Constructing an alternative basic framework for tulpamancy

[fennecfoxx]

This post was written by Alex, an almost fifteen-year-old thoughtform.

 

The dominant way thoughtforms have been conceptualized on this site and its offshoots since the early days is that we are independent beings with our own minds, conscious in parallel to our hosts and perhaps even when we aren't the object of anyone's focus, who just happen to share a brain and body with our creators. The main site mostly avoids making any unprovable claims, but it explicitly pushes this view on the page What is a Tulpa?:

 

Quote

The exact mechanism is unknown, but as you give a tulpa attention, and believe it can be a sentient person, it will grow into one, and act independently of you.

 

More generally, the main site heavily implies this view (while dancing around actually claiming it) and fails to mention alternative views, such as that thoughtforms are an illusion of the mind.

 

This idea that thoughtforms are people likely came from the plural (a.k.a. multiple) community, which mostly consists of people with DID or OSDD and endogenic multiples (who have seen themselves as multiple for most or all of their lives and describe their condition as healthy multiplicity). Healthy multiplicity became a reference point for the tulpa community, and we as a community latched onto it because it validated our experiences. I am almost certain a misunderstanding of their experiences by people who did not grow up navigating life as multiple shaped this community's understanding of thoughtforms and made more rational approaches not only counter-countercultural but morally offensive.

 

Mon posted an excellent article the other day titled Philosophy of Dialectal Tulpamancy, in which he explains the problems with this understanding of thoughtforms and proposes an alternate framework rooted in the idea that, by creating thoughtforms, we create relationships, not beings.

 

I am not saying we should all adopt his philosophy, nor that we need to come up with some grand unifying theory of thoughtforms. However, his criticisms of mainstream tulpa community thought are valid (particularly the confusion and potential harm it causes), and the rest of his article provides a good starting point for thinking of us in an alternate light.

 

(On a side note, he called attention to how much of our language is appropriated from the plural/DID community. If we are to divorce ourselves from their way of thinking, I believe it would do us good to also divorce ourselves from their jargon, so I am striving to avoid it. "Tulpa" has its own issues, so I am avoiding that, too, except in reference to this community. If anyone has an alternative to "system" or "tulpamancy" that won't confuse or offend, please let me know.)

 

Carrying on, my host took part recently in a discussion in an off-topic thread which began as a proposal to unify this community's jargon and expanded into a discussion on subjective experiences and the nature of how thoughtforms work. The discussion accomplished nothing of note but did call attention to some glaring problems:

 

1) The "mainstream" philosophy influenced by plural thought is generally either rejected or accepted only with caveats by forum regulars.

 

2) Said philosophy has caused extensive harm.

 

3) There is disagreement even on what key terms mean, particularly "switching" and "parallel processing".

 

"Switching" is especially problematic not only because everybody has a different understanding of and experience with it but also because some descriptions of switching are unrealistic, even harmful. For example, the main site's What is a Tulpa? page describes switching like so:

 

Quote

With time, you can learn to stop paying attention to your body entirely, while your tulpa is in control. You’ll be able to ignore your body’s senses and take on imaginary ones—essentially becoming able to lucidly dream while your tulpa does what they want in your body. This is called switching.

 

The problem of multiple consciousnesses aside, whether this is attainable or even desirable for most of us is debatable. To make matters worse, one participant in the "off-topic" discussion said he and some other thoughtform creators have experienced dissociative blackouts while their thoughtforms were in control. Though I don't deny this is possible (it's a core symptom of DID), I hope it goes without saying why this should not be held as some kind of ideal. There is a reason breaking down memory barriers between fronting members is a goal for DID systems.

 

All that aside, it's past time this community, and its offshoots on reddit, Discord, and elsewhere, comes to a consensus on what thoughtforms actually are. Pretending we are real, separate people is all well and good until it crosses the line into self-destruction and/or moralizing. Subjective reality is important, but so is knowing the difference between subjective and objective reality (that is, fantasy and actual reality). As the community at large stands now, there is no agreed-upon understanding of what a thoughtform (or "tulpa", since they are sometimes distinguished) is, and people continue to ask questions and get answers according to the framework based in plural thought and subjective experience harmfully masquerading as objective fact.

 

Again, we don't need a grand unifying theory of thoughtforms. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can rally the people into solving tulpamancy forever when even the three of us in this head don't agree, but we at least need to understand this phenomenon rationally and move beyond the baseless "multiple minds in one brain" idea that can and has caused real harm.

 

For my own two cents, I believe the self is an illusion. The three of us in this "system" make up one being with three identities which perceive themselves more or less as distinct people sharing a head.

[Abvieon]

I do not think the view that tulpas are separate people came only from the plural community. I remember it was a common view in this site's early days too, before there was much, if any, mixing with adjacent communities. So I'm inclined to think this perspective came from people's personal experiences, even in isolation from the plural community. The concept and experience of sharing your head with others has no one source and has popped up independently many times. 

