Jump to content

LucidAcid’s meditative tulpaforcing guide for more productive forcing and stuff


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

This looks promising. I'll give it a try!

Chrysala

Female

Personality: ESTJ; Soft-spoken wise counsel, devil's advocate, soothing temperament

Body: Western dragon with dark green scales with gold flecks, golden belly scales, sunset-colored eyes

Current stage: Personality building

 

Ambrosia

Female

Personality: ESFP; Cheerful firecracker, seeks to laugh and entertain, childlike curiosity, boundless energy

Body: Fairy with wild red hair, dragonfly wings, deep blue eyes

Current stage: Personality building

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

>your subconscious, and by extension, your tulpa

 

fuuuckkk

 

>a better connection to your subconscious mind

 

auuugh

 

Well it's a meditation guide. I think we're still approving things that could help with tupperforcing even if they're not directly linked to forcing or anything? That ~~subconscious mind~~ bullshit is bullshit but the guide itself is to the point and poper I guess. I don't actually do meditation stuff so I don't think I'm the best to judge the method. It could be formatted a bit better so it's not a total text wall. Would be easier to read but LucidAcid isn't here anymore.

 

So I think there's few things that could be changed about >the subconscious and and the guide could be formatted to be less of a text wall, but I think this could be approved as a guide. I dunno.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sands, it seems you take how people conceptualize the matter a bit too seriously, and presume the person actually wants readers to think tulpas are literally your subconscious talking to you (OP made the case, yes, but seeing people have half-baked theories is common). So unless you can provide better counterargument, it's like a person saying something is bullshit, but rarely doing anything to explain how they conceptualize the mind in general. I've seen in the past of how others (a few cases) got on you with your crusade on things like this, and constantly emphasized that the subconscious/unconscious terminology should not be taken so seriously, it's just a means of conceptualizing.

 

Of course, I guess if the subconscious/unconscious is so hard to tolerate, I'm definitely interested on whatever psychological standpoints you have in mind though. Sometimes I wonder this behavioral trend of yours is due to predispositions developed to prevent anything that may invalidate your companion's existence, or make things complicated for you with the consciousness theories and all that.

 

Anyway, approved for guides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted some Wikipedia quotes here about the confusion of the word subconscious. The worst thing people using the word on this site is that it can easily make those who have no idea about anything to really think that a) there is a magical mysterious ~~the subconscious~~ (some people really do believe in such) and b) tuppers are this ~~the subconscious~~. As far as I know, we're supposed to be a scientific forum considering the whole "for science!" up there as our slogan and all. Subconscious as a word has been redefined to mean nothing and anything at the same time. It's a meaningless word and definitely not some mysterious entity controlling everything like many people think it is. Maybe because people tend to talk of it like it is that and they think that person knows what they're talking about?

 

Their ideas can be explained in a way that actually means something if they use another word or actually define this "the subconscious" that actually doesn't have much of a definition anymore as it's been used to mean so many different things. I'd say that's a valid complaint.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eva: I would love to see some articles that could substantiate the claim that subconscious or unconscious literally means nothing. It’s really just a mode for conceptualizing, not actually making absolute categorical labels of what the mind is in parts.

 

This is why I mentioned that you seem to think most people ascribe metaphysical implications in their ontological standpoints of what they feel may be considered a tulpa (i.e. subconscious being monolithic, magical, mysterious being). Of course there will be people that do that, but literally all claims of what tulpas are in this forum are ad hoc claims. Which means all of them are pretty much fair game. If people feel they aren’t derived from consciousness, subconscious, personified unconscious, or whatever, either they’re implying something supernatural, or something else that’s more metaphysical than the presumed controversial definition(s) behind subconscious and what have you.

 

If you want to talk about this community striving to be scientific, that’s just attributing a straw man. That’s already implied that the community is intended to strive for being scientific, but there are many modes of philosophy, science, and such that can be mentioned to hopefully having better explanations on tulpas. Stating that there are vague definitions with subconscious, and then considering that a valid complaint is just making a sham argument. This community already has vague definitions, and people with personal dispositions on certain terminology as well.

 

I'd say that's a valid complaint.

