Tulpanomicon

[Affine]

I think the crash removed my thread. If that is not the case, sorry.

 

Here is the guide:

http://tulpanomicon.tumblr.com

 

Above link is dead. The HTML of the guide can be found here: http://pastebin.com/mV6D14Fz or downloaded/opened

here. Taken from waffles' post. ~Kiahdaj

AffineTulpanomicon.txt -Txt file back-up. Explanation here. -Ranger

Edited September 10, 2022 by Ranger
Added back-up txt file

[GGMethos]

I think the crash removed my thread. If that is not the case, sorry.

 

Here is the guide:

http://tulpanomicon.tumblr.com

 

Approved. Nice guide. You go into a lot of detail to present your ideas.

[Linkzelda]

Approved, guides.

[Affine]

 

Approved. Nice guide. You go into a lot of detail to present your ideas.

 

Well, thank you; I tried to at least be comprehensible. Also, thank you for the list.

 

Approved, guides.

 

Thank you as well.

[raphael97]

Wow, liked the "dual core effect".

Perfect explanations, nice guide.

[waffles]

I think last time you posted a pdf version as an attachment as well. Might be worth reuploading that if you still have it.

 

I suppose I have a lot to say about this so I'll break it up into roughly the same sections you do, and summarise at the end.

 

 

 

---

 

General stuff

 

I can't quite figure out whether this is supposed to be a real guide or not. You call it a "guide" in some places and a "reference" in others. The key point about this is that you never actually give any methods for doing anything, which means that this can't go in the Guides section of the forums because it does not belong there. It'd probably go in Resources like this.

 

That's assuming that what you've done is intentional though. I'm not sure. It's not something you've made explicit, although it seems odd to me to write a long document that essentially doesn't tell you how to do anything. In some of the sections below I've pointed out where you haven't given any "how to do" instructions, so take that as redundant if it was intentional.

 

 

Your formatting is bad; your glossary spills into the "Benefits" section because all the headings are the same size and there's no spacing. Use headings that are different sizes (consistently), use page breaks, and make a table of contents, preferably one you can click on to take you to sections.

 

 

 

 

---

 

Terminology

 

Cognitive Dissidence

I guess you mean 'dissonance'?

 

 

Host

 

(n.) an animal or plant on or in which a parasitic or commensal organism lives

Why the irrelevant definitions? You wrote some of these bolded definitions yourself, no less, despite not explaining the term like you want them too. Seems confusing and, in the case I quoted, a bit weird.

 

 

Tulpamancy

You capitalise this a lot, which you shouldn't be doing. You don't gloss this (although you do define it), which I think you should.

 

 

Imposition

 

(v.) the action or process of imposing something or of being imposed

'Imposition' is a noun. You also get your parts of speech mixed up with 'dissolution', which is a noun, and 'parroting' and 'puppeting' which are nouns in this context - if you wanted to gloss them as a verb then gloss 'parrot', because 'parroting' is the participle form.

 

 

Mindseye

Mindsvoice

If you gloss your own terms you're of course welcome to make up as many as you want but the alternative forms you give are in my experience the standard ones. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the ones you do.

 

 

Mindsvoice

 

(n.) an inner feeling or voice viewed or experienced as an entity separate from ones own typical behavior (alt: mindvoice, conscience)

No, conscience is not an alternative spelling or synonym of 'mindvoice'.

 

 

The use of the mindsvoice (often mindvoice), is in the opposition to the conscience people are used to hearing on a daily basis. A mindvoice will typically appear as having a different overall sound, tone, and pitch from the voice of the “super-egoial” voice of conscience or reason. This voice is the voice of the tulpa when speak directly to the host, and another person would. Alternative examples may include; mindstouch, mindseye, mindstaste, mindssound, and mindssmell. Where mindssound would be different from mindsvoice in the way that hearing a sound is different than making a sound.

This is a complete mess. I don't know what the first sentence is supposed to be saying. I don't know what "super-egoial" is, and I don't think it's a real word. The next sentence doesn't grammar.

 

I already said that "mindssomething" isn't a commonly used term. It's just you missing out a few apostrophes and spaces in "mind's touch" and so forth, not that that's a common term either.

 

 

Sentience

You could probably shorten this one to "the ability of a tulpa to react to input".

 

 

A servitor is a tulpa that serves the exclusive purpose, of being a drone of the tulpamancer.