 

I believe that saying this framework is "harmful" is an overgeneralization. I think the harm you are talking about comes from some people extrapolating off of this idea and taking it too far, thinking it implies things it doesn't necessarily have to. Someone might come to the conclusion that if a tulpa is a separate person, if they fade away it's automatically akin to murder. Or that it automatically means tulpas are entitled to equal time using the body, things of that sort. I can see how that could create unfounded guilt and stress. But - I'm someone who does see headmates as distinct individuals with their own minds, and I do not think hosts have to abide by all of the same considerations they'd have for a physical person. I have seen all sorts of different system setups, and not all tulpas want or need the same things. Some are okay with rarely being around. I spoke to a tulpa, who, when I asked him if he'd like me to bring him out more often, very firmly told me he didn't want that. Even if separate people, being in the same body still brings caveats that have to be accounted for. So, I agree that (some) of the moralizing people do surrounding tulpa personhood is unhelpful and there should not be a standard of morality that is applied across the board to all systems. Listen to your tulpas, don't assume they won't have any wants/needs whatsoever, but understand there's still a lot more room for flexibility than there is in a physical friendship/relationship.

I think it is important to acknowledge that the separate person perspective is more helpful than the alternatives for many. Seeing and treating tulpas as independent individuals rather than parts of self does seem to help enrich their development in many cases, as well as improve the scope of their capabilities. Believing something is possible can help open the pathway to actually doing that thing. No, this perspective can't be proven as an objective fact, but the same goes go for any other philosophies surrounding tulpas (and consciousness in general,) so it comes down to choosing whichever belief is most helpful for your personal case. When you cannot rely on hard facts, you have to choose based on other metrics. Whichever perspective both helps your system's development and keeps your wellbeing intact is probably best for you. I've met people who are extremely fearful of the idea of sharing their head with a separate person, and others who cannot enjoy or stay engaged in the practice without that element. 

So I don't think there will ever be one ideal or "right" way to see tulpas and I do not believe we will ever have (or even should ever have) the unity of opinion you might prefer. This might look nice on the surface because it's more organized, it's easier to moderate when you have a consensus on definitions of things like switching, it's easier to identify "bad" versus "good" advice. But I think diversity of opinion and experience is necessary for a healthy community even if it's messy. If a community tries to enforce consistent definitions, there will still inevitably be breakaway communities because the "agreed upon" definitions of the majority will not work for everyone. Tulpamancy will never, ever mean just one thing. It's seen through the eyes of hundreds of thousands of different people with different lives who practice in different ways and might even have different things happening neurologically when they make tulpas, ensuring no one philosophy will ever apply across the board to all.

 

I became interested in tulpamancy in the first place because of the exploratory nature of it all. I'm probably one of very few who will say the earlier community, especially 2012-2014, was a lot more enjoyable for this reason. Over time I've become more distant because of a growing attitude of arrogance I've noticed in many tulpa spaces, where "weird" ideas or those leaning towards being optimistic about a tulpa's personhood are regularly shut down or made fun of. Yes, the early community was a strange place full of odd ideas, but that's not a bad thing. When we try to box ourselves into definitive conclusions of what tulpas are or aren't, we cut off that exploratory and open minded part of the practice, and I do think it is arrogant for any person to assume they know exactly what all of this is and how it works, and that includes concluding that certain experiences are delusions. It is extremely unlikely we already know everything about the brain and whatever parts of the self might exist beyond that, and I think it is okay to explore, theorize about and experience things that do not yet have any basis in our current understandings of neuroscience. Yes, it's good to say "I might be wrong." Be humble, but don't limit yourself. Cutting off that avenue in the name of needing to feel validated as a "rational person" would be highly regressive and I don't believe it does people any good. We're literally making head friends and dreaming up mindscapes here. If there is one field in which rationalism is regressive rather than progressive, it's this one. 

To sum it up: I think it is okay to believe, theorize and practice anything you'd like regarding tulpas as long as it's fun for you and brings you fulfilment. That is what matters most. A perspective should not be made out to be objectively wrong or harmful when it works well for many.

Edited May 23 by Abvieon

[Raptor]

I agree with both OP and Abveion in broad strokes. As far as the main thrust of this discussion: I think the community has long recognized that the tulpa.info definitions and best practices need an update. Tulpamancy is not the same as it was in 2014, when it had only been a 'phenomenon' for less than a decade at most. As the tulpa community matured, everything about it in a theoretical sense has widened and deepened, and certain assumptions that seemed obvious are no longer quite as clear as they seemed. I agree with Abveion about this in the sense that it's not a good idea to try to standardize everything, and that the community's health requires diversity of opinion; but that doesn't mean that .info has to stick to the same guns for its entire lifetime. I believe that even if the present admins are adamant to keep it unchanged, it represents an unripe strain of tulpamancy that will eventually be peacefully culturally overwritten by the modern, more developed strain. Whether that means the staff's opinions, the staff themselves, or the community's favorite forum itself changes, it makes no difference - the culture will continue to change. 

 

At the very least, it can't be argued that there's value to being a proponent for your own beliefs, in the contexts where they are relevant. The imperialism of a belief is different; I believe a righteous attitude is the opening move of overzealous dogmatism, and it naturally raises people's defenses when they can sniff even a whiff of 'righteousness' in your attitude! A feeling of righteousness usually reflects some blindness to your weak points. On the other hand, it takes a certain pride to be able to stand up against the status quo, and this much is healthy for diversity of opinion - the balance is difficult to strike, and some of you in the discord sphere might remember when I myself had a little too much fire. Tulpa.info has had the benefit of being able to mostly 'start from scratch' without having a rigid cultural background to distinguish itself from. Well, now the modern tulpamancers face the task of revolutionizing the tulpa community's tired status quo! It's thanks to posts and discussions like these that the wheels of change continue to turn, and the inner developments slowly emerge into the light.

