PsiQss' thought's relocation as a general forcing booster

[PsiQss]

Hello everyone. Before I start, I'd like to say that this entire idea is based off of a guide I was reading last year: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-focus-concentration-removing-doubts-and-general-meditation-technique. (Much thanks to nice people on this forum who helped me find it) I hightly suggest reading it to have a good understanding of the thoughts in your own mind, because in my method, we'll be trying to manipulate them instead of simply silencing.

 

The lost guide

 

The guide itself was about a method of dealing with intrusive thoughts but we're going to reverse it here and use it to strengthen thoughts instead of killing shooting them down.

The idea is to feel the thoughts as they form and destroy them before they are strong enough to distract you. You want to feel your tulpa and you know how her thoughts are different from your own, intrusive thoughts. You want to focus on your tulpa but identify and annihilate any thought that feels different, before those thoughts even reach you.

 

The guide explained it with words (well, duh!). You think of a word and say it in your mindvoice. You have to get the idea of where is this word coming from. Now you cut it before you're done saying it. You keep repeating the word and cutting it shorter and shorter, until all that's left is the intention to say this word. It is important that you start the word with intention to say a complete word and then cut it, you shouldn't initially intend to say just half of the word!

Now after that exercise, once you get the idea you should be able to cut the intrusive thoughts right away, when you feel a "spark" of the thought. That's pretty much it.

 

I'd be really grateful if we could find the actual guide though. It was explained far better there but aside from that, I really feel like I'm using someone else's work here :/

But let's move on to using this method to our advantage. Once you get the idea of where the thought is coming from and how they feel, you should be able to (instead of cutting it short) focus on how those thoughts feel and "stimulate" them. You could use it to strenghten your tulpa's voice or even take it a step further and proceed to my relocation method.

 

How it works

 

And what does this actually do. As mentioned in the title, this method is a forcing booster, which means it is not much of a forcing technique of its own. Once you get the gist of it, it's supposed to take from one to five minutes before your actual forcing method. By relocating the thoughts (if done correctly) you're forcefully changing your beliefs so that you subconsciously know (not 'think') your tulpa is there and you can get the right mindset for forcing. If it doesn't go so well, you should at least get a better feel of your tulpa, which is always a bonus. But it's still experimental, so far I've only tested it on myself, so worst case scenario your head can explode, implode or both. You've been warned.

Origins of the relocation method

 

(If you want you can skip this paragraph and go to the next one right away as that's where most of the practical information is)

 

I have discovered an odd thing with my mind few years ago. I've been thinking of something related to my potential future, it was something along the lines of what my future job could be after a few years, doesn't really matter. What does matter though, is that it was something real. Something that could really happen. But this all felt like I didn't really believe it could. I knew that it was realistically possible, but I've been thinking of it as if it was not. And I didn't know why.

Few days later I've figured this out. I was about to have an exam of some sorts and I kind of imagined myself passing it with no problem, just visualized it to kind of let go my worries and to believe I can pass it. But it didn't feel right, I've been thinking of it, again, as if it wasn't going to happen. So I began analyzing this - the thought about the exam taking place felt real, I knew it WAS going to happen, while the thought about me passing it felt like a wish, fiction. It wasn't a difficult exam too, so I wasn't really worried about failing it. I didn't know why but even though both of those felt realistic, I've been thinking of them differently. I've decided to focus on actually learning for it though, and left those issues for the next day.

 

After the exam itself I came back to thinking of thoughts. And now, the thoughts about the exam and me passing it felt completely different - they were in the past now. I started messing around with thoughts, thinking of different things to find out how they 'feel'. And I've noticed that certain thoughts have something in common, they feel similarly real. I didn't know why but my mind seemed to be "categorizing" them.

 

The next time I've had a similar situation to the exam one (which btw I've passed, don't worry) I've tried to make myself believe more. I wondered why isn't that thought in this or that category, while it felt like it should be there? So I've tried to move it to that category myself. After few minutes of concentrating on those thoughts and analyzing them, I managed to make it feel right, to really make myself believe in this (can't remember what it particularly was though, lol).

 

So that's what I call the relocation, the process of reorganizing your mind, kind of, to make yourself think about stuff the way you want. From this day forth, I've been using this method whenever I wanted to really believe in something, I've even done some fun experiment like relocating my past memories to the future. Nothing big though, just recent events, but to my surprise, even though I knew those things happened already, I was expecting them to happen tomorrow.

 

I don't know why, but even though I've kind of been using this method for a while, only recently did I think of applying it to forcing. And here's how I did it.