In common usage a servitor isn't a tulpa. I think you've mixed up your thoughtforms and tulpas, actually. You've said that thoughtforms are subsets of tulpas but in common usage it's the other way around, with tulpas and servitors both being thoughtforms but not being each other.

 

 

 

Thoughtform

 

(n.) a combination of presuppositions, imagery, and vocabulary current at a particular time or place and forming the context for thinking on a subject

That's not a useful definition because I can't really make heads or tails of it.

 

 

Tulpa

 

(n.) derived from the Tibetan concept ”to build” or ”to construct”; translated directly as ”magical emanation” or ”conjured thing” (alt: tupper) (plu.) tulpae, tulpas, tulpa

That's not a definition at all; it's an etymology. Your whole definition for tulpas could be a lot clearer if you ask me.

 

 

Wonderland

 

(n.) a land or place full of wonderful things

 

The whimsical thought of a classical wonderland does not fit the description of a tulpa’s wonderland, unless they desire to live in that kind of place. The wonderland represents a place in which a tulpa takes residence, normally in the form of an ideologically perfect construct within a mental space. It is that place a tulpa would always “rather be”.

It's not necessarily any of these things. It's just an imaginary space.

 

 

 

 

Benefits

 

This is not neuroscience as I know it.

 

 

Because the brain is essentially a computational resource, a central processing unit and calculator; it is a computer.

Not really.

 

The mind does not use all of its computational resources concurrently.

I think you'll find it does, in the sense that it does perform different tasks concurrently. Different regions of the brain perform different functions; I assure you that your ideas:

Like any computer it assigns processor time to detailed tasks like; typing, keeping the body upright, messaging the stomach to digest, controlling the flow of materials through the body, especially neurotransmitters and hormones, and making sure to deliver thoughts in a clear manner with audio, and visual communication through the use of complex body language.

are very wrong.

 

The brain is not a computer. It is an organ. It does not have a CPU, it isn't a CPU. It doesn't multitask like a computer does, and it doesn't have "processor time". Things like regulating breathing are done by some regions of the brain, like the brainstem, while other functions like motor memory are done in different places (that's spread out, though).

 

I advise you cut basically everything under this section because it is, as far as all neuroscience can tell you, wrong.

 

The stuff about parallel processing itself I can't say is completely wrong, mind you. But as far as doing two maths problems at once is concerned, I don't have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for it happening or indeed being possible. Even if it is possible, it is in any case not happening for most people who make a tulpa, so you shouldn't list it as a serious benefit.

 

 

 

There are a number of risks within tulpamancy which may include, but are not limited to; pains of the head, pains of the body, existential crisis, loss of memory, and mild change in behavior that may deviate from normal action.

Headaches, yeah, acting crazy, yeah, Not sure about the rest though. Memory loss might be a risk of ~merging~ or something but I don't think straight creation carries it. Pains of the body, maybe but it's not something I hear about. Existential crisis, not really a serious risk?

 

 

Some tulpamancers even strongly suggest a count of the amount of hours forced with a tulpa before it could be considered; these figures range anything from 20 hours to 5000 hours.

20 hours? I've heard shorter.

 

 

An hour of focused activity a day should be enough to achieve a sentient thoughtform within a months time.

That may or may not be a reasonable estimate, but you should try to avoid heavy bias like this. As I'm sure you know, making a tulpa has a lot to do with expectation, and if you tell people "it'll probably take a month" then they are much more likely to take that long than otherwise.

 

 

A wonderland is created for the thoughtform to survive reasonably within.

A wonderland isn't necessary for a tulpa's survival. Even if you think it's a good thing to have, you should mention that it isn't necessary.

 

 

The experiences between the tulpa and host may be strictly recorded.

I don't know what you're talking about here. You mean their communication is in words? Or that the host should keep a diary of their conversations?

 

 

 

 

Form

 

You spend a lot of time talking about how to choose a form, which for most people is the easy part, and not a lot of time talking about visualisation, which is the important part.

 

 

Beginning basic work on the form of the tulpa is simple enough. It is as easy as gathering a slip of paper and a writing utensil, and just working at it, hacking it out from there.

Things like this seem to suggest that working on your tulpa's form really is just deciding what it should look like. Honestly, if it's your opinion that the visualisation itself is trivial then you can write that in your guide, but it would help a lot to put a note in there saying that. This way it's kind of confusing.

 

 

Things to Consider

A lot of this is surely personality stuff, so doesn't belong in the form section. I think most of it is pretty obvious, as well.

 

Unfamiliar Organelles

Not sure what that is.

