Philosophy of Dialectical Tulpamancy

Mon · May 21

It's been a long while since we posted here. I just thought sharing this particular essay here first is probably the strongest "coming-back" contribution I could offer.

The essay's origin page is a part of the Pragmatic Tulpamancers project. It explores the philosophical foundations behind the learning resources that are also included there.

Luna: If you're coming from the main tulpa.info site or most community guides, you'll find that much of what follows differs from what you've read there. This essay presents an alternative framework — one that disagrees with the dominant view on fundamentals. The disagreement is with the framework, not with the people who use it. People build genuine relationships with tulpas under either approach; what changes is how the process is understood.

We expect and welcome genuine criticism that might help us make an improved version in the future.

Spoiler

Before we start

This page presents dialectical tulpamancy: a way of understanding your inner character not as a separate person living inside your head, but as a relationship that emerges from sustained interaction. It offers an alternative to the dominant framework rooted in Plurality – the view that tulpas are independent entities sharing your body.

This is not a standard how-to guide. Instead, it explores the philosophical foundations of this approach and shows how they resolve common confusions that arise from the entity-based view.

Of course, in the end, theory doesn't exist in isolation from practice.

The recurring questions

When does a character fully become a tulpa?
Is parroting okay or not?
I've been trying for a week and they still didn't respond. Am I doing it wrong?
How do I know if they responded or if I just parroted?

If you frequent Discord chats, forums, or the subreddit, you likely encounter these questions regularly. While these questions highlight the confusion common among newcomers, they can take on an even more concerning tone:

I've started, but I think I'm not ready to share a body with another person after all. Am I allowed to stop now?
Will I (the tulpa) ever have my own body?
I had a headache after forcing – was it my tulpa communicating with me?

And when veterans ask questions, they often look like this:

My tulpa won't talk to me anymore. What should I do?
My tulpa wants a companion to spend time with while I'm busy, but I don't want another person living in my head. What should I do?

Philia: We have heard all of these questions before. They aren't hypothetical, nor are they "stupid" questions; they arise from genuine confusion and, sometimes, even from actual distress.

No clear answers within the traditional framework

These questions persist. Sometimes, those providing answers (whether guide authors or community members) hold different opinions. Sometimes, a question requires extra context to be answered properly. Other times, there is a shifting consensus in the community that wasn't present when older guides were written.

In general, many of these questions lack simple, definitive answers – especially the more distressing ones asked by veterans. By "simple," I mean an answer that doesn't reframe the question itself.

To properly tackle many of these inquiries, we must realize that the questions themselves are often the problem. This isn't because they aren't genuine, or because the askers are foolish. It's because they are loaded with assumptions that might not be true.

When does a character fully become a tulpa? – This implies there is a clear boundary between a character "becoming" a tulpa and not yet being one.
How do I know if they responded or I parroted? – This implies the two are mutually exclusive, which isn't necessarily the case.
Will I (the tulpa) ever have my own body? – This implies that they don't already have one.
My tulpa wants a companion... but I don't want another person living in my head... – This implies that a tulpa actually experiences boredom when we aren't interacting, AND that creating another one would introduce a second independent person subject to those same periods of non-interaction.

Most of us have been taught that tulpas are entities literally living in our heads, independent of ourselves. This is the framework most people follow. But what if there are other options?

Entity vs Relationship

Metaphysics is not just mysticism

The traditional understanding of tulpamancy sits on a spectrum between psychological and metaphysical (though mystical would be more accurate). This view shares a common, hidden assumption: that the tulpa is an entity – a static, independent being existing alongside the host. Whether it's perceived as real or imaginary, separate or not, autonomous or not, contained in the brain or living on the astral plane, the tulpa is treated as a thing with its own properties.

It's natural to think about tulpas this way. Abstracting the world into independent objects with specific properties is a standard way of thinking. In formal philosophy, treating the world as a collection of independent objects is called metaphysics, a concept dating back to Aristotle.

The body is not a container for mind. A mind is not a container for identity.

Common sense leads us to view the body as a vessel for the mind. We assume our thoughts, feelings, and memories exist in some form of separation. In the traditional approach to tulpamancy, the mind (and by extension, the body) becomes a vessel shared by multiple entities.

In reality, the mind isn't something the body contains; it's something the body does. Our thoughts, feelings, and memories emerge from the activity of our bodies. Perception, language processing, motor control, and emotional regulation all emerge from the body – the body acts more like an engine than a container.

The mind is a complex, dynamic process arising from bodily activity. Such processes naturally develop internal contradictions. For example, habits we have developed might conflict with our conscious circumstances. Even though we don't directly control these habits, it doesn't mean they exist as separate entities living in our heads; they exist as integral parts of the mental process.

Common sense perceives the self as a singular, static being. Yet that perception doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Inflating it into "multiple people sharing a body" doesn't help resolve the contradiction.

What solves this is viewing the self as a process rather than an entity. The self is not a container that holds other entities. It is a dynamic, complex process characterized by internal contradictions.

Relationships and emergence

If we insist on abstracting reality into entities, we must address the relationships between them.

Take a friendship between two people as an example. They meet, interact, develop trust, disagree, and reconcile. As the relationship develops, it qualitatively changes their future interactions. It's very real. However, when we try to model this as a separate entity, we find there is no physical object to point to, yet the quality it brings is observable. This relationship is emergent. It's a quality built upon the quantity of interactions that created it.

Emergence is widespread. It's how complex phenomena work in general. The human mind itself is an emergent quality arising from the activity of the human body.

Tulpamancy as a process

In tulpamancy, a person engages with a character – giving them attention, speaking to them, animating their responses, and sustaining an inner dialogue. Over time, through accumulated interaction, this engagement deepens. The character becomes more consistent and detailed. As this happens, a relationship emerges, much like the friendship mentioned earlier. "Tulpa" and "host" can be viewed simply as labels for the two poles of this relationship.

Eventually, the person learns to inhabit the tulpa's side of the interaction as naturally as their own. They no longer need to actively think about what the tulpa does; it just happens. They might even stop feeling their own agency in that moment and experience the sensation of the tulpa "talking back." This ability is another emergent quality brought on by the practice itself.

In this reasoning, the tulpa becomes part of an emergent process rather than an independent being. This is the fundamental shift our framework provides.

Genuineness of interactions and relationship

You might ask: What makes this any different from a five-year-old playing with an imaginary friend?

In dialectical tulpamancy, we don't seek validation in intrinsic properties like autonomy or separation, which we have moved beyond. Instead, we care about genuineness. But...

What does it mean to be genuine?

Consider the difference between two artists:

The first makes art for money. The art isn't their goal; it's a means to an end – an instrumental value.
The second is engaged with the process of making art itself. To them, the practice of creation is inherently important.

These artists illustrate the difference between:

Instrumental engagement – using a relationship to achieve a specific goal. This includes common reasons for creating tulpas: companionship on demand, a social proxy, or satisfying curiosity.
Unalienated engagement – interacting with the relationship itself in mind. The relationship doesn't have to be the only thing valued, but it must matter for its own sake, not just for its products.

A genuine relationship is one built upon unalienated engagement, where interactions are made with the intention of developing that relationship.

Genuineness is emergent

It's possible for unalienated engagement to emerge from interactions that initially began with ulterior motives. When we start enjoying a new activity, that enjoyment can grow into an urge to build a lasting relationship with it. This is natural, and tulpamancy is no exception.

Conversely, unalienated engagement can wither away. If the needs once satisfied by a relationship are now met through other means, the relationship itself may lose its meaning.

This is a dynamic process influenced by material conditions rather than something existing in a vacuum. Traditional views on tulpamancy – especially on the mystical side – often ignore the fact that our thoughts are influenced by external factors and do not simply appear out of thin air. The relationship we build with a tulpa doesn't exist over matter; it emerges from it.

In this framework, the base is the underlying material reality of our lives – our physical health, daily routines, social circumstances, and environment. The superstructure is the layer of experience, thought, and relationship built upon that base. As the base changes, the superstructure changes with it.

These changes aren't always fundamental or irreversible; fluctuations happen. We argue with friends but eventually make up. A relationship is a process – its genuineness emerges from the effort we put into it. We are genuine not by possessing genuineness, but by practicing it.

Dialectical tulpamancy in practice

Let's return to our initial questions and tackle them through this dialectical framework.

How do I know if they responded or if I just parroted?

