Linkzelda's Article on Living With Tulpa [WIP]

Recommended Posts

What is this, a document for ants?


If you took a snapshot image of one section of the article and transferred it to Photoshop and make a selection, you would see marching ants.


So yes, in theory, this would be a document for ants. Virtual marching ants that is.



tl;dr: search "Marching ants selection photoshop" for further analysis of vague humor.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


If you took a snapshot image of one section of the article and transferred it to Photoshop and make a selection, you would see marching ants.


So yes, in theory, this would be a document for ants. Virtual marching ants that is.



tl;dr: search "Marching ants selection photoshop" for further analysis of vague humor.


Oh. Haha. I see. Very good. Marching ants. Hehe.


Yeah. I don't see how they're ants though.

"There is no abiding success without commitment." - Tony Robbins


"Commitment is an act, not a word." - Jean-Paul Satre


"Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes... but no plans." - Peter Drucker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hay guise. that was intentional.



I revised it since October 4-7th, but was too lazy to post anything here.

[Proofread Version 1]


EDIT: Link here



  • It's about 7,314 words (for the time being) and used to be 16,371 words. Yeah....


  • Mentioned something called metacognition, aka, knowing of knowing. Although this isn't a revolutionary term because it can be associated with the whole conscious competence of unconscious competence, I don't know, still reading and looking into things to explain it a bit more.
    In short, it's a bold presumption of tulpa having the ability for metacognition (a quality that presumably is exclusive for sapient beings).



  • Okay, in relation to what waffles mentioned with things like apophenia, I revised it a bit and hopefully had a better example. I mentioned someone named Leslie White (anthropologist) that claimed that being able to make symbolic meaning would be the distinguishing factor of humanity. But that argument was made in what, 1930 and then extended around 1940?
    There's probably better references I could use. Might have to jump-start 60-70 years later with that. I mentioned earlier in the article with some sources that humans wouldn't be the only ones to have this cognitive ability. Another user mentioned about metacognition with rats, but not sure if I really need to add that.


  • Took out the part with ego and such.


  • I paid attention to Sands mentioning how the article or set of articles banged in together overshadowed the actual part on living with tulpa. I just need to explain things a bit more (the relationship part), will do that in the future..


  • I revised the disclaimer, made it shorter than before. I plan to mention the guide to be full of ad hoc claims, or things pertaining just to the clusterfuck of hypothesis of the tulpa phenomenon. Although I feel the whole "don't take this as objective evidence" would be enough, unless someone else has a better alternative. Gave a brief overview of how the article would be formatted.


  • I decided to keep the "Existential" in "Existential Aspects Used to Model a Tulpa." But I wondered if it would be better to use "Ontological" instead, since this whole community's varying theories of the nature of being for tulpa is technically meta.




Critique, my body is ready for this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article is now shorter (thankfully) and you've included a nice overview of what you're going to cover at the start. That's great. However, this structure doesn't seem evident in the body of the article. It's hard to see where one section ends and another begins, and I wonder if there's a boundary at all. The fact that the section titles are of inconsistent size, boldness, font and spacing really only adds to the confusion. So maybe you need to break the thing up a bit more. Right now you have a 7000 word article with no page breaks.



You've also left a lot of errors, particularly grammatical ones, lying around, which irk me a lot and I think could do with some cleaning up. In the very first sentence, for instance, you've written "on-going" (it's "ongoing"). In item 3 of the list below you've written "Existential Strife, Crisis/Issues", demonstrating some gratuitous capitalisation there along with the singular "crisis" next to the plural "issues" (the plural of "crisis" is "crises").

I'm not going to pick out every error, but one last one that people do all the time is

Some may make extraordinary claims of tulpa being beyond the confines of the host’s mind, which to some extent, is the promotion of the belief behind Panpsychism.

See that second comma? It breaks the sentence, and I die a bit inside every time I see someone do that.



Personality is the totality of qualities and characteristics that contributes to an individual’s uniqueness in character. This may be a precedent in a tulpa building a form for themselves that can be identified by the host. However, form itself may not have to be sustained by personalities beforehand, since transient forms for the tulpa can be used in the initial stages to ease the burden of having to choose an immediate composition.

In this quote you seem to have mixed personality and form somewhat confusingly. I sort of follow what you're trying to say, but really the subject isn't that complicated and I think you can make that a lot clearer, especially since you want people with little knowledge of tulpas to be reading and understanding.



Personality may be desirable because it can be one of many aspects on how the host can identify the tulpa.

Perhaps this is more of a content suggestion, but I think it would be sensible for this section to mention at least something about host-defined/not host-defined personalities. Your writing here comes off as if defining a personality is beneficial because it makes them more human, implying that they wouldn't have a personality if you did not do so. And I know you didn't even specify 'defining', but again that's something that I think you should make clearer. You've written in enough detail elsewhere.

Note also the grammatical error.