 

 

 

 

Personality

 

I like what you do say about personality. But much like the form section, you spend all your time talking about the aspects a personality could have and no time at all talking about how to actually make one. You're not just missing "how to give personality to tulpa", you haven't mentioned "how to create personality" in the first place either. So definitely, even if you think that all you need to do to give a tulpa a personality is to write one out or get the idea of one into your head, you need at least to talk about doing that itself.

 

 

 

 

Forcing

 

Once the tulpa has been created, it should not be sentient, if the host thinks it might be, contact another person in the community for peer review.

I'm sorry? I thought you created a tulpa so that it become sentient? I'm guessing you mean "created" as in "form and personality specced out"; even that's not the best thing to say but you should at least clarify if that's what you meant.

 

 

If this happens, work on developing the tulpa’s mindvoice.

This would be good advice if you told us how to develop the mindvoice.

 

 

It is also entirely possible that the tulpa speaks an entirely different language than the host does.

I am not sure that this is entirely possible. I have certainly never heard of it happening. At best you might be talking about what some people call "tulpish" but that's certainly not what the quote implies.

 

 

A tulpa will, wither a host wants it to or not, communicate with the them in the form of “head pressures” or “head pains”.

Well no, that's not a given. Many hosts never got head pressures.

 

 

Puppeting in some ways is more difficult than parroting. Primarily, this is due to the fact that the host has to either visualize the tulpa’s movement through pure imagination, which is hard to do; or has to act them out in real space, where the tulpa visualizes from there using the host’s sense of sight.

Uh, I don't know about that. If you've done form and such then visualising your tulpa should be easy enough. Moving your own body is certainly novel, though I'm not sure what it achieves.

 

 

 

 

Wonderland

 

I already mentioned that a tulpa doesn't need a wonderland. A tulpa can live in 'real space' as it were, or just disembodied.

 

 

When a tulpa is first created, it has a nearly unrestricted access to the host’s subconscious mind, other than the “stop prying for information” order from the host. In the metaphorical sense, a tulpamancer can construct a wonderland in a way that would restrict a tulpa’s access to information the host does not want addressed.

I'm not sure about this. What you're talking about might be just symbolism, but in any case you don't really talk about how one would use a wonderland to restrict access to the ~subconscious~.

 

 

 

 

Masturbation as a Forcing Technique

Uuuuhhhhh

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Maybe this isn't the most important thing to write about, if not just because it's obvious then because it isn't really a forcing technique in its own right. You could say it's visualisation practice maybe.

 

 

 

 

Imposition

 

This whole section seems rather obvious. It is very easy to talk about the various aspects of hallucinations; telling people that they could smell their tulpa is a bit pointless because they've probably guessed that already and want to know how.

 

 

Imposition is a more extreme version of the controlled hallucination that is, tulpamancy.

Tulpamancy isn't controlled hallucination at all, outside of imposition. Similarly:

A primary portion of a tulpa’s sound is the mindvoice, which is already an audio hallucination to begin with. However, the major difference between the mindvoice, and imposing a voice, is that while the mindvoice is heard in the head. Imposing a voice is done with the ears. The important aspect to realize about this, is the human ear has been developed to “audio locate”. Imposing successfully would require the host to be able to locate the tulpa through sound alone, if necessary.

This is going to mislead people. Mindvoice usually isn't a hallucination, because you don't hear it like a real sound. You 'hear' it like an imaginary sound, just like you 'see' your wonderland like an imaginary sight.

 

An imposed voice sounds real enough, as if someone next to you is talking (or maybe as if you're listening to their voice through headphones or something). It has nothing to do with spatial location, and successful audio imposition requires nothing of the sort.

 

 

Sight imposition is one of the harder senses, if not hardest, to impose, Due to the specific reason a tulpa exists in a non-physical space and will, once imposed, need to interact with the physical environment.

That's not why visual imposition is hard. What you're talking about is trivial and can be done with visualisation just as well.

 

 

Visually imposing a tulpa without a form may not be necessary

It may also be impossible. How are you supposed to visually hallucinate something that has no appearance?

 

 

A common tulpa experiment would be, because tulpas do not feel pain, to simply take a bite from them;

Good.

 

 

 

 

This ended up being very long.

 

Summary

• There are no methods in this. I'm not sure if that's intentional though.
  
• Formatting needs work. Your grammar and spelling is iffy in places too.
  
• Many of the terms in your glossary are weird.
  
• Your section on computation is just wrong.
  