 

On the theory itself, it must be said that the two polar opposite perspectives, separateness and unity, are complimentary. You simply can't have one without the other, and even the most one-sided person uses both constantly. It's unfortunately necessary to define both sides separately, because they have unique characteristics, but because of this, any time you say something about one of them, it appears as if you are denying the other. But it's a yin-yang kind of situation, the point is that they both coexist, and imbalances in your approach can only be corrected by mixing in a little of its opposite. Arguments about separateness or unity get so polarized and stuck because both sides have real benefits to advocate for. Moving from one to the other isn't really growth, because although you're seeing a new side of things, you're rejecting all the benefits of the past position. Only widening your perspective, apprehending the value of both, holding the tension of the opposites, is really growth.

Edited May 23 by Raptor
spelling correction

[Kronkleberry]

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

"Switching" is especially problematic not only because everybody has a different understanding of and experience with it but also because some descriptions of switching are unrealistic, even harmful.

 

Fundamentally, everyone experiences life differently. While terms and guides could be updated, there's also going to have to be some baseline of assumption about how or why people are approaching such a personal and subjective practice such as tulpamancy. Someone with a very spiritualistic or occultist background is going to approach the subject matter differently than someone who never was, and will have access to different conceptual tools to interact with the phenomena accordingly. Likewise, someone who has a long history of meditation or lucid dreaming will also have related tools and practices that can help that others won't have access to. 
 

Which is why I think that:

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

On a side note, he called attention to how much of our language is appropriated from the plural/DID community. If we are to divorce ourselves from their way of thinking, I believe it would do us good to also divorce ourselves from their jargon, so I am striving to avoid it.

does a disservice to the community. For good or bad, the overarching plural community has language and tools to understand and express the phenomena that we also experience. To try to push it all away just to try to clean room reverse engineer new language just wastes energy reinventing the wheel when the differences would be so subtle and minor to be ignored in most contexts.
 

If there exists a case for diverging terminology, it would be if and when what we as tulpamancers experience something differs significantly from what the generalized plural term signifies. From both my experience in the tulpa community for over a decade, and from interacting with non-tulpa systems during that time, I do not think there really exists any significant difference for most terms currently, and that trying to make new terms would just be muddying the water at this point. As a further aside, I think trying to change any significant terminology, like 'tulpa' 'tulpaforcing' or similar, is a lost battle from the day the tulpa thread left /x/; the community at large has grown and separated apart to the point that while we have some common roots, you'll never be able to fully convince people to change the words they use.

[mattx]

I tend to mostly agree with @Abvieon, he's been pretty much on point and respectful about it. I'll add my two cents on the matter.

 

3 hours ago, Abvieon said:

No, it can't be proven as an objective fact, but the same goes go for any other philosophies surrounding tulpas (and consciousness in general,) so it comes down to choosing whichever belief is most helpful for your personal case.

Again, we're circling around the same concept over and over.

Regardless of what you think about tulpas, what they are, how they function etc. the "core concept" is that it's a symbolical process that you, as a host of your system, inevitably "tailor" to your needs, beliefs, and capabilities.

I'm notorious for being "against" the newer style of tulpamancy, but I have learned to respect it, as it has become the majority and fighting it leaves little room for anything constructive to happen.
I just wish that "an ear" was left opened (italian saying) for other types of tulpamancy, perhaps stemming from older style of guides and practices.

On that note,

 

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

To make matters worse, one participant in the "off-topic" discussion said he and some other thoughtform creators have experienced dissociative blackouts while their thoughtforms were in control. Though I don't deny this is possible (it's a core symptom of DID), I hope it goes without saying why this should not be held as some kind of ideal.

Yes hello, that's me

That conversation unfortunately spiraled out of control because there was a collective misunderstanding that my intentions were to "belittle" the modern practices / tulpamancers.

The goal was to create and enforce a broader terminology (perhaps in an unified glossary of terms) to pinpoint exactly what phenomena was being discussed and avoid confusion - which inevitably would lead to drama.

The idea ended up being fundamentally rejected, which is fair - if someone else is willing to take the burden, they are more than free to do so in the future.

 

What I'm not happy with is how I was portrayed here as some kind of "madman" that had DID-like dissociative experiences, and never once I have said that what me (and dozens more in the past) have done is some kind of ideal "ultimate goal" to achieve, especially knowing full well how the modern community is pivoted against different experiences.

Please do not misquote me, or misunderstand my intentions. I never  mean harm.

 

Carrying on, my only gripe with this proposal (which I would fully support if it is widely accepted, mind you), is how the word "harm" is used here and there to validate some claims that are honestly not true, as Abvieon said.

Having blackout "DID-like" dissociative experiences does not mean you are going to harm yourself - the idea with what has been practiced for years about it is that it is a controlled phenomena, unlike what DID is.

