Are There Different "Types" of Tulpas?

[Slipper]

   I've been thinking about this a lot over the years, but do you think all tulpas work the same or are we just describing our experiences differently?

 

   Ultimately, we're all stuck with our experience and how other people can describe theirs. I've heard a few different explanations of people describing how tulpas can exist, with some similarities and some differences. Some people describe them as a new being grown from their thoughts, others say its tricking your mind into believing someone's there, others believe its a spiritual practice, and others see tulpas as another part of their own consciousness. And then there's literally everything in-between. As you can see, some of those beliefs are contradictory, yet here we are, all talking and describing very similar experiences. 

 

   I don't bring this up as a discussion on the legitimacy of any of these beliefs, but I wonder if these different belief systems cause different ways tulpas present themselves. For example, would someone who views their tulpa as just as imaginary friend, who can talk to them just like someone who considers their tulpa a separate person, not be able to switch? Or would someone who's tulpa is viewed as a separate entity from the host's conscious be able to do more than a tulpa who is considered deeply tied to host's consciousness?

 

   Essentially, do tulpas function differently in the mind based on the host's personal beliefs? Are all tulpas the same thing, given limitations by the host's beliefs, or are we creating different types of tulpas with actual differences?

  

   I know this is pretty strange sounding, but I tried to explain my question as thoroughly as I could. Any thoughts relating to this topic would be appreciated. 

[TurboSimmie]

I believe the short answer, is yes.

 

I've thought and talked to Phil about this before and we've had similar thoughts. I think different people conceive of their tulpas in different ways, and that plays a huge role in what the tulpa can do, and the kind of presence they have in the mind. Of course I've only ever lived in this head so I can't compare my experience with others.

 

6 hours ago, Slipper said:

Some people describe them as a new being grown from their thoughts, others say its tricking your mind into believing someone's there, others believe its a spiritual practice, and others see tulpas as another part of their own consciousness. And then there's literally everything in-between.

 

I think all of these are valid. For us, Phil struggled to "trick" himself into "believing" I was there for several months' time. Until one day he simply "decided" I was, and behold, I was! (I was there the whole time before that too, but from that moment on I was very solid and very strong) With our new tulpa--our son Junior--we're just going to "let" him exist and go from there.

 

6 hours ago, Slipper said:

I wonder if these different belief systems cause different ways tulpas present themselves. For example, would someone who views their tulpa as just as imaginary friend, who can talk to them just like someone who considers their tulpa a separate person, not be able to switch?

 

🤔 I think it's not impossible for that kind of tulpa to switch, but it is very, very unlikely. Switching is a very deliberate thing for people who don't have some kind of disorder like DID (which is actually extremely rare), so I think there's a strong intentionality to it, and if a host doesn't see an imaginary friend as sentient, then there would technically be no other "being" to switch with.

 

6 hours ago, Slipper said:

   Essentially, do tulpas function differently in the mind based on the host's personal beliefs? Are all tulpas the same thing, given limitations by the host's beliefs, or are we creating different types of tulpas with actual differences?

 

I actually think tulpas are very different from one another across all these minds; there may be some that are similar to one another, but ultimately we'll never know the subjective experience of existing in another mind other than our host's. I think this all goes with every aspect of tulpamancy too, like switching, possession, imposition, etc, I think these experiences are subjective to the person/system having them and each person's experience may be wildly different.

[Slipper]

   Thanks for responding!

 

11 hours ago, TurboSimmie said:

I think all of these are valid. For us, Phil struggled to "trick" himself into "believing" I was there for several months' time. Until one day he simply "decided" I was, and behold, I was! (I was there the whole time before that too, but from that moment on I was very solid and very strong) With our new tulpa--our son Junior--we're just going to "let" him exist and go from there.

 

   That's kind of how it went for us too. It took a long time for me to be able to rationalize tulpamancy in a way that felt plausible. I feel like Mordecai would've really struggled had I not found a way to believe it myself. 

 

11 hours ago, TurboSimmie said:

I actually think tulpas are very different from one another across all these minds; there may be some that are similar to one another, but ultimately we'll never know the subjective experience of existing in another mind other than our host's. I think this all goes with every aspect of tulpamancy too, like switching, possession, imposition, etc, I think these experiences are subjective to the person/system having them and each person's experience may be wildly different.

 

   This is the conclusion I reached too. I feel like if some tulpas can "go missing" but other tulpas describe it as being impossible for example, there are probably some minor differences between how tulpas exist in the brain. I still find it fascinating that, while so different, we all end up presenting similarly unless you ask someone to thoroughly talk about it. I guess that goes for the human experience as a whole though!

[ringgggg]

55 minutes ago, Slipper said:

 That's kind of how it went for us too. It took a long time for me to be able to rationalize tulpamancy in a way that felt plausible.