• You say a lot of weird things about forcing, wonderlands and hallucinations that I think, as objectively as one can be here, are wrong.
  
• Your form and personality sections aren't that useful.
  

 

 

So I guess this is a disapproval for me. If you fix the stuff I talked about above, it'll go in Resources. Hint hint other GATs who didn't read this I know who you are.

[Linkzelda]

Makes sense, though this would raise questions on other guide submissions that were accepted that explained certain processes, but never really gave a method to most of them other than just referring to other links. In other words, they just gave general statements without some kind of exercise, or something to follow that up, and still ended up being in Guides rather than Resources.

 

Either way, I'll change my vote for approving for Resources, not that this undermines the potential usefulness of this guide submission though.

[Sands]

I'm going to say that anyone who approves of this hasn't read this. Seriously. Jesus. I have decided to go through it bit by bit just because I can't understand these approvals. It's so long I need to split it in two posts.

 

Let's start with that this is not a guide. All this stuff and all these words, they're just more or less defining what something is and why you would do it, but not how you would do it. Which could be an excellent idea if written better, but in this case, I think... Almost everything just falls short. There are also tons of typos and a lot of the stuff waffles already mentioned, but I'll go through some of the stuff that annoys me. I'll also try to catch as many typos as I can. Already read through this once so I might accidentally jump over a few and I really should have listed the typos and such when I first went through this but I'll try.

 

Odd capitalization right off the start. "Reader", Tulpamancer", "The Host"? None of those require it and especially with "The Host", it's pretty bad. Certain words to get capitalized randomly anyways, such as "Tulpa". A quick search and replace for those is suggested.

 

Waffles already touched on the weird terms here, so I'll mostly skip over them. However, host as a term does not refer to the host of a parasite for many of us. We prefer to think of it as being a host of a party. Your definition only has half of the reasoning behind it here. Also, "organism the feeds from...", that the should be "that", I'm sure.

 

Regarding to "mindseye" and the rest of the "mindseverything" this one has, no one other than you calls them that. If you are going to write a guide or something that defines standard terms, I suggest you actually use standard terms. Or English, like mind's eye.

 

Within the mindseye, a host is capable of hearing or seeing a thoughtform. with use the imagination.

 

"With use the imagination"? What?

 

This voice is the voice of the tulpa when speak directly to the host, and another person would.

 

"when speak directly to the host, and another person would"? Uhhh...? In English?

 

Where mindssound would be different from mindsvoice in the way that hearing a sound is different than making a sound.

 

I know what you're saying, but I know it sure took me many times to really get it. Might want to reword it better.

 

but often describes communication to the tulpa from the host with the use of the host’s mindvoice

 

Why do you feel the need to add "with the use of the host's mindvoice" there? Narration can also be out loud and everyone has their preference or uses them depending on the situation. Sure you can add the whole "mindvoice also counts" thing, but right now it almost misleadingly implies that narration can't be spoken out loud.

 

Parroting, in the realm of Tulpamancy, is the repeating of a tulpa’s speech aloud or within the mindseye in order to set the mindvoice or personality of the tulpa in a standardized and controlled way.

 

Sure you can do parrot aloud and actually parrot someone like you would parrot another person's words... But parroting tends to you know, imply you're making the tulpa speak. In your head to at least get the mindvoice going. You couldn't really force a mindvoice with your actual voice and I don't think anyone actually parrots their tulpa out loud, as it would be completely obvious to them the tulpa would never answer this way using their real mouth unless possessing. So that one word there confuses me.

 

Puppeting in Tulpamancy is the similar to the act of parroting...

 

"The" before similar is unneeded. And later on, do we really need to use words like "biomechanical motion" instead of something like I dunno, "movement, moving"? Smells like trying to sound too smart.

 

Once, a tulpamancer’s tulpa has achieved true sentience

 

Seems like an unnecessary comma to me, I can't really see a reason for the comma with what comes after it.

 

A servitor is a tulpa that serves the exclusive purpose, of being a drone of the tulpamancer.

 

If a tulpa is a thing that should at least seem sapient and servitor is something that is programmed to do a certain thing, how could you ever describe a servitor as a tulpa?

 

(plu.) tulpae, tulpas, tulpa

 

I could write a guide about dogs and say that the plural is "dogi", but that doesn't make it right and listing it would make me an idiot who doesn't speak English. Guess which plural I'm talking about here.

 

It is that place a tulpa would always “rather be”.

 

What? Is this implying a tulpa would always rather be in the wonderland? Because I got bad news for you, buddy...