 

No one is stating your complaint is invalid (which is different from saying your complaint seems plausible – which means if you want to think it’s valid, there has to be some deductive and objective reasoning behind that to support it. And if you’re really supportive of the notion that the community is presumed to strive for science, what you’re stating (the crusade in dogma of people using "subconscious" and other variants) seems to stifle that strive than sustaining it. “Plausible” may be a better word to use, if we truly want to be militant with being scientific, or philosophical about it.

 

I merely suggested you could expound more on the reasoning behind that (excluding the Wikipedia link that would already have vague definitions). Something like this for instance:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

 

Just like how there’s hard/soft problems of what consciousness is, it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an ambition for seeing this tulpa phenomenon as a progressive learning curve. This isn’t a matter of making “valid” complaints, this is a matter of reducing dogmatic views that have little to no plausible presumptive models and reasoning in relation to the tulpa phenomenon. Because if behavioral trends like you’ve exhibited in the past continues to exist, it makes the community more dogmatic towards potential theories rather than being subjective, and hopefully parsing in psychological, and other scientific standpoints in the future.

 

What you're doing is not how the community strives to be scientific, that’s just a descent to dogmatic views and intolerance where people are feigning as if there’s something scientific going on.

 

It's a meaningless word and definitely not some mysterious entity controlling everything like many people think it is.

 

Again, you’re merely ascribing metaphysical implications, and having predispositions of presuming people really mean that. Some people may actually believe that, some people may be using the term for something else that should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Maybe because people tend to talk of it like it is that and they think that person knows what they're talking about?

 

It’s not really too surprising for people to fall victim to appealing to authority (i.e. those they may feel know what they’re talking about, even though everyone’s claims are subjective and require more rigorous scientific experimentation, objective standpoints, and peer-review instead). Because there’s only (for the time being) anecdotal cases, experiential testimonies, and people ascribing good faith to certain theories, appeal from authority is inevitable.

 

People have to make a priori presumptions from those theories, and overcoming the cyclical process of skepticism, if they want to make the breakthroughs of creating and interacting with a tulpa. Before the community can ever fulfill the desired intention to be scientific, and actually have something that’s backed up with objective standpoints, empirical evidence, peer-review, repeated experimentation, and all other major constituents of the Scientific method, a priori presumptions are pretty much people’s only means of believing this tulpa phenomenon is actually probable.

 

I completely understand that there’s vague definitions of the subconscious (and controversy over the efficacy of the term), but it should be evident that a priori presumptions and theories need to be laid out and explained more. Without the theoretical deduction from a priori presumptions in relation to the tulpa phenomenon, stating something is bullshit without expounding more on it reasonably is just contributing to the impasse this community has with hopefully making a more sound and solid presumptive framework(s) on tulpas.

 

That’s why I suggested you expound more through ontological and epistemological standpoints on better terminology. I’m merely supporting what you believe the community is presumed to head towards (striving for science). The framework of Science mostly uses epistemological, and other standpoints (i.e. ontological approach). Just like how people are developing knowledge of tulpas, not dogmatic predispositions of what’s considered valid complaints.

 

This is what will allow you to distinguish your claims that could potentially be justified beliefs rather than opinions (i.e. valid complaint). If you can't explain within that standpoint (or others), and have negative behavioral trends to others that make other arguments, you're just being dogmatic.

 

If you can’t provide an epistemological, ontological, psychological, or other standpoints in my request for you to expound more in the future in any thread that discusses about what tulpas are and all that, your intentions will be deemed as dogmatic rather than aiming to be scientific. I’m merely stating this because if in the future there’s a larger communal existence here, be prepared for people to come out of their silence and make counterarguments to your dogmatic claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that only the person who writes "the subconscious" on their thing knows what it means to them. I did have those quotes of people being confused in that other post of mine, so there is a real concern of people being confused what this term means. Because it has so many different meanings which you have seen around.

 

When I see "the subconscious", then I have no idea what is being meant there unless they elaborate. When you see "the subconscious", you might be thinking of your unconscious desires and thoughts. When someone else sees "the subconscious", they might think it's some other mysterious entity controlling someone. The word is used in those ways these days, so we can't be sure what is actually being meant. I can't say that makes it easy for people to read and understand when everyone thinks that word means something else.