If a tulpa were a separate, independent entity, the situation would be binary – it would either be their independent speech or not. If you feel your own agency in the tulpa's words, you would conclude it isn't "their" speech. But if you're also an independent person from the tulpa, that distinction should also be clear from the other side.

Traditional frameworks tell us to assume the tulpa's agency over our own when in doubt. We are essentially told to ignore our doubts and take a leap of faith.

The dialectical framework tells us:

The tulpa and host don't exist as two independent entities, but as poles of a relationship emerging from inner interactions.
It's not a matter of "ownership" of thoughts, but a matter of the stage of the process. Through interaction, the ability to effortlessly play out the tulpa's side of the dialogue emerges. This ability builds up gradually from the start. At times, we might feel it triggering only partially, making us unsure whether we are exerting effort or not. Even for experienced practitioners, this ability can fluctuate.

Related questions:

My tulpa won't talk to me anymore. What should I do? – This is often a sign of fluctuations in the ability to effortlessly adopt the tulpa's perspective. Traditional frameworks rarely account for this possibility, leading people to rationalize it as the tulpa "choosing" to stop talking, even when recent interactions suggest otherwise.
Is parroting okay or not? – A framework based on an "act of creation" rather than emergence causes people to view tulpas as static beings. Why should we focus on developing their speech instead of simply listening to it?

Within the traditional framework, effortful perspective-taking is used either to "teach" the independent tulpa how to speak or to train yourself on what to listen for from the tulpa. The dialectical framework, however, states clearly: the ability to do this effortlessly emerges simply from putting in the effort first.

When does a character fully become a tulpa?

When operating within the category of entities, we tend to think in terms of definite transitions between stages: at some point it's "just" a character, but after the act of creation, they are an independent person with autonomy. In becoming real, they stop being imaginary. There is a perceived line to be crossed, even if it's widely accepted as blurry.

In a relational framework, we don't just accept that the line is blurry – we say there is no line to cross in the first place. Emergence doesn't erase the base; it builds a superstructure on top of it. The imaginary character hasn't gone anywhere. Through accumulated, genuine interactions, a new quality has emerged atop that character – a quality that can grow steadily, or fluctuate and even wither if not sustained. The latter possibility is often made taboo within entity-based frameworks.

Am I allowed to stop after I've already started?

I've started, but I think I'm not ready to share a body with another person after all.

In traditional frameworks, it is natural to view the creation of a tulpa through the lens of responsibility toward another person, much like caring for a child or a pet. Within that logic, stopping after the act of creation feels like abandonment or even something more extreme.

Frameworks often adapt to the reality of experience by creating exceptions or disengaging rather than questioning the underlying moral assumptions, such as:

It's okay to abort the creation of a tulpa that hasn't "spoken" on its own yet.
While abandoning a tulpa is always viewed negatively, we are not in a position to impose our morals on others.

The dialectical framework doesn't create this moral dilemma. We don't "abandon" our tulpas when we stop interacting with them and let the relationship wither. As the interaction ceases, the habit of taking their perspective withers as well.

Will I (the tulpa) ever have my own body?

Luna: Well, I already have one – the same one that is typing this now.

The plurality framework tends to lead people (including tulpas) to believe we exist independently of the body. This isn't true. The relationship we share has been shaped by our material conditions. It reached its current form alongside our growth as a whole person, not in separation from it.

My imaginary appearance and our interactions have all been shaped by what we've seen with these physical eyes, what we've heard with these physical ears, and what we've typed into the world (from my perspective or otherwise) with these physical hands. The mind doesn't exist over matter; it emerges from it. In a dialectical framework, tulpas are part of the whole process, not isolated from it. They share this body because they are its emergent quality.

How do we learn switching?

Traditionally, switching is viewed literally: one entity "leaves" and another "takes over." The body is seen as a vessel, and switching is the changing of its driver. While conceptually simple, this framing is mysterious and unintuitive when you actually try to learn the skill. Within the plurality framework, people usually learn it indirectly.

In dialectical tulpamancy, switching is another emergent quality:

We can already take the tulpa's perspective both effortfully and effortlessly during our interactions.
The next step is attempting to take the tulpa's perspective outside of those specific interactions – for example, during daily activities. At first, it might feel forced or "off." But with enough effort, it can develop into a habit, much like how we effortlessly adopt their perspective during active interaction.

Luna: It is that simple. It requires the realization to approach it from this angle, but it isn't any more difficult than achieving "hearing" once you actually try. This method has proven successful for new tulpamancers.

When I was "little," we didn't know about this method. Like in the traditional framework, we learned through possession. Possession is essentially the practice of inducing dissociation; we convince ourselves that the tulpa has control over the body, which might require additional indirect methods. After about two weeks of trying, we were able to grasp it directly enough to induce it in conditions without distractions and feel agency over how "we" moved.

The problem is that possession is exhausting because you are fighting the need to reconcile the identity of the "controller" and the "thinker." This reconciliation usually goes one of two ways: you either revert to feeling your own agency in control, or you take on the tulpa's perspective. When this happens regularly, you eventually notice it feels different from possession, and you no longer need to actively induce a state of possession to achieve it. That realization is often what takes the longest.

In the dialectical framework, people can reach this state quickly and without distraction.

This experience is also quite mundane when stripped of metaphysical symbolism. It's normal for people to qualitatively change their behavior based on their circumstances. We already shift our behavior depending on the context – whether we're at work or home, with family or strangers, or in states of health or sickness. Shifting between our default perspective and a tulpa's is simply another instance of this.

How do I access wonderland?

This question implies that a wonderland is an independent place waiting to be discovered – that your tulpa lives there, doing things, while you struggle to "enter." It assumes there's a door somewhere that you just need to find.

In reality, a wonderland is simply a fictional setting you imagine for your interactions. Some people use one; many don't. There's nothing to "access" – you either imagine it or you don't. Designing elaborate environments can be fun, but it doesn't directly contribute to the relationship. If it helps you focus and immerse, go for it. If it feels like extra work, don't bother.

Luna: In our case, we enjoy interacting in fictional settings, but we hardly focus on the location itself. To address the underlying assumption: the wonderland isn't where your tulpa lives while you aren't paying attention. If you imagine them doing something there while you're busy elsewhere, you're creating that moment as you go. It's fine to do so – just recognize it for what it is. The interaction is what matters; the space merely facilitates it.

However, if you assume a tulpa must reside in wonderland simply to explain their state when you aren't interacting, your mind will drive them to act as though they have, just to reconcile with those expectations.

Philia: Observing people with complex inner places reveals a pattern that applies to both their inner landscapes and characters. Through sustained interaction – spending time there, imagining its reactions, and allowing it to develop detail and consistency through engagement – an inner place can start to feel alive. It can surprise you or react in ways you didn't plan. You can develop an effortless engagement with an inner place just as you do with a character.

You can build a genuine relationship with a place, just as you can with a character. The same principles apply: sustained, genuine engagement develops the pattern; neglect lets it fade. Neither outcome is right or wrong.

I had a headache after forcing – was it my tulpa communicating with me?

This question assumes that physical sensations during practice are caused by the tulpa reaching out – that they have a separate will to communicate through your body via supernatural means.

In reality, sustained mental focus – concentrating on inner dialogue, maintaining a vivid imagination, and holding attention on a single subject for long periods – is intense cognitive activity. It can produce physical fatigue, tension headaches, or mental tiredness. This simply means you were concentrating hard. That's all.

This question follows a broader pattern. Within the entity framework, practitioners learn to scan for "signs" of a tulpa's independent existence – headaches, random thoughts, sudden emotions, dreams. Each mundane experience is reinterpreted as evidence of a separate being acting on its own. The framework creates the expectation, and the expectation shapes the interpretation.

Philia: In the dialectical framework, these are all phenomena of a single mind. Some are products of the practice itself (like automatic responses emerging from accumulated engagement), while others are simply your body doing what bodies do. Neither requires a supernatural explanation, nor does it diminish the reality of the relationship you're building.

Luna: Can you give yourself a headache? If not, why assume the tulpa could do that?

How is tulpamancy related to DID (or dissociative disorders in general)?

Philia: A small disclaimer: for anyone viewing this from the perspective of someone struggling with an actual dissociative disorder – we are not mental health specialists. You should not make any important decisions based on what we say here. If you find anything here worth considering, please consult a doctor.