 

Which makes the act of creating a tulpa as a whole, a tempting proposition.

 

Unnecessary comma.

 

Not going to touch computational benefits or the typos, it's bad. A lot of the rest has been talked about by waffles so I won't be pointing out too much stuff for a while, but I'll still look for those typos.

 

Make reparations for this.

 

Pretty sure you mean preparations.

 

it will just always “take a little longer”

 

Always, huh?

 

It has been suggested for people having this problem, before beginning the personality forcing stages; to formally greet the tulpa, using a name the host as assigned it.

 

I suggest you rewrite this part to flow better. Right now the commas and semicolons are a bit what. Keep in mind: the semicolon is not a colon.

 

reason for a lack of tulpa response, is a lapse in direct communication

 

Unnecessary comma.

 

try not to visualize the form of the tulpa; but rather the concept of having a tulpa itself

 

Why semicolon?

 

these figures range anything from 20 hours to 5000 hours

 

Really? I've heard of shorter times. Where does your estimate come from?

 

Even though it is generally considered better force with a tulpa

 

Better TO force with a tulpa maybe?

 

Acceptable Criteria

It has a manipulable form that created by the host, or the tulpa itself.

 

A tulpa requires a form now? That's a first.

 

A wonderland is created for the thoughtform to survive reasonably within.

 

A tulpa also requires a wonderland? Wow. You must be the new tupper guru, knowing all this the rest of us don't.

 

The experiences between the tulpa and host may be strictly recorded.

 

What does this mean?

 

The form is not just comprised of the overlaying outside appearance, it includes the way the tulpa sounds,

 

You might be the first one to claim that the form includes how a tulpa sounds.

 

of the tulpa, its personality, and its attitude

 

It's a list so that's an unnecessary comma before and, really. You know I probably should just stop tracking the commas and semicolons and everything, getting tiring. I'll stick to the typos or when the commas make the sentence unreadable I guess.

 

can acts as the tulpa’s

 

Act, not acts.

 

complete something those host did not desire in the first place.

 

Those host? Uh what?

 

Then again, without a form, what will the tulpamancer need to impose?

 

The voice. Or are you saying a tupper absolutely has to be imposed?

 

In some cases this can be a difficult decision (about gender)

 

Their form and gender is imaginary, they can change it. It's not a really difficult decision.

 

Here is a short list of information the host should consider when developing a form in which the tulpa will manifest.

Sexual Identity, Ideologies, Why They Feel Like, Pain Tolerance, Unfamiliar Organelles, Psychological Willpower, System of Beliefs, Comfort Area, Emotional Apathy, Common Manorisms

 

What do these have to do with the form? Why would we even have to decide many of these things? Also "why they feel like" makes no sense, neither does "unfamiliar organelles" either so how about you describe it in another way and it's "common mannerisms".

 

Again, this is a short list of the things which a host will need to consider in creating a tulpa.

 

Oh wait sorry, it was a list I will NEED to consider when I create a tupper. Silly me, seeing how I didn't do many of these things. :<

 

Also form section basically doesn't talk about visualization at all and doesn't tell us how we would do it or go at creating a form in our mind.

 

as it is essentially spawned from the subconscious mind itself

 

Well, you know what I have to do. >subconscious

 

total process that provides results, but is slowly compared to some other methods

 

I think you mean "slow".

 

Some tulpamancers suggest a certain ratio of active and passive forcing, and even a strict count of hours

 

This happened like 2 years ago. I haven't seen it happen after people started thinking hour counts aren't really such a good idea after all. Is this some Tumblr thing, because I'm asking [by whom?].

 

People have a problem, in particular, more than anything else; in developing a tulpa’s personality

 

I know I said I wouldn't whine about the commas and semicolons again... But come on. This is a mess.

 

which means it will tend towards not annoying the host for the purpose of self-preservation.

 

Hah, yeah right. They definitely never annoy us. Yep.

 

Once a tulpa has been spawned, there is a chance that the tulpa will not communicate at all.

 

"Spawned"? "Chance"? If you mean that when you create a tupper, there is a chance that the tulpa is non-vocal... Then damn skippy they are going to be non-vocal. The tuppers that are vocal as soon as they are made seem to be the minority. And many don't really move that much either, as most really aren't sapient the very second they're made. Of course not taking into account parroted and puppeted tuppers, as I would require the tulpa to actually speak on their own before calling it vocal.

 

...that the tulpa speaks an entirely different language than the host does.

