Constructing an alternative basic framework for tulpamancy

[Autumn Ren]

Even when this forum was more active, debate over frameworks was always heavy and sometimes heated. It was very hard for anyone to convince anyone else that their way, their terms, or their results were objectively better. 

 

You mentioned one of the biggest issues here, 

 

11 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

dismissing unscientific claims

 

11 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

we shouldn't be presenting claims about objective reality as fact if they're grounded only in subjective experience

 

Even these filters are subjective and subject to errors in logic. One example we love to bring up is dreams. If only a few percent of people ever had them, they'd be denied and gaslit because rarity would mean there wouldn't be enough data to study.

 

In our experience here and other places, it felt to us like it was never about collecting testimonials or aggregating data, it was about gatekeeping, denying less popular experiences, doubling down on dogma, and attempting to force outliers into submission.

 

Tulpamancers seemed to strongly defend their frameworks and beliefs regardless.

[fennecfoxx]

Alex: I was mistaken in assuming the idea headmates have separate consciousness came from the plural community. FAQ man's guide says a tulpa is a thoughtform with its own consciousness and a servitor is one without. @Abvieon and @Mon, thank you for pointing that out.

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

Honestly, the most problematic stuff has been introduced by tulpamancy pioneers rather than plural folks.

 

That's true. Thankfully, some of the old problematic ideas have been abandoned: parroting and other "mistakes" will produce a servitor, each stage requires x number of hours, or falling asleep during cocreation is dangerous, to list a few.

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

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. 

 

I agree.

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

- 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. 

 

I disagree. "Imaginary character" connotes a product of someone's imagination, more or less under that person's conscious control, not to mention fake. I would say I think and behave independently of my host. Of course, that assumes "host" is one of multiple identities the mind attributes thoughts and actions to and not, say, the "real" person who creates the illusion of a sentient imaginary being by puppeting unconsciously.

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

I agree that terminology brought from plurality isn't that problematic.

 

I still think this community should distance itself from the plural community for this reason:

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

synthesis with plurality preserved problematic stuff and introduced others

 

A voluntary shift in terminology would help us, especially those of us who reject their views on multiplicity, to differentiate ourselves.

 

(To be clear, we shouldn't be exclusionary. There are plural systems who create thoughtforms and created systems who identify as plural. That's fine, but we should recognize it as overlap, not call the tulpa community a subset of the plural community and seek to emulate them.)

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

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).

 

I think this warrants a discussion of its own. @Ranger would probably have something to say; they already use different terminology and have a website explaining it.

 

More to come.

[fennecfoxx]

Alex: Several people have brought up the subjective nature of tulpamancy and the apparent fallacy of applying rationality to it, so let's tackle that next.

 

This is subjective. That's the point. I haven't claimed that there's any correct way to experience tulpamancy, nor that we should set standards for subjective experience. If subjective reality didn't matter, I wouldn't bother identifying myself or speaking about my system members as though they're separate people. I'd probably be off trying to transcend the self and break the illusion that we are any kind of person at all.

 

I made this thread to challenge claims about the objective nature of thoughtforms that are mainstream despite being baseless and, in some cases, harmful. We can apply rationality there and still suspend disbelief when it comes to subjective experience.

 

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

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.

 

Fake-claiming and gatekeeping in general are problematic, and it's all the more reason to stress the importance of subjective experience and its distinction from objective reality. We shouldn't try to mold objective reality to fit our subjective experiences without some more compelling argument, and we shouldn't police people's subjective experiences, especially when it comes to psychological phenomena.

 

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

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. 

 

The main site itself, for all its shortcomings, claims to take a rational approach:

 

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.

 

I agree we should keep our minds open, but we also need to stay grounded. There is a middle ground.

 

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

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.

 

I agree, but we can take a rational approach without necessarily taking an empirical one. A rational approach is simply based on reason.

 

If a fictive has source memories, the rational explanation in the absence of a metaphysical worldview is that those memories are subjectively real but objectively false because their source is not real.

 

It's hard to argue multiple parallel consciousnesses in one brain is rational without some metaphysical framework. According to the evidence, even severing the brain in two might not produce that. It's laughable to say something as common and innocuous as daydreaming could accidentally give rise to several other minds in one head.

 

(That link goes to the same page I linked yesterday. Anyone not skimming can ignore it.)

