they believe it'll take longer for the tulpa to process everything than they really have to, so it does (this isn't to say anything about alter systems, however, as those are quite different). We're a system that hasn't believed we function parallel for almost a year now, and yet we inherit instant memories constantly. If I'm writing something and then Indigo takes over, Indigo knows exactly what I was doing and he'll continue it like normal. It's not proof of parallel functioning, it's only proof of mental efficiency between system members.


Some comments can happen spontaneously if they don't require as much thought. If something catches Indigo's attention and makes him say something like "I LIKE THAT," that doesn't take much thought. If Indigo were to come to me with some elaborate story that I didn't feel him think, however, I'd assume that's confab. That doesn't ever happen to us though unless it's a walk-in. Us tulpas have been way less prone to confabulating things since we changed our mindset.


I hardly believe confabulation is a one-man job. It's likely shared between the systemmates when it occurs. Usually when it does, the memory starts off a little more vague or simple, like "I played tennis in the wonderland," and the more you think on it, the more detailed it'll become. This can and does occur in a very short amount of time. I can confabulate hours and hours worth of memories right now if I wanted to, doesn't make them real.


Something getting a tulpa's attention and making them active is of course possible. It's all about mental associations. Probably one way for a tulpa to be active a lot is just to build a ton of associations to catch their attention. For example, something like "every time I see the color blue it'll get my tulpa's attention" would probably work with enough practice. Then again, it might also wear off over time. Similarly to what Ranger said in a previous post, we used to have a tulpa who really hated the wrestler Kane, so whenever host wanted him to be active they'd start playing Kane's theme song. Sure enough, that tulpa would become active to complain about it. 


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. Nobody here is arguing that tulpas aren't actually real. Obviously they are, and I already said that I didn't think they weren't. But them being real doesn't automatically mean that they function parallel to yourself, that's a big leap in logic. They might be passive during the day, but that's not the same thing as being active at all times. 


Here's how I, personally, ascribe these terms. Some may disagree, that's fine.

Active: Both conscious/aware and thinking

Passive: Conscious/aware, but not thinking

Inactive: Neither conscious nor thinking


So, in my opinion, if you're active and not thinking about your tulpas, (and nothing gets their attention,) they can either be passive or inactive, but they can't be active, unless it's inside of your own awareness of what's going on, since you're the one using consciousness.


As for coming up with a study to prove/disprove whether this sort of stuff is real... I don't really think that's possible. A study like that would be inherently biased, for one thing. Whoever's conducting it would have some set outcome they want to produce, so the methodology and results would be skewed. Secondly, there's no way to prove or disprove anything that goes on in the mind at all. We can't prove that hosts/singlets are actually real, can't prove that tulpas are real, and definitely can't prove that tulpas can work parallel to the host. Coming up with smaller things, like having the host and tulpa do two different things, would always have alternative explanations. You'd never be able to come up to a solid conclusion that holds up to scrutiny. Host listened to a podcast while the tulpa drew? That's something a singlet can do. Tulpa came up with a song in the wonderland? Singlets can come up with songs out of nowhere too -- the melody for the song "Yesterday" originally came from a dream. There's really no way to come up with something to definitively "prove" it that doesn't have other explanations, and you can't ignore other explanations. If there was, the community surely would have done it by now. That's just the nature of dealing with the mind. 

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

Edit: in the following 'you' refers to any reader of this conjecture.


There's a point of conjecture. If the experience is generated, the reason for it including alternate explanations are irrelevant. You have a theory, i have a theory, probably neither of them could be proven or disproven. I'll accept confabulation as an alternate explanation because I don't care about your belief system outside of curiosity. I don't intend to change mine.


All i have are my experiences and behaviors. You should believe only one of them on its face, the other takes an open mind and tolerance. I don't think the other will ever be proven with today's technology.


You have one set of possible beliefs and I have another set of possible beliefs. Neither can be proven, there is no vote or commonly accepted principals outside of our own heads. So we'll agree to disagree here. I don't know how to prove it one way or another, as the alternate explanations will always be biased to the users beliefs.