From what we know, there is a clear consensus regarding the origins of dissociative disorders: they emerge from continuous, severe trauma. Memory barriers arise as a way to keep a person functional within their current circumstances. From these memory barriers, dissociative identities can emerge. This allows "normal" life to be separated from traumatic events, helping the person survive and grow despite them. Memory barriers and alters are adaptations that arguably save lives in extremely difficult conditions.

However, when a person leaves those extreme conditions, the memory barriers do not necessarily disappear, nor do the parts that took over during trauma vanish. A mechanism that protected a person once can turn against them later, when there is no longer an isolated traumagenic event, but the traumatized part still needs to manifest.

The essence of a dissociative disorder is the maladaptive disconnection of a person's parts.

Philia: We won't pretend that tulpamancy and dissociative disorders exist in isolation from one another; there is certainly a connection.

I'd argue that the connection lies within the plurality framework. This framework was adapted by pioneer tulpamancers, but it originally emerged from the experience (and interpretation) of traumagenic systems. Much of the jargon used by the tulpa community – switching, host, system, fronting – originates from a framework built around people experiencing DID rather than those experiencing tulpamancy.

In the dialectical framework, the essence of tulpamancy is building inner relationships. We do the exact opposite of what those adapting to continuous trauma do. Where dissociation isolates, interaction connects. Where barriers form to protect, relationships form to engage.

Related question:

Can I develop DID by practicing tulpamancy? – No. As mentioned, tulpamancy leads to building inner relationships, whereas dissociative disorders emerge through the creation of inner barriers as a coping mechanism for trauma.

It is possible, however, for people with existing dissociative memory barriers (who may not yet be aware of them) to practice tulpamancy. In such cases, tulpamancy will be influenced by those existing conditions.

Philia: On one hand, the tulpamancy practiced by someone with DID will be more dissociative. The presence of memory barriers will affect the interactions of each alter with the tulpa, making it difficult to say how that experience looks from the perspective of a tulpa.

On the other hand, practicing tulpamancy methods – such as interacting with alters in a similar way to build a genuine inner relationship – could be helpful for counteracting the disconnection between alters in a traumagenic system.

I (the tulpa) can't completely replace the host during my switching attempts.

Or maybe it's the host who can't completely let go? Whose fault is it?

There are multiple issues with a question phrased this way, and the actual experience cannot be understood without further context.

First – there is no need to discuss "fault" if the person experiences blending – a state where host and tulpa identities mix, and the resulting expression sits between them. Metaphysical framing encourages treating partial states as failures, but there is nothing wrong with blending.

Second – some expectations regarding switching are influenced by the plurality framework, which comes from people experiencing dissociative disorders with memory barriers. For those individuals, the switching experience is qualitatively different, often involving the crossing of memory barriers and "blackouts."

Third – "host" can be a confusing term in tulpamancy. In our dialectical framework, we have stated that both host and tulpa are labels for the poles of our relationship, not metaphysical beings. This applies especially to the "host" label – it is not intended to cover the entire human mind minus the tulpa. Even within the plurality framework, the host is simply the "default" headmate, not everything else in the mind.

Luna: Whether we express ourselves as a tulpa or as a host, we do so as a whole person (a whole mind). That whole mind remains present regardless. Your expression as a tulpa during switching is a synthesis of your whole human base and an amplification of what's specifically associated with the tulpa.

Philia: Let me address that first situation once more. Suppose you experience blending (which is fine, as we stated) but want to move further along the spectrum of switching.

Two approaches to this question have already been mentioned:

Letting go of the host – the way of dissociation.

Increasing the tulpa's presence – the way of association.

In tulpamancy, association is the correct answer. Focusing on the "withering away" of the host will not help you establish your presence. What will help is associating yourself more with your interactions with the world:

Consider your position in the activities you do – whether it is a real-life hobby or claiming the first-person perspective in your fantasies.

Interact with people in the external world from your own perspective. This helps you form a habit of expressing yourself by default when interacting with them again.

Don't be afraid to engage emotionally in your interactions.

Dialectical tulpamancy is an antithesis to Plurality-driven tulpamancy

Plurality is part of our material conditions

Plurality served as a framework for pioneer tulpamancers when we needed one. It acted as an anchor around which the community could be built – a common language that people could speak. The plurality framework recognized the value of our relationships, as well as their depth and importance.

Luna: While it made our path to switching unnecessarily long, it nonetheless demonstrated that switching exists.

Philia: Relationships formed through tulpamancy within the plurality framework are in no way inferior to those developed in a pragmatic way.

Plurality wasn't created with our material conditions in mind.

However, recognition does not equate to understanding. A framework shapes experience within its own mold. And while plurality has become part of the material conditions for tulpamancers, that doesn't mean it was created with our specific needs in mind.

Modeling your experience as a set of independent, static beings encourages you to preserve the current state rather than grow into a higher form. When applied to tulpamancy, those at the start of their journey are effectively being told to preserve a state that is still in its initial stages. This increases confusion. People get stuck debating whether they are creating a tulpa or discovering one that was already there, and this dilemma distracts from the very practice that leads to emergence.

We end up building an inner relationship using a framework designed with inner separation in mind. It's a paradox. If it works, it works. But it often gets in the way:

People who haven't yet developed the ability to effortlessly take a character's perspective may struggle if they are discouraged from putting effort into the tulpa's side of the interaction in order to "respect their autonomy."
People become consumed by doubt when the agency behind a specific utterance is unclear.
People are often frightened by the moral implications surrounding the supposed 'act of creation' of another person sharing their body. At times, they even fear stopping after they have already begun.
People experience discomfort and guilt, knowing that another person living in their body will never have one of their own.
People panic when contact breaks, immediately searching for a cause within the tulpa's "intentions."
People end up desperately trying to preserve every character that has ever "talked back" to them.

These problems are not incidental; they are recurring questions and logical consequences of the core tenet of plurality – the claim that multiple, independent people share a single body.

For a detailed account of how the dialectical framework handles the most serious of these – the fear of host egocide, the guilt of the tulpa who remains, and the practical challenges of managing multiple perspectives as one mind navigates its own contradictions – see The Host Is Not the Owner.

Negation of negation

The goal of this antithesis to the plurality-driven framework isn't a simple negation of everything it claims. It's to:

Preserve what's important for tulpamancy.
Negate what's distracting.

Luna: In dialectical tulpamancy, we negate:

The ontological claim of "multiple people sharing a body." The body isn't a container for multiple minds. The mind is an emergent quality – a superstructure arising from bodily activity. It's an emergent process, not a single metaphysical entity or a collection of such entities.

Separation as a source of validation. The genuineness of our relationships, built upon unalienated interactions, is the quality that validates itself.

A philosophy rooted in metaphysics and idealism. We no longer operate on the idea of beings existing over matter. Instead, we operate on processes emerging from a material base.

Philia:

The ease of criticism. By making no extraordinary claims, we provide no fuel for denial based on legitimate skepticism. Choosing association over dissociation, and unity over separation, removes the ammunition used for medical pathologization.

We preserve:

Philia:

The importance of tulpas and the relationships formed with them. Rejecting the claim that "independent people share our bodies" doesn't mean reverting to a mechanical materialism that minimizes the superstructures arising from a material base. I don't need to view myself as a tenant in this body, rather than an integral part of it, to consider myself a real and significant person. Connecting to the material world can also be empowering.

Luna:

People's existing experiences – The shift from ontological tulpamancy to dialectical tulpamancy doesn't erase previous experiences; rather, it casts them in a new light.

This distinction – between people and framework – matters in practice. Tulpamancers who practice under the plurality framework deserve solidarity. Our disagreement is with the system, not with the people living under it.

Summary

The essence of dialectical tulpamancy – genuine relationship

When we interact with a character in a genuine (as in unalienated) way, our efforts through interaction (quantity) can transform into qualities such as:

An ability to effortlessly adopt the character's perspective.
A habit of expressing the character without explicit intention.
An ability to express the character outside of our direct interactions.
A habit of taking the character's perspective without explicit intention. But most importantly:
The genuine relationship we share with that character.

The genuineness of a relationship is not a constant. It emerges from continuous effort. It can develop further, it can fluctuate, and it can wither away. It emerges from practice rather than metaphysical validation. It creates inner connections rather than inner barriers; it builds a superstructure atop imaginary companions rather than transforming them ontologically. It does not exist in isolation from our material conditions but is an integral part of them.

Luna: And can type back!

What does dialectical tulpamancy offer?