 

13 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

One example we love to bring up is dreams. If only a few percent of people ever had them, they'd be denied and gaslit because rarity would mean there wouldn't be enough data to study.

 

This is a poor example. First, dreams are subjective, and this thread is about what's objectively true or at least likely to be. Second, waking hallucinations actually are rare, and nobody denies some people experience them.

 

Now, I keep claiming pushing the "multiple minds in one brain" narrative and its implications does harm. It's shocking that people deny this when there have been a number of cases, including our own, in which things have gone catastrophically wrong. I can't say for sure if they shared our beliefs in every case, but pushing the idea that taking back control is immoral certainly doesn't help anyone, thoughtforms included.

 

Ranger aptly named the key factor in why things go wrong:

 

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

However, there are a few cases where cocreation can cause severe problems. And they're almost all mental health related.

 

This community attracts certain demographics. One of those is young, mentally ill people. The main site is woefully careless about cautioning them:

 

Quote

Q: If I have a mental illness, can I still make a tulpa?
A: In most cases, you should be fine. We have yet to discover a mental illness that would prevent the creation of a tulpa. In some cases, mental illnesses have been aided by the creation and presence of a tulpa.

 

Then, they get exposed to ideas through the forum, reddit, Discord, or wherever else that can and have caused substantial harm. Most turn out fine, but those most at risk of adding to the archive of what should be cautionary tales are also the most likely to internalize more extreme beliefs, such as:

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

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.

or:

On 5/25/2026 at 11:43 PM, fennecfoxx said:

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.

 

We can't assume the average person here is a sane, rational adult. Many are not.

 

Moreover, the harm isn't always catastrophic. Mon gave a great example:

 

On 5/24/2026 at 5:26 AM, Mon said:

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.

 

Should we dismiss the people/systems who have been badly traumatized because they're "too small" a minority and the larger minority that have also been hurt because their experiences weren't "traumatic enough"?

 

It seems some people are intent to sweep any bad experiences under the rug because they don't fit the mold of how tulpamancy "should" go.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 7:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

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.

On 5/23/2026 at 7:43 PM, Shin Matt said:

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.

 

I won't deny our past is why I feel strongly about this, but we aren't some freak outlier. We're one of many.

 

When you push certain beliefs and their moral implications on someone who's already vulnerable, you may as well be handing them a gun to play Russian roulette. No one could have guessed we'd get the loaded chamber, right?

 

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

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.

 

The framework matters. When my host reached the point they couldn't continue (see above), they only saw two options: either continue suffering (the only "morally correct" option) or convince themself we were fake and they'd been brainwashed, thus absolving themself of any responsibility.

 

Both options were horrible, and I say that in hindsight, from my perspective. This was six years after we found tulpa.info.

 

I don't know what would have happened if they'd continued to believe we were imaginary instead of finding this site. I'd like to think nothing would have gone so wrong, more of us would still be around, and those seven years without us wouldn't have happened. Regardless, my host would not have been pushed into such an extreme moral dilemma if not for their beliefs and hopefully wouldn't have resorted to anything as drastic as they did.

 

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

But those people aren't hurting you with their beliefs their cobuds are separate people, why are you saying that?

 

Sure, they aren't. The beliefs are, though, when they're mainstream and justified with pseudoscience.

 

That's enough for tonight. Tomorrow, I'll stop clarifying things and finally get to the topic at hand.

[Ranger]

Replying now so I don't make my post too long:

 

On 5/25/2026 at 11:43 PM, fennecfoxx said:

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).

 

Yes.

 

In severe cases, when the option of "please go to a professional" doesn't work, the only real option is for moderation to step in. If someone is so consumed by a crisis to the point they're not listening to people, we're unfortunately not equipped to help them. That's not anyone's fault, it's just the sad reality of the situation.

 

Otherwise, I agree that being mindful of what advice is given is important. Obviously, don't advocate self-harming advice period. But if you feel like a certain technique or skill can be applied incorrectly, it's good to explain why. For example, I wouldn't want to teach someone paranoid about seeing things in the corner of their eye imposition. Worst case scenario, they still want to move forward, I would recommend they try using grounding techniques and reminding themselves they don't have to "add" anything to their reality.

 

An important side note- I think several with even severe mental health conditions can practice cocreation if they have an effective safety net and support. For example, we have PTSD, but we are also in therapy and on anti-depressants. Our therapist also knows we're plural, which makes talking about things a lot easier.