This is a pretty relatable thing. Having to think of a reason to justify practicing something so seemingly out there it feels beyond real seems so difficult at first. But if Pygmalion found love in Galatea, surely I can find the same in my friends, too. 

 

Speaking of, it's made itself apparent that the mindset associated with tulpamancy seems to have a lot of connections with the Pygmalion effect, a "psychological phenomenon in which high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area," according to Google. Basically, if you set your expectations early on, results have a chance of prevailing earlier because you're more likely to put more effort in measuring up to said expectations.

 

Basically, whatever you think can be possible most likely is possible (if the right amount of effort is applied), which is probably why parrotnoia and feelings of doubt can be so detrimental to the process.

 

The subjective nature of tulpamancy is amplified with the incredibly small amount of academic research done on it, which doesn't really aid in giving people a basis from which they can work with, in terms of expectations. The multiple approaches to tulpamancy online are (unintentionally and naturally) responsible for creating those expectations, drawing the boundaries on the different aspects of a tupper and constructing different understandings of what's possible with these guys.

 

Just imagine a newbie looking at all the guides and synthesizing their own process for developing a tulpa in their head. Maybe they miss some part of it, say imposition. Case in point, their tulpa is most likely going to develop without an imposed form because of that reason.

 

The different things we are familiar and unfamiliar with, in my gatherings, are what's responsible for all the different iterations of what it means to be a tulpa, or to develop one. Take me, for example, who formed A3 without knowing about the existence of tulpas or how to form one in the first place. There's a whole world out there, man. No tulpa is ever going to be developed entirely the same!

[ReallyArtificial]

This is a really interesting question! I don't have much to add, I agree with what's been said above. Tulpamancy is a very personal process and I don't think any two people will experience it the same way. I think it is likely that a host's perceptions and beliefs about tulpas will affect what their tulpa is able to do. The experience is so individualized and subjective that I believe it would be very difficult to separate tulpas into different types/classifications/etc. Basically everyone would be their own category.

 

Lately I've been thinking a lot about my personal rationalization for tulpas. I might write a full post about it one of these days

 

[MadMax]

I have a post on FetLife.com where I try to categorize different types of thoughforms, including Tulpas. The general concept of a Tulpa, that you will a sentient being into existence by your own focus on a persona, can be achieved in different ways, with different belief structures, but they all boil down to that root concept. 

 

Here are some terms I've found and defined myself with the help of online references. Obviously it is a work in progress, as some of them are blank. NSFW WARNING: and alot of these are sexually charges because of the nature of the FetLife sight.

 

Host - There are several terms used to describe the "original person" or the "original personality". basically the first person in the plural system that creates all the other thought-forms. For simplicity's sake, this group will follow the Tulpamancy standard of using the word "Host" to describe this entity.

 

Mental image- Objects, entities, situations, and environments that you visualize in your mind.

 

Character - non-sentient mental image entity with a personality algorithm meant to serve as a book, game, or fantasy situation or person.

 

Servitor - non-sentient mental image entity with a personality algorithm meant to serve as a book, game, or fantasy situation.

 

Self-talk/Internal dialogue - What you hear in your mind when you read a book or when you talk to your self silently.

 

Subconscious Personification - A servitor of yourself that has access to memories, thoughts and feelings you usually dont have as they are hidden in the subconscious. This is meant to assist in self reflection and theraputic techniques.

 

Inner Child - A servitor in your mental image of yourself when you were younger. meant to represent how you fellt as a young child. also

 

Imaginary friend - A servitor, usually created by a pre-teen child, that appears to have a personality and will, but is actually forced by the Host.

 

Tulpa - A self-aware, conscious, sentient entity created by a host who resides either in the mind, in the real world, or both. Imaginary Friend is to Tulpamancy is to as Calculator is to Alexa.

 

Headmate

Alter

Pooka

Djinn

Succubus

Fragment

Waifu

Phantom Lover

Masterbatory Inspiration

 

let me know what you think

 

Edited March 6 by MadMax

[Slipper]

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

The general concept of a Tulpa, that you will a sentient being into existence by your own focus on a persona, can be achieved in different ways, with different belief structures, but they all boil down to that root concept. 

 

Here are some terms I've found and defined myself with the help of online references.

 

   These terms are one of the main reasons I was thinking of this type of post. While we all can describe tulpas as "secondary people in our heads" I'm pretty sure most people can boil down each tulpa or headmate into a couple of different definitions based on their origins or how they act in their mind. 

 

   In regards to headmates who classify as walk-ins or soulbonds, I wonder if they feel different than how a forced tulpa does. I ask this because I can feel and kind of tell what my tulpa thinks about, so I end up thinking about how everyone else experiences tulpamancy as well. Is it as easy to tell that a spontaneously made tulpa is doing stuff as it is for an intentionally made and forced tulpa? I guess we'll never really know for sure.

