Community Glossary

[Sands]

Better than personality switch, tulpa-like state or full-body possession called switching.

[Linkzelda]

Forcing/Tulpaforcing:

 

The definition is simple to those who are competent with terminology related to tulpa, but it’s clear there’s different stages.

 

• The initial stages of tulpaforcing, where the host has absolutely no competence in forcing in general (and has to build on gaining competence), they’ll have to use symbolic means of reference (e.g. through guided meditation, hypnosis, meditation, or whatever activities for personal development in cognition and such).

 

• Compared to the type of “Forcing” where things just comes by naturally, or to be more specific, where the host has developed unconscious competence to see, hear, and other sensory aspects of their tulpa.

 

In short, the stages of competence might be a decent starting point on what to do. Although it should just be taken as a concept, and not absolute indicators of course.

 

Just throwing that out there.

 

 

 

Unless you'd like to swap it for the all-new Eclipsing

 

Or just call it Dissociative Possession. Can't believe no one's thought of this.

 

If I remember correctly, that’s something that started on tumblr. Now whether or not we should take advice from tulpa tumblrs where people are addicted to fiction kin, past life regressions, therians, and such….yeah, let’s not do that.

 

Visualise, Visualisation, Visualize, Visualization

Seeing something in the 'mind's eye', i.e., in the host's imagination. This is not a hallucination; contrast with 'imposition'.

-imagination is a good one to include here, and God knows enough people get it confused with hallucination.

 

I think the issue is how people try to distinguish between imagination vs. hallucination. It seems pragmatic that hallucination isn't the right word to use (for certain circumstances), and ends up in unintelligible equivocation with terminology.

 

But with things such as phosphene, closed eye hallucinations, sensory hallucination (e.g. olfactory, visual), it would only create more ambiguity to state imagination isn’t an associative form of hallucination. And even if hallucination seems more practical to describe imposition in general, depending which dictionary you use for it:

 

1.

a. Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.

b. The objects or events so perceived.

2. A false or mistaken idea; a delusion.

 

---

(Psychology) the alleged perception of an object when no object is present, occurring under hypnosis, in some mental disorders, etc.

hallucinational , hallucinative, hallucinatory adj

 

 

1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usu. manifested as visual or auditory images.

2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

3. a false belief or impression; illusion; delusion.

--

 

Then compare that to imagination and its synonyms....

 

And then looking at synonyms for hallucination:

 

• illusion

• phantom

• aberration

• apparition

• fantasy

• mirage

• phantasm

• phantasmagoria

• trip

• vision

• wraith

• figment of the imagination

• Head trip

 

It starts becoming semantic gymnasitics here. And even if we were to use the psychological definitions for it, it will still cause unintelligible equivocation in general.

[Sands]

Visualization ("imagination"): shit you don't see with your actual physical eyes but instead with your mind's eye (or add any other sense here, but I just used sight here because I felt like it)

 

Imposition ("hallucination"): shit you see with your actual physical eyes even though it only exists in your imagination (or some other sense yada yada)

 

That's a huge and important thing that should be made clear, even though both are imagination.

[Linkzelda]

Visualization ("imagination"): shit you don't see with your actual physical eyes but instead with your mind's eye (or add any other sense here, but I just used sight here because I felt like it)

 

Imposition ("hallucination"): shit you see with your actual physical eyes even though it only exists in your imagination (or some other sense yada yada)

 

That's a huge and important thing that should be made clear, even though both are imagination.

 

 

lol okay then

 

(because I felt like it)

 

An ad hoc attempt to retain the unreasoned assertion you have above, it's still begging the question. You're just going through semantic shifting to try to make it look plausible.

 

EDIT: I get we just have to explain this more and make more distinctions since visualization/hallucination/imagination in general varies depending on which standpoints/definitions/etc. you take.

[Zero]

Oh, right. I forgot to give my own list of definitions.

 

 

Forcing

Shouldn't be separated into passive and active. Everything should use the same term. Also, why do we call it forcing, again?

 

"Any act relating to the host focusing on, developing, speaking with, etc. the tulpa."

 

Okay. "Development". No need to use senseless terms that may even confuse some new people. Now, things such as "active" and "passive" would be less confusing (Active development, passive development) but I still don't see a need for the split. Development is development, whether you do it with undivided or divided attention.

 

The only place that needs the active/passive split is imposition imo. "Forcing" could just be called whichever kind of development it relates to. (Vocal development, hallucinatory development, possession practice etc.)

 

 

Personality

Personality forcing? It's not even defined in the glossary. Common definitions are fine though, as long as it's not stressed that this is a must-do part of tulpa creation like narration.

 

Visualization

"Often refers to all senses, not just sight" then stop using a word that starts with "Visual". That's linguistically confusing once you ask someone who's not familiar with common sense to visualize smell or something. In my opinion it'd be better to call the collective term for this "Mental sensing" and then people could just describe things as "mentally seeing" and "mentally touching", or if you really need to use complex-sounding words, do it like this:

 

Imaginary sensing:

Visualization - sight

Auralization - hearing

Kinesthesialization - touching

Olfactorialization - smelling/tasting

 

This is why I don't like complex words.

