Telling Future Children About Tulpas

[Guest]

When I was first looking at transitioning twenty years ago, the general expectation online was that transition would cost your family, your friends, your job, and your home and that you would have to start an entirely new life after transition, never telling anyone about your past. Anyone who did better than that was considered fortunate. The modern levels of cultural acceptance are a product of bold pioneers who took the risk of living openly as trans. Now we live in a world where I was reading a scientific paper on tulpas ten minutes after typing "imaginary friends in adults" into Google for the first time. The world is changing. Public perception of plurality is changing. You can choose to stay stealth, but knowledge of and belief in plurality is going to keep spreading.

 

Let's not forget about the spiritualist and psychic community with their spirit advisers, channeling specific historical characters, dream characters, muses (the non-corporeal kind), and puppeteers. Some of these are very certainly plurality, regardless if the person thinks the other lives with them or not.

[solarchariot]

I feel like being transgender or LGBTQ and being plural are in two different boats. For the former, it's a large enough cultural phenomenon where people will believe you if you identify as gay or transgender, regardless of how accepting they are of it.

 

I see this point. A part of me really wants to argue with it, but in the precise sense of the word argument, not being quarrelsome. People are weird. Different cultures are weird differently. So, I have met more openly LGBTO people in Thai, than I ever have in the US, and I have been in the performing arts, community theater, where good portion tend to be LGBTO- probably because performing arts tend to be more open. Interestingly, America is the worse place to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia. People with that diagnosis in the states have the worst social outcomes than any other country. We also claim to be the most enlightened... Ember's point of continuously coming out is beautiful, because our cultural has such a high 'standard' or normalcy for everything, feels like an ordeal... we're always boxing and comparing, which automatically leads to judgement.

 

But here is a really nice sample, to me, that suggests plurality may not be as fringe as we think. First off, there's actually statistic that suggest more people have AVH (Auditory and visual hallucinations) than what comes into a mental health setting for treatment. I don't remember the number- it was just bigger than what I had expected. And, most people don't report because they have good experiences, and because of the stigma. I am going to exclude spiritual people for this example, because one almost expects a certain percentage of seriously studying spiritualist are going to have experiences, even if it's just misinterpretation of data. I have even joked, 'if I ever had Farah Faucet come off that poster and spend time with me, I wouldn't report.' Seriously, why would anyone who is having pleasant things speaking to them, kind words, want that to go away? Even our own tapes tend to be negative, so when you spin a conversation with- what it could be different, people can relate to that, and they buy in in measures...

 

Here is an interesting source of information. Watch the movie Harvey. No, yes, but also, and or only if you don't want to watch the movie, watch the making of Harvey. It's narrated by Jimmy Stewart. Not a true population size, and it's anecdotal, and, it was what, in the 1950s? but it really says something. Jimmy Stewart would be approached by people on the street... This was back in the day when celebrities were actually approachable because people weren't trying to kill them or abduct them and we had more manners. People would approach him, and kind of whisper, lower their voice, and would ask: "Is he here?" Jimmy, being Jimmy, a really great man, retired military, an officer- really smart man, would playfully, kindly ask, "Who?" "Harvey." That in itself is nuts, right? You'd have to ask, people can't tell the difference from fiction and reality? Now, some of the people who would ask this would go on to say, "I have had a pooka since I was like 12..." Or what ever. Jimmy entertained frequent conversations with folks that had invisible friends.

 

To put this in perspective, tens of thousands of people wrote the US military requesting they stop practicing war and put some effort into finding the castaways, (Giligan's island cast) before they starved. Not five. Not a hundred. Tens of thousands. The military eventually brought these letters to the writer. More than one duffel bag of letters. Like a truck. Touched by an angel cast member, Roma Downey, shared stories of how people would encounter her in public, and she would see their eyes go big, and do something as in this one encounter where wife grabbed husband;s hand and asked, "Do you see her?" "You see her, too?"

 

So, is it plurality comparable to the plight of LGBT.. No. Every one who suffers has their own perspective and injuries- but the injuries are all social injuries, disenfranchisement- ridicule. Ember, in her comparison, wasn't minimizing anyone's suffering, but i think the comparison of this struggle of whether to share or not share- that is something. That's one reason I wouldn't compare race struggle with the struggles of gender and orientation struggles- one can't hide their skin color or facial features. One can hide, and use discernment, about orientation, and tulpas. Depending on the degree of dysfunction, one may not be able to hide the fact one has a mental illness- and so in some sense, we as tulpamancers have a unique position which helps reveal even with plurality there are gray areas and areas not even mapped out. So, in a sense, the argument above we shouldn't even compare ourselves to true plurals, because most those out themselves due to mental health issues! whereas we have choice. Talking about this, plurality, like referencing Stewart, kind of takes the edge off, and makes it a little more accessible. People will joke, and there is always some gallows humor, but I think that's the part that helps us embrace different.