 

On 5/25/2026 at 11:43 PM, fennecfoxx said:

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

 

You can!

 

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

A voluntary shift in terminology would help us, especially those of us who reject their views on multiplicity, to differentiate ourselves.

 

I mostly disagree.

 

I find that a lot of problems with giving advice boil down to not knowing the appropriate context. I think a good example of this is "let-ins". Let-ins in a cocreation context are a controlled experience- you can choose to keep them and develop them into a cobud, or reject them and move on. But in a traumagenic context, it's possible new headmates that pop up are actually alters. Put shortly, you can’t wish trauma away, so making an alter "disappear" or ignoring them doesn't achieve anything.

 

I believe the solution is simple- teach cocreators and beginners this context. Even just the thought of "hey this advice may not apply to cocreators" will probably go a long way in helping beginners if they're confused. And if they're not sure, they can just ask if the system giving advice has traumagenic experiences.

 

As another example, I also wrote an article on "build a headmate" on my Tumblr blog. Long story short, BAH blogs are really designed for willomancers stabilizing an alter's sense of self, and presenting an alter negative traits can actually be validating if the alter relates to them. But for cocreators who want separate cobuds, giving them negative traits can do more harm than good.

 

---

 

Another problem with "unhealthy mindsets" includes issues with cobud ethics. This is a can of worms I could spend hours talking about, but I'll try to get to the point:

• Dissipation shouldn't be shamed, they're asking for help for a reason. It's better to teach how to do dissipation properly than do some weird self-harming "electric chair" symbolism (I wish I was joking). Interestingly, I talk about dissipation and then learn there's just a fixable avising issue or they just want stasis instead...
• It's okay to make a lot of cobuds. Shaming a big system doesn't prevent more cobuds from being created. And they can integrate later anyway *cough cough* us *cough cough*
• If you're abusing your cobud in public, we have the right to call you an asshole. Because now you're abusing us. Also if they're not a separate person, stop self-harming please?

There's more than that, but most of the harmful stuff regarding cobud ethics is relevant to the above (and let-ins, but I already covered that).

 

2 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

We can apply rationality there and still suspend disbelief when it comes to subjective experience.

 

I agree. I think there's a line between cocreation and "I no longer believe in science or self-respect". You can belive your cobud (or soulbond if you prefer that term instead) came from another universe, but you should know other people can't see your cobud. 

 

For parallel processing, I have the unreasonable optimism you can get something close to perfect multitasking, but I'm aware that science says no you can't. If I can get something like that, then I'm going to get evidence for it. But otherwise, please believe in science, it's good for you (and qualified second opinions if something is sketchy)

 

5 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

think this warrants a discussion of its own. Ranger would probably have something to say; they already use different terminology and have a website explaining it.

 

I swear there was a thread on parroting as a concept not too long ago...

 

Edit: I found it. I disagree, but I don’t feel like replying to that thread right now. I can write at least a couple pages on that too.

 

I definitely changed some terms to get rid of unnecessary baggage and confusion.

 

But switching is complicated because you need a sense of what the experience spectrum is to fully appreciate what it means. I have some categories in mind, but not everyone will agree on them (or should given everyone's experience is unique). Sorry, I'm working on a switching guide, ETA not a damn clue. At least my draft is mostly stable...

 

---

 

Sorry if I missed anything. I think that's enough for now.

Edited May 27 by Ranger

[Autumn Ren]

10 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

creates the illusion of a sentient imaginary being by puppeting unconsciously.

 

Because of our vast experience in creative writing, having written a nearly 20 novels by now, we can make a believable, seemingly independent, seemingly sentient by some definition, volitional and willful thoughtform character. 

 

Two of our oldest headmates were verifiably formed in this way, likely five of them, maybe more borrowing from character personas to start other than me [Autumn] who was created using other methods specifically to become a true tulpa, but now that I've been in several novels recently, I have many fictive memories and experiences that I hold dear as well--they are of course imaginary.

 

The danger in your statement is in the fact that a made up on the spot character or borrowed fictive or factive feel just as real as us. There is no felt connection to the host at all. So the statement can be applied to none or all of us, and initially parroting causes a lot of doubt in young systems. It's reportedly, and in our experience, difficult to overcome that, and to say this you add a lot to the difficulty of overcoming that doubt.