 

Buh. You make it sound like they can speak different languages just like that. You know, real languages.

 

host’s subconscious mind

 

>subconscious

 

A tulpa will, wither a host wants it to or not, communicate with the them in the form of “head pressures” or “head pains”

 

Not all of them will, like has been said before. Some never learn the skill.

 

Active forcing is simply the act of communicating to a tulpa with the use of a their own mindvoice, referred to as narration.

 

Wait what. Did you just call active forcing narration? You could narrate while doing active forcing, yeah... But they're not synonyms. Fix this ASAP. This entire section is just plain wrong. You can actively force much more than what you're talking about.

 

Passively forcing, as opposed to actively forcing, is a period in which a host communicates with their tulpa, that is not a dedicated period of time allocated exclusively for such a purpose.

 

Again mixing forcing with narration. They are not the same thing. This section has to be fixed as well.

 

Parroting may also be useful in order to predetermine a style of speech or set common manorisms.

 

Mannerisms.

 

Puppeting in some ways is more difficult than parroting. Primarily, this is due to the fact that the host has to either visualize the tulpa’s movement through pure imagination, which is hard to do

 

I suggest you don't keep writing how you think things are in your guides. I'd say visualization and thus puppeting is much easier than parroting, so now what?

 

When a tulpa is first created, it has a nearly unrestricted access to the host’s subconscious mind

 

>subconscious

 

Therefore, a meditation style and technique will be needed...

 

Funny, I've never done meditation.

 

A tulpa can also watch the host in the “outside world” from within the wonderland. While they may have been able to do this already, wonderland creation can be a fast and simple fix if this is not happening.

 

Why would it help and why would it be a fix? You're the first person claiming this, please explain.

 

A tulpa can only see what is assigned to it by creating a wonderland, and things that it manifests within that wonderland.

 

Wrong. Your entire hiding stuff is symbolism anyways which could of course be overcome by not believing in this symbolism. It's better to tell hosts to be ready to share everything and for tulpas to be nice about not digging up secrets the host has told them not to touch.

 

The host’s imagination supersedes the information created by the tulpa, thus a host can just think their manifestations away

 

[citation needed]

 

There are hosts who swear by logging the number of hours forced each day.

 

Again, this tends to go back to two years ago. While it can be really helpful, I suggest you don't just throw such empty claims around about these mysterious hosts. You could just give us a tip without mentioning these other hosts.

 

keep from being totally alone in ones life.

 

One's.

 

Masturbation as a Forcing Technique

 

Yes, I'd say this is pretty unnecessary and it doesn't require an entire section devoted to it. People can force any way they want. Saying "fap if you think it helps sheesh" takes less space than all this you have written.

---

is that while the mindvoice is heard in the head. Imposing a voice is done with the ears

 

Why is there a period there?

 

If they want an imposition in full

 

This just sounds like Engrish.

 

A host, through sight imposition, can easily cause themselves, headaches, lightheadedness, migraines, and even nose bleeds.

 

[citation needed]

 

Every tulpa needs attention to survive. Because of the way the brain works and how synapses are built, activities and actions not reinforced often will weaken over time.

 

What if the tulpa gives itself attention?

 

Circle Line Circle, Parallel or Perpendicular

 

I don't get the reason for either of these exercises. Mind actually explaining why we would want to do them?

 

 

Right I actually got to the end. The commas and such are a real bother but there just are so many I don't want to bother going through them all. I suggest getting a bigger team to look over them so this doesn't look as bad.

 

Finishing words, this is not a guide, like I said. It barely goes into any actual forcing, it claims so many things as a fact that it's scary. It's not written very well either. Also it keeps contradicting itself by claiming you have to do x and then saying you don't need to do x later. And because I have read this before, I already notice that this has been changed a bit. I'm not sure if the author plans on changing this, but we as the GAT need to know when changes are made so it can be rated again. If it's going to be stealth edited in the future as well, that means we could approve of something that is total garbage. So we are going to need a changelog in the future.

 

Not to mention many of the word choices just scream tryhard. Don't just pop open a thesaurus and pick the word you think sound nice, you could use much simpler terms.

 

Disapproved. Fix it so it's actually good and we'll think about it.