[Indigo Blue]

[align=justify]I don't see how it's comparable to telling a kid about Santa Claus at all. Telling them about Santa is telling them a fantasy about the world that you expect them to grow out of one day. If they go to their friends and teachers and talk about Santa, nobody will bat an eye. Telling them about tulpas is telling them a fact about the world that they might not be ready to handle, and if they tell others about it then it could backfire. Tulpas aren't a childhood fantasy like Santa, they're something real and one should be responsible when deciding who to tell and when, imo. Plus if you tell a kid about Santa they might write letters or whatever, but nothing bad really. If you tell a kid about tulpas, they might try to make tulpas too early.

 

I don't personally believe in lying to kids about there being magical things like Santa anyway, but I def don't think it's comparable to telling them about tulpas. [/align]

[Flandre]

We only tell close friends because of their relation to us at best. Probably wouldn't tell children just about ever (though we may say some general things if interest in "imaginary friends" comes up), our own children, maybe as teens? It really depends on the situation. Maybe it's uh, anti-tulpa sounding, but we wouldn't want our child(s) to substitute interacting with other people with tulpas. If we told them it'd only be because it's relevant to us. And this is assuming there's not a a decent reason for them to have a tulpa - could be depressed, introverted and not getting along with their potential friends in high school. It'd still be a very delicate decision even then, but that's roughly the main scenario we'd consider it for their sake in. Otherwise, I figure telling them (if it's for relevance to us) when they're late teens or early 20s would have the best results.

 

We obviously support anyone and everyone with an interest in tulpamancy, but we don't see it as a phenomenon in need of being spread to people who are otherwise fine without it. We only like it to be spread in the internet sense of reasonable explanations of the phenomenon being readily findable by searching.

[Ember.Vesper]

I don't see how it's comparable to telling a kid about Santa Claus at all.

 

Iris: I believe there is a tulpamancy/soulbonding disconnect here. It seems very similar to me, but then, I also am a fictional character. In fact, I am personally acquainted with the Santa Claus of my home setting and have the utmost respect for him. I believe it is very appropriate for children to know that the fictional and fantastic truly live, not in print and media, nor in the physical world, but in the human mind.

 

Vesper: As I said before, anyone we lived with would know because we're not going to live a lie. So any children in the household would learn to speak knowing to call us by different names based on accent, posture, resting expressions, etc. But no one in this system has ever made a tulpa or ever will and we don't entirely support tulpas being made at all by anyone. So the further question arises, not merely would you tell the children of your household about your own plurality, but what would you tell them about plurality?

 

I would tell them that the world is full of people already and that time invested in the people of the physical world will yield a richer payoff than time invested in making more people inside. I would tell them that intentionally becoming plural is as big a commitment and as big a life change as marrying or having children. I would tell them that they would be surrendering a portion of their bodily autonomy and a portion of their control over their destiny. It's hard for me to imagine any child raised in part by me choosing to make a tulpa just because they know about the concept. I would consider that rather of a personal failure.

 

Maybe it's uh, anti-tulpa sounding, but we wouldn't want our child(s) to substitute interacting with other people with tulpas.

 

I'm very comfortable with being perceived as anti-tulpa, or at least anti-tulpamancy, even though I support the personhood and agency of existing tulpas.

 

On the other hand, a huge portion of children have imaginary friends. And those who do are, on average, more social and more socially well-adjusted than those who don't. If a few more children have imaginary friends because they see their parents talking to someone they can't see, those children are unlikely to be harmed by it.

[solarchariot]

I find the range of responses here interesting. I am not sure how to box it. It's not quite a disconnect; we're for the thing, but we're not necessarily vocal advocates for the thing in real life. And so, I think what the basic question boils down to is, is it harmful to tell children.

 

A little bit about my background as a child. I think many folks here will be able to relate. Not going into detail, but here are three truths. There was generation physical abuse, generational sexual abuse, and generational drug abuse. Secrets ran my family life. My personal opinion, secrets ruin family lives. No one ever talked about the important stuff.