 

Location of thoughts in the mind

 

Even before I started forcing, I've noticed that different types of thoughts have a different feel associated with them. I'll call it "mind location" for the sake of simplicity. So, the locations. For forcing purposes, we'll focus on a few basic ones.

 

The first "axis" is time. We have:

Past - those are mostly your memories, and generally everything that's related to the past, pretty straightforward.

Present - everything you think about your current life, including short time memories and plans for the upcoming days.

Future - those are mostly your plans for life and things that will, or could potentially happen one day.

 

The next "axis" is reality, things get a little tricky here:

Real - those are things that seem real to you. Things that you do every day and things that very much can happen. Or things that did actually happen.

Fiction - those are things that you consider "real" but you don't really believe that could happen. For example, thinking of winning million dollars on a lottery or even imagining yourself taking revenge on a bully if you don't really believe you could do it.

Fantasy - those are things that are not real, not possible and cannot happen in the world we know.

 

 

(Much thanks to Twilight for formatting this for me :3)

 

The relocation

 

Before we proceed further, you'll have to pinpoint all the mind locations mentioned above, in your own mind. Think of something from a particular category and try to understand how it feels. Once you've got the gist of it, you can do a simple trick.

If you have problem with something related to your tulpa, for example vocality, try to imagine how would it be if you were actually able to clearly talk to them. This will probably be somewhere in Future Fiction or Future Fantasy area, depending on how you think of it. All you have to do now, is to forcefully "relocate" this thought to Present Reality. Again, this doesn't mean throwing the thought from right side of your brain to left. You have to understand the difference in how you think of reality and fiction, and simply "think it differently".

 

Don't misunderstand me, this won't instantly make your tulpa vocal. Nevertheless, it can significantly speed up the process. The purpose of this trick is to make you FEEL your tulpa being there and speaking/listening to you. Once you feel it, it should be much easier to actually hear them. It's like tuning in to correct wavelength to speak to them properly. It makes you feel exactly how it would feel if they were really there. And most importantly, it weakens your mind barrier that blocks their thoughts - your subconscious takes it as real, not a fantasy, so why would it filter it out, right?

 

This method has worked for me so far, extremely well. After the first try I felt like my tulpa was really sitting next to me. I felt it the same way I feel someone's presence when I close my eyes and I know they are still there. But I'd like you guys to try it out for yourself and share your results so we can all make sure it really works. I've had huge progress recently, so it probably does, at least to some degree.

 

Happy forcing, and I hope you find it at least slightly helpful. Remember to read alot of guided, combine them and find what works for you best!

 

Chart back-up:

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ranger
Added image back-up

[Linkzelda]

But I'm finding it hard to explain things in a non-symbolic way.

 

It's alright because I highly doubt there's going to be guide submissions that will be purely non-symbolic. It gets to a point where we would have to weigh in anecdotal and experiential cases (which seems to be overlooked at times) and other aspects instead of just going by what 4 guys stated, and conflating that as the general populace of the tulpa community (whether it was stated in jest, or actually serious).

 

Things can get personal in meaning, though I figured that if people are gregarious enough, they can find correlation through other examples and means of conceptualizing methods like this.

 

Maybe if more people respond and provide some testimonials in the future, there may be someone that can get the underlying concept, and provide an explanation of the end result behind the method you've submitted. I mean, the end result is obvious for me, though giving an interpretation on my end would probably have the translation skewed, or just not fitted for the one that submitted in the first place.

 

I'd approve for tips as it is now though.

[waffles]

Well, 'moving' the thoughts around, I agree, is symbolism. Relocating on the other hand (at least that's how I see it) is not necessarily 'moving'. It is getting an idea of the thought and re-creating it, basically thinking it again, but this time the same way you perceive reality. Think of it as copy-paste. I know, symbolism again, but I'm finding it hard to explain things in a non-symbolic way.

 

Okay, yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that not everyone even feels thoughts differently like you do. That is, they perceive thoughts about reality in the same way as thoughts about hypotheticals. This would mean that your guide here wouldn't literally be applicable, even if some more fundamental aspects like what I mentioned would be.

 

Still, we agree on the end result so I guess that's okay.

 

 

It's alright because I highly doubt there's going to be guide submissions that will be purely non-symbolic. It gets to a point where we would have to weigh in anecdotal and experiential cases (which seems to be overlooked at times) and other aspects instead of just going by what 4 guys stated, and conflating that as the general populace of the tulpa community (whether it was stated in jest, or actually serious).

 

Baseless libel. My research is as serious as it is rigorous.