[Linkzelda]

Ha-ha, it amazes me how people think individuals literally take a thesaurus for the first time to find a word, close their eyes, and go "eenie-meenie-miney-moe," or choose one like they're picking an exotic delicacy on a silver platter. I guess that's what happens when the person presumes the individuals never knew the words properly in the first place, and that sounds like a crazy bias at times to think that the person would be trying too hard, especially when one can't deduce from conjecture whether or not the individual has a hard time using said words; seems more like undermining an individual's competence at times. I guess this is a matter where the individual making that presumption is where they feel they have a grandiose understanding of proper diction, and anything beyond what they conceptualize as being appropriate is shocking.

 

I understand there were clearly terms that may have been out of place, though I see the same when people may use words like "realising" rather than "realizing", but I guess it depends on the upbringing (e.g. American or British diction being emphasized). And I guess when it comes to personal preference, people will make general statements of what's accepted or not, oh well. I read the guide submission, though I just looked at the overall interpretation, so for one to attribute those who didn't read because they weren't militant on a few grammar and spelling seems kind of funny.

 

And as for the few testimonials mentioned in this thread already (and before the server crash), didn't seem like they were too bothered by it. But I guess testimonials ironically don't matter as much in this circumstance. Not saying that the critique so far wasn't fair, it's just part of the system, but it's just when there's implications conflated into that which often undermines the individual's competence (e.g. they're trying too hard, or that they couldn't possibly have understood certain words), that's when it may be a concern.

[Sands]

Oh, they obviously do understand certain words they are using. That's why they're using synonyms, after all, just picking the fancier ones. A bit different that a Brit/Murka spelling difference like theater/theatre, I'd say.

 

Trust me, some people just do go wild at the thesaurus, especially writers of fiction. The awful purple prose they shit out is a sight to behold. Imagine "orbs" as eyes and "pistons" as legs... This is what I'm smelling here, but luckily only for a couple of words and not for the entire sentence. But still, such odd word choices stick out in the middle of the poor grammar.

[Affine]

S: I can't quite figure out whether this is supposed to be a real guide or not. It's not something you've made explicit, although it seems odd to me to write a long document that essentially doesn't tell you how to do anything.

A: Yes, it is a guide. I thought it give clear instructions almost chronologically. I would say that this is a how to, start to finish for tulpa creation. More than just .info is reviewing this guide, so I am taking everyone's input. For the most part, people have read this guide, and have given positive feedback.

 

S: Your formatting is bad; your glossary spills into the "Benefits" section because all the headings are the same size and there's no spacing.

A: This is a side-effect of translating a PDF into HTML directly. There is a reason the guide has a version number, it is still a work in progress. I will take the page brakes into consideration, or just tab indent the definitions.

 

Edit: Fixed took all of 5 seconds.

 

S: I guess you mean 'dissonance'?

A: I thought that too. I was corrected on multiple occasions, so I changed it. Apparently, after some searching, it seems both spelling are used interchangeably.

 

S: Why the irrelevant definitions? You wrote some of these bolded definitions yourself, no less, despite not explaining the term like you want them too.

A: Petty, I'm sorry that just is. They are dictionary definitions of words terminologically attributed to the tulpamancy community. I took those definitions directly from other sources. As this is not a research paper, I was not compelled to reference my source material. Nor do I desire to. I may have admittedly trimmed the definitions to make them sorter, but I did not write them. Most of them were accessed by searching "word + define" in google.

 

S: 'Imposition' is a noun.

A: Just as forcing is a noun? No, forcing is an action a person takes, just as imposition is as action. I imposed, and I forced; are both verbs in the past tense; as in present. Parroting, and puppeting as a concept are nouns, when performing them, they are verbs. English parts of speech are confusing.

 

S: You capitalise this a lot, which you shouldn't be doing.

A: Capitalize, and yes; does one capitalize the name of a subject? I thought you did.

 

S: The glossary.

A: If others agree with you, and they may even provide their own explanations for such concepts if they wish, I will change it. I don't mind working collaboratively.

 

S: I don't know what "super-egoial" is, and I don't think it's a real word. The next sentence doesn't grammar.

A: "super-egoial" is not a real word; it was in quotes for a reason. Referring to the concept of super-ego, -ial; of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego

 

S: I already said that "mindssomething" isn't a commonly used term. It's just you missing out a few apostrophes and spaces in "mind's touch" and so forth, not that that's a common term either.

A: Literally, author's choice. Blame me for that one. I don't like the syntax.

 

S: In common usage a servitor isn't a tulpa. I think you've mixed up your thoughtforms and tulpas, actually. You've said that thoughtforms are subsets of tulpas but in common usage it's the other way around, with tulpas and servitors both being thoughtforms but not being each other.

A: In that case, I wasn't ware of that. I will change that in the next version.