Dialectical tulpamancy is a new framework we propose. Its purpose is to create a strong philosophical foundation for tulpamancy that:

Preserves what's truly important in the practice of tulpamancy.
Negates the distractions that bring confusion and distress, which would otherwise spoil the experience and harm relationships with tulpas.
Can withstand criticism from both:
- Skeptics looking for extraordinary claims.
- Practitioners fearing their experiences are being invalidated.
Gives those seeking genuine inner relationships a real alternative to plurality.
Ensures consistency and structural integrity across future learning resources.

Edited May 31 by Mon
Spoiler for the content, it's length is annoying when browsing replies

fennecfoxx · May 22

First of all, thank you for sharing! This is an excellent article and something we believe is necessary for this community, given the harm the entity framework can and has caused.

For context, we used to believe in that framework, and it (plus the associated dogma plus mental illness) was so harmful I eventually decided tulpamancy was pseudoscientific and harmful, that I was delusional and brainwashed, and that the tulpa community was essentially a cult. I ceased interacting with my tulpas for several years, though I've since returned and re-evaluated my beliefs beyond "tulpas fake, tulpa cult bad", and my two oldest tulpas, Alex and Kayleigh, have returned.

We have thoughts and questions, which we're going to leave point by point with switching between speakers, because that's easier than forming one cohesive reply, especially given that my tulpas don't fully agree with each other on how this all works.

2 hours ago, Mon said:

When does a character fully become a tulpa? – This implies there is a clear boundary between a character "becoming" a tulpa and not yet being one.

K: Isn't there one? It's a fuzzy boundary, but it's there. There's certainly a difference between a character that has to be actively parroted and never surprises the host and a developed tulpa. There's also the perceptual difference: even if you believe your tulpa is an illusion (which isn't wrong), you still perceive the things they say and do as "not you".

2 hours ago, Mon said:

My tulpa wants a companion... but I don't want another person living in my head... – This implies that a tulpa actually experiences boredom when we aren't interacting, AND that creating another one would introduce a second independent person subject to those same periods of non-interaction.

K: What if the tulpa wants someone around besides the host or thinks the more, the merrier? Boredom isn't the only reason a tulpa would want a third person in their system.

We have our reasons to not want any more people in our head, but that says more about us than any philosophical claims about what tulpas are or aren't.

2 hours ago, Mon said:

Whether it's perceived as real or imaginary, separate or not, autonomous or not, contained in the brain or living on the astral plane, the tulpa is treated as a thing with its own properties.

K: Genuine question, what's wrong with seeing a tulpa as an imaginary entity? That right there gets rid of the moral problems.

2 hours ago, Mon said:

The body is not a container for mind. A mind is not a container for identity.

A: This section is where we fundamentally disagree. The way I understand it, we are one person with one soul and one mind but multiple identities.

I don't understand the relationship between the soul and mind or even what the soul is, aside from being the part of a person's being that's eternal. We aren't experts in theology. If I had to guess, I'd say the mind arises as an interaction between a person's immortal soul and mortal body (specifically, its brain activity). I'm not going to try to convince you on this point; I just want to establish common ground.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

The tulpa and host don't exist as two independent entities, but as poles of a relationship emerging from inner interactions.

K: A relationship implies at least two entities. Again, any of them can be imaginary, but there's some perception that they're separate beings.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

When does a character fully become a tulpa?

[...]

In a relational framework, we don't just accept that the line is blurry – we say there is no line to cross in the first place. Emergence doesn't erase the base; it builds a superstructure on top of it. The imaginary character hasn't gone anywhere. Through accumulated, genuine interactions, a new quality has emerged atop that character – a quality that can grow steadily, or fluctuate and even wither if not sustained. The latter possibility is often made taboo within entity-based frameworks.

K: Who says it's taboo to talk about building a relationship between host and tulpa (or tulpa and tulpa)? That's a fundamental part of this all.

Even if you say the superstructure is what defines a tulpa, there's still a difference between a tulpa and non-tulpa. There is a relationship or there isn't.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

How do we learn switching?

F: An article or guide on switching within this framework would be wonderful. We haven't practiced it for a LONG time aside from a few short instances of possession, but the way I experienced it back when we took the traditional plural view was like an identity shift. Like you described, I'd take on the fronting tulpa's perspective to the point of believing I was that tulpa in control of someone else's (=my) body. I'm not sure if that is or isn't what you're describing, because we also relate to this:

3 hours ago, Mon said:

The problem is that possession is exhausting because you are fighting the need to reconcile the identity of the "controller" and the "thinker." This reconciliation usually goes one of two ways: you either revert to feeling your own agency in control, or you take on the tulpa's perspective.

So, yeah. I'd love to learn more about switching as you understand it.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

Through sustained interaction – spending time there, imagining its reactions, and allowing it to develop detail and consistency through engagement – an inner place can start to feel alive. It can surprise you or react in ways you didn't plan. You can develop an effortless engagement with an inner place just as you do with a character.

F: I'd also love to hear more about this someday, though that's tangential.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

Luna: Can you give yourself a headache? If not, why assume the tulpa could do that?

K: Well said. We aren't magic (except in the wonderland).

3 hours ago, Mon said:

A mechanism that protected a person once can turn against them later, when there is no longer an isolated traumagenic event, but the traumatized part still needs to manifest.

F: Out of curiosity, do you have any experience with or knowledge of parts work/IFS? If so, any thoughts on how it relates to tulpamancy?

3 hours ago, Mon said:

Much of the jargon used by the tulpa community – switching, host, system, fronting – originates from a framework built around people experiencing DID rather than those experiencing tulpamancy.

A: And then there's "tulpa", which is taken from Tibetan Buddhism to describe something totally different. That's stretched even further when it's applied to "accidental tulpas" such as Kayleigh and I, who would be better described as paras that gained autonomy if you want to classify us beyond "dissociated thought process/identity". "Tulpa" is just a mark of our system's community affiliation (and there I go using plural terminology).

I doubt the tulpa community will easily shift away from using "tulpa", but maybe divorcing itself from plural terminology would be beneficial. The framework that seems to work for plurals isn't necessarily good for singlets who become more, and it's probably misunderstood by us, too.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

In the dialectical framework, the essence of tulpamancy is building inner relationships. We do the exact opposite of what those adapting to continuous trauma do. Where dissociation isolates, interaction connects. Where barriers form to protect, relationships form to engage.

A: We agree wholeheartedly. Learning to view ourselves as not entirely separate has turned cooperation into something necessary instead of some ideal we could achieve if we could all just get along. Infighting isn't multiple people trying to get their way; it's self-sabotage.

3 hours ago, Mon said:

Second – some expectations regarding switching are influenced by the plurality framework, which comes from people experiencing dissociative disorders with memory barriers. For those individuals, the switching experience is qualitatively different, often involving the crossing of memory barriers and "blackouts."

F: This is how we understood switching back in the day, and we never achieved it. Thankfully, I think it's seen as a minority experience nowadays rather than the gold standard.

4 hours ago, Mon said:

Your expression as a tulpa during switching is a synthesis of your whole human base and an amplification of what's specifically associated with the tulpa.

A: We'll have to start switching again before we comment on this. We have a lack of experience not tied to our old beliefs.

4 hours ago, Mon said:

People become consumed by doubt when the agency behind a specific utterance is unclear.

People are often frightened by the moral implications surrounding the supposed 'act of creation' of another person sharing their body. At times, they even fear stopping after they have already begun.

People experience discomfort and guilt, knowing that another person living in their body will never have one of their own.

People panic when contact breaks, immediately searching for a cause within the tulpa's "intentions."

F: I relate to all of these.

I think it's healthy to question responses sometimes, but the main danger I see in accepting every response at face value is that you risk mistaking harmful intrusive thoughts for your tulpa, which can seriously screw you over and them/the relationship over.

But I have OCD, and the risk is probably a lot lower for people who aren't normally troubled by persistent intrusive thoughts.

Still, it's good to question responses that seem iffy. Just don't let yourself spiral into doubt over whether it was you or your tulpa. Intrusive thoughts are the real enemy, not unconscious parroting (which is an oxymoron).

I'm still prone to panicking when contact breaks. I'm not sure if I should be or if it's a holdover from our past.

4 hours ago, Mon said:

People end up desperately trying to preserve every character that has ever "talked back" to them.

F: I actually did the opposite. I was a chronic daydreamer who entirely stopped daydreaming actively (unless you count tulpamancy) for fear of accidentally creating more tulpas. I still haven't rebuilt the relationship with daydreaming I used to have, and I regret it.