 

Seriously though, I did actually survey myself and three other people and the results were as I stated. I don't have any reason to believe that my admittedly small sample is atypical, at least in the surveyed aspect. I'm not claiming that this result is definitive or rigorous but for me it's at least significant to warrant more than "it doesn't represent the majority of the community". You're welcome to do your own slighly-less-ad-hoc research, of course.

[Linkzelda]

 

 

I'm not claiming that this result is definitive or rigorous but for me it's at least significant to warrant more than "it doesn't represent the majority of the community".

You're welcome to do your own slighly-less-ad-hoc research, of course.

 

 

TL;DR at the bottom:

 

I never thought that the consensus from a few people felt they had empirical foundations, or had rigorous study in the first place to come up with objective results. I do apologize if my wording implied anything you stated of lesser value, which isn't the case since communal generalizations, whether small or grand is all we have for the communities related to tulpas anyway.

 

It's just that when it comes to finding non-symbolic, or at least things that require more exposition from symbolic methods, it would imply that the person would try to make some association with their presumptions with pre-existing knowledge. Because even if the symbolism is explained as objectively as possible (but doesn't have to be absolute of course), if people find the associations silly, it's setting up a dead end for the person submitting the entry.

 

This is where testimonials, anecdotal/experiential cases come in since it's pretty much putting good faith that there's some potential in said methods that are symbolic, and what have you.

 

This is why I felt that if things appear to be silly for someone reading could be for many factors:

 

- The person probably doesn't have enough of a mental library to find associations, correlations, and such behind said symbolism (e.g. seeing the premise behind the method, and the end result, and knowing it's just one of many ways to reach that). Though I figured at some point an individual would have to be used to unorthodox ways of thinking from time to time with tulpas especially.

 

- Things that may cause strife for the individual (e.g. wording of "subconscious" that they feel might imply metaphysical, or other conflated and confusing terms), which prevents them from understanding the premise.

 

- The individual may not be accustomed to visualizing how they would go about doing the methods, or just being consistent. Especially those that may have their own system of methodology, and conceptualizing things related to tulpas

 

This is why submissions that may be considered to be mostly symbolic in methodology and such seem to suffer the fate of explanations that would require more presumptions even if they associated it with pre-existing knowledge of things like psychology, neuroscience, etc. In other words, their explanations may be considered pseudo-science, which would make things even worse and complicated than the content they had before, and may be presumed to be metaphysical, weird, or whatever label people see fit.

 

It's not me attacking you for feeling you think you made valid statements that had research and study into it, nor presuming you want OP to have empirical evidence at all. It's just these submissions that get confusing seem to indirectly demand empirical evidence and study in order to give any sense of assurance to other readers.

 

Especially with a submission like this that makes presumptions on locations of the brain that may be associated to communication and tulpas, they're working hypotheses at best that could for some, but not everyone. It's just a strawman to feel I would have less-than-ad-hoc research when I specifically stated before in other submissions (at least I hope that was the case) that we're going by good faith, anecdotal/experiential cases, and other factors when seeing the potential for submissions in general.

 

This isn't critiquing your rating, or anyone else because they're all informative and definitely have substance in helping the submission. It's just a common trend (the submissions and the confusion with symbolism, metaphors, etc.) that I've seen with anything where the scientific and philosophical underpinnings are non-existent.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

 

It's just a strawman (whether you presumed or not) to presume I would think I'd have evidence, and the same if I presumed you did from what was just a simple consensus from a few people. Especially if everything stated in this forum, and others would be ad hoc at best until something gets introduced in the domain of science for experimentation and further study.

 

This is why submissions implied as symbolically stepped methods, or just symbolism with no instruction reach an impasse when the submitter can't explain things better, i.e., the explanation would probably have to be associated to scientific underpinnings that could be criticized and considered pseudoscience, and make things worse than the original content of the submission. Not that the submission being shifted to Tips (if there's the right amount of approvals) would make it of lesser value for others looking for methods, it's just a little analysis on my end.

 

It was more of a generalized struggle that may occur in the near future with the tulpa phenomenon, so I do apologize if the post seemed to have directed mostly towards you, and the others you had a discussion with for the submission.

[waffles]

That post is really hard to understand in parts and, without mincing words, reads like it was written by a mechanical translator in some parts and a spambot in others. I'm not picking on you or trying to devalue your post because I don't like what's in it; it really is that bad.

 

It's just these submissions that get confusing seem to indirectly demand empirical evidence and study in order to give any sense of assurance to other readers.

 

It's just a strawman to feel I would have less-than-ad-hoc research when I specifically stated before in other submissions (at least I hope that was the case) that we're going by good faith, anecdotal/experiential cases, and other factors when seeing the potential for submissions in general.