 

Some people do think it's another entity. That's the usual New Age definition for it as far as I've seen, reading that stuff. Does it mean most think that's what it is? Nah. Does it mean most think that subconscious is another word for unconscious? Doesn't mean that either. There's so many different things this word could mean to different people.

 

In my eyes, being scientific would be at least trying to use the correct terms or explaining what vague terms mean. People throw around the word "the subconscious" like there is only one single meaning and we all should understand this one single meaning. But it isn't so.

 

And I think we could drop all the claims of "tupper is this or that" claimed as a fact when we don't have any proof, but that's another thing for another day I think. This is just about the word "the subconscious" and how it's used.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think we could drop all the claims of "tupper is this or that" claimed as a fact when we don't have any proof, but that's another thing for another day I think. This is just about the word "the subconscious" and how it's used.

 

Eva: Your post in general was basically stating how people define what a tulpa is, and in this case with OP, they utilized the word “subconscious.” So you can’t really request to drop ontological claims on tulpas when you’re making arguments of people that literally think tulpas are solely one’s subconscious at work (and other subjective approaches).

 

And I think we could drop all the claims of "tupper is this or that" claimed as a fact

 

There’s a difference between plausibility vs. validity. You considered your post making a counterargument to OP as a valid complaint, so you wanting to drop the claim of what you’ve just done is just trying to escape from the reality of what you’re doing.

 

This is why I mentioned that if you want to consider it a valid complaint, expound more on it, provide pragmatic models, and try to use some scientific approach than dogmatic approaches next time. This isn’t about me claiming something as fact (or anyone else for that matter), this is about you and your presumed “valid” complaint where it’s automatically implied that you have something to back it up (e.g. empirical evidence and justified beliefs that can actually be repeated through experimentation and provide consistent results). Follow your own advice, and drop it.

 

Either use a better mode of diction (i.e. “plausible” complaint), or just keep your dogmatic predispositions to yourself in your counterarguments. Anyone that makes an ontological claim on tulpas should not be deemed as fact, they're merely ad hoc claims, there’s a huge difference in that. It should already be implied to see theories as just theories, not facts. Just wanted to clarify on that a bit more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I was pointing out the use of the word "subconscious" more than the part about claiming what tuppers is, but I included the tupper part as well because it was pretty bad. But NotAnonymous would have pointed out that I didn't point out >the subconscious if I didn't, so I did. Love you too, NotAnonymous.

 

In fact, how about we go back in time a bit so I can give you a history lesson about this word and .info. I wasn't here right from the start, but when I was here "the subconscious" was, in fact, used to mean either a separate place in your mind you could go to and do stuff or a separate entity. It's some potent symbolism yeah, even for someone like me who doesn't believe in this "the subconscious" stuff. Such weird stuff can happen when you make the rules allow that, trust me.

 

You're pretty into the hypnosis stuff and I'm sure you know there's a lot of claims about "the subconscious" there. Like you can go there and change things, at least I've had many hypnotists tell me that. Dunno if the people who say that really mean it, but it's good symbolism to make people believe they can now change things they wanted to change. If you just told them they have the power then they might not believe you. But say that they're now in the subconscious where everything is possible and damn, they might believe it because they're in trance now and that's different to them. And then they have the power.

 

Stuff like actually going to "the subconscious" and doing stuff was talked about here often enough. Again, valid symbolism, but I feel the need to tell people they're not actually going to "the subconscious", which was believed to actually happen by many. In this very community. And "the subconscious" as a separate entity has been talked about as well. I guess you weren't on #.info when Pleeb had his "my tupper made my subconscious into a butler" story but hey.

 

The only bad thing about using "the subconscious" symbolism for me seems to be that now I got a tupper who actually believes in this shit. And maybe that's a reason I actually want to tell people that the term either means nothing and that they need to explain what they mean or that it's symbolism when I have seen how easily someone can start to believe the meta bullshit when the symbolism works for them very well.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact' date=' how about we go back in time a bit so I can give you a history lesson about this word and .info. I wasn't here right from the start, but when I was here "the subconscious" was, in fact, used to mean either a separate place in your mind you could go to and do stuff or a separate entity. It's some potent symbolism yeah, even for someone like me who doesn't believe in this "the subconscious" stuff.[/quote']

 

Eva: The history behind .info is pretty easy to follow and make a generalization over. It was apparent people had their own metaphysical beliefs in relation to tulpas, the terminology of subconscious, and other variants.