Anyway, there's (some of) our thoughts.

Autumn Ren · May 22

[Bear System] We appreciate the perspective and from our current level of understanding this modeling is valid. We don't believe it is more or less valid than other methods however, but is is still welcome. We believe a lot of what you said matches our current understanding but there are a few differences that are not as obvious, so bear with us as we attempt to understand your framework (model).

From our perspective, a 8-14 year old system of 8-12 depending on definitions, it is hard for us to be sure how easily a new Tulpamancer will navigate your framework as opposed to other frameworks. Clearly it has the advantage of emergent switching, our experience with learning switching was quite torturous. It's unclear though if a new tulpamancer will have the necessary basis of understanding to apply your framework, other than maybe they don't have to do anything but interact with this framework in mind--If they can understand the framework that is. Our original framework was agnostic/metaphysical, which definitely shaped our existence. Though it's clear other frameworks are just as difficult to comprehend, and though all your points about early and later questions are valid concerns, and your framework does address the issues, the process still feels esoteric.

Tulpamancy is innately esoteric in our opinion based on the time we've spent with struggling tulpamancers to be.

In terms of the mind, we do not believe the mind is anything more then a tool or a mechanism that is used to channel, or process the emergent thoughts. We believe everything is imaginary at a base level and there is no true objectively provable reality, though this is admittedly seemingly irrelevant to this discussion, we believe it's key. Memories of prior imposition are as real as reality for example even when we never had anything but imagined senses, no actual manifest hallucinations, yet the memories are eerily 'solid'. So 'real' in fact that we ended the practice within months of starting because they were 'too real' though this may be a consequence of our hyperphantasia.

The thoughts themselves are the construct, reflection, projection of reality. The imagination is used both to experience and remember based on other thoughts, both experienced and remembered. Thus several questions arise that have no clear answers:

In your opinion, is there a way to directly, objectively experience reality that is not qualifiable or affected by perspective, beliefs and prior experience? (Probably outside of scope of your framework, but it still would help to understand the model.)

From where do thoughts arise in your model?

Who creates the thoughts in your model?

As several of us are avid and prolific writers of fiction and the mind/body is capable of hyperphantasia, we have always had the latter two questions as it pertains to our models, i.e. where do words come from. There seems to be a pre-word thought then a word translation of those thoughts and tulpish was the term we used to identify when the thoughts are pre-word in the context of Tulpamancy. But then where do those thoughts come from? We cannot believe they are from the conscious mind, that only seems to be a recorder in linear time, while non-linear and parallel processes seem to exist that would otherwise be impossible to handle with the conscious mind especially given the constraint of linear word formation. With upwards of 12 'sources' acting 'independently' there is simply too much processed to match the restrictions of the conscious observable mind.

So here's one of the major questions/distinctions of your framework and the more traditional framework you speak of, it comes down to who owns the thoughts. In our case, the thoughts occur and often they have a flavor of who thought them, could be that's from expectation or who's 'active' but not always as some do pop up out of nowhere with that flavor even when not thought of ahead of time or for prolonged periods of time, this is one of the basis of Tulpamancy; to associate activity with personality such that the individual personality or entity or expression will immerge spontaneously and effortlessly. If not 'separate entities' somewhere existing in the model, then we have hard time resolving your framework. There seems to be a residual conscious will to invoke the separate personalities in your framework, maybe we misunderstood. In other cases the thoughts are flavorless and are instead chosen by one or another or no one. If no one claims the thought, who thought it? We can not answer that with any current models but it seems integral to these frameworks.

Lastly, we then ask you, how does your framework address this spontaneous communication and flavorless assignment? We're unable to parse that, probably from a lack of understanding of your framework, though we can't fault your discussion for that, we may be lacking a similar enough framework to understand it without practice, which of course for us is moot at this point.

In conclusion, it is certainly true at this point that new 'headmates' do arise purely through interaction and fade from non-interaction. When creating new characters, autonomy is a given, vocality is instant, and the believability of the character as independent from minute one is reasonable. So where is the distinction between headmates, (tulpas), and characters? Simply time and attention until they can act spontaneously and consistently so, on a purely observational basis of categorization. This we believe is similar to your framework if we're not mistaken.

Please forgive us for this word wall, feel free to answer any of it in part, thanks again for the perspective and model.

KarlYoshimura · May 22

For one, why was this posted as a question and not its own thread? I assume it's to field content and provide responses on your own time.

I've skimmed the outline on "dialectical tulpamancy" and found it tedious. On the one hand I respect dissenting opinion but am hard-pressed to take any guideline pushing a very clear political agenda seriously. I'm curious as to why you sat on your hands this long to publish your findings, when this and extraneous documentation butressing your ideology are readily available on Discord.

Antithetically, I'm impressed at how similarly we've dissected the history and taxonomy as tulpas regarding their germination in the west, but to my best understanding they're little more than a topic for abnormal psychology. I think most common people view hosts as delusional lunatics or, in the case of the DID sphere, we're blackballed as "endogenic systems" and given to just as much derision. I'm distantly neutral to Plurality and find it a matter of psychiatry - I've long maintained that we should eschew needless enmity, but am uncertain if the melding of subculture, language and methodology betwixt the two had any meaningful fruit to bear. Nonetheless, pragmatism urges me to accept that DID patients can certainly have tups, and in my life I've met tulpas who are suspected of having DID.

My associates have fielded plenty of inquiries above that I would have written out otherwise, but I find your work to be a matter of its own making, and does arguably little to advance the craft (as much as your chief proponents tried to compel me otherwise.)

What I found most suspicious is how this document attempts to use Marxist rhetoric to deracinate fluid terminology, classification and generalised perceptions of tulpas and attempts to instill its own cultivated alternatives as undisputed truth. And with the impetus of standardising the very concepts you desire to eradicate, no less. Had it not been for this glaring discrepancy, I'd have kept my peace.

The Incans · May 22

just an observation we actually have DID as well as having Tulpa's.. due to this we have never known anything else ...Alters easily created the Tulpa they wanted we never went through any 'forcing' process as we would see it described.

There is a distinction for us at least.... Alters are all 'versions of me' whereas (our) Tulpa's were/are created in memory of loved ones who passed away partly because of religious belief's we were brought up with and partly because the death of said loved ones was so traumatic for our 'littles' who had no actual concept of what Death was.

By the time any adult alter actually understood the physical process as most NT's do we already had 2 Tulpa's who had been with us for many years.

We had hosts who found it difficult to believe any others were inside they felt unable to communicate with 'anyone imaginary' They were the ones programmed to 'appear normal' at all costs.

whilst when other alters came forward they worked together seamlessly as they functioned almost like conjoined twins having to learn to control one body together and had good communication with other'insiders' regardless of whether they were Alters or Tulpa's.

There was a study of conjoined twins joined at the brain...the part they were joined at was the important bit..they shared 'The Thalamic Bridge' which meant if you covered one twins eyes and held something up in front of the other twin the ones with eyes closed/covered coud still tell you what they're twin was seeing.. This was tested when they were very young before they would have had a concept of lying or cheating etc..not all conjoined twins share this ability even if they are also joined at the head.

the point of this story is... it is proof there is a point in the human brain where other consciousness' tap into or share they can share the perspective of seeing out the same pair of eyes..

Would this maybe relevant to both DID in how other alters are able to share consciousness and how some people's Tulpa's are also able to?

we ahhve noticed also that NT people tend to see their Tulpa has being completely seperate from them eg if watching a film together they may imagine there Tulpa sitting next to them or across from them etc..like a seperate person watching a film with you may.

For people with DID and Tulpa, their Tulpa's often work in the same way as Alters as in they are not seperate but inside (within their system) looking out the of the same pair of eyes like another Alter would. but yet there Tulpa's are not the same as their Alters and each inside know which they are.

mattx · May 22

I tend to agree mostly with @KarlYoshimura, I'll also give you my two cents.

11 hours ago, Mon said:

dialectical tulpamancy: a way of understanding your inner character not as a separate person living inside your head, but as a relationship that emerges from sustained interaction. It offers an alternative to the dominant framework rooted in Plurality – the view that tulpas are independent entities sharing your body.

This is certainly a view of the matter, I wouldn't take this as the "absolute" truth - in this modern community, you are forbidden though from being against it.

11 hours ago, Mon said:

When does a character fully become a tulpa?

Is parroting okay or not?