 

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

separate people is all well and good until it crosses the line into self-destruction and/or moralizing

It is worth noting, for the sake of context for anyone reading this in full, that your system (unfortunately) has had quite a history well documented in this forum of "harmful situations" and "bad accidents" regarding your tulpas in the past, which obviously you had no control of but most definitely shaped the beliefs that you have today.

Again, it is very unfortunate, I'm sorry for it (you know well how much I was on the front lines supporting you about it, even back in the day in #tulpa.haven and #tulpa.supportgroup, I still even have screenshots about it) and it's good that your system came out of it, but that does NOT mean that everyone will suffer the same consequences and therefore "harm must be avoided" for an ad-hominem situation.

Please do know that I'm being as genuine as possible, in respect of you and your host.

 

Moving on, this can easily be interpreted (I'm sure it's not your system's intention) as: "do not think like this, you WILL hurt yourself" - the whole proposal sounds like a request to "change things" because "the old ways are harmful", whereas there's been dozens, if not hundreds of systems (many of them outside the broader modern community of reddit, this forum, discord etc., likely due to age) that were formed using older-style methods that involved practicing more "extreme" ways of tulpamancy and are still alive and well to this day. 

I will not use myself as an example, I will use Nobillis - a system spanning 3 servitors and two tulpas (one of them being 30+ years old) and I've reached out to them privately to address a few points that were the core of the discussion in the off topic thread (and this, in a broader sense).
Why them? Because they are well established in the community (although they do not participate anymore), they are Pleeb's personal assistant and our mentors, and they are someone we deeply trust and owe them a lot, as having taught us a lot over the years, especially practices and beliefs that are even older than the 2012 community spawned by FAQ Man and Irish.

 

Spoiler

Here's the full size image (had to stitch it a bit to make it more readable on mobile: chat image link

Links mentioned in the chat:

• Regarding parallel processing : https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1613200113
• Nobillis' library of resources: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/wiki/nobillis_library/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjPhu2akc6UAxWtfGwGHVfgDsoQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw14YA_GQ0431rLxYLJ_TpPo
• Nobillis' guide on switching (2013)

I also have found an ANCIENT irc chat screenshot with them, that I still had in my collection regarding "how harmful is it for a host to believe their tulpa can take control completely": https://i.imgur.com/JT0Blk1.png

 

 

Concluding, the key point here is: live and let live.

There's hardly any point in being an elitist gatekeeper (like I used to be sometimes, for which I do apologize publicly), as much as there's hardly any point in rallying up a "massive change" when the community is so fragmented and varied in their beliefs and core principles.

We personally have come up with the conclusion that it's best to just let things happen - if the community demands a change, so be it.

 

Best,
Matt and Cheryl

 

Edited May 23 by Shin Matt

[Mon]

What I think really needs adressing is how the description at tulpa.info landing page is outside of the window of people's expected experience:

Quote

A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you. It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient, but in this community, we treat them as such. It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality; as they grow older, your attention and their life experiences will shape them into a person with their own hopes, dreams and beliefs.

I'd argue that:

- Separation of free will (which is contested as a useful term at all), emotions and memory shouldn't be taken for granted. Especially the memories, tulpamancers practicing willingly shouldn't expect any kind of memory barriers.

- Tulpa doesn't literally live in our head like a separate organism; what are they separate from and how is quite ambiguous here tbh.

- Also, tulpas are sentient, there is nothing to prove here. The question is again, about degree of separation of this sentience from the rest of the mind.

- Hopes, dreams and beliefs - here separation can vary and I daresay, many people don't want too much separation in these places

 

And switching is problematic, yes, in "Further Development" we can read:

Quote

After successfully switching, you will be able to see and feel the mindscape and other tulpas (if you have more than one) with all your senses much more clearly, and you will be able to ignore the physical body’s needs and senses while being in this state.

I won't say it's impossible but it's not the expected experience for most people. I daresay, it's a fantasy that pioneers believed that would apply for everyone. In reality, it might work for a few people who either worked hard or have special dissociative circumstances. It's not what people should be told to expect from switching in the first place. 

 

There is a matter of what's possible and what is expected. When introducing people to tulpamancy we don't have to say if wonderland switching is impossible. We should talk about expected outcomes first... Which for most people will be associative switching that can be achieved quite fast (unless we distract newbies with possession).

 

1 hour ago, Shin Matt said:

Moving on, this can easily be interpreted (I'm sure it's not your system's intention) as: "do not think like this, you WILL hurt yourself" - the whole proposal sounds like a request to "change things" because "the old ways are harmful", whereas there's been dozens, if not hundreds of systems (many of them outside the broader modern community of reddit, this forum, discord etc., likely due to age) that were formed using older-style methods that involved practicing more "extreme" ways of tulpamancy and are still alive and well to this day. 

It's normal to not want people who practice after us to go through the same problems that we had to face. We feel really good with our tulpamancy practice today. In early years we didn't have a problem with achievements either... But we had plenty of doubts if we do everything alright because what of expected experience was framed to be (wonderland switching, tulpas having parallel lives in wonderland, that tulpas should have different beliefs etc.), also with how easy was for us to "hear" a new character and feeling compelled to keep all of them as tulpas. 

Edited May 24 by Mon

[Ranger]

The question of if a cobud should be seen as a separate person or not has been around since its inception. There was a big community fork that happened around 2013-2014, with those who generally saw cobuds as individuals and those who saw them as facets of themselves. The latter called themselves the "tuppers" gang and even made their own forum. The rest stayed on .info, hence, the main site painting cobuds as separate individuals.
 