 

Narration

"When the host speaks to or with their tulpa. A common form of passive forcing."

This should only be called narration when the host is talking TO their tulpa. Talking WITH your tulpa is conversation. Conversation also shouldn't be seen as some mighty progress machine. Just hang out with your tulpas man, they're your friends. Not lab rats.

 

Imposition

Google "Imposition": http://puu.sh/4YhLG.png

Nice terminology. Change to "hallucination".

Split into 5 groups (visual, aural, etc.) under 2 stages (active, passive)

Why all these confusing unnecessary terms? Are we trying to sound smart or something?

 

Possession

Refer to my earlier post.

 

Switching

See above.

 

Emotional Response

Should be a sub-group of the 5 types of vocality.

 

Parallel Processing

"When the tulpa can focus and work on something completely different from what the host is focusing on."

This is fine.

 

Parroting

"When a host consciously and purposefully controls the tulpa's actions."

Okay. How about expectation? I expect my tulpa to say "yes", and I hear "yes", then I ask her "Did I just parrot that?" and she replies with "yes". Was that conscious and purposeful? No. Was it parroting? According to your definition of the term, no, but seeing as most tulpaforcers see parroting as "Any response that seems to be your tulpa but isn't your tulpa" I do believe we need a term for "parroting" that isn't consciously and intentionally done by you, but also isn't your tulpa. I can't come up with anything better than "suggestive parroting", if you guys could come up with something that'd be nice.

 

Puppeting

See above.

 

Proxying

"Communicating on behalf of a tulpa, relaying what the tulpa says to facilitate communication. Usually in writing, but can also be in speech."

This is fine.

 

Servitor

"A tulpa-like entity with seemingly no willpower, volition or sentience of its own; a mental puppet that may seem to act independently but acts only as a servant to its creator."

What is this, the 1500's? "Servitor" reminds me of "familiar", too serious a term for something as simple as imaginary characters. Rename to NPC.

 

Vocality

"The stage when a tulpa can communicate in full, coherent sentences as opposed to Tulpish or relying on Emotional Response."

 

Whoever said emotional responses are bad? This definition implies it. The way I see it, there are 5 different forms of vocality that can be used interchangeably depending on the mindstate of the host and how developed the tulpa is. This is how I see vocality:

 

Mental vocality:

Raw thought - you "know" what the tulpa wants/is trying to say, but you don't hear any mindvoice or feel any emotional response.

Mindvoice - you can "hear" the tulpa speak to you mentally, the same way you "hear" yourself during your inner monologues.

Emotional response - you can "feel" what your tulpa is feeling, they feel happy and you suddenly feel happiness with no incentive for feeling so.

 

Hallucinatory vocality:

Hypnagogic mindvoice - you can "hear" your tulpa as a very loud mindvoice, but not exactly like a hallucination yet. More likely to happen just before falling asleep.

Hallucinated voice - you can hear your tulpa as if they were right next to you, physically.

 

Also lel tulpish. Seriously?

 

 

Here's a short list of the terms I'd like redefinitions for:

 

Forcing = Development

Visualization = Mental/Imaginary sensing

Narration = shouldn't be used interchangeably with conversation

Parroting = fine, but add "suggestive parroting" for all those people who are "unintentionally parroting their tulpa"

Servitor = NPC

Switching = Dissociative Possession.

Imposition = Hallucination

[Sands]

 

 

lol okay then

 

 

An ad hoc attempt to retain the unreasoned assertion you have above, it's still begging the question. You're just going through semantic shifting to try to make it look plausible.

 

EDIT: I get we just have to explain this more and make more distinctions since visualization/hallucination/imagination in general varies depending on which standpoints/definitions/etc. you take.

 

Uhhh, no. The fact still is that just visualizing means you don't actually perceive them with your actual senses, while imposition means that. And that's a hallucination. If I imagine a cow grazing and see it in my mind's eye clear as day, it's not a hallucination and me claiming it is would be kinda stupid. But me actually seeing that cow right in front of me like it was real is a hallucination. And isn't that what imposition is all about? I'm using sight here because it's a popular one, but I could also use hearing or touch or something, which also can also be felt the same way, either something that's in your imagination (though mind you, hallucinations also of course are just your imagination) or something that is just like it's real, except it's not actually real.

 

Those have been the definitions since... Well, basically the start. I see no reason to redefine them into something that is super complicated and doesn't even explain what they are about, though visualization as the word for something that's not just visual is kinda silly. When a person visualizing says they can't really see the tulpa in front of them in the room, they should understand that visualization isn't supposed to be that. That's imposition, sensing something imaginary as if it was real with whatever sense you have chosen. Soon people are going to say they have imposed their tulpa when they see a fuzzy outline of their tupper when they close their eyes. Redefinitions ahoy, that already happened with possession/switching on the IRC channels.