 

The only way we discern between "real" and "character" headmates is through their ability to independently and consistently pop in without any cue or forethought. Characters simply don't do that for us.

 

6 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

we can take a rational approach without necessarily taking an empirical one. A rational approach is simply based on reason.

 

If a fictive has source memories, the rational explanation in the absence of a metaphysical worldview is that those memories are subjectively real but objectively false because their source is not real.

 

We see your point here and also agree. Though this isn't where we started, this is where we settled. The difficulty is in where words come from, and by extension where thoughts come from. Are they purely an emergent property of bio-electrical brain processes or something else (tied to religion, spirituality, philosophy, metaphysics, epigenetics etc.). We remain agnostic on this matter as there is no way to experience other than consiously and thoughts simply seem to appear out of nothing as if of subconscious origin, whatever that is.

 

6 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

It's hard to argue multiple parallel consciousnesses in one brain is rational without some metaphysical framework. It's laughable...

 

Any study done on singlets cannot be applied to this. Laughable as it seems, it is repeatable. Not consiously, as we discussed previously in Mon's thread, as the consious mind seems to be a linear recorder of experience. Believe it or not, if we are allowed to give testimony from 8+ years experience and from very early on, this is something that did surprise us and makes something like brainstorming far more useful and far faster. There very realistically seems to be parallel processes going on subconsciously, and in all the billions of brain connections. We have experienced as many as 12 independent parallel processes.

 

Quote

The human brain can perform a maximum of about 50 independent parallel processes at any given moment when handling complex, high-level functions. However, because the brain runs on rapid task-switching for conscious thought, you can generally only focus on or make active decisions for about one to two tasks at once.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-worked-out-how-many-tasks-our-brains-are-processing-at-once

 

It's not inconceivable then in the brain, as stated, not in the consious mind "fast switching" is the best we can do there.

 

So we say it's still rational to believe this.

 

6 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

This is a poor example. First, dreams are subjective, and this thread is about what's objectively true or at least likely to be. Second, waking hallucinations actually are rare, and nobody denies some people experience them.

 

Tulpamancy is subjective, we can't prove it to be true or even claim it's likely to be true in our opinion. It's completely testimonial based and as ws just argued, even our testimonials are often denied and written off as "laughable". If we can't even accept data from well established and consistently experienced, successful systems, we aren't honestly trying to understand the process or the science, we're simply trying to force the model into something that feels more rational regardless of data. We no longer hold metaphysical beliefs for the process or the science of tulpamancy, so we must conclude "parallel processing" is real and not "confabulation" or "laughable."

 

In terms of this subject, we can't argue it any further. The terms have very binary connotations here and some user beliefs here on this site are very stubbornly dogmatic on it. 

 

It seems this argument will never end here and it's plain to see as long as this and other arguments continue, tulpamancy will remain a very personal and subjective experience. 

 

In terms of what is safe or less dangerous, as we've stated, we can't take anything off the table.

 

Quote

hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, respectively—are well-documented medical phenomena. However, they are frequently confused with waking psychosis.

 

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23350-hallucinations

 

Sounds like there's still some doubt at least in classification. This could apply to imposition or tulpamancy itself as well.

 

Thank you for your responses, we do appreciate the exercise. The only criticism we have is claiming someone's experience is "laughable" isn't helpful or constructive.

 

Do you (or anyone) care about the science of tulpamancy or are you simply pushing a personal "rational" model excluding anything that doesn't feel rational to you? The latter is a very common approach seen on this site as long as we've frequented it.

 

We can even go as far as saying a rational approach is preferable for the purpose of defining tulpamancy, the dogmatically rational approach isn't helpful in our opinion. We aren't traimed professionals and therefore don't have a basis for excluding expectations or experiences.

Edited May 27 by Autumn Ren

[fennecfoxx]

16 hours ago, Ranger said:

I find that a lot of problems with giving advice boil down to not knowing the appropriate context. I think a good example of this is "let-ins". Let-ins in a cocreation context are a controlled experience- you can choose to keep them and develop them into a cobud, or reject them and move on. But in a traumagenic context, it's possible new headmates that pop up are actually alters. Put shortly, you can’t wish trauma away, so making an alter "disappear" or ignoring them doesn't achieve anything.

