Imagian systems?

[Editt]

So Ive recently come across a new term: Imagi or Imagian systems. It seems to be a relatively new term and is very unheard of, and there is such a lack of content surrounding the term. However, there is this (a link from pluralpedia) that explains what Imagian systems are, if you’d like to read it, but I’ll still give a brief description of what it is here:

 

Basically, its a type of plurality where someone who has imaginary friends and considers themselves to be plural/a system because of it. With their imaginary friends, they don’t feel alone in their own mind, and that is why they are considered plural. The imaginary friend itself is called an Imagi, and they can be talked with just like we can talk with tulpas. (If you didn’t guess, Imagi or Imagian is short for imagine/imaginary)

 

My first initial thought was that it sounds sorta like tulpamancy, especially because they’re both types of willed plurality (well, usually). Although, I know most tulpas don’t like the term “imaginary friend” because it makes them feel as if they aren’t real, which is fair (and they really aren’t imaginary friends anyways.)

What are your opinions on this term? I think the term is fine, but I can definitely see it being very confused for tulpamancy, especially from outside ears. People that know very little about either Imagi or tulpae probably wont be able to tell the difference between the two. There is already the misconception that tulpas are just imaginary friends, but maybe now we can just say “nope, that’s actually got its own term…” ya know? I was a little surprised to find no one was talking about it here, so i figured id start the conversation. I also wanted to shine some light on this term since its hard to find any content regarding Imagian systems.

 

Regarding my own experiences for a second, for awhile ive kind of felt as if my tulpa was more like an imaginary friend to me, although i still consider her a tulpa..? I dunno how to explain it exactly, but I’m definitely gonna be looking into Imagi a little more because i feel as if it kinda explains my experiences and feelings. My tulpa isnt vocal yet, so i dont know if she likes/prefers the term Imagi (imaginary friend) or tulpa more, but I’ll definitely let her decide how she wants to identify and what she wants to be called. I originally created her to be a tulpa, but to almost serve the purpose of an imaginary friend, since i never really had one, which is maybe why i feel this way. Perhaps some of you guys feel this way too? (Okay rant over, sorry.)

 

 

With all that said, bringing me back to my question, what is your opinion/feelings on the term Imagi/Imagian?

[ringgggg]

2 hours ago, Editt said:

With all that said, bringing me back to my question, what is your opinion/feelings on the term Imagi/Imagian?

Hmmm... For the most part, it just seems like another "tulpamancer" label probably brought on by someone that wasn't aware of the term. I looked on the Wiki, and the associations with tulpamancy lined up for the most part. It's the same cake with different frosting.

 

It's pretty obvious that with limited exposure of the concept of a tulpa in the media there will be some lingo screw-ups. 'Imaginary' friends seem to be the go-to layman term when describing anything related to the fundamentals of tulpamancy, yet diving deeper in provides some insight that clearly distinguishes the tulpa from an imaginary friend. It's like calling the giant panda and the red panda related when that most definitely isn't the case.

 

I've noticed that many of the people on here are more concerned with talking about their progress-slash-insights-slash-daily escapades than they are with explaining how they identify with a concept that everyone else on the forum already identifies with. There isn't much need for expressing that association in the first place because it's been explained pre-emptively through your choice to make a tulpa and join this forum. It's pretty convenient!

 

All of us here are technically 'Imagi', but I think I prefer the term 'tulpamancer' instead.

 

My opinion on it? A flag is a little bit much lol. However, I'm glad you brought this to light. It probably would've gone further unnoticed if you haven't.

Edited April 29, 2023 by ringgggg

[TurboSimmie]

It does feel a lot like tulpamancy by another name. Ultimately, labels don't define who we are, either as 'mancers or tulpas. I am very much attached to the word "tulpa" for myself but if another person wants to use "imagi" I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.

[The Candlelight Society]

Astra: We've seen this term a couple times on Tumblr now and while we haven't found the origin of the term it seems to be both it's own plural type for some and another term to try and placate anti tulpa people for others. 

 

The former is actually worth discussing as imaginary friends being considered a form of plurality is both highly controversial and intriguing for the implications. Some Imagian systems describe it as similar to tulpamancy but less focused on seperation or independence. Others say they're imaginary friends just became more and more like real people to them and that's why they use the term. 

 

The latter group just annoy me, stop giving in to people who will hate you anyways.

 

Overall I find this little development in the wider plural community intriguing but it mostly just seems like another flavor of thoughtform creation/tulpamancy without as much focus on autonomy or seperation. It'll be fun to see if it goes anywhere from here. 

 

[Ranger]

Like any label in the plural community, stick with whatever makes you comfortable.

 

While I do see a lot of overlap between imagians and tulpas, I think label usage really depends on the context of your community more than anything else. Tulpas could also be "endogenic headmates" or "paros"? but that didn't catch on. Imagian is a much nicer than either of those two things at least. However, I don't really align with that term. I don't have any plans to refer to someone as Imagian unless they specifically request it

 

I do think the protector ideology is interesting though. It makes me wonder if the people who came up with this term are okay...

[MadMax]

Max:

 

"what's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell just as sweet." Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.

 

I have a hard time with declaring one nomenclature to a phenomenon. Hell, the word tulpa itself was made up by Alexandra David-Neel, who studied the concept in tibet. But who's to say there hasn't been other cultures with similar concepts named something completely different. Or even Gods and ghosts could actually be what we consider a tulpa, but because of how society views them, they are considered their own entity independent of the minds that believe in them.

 

I do believe that there is a difference between imaginary friend, and the thought form discipline we practice. In that an imaginary friend is basically a servitor, forced by the host, where as what we call a tulpa is sentient. 

 

Just my two scents.