"Subselves"

[Ashmo]

But there's nothing "mystical" about tulpa either...

[Kiahdaj]

As far as you know.

OooooOoooOoOoo~

[Shui]

Well, the way the wikipedia page is set up, it could give him that opinion. I'd suggest laying out the similarities in the email.

[Ashmo]

We should probably try to explain that the phenomenon really is based in psychology.

[Kiahdaj]

It is not based in psychology. It is, in this case, approached from a psychological standpoint. Which is a completely different thing.

[Ashmo]

Point taken. I'm just trying to think of an intelligent way we could present out case that we aren't a bunch of occultists sitting around a spirit board trying to contact imaginary friends from "the other side". I mean, some of are, respectively, but still.

[left blank]

I think my previous ignored question was well-founded.

 

If I were writing an email to a psychologist (I'm not new to this kind of communication)...

• I would preface it with a solid explanation as to why I was contacting them.
  
• Once I was sure I had established a clear purpose, I would launch into a brief description of this community's founding goal, or at least its collective interest.
  
• From there, I would close with a couple questions to satisfy curiosity and invite further discourse.
  

 

As I've said elsewhere, the term 'tulpa' is not one I particularly like to use for any reason other than experiences that align with the so-called historical "mystical" manifestations. Using an analogous term, and explaining that 'tulpa' is a convenient stand-in word, might also get better results.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think my previous ignored question was well-founded.

 

My apologies.

 

If I were writing an email to a psychologist (I'm not new to this kind of communication)...

• I would preface it with a solid explanation as to why I was contacting them.
  
• Once I was sure I had established a clear purpose, I would launch into a brief description of this community's founding goal, or at least its collective interest.
  
• From there, I would close with a couple questions to satisfy curiosity and invite further discourse.
  

 

By all means, suggest a response to his message. Mind, my intent was to keep it concise and be a curiosity spark more than anything else; mostly due to the informality of both the contact button (its intent is more site-feedback oriented) and that I was just searching for his thoughts.

 

As for a specific reason for contacting him, no, none particularly, outside the slight similarities between his suggested subself ideas and tulpas.

 

As I've said elsewhere, the term 'tulpa' is not one I particularly like to use for any reason other than experiences that align with the so-called historical "mystical" manifestations. Using an analogous term, and explaining that 'tulpa' is a convenient stand-in word, might also get better results.

 

So, multiplicity then?

[Akuma_Shinigami]

In my opinion it sounds like this man is a genius, why?

 

Because hes taken the idea of tulpa, and put it in a way which people would not dismiss it as fast, and give it more thought,

 

Example,

"Heyy, did you know that u can make a super imaginary friend with its own sentience called a tulpa" "freak"

 

Or

 

"Did you know there are subselves within our mind that in part each govens our personality as a whole, and that you can learn to differentiate between them and so on so forth"

 

GENIUS

 

That guy is talking about tulpa without directly talking about tulpa, and putting it in a more understandle way for close minded idiots

[left blank]

That guy is talking about tulpa without directly talking about tulpa, and putting it in a more understandle way for close minded idiots

 

With all due respect, it generally takes more openness and intellect to grasp the concepts of 'subselves' and 'archetypes' than it does to understand "super imaginary friend".

 

And as previously stated, Gerlach is actually just modifying existing hypotheses set forth by other psychologists.

 

My apologies.

 

No problem. Didn't think you were even around.

 

By all means, suggest a response to his message. Mind, my intent was to keep it concise and be a curiosity spark more than anything else; mostly due to the informality of both the contact button (its intent is more site-feedback oriented) and that I was just searching for his thoughts.

 

I'll definitely throw some ideas out there as soon as I get the free time.

 

So, multiplicity then?

 

Actually, that's is a great suggestion.