 

S: WOT on Neuroscience.

A: Everyone who reads a guide on tulpamancy has a degree in Neuroscience? No, this guide is made for laypeople, who do may not know what neurons do; not saying that people are stupid, or am doing such as to intentionally misinform them; but am providing anecdotal information. Anyone who has taken a basic level psychology course in university will respond to me in the way that you did. I know this. I was attempting to provide a simplistic view of the concept.

 

S: But as far as doing two maths problems at once is concerned, I don't have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for it happening or indeed being possible. Even if it is possible, it is in any case not happening for most people who make a tulpa, so you shouldn't list it as a serious benefit.

A: I have anecdotal evidence, we are still waiting for the double-blind study that proves tulpa's are actually a thing, or if we are all just mentally ill.

 

S: 20 hours? I've heard shorter.

A: Well, from any kind of reputable source? I would be glad to change that.

 

S: Anything about bias.

A: "Any reader should acknowledge that the content represented here may reflect the personal views of the author. While an attempt was made while writing to avoid personal bias, such action is often inevitable and therefore unavoidable."

 

S: A wonderland isn't necessary for a tulpa's survival. A wonderland isn't necessary for a tulpa's survival. Even if you think it's a good thing to have, you should mention that it isn't necessary.

A: "Again, like the form of a tulpa; a wonderland does not have to exist necessarily. A tulpa can function fine without one, and in fact saves some work for the host."

 

Literally, verbatim from my guide.

 

S: Spend more time on visualization.

A: Will do.

 

S: You're not just missing "how to give personality to tulpa", you haven't mentioned "how to create personality" in the first place either.

A: I thought I covered that subject fine. That might just be me though. I can revise it.

 

S: Tell us how to develop the mindvoice.; Some hosts never get head pressures.

A: Will do.; Thank you, didn't include this. I will now.

 

S: That's not why visual imposition is hard. What you're talking about is trivial and can be done with visualisation just as well. It may also be impossible. How are you supposed to visually hallucinate something that has no appearance?

A: Why would you say visual imposition is hard?; I thought I put a little joke in that section about that.

 

---

Summary

• There are no methods in this. I'm not sure if that's intentional though.
  
• Formatting needs work. Your grammar and spelling is iffy in places too.
  
• Many of the terms in your glossary are weird.
  
• Your section on computation is just wrong.
  
• You say a lot of weird things about forcing, wonderlands and hallucinations that I think, as objectively as one can be here, are wrong.
  
• Your form and personality sections aren't that useful.
  

 

So I guess this is a disapproval for me. If you fix the stuff I talked about above, it'll go in Resources. Hint hint other GATs who didn't read this I know who you are.

 

I would say that I included methods.

My formatting and grammar need work. That is why I am here

Help with the glossary section please

Computational thinking is something some people make comparisons using frequently.

My forcing and wonderland sections may not be well worded, but they certainly are not "weird".

---

Finishing words, this is not a guide, like I said. It barely goes into any actual forcing, it claims so many things as a fact that it's scary. It's not written very well either. Also it keeps contradicting itself by claiming you have to do x and then saying you don't need to do x later. And because I have read this before, I already notice that this has been changed a bit. I'm not sure if the author plans on changing this, but we as the GAT need to know when changes are made so it can be rated again. If it's going to be stealth edited in the future as well, that means we could approve of something that is total garbage. So we are going to need a changelog in the future.

 

Not to mention many of the word choices just scream tryhard. Don't just pop open a thesaurus and pick the word you think sound nice, you could use much simpler terms.

 

Disapproved. Fix it so it's actually good and we'll think about it.

 

Thank you sands, I did read your entire post. I am not that great with grammar as is obvious. I might just rewrite the guide using more regular speech.

---

Oh, they obviously do understand certain words they are using. That's why they're using synonyms, after all, just picking the fancier ones. A bit different that a Brit/Murka spelling difference like theater/theatre, I'd say.

 

Trust me, some people just do go wild at the thesaurus, especially writers of fiction. The awful purple prose they shit out is a sight to behold. Imagine "orbs" as eyes and "pistons" as legs... This is what I'm smelling here, but luckily only for a couple of words and not for the entire sentence. But still, such odd word choices stick out in the middle of the poor grammar.

 

Well, a make 3D models for sci-fi video games for a living. Does that count?

No, but seriously going to rewrite it and try to done down on my "overzealous vocabulary"

 

I'll do my best to enforce both yours and sands suggestions.