 

Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I was using my little survey to back up what I wrote, because I was actually generalising about how other people thought; it would be better I do that with weak evidence than no evidence. Normally neither you or I would need it because we'd have a better idea of things just from being around, but that doesn't apply here because this sort of thing never gets mentioned.

 

 

It's just that when it comes to finding non-symbolic, or at least things that require more exposition from symbolic methods, it would imply that the person would try to make some association with their presumptions with pre-existing knowledge. Because even if the symbolism is explained as objectively as possible (but doesn't have to be absolute of course), if people find the associations silly, it's setting up a dead end for the person submitting the entry.

 

You seem to be starting from the premise that a guide is already symbolic, in which case I can't help but agree that if readers don't like the symbolism then they won't like the guide. That's kind of why we have a problem with symbolic guides.

 

The reason I wrote what I did in my first post was to help the writer find a non-symbolic method behind this. I'm not saying he should be able to first try, but that's what we're here for, right.

 

 

I'm gonna move this to Tips now seeing as no-one else wants to chip in, and we're all in agreement.

[Sands]

I wouldn't move this anywhere (well it already was moved) until we get enough votes, otherwise we've come to the point we wanted to avoid which is the minority of GAT deciding what gets approved and what doesn't. And that ain't right, sounds more like abuse of power. No votes means it's time for us to go back to tell the guys to look alive.

 

Now I think I have read something similar to the guide you have, Psi, because what you added sounds very familiar. I think it might be enough to actually tell us what this guide is about and gave us something less symbolic to work with. I'm not sure if the symbolism way is the same as the explanation you offered at the start, but I'll take your word that they are similar enough to be considered to share their roots, so to speak. But I do think I finally understand what you're trying to teach us, so I'm glad you added that thing.

 

I almost think that the guide you're looking for had been posted on .info before and we had to rate it, so I guess it should be here if it still exists. If you have already checked every guide then I don't know what has happened to it or if it just was another place where we both read it. I would approve of this for tips now (unless we suddenly find the other guide and they are somehow more or less identical which means one is redundant) if waffles actually decides to ask for votes. Which I think he should, even though I know he wants things to happen fast.

[Twice Sparked]

Interesting tip. On the whole it seems like a more concrete way of describing mindfulness, made accessible to forcing without the abstract language of meditation guides. Good show.

 

But with respect to the lost guide, is this it? I remember seeing it while reading Garland's PR. Seems to fit your recollection.

[Linkzelda]

You seem to be starting from the premise that a guide is already symbolic, in which case I can't help but agree that if readers don't like the symbolism then they won't like the guide. That's kind of why we have a problem with symbolic guides.

 

I didn’t state anywhere that all guide submissions are inherently symbolic (be it through their methods, or without instruction at all). The ones that are presumed to be mostly symbolic in certain circumstances suffer a dead end sometimes when the OP can’t explain things better. I already mentioned that it’s unlikely to find submissions that are symbolic free, but that doesn’t mean entries with a small shred of symbolism is considered to be already symbolic (as in it mostly being symbolic), at least for me.

 

The reason I wrote what I did in my first post was to help the writer find a non-symbolic method behind this. I'm not saying he should be able to first try' date=' but that's what we're here for, right.[/quote']

 

There’s no need to justify or explain the logic behind the critique you gave since I’m not really against seeing another perspective in the first place that already provided a way for OP to build upon. I completely understand that OP may just need to give the submission a few more tries if they feel they can (whether it stays in Tips or is moved elsewhere), especially when more voices from others on their experiences may pop up in the future.

 

Again, typing late at night is a horrible habit of mind from the previous post, but hopefully this post shows that my previous post was just adding on to what you guys stated for the sake of OP hopefully seeing different perspectives on the guide submission in general. It wasn’t aimed to be a rebuttal on your posts. I just thought referencing to you guys every now and then would fit the implication that there’s group thinking involved, and nothing done in a negative manner for personal reasons.

 

-----

I agree with Sands that maybe more votes can be taken, though I worry if some would vote the submission as the bane of a newcomer’s journey for prosperity and success in the tulpa journey, or some weird logic like that.

[waffles]

Okay, I moved it back here. We have 3 votes and NotAnonymous told me what he was going to say a few days ago, but I guess we could wait for Methos or Averian to stir from their slumbers.

 

Man Linkzelda I'm not gonna take it personally if you say something that contradicts something I say. You know you get more of a group voice if we actually discuss things.

[GGMethos]

Approved for tips and tricks.

[Averian]

I vote to put it into the tips section, after a short discussion with another member I thought people did this already without needing to know how. I've been doing this from the start.