Jump to content
  • 0





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


Here is the guide:



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 by Ranger
Added back-up txt file
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

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

  • 0

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

  • 0

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

  • 0

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

  • 0

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

Join the conversation

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

Answer this question...

×   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.

  • Create New...