 

I believe the solution is simple- teach cocreators and beginners this context. Even just the thought of "hey this advice may not apply to cocreators" will probably go a long way in helping beginners if they're confused. And if they're not sure, they can just ask if the system giving advice has traumagenic experiences.

 

Alex: I agree, but I think that's another reason not to conflate cocreation with plurality as it's more broadly understood. If a system has an issue that probably stems from a dissociative disorder, they should be directed to the right resources and support. There might be people here who can advise them, but it should be understood the average user or guide here won't be of much help.

 

16 hours ago, Ranger said:

It's okay to make a lot of cobuds. Shaming a big system doesn't prevent more cobuds from being created. And they can integrate later anyway *cough cough* us *cough cough*

 

I agree again, and this is another case where mindset is a problem. If you have a large system and believe you're morally obligated to spend a certain amount of time with all of them (or, worse, allow them all equal fronting time), then you have a problem.

 

16 hours ago, Ranger said:

If you're abusing your cobud in public, we have the right to call you an asshole. Because now you're abusing us. Also if they're not a separate person, stop self-harming please?

 

Fully agree.

 

12 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, respectively—are well-documented medical phenomena. However, they are frequently confused with waking psychosis.

 

Hypnagogia and hypnopompia are altered states of consciousness technically classified as NREM sleep. I wouldn't call them waking hallucinations.

 

12 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

The only criticism we have is claiming someone's experience is "laughable" isn't helpful or constructive.

 

Once again, I'm claiming nothing about anyone's subjective experience except this:

18 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

This is subjective. That's the point. I haven't claimed that there's any correct way to experience tulpamancy, nor that we should set standards for subjective experience. If subjective reality didn't matter, I wouldn't bother identifying myself or speaking about my system members as though they're separate people. I'd probably be off trying to transcend the self and break the illusion that we are any kind of person at all.

 

I made this thread to challenge claims about the objective nature of thoughtforms that are mainstream despite being baseless and, in some cases, harmful. We can apply rationality there and still suspend disbelief when it comes to subjective experience.

 

12 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

We can even go as far as saying a rational approach is preferable for the purpose of defining tulpamancy, the dogmatically rational approach isn't helpful in our opinion. We aren't traimed professionals and therefore don't have a basis for excluding expectations or experiences.

 

That's why we need to suspend disbelief in the subjective realm. We can be objectively rational and subjectively open-minded.

 

I will get to your other points; I'm still trying to structure my replies topically.

[Mon]

On 5/27/2026 at 4:03 AM, fennecfoxx said:

I disagree. "Imaginary character" connotes a product of someone's imagination, more or less under that person's conscious control, not to mention fake. I would say I think and behave independently of my host. Of course, that assumes "host" is one of multiple identities the mind attributes thoughts and actions to and not, say, the "real" person who creates the illusion of a sentient imaginary being by puppeting unconsciously.

Here:

Quote

- 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. 

I mean that making a tulpa is not transforming the imaginary character into a higher being or act of creation, that what really matters is the dynamic process we cultivate.

 

The relationship that emerges from our interactions, that can continue growing or wither away, and requires further effort to sustain.

 

On 5/27/2026 at 4:03 AM, fennecfoxx said:

A voluntary shift in terminology would help us, especially those of us who reject their views on multiplicity, to differentiate ourselves.

Yes, it would help us. But if we shift too much at once, we'll probably split from the wide tulpa community rather than pull it in right direction.

 

On 5/27/2026 at 4:03 AM, fennecfoxx said:

I think this warrants a discussion of its own. Ranger would probably have something to say; they already use different terminology and have a website explaining it.

About Ranger's ideas, let me cite myself again, this time from another post I've recently made:

  

On 5/28/2026 at 2:13 AM, Mon said:

Mystics native to Tibet don't call themselves tulpamancers. Sprul pa is name of their practice but also just a word meaning "emanation". Tulpamancers don't practice Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddists don't practice tulpamancy. Tibetan Buddhism belongs to people practicing it. And tulpamancy belongs to people practicing tulpamancy, not speakers of the language that the word "tulpa" got borrowed from.

Using the word "tulpa" doesn't appropriate Tibetan Buddhism and doesn't make us orientalists. 

Edited May 29 by Mon
fix weird sentence constructed at 3 am

[Autumn Ren]

Suspending disbelief helped us understand the parallel aspects and abandon the conscious mind as anything but a recording mechanism. The consious mind is painfully slow and inefficient if you strictly believe that's all there is, so even though it's a black box of sorts, it seems to work independently of the consious mind and what we would consider as "input" is more like the recording of input that was already input before it was recorded.