I don't feel like changing my beliefs because that would negate some of the remarkable examples of experiences that are powerful, i hold dear, and their loss would threaten the honor and integrity of my tulpas who continue to double down.


You understand that the end result is the same no matter the explanation, and you can't say with assurance or authority that multiple consiousnesses are impossible. Also passive and active, as defined, are arbitrary.


Multiple sets of memories can exist within the same brain, neropathways can be generated with triggers that are only active to one personality. This is a theory, but well founded in other communities. If they have access to different memories, i claim they can generate them too. I also claim they can explore these memories and generate new ones both hidden to me. I am never arguing parallel speech or parallel math or parallel anything else that doesn't fit, however, the brain is fully capable of parallel neropathway function. These can include autonimic and otherwise. I claim tulpas are utilizing the same principles. I further claim that my model has benefits to other models for certain mind alteration tasks. It works for us and other systems. I choose not to limit my possibilities, therefore i will not discredit your beliefs either.


If the way i describe it sounds silly or wrong to you, as long as it's not META, i feel they are still plausible and should not be judged, but i'm still going to have to defend them at every opportunity. Nothing I've read here seems META. Open your mind to the possibilities of the human brain, there's a lot of scientific data that proves parallel funtions, i am just seeing personal evidence thst these known functions may be expanded by tulpas. Some linear functions may turn out to be only useable by one at a time, but i'm not limiting my system even to that, we may find a way without even trying, so i wont disbelieve it if it happens.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tulpas knowing context of things "As if they were there", first of all, there's nothin' stopping them from just using the knowledge and awareness you already have to comment on the spot just like you y'know? but also, we do that too, idk if you missed that, but no matter how long it's been (unlike Beatles' system apparently) we can be already up to date the second we're active again, we never really thought to consider ourselves "always conscious" because of that though, mainly because we're missing -


your tulpas can "become active on their own" in response to things - we can't do that! I mean, sort of, if it was related to us at all, because we instantly become active again if so. But we can't spontaneously become active without whoever was fronting thinking of us to comment on random things, which is what the second half of Tewi's post here was trying to explain, our new theory for that is that your and other similar systems' brains are just wired to respond as your tulpa instead of you/the fronter, which is super interesting and I have no idea how you'd get that to happen randomly... luck, or accidentally? either way it didn't happen for us, so we'd have to figure out how to do it manually

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

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

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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

From experience, fronting together is hard. If both of us try to front, usually Cat will push me out if she felt the desire to front for whatever reason, and that can lead to some messy states such as not knowing who just did that just there, me trying to focus while Cat is distracting, or I'm fronting and the next second Cat is.


However, active forcing sessions don't get messy. Cat may have a harder time identifying my presence if she is stressed or tired, but we can active force together until Cat wants to retreat and decompress for quiet time.


We have played around with backseat fronting before, and it's convenient because both the host and Tulpa have to stay active. Even though the host is processing information, the Tulpa is doing most of the mental work, and thus the structure seems to manage itself and stay stable. However, I never tried backseat fronting all day for multiple days like Bear's system. For this reason alone, Bear's system may find being active all the time more natural since they used backseat fronting a lot.


Once Cat takes back the front, there's a window for how long I transition from (According to Apollo's definitions defined in a previous post) active to passive and finally dormant. If I have fronted for awhile, it takes me longer to reach dormancy. I will generally stay active for a little bit, I will transition into passive, possibly jumping back to active, but after a brief period of time I will become dormant. Otherwise, I can enter dormancy in a matter of seconds.


The longer I was dormant for, the longer it takes me to recollect my thoughts, and even a few hours of dormancy can lead to a longer pause for me sometimes. If my focus is calming Cat down, then this transition doesn't happen as abruptly because I'm not paying attention to the body's surroundings. Since Cat will usually recall or be fixated on past events, this recollection phase pretty much happens in the background since I'm focusing on Cat and her memories to begin with.