Speaking of inconsistent levels of detail, maybe you could define "self-schema" - a term that you use a few times and perhaps isn't all that obvious - given that you define "personality". Also here

Form may be desirable because it’s another aspect, like personality, of identification between the host and tulpa. Having a form in the initial stages can give the probability of communication through non-linguistic means (i.e. head nodding for “yes,” and head shaking horizontally for “no” responses).

you're seriously telling me how a body might be used to communicate? Maybe that's reasonable, but I think mentioning head shaking - horizontally, of course - having already mentioned head nodding is definitely redundant.



The word “imposition” is utilized to describe the five main senses imposed or projected through hallucinatory means of the tulpa’s existence and image that would be apparent within the host’s perception of reality.

Again, your language is unclear. I'm not sure the sentence makes sense grammatically, first off, and even if it did it's not the clearest. You've mentioned "hallucination" this time, which is definitely a start, but I think again you could simplify this.



About your apophenia, I still don't agree. I'll maintain that there's a difference between reading meaning into individual occurrences - what you're writing about - and reading meaning/pattern into a set of data/occurrences. Still, the section makes a lot more sense to me now so I don't suppose it's that important.




All in all, it's definitely much better than the first draft. However, I think you still need to

  • Make your structure clearer, and break up your sections properly. As a sub-point, make your headings consistent.
  • Check again for errors and clean that up a bit more.
  • Make your language clearer in parts, and simplify a few unnecessarily complex definitions.
  • Possibly make some content modifications.
  • Keep your level of detail consistent.


I still haven't read the entire article yet, but that should keep you going.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see why length is an issue. Articles and guides have an advantage over forum posts and personal messages in that you don't have to read them all the way through. If I pick up a guide on making tulpa, for example, I'm going to skip over the parts that are no longer relevant to me, like narration.

"'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.'"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shui, I'll have to side with waffles on this, because whenever I try to read the article (the unplanned and barely edited version), I often found myself wanting to skip a few lot of sections in general. As much as I would like to be an egomaniac, if I can't even read my own article and avoid skimming it, it's a personal issue I must resolve immediately.


Thanks for the critique waffles, I really do appreciate the time you take to analyze things. I'll be putting you in the acknowledgements as well in the future for the next updated version.


  • You're right about the headings and sub-headings, I seriously need to make a format to where things don't look weird. I tried using Microsoft Word 2013 (not that the version matters) to hopefully get a decent format for Google Docs. That's my biggest issue with the format of this article in general, Google Docs format just sucks. I may have to resort to PDF format for consistency.
    ODT seems to be the ideal format, but again Google seems to hate it completely. Anyway, this is just minor rambling on my end.


  • As for the body in general (form), I had the intention that at least visualizing the tulpa's face would be a useful way for nonverbal communication (e.g. eyebrows raising, mouth grinning, eyes rolling). I didn't mean to imply that the tulpa can use its/their whole body for communication, but things such as:
    - The tulpa flailing their arms up or even shrugging can contribute to something useful if the host is having a difficult time for verbal communication.


  • As for the apopehnia, again, you're right on the dot on this. Thanks for clarifying the irrelevance I had with mentioning it. There's probably another terminology I can use other than apophenia. I'm glad that things make a little more sense for you on this, since I personally feel that this section might need a little more explanation.
    I feel that the same split you mentioned with:
    1.Individual occurrences (e.g. pre-existent knowledge, conceptual schemes, upbringing, social conditioning)
    2.Meaning/pattern into a set of data/occurences (e.g. the tulpa gaining experiential learning with direct approaches such as (but not limited to) possession and/or switching).
    I'll probably have to be clear on this distinction, thank you for pointing that out.


  • About the headings in general (font, boldings, size etc.), that's the default format that Google Docs and Microsoft uses. I could do simple hyper linking with a consistent format, but the bigger headings are there so the smaller ones are just to hopefully show the reader they're part of that general topic/set of topics.
    I tried spacing out the headings so that it doesn't look jumbled up, but whenever I'm updating the table of contents, it always makes things too compact. I'll probably have to resort to other programs that can avoid this issue.


  • As for the page breaks and boundary issues, you're right, it seems like I'm just making the reader going into a spiraling descent into confusion. My gut feeling tells me a solution to this is for me to use transition words to end one section and shift into another.
    I was concerned that others may be bothered by the "gap" if I were to do manual page-breaks, but again, wonderful insight on your end, and I will add that on my to-do list


  • For self-schema, yeah, will add a definition to that. I feel that I should probably use that as a general basis and then allow things like personality to be a derivative of that. Thanks for informing on the confusion between me mixing form and personality.




Again, thank you for your patience waffles, and I'm looking forward to more discussions from you. Back to group thinking with Eva and Ada.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I See you really love to write Linkzelda!


This is one of the longest Doc related to Tuplamancy I've ever seen.

You could print out a really nifty book. "Modern Tulpamancy - By Linkzelda" (I'll buy it too).


I skim points of interest, And Compared your information to what we knew. You Know what you're talking about, and I agreed with most points.


I would have liked to see more links or Credited information to other people resources.

so a reader can compare idea's/information from your Peers and other sources And Cross examine the information if so desire.

pix: Link



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.