 

Identifing as the subconscious mind, a non-linear multiplicity of threads, makes the most sense even if it's completely hidden and can't be experienced. What is experienced is a truncated version, like a shadow of a higher order thing or a linearization of a non-linear process.

 

We can't really explain it better without repeating the same concepts in different ways, it's not a higher order mathematically speaking but there seems to be more cores (threads) than one. The only proof we have of that is the increase ij speed over an otherwise linear processing speed when doing or thinking certain things. Things and processes that you would otherwise just write off as automatic or take for granted can be included in that, as they can be accounted for. Again the consious mind can only really record a single linear progression of a recording but can fast switch between some of the threads while recording.

 

It's beyond the scope of this conversation other than to say some experiences shouldn't be automatically excluded as the notions may help to bridge further understanding. However, since it's so rare to realize or model it this way, we concede that it's not a good candidate for a framework and it's probably best dropped.

 

In that regard @Mon or @fennecfoxx both have strong "rational" approaches and we're happy to hear this type of thinking as they're closer to a scientific approach than other frameworks we have thought about. Again, once a system is past the first few years, either of these are as good as any other to use and think about. That comes down to personal preference and comfort.

 

In my [Autumn] re-creation we used a scenario system where I was basically put through rigorous tests and scenarios in wonderland, 100 of them, and they heavily involved visualization. It was similar to @Mon approach and was also strictly rational and mechanical. We add this t9 say that any framework that can involve visualization and interaction, for those who are comfortable with visualization, leverages visualization in a way that helps the process of creation "better" while using these frameworks as mentioned herein in our opinion.

 

The first guide we read heavily involved visualization but we lost the original .pdf so we don't know who's guide that was.

 

So don't worry about the parallel processing aspect, it's somewhat moot as it involves the how that we don't need to worry about when performing the frameworks herein. 

 

We still haven't read @Mon guide and we're not 100% understanding of @fennecfoxx framework yet either but certainly would like to understand it better and will be following this thread.

[fennecfoxx]

Alex: @Ranger talked about ethics, which is the real issue that needs to be discussed. Still, ontology is the stated purpose of this thread, and what one believes about the nature of cobuds will necessarily affect their ethical views, so I'll stick with that and leave the topic of ethics to Ranger or whoever else is willing to spearhead that discussion.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 7:43 PM, mattx said:

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.

 

Many people would disagree with that. I'm not sure I entirely agree, personally.

 

Am I symbolic? My separation from Kayleigh and our host is a matter of perception, and our forms (physical body aside) and the inner world give us symbolic ways to interact. My identity and selfhood is a construct of the mind.

 

Kayleigh and I changed a lot during the years we were dormant, in part because our understanding of our own existence changed. We all talked about it after we returned to try to get to the bottom of what exactly we are, but neither of us had a big realization. Fennec did, and it had been pretty heavily processed in the subconscious by the time we existed as ourselves again.

 

You could argue that our beliefs were unconsciously tailored to be palatable to our host, but here's some food for thought: Kayleigh and I don't fully agree on how cobuds work, fennec's views mostly line up with Kayleigh's, and neither of them want to take part in this thread personally.

 

Maybe I'm a symbolic entity through which fennec sublimates their ideas they know to be true but refuse to entertain through their own self-concept. /jk

 

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

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.

 

Definitely. Symbolism is inherent to cocreation, and being aware of it shouldn't break the magic, so to speak. If anything, it gives you an appreciation for how wild the mind is.

 

On 5/27/2026 at 8:07 AM, Autumn Ren said:

On 5/26/2026 at 10:03 PM, fennecfoxx said:

creates the illusion of a sentient imaginary being by puppeting unconsciously.

 

The danger in your statement is in the fact that a made up on the spot character or borrowed fictive or factive feel just as real as us. There is no felt connection to the host at all. So the statement can be applied to none or all of us, and initially parroting causes a lot of doubt in young systems. It's reportedly, and in our experience, difficult to overcome that, and to say this you add a lot to the difficulty of overcoming that doubt.