 

Tulpas are important stuff. It's true, it's not the same as telling kids about santa. I am actually opposed, philosophically, to telling children about Santa. I don't want to participate in the lie. Not discussing Santa is practically impossible. we participate in the ritual of putting up a tree. We don't watch tv, but you can't go into public with out seeing santa, and son will get santa messages at school. I don't dumb conversation down, I never use baby talk, and when he ask question, I give precise information, and I ask him questions. I get lots of why questions.

 

So, my son doesn't know the word tulpa. He does have the word invisible friends. I think it's safe to say, lots of children have had invisible friends and this is a safe word, and reasonable things for children to engage in. It's called modeling. My perception of my son's interpretation of this is 'it's pretend.' Lots of people engage in pretend. People have tea parties. My son and I play emergency tree house lift, where we strung a line to the top of the bunk beds and made a lift to ferry stuff animals up or down... The game play is elaborate, and he facilitates the rules. We gather animals in the pop up tent and we tell stories with a flash light. We make them up. This is healthy. Having an invisible friend is healthy.

 

I have social contact. I even have a friend. People come to my house and see me, and my son and I go to my friend's house and we eat and swim... Tulpamancy for me was not an out from being social. It is more than addendum to my life, but my life didn't stop. Again, I think this is important, this is one of the distinguishing features of what separates DID from tulpamancy. I am functional, I have a job, I participate in the community. (edit: This is not a blanket statement that DID folks aren't functional; folks with MH can be really functional, but the Diagnosis usually occurs when people experience less functional moments in life.) If son says he has an invisible friend and I respond, "that's okay. So do I..." That's reasonable. I am normalizing something that's okay. I am not indoctrinating him into a cult. From my perspective, taking him to say the Church of Christ, that would be indoctrination. I went through that. I believe it delayed my ability to think rationally and solve problems- and they participated in keeping the generational family secrets through shaming.

 

So, my son knows some stuff. He doesn't know everything. As he matures and asks more sophisticated questions, he will get more appropriate answers. No secrets. There are some distractions answers that seem more satisfying than they are, but that's also a test gauge to determine where he is and what he actually looking for. It's the same with sex. Kids ask questions about body and function, and I give very direct answers. We have anatomy and physiology books, and we don't use pet names for parts. A penis is a penis. That's it. Not a dirty word. (edit, vaginas are also not a dirty word. We know that word, too.) All questions should be safe. I make a safe environment for asking questions. Why wouldn't I do this about my inner psychological life?

 

Bottom line, I am engaged in something that affects me profoundly. It has enriched my life. I am not keeping that a secret, with caveats. I have discernment. My son asks questions, he gets answers. He gets balanced answers. We talk about science, philosophy, psychology, cultures- he is engaged in two cultures, two languages! (His mother is a Buddhist. When in Thailand, they go to the temples.) The Buddhist side, they actually believe in ghost and there are superstitions. (edit, I am metaphysical, but I do ask questions; one day i got a call there was a ghost in the house. it turned out to be the cat. (this was really funny, to me. she hid the closet. the cat followed, knocked on the door. (Ghost can go through, doors, right? they don't knock.))) He asks me questions, I ask his opinion about it. He educates me. I share my thoughts. This is a conversation, it evolves- this is normalcy. Yeah, I talk to my son about this stuff, but it's not the total conversation and it's not as detailed as some of the conversations we share here, but it is a reasonable discourse.

 

I am an advocate for truth, discernment, and no family secrets. Every family is different. I am not telling people it is necessary to be as open as I am, and having a blanket statement that everyone should is irresponsible. Too many people lack discernment, and or they have agendas beyond sharing information. And every child is different, and they mature at varying rates, and so one can't just dump information on a child who isn't ready or isn't asking the right questions. That, too, is the real art of being a parent or a teacher- knowing the child and assessing where they are and what there needs are is the trick.

[Ranger]

I think SC wrapped it up nicely, what's more harmful- hiding the secret of there being Tulpas, being super honest and explaining everything about Tulpamancy, or doing a little bit of both- talking about imaginary friends but not going into the details until the kid is ready to learn more. Honestly, the last approach sounds like the best one, and striking the balance between too little and too much is critical.

 

It also depends on the family. Some kids may get upset for not knowing more sooner, others may be ashamed they ever heard about Tulpas. It's a balance that can only be figured out in the attempt to make that balance.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say anything, personally, and that's what my system wants as well.