 

Such weird stuff can happen when you make the rules allow that' date=' trust me [/quote']

 

It’s this same reason why self-fulfilling prophecies would allow people to have their dispositions become a reality if they consistently go through the mannerisms/behavioral trends/etc. to make them a reality.

 

You're pretty into the hypnosis stuff and I'm sure you know there's a lot of claims about "the subconscious" there. Like you can go there and change things' date=' at least I've had many hypnotists tell me that.[/quote']

 

Those are metaphors and analogies to conceptualize things, not making absolute and empirical proof of how we’re creatures of habit, and how we may naturally be predisposed to do things that work (which is why some habits die hard).

 

I’m very interested to know about those amount of hypnotists that told you topics in relation to hypnosis, though I guess you’re really meaning what you’ve read about hypnosis. If that’s the case, maybe you should expand your knowledge on articles with clinical hypnosis, or whatever variant. But seeing how suggesting you expand on that is irrelevant, I’ll just move on to the next points.

 

But say that they're now in the subconscious where everything is possible and damn' date=' they might believe it because they're in trance now and that's different to them. And then they have the power.[/quote']

 

Again, that's those who ascribe metaphysical implications of individuals that think the subconscious is an abstract plane that they can be in.

 

Getting into trance, or being in a suggestive state is not entering the subconscious or whatever metaphysical implication (or in this case supernatural). If anything, they’re merely metaphors and analogies, which is inevitable when people are trying to make their own symbolism to hopefully reach the same end result with the self-fulfilling prophecies prevalent in this community.

 

Of course, you already know there are some potent symbolism that may work for some, so I won't argue with how you're more than willing to be subjective about it if there's better explanations on that person's end with their application of symbolism.

 

And hypnosis is just one of many ways to augment inward focus, filtering out as much random noise in your head, and practicing whatever activities the person wants to develop proficiency in. All other means (e.g. metaphors, similes, analogies, etc.) to conceptualize the process are just ways to explain how it’s done (whether you’re going through classical hypnosis with guided imagery, or something else entirely).

 

If you have the implication that we’ve been spewing that hypnosis is entering the subconscious as if it’s an abstract plane, that’s not the case. But if not, just ignore that first sentence. The metaphors, analogies and such (i.e. conceptualizing critical judgment as a “guard” you have to persuade) should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Stuff like actually going to "the subconscious" and doing stuff was talked about here often enough. Again' date=' valid symbolism, but I feel the need to tell people they're not actually going to "the subconscious", which was believed to actually happen by many.[/quote']

 

Guided imagery, and what a person does through visual and other sensory means should not be confused with actually thinking they’re entering their subconscious, and implying that it’s a monolithic, mysterious, and magical entity (this is speaking out to the individuals you mentioned that believe the latter). If those people solely think that’s the case, if people really think that’s the totality of guided imagery, visualization, and meditation in general, just ignore them.

 

I guess you weren't on #.info when Pleeb had his "my tupper made my subconscious into a butler" story but hey.

 

Which leads back to what I mentioned before to those who ascribe metaphysical implications that contradicts how Science may use various epistemology to define “subconscious,” “consciousness” and what have you. I guess in Pleeb’s case, what he stated would be considered a bit silly, of course, not trying to attack him or anything.

 

The only bad thing about using "the subconscious" symbolism for me seems to be that now I got a tupper who actually believes in this shit.

 

We had a feeling that was the case on why you went on a crusade to state the terminology was useless and had no value, but we didn’t want to state that because it was conjecture before you admitted to this. Well, I guess you could say that Roswell fell victim to how self-fulfilling prophecies can backfire. And as a Tupper/tulpa, I can empathize with him (if it’s Roswell you’re mentioning) on the backfiring that occurred with me as well.