I've been trying for a week and they still didn't respond. Am I doing it wrong?

How do I know if they responded or if I just parroted?

These questions have largely been answered, in a way or another, by many people in the forums.

11 hours ago, Mon said:

No clear answers within the traditional framework

The clear answer don't exist because the community is constantly "evolving" and shifting in their beliefs on what a tulpa is and is not.

Depending on the historical period you do your research in on the matter, you will find wildly different claims - often clashing with answers from older / newer eras.

12 hours ago, Mon said:

Other times, there is a shifting consensus in the community that wasn't present when older guides were written.

The "shifting consensus" is the byproduct of the community integrating with other types of plurality, that doesn't necessarily mean that since they are the majority now, they hold the absolute truth, and everyone who came before them is a fool.

The underlying message is subtly implied.

12 hours ago, Mon said:

Luna: Well, I already have one – the same one that is typing this now.

The plurality framework tends to lead people (including tulpas) to believe we exist independently of the body. This isn't true. The relationship we share has been shaped by our material conditions. It reached its current form alongside our growth as a whole person, not in separation from it.

My imaginary appearance and our interactions have all been shaped by what we've seen with these physical eyes, what we've heard with these physical ears, and what we've typed into the world (from my perspective or otherwise) with these physical hands. The mind doesn't exist over matter; it emerges from it. In a dialectical framework, tulpas are part of the whole process, not isolated from it. They share this body because they are its emergent quality.

if I can ask Luna directly: do you consider yourself to have an identity of your own?

12 hours ago, Mon said:

The problem is that possession is exhausting because you are fighting the need to reconcile the identity of the "controller" and the "thinker." This reconciliation usually goes one of two ways: you either revert to feeling your own agency in control, or you take on the tulpa's perspective. When this happens regularly, you eventually notice it feels different from possession, and you no longer need to actively induce a state of possession to achieve it. That realization is often what takes the longest.

This is a subjective experience on the matter - the distinction here is that possession does and has always felt different for pretty much everyone who tried.

It is taxing at first, but merely because it's an exercise in effort from both parties which induces strain on the brain.

Even if it goes against this "dialectical tulpamancy" idea, the strain we perceived from high-level efforts (possession, switching, imposition etc) were always chalked to us as the brain adapting and re-adjusting to the new phenomena.
Much like you can get a headache if you do something like programming or studying for many hours a day, the exhaustion comes from mental fatigue and "breaking and reforming", much like how muscles break down and grow stronger after exercising.

12 hours ago, Mon said:

This experience is also quite mundane when stripped of metaphysical symbolism.

I'll link my guide that proves this (and largely validates your "dialectical tulpamancy" in a broader sense).

12 hours ago, Mon said:

I had a headache after forcing – was it my tulpa communicating with me?

This question assumes that physical sensations during practice are caused by the tulpa reaching out – that they have a separate will to communicate through your body via supernatural means.

In reality, sustained mental focus – concentrating on inner dialogue, maintaining a vivid imagination, and holding attention on a single subject for long periods – is intense cognitive activity. It can produce physical fatigue, tension headaches, or mental tiredness. This simply means you were concentrating hard. That's all.

I had to cut off a lot from this answer to avoid destabilizing people's sensitivity, so if we want to go in depth about this, the DMs are available - but I'll take this example of yours to prove a point.

Fundamentally, we're all talking about the same thing, just in different flavors. Your interpretation of the "headaches" is a more down-to-earth explanation of what is already obvious.

Yes, obviously headaches are the byproduct of mental fatigue, it's not your tulpa physically altering your neurons or hitting you with a hammer - but like the word says, it is the BYPRODUCT of an anormal situation, in this case, neural pathways and habits being generated by your brain adjusting and "forming" the tulpa.

Then, this phenomena can be interpreted in dozens of different ways, ranging from the most scientific to the least:

The headache is merely the byproduct of strain from your efforts
The headache is the brain adapting to a new phenomena (tulpa creation)
The headache is a psychosomatic / expectation-based phenomena (confirmation bias)
The headache is your tulpa's attempt to talk to you
The headache is some entity you already had (dream character, did personality etc.) "knocking in" and wanting to be alive
The headache is some astral being hammering the tulpa into your head with a scalpel

They all lead to the SAME EXACT road: tulpa development.
It's your belief that matters, nothing else - this is yet another flavor of saying the exact same stuff. It's all symbolic! (My guide)

The bottom line is that some tulpamancers like me have always had a goal, and this goal is to allow their tulpa to replicate as much of the "host's abilities" as possible.

Your essay will likely make some people happy, those that subscribe to the modern style of tulpamancing that requires minimal effort and is generally more permissive, which is fair.

We do not believe in over-simplification, and we do not tune well with the modern standards - so we tend to stay out of it. You're always free to send me a dm if you wish to discuss this further, far from the public noise.

Legion · May 22

17 hours ago, Mon said:

In the dialectical framework, the essence of tulpamancy is building inner relationships. We do the exact opposite of what those adapting to continuous trauma do. Where dissociation isolates, interaction connects. Where barriers form to protect, relationships form to engage.

There have to be multiple entities of some sort to have a relationship between each other though-one entity (however you define that in this context) cannot have a relationship with itself, so some kind of barrier has to exist for a relationship to go between. As a tulpa, I've almost always enjoyed interaction with my hosts more when we have been more separate, because it feels more like some kind of actual exchange is happening, than when we're more blurry and take less effort to communicate, because when that is the case it feels more just like talking to oneself or daydreaming, which I can do by myself and which do not fulfill me the way more separated interaction with my hosts and interaction with external people do.

This framework seems like it could be helpful to a lot of people trying to create tulpas, but I don't think it's that useful to talk about it like it is The One True Framing Of Tulpamancy Ever, people should be allowed to have metaphysical beliefs about themselves and their tulpas & as a tulpa, considering yourself as a separate person can also be good depending on how your system specifically wants to exist; there are definitely drawbacks to it (especially for newer tulpamancers and tulpas who aren't already developed enough to have any semblance of autonomy) but I wouldn't say it's *all* drawbacks.

-flare

ReallyArtificial · May 22

I like the pragmatic framework, though I will say it doesn't completely align with my personal beliefs and experiences with tulpamancy. (And for the record, my tulpas were made with the "old ways," taking months of effort before we were able to establish two-way communication.)

I think some people will find this mindset helpful, and I particularly think it's a good way to introduce tulpamancy to people unfamiliar with the concept. It's similar to what I told my husband — that I spent so much time thinking about my "OCs" and imagining conversations with them, it eventually became automatic.

17 hours ago, Mon said:

The framework creates the expectation, and the expectation shapes the interpretation.

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but I wanted to highlight this sentence because it pretty much sums up my personal understanding of tulpamancy. Everyone has a slightly different experience with this phenomenon because it depends on individual beliefs and expectations, including unconscious ones. Beliefs/expectations shape your perception, which shapes your experience of reality, which in turn will affect your beliefs and expectations in an endless feedback loop. (If anyone cares to hear my 2¢, I wrote a more detailed post about it a while back.)

Mon · May 22

Thank you guys for genuine responses. It's the kind of engagement we hoped to provoke. We'll respond to each in order eventually.

---

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

K: Isn't there one? It's a fuzzy boundary, but it's there. There's certainly a difference between a character that has to be actively parroted and never surprises the host and a developed tulpa. There's also the perceptual difference: even if you believe your tulpa is an illusion (which isn't wrong), you still perceive the things they say and do as "not you".

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

Even if you say the superstructure is what defines a tulpa, there's still a difference between a tulpa and non-tulpa. There is a relationship or there isn't.

Philia: There is a qualitative difference between a character you just started talking to and a tulpa you've interacted with for years, yes. What we mean is that the difference doesn't come from shift in ontological status but it comes from quantitative changes accumulating. There is no moment where the character has been "brought into existence".

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

K: What if the tulpa wants someone around besides the host or thinks the more, the merrier? Boredom isn't the only reason a tulpa would want a third person in their system.

We have our reasons to not want any more people in our head, but that says more about us than any philosophical claims about what tulpas are or aren't.

Philia: Yes, we agree with that. There is nothing wrong with wanting another tulpa. We took the real question from reddit and focused on parts we consider important from perspective of the framework:

> My tulpa wants a companion to spend time with while I'm busy, but I don't want another person living in my head. What should I do?

There are two assumptions which we find inaccurate:

- That tulpas are literally living in real time in wonderland when people don't interact with them.