4 hours ago, Raptor said:

On the theory itself, it must be said that the two polar opposite perspectives, separateness and unity, are complimentary. You simply can't have one without the other, and even the most one-sided person uses both constantly. It's unfortunately necessary to define both sides separately, because they have unique characteristics, but because of this, any time you say something about one of them, it appears as if you are denying the other. But it's a yin-yang kind of situation, the point is that they both coexist, and imbalances in your approach can only be corrected by mixing in a little of its opposite. Arguments about separateness or unity get so polarized and stuck because both sides have real benefits to advocate for. Moving from one to the other isn't really growth, because although you're seeing a new side of things, you're rejecting all the benefits of the past position. Only widening your perspective, apprehending the value of both, holding the tension of the opposites, is really growth.

 

Yes, exactly.
 

---

 

The concept of medianship, or a headmate being part of you or an extension of you instead of a separate person, is also accepted in the wider plural community. Thus, the broader plural community is actually not the actual source of friction at play.

 

What is the source of friction is how people treat one another. "Oh that's not real, it doesn't deserve my respect". But... a cobud who's part of their host is their host, who is still a person! And the vice versa- "Oh those are just imaginary friends". But those people aren't hurting you with their beliefs their cobuds are separate people, why are you saying that?

The same disrespect the broader plural community is plagued with is still present and always has been in this community from the beginning.

 

Fake-claiming is a prime example of that. The broader plural community's fake-claiming looks like this: "Oh you have the entire cast of Danganronpa in your head??? FAKE! You didn't get abused by a creepy cult of adults and then sexually assaulted multiple times? FAKE! You only have 3 alters and you're working together to heal??? FAKE!" The same absurdity is in this community too. "You're a big system with 15 cobuds? FAKE! Your cobud doesn't match my definition of how separate they should be? FAKE! Your cobud can do things in wonderland while you're doing you're own thing? FAKE! You don't spend 888 hours avising your cobud??? FAKE!" You can't have mature conversations about anything if people are too busy being insecure and trying to defend their egos.

You also have the inherent anti-trauma ableism attitudes in both communities. When you're told to pull yourself by your boot straps when you're struggling for your entire life, that affects your world view and what you say. The end result is trauma olympics and an aversion to anyone who's openly struggling and asking for help.
 

And speaking of- that and people who like to fake-claim endos using the argument "tulpa is racist" to push their agenda is incredibly annoying to me. I'm just trying to be less racist, this whole playing the "but I'm disabled" card, "we shouldn't accept DID/OSDD systems and their ways", "endos aren't real this is proof", ugh, come on. I just don't want to hurt people doing my favorite thing.

As for the other terminology stuff? I'm going to let LB_LEE fill you in on the details.

 

9 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

2) Said philosophy has caused extensive harm.

 

When you strip away the fear of being invalidated, things look a lot better in general. However, there are a few cases where cocreation can cause severe problems. And they're almost all mental health related.

Take my understanding of "intrusive thoughtforms" for example. If you view a trauma part, alter, or a mental health symptom as a cobud, things can go wrong.

 

But seeing them as "imaginary friends" is a band-aid generalization that isn't applicable in every case. While that may be helpful for someone with schizophrenia, seeing an "evil thoughtform" as a part of us and nothing else isn't very helpful. You need the full context of what the mental health problem is, why it's happening, and what therapy you need to fix it.

Struggling with parrotnoia is a big one too. I just recently realized that the root of the problem is (drum roll please...) trauma. The more trauma you have, the more likely you are to have issues with achieving vocality and the more likely you'll be plagued with doubt. If you're not confident in yourself and consumed by imposter syndrome, then of course you're going to have doubts.

Wait. Doesn't everyone have parrotnoia, to at least some degree? Congratulations, you just discovered trauma is pervasive in this community too! It's just not always as severe symptom-wise. You're welcome.

 

Ultimately, pointing to any cocreation philosophy as "the problem" will be ignoring the real problem- Everyone just needs more therapy. And preferably, not abusing illegal drugs. That tends to go badly too.

If you think the solution is chasing off people from the practice, ha ha, good luck with that! It's more effective to direct someone to self-help resources and encourage them to seek help when you see it's a problem.
 

9 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

The problem of multiple consciousnesses aside, whether this is attainable or even desirable for most of us is debatable. To make matters worse, one participant in the "off-topic" discussion said he and some other thoughtform creators have experienced dissociative blackouts while their thoughtforms were in control. Though I don't deny this is possible (it's a core symptom of DID), I hope it goes without saying why this should not be held as some kind of ideal. There is a reason breaking down memory barriers between fronting members is a goal for DID systems.

I really discourage people from playing with that. We always fear the possibility that we could pick up the wrong mindset and learn how to replicate that, especially since we're figured out how to do a bunch of other weird stuff.

However, having experience with telling people "no" and seeing how that turned out, I now propose this: Please have the mindset that everyone can access the memory pool in case of emergency. And please have a designated fronter if the body OS can't function on its own and needs someone to take care of what's going on in the physical world. If you're going to climb this mountain, you should at least know how to tie your safety knots and wear a helmet. I can come up with ideas on the symbolism you can use to make these mindsets work. In our head, we have a gate blocking us from entering parallel space for a reason.