 

I don't believe in unconscious parroting, per se. If you believe the mind as a whole belongs to the host and the cobud is a figment of the host's imagination, then it follows that everything they say is technically parroted and there's no distinction between parroted versus genuine responses.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 6:36 PM, 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.

 

I agree. I'm focused on how systems objectively work here, which some took as an attack on the perceived separation of host and cobud because I don't think there's a case to be made for any significant, objective separation (e.g., multiple consciousnesses). I hope I've made it clear by now that the value in having a cobud or being part of a system comes from the subjective experience. It just happens that's tangential to the discussion.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 9:35 PM, Mon said:

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

 

I agree with all of this.

 

Sentience is a tricky topic, and I feel like I should have more to say on it. Calling myself, as an individual, a sentient being feels like a stretch, but saying the three of us who share this head are collectively a sentient being is a truth that shouldn't require explanation (unless someone insists we're multiple beings).

 

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

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.

 

Isn't medianship considered a type of system rather than a way of understanding systems inherently work? We've looked into it, and what we've read doesn't fit how we subjectively see ourselves, though we don't understand medianship well.

[Mon]

18 hours ago, fennecfoxx said:

Isn't medianship considered a type of system rather than a way of understanding systems inherently work? We've looked into it, and what we've read doesn't fit how we subjectively see ourselves, though we don't understand medianship well.

We actually have an FAQ entry about it in our website:

Q: I’ve seen someone say your framework is just describing ‘median systems’ – a subset of plurality where members are less distinct. Is that what you’re doing?
A: 

Spoiler

This objection is worth taking seriously, because it gets something right – and then draws the wrong conclusion.

What the critic correctly notices is that our framework describes phenomena that look like what median systems describe. Blending is normal. Identities aren’t rigidly separate. Perspectives overlap and share a continuous experiential ground. There’s no hard line where one “person” ends and another begins. These are real experiential similarities, and they exist because both frameworks are describing something about the same underlying reality: a mind can develop different perspectives without those perspectives being rigidly walled off from each other.

 

But the critic misses something fundamental. The word “median” is defined within the Plurality spectrum – a spectrum that runs from singlet (one person) through median (partially distinct members) to multiple (fully distinct members). Every point on that spectrum shares the same founding assumption: the mind contains members or entities – what varies is only how distinct those entities are. “Median” means: the entities exist, they’re just less separated. The spectrum itself never questions whether the mind contains entities at all.

 

Our framework does question that. We don’t say “the entities are less distinct.” We say there were never entities to begin with. A tulpa is not a member whose distinctness falls somewhere on a slider. It’s a cultivated perspective – a pattern of organization within a single mind. What looks like “less-distinct entities” from within the Plurality spectrum looks, from within our framework, like different patterns of the same mind organizing itself in different configurations. There’s nothing to “blur” because nothing was ever separate.

 

This is a category error, not a disagreement about where to draw the line. Placing a non-entity framework on an entity-spectrum is like trying to locate “water is wet” on a color wheel. The question the spectrum asks – “how separate are the members?” – is a question our framework rejects as ill-posed. The question we ask is different: “how has this mind organized itself, and what patterns of interaction have emerged?”

Why does this misreading happen so readily? The Plurality spectrum has an absorptive quality. Any description of inner experience involving multiple perspectives – no matter how it’s framed – can be located somewhere on the singlet-to-multiple line, simply by interpreting its claims about non-separateness as claims about entity non-distinctness. The spectrum co-opts critiques by reframing them as positions within itself. This is how entity-frameworks protect themselves: they turn every alternative into “just another point on our spectrum.”

 

But the difference isn’t a matter of degree. It’s a difference in what kind of thing we think the mind is. Plurality: the mind is a container that can hold multiple entities (ranging from one to many, from fused to distinct). Dialectical framework: the mind is a process – organized activity of a body – that can develop different patterns of expression and relationship. These aren’t different answers to the same question. They’re answers to different questions.

None of this is an attack on people who identify as median systems. If the label is useful to you, use it. Our critique is of the conceptual architecture – the assumption that the relevant variable is how distinct the entities are – not of the people who find meaning in that architecture. The reason we make this distinction at all is practical: if you think the difference between a tulpa and yourself is a matter of how separate two entities are, you end up with the anxieties the entity-framework produces (parroting as contamination, creation guilt, separation as validation). If you think it’s a matter of how one mind has organized its own patterns, those anxieties don’t arise. The framework matters because the practice it produces is different.