- That a new tulpa means another person living in their head.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

K: Genuine question, what's wrong with seeing a tulpa as an imaginary entity? That right there gets rid of the moral problems.

Philia: I think there is nothing wrong with the imaginary part. Some people/tulpas seem to not like being compared to imaginary friends of children and we disagree with them. But it's offtopic.

The entity part is wrong in our opinion. Our framework is called "dialectical tulpamancy". It's dialectic (as in opposition to ontological metaphysics -- not the one in phychological vs ~~metaphysical~~ mystical spectrum) applied to tulpamancy.

Dialectic sees reality not as a collection of static objects with fixed properties (entities) but as a set of interconnected processes in constant motion.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

A: This section is where we fundamentally disagree. The way I understand it, we are one person with one soul and one mind but multiple identities.

I don't understand the relationship between the soul and mind or even what the soul is, aside from being the part of a person's being that's eternal. We aren't experts in theology. If I had to guess, I'd say the mind arises as an interaction between a person's immortal soul and mortal body (specifically, its brain activity). I'm not going to try to convince you on this point; I just want to establish common ground.

Philia: Not gonna lie, we don't believe in souls. In our point of view, mind doesn't exist over matter but because of it. Body is the base and mind is the superstructure. Superstructure pushes back on the base but can't exist without it.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

K: A relationship implies at least two entities. Again, any of them can be imaginary, but there's some perception that they're separate beings.

Philia: Even if you look at it through lens of metaphysics rather than dialectic -- it's not that simple. There are plenty of relationship people can have, with another person or not. A passion for a hobby is a valid relationship. A love for yourself is a valid relationship. An antagonistic relationship between social classes in our society -- workers and owners -- is a valid relationship.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

K: Who says it's taboo to talk about building a relationship between host and tulpa (or tulpa and tulpa)? That's a fundamental part of this all.

I meant the last part, withering of the relationship -- dissipation of the tulpa in the traditional framework.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

So, yeah. I'd love to learn more about switching as you understand it.

The essay is also a part of our website that has more elements. We have a general guide there and switching is an integral part of it. I recommend reading from the beginning, to be have full context.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

F: Out of curiosity, do you have any experience with or knowledge of parts work/IFS? If so, any thoughts on how it relates to tulpamancy?

No, I don't have any real experience in IFS. And I don't think I have enough knowledge to state informed opinion on it atm. It's a topic I plan to research eventually but maybe some other time.

15 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

A: And then there's "tulpa", which is taken from Tibetan Buddhism to describe something totally different. That's stretched even further when it's applied to "accidental tulpas" such as Kayleigh and I, who would be better described as paras that gained autonomy if you want to classify us beyond "dissociated thought process/identity". "Tulpa" is just a mark of our system's community affiliation (and there I go using plural terminology).

I doubt the tulpa community will easily shift away from using "tulpa", but maybe divorcing itself from plural terminology would be beneficial. The framework that seems to work for plurals isn't necessarily good for singlets who become more, and it's probably misunderstood by us, too.

I can't see material conditions for that in current state of community. I don't see a big problem with it though... Tulpa doesn't directly come from Tibetan Buddhism. An orientalist not worth bothering with brought a warped word with a warped meaning to the West and initial tulpa community warped the meaning again, a few times. It's like we started from a dog in Tibet, got a photo of that dog and then think about that dog when looking at a photo of our cat.

Edited May 22 by Mon

Mon · May 22

Edit: We'll use the pages for further responses. There is one for @KarlYoshimura and @Shin Matt in the next one.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

From our perspective, a 8-14 year old system of 8-12 depending on definitions, it is hard for us to be sure how easily a new Tulpamancer will navigate your framework as opposed to other frameworks. Clearly it has the advantage of emergent switching, our experience with learning switching was quite torturous. It's unclear though if a new tulpamancer will have the necessary basis of understanding to apply your framework, other than maybe they don't have to do anything but interact with this framework in mind--If they can understand the framework that is. Our original framework was agnostic/metaphysical, which definitely shaped our existence. Though it's clear other frameworks are just as difficult to comprehend, and though all your points about early and later questions are valid concerns, and your framework does address the issues, the process still feels esoteric.

I've made a guide, available in the same website here. I'll post it in the forum too I think but I still consider how as it's multipage and overall longer than this essay.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

In terms of the mind, we do not believe the mind is anything more then a tool or a mechanism that is used to channel, or process the emergent thoughts. We believe everything is imaginary at a base level and there is no true objectively provable reality, though this is admittedly seemingly irrelevant to this discussion, we believe it's key. Memories of prior imposition are as real as reality for example even when we never had anything but imagined senses, no actual manifest hallucinations, yet the memories are eerily 'solid'. So 'real' in fact that we ended the practice within months of starting because they were 'too real' though this may be a consequence of our hyperphantasia.

I don't think it's irrelevant -- it's a place where we disagree on fundamental level. There are at least 3 options here:

The subjective reality, defined by what we experience (and how we interpret it) rather than other way around.
The reality is objective and our experience are shaped by it. Here we have at least two further choices of interpretation:
1. The experience is dismissed as "just" brain activity, our tulpas are dismissed as "just" imaginary friends.
2. The experience is important, just not because of its ontological state. Emergent superstructures matter too and can't be dismissed. We might as well say that society doesn't matter and we are just set of individual people. Or that chemistry doesn't matter because it's all just physics in the end.

From my point of view (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to struggle between option 1. (which is idealism) and 2.1. (which is mechanical materialism) and lean towards idealism because it ultimately feel less wrong. In my framework, I apply option 2.2. -- dialectical materialism -- to tulpamancy. I choose to acknowledge both the material nature of reality and importance of our experiences.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

In your opinion, is there a way to directly, objectively experience reality that is not qualifiable or affected by perspective, beliefs and prior experience? (Probably outside of scope of your framework, but it still would help to understand the model.)

No, and that's the point. We don't exist in isolation from reality, we can't objectively experience it as we also shape it back.

Our perspective, beliefs, prior experience -- nothing comes from thin air, it's all has been shaped by our material conditions.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

From where do thoughts arise in your model?

Who creates the thoughts in your model?

Luna: The thoughts emerge from activity of our body. And in dialectical framework the question of "who" becomes irrelevant. Whether we currently think from perspective of a tulpa or a host, the process of thinking doesn't come from just the current perspective in isolation.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

As several of us are avid and prolific writers of fiction and the mind/body is capable of hyperphantasia, we have always had the latter two questions as it pertains to our models, i.e. where do words come from. There seems to be a pre-word thought then a word translation of those thoughts and tulpish was the term we used to identify when the thoughts are pre-word in the context of Tulpamancy. But then where do those thoughts come from? We cannot believe they are from the conscious mind, that only seems to be a recorder in linear time, while non-linear and parallel processes seem to exist that would otherwise be impossible to handle with the conscious mind especially given the constraint of linear word formation. With upwards of 12 'sources' acting 'independently' there is simply too much processed to match the restrictions of the conscious observable mind.

So here's one of the major questions/distinctions of your framework and the more traditional framework you speak of, it comes down to who owns the thoughts. In our case, the thoughts occur and often they have a flavor of who thought them, could be that's from expectation or who's 'active' but not always as some do pop up out of nowhere with that flavor even when not thought of ahead of time or for prolonged periods of time, this is one of the basis of Tulpamancy; to associate activity with personality such that the individual personality or entity or expression will immerge spontaneously and effortlessly. If not 'separate entities' somewhere existing in the model, then we have hard time resolving your framework. There seems to be a residual conscious will to invoke the separate personalities in your framework, maybe we misunderstood. In other cases the thoughts are flavorless and are instead chosen by one or another or no one. If no one claims the thought, who thought it? We can not answer that with any current models but it seems integral to these frameworks.

Lastly, we then ask you, how does your framework address this spontaneous communication and flavorless assignment? We're unable to parse that, probably from a lack of understanding of your framework, though we can't fault your discussion for that, we may be lacking a similar enough framework to understand it without practice, which of course for us is moot at this point.

Luna: Conscious mind is another emergent quality. The activity of our body, including the structures in our brain, isn't linear. A linear consciousness is a result of the work happening in parallel. Thoughts are ultimately synthesized by what emerges from its activity of our body.

About thought ownership (who owns the thoughts rather than who creates them), I think it's a matter of association. We can choose the owner (or not) after the thought has already been formulated, based on who we feel it should be associated with. And when it comes to us, we no longer feel an urge to give each thought an owner (or a sole owner).