Once you can get to that level of mindfulness training and symbolism awareness, you can do really cool things. There are going to be people who also want to do really cool things. I feel the solution is to just be there to help them achieve those cool things safely.
 

9 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

) There is disagreement even on what key terms mean, particularly "switching" and "parallel processing".

 

I'm still figuring out the parallel processing part, because The Architect (part of one of my headmates) blew my mind on what that is again.

But for switching, I think it's helpful to see it as a spectrum and just explain your experience. I'm writing a switching guide where I dive deeper into this, but I'm not copying and pasting my switching guide draft here. The point is there are multiple interpretations from multiple people, and having your own perceived categories of what those experiences are can be very helpful. There's a reason "soft switching" vs "hard switching" caught on for a bit- clarifying the type of switching experience helps give context and eases the confusion a bit. And even if you think all switching is really the same, remember that even "becoming my cobud" and "swapping places with my cobud" is a very simple mindset difference that comes with a lot of important different implications.
 

3 hours ago, Shin Matt said:

I just wish that "an ear" was left opened (italian saying) for other types of tulpamancy, perhaps stemming from older style of guides and practices.

I agree with this. I have been studying parallel processing for a long time, but I still feel like I still have a lot of learning to do. I want to revive some of the methodologies practiced in older guides, but with a more modern spin given my beginning as a huge skeptic and how I changed my beliefs over time.

 

4 hours ago, Raptor said:

At the very least, it can't be argued that there's value to being a proponent for your own beliefs, in the contexts where they are relevant. The imperialism of a belief is different; I believe a righteous attitude is the opening move of overzealous dogmatism, and it naturally raises people's defenses when they can sniff even a whiff of 'righteousness' in your attitude! A feeling of righteousness usually reflects some blindness to your weak points. On the other hand, it takes a certain pride to be able to stand up against the status quo, and this much is healthy for diversity of opinion - the balance is difficult to strike, and some of you in the discord sphere might remember when I myself had a little too much fire. Tulpa.info has had the benefit of being able to mostly 'start from scratch' without having a rigid cultural background to distinguish itself from. Well, now the modern tulpamancers face the task of revolutionizing the tulpa community's tired status quo! It's thanks to posts and discussions like these that the wheels of change continue to turn, and the inner developments slowly emerge into the light.

 

Oh I'm definitely bristly and righteous at times. I fell in the thorn bush, and I need to learn how to not be prickly myself. Unfortunately, all I can do is warn people about my nature and continue doing therapy work to improve myself.

Unfortunately, that thorn bush resided here- people don't like me for a lot of reasons, but they also didn't like me because I knew a lot about cocreation and wanted to explore the topic much more deeply. It's definitely frustrating.

 

9 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

All that aside, it's past time this community, and its offshoots on reddit, Discord, and elsewhere, comes to a consensus on what thoughtforms actually are.

I'm not going to hold my breath for that ever happening. I'm planning on making my own space, but there's a pert of me that doesn't want to reject the tulpa community in its entirety. I have a lot of bitter feelings from the abuse I've experienced here, and I won't be ready to let that go until I progress further into my therapy work. But there are also people who won't vibe with my perspective on cocreation, including my shift to new terminology. And I can't, and also don't want to, force them to join me. I believe community forks are inevitable, and I think it's best to just let them happen.

 

Edited May 24 by Ranger

[Mon]

12 hours ago, Abvieon said:

I do not think the view that tulpas are separate people came only from the plural community. I remember it was a common view in this site's early days too, before there was much, if any, mixing with adjacent communities. So I'm inclined to think this perspective came from people's personal experiences, even in isolation from the plural community. The concept and experience of sharing your head with others has no one source and has popped up independently many times. 

I would say that it's a synthesis of early days tulpamancy with endogenic plurality. If you look at Dane's and Irish's guide, that were made before mixing with plurality (you won't find terms like "host" and "switching" there), you can see that separation definitely was there, indeed. Genuine personhood wasn't there though. Original sprul pa practice also wasn't about personhood. Interpretation of the orientalist woman (the tulpa having form of a man) who brought the word "tulpa" to the west added the first layer of personification and it only went further in this direction with tulpamancy getting popular in /mlp/ and when it got mixed with plurality.

 

Honestly, the most problematic stuff has been introduced by tulpamancy pioneers rather than plural folks. Concept of parroting doesn't come from plurality, it's been present in Dane's guide already. But in Dane's guide it's presented as a failure in the process rather than hurting another person. The need to respect the supposed other person's autonomy (that putting effort into imagining their words can seemingly violate) came later.

 

Early tulpamancy was already problematic in my opinion and synthesis with plurality preserved problematic stuff and introduced others. What I try to do, with introduction of my framework, is to preserve what really matters (which in my opinion is genuineness of relationships) and negate problematic stuff. And the sources of problematic stuff in my opinion are:

- Idealism - which in context of tulpamancy is claim that tulpas exists separately from our mind and implicitly, from material conditions that shape the way we think. 

- Metaphysics (not relabeled mysticism from "psychological vs methaphysical" bs) - which in context of tulpamancy is seeing creation of a tulpa as a change of ontological status from an imaginary character into an independent being, rather than our interactions accumulating into a genuine relationship. 