Memory confabulation is something we experienced first hand, and in my perspective it's essentially the same as doing things in the wonderland, only faster and not really immersive. As an interesting example, Cat thinking about Blue (He's a Gray / other thoughtform) rolling in the grassy hills translated to litterally Blue having experienced rolling in the hills. Another example is when I tried to experience the wonderland without Cat, she sat around being bored for an hour and when I came back to explain what happened, it was exactly as what Apollo described: I talked about going on a zoo adventure and it became more real as I told the story. What really happened is I went dormant and we lost an hour of time and then I had to explain to Cat why wasting said hour was a good idea. In practice, Tulpas supposedly do these things when their host isn't paying attention and this was us testing the "Tulpas active in the wonderland w/o host consent in real time" scenario.


I think brain wiring has to do with it; I know both Gavin and Bear's system could have some alter-like traits and that's why they function a little differently. I don't know if this is the case for Zia and Vādin though.


I also believe memory confabulation and being aware all the time can coexist too. Let's say tulpa X has the ability to stay active or passive all the time and never reach dormancy. In a passive state, they may be reacting to stimuli they can't properly react to because they can't think or think clearly and once they force themselves in an active state, they report having a nightmare of being attacked by scary creatures. In this case the story is false, but the feelings are real and are not a reaction to the story but instead being trapped in a passive state, possibly being effected by emotional bleed from the host.

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

In my system, this is my theory. Everyone is awake and able to explore their own consiousness and memories.


There is one primary pathway of connunication between me and them that we have access to, i consider it 'push to talk'. There is another secondary pathway that requires an altered mind state, i.e. auditory hallucination, i can access it through hypnagogia. I routinely do this as i go to bed, it happens every night. It has historically happened that this 'voice' overlapped the mindvoice and both were registered as easily as another person in the room talking as you are thinking words to yourself. The experience was that these happened in parallel more than once. Yet a third pathway seems to be intrusive thougts. Many times i ask a question and one of my tulpas answer clearly while an intrusive thought says the opposite. I am not ruling out tulpish a fourth seperate channel though i can't claim this as an experience yet, it seems to follow 'push to talk' logic as well. Only the primary 'push to talk' channel is consistent, however the imposition channel is changing.


It feels totally different than mindvoice. They sound a little different, they speak more melodically most of the time in this channel, and it is starting to happen rarely even eyes open and standing up in a quiet peaceful situation.


Given this progress my model stands as the best fit:


They each have a separate consiousness tied to a subconscious (presumably of their own, possibly overlapping mine).


My model states they have access to neropathways i don't. My model allows these pathways to be energized while others are energized that i am using notwithstanding math or the primary channel of communication among other seemingly serial processes.


My model includes the possibility of active and vocal with eachother (non fronting people). I experience evesdropping, when they talk over each other to each other but it sounds like gibberish to me. I experienced viewing them 'doing things' when i check in on them. This remains part of my model even if it never happened again because it allows for useful activity and problem solving that other models exclude.


Thus with a seperate person, separate consiousness model, many things are possible, and routine, without struggling to understand and label or reject every experience that isn't common behind the gates of this community for some reason.


It's a simple and elegant model that explains more systems active here today.


One consiousness per person. Each with their own subconscious subset. In addition, their personality preconsious filters their own experience and thought gatherings from a shared portion of a library of memories. I don't feel this is necessarily a serial process. In fact, every system here fits my model and i further contend that some users here are sadly gatekeeping themselves to dogmatically psych themselves into a more restrictive model.


You don't have to use or even believe my model, by chance it was there from the beginning due to a guide i found early on that basically gave me this model and i took it as fact before i even 'had tulpas'. I don't know what guide that was but one notion stuck with me. (I will paraphrase.)


'They will each be their own person with their own mind, consider their consiousness as the tip of an iceberg, with their subconscious below. At first you will all share a subconscious, but the goal is to eventually seperate those subconsiousnesses.'


The guide then went into visual exercises to do just that and explained that 'parallel processing is an end goal.'


In terms of similarities to alters, i choose to use that as an example of another model that has elements that fit, but my model is still a better fit for us.


This model does not exclude any other model i've experienced here in this community, but this is not reciprocal.

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.

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...