A Couple of General Concerns About Tulpamamancy

Recommended Posts

As the local "metaphysical" person in the thread, it sounds like you are having a conflict between materialism and existentialism. Most things that are "real" have a material form (for some acceptable definition of "real"). Your tulpa is "real" but lacks a material form. The conflict likely comes from the feeling that something needs to be material to be "real".


The truth requires no belief.


Does this sentence exist?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would it mean if science concluded that tulpas aren't real? Would it mean the host was parroting and puppeting their tulpas the whole time? 


If we take a step back and ask, what is a tulpa? I think at the core, a tulpa is another identity with their own personality traits and way of thinking. Tulpamancy adds a lot of somewhat arbitrary rules about how things work and how things should feel. For example, I think a name is integral to being a separate identity, but a form? That's something we add to create a certain result. Sense of presence? Why should an identity in the body have a special presence? Or feeling like different identities have certain "positions" in a switch/fronting/what-have-you? Basically, these are things we add in order to experience tulpas as separate people. If you sort of peel back the curtain, it's all just a bunch of thoughts and sensations in the brain, ascribed to different identities. I think even if you get a good level of separation between host and tulpas, what's behind the curtain can still freak people out and cause doubt.


Anyway, if Identity 3 is thinking XYZ, can you really say, "that's not real"? Can you say Identity 3 who thinks and feels isn't real? I think if a tulpa thinks/speaks/acts in some way, then they are real and those actions belong to them. From this viewpoint I find it strange to think, "actually it was Identity 1 the whole time, only Identity 1 is real."


Tulpa ethics, that's a really tricky subject. It's incredibly subjective. We treat and believe tulpas to be people, so naturally that treatment should extend to ethics too, right? Yet for the systems that don't view tulpas as people, the idea of tulpa ethics and dissipation=murder is scoffed at. I think the more we see tulpas as people, the more dissipation, neglect, and mistreatment become abhorrent. And it affects how we advise newcomers and see the actions of other systems. I'm not sure I have any answer for this discrepancy in how people view and treat tulpas and other thoughtforms. Maybe just "stay true to yourself but don't try to control others' beliefs and actions."

My tulpa Aya writes in this color.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to write this thread for a long time, however today I found a way to better organize my thoughts without ranting off topic.


Tulpamancy isn't all butterflies and rainbows, at least it wasn't for us. We had ups and downs for the past couple years- stopping my daymares, healing, enjoying my time with Ranger, not feeling as lonely anymore, being more social, learning new skills and ideas, and on the other hand experiencing friction from my family in regards to tulpamancy, feeling trapped in a new closet, figuring out how to live two lives at once, and stress from being a large system. However, there are two general topics I want to discuss because these have consistently made me feel weird or that we're doing something wrong.


Feeling like I Have to Choose Between Science and Tulpamancy


I am very pro-science, and one thing that scares me is the idea that I could develop into a science denier- assuming I'm not already one.


When I watched the documentary Behind the Curve on Netflix several months ago, I realized it was dangerous to want to do science to confirm my beliefs. I want scientists to prove tulpamancy is real, but that thought in of itself isn't science. It's an expectation I am demanding proof for, just like how the Flat Earthers want to find the right experiment to prove the Earth is flat. Real science asks for the truth, not digging and digging until you find something that supports what you want to hear.


So I'm left with the feeling that if I want to remain impartial and sane, I cannot completely conform that tulpamancy is real until science comes around to back it up. 

It's not tulpamancy and tulpas which you want to be proven real as these do exist eg there is a recognized definition for them eg they are known on wikipedia etc.   What you want it proven that they meet "your own" preferred definition of them.


The thing is them being proven in that way you want, I do think is very highly unlikely. They can't even properly prove the existence of souls yet so even stuff like that is debatable.


Why does it even matter if they were proven to be hallucinations or something along that line?? if you have a relationship you enjoy with them.  Does it bother you that much what others would think about you having possibly created halluncinations?


check out

at 39:35 (I think IF anything with tulpas shows, they will end up saying the same thing).

Jesse (human male) DOB 16th April 2013 

Working on imposition

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.