 

A common interpretation of the ability to interact with characters without putting effort into that is really problematic too. Parroting harms people who don't have this ability from the start, vocality, I daresay, is just as bad for people who are too good at it. If you think that it's talking back that makes a tulpa and you can make any character talk back, also being convinced that characters who can talk back are other people, its synthesis can mess you up. I experienced that and have also seen other people hurt by it.

 

10 hours ago, Kronkleberry said:

For good or bad, the overarching plural community has language and tools to understand and express the phenomena that we also experience. To try to push it all away just to try to clean room reverse engineer new language just wastes energy reinventing the wheel when the differences would be so subtle and minor to be ignored in most contexts.
 

If there exists a case for diverging terminology, it would be if and when what we as tulpamancers experience something differs significantly from what the generalized plural term signifies. From both my experience in the tulpa community for over a decade, and from interacting with non-tulpa systems during that time, I do not think there really exists any significant difference for most terms currently, and that trying to make new terms would just be muddying the water at this point. As a further aside, I think trying to change any significant terminology, like 'tulpa' 'tulpaforcing' or similar, is a lost battle from the day the tulpa thread left /x/; the community at large has grown and separated apart to the point that while we have some common roots, you'll never be able to fully convince people to change the words they use.

Trying from clean room doesn't work in cases like this. I agree that terminology brought from plurality isn't that problematic. Honestly, the most problematic things were invented by early tulpamancers. And it's not like there is no progress, forcing feels rarely used nowadays.

 

Plurality terms are more adaptable. Switching has a few different meanings, host has a few different meanings. But parroting is unambiguous and many people realize that it's a problematic concept. We can just not use it. In my writing I just don't, using "putting effort" or "effortful interaction" when it's appropriate instead.

 

I don't think reinventing the terms is a good idea but there are a few ones that can be completely pruned, while useful ones are preserved (and maybe adapted to tulpamancy if they aren't already).

[Autumn Ren]

19 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

For my own two cents, I believe the self is an illusion. The three of us in this "system" make up one being with three identities which perceive themselves more or less as distinct people sharing a head.

 

This is our conclusion as well, furthermore we believe all we can ever experience or remember is also imaginary. Whether there is one (singlet) or many (system) is arbitrary in that framework.

 

Harmful or not is also arbitrary, personal and specific to users who likely had prior issues or were prone to having issues regardless of the framework. As we stated earlier, the type of framework someone adopts likely only effects the early years anyway. Driving is a method of transportation, driving is dangerous, this doesn't mean we shouldn't use cars. All methods of transportation may lead to injury or death, this doesn't mean we should remain forever stationary. 

 

This practice does have risks regardless of methods or definitions. It's fair to develop seatbelts so to speak however, but our conclusion is that there exists a person who will be harmed by the practice regardless of safeties in place. 

 

So then which framework is the safest? Which definitions lead to the lowest risk? Is there enough data to draw a conclusion? Likely no. So we're down to conjecture and semantics and in most cases heresay only.

 

We don't see this practice growing in popularity, of anything it's still on the decline and is being even replaced by AI interactions that continue to improve. Because these definitions and frameworks really only significantly affect newcomers their relevance is also waning. 

 

Though it's true the framework defines expectations and expectations heavily drive experience in this practice, how can we know which is best and test that with so little data now and into the future? The experiences are always so unique and loaded with unknowns, isolating variables would in our opinion simply be an exercise in confirmation bias at best.

 

18 hours ago, Abvieon said:

I think it is okay to believe, theorize and practice anything you'd like regarding tulpas as long as it's fun for you and brings you fulfilment. That is what matters most. A perspective should not be made out to be objectively wrong or harmful when it works well for many.

 

We agree with this and all of Abvieon's response as well. This has been discussed many times.

 

As @Mon mentioned there is a component of fantasy, moreso in some approaches than others, and more grounded approach may be conceptually a more healthy approach, but in the end the fantasy component is necessarily innate in this practice. 

 

The practice itself is unorthodox, esoteric, and like any meditative practice, will have ungrounded components. 

 

The holy grail of tulpamancy is a grounded scientific approach and based on the experience we've shared with many others here and other spaces, we're not convinced that's possible. Nor is that even necessarily safer, again that would be very difficult to prove even if it logically follows.

 

Finally, terms are always problematic when trauma and negative connotations are formed and involved in those who use them. Tulpamancers seem to have unique results regardless of methods.

[fennecfoxx]

Alex: Okay, wow. That was a lot to read through. It'll take more than one post to respond to everything you've all said, but I'll do my best to get to everything as we find the time and mental fortitude.

 

First of all, I didn't mean to come off as arrogant or self-righteous, and I apologize if I did. My goal is to facilitate discussion, and I appreciate how many of you took the time and effort to contribute.

 

@Abvieon, @Raptor, @Kronkleberry, and @Ranger all brought up good points about the diversity of opinion and particularly how people come to this practice from different backgrounds. I admit I was inspired by Mon's article and didn't stop to consider the occult/spiritual perspective.

