Tulpa Phenomenon Overview Guide v1

[Amadeus]

A little while back I was tasked with writing a general overview to tulpae and creation.  The idea was to have an up-to-date general guide that didn't push things like hour counts on new users, talked about different methods, and other such things. 

 

Took me about a good number of hours in front of a public computer, but I got a draft finished. 

 

So, here it is.  The Word file I typed up originally, and a .txt for people who the Word file doesn't work for. 

 

Input would be fantastic.  Constructive criticism is always welcome.

 

Latest version.

Tulpa Phenomenon Overview Guide v1.docx

Tulpa Phenomenon Overview Guide v1.txt

[Purlox]

I changed one minor thing in "What isn't a tulpa?". I think it's finished now unless some people have suggestions to improve it

 

Download

Tulpa Phenomenon Overview Guide v1.5.docx (Working 5/15/21)

Edited May 15, 2021 by Ranger
Verified the download link works

[waffles]

It looks great to me; I just have one minor issue.

I know a tulpa is generally accepted as conscious, and another personality, but since we don't really know I don't think it should be stated so imperatively. It needn't be removed, just modified to be less certain, I suppose.

[Tesseract]

It looks great to me; I just have one minor issue.

I know a tulpa is generally accepted as conscious, and another personality, but since we don't really know I don't think it should be stated so imperatively. It needn't be removed, just modified to be less certain, I suppose.

 

I respectfully disagree, on behalf of the tulpae. Tulpae know they're conscious and separate; just because we can't prove it doesn't make it less true. It has to be taken on good faith, but then, so does the assumption that you or anyone else is conscious, as there's no proof there either.

[Guest Anonymous]

This would fit well in the new user's part of the forum.

Overview: yes. Guide: no. Simple as that.

[Linkzelda]

The OP was making an attempt to cluster the totality of concepts of the tulpa phenomenon during the status quo of when it was posted, and I felt that they probably wanted to explain this more in the future. But I guess based on the real life circumstances, they absolved themselves from doing so.

 

It’s a nice bit of insight from the perspective of a user, though for it potentially being a guide, it gets my disapproval. Maybe there should be a section for articles or something like that instead of the individual link from the homepage.

[waffles]

This might be 15 months late but Tess, your logic is bad and your argument makes no sense.

 

People are saying that this isn't a guide, but there's actually a fairly substantial general section under, surprise, "Creating a Tulpa". So I'll approve this for Guides and give it a general tag, although if Amadeus is around (hah) or even Purlox - since he wrote some of it, apparently - then they might want to move it somewhere else as per above suggestions.

[Sands]

Well, first of all, don't force us to download this thing. Please upload this somewhere else and you absolutely have to put the newest version in the first post. I dunno if there's any huge differences and I'm not going to read every single version of this guide, but when I see "version 1" on the first page and "version 1.5" on the last one, I am going to assume 1.5 is the one I should be reading. But your readers won't.

 

Also, when it comes to paragraphs, at least on my version of Open Office (the .txt file was total ass), you only have one enter in between most paragraphs. That looks extremely messy and doesn't make it less of a text file. I request an extra enter there, to give proper paragraph breaks to make reading easier. Honestly it's a real chore to go through this text because it seems like there's so much more of it than there really is, my eyes are tired before I even start. Also outdated info, Rizon server mention. Might want to write "tulpas" instead of "tulpae" as well, to make this fit the current time we are living in the tupper community.

 

Making bold claims about tuppers we can't prove is stupid. You could easily reword it to say that a tulpa seems or at least acts like it is sapient and such, instead of saying they are. Otherwise, this is the usual stuff you can find almost anywhere talking about tuppers, assuming this view of sapient tuppers/no required steps or hours is taken.

 

There is sort of a guide in this one, yeah, but I feel that it's more like an explanation of what making a tupper could be so it could still work as a sort of informative article. Could be approved as a guide, but I dunno if this is any different from the other "classic" guides so that could be a disapproval from some and I definitely won't approve it before my earlier complaints are corrected. So disapproved for now, fix it and I'll take another look.

[Guest Anonymous]

Blank vote.

[schlondark]

Approved for resources.

[NotAnonymous]

Approved, Resources.

 

While it has enough parts/content to be a guide, it's not structured sufficiently like a guide, thus it can't be approved for that.

 

Mostly agreeable, although it has some parts which are either questionable or ambiguous:

 

> tulpa is a part of you

> Being a part of your mind

> A tulpa exists in your mind,

> A tulpa is essentially a mind that (usually) identifies with a form

 

The terms 'you', 'self' and 'mind' are used quite ambiguously through-out the overview, when one should be a bit more careful with their use, especially since different definitions can mean very different things depending on what the definitions of 'you' and a 'tulpa' are, along with what they can do.

 

> It is also possible to learn how to “switch places” with a tulpa, making them become the host and you the tulpa until you switch again.

 

Some people object to the idea that the tulpa becomes a 'host' as the host is usually defined as the original consciousness in the body, that is "the first person there", thus even if a tulpa and a host can exist as equals after sufficient development, the term 'host' usually refers to one particular person which was there first. That said, this term aside, the rest of the paragraph is clear enough.

 

There's also some strong assumptions here and there, but overall the overview is agreeable.