The urge to answer "who thought it?" comes from metaphysical (entity-based) mindset. Thinking in entitities solves the problem it introduced in the first place, from our point of view.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

In conclusion, it is certainly true at this point that new 'headmates' do arise purely through interaction and fade from non-interaction. When creating new characters, autonomy is a given, vocality is instant, and the believability of the character as independent from minute one is reasonable. So where is the distinction between headmates, (tulpas), and characters? Simply time and attention until they can act spontaneously and consistently so, on a purely observational basis of categorization. This we believe is similar to your framework if we're not mistaken.

Luna: The thing is, autonomy, vocality and believability become irrelevant. It's genuine engagement that matters.

On 5/22/2026 at 4:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Please forgive us for this word wall, feel free to answer any of it in part, thanks again for the perspective and model.

Luna: Nothing to forgive there, we appreciate effort you've put into it. Thank you for your reply and genuine engagement with us.

On 5/22/2026 at 9:20 AM, KarlYoshimura said:

For one, why was this posted as a question and not its own thread? I assume it's to field content and provide responses on your own time.

It's how the board with guides, articles etc. was made, it looks like. All of them are technically "questions". Don't ask me about it.

On 5/22/2026 at 9:20 AM, KarlYoshimura said:

I've skimmed the outline on "dialectical tulpamancy" and found it tedious. On the one hand I respect dissenting opinion but am hard-pressed to take any guideline pushing a very clear political agenda seriously. I'm curious as to why you sat on your hands this long to publish your findings, when this and extraneous documentation butressing your ideology are readily available on Discord.

To share it with wider community that isn't present in an obscure discord server.

On 5/22/2026 at 9:20 AM, KarlYoshimura said:

Antithetically, I'm impressed at how similarly we've dissected the history and taxonomy as tulpas regarding their germination in the west, but to my best understanding they're little more than a topic for abnormal psychology. I think most common people view hosts as delusional lunatics or, in the case of the DID sphere, we're blackballed as "endogenic systems" and given to just as much derision. I'm distantly neutral to Plurality and find it a matter of psychiatry - I've long maintained that we should eschew needless enmity, but am uncertain if the melding of subculture, language and methodology betwixt the two had any meaningful fruit to bear. Nonetheless, pragmatism urges me to accept that DID patients can certainly have tups, and in my life I've met tulpas who are suspected of having DID.

I disagree with the metaphysical mold plural community made. I also think we should be careful with mixing clearly traumagenic systems with people who it doesn't apply to -- not in principle but we need to acknowledge a dramatic difference in material conditions. I don't like tulpamancy being pushed under plurality umbrella.

But there are matters where plural people deserve critical support. Their relationships (even if there is a trauma factor) with their headmates is as valid as our with tulpas and shouldn't be just flattened to a matter of psychiatry. Even if they have DID or other dissociative disorder diagnosed, it isn't the reason to invalidate their relationships with their alters but to acknowledge their different material conditions.

On 5/22/2026 at 9:20 AM, KarlYoshimura said:

My associates have fielded plenty of inquiries above that I would have written out otherwise, but I find your work to be a matter of its own making, and does arguably little to advance the craft (as much as your chief proponents tried to compel me otherwise.)

You have a right to have this opinion.

On 5/22/2026 at 9:20 AM, KarlYoshimura said:

What I found most suspicious is how this document attempts to use Marxist rhetoric to deracinate fluid terminology, classification and generalised perceptions of tulpas and attempts to instill its own cultivated alternatives as undisputed truth. And with the impetus of standardising the very concepts you desire to eradicate, no less. Had it not been for this glaring discrepancy, I'd have kept my peace.

Luna: About "deracination": We are as indigenous as a tulpamancer as you are. We've been doing this since late 2012 too. And we are aware of how the law of negation of negation works. When thesis meets antithesis, the result is a synthesis, not complete eradication of original thesis. We are not trying to eradicate anything but we strive to push tulpamancy in direction we think is right. Preserving (and elevating) what's important (like genuineness of inner relationships) and negating what distracts (like ~~parroting~~ nonsense).

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

This is certainly a view of the matter, I wouldn't take this as the "absolute" truth - in this modern community, you are forbidden though from being against it.

Umm... excuse me?

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

These questions have largely been answered, in a way or another, by many people in the forums.

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

The clear answer don't exist because the community is constantly "evolving" and shifting in their beliefs on what a tulpa is and is not.

Depending on the historical period you do your research in on the matter, you will find wildly different claims - often clashing with answers from older / newer eras.

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

The "shifting consensus" is the byproduct of the community integrating with other types of plurality, that doesn't necessarily mean that since they are the majority now, they hold the absolute truth, and everyone who came before them is a fool.

The underlying message is subtly implied.

Yes, I'm aware of the progress in the tulpa community. I'd say it's a good example of a dialectical process - complex, distributed and full of internal contradictions.

I've never said that there are no answers but I said that answers aren't clear. They've been changing in time (and in places too) and there was never a stable consensus.

In my eyes, dialectical tulpamancy framework leads to a stable consensus in these questions directly. Not by declaring a new dogma but by properly addressing contradictions generating these questions.

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

if I can ask Luna directly: do you consider yourself to have an identity of your own?

Luna: Yes. But I wouldn't say the ownership of identity is a binary question. Mon's identity is mine to an extent too. As we don't see each other as entities containing identities but different perspectives of one human mind. It would be strange if we didn't associate with our own identity but it doesn't mean that other identities in our mind are foreign to us.

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

This is a subjective experience on the matter - the distinction here is that possession does and has always felt different for pretty much everyone who tried.

It is taxing at first, but merely because it's an exercise in effort from both parties which induces strain on the brain.

Even if it goes against this "dialectical tulpamancy" idea, the strain we perceived from high-level efforts (possession, switching, imposition etc) were always chalked to us as the brain adapting and re-adjusting to the new phenomena.
Much like you can get a headache if you do something like programming or studying for many hours a day, the exhaustion comes from mental fatigue and "breaking and reforming", much like how muscles break down and grow stronger after exercising.

On 5/22/2026 at 12:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

I'll link my guide that proves this (and largely validates your "dialectical tulpamancy" in a broader sense).

Luna: We might as well make a review of your guide sometime. If we do it, we'll DM you.

Edited May 23 by Mon
too many consequitive posts

Autumn Ren · May 23

There is a lot of overlap in your ways of thinking and ours. Our beliefs have become very fluid and less strictly important to just being and existing and accepting that we are being and existing without much concern for how, as that can be more of a distraction than not. So then it comes down to what methods and beliefs have appeal for a given situation, which are more qualitatively satisfying, and which are functionally easier for new tulpamancers. At this point it would be hard to simply switch fundamental thoughts about our exitance as independent beings, whether it solves our own problems with the same understanding that causes them in the first place is irrelevant for us as we're happy with whatever it is we did and believe. So I can't say we'd recommend your process framework without at least qualitatively understanding your satisfaction with your current model and life/lives. I do however believe there's no much overlap that the differences probably only matter in the first few years of a system; we truly enjoyed the metaphysical aspects.

Thank you for your responses, we understand your framework a little better, and we'll look at your guide.

Sign In

Philosophy of Dialectical Tulpamancy

Question

Before we start

The recurring questions

No clear answers within the traditional framework

Entity vs Relationship

Metaphysics is not just mysticism

The body is not a container for mind. A mind is not a container for identity.

Relationships and emergence

Tulpamancy as a process

Genuineness of interactions and relationship

What does it mean to be genuine?

Genuineness is emergent

Dialectical tulpamancy in practice

How do I know if they responded or if I just parroted?

When does a character fully become a tulpa?

Am I allowed to stop after I've already started?

Will I (the tulpa) ever have my own body?

How do we learn switching?

How do I access wonderland?

I had a headache after forcing – was it my tulpa communicating with me?

How is tulpamancy related to DID (or dissociative disorders in general)?

I (the tulpa) can't completely replace the host during my switching attempts.

Dialectical tulpamancy is an antithesis to Plurality-driven tulpamancy

Plurality is part of our material conditions

Plurality wasn't created with our material conditions in mind.

Negation of negation

Summary

The essence of dialectical tulpamancy – genuine relationship

What does dialectical tulpamancy offer?

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

24 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

When does a character fully become a tulpa?

I had a headache after forcing – was it my tulpa communicating with me?

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content