 

Let's revisit the main site for a moment. The FAQ says this:

 

Quote

Q: How does a tulpa work?
A: There are many differing theories about tulpa creation, multiplicity, and how the phenomenon works neurologically and psychologically. Currently there’s no way to say for sure how a tulpa works. There are different theories and thoughts on the topic posted on the forums, and articles on the site.

and

Quote

Q: Is this magic?
A: No. This community tries to approach the tulpa phenomenon in a logical, psychologically-based way. We do not try to explain tulpas with magic, or the occult.

 

There's some irony in dismissing unscientific claims unless they're falsely packaged as such, but I digress. This forum has a Metaphysics and Parapsychology board precisely for the topics that go against mainstream understanding. Folks with alternative beliefs have a space to express and talk about said beliefs, and that's fair.

 

However, the claim that cobuds are separately conscious people with separate minds is just as unprovable as any supernatural ones, so why is it mainstream? ("Thoughtform" was too broad here, so I'm borrowing Ranger's term.)

 

I may have come down too harshly against that view. We should respect those who believe it, like we respect those who believe in the supernatural, but we also shouldn't push it upon newcomers. If members of a plural system subjectively experience themselves living inner lives while someone else is out experiencing the external world and conclude they must have separate, independently conscious minds, fair enough. If someone with an overactive imagination or a problem with intrusive thoughts internalizes ideas like "any autonomous thoughtform is a tulpa", "tulpas need your attention or else they die/suffer", and "ignoring a tulpa until it goes away equals murder", that's a problem. Those claims might sound extreme, the fact people still ask if a newly arrived thoughtform is a tulpa or for advice on handling a "walk-in" because they don't want a new system member but feel guilty about ignoring them shows people are internalizing these ideas or are at least confused about them.

 

That's the case on reddit, at least. I'm not sure if it's still the case here, given the lack of activity in recent times.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 4:04 PM, Abvieon said:

So I don't think there will ever be one ideal or "right" way to see tulpas and I do not believe we will ever have (or even should ever have) the unity of opinion you might prefer.

 

I agree, but we should at least have a consensus of what's likely versus not likely true. It isn't likely that we're spiritual beings or have psychic powers, but we make room for those who believe such things.

 

Also, like I said, we don't need some grand unifying theory, just a basic shared understanding grounded in rationality. People can believe what they want, but we shouldn't be presenting claims about objective reality as fact if they're grounded only in subjective experience and/or wishful thinking. I don't think this is the majority view anymore, but it used to be considered fact that cobuds lived active lives in the wonderland when their host wasn't paying attention to them.

 

I might adopt that term, if @Ranger doesn't mind.

 

Anyway, if your cobud couldn't consistently tell you what they did while you were "away", it meant they either weren't developed enough or you didn't have an interesting wonderland, meaning they were bored and you were neglecting their wellbeing by ignoring them.

 

Thankfully, we've moved away from that idea, and we should continue moving away from "likely false" ideas, especially ones that carry undue moral weight. Again, people can believe what they want, but we should be careful about what becomes standard for what's claimed as objective fact.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 6:36 PM, Raptor said:

The imperialism of a belief is different; I believe a righteous attitude is the opening move of overzealous dogmatism, and it naturally raises people's defenses when they can sniff even a whiff of 'righteousness' in your attitude!

 

Oh yes, we're aware. I wasn't personally one of those claiming an imaginary friend that seems to act on its own is actually a real person deserving equal treatment, but I am the only one in our system who's never said that. (There I go, being righteous again.)

 

I'm not out to enforce dogma; I want to stop it.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 10:43 PM, Ranger said:

Ultimately, pointing to any cocreation philosophy as "the problem" will be ignoring the real problem- Everyone just needs more therapy.

 

Wouldn't that be ideal? Sadly, we can't just tell every vulnerable mentally ill person who might not be ready for cocreation to get therapy first and expect them to listen. The least we can do is be careful about what information we're giving them and what conclusions tend to be drawn from it should they proceed anyway (or read the main site and a guide or two without talking to anyone).

 

In other words, don't let them be wracked with guilt because they can't consistently give attention to the dozen plus people in their head but feel like doubting the existence of any of them (according to their idea of existence) or ignoring their problems that any self-aware person would see are influenced if not caused by unchecked intrusive thoughts would make them an even worse person than they already think they are.

 

That happened.

 

On 5/24/2026 at 10:25 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Though it's true the framework defines expectations and expectations heavily drive experience in this practice, how can we know which is best and test that with so little data now and into the future? The experiences are always so unique and loaded with unknowns, isolating variables would in our opinion simply be an exercise in confirmation bias at best.

 

I would say one that leaves room for unknowns and alternative points of view without making baseless claims.

 

In our system, I consider us three parts of one person. We each have our own identities and perceive ourselves as separate, if mentally connected, people and interact as such. Kayleigh sees fennec as the "real" person and us as figments of their imagination that are also kind of real and sentient because we can have conscious experience through them.

 

We disagree on the surface, but both explanations are fundamentally the same: we have one mind that perceives itself as more than one.

 

But we need to be careful what becomes the standard for accepted fact. Illusion is a plausible explanation. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why we have discussions. Multiple minds with parallel consciousness existing in one brain is not at all likely, especially given evidence even split-brain patients may not have split consciousness.

 

Anyway, it's late. I'll continue tomorrow.

 

Thank you to everyone who replied.