Jump to content

Tulpanomicon


Affine
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The most important thing you should focus on because you apparently didn't get it is that there is no actual method in your "guide". You outline what something means but you don't explain how you would do this thing. Your form section doesn't even talk about visualization. And well, I'll let waffles answer to the parts that were directed to him, but I can tell you I am shaking my head to a few of your responses. I'm sure he'll tell you why.

 

Your guide, again, is full of contradictions. You claimed yourself that a wonderland is needed in one part and then said that it's not in another part. Fix those, definitely.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Let's take the example of your form section. You tell us everything about why to create a form, and that we need to decide on the important features of our tulpa's form. Lastly you tell us to "gather a slip of paper and a writing utensil, and just work at it". But this is where I get confused. Is making a list of features all you consider form work to be? Or is the visualisation part covered under 'Forcing' implicitly?

 

As far as I can see, this same analysis applies for the personality section.

 

 

 

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.

Dissonance and dissidence aren't interchangeable as far as I know. "Cognitive dissidence" would seem to imply that your mind is trying to overthrow you or something.

 

 

 

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.

You should reference your sources anyway, it's just good practice.

 

Well, the reason I brought it up was because these definitions aren't the ones used in the context of tulpas and therefore aren't relevant. It seems odd to me to put two conflicting definitions under each term in the glossary.

 

 

 

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.

When I say "parroting is bad", 'parroting' there is a verbal noun. Your definition of parroting uses the same part of speech, so you should gloss that as a noun. But better practice is to gloss 'parrot' as the verb, like I said.

 

Imposition is most definitely a noun though. Not even a verbal noun either. "I imposition"? I don't think so. You can gloss 'impose' as a verb if you wanted.

 

 

 

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

No, this isn't German. You only capitalise proper nouns, which this isn't. Also if you correct my British English, which is correct, we'll be here all day.

 

 

 

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.

It's not simplistic, it's wrong. It does not resemble a simplified version of scientific consensus in any shape or form. The fact that some of your readers won't know that you're knowingly feeding them lies is all the more reason to not do it.

 

 

 

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

What do you think? I've just heard accounts of it happening.

 

 

 

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."

I don't mean personal bias, I mean expectation bias. You bias your readers as to how long the process will take, which is frowned upon.

 

 

 

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.

Also verbatim:

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

In addition to giving the tulpa a place to survive within, a wonderland serves many more purposes than that.

These quotes seem to say to me that a tulpa does need a wonderland to survive. So like Sands said, you're contradicting yourself. That or those quotes are just poorly phrased.

 

 

 

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

If you want my nontechnical and intuitive opinion, it's because our sense of sight is the most - I want to use 'tangible' but that doesn't make sense; maybe 'dominant' - in our experiences. That's not explained very well. There are probably neurological explanations out there.

 

 

 

I notice you didn't address what I said about hallucinations but didn't change it. That made up the bulk of the weirdness I think.

 

 

 

Anyway, you don't need to rewrite the guide. Well, given the grammar that came out of the first attempt, maybe it just wouldn't do much good. You do need to enlist the help of an editor or proofreader or two - which the GAT by default are not, but you could ask nicely - preferably people who speak English as their first language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do need to enlist the help of an editor or proofreader or two - which the GAT by default are not, but you could ask nicely - preferably people who speak English as their first language.

 

And actually speak and write it well. Similar mistakes found in this guide have been done by native speakers as well.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Morgan. I know you're having fun with your little joke, but not only are those not required for a "complete" guide, this guide has a lot more going for it that should be disapproved than a lack of a section. And a joke section. Step up your game and start posting actual reasons.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blank vote, Guides, leaning toward disapproval until the fixes mentioned by others are applied.

 

I was going to write a very long post commenting on each section of the guide/resource, but seeing as how waffles and Sands have already touched on half the issues I was going to comment on and they're not fixed yet, I'll abstain for now.

 

If you do take the time to fix those issues, I'll take the time to write that full comment.

 

My overall impression of the guide is that it has some interesting ideas, but at the same time, makes a bit too many strong assumptions and uses terms a bit unusually compared to the rest of the community, and a few of the techniques should be discussed more (which can be done after the main issues are fixed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

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

Guest
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...