Visiting the concept of addition and reduction in tulpamancy.

Recommended Posts

I used to think that there are two types of tulpa. Tulpa which are created through addition, and tulpa that are created through reduction.


The basic idea was that a tulpa created through addition was created through the host thinking of their tulpa through the day, while a tulpa created through reduction was largely created through a host learning to reduce who they are in the scope of their mind to make room for them to consider themselves in a more basic level is more than one person.


I was speaking to a number of people in a chat room a while back and I feel like that concept may need to be revisited. Instead of applying the idea of addition and reduction to the tulpas themselves I think it might be better to apply the idea of addition and reduction to the actual individual behaviors of the tulpa, rather than the tulpa as a whole.


A very big clear example of an additive versus a reductive practice in tulpamancy would be the difference between switching and possession. When a person possesses they tend to experience themselves as moving, and the fact that their arm is moving on behalf of someone else. The tulpa is acting in addition to the host. This is opposed to switching, where the host steps back or totally redefines their sense of identity such that they feel that all of their actions and all of their thoughts no longer belong to themselves, but instead are the actions of their tulpa.


In general an additive technique is when you do something that attempts to get your tulpa to act in response to or in the context of something you do. A reductive technique is when you step back from something you normally do or redefine your sense of identity during that normal activity in order to allow your tulpa to do that thing.


I've seen a few people guess that "addition" and "reduction" may end up being a rough guesstimation for skill or progress, where a early tulpa is largely by addition whiel a weak tulpa is largely by reduction. I'm not super sure about this connection, myself. Both can be complicated, and I am sure that there are many who found that stepping back from their thoughts is far easier than adding on top of them because of the nature of keeping things in mind while you are busy doing other stuff.


Overall, rather than saying that a tulpa is a "tulpa by addition" or a "tulpa by reduction, I think this concept is better used as a tool to understand where you are at and what you can change then it is a means for you to group yourself into one or another category.  I would love to hear anyone's thoughts they might have on this concept, because this is all still very much up in the air and open to debate and speculation. I would also love to hear if anyone has any other possible examples of practices or behaviors which you've observed that might fit the model I have described in this post.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Reguile! It's so nice to see you post here. I think you're an excellent mentor and your help of others doesn't go unnoticed! We ourselves have learned a lot from the posts you've made on Discord.


Having just recently learned to 'switch' as opposed to only possessing, i feel like your words in that regard are exactly how i would have described it if i had any ability to formulate a concise and clear answer on the subject. It's not self-deprecation, but rather profound respect and admiration to your words that i say this. I did feel a 'reduction' when switched, though i was still awake and aware, just not participating at all emotionally or by thought. The switches are 100%, yet my memories of the experience are 'watching' my tulpa handle the situation. I believe the midel still fits because i didn't use any resources at all in those times.


In terms of the model of tulpa creation or forcing, however, i feel that i didn't 'make room' for them at creation, rather, there's plenty of room for everyone. So in that respect, maybe i can honestly agree with your concept, and follow your logic that reduction for creation isn't right in my experience. I don't think you could describe it any better, i feel the concept doesn't apply to me or us at all for creation or forcing. Then again, i can have a dozen thoughtforms in a room and discuss fluently with everyone (tulpas and characters alike). I never felt any reduction in my consciousness or mental strain while carrying this conference. As it applies to tulpa creation or forcing, especially when it comes to visualization, vocality and presence, it doesn't fit for us, it's addition all the way.


So yes, you're revised model fits our system for the moment, though i can speculate (as a co-fronter) that the host and tulpa wouldn't necessarily be reduced, especially for simple possession and forcing activity, there's definitely an additional something that would have been absent otherwise.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not long after I told my wife about Vesper and Vesper started spending time with her, my wife tried to impose a DID identity on us. She saw in Vesper behaviors I used to display and stopped. She felt that I was not the person I remember being and identify as, but only a portion of that person. She felt my emotional range was less and assumed every time I remembered something differently from her was evidence that my memory had become fragmented and inaccessible. (We don't actually have memory separation, but my wife doesn't have personal experience with OSDD-1b systems like she does with DID.) So, a reductive process.


Regarding emotional range, she saw mainly negative emotions from me during that period because our relationship had greatly deteriorated, while she saw mainly positive emotions from Vesper, who was ecstatic to be able to spend time with anyone out-system. She didn't see how positive I was with my friends or how negative Vesper was when socially isolated. As to Vesper preserving my old behaviors, we can't account for her perceptions.


I, on the other hand, viewed the unintentional creation of my headmates as primarily an additive process. People grow all the time as they experience life. While I roleplayed my future headmates, the personal growth that should have been appended into my own psyche was instead put in different identity baskets, without taking anything from what I already had. When they came to life, they were composed of primarily new material, with extensively different values, priorities, motivations, and interests.


My headmates and I perceive one another as equals and beings of the same sort. In switching, we change who is "plugged in" to the vastness of mental sub-systems beyond our identities and personalities. It doesn't feel like becoming greater or lesser because we can increasingly recognize that those sub-systems are not part of who we are, but resources at our disposal.



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

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.