 

I don't think you ever really read the definitions of the terms we use on these forums, Linkzelda. At least it seems like you don't know what word means what here.

[Linkzelda]

 

Uhhh, no. The fact still is that just visualizing means you don't actually perceive them with your actual senses, while imposition means that. And that's a hallucination.

 

I’ve made it apparent that it’s a matter of explaining things more. It’s clear there’s a connection between the words, and to reduce the ambiguity, we just have to be more detailed.

 

No one is suggesting we're trying to make things super-complicated.

 

I see no reason to redefine them into something that is super complicated and doesn't even explain what they are about, though visualization as the word for something that's not just visual is kinda silly.

 

Right, so you think giving a few more sentences is going to make things more complicated. But trying to be straight-forward is going to cause more confusion to newcomers trying to get the difference.

 

I don't think you ever really read the definitions of the terms we use on these forums, Linkzelda. At least it seems like you don't know what word means what here.

 

Note: “I don’t think” is your disposition on this, you’re making an inference that I don’t know the definitions stated “we” use here. “We” seems to be really referring to what “you” use. It’s clear that if you’re using this notion that I don’t know what terms “we” use on this forum, this doesn’t make your disposition any more true than anyone's opinions. And I’m not trying to validate anything I’m saying is more practical either.

 

It’s quite apparent that if threads like this exist, there’s an inconsistency between terminology. You’re just using a straw man with having an inference that I don’t pay attention to the words being stated in this forum. This doesn’t make the argument you’re presenting related to the whole purpose of this thread.

 

It’s just an ad hominem you’re giving based on what you “feel” like Linkzelda isn’t aware of. You always feel someone isn’t going to be consistent in their terminologies, then if someone makes a critique on yours, you always go back to distracting and trying to pull up sham arguments that have little to do with the purpose of threads like this.

 

Whether I or anyone else that seems to not "get" the terms here, this doesn't mean they can't update and improve from their mistakes. Especially since people are deviating from the tulpa glossary either way and making up their own definitions.

[waffles]

I think the issue is how people try to distinguish between imagination vs. hallucination.

No, this isn't an issue. The two overlap slightly, yes, but for the vast majority of people they are clearly distinct. The rest consists of you trying to confuse things.

 

Your freedictionary quotes already show you what I mean, and I'll highlight the key parts:

1.

a. Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.

1.

a. The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.

In short, hallucination seems real but imagination does not.

 

Let's talk a bit more about these definitions, though. In English, 'hallucination' does not solely refer to what is here the most common usage - apparitions to the senses. It can mean a delusion, in the sense of belief rather than sense. It can also mean a mistake, and there are probably finer shades of usage still. In fact, you should know this because I can see that you've been at the dictionaries yourself. Looking at synonyms, then, is not helpful because in common usage "hallucination" often goes beyond the precise meaning that we use.

 

 

So all in all, 'imagination' and 'hallucination' are completely pragmatic terms, and you're the one playing the semantics game. As a side note, you're also abusing dictionaries and thesauruses; take a look at a wider selection of dictionaries - I've chosen Wiktionary:

hallucination (plural hallucinations)

A sensory perception of something that does not exist, arising from disorder of the nervous system, as in delirium tremens; a delusion.

This definition clearly shows the sensory perception that is core to how we use the definition. Meanwhile,

imagination (plural imaginations)

The image-making power of the mind; the act of creating or reproducing ideally an object not previously perceived; the ability to create such images.

[Sands]

Most of the redefinitions happen on the IRC, keep that in mind, Linkzelda. The people coming in here from IRC usually are the ones who don't quite understand the terms. Or they're just new people who sorta know what a term means but never actually bothered to read the actual definitions in the glossary. For the most part, the forums actually agree what a certain term means. Also you are overcomplicating things by trying to define hallucination and imagination in whatever way you want to do it. Which is confusing.

 

Speaking of using a thesaurus and looking at a synonyms list to make you text nicer, don't. The lists are pretty bonkers most of the time and it's just the sign of a bad writer when you go through them and try to replace every word for "red" with something that is listed as a synonym. Sure, ruby, crimson, scarlet, vermillion and auburn all are shades of red, but they all are very different colors. And still they often are listed as synonyms but they don't mean the same, even though they all might be "red". Saying something is crimson and then vermillion just makes it incorrect. Which color is it? I don't know, you told me two different colors and expect me to know what it is.

 

I can't say I really get how you're arguing about semantics when you're the one trying to overcomplicate everything with useless words or pointing out how this or that word I used means everything I said is moot or something.

[penultimate.forme]

Is it possible for me to use the content of this thread in my zine? (Posted a thread about it in General Discussion.)

 

I was reserving a section for a glossary, but I don't think I would be able to come up with the correct definitions on my own. I think using this content would be way more legitimate, since ya'll are way more informed than me.

Hope this isn't a nuisance, you can PM me with any questions. Thanks.