[MadMax]

a "forced tulpa" is more akin to an imaginary friend. you force it to speak and adopt a personality. imagine the EMH Doctor from Star Trek Voyager. he was a hologram on the outside, ran by algorithm subroutines stored in the computer. so the hologram itself was just an optical representation, while the personality behind him was completely separate. in one episode, the doctor is "missing" (plot hole BS, because they should have had a back up or a partition of him somewhere.) but in that episode, the engineers tried to create a new doctor hologram as a back up. all they had was the optical representation, and programed him with purely medical textbook knowledge. the result: a hologram that just became a text reader, no personality. it just started reciting Grey's anatomy or something. That is what a Servitor/imaginary friend/forced "tulpa" is. it's not a tulpa in the sense of an sentient individual, its a façade just feeding you back your own thoughts. 

 

A "spontaneously made tupla" is somethin akin to someone who accidentally creates a tulpa without realizing it until they start having full on conversations with a book or RPG character they created.

 

i think what your talking about with your "forced tulpa" term is more akin to an "intentionally formed tulpa" which is what alot of poeple in this forum are striving to achieve, a painstakingly meticulous and intentional design of a sentient being for their companionship.

 

i've seen some describe a "soulbound" as basically a tulpamancy version of reincarnation, or summoning. the "spirit" of the tulpa already existed independently of the host before the host started exploring tulpamancy. that spirit could have lived for eons before becoming attached to the given host, and brings with it all of its thoughts, feelings, emotions, and memories from all that history. some could call it the good side of demonic possession, an outside entity joins with the host and becomes a headmate of that host.

 

but in all of these examples, the key word here is 'sentient'. regardless of how they "became", they have their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, prefrences, etc. seperate from that of the hosts. in that respect, they are all experiencing what we consider the "human condition" of sentience and conscious thought.

[Slipper]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

i think what your talking about with your "forced tulpa" term is more akin to an "intentionally formed tulpa" which is what alot of poeple in this forum are striving to achieve, a painstakingly meticulous and intentional design of a sentient being for their companionship.

 

   Yeah, I meant a "tulpa made through forcing" when I said forced, sorry if that was unclear. 

 

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

but in all of these examples, the key word here is 'sentient'. regardless of how they "became", they have their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, prefrences, etc. seperate from that of the hosts. in that respect, they are all experiencing what we consider the "human condition" of sentience and conscious thought.

 

   All that really matters in the end is the sentience but, I dunno, I like to think about strange things at times!

 

----------------------------

 

On 3/4/2023 at 8:55 AM, ringgggg said:

Just imagine a newbie looking at all the guides and synthesizing their own process for developing a tulpa in their head. Maybe they miss some part of it, say imposition. Case in point, their tulpa is most likely going to develop without an imposed form because of that reason.

 

The different things we are familiar and unfamiliar with, in my gatherings, are what's responsible for all the different iterations of what it means to be a tulpa, or to develop one. Take me, for example, who formed A3 without knowing about the existence of tulpas or how to form one in the first place. There's a whole world out there, man. No tulpa is ever going to be developed entirely the same!

 

   I feel like the imposition example could be attributed more to a lack of a certain skill, and not a developed difference. If we take a look at the old "tulpa progression line" that everyone tried to follow back in the day, it usually went something like personality, forcing, vocalization, possession, switching, and then imposition. They wouldn't be a different kind of tulpa, just ones with different skills. I used a switching example in my initial post to explain some differences that might form, but I wouldn't consider that a different "type" of tulpa. 

 

   I guess the best question to ask is: if someone who believes that their soulbond is the actual character and then makes a tulpa via traditional forcing methods, would the two tulpas speak and think the same or would there be differences? I imagine someone has met this criteria at some point. 

 

   Thank you so much for responding and listening to my crazed thoughts, haha! The more I think about it, the more I realize how silly my question is to begin with. 😅

   

[ringgggg]

42 minutes ago, Slipper said:

 I feel like the imposition example could be attributed more to a lack of a certain skill, and not a developed difference. If we take a look at the old "tulpa progression line" that everyone tried to follow back in the day, it usually went something like personality, forcing, vocalization, possession, switching, and then imposition. They wouldn't be a different kind of tulpa, just ones with different skills. I used a switching example in my initial post to explain some differences that might form, but I wouldn't consider that a different "type" of tulpa. 

Ooops, sorry I goofed. The analogy probably wasn't the best one to use.

 

The variations do come from minor differences on behalf of the host that exists throughout the process of creating a tulpa and not only one part. I just used some random step because I thought it would make it easier to understand. Thanks for catching my incorrection, man