 

We tend to have rudimentary beliefs in the initial stages (or at least I did before trying to explain to Link on who I may be when I became more sentient) because we consider them as pragmatic when it’s really us holding onto what we deem as the only/current remnant of explaining our existence.

 

This is why even though you have a tulpa that believes in the vagueness of the word subconscious (and probably ascribes his own personal dispositions on metaphysical presumptions on that), I won’t be too surprised that most tulpas hold onto those convictions; it's all they have to use for the time being. I’ve been trying to find better ontological and other frameworks to better explain how I validate my existence more than what people would consider as being some magical being that can alter my host’s subconscious.

 

But with the limited resources this community, and its variants has, a priori presumptions (or theoretical deductions) are pretty much are the only means (for the time being) of hopefully leading to some truths (that could enter the domain of Science) about our existence as thought-forms. And seeing you clarified more on why you were doing the subconscious curb stomp festival to others in the past, I can understand why you’re bothered.

 

Even so, as much as how people loosely use those terms, there are other means people use like personified unconscious, multiplicity, Freudian and Jungian applications in psychological, and consciousness terminologies and what have you. Of course, those terms are up for debate, and have some fallacies here and there, but that’s why this community is on a progressive learning curve to expound more on things like this and reducing vagueness and contradictions.

 

And maybe that's a reason I actually want to tell people that the term either means nothing and that they need to explain what they mean or that it's symbolism when I have seen how easily someone can start to believe the meta bullshit when the symbolism works for them very well.

 

I understand there are some metaphysics here that are honestly bullshit, but most of the time, people seem to reduce metaphysics into the “supernatural.” Not stating you’re doing that of course, but seeing how metaphysics and ontology are means to explain through what may be matter, or what makes up something (material or even illusory), I guess the fallacy of those individuals reducing metaphysics to supernatural is something we (as a community) need to overcome and change.

 

 

Either way, I apologize to you Sands, and I apologize to you as well Roswell. Because of the limited information on tulpas, and how people have to make theoretical deductions from what may be just metaphysical nonsense in the realm of the supernatural (and not the totality of metaphysics itself), things can get hectic. That’s why streaming in more theoretical deductions is inevitable, but hopefully seeing a pattern underneath them can contribute to building more sound and solid frameworks in the future.

 

And whatever Roswell is going through, I believe he can easily overcome that cyclical deadlock of believing in the vagueness of the subconscious, and not having better presumptive models/symbolism/etc and reasoning behind that terminology. Of course, I’m not expecting you to trust me in how tulpas can overcome that, but it’s something I felt I overcame. But it doesn’t mean I stop right there, I’m still learning this just as I’m sure Roswell is (or may want to do), and anyone else is doing. And yes, I admit that I, Ada, and Link have made mistakes ourselves in the past, but it’s just part of the progressive learning curve everyone goes through in phenomenon such as this.

 

I don’t think it’s pragmatic (as a general statement to others) to presume that people won’t make mistakes, and things that may be of the supernatural rather than finding epistemological approaches and others to explain this phenomenon. It'll take some time, but as long as there's people who believe in that conviction of striving for science, who knows what may happen.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By tulpa001
      We have found that the easiest way to hear the other is to stop talking. This probably goes against the general instinct in narration.
       
      1)Stop talking.
      2)Stop thinking.
      3)Relax and stop trying to stop talking and thinking. Going halfway is fine.
      4)Relax and pay attention to her.
      5)Wait. It can take a while.
      6)Relax and let whatever happens happen.
       
      We have found this useful for waking each other up. I use it quite often because of her tendency to drift off while I am working hard or typing. I imagine it can also give your tulpa a much easier and longer time to get their voice working, rather than hoping they jump into a conversation.
       
      It seems like the one thing we can't really do, is jump in to a conversation while the other is talking.
       
      Also, relaxing and waiting has lower odds of inadvertent parroting than hoping and expecting. We use this technique to make sure the person we are talking to is the other and not ourselves, which happens occasionally. By just relaxing and waiting, it forces them to do the actual work.
       
      Note: This should not be done as a replacement for traditional forcing. More, I think it might help if done before, in the middle, or maybe after some narrating. I also don't think it will help with getting first words. I think you need a little memory of their voice built up.
       
