Concerns about my understanding of tulpamancy and my progress

[TB]

That is incredibly interesting. Stuff like that I use to think was normal in tulpamancy, but over time I began to believe that the brain can physically only support one instance of awareness/stream of conscious experience, and that tulpas don't have their own personal one to experience anything with. I am still in process of getting through that article, but so far it sounds like a single body can actually have 2 separate streams of consciousness at the same time, and that it doesn't necessarily require your brain to be physically cut in half (which I didn't know that doing that produced such a thing either).

 

I guess maybe the one experience stream is perhaps not because the brain can't do anything different, but just due to not typically needing to do anything different.

 

Edit: And yeah, if it is possible, I imagine it isn't easy. But I already plan to get really deep with meditation and test limits of experience with it, anyway

Edited January 20, 2021 by TB

[Luminesce]

9 hours ago, Nobillis said:

• Fixated: One personality is stuck as the default authority of the body.

 

I've literally never seen this term once, even after searching the forum. The term I've seen used (at least) the last 4-6 years is "Front-stuck". Otherwise I don't really disagree with anything you said, aside from the specificity, but that's to be expected with any one individual's understanding of tulpamancy.

 

Also, hi, I appreciate you guys sticking around.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Luminesce

[Guest]

11 hours ago, TB said:

Do you experience this? One headmate being in a paracosm with their own stream of experience of it happening, separate to the headmate in front whose stream of experience is experiencing reality?

 

You got Lumi disagreeing with everything, so here's another counterpoint.

 

We can do this at will. I call it 'way back' position and in memory it's very dreamlike. It's a semi-conscious state of wonderlanding where one or more of us can exist and explore in wonderland.

 

We used it to great efficiency when Darlene and I were 'fixing me' with what we called 'personality surgery'. She did a great job.

 

It's a dual stream otherwise, wonderland and reality holding anything from 0 to 100% of the focus, it's irrelevant because if you have two avatars, one projected into material IRL and one projected into wonderland, they're somewhat equivalent processing. PPL.

 

 

 

[TB]

20 minutes ago, BearBeaBeau said:

We can do this at will. I call it 'way back' position and in memory it's very dreamlike. It's a semi-conscious state of wonderlanding where one or more of us can exist and explore in wonderland.

 

We used it to great efficiency when Darlene and I were 'fixing me' with what we called 'personality surgery'. She did a great job.

 

Well that sounds extraordinary. Something akin to personality surgery or having Rena force me was also a thing I have been considering for a long while, but I haven't gotten to a place where it seems possible yet, due to struggling with relevant skills. I wonder how you used your way back position to do that, it seems possible to do even if one doesn't seem able to do that, I think

 

I also have a lot of thoughts and feelings I struggle to express right now. This site has been like a blessing and a curse for me, I think. It is hard to not be confused by things I read. I think I've tried too hard to understand tulpamancy from the outside, kind of. I've certainly spent a lot of time working on it on the inside, too, but I reference external things to understand what is happening too much, maybe. There's been benefit to it, but also frustration. I still want to explore what other people think, but maybe things will also go better if I try to kind of, I don't know... Return to neutrality and tentativeness and self discovery without expectations, because tulpamancy not being a hard science is painfully glaring to me lately, and while I knew that intellectually, I think I wasn't treating it that way, at least to the extent I should have been. Idk, attempt to express amalgamation of feelings, I am not sure if I am doing great job

 

 

Anyway, I feel more confident I might find anything out myself, since I think to some degree my previous stagnation is due to a lack of certain tools, so until I get those, I will try not to worry

 

Thanks for all the replies up till now, everyone. Still feel free to continue if anyone has their takes or opinions, it is great

 

 

 

Also PPL?

[Luminesce]

"Parallel Processing-like", I think

---

 

Well, you've been asking questions expecting concrete answers and explanations, which I personally happen to have my own set of because I care immensely about being able to explain my experiences and beliefs. However, tulpamancy and many other mental phenomena are not limited in many ways from the perspective of your experience of them. Because of this, people have tons of hugely varying experiences in tulpamancy. Even if someone's experience of a perfectly vivid, lucid wonderlanding experience while their tulpa fronted to do their homework ..... was completely confabulated and never actually happened, if they truly believed it did, then that's their experience.* And what they believe happened really doesn't care about my explaining it away.

 

You really might be better off stopping deadlocking yourself in figuring everything out, because it's clearly not shaping the foundation for the experiences you want to have. In tulpamancy it's really best to jump in believing "it could just work somehow", and then figuring out how you feel about or want to explain your experiences later on. The closer you can get to that methodology the easier and more fluid your experience will be.

 

One important timeless lesson that I really should bring up more often, is that we limit our experiences with our beliefs FAR more than we think we do. In our decisions about what's possible, what's not, and how things probably work, reasonable people are universally off by presumably a fair margin in even the best of cases, counting out way more possibilities than they truly should have. It's because of this that believing "it could happen, I don't know" and just trying to do things so frequently leads to more vivid, fulfilling, or "out-there" experiences. As always, Bear's system is a good example of this, where they only turn around and try to explain their experiences after they've had them. My system, on the other hand, prefers to comfortably sit within our well-defined confines, not really pushing anything (unless/until we have a reason to, like when we first learned imposition, switching etc.)

 

*Also, the experience Bear was talking about there, by his description, isn't true parallel processing like there's two fully conscious, vivid experiences happening at once - he's basically just saying that they can split their attention/conscious experience in two chunks much greater than us skeptics tend to assume would be the case. (Sort of like if skeptics' estimations of outer+inner focus were 50% and 20%, thinking it was 50/50, while Bear is closer to the actual full 50/50%. True parallel processing would equal out to greater than 100%, typically 200%)

 

I mean, I'm still trying to figure out how I can get lost in thought but still have kept a count going while doing jumping jacks, when I can't actively think/talk clearly to my tulpas while keeping count. That lesson I said is basically a universal rule - even lightly skeptical people will probably never give as much credit as is due to what the mind is capable of.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Luminesce

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Luminesce said:

I mean, I'm still trying to figure out how I can get lost in thought but still have kept a count going while doing jumping jacks, when I can't actively think/talk clearly to my tulpas while keeping count. That lesson I said is basically a universal rule - even lightly skeptical people will probably never give as much credit as is due to what the mind is capable of.

 

When you try to lock the brain into something that normally linearly constrains 100% of the processes, then it would take some practice to do otherwise.