Guest Anonymous

"Subselves"

Recommended Posts

the "they are still part of yourself rather than another being" is another matter entirely, they are their own persons as far as i know

 

I still think that is partially true, though. A tulpa begins as a part of his or her host. All the tulpa is at first is a section of the host's subconscious, which the host treats as separate (even though it is not).

 

Of course, this leads to the tulpa to develop sentience, gradually splitting from the host and forming a separate consciousness. Once the tulpa gains sentience, then the tulpa is his or her own person.

 

So, yeah, while that quote isn't particularly relevant to tulpae, it does still apply to very young tulpae.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Has anyone more articulate than I gone ahead and clicked that contact button?

 

I've sent Pleeb a PM regarding contacting Mr. Gerlach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Whoah, necro post.

 

I've finally gotten the green light to contact him, here's what I've got so far:

 

"Hello Mr. Gerlach!

 

After watching your subself videos, they reminded me of an interesting phenomenon known as "modern tulpas" and I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. The general website for tulpas is http://www.tulpa.info/ and the site strives to be a science-driven community. Any insight, opinions, or ideas you could give would be greatly appreciated."

 

Eh, the 'and the site strives to be a science-driven community' doesn't flow the greatest, but I don't know what to substitute that with. So, any suggestions on what to say, or better yet, a way to improve above? I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just say "tulpa" rather than "modern tulpa". I know there's a distinction, but nobody ever says "modern tulpa", so it sounds a bit awkward to me.

 

By the way, thanks for bumping this. It was posted way before my time, so I hadn't read it, and it's fascinating.


"'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, thanks for bumping this. It was posted way before my time, so I hadn't read it, and it's fascinating.

 

What Shui said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From first glance this looks like a reiteration of Sigmund Freed's

 

-ego (the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends)

-superego ( plays the critical and moralizing role )

-id (the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego )

 

In a sense an idea of existing personalities that all make up you has been around for quite some time. The difference is he renamed it and put them within more critical categories. I find it interesting that his way of talking to these aka sub-selves is simliar to creating a tulpa. Furthermore I am curious of how he even began the process of understanding his own therapy practice. Where did such a idea come from? Perhaps he took it from a broad approach on the whole idea of happy place and narrowed it down after years of practice,17, anything is possible. But I wonder if he himself might have his own Secret Tulpa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Eh, the 'and the site strives to be a science-driven community' doesn't flow the greatest, but I don't know what to substitute that with. So, any suggestions on what to say, or better yet, a way to improve above? I'm all ears.

 

Maybe instead of "science-driven community,"

 

"a community based on psychological standpoints in hopes to have scientific grounds/authorities interested in researching the tulpa phenomenon."

 

Scientific-driven sounds like there's actually something of scientific credibility going on, and we all know that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely very interesting, but I have some strong reservations.

 

Like Crushing said, Gerlach's purported schema is tailored to his particular slant, but the underlying concepts are nothing new. I find no mystery in the correlation between the 'subselves' and 'tulpa' techniques.

 

I have a problem with Gerlach's proposed approach to the idea of 'multiple selves'. Although it can be satisfying and elucidating to parse and segregate aspects of the psyche for the purpose of discovery, I think it's incredibly vital to consider that the reality is probably much more fluid and unconstrained. Not everyone's 'subselves' may comply with the pattern he suggests. Actually, I would wager a guess that there are many people with integrated, rather than fragmented, psyches, and whose personality aspects naturally coalesce into transient forms that defy static archetypes.

 

I really don't feel like rigidly partitioning abstract psychological features is a very constructive therapeutic tactic, nor do I think it's necessarily helpful in relation to the 'tulpa' phenomenon. If the triad works for some people, that's great, but universally there are just too many variables. Applying, or even just suggesting, a limited personality system (Freudian schemas, enneagram, Big Five, and MBTI included) seems potentially detrimental to self growth and unrestrained exploration in the long-term.

 

Also, I believe that 'tulpas' aren't a wholly unique phenomenon. It seems like most people have a 'tulpa' at some point in their lives, whether it's an imaginary companion in childhood, or a culturally, religiously predetermined figure they can pray to as adults. These thoughforms appear to be conduits to interface with the so-called subconscious.

 

It'd be interesting if people shared some experiences that support Gerlach's claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Welp. I sent the message with the changes and here's his response:

 

"Hi Mike - I read the Wikipedia overview of tulpas, The inner-family system concept of personality subselves is similar in that both systems focus on concepts created by the mind. However, there is nothing "mystical" about subselves, for (I believe) they are discrete programmable regions of our brains. To learn more about your subselves, see http://sfhelp.org/gwc/IF/faq.htm" - Pete

 

...ehhhhh...

 

If someone wants to come up with a response post it here and I'll send it to him.

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.

Guest
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.