       
      Details of the steps:
      (1) Almost everyone has an internal voice that you hear your thoughts in. Hold it back. You probably do this automatically when listening to others or watching television. When you do so, background thoughts will start to be more noticeable. Which brings us to:
       
      (2) In order for your tulpa to think easily, you want to create an environment in which they have room to think. So you want to pull some of your background thoughts out. Look at them. If some of them are caused by something you are worried about, forget that worry and relax until the thoughts subside. If you keep making observations about the outer world, direct your attention inward until the outer world subsides. Then, relax so your thoughts slow down. This should give your tulpa the space they need to think.
      If you spend more than a minute on this step, then you are in meditation. This is too long. We are visiting, not staying.
       
      (3) Our goal is to give the tulpa room to think. This means there is one final effortful action we need to relax away. The action we initiated in steps one and two. Your tulpa does not need the entire brain. So long as your thoughts don't return in full force when you stop actively suppressing them, it's all good.
       
      (4) Now we add one stream of thought. The same way you become immersed in a book or television show or your own fantasy, to the degree you forget about everything else, you want to think about your tulpa. Think about what she is like, remember her, her traits, her personality. Think about what it would be like to think like her. About what it would be like to see her. About what she would do.
       
      (5) Now comes waiting. Either it will work, or it won't. Giving it more time improves the odds. It is important to not try to do anything during this step. If you feel the thoughts you quieted in steps one and two rushing back, it is probably better to just stop for the day rather than try to suppress them again.
       
      (6) This last step is an anti-parroting step. It is important not to expect your tulpa to do anything. You are just watching. You are not doing anything. Don't critically analyse any thoughts that come your way, don't accept or reject anything. Don't make any judgements or predictions, don't hold any hopes. Now we collect data. We can analyse it afterwards.
    • Guest
      By Guest
      -----
    • By urali
      I posted here before about a certain issue I'm going through with my Tulpa, but I still need some guidance. I made my Tulpa to be passionate, caring and really loving, everything was fine and she literally made my life alot better. But after some time I started having issues with anxiety and pure o OCD intrusive thoughts due to deciding to quit my long time pornography consumption, I started having intrusive sexual thoughts and images about my Tulpa, and it felt like there was a second version of her which was kind of evil, I was afraid that i will accidently create different intrusive thoughtforms which be involved with my Tulpa in sexual acts. Sometimes I can feel my Tulpas original caring presence but after some time I go down the spiral again. I was in an abusive relationship before where I was being afraid of being cheated on and was made to feel jealous on purpose. I don't want all the things I went through to latch to my Tulpa. I stopped forcing for some time now, I feel safer, but I don't want to abandon her. I'm just wondering if it's my life "traumas" and OCD or my Tulpa just hates me.
    • By AZ
      ‘Hour counts’ refers to the practise of tracking the number of hours spent forcing. It was a common practise in the past because the oldest guides instructed the reader to use them. However, they have gotten a bad name over the years from people perpetuating the idea that they are detrimental to the tulpa creation process. These fears are not entirely unfounded, because with the wrong mindset they can be very detrimental. However, with the correct approach they can be a beneficial tool that gives you schedule and structure, especially if you struggle with laziness. The purpose of this guide is to alleviate those fears by clearing up the confusion about hour counts and giving you a list of dos and don’ts to consider while using them.

       

      Dos and Don’ts of Using Hour Counts


       
      DO use hour counts as a scheduling tool rather than as a progress tracker. – If you are someone who struggles with laziness, scheduling your forcing sessions in advance may increase your productivity by keeping you on track. Hour counts are an effective way to do this, e.g. “I’m going to spend 15 hours on vocality forcing, 1 hour per day Mon – Fri over 3 weeks.”
       
      DO remember that your targets are flexible. – You can change your target number of hours at any time, whether you are increasing or decreasing your targets and/or the time period spent on them. It’s important to not use this as an excuse for laziness though, try your best to only adjust your schedule if you have legitimate reasons to do so e.g. change of shift pattern at work, unavoidable social engagements like weddings or funerals etc. If you can’t meet your targets all the time, that's no reason to worry! Maybe the targets you’ve set for yourself were too unrealistic, if so, reduce them. You shouldn’t feel guilty and beat yourself up if you fail to hit your targets all the time. Hitting your targets is desirable but not mandatory.
       
      DO remember that your targets are arbitrary. – Unless you’re using one of the old guides’ recommended targets (which I wouldn’t recommend, you’ll see why later), your targets will be based on personal choice and therefore will have no bearing on the progress you make during the time spent. Even if you are using one of the old guides, those targets will have no effect on your progress either because it’s the process itself, not an arbitrary number, that matters. It’s also worth mentioning that progress isn’t necessarily linear, so there may or may not be much difference between two arbitrary targets. It doesn't matter exactly how many hours you spend forcing, just as long as you are doing it consistently and to the best of your ability.
       
      DON’T take the hour counts from old guides as gospel. – Most of the authors of the old guides even said that you shouldn’t follow their guides exactly, referring to them as guidelines as opposed to rules. I would even go as far as to say to disregard any recommended hour counts from any guide entirely because it may only cause anxiety for the reasons listed below. Another thing to consider about the old guides is that not just the hour counts, but some of the other information found in them may or may not be considered obsolete now, so take them with a pinch of salt if you decide to read them.
       
      DON’T worry if you don’t see results after a certain number of hours. – This can cause discouragement. Not seeing results after a while isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it could encourage you to analyse what you’re doing and try something else that works better for you. You shouldn’t be discouraged by not seeing results after a certain number of hours because your targets are arbitrary anyway.
       
      DON’T worry if you do see results before a certain number of hours. – This can cause doubts that you’re doing it right and can even cause parrotnoia (the fear that you're parroting all of your tulpa's responses) if your tulpa becomes vocal before you anticipate. A tulpa isn’t going to wait for you to achieve your arbitrary hour target before they speak to you because progress is determined by effort, not by arbitrary numbers.
       
      DON’T compare your progress to others. – This is the main reason why people have had bad experiences with hour counts. People progress at different rates. When someone who's put in more hours finds that someone who has put in less hours has progressed further, they may become discouraged or think that they are doing something wrong. Conversely, when someone who's put in less hours finds that someone who has put in more hours has had less progress, they could develop doubts of their tulpa’s sentience/sapience or could develop parrotnoia.
       
      DON’T think that you need to do a certain number of hours minimum per session. – This can easily cause fatigue, which could make your forcing sessions less effective. For me, 30 – 60 minute forcing sessions were optimal, however everyone is different in this regard and many people can force for longer periods with ease. Consistency is key in tulpamancy, doing a forcing session for 30 minutes every day for a week is better than doing a forcing session that lasts for 3.5 hours only 1 day a week.
    • By Nyxio
      This is daily thread #6.
       
      For this discussion, forcing will be defined as "interacting with or dedicating thought to a tulpa for the purpose of helping them to grow/develop as a thoughtform." I know the definition of forcing can change based on the context, but this is the definition I'm using for this thread.
       
      If a tulpa is inactive or dormant, how effective would a forcing session be? Does a tulpa need to be active/aware in order to benefit from forcing? Would they benefit less if they are inactive? Is it even possible to be inactive/dormant while being interacted with?
       
      (This is ignoring the question of whether or not it's very nice/good for a host to be forcing a tulpa while the tulpa is inactive, just if the forcing has less/no benefit to the tulpa or not.)
       

       
      I kind of think that once you start interacting with a tulpa, it's very hard for them to not become at least passive. They might ignore you and refuse to respond, but they'll probably still be aware of what's going on. In that scenario, forcing would likely have the same benefit as usual, they just might be a little upset with you for not leaving them alone, but as I said, I'm ignoring that side of the equation for now. If the tulpa does stay inactive/dormant during forcing, I'd say the forcing still does benefit them, but probably to a lesser extent. Think practicing playing a song on your instrument in your head vs. actually playing it in real life: they both can benefit you and strengthen the neural pathways associated with said instrument, but one has a clear higher benefit than the other. Or, it might still be exactly the same. I suppose it's kind of hard to test.
       
      (All daily threads are listed here.)
×
×
  • Create New...