1 year and 7 months

[Lunaclipse]

I don't know what to do. It is officially one year and seven months since I started work on my tulpa. No action. Not a single word. Not a single movement. I have seen no independence or sentience of any sort and I'm just lost on what to do. It's driven me so far into sadness that I'm even contemplating giving up - something that I promised myself I would never do...

[Kaga and Company]

Here's an important question: are you sure you haven't gotten any reply?

 

No raw emotion, no head pressures, no mindvoice, no body language through visualizations... nothing?

 

You not once heard a thought in your head that you weren't sure came from you, or "saw" your tulpa do something that you didn't consciously try to imagine him/her doing?

 

There's a good chance you have gotten a response, but just didn't acknowledge that it was your tulpa. The way tulpas speak is not limited to hallucinations. I for one have never received any auditory or visual hallucinations from my tulpas, but I would still consider them very sentient (well, the older ones, at least).

[Raetin]

Tell us what you're doing, so we can tell you if your doing enough or not.

[Lunaclipse]

Everything I was doing has slowed to a complete standstill recently, and it's just a few words of narration here and there. It's nowhere near enough, I know, but the motivation is just gone.

---

Here's an important question: are you sure you haven't gotten any reply?

 

No raw emotion, no head pressures, no mindvoice, no body language through visualizations... nothing?

 

You not once heard a thought in your head that you weren't sure came from you, or "saw" your tulpa do something that you didn't consciously try to imagine him/her doing?

 

There's a good chance you have gotten a response, but just didn't acknowledge that it was your tulpa. The way tulpas speak is not limited to hallucinations. I for one have never received any auditory or visual hallucinations from my tulpas, but I would still consider them very sentient (well, the older ones, at least).

 

No, I have never received a single element of communication from my tulpa at all. No response. Any times that there might be something, I have literally caused it with sub-intention. I think about some sort of "what if" question, and I just hear it repeated word for word. The same happens when I imagine him moving - I can visualise it, but I'm 100% sure that it's all puppeting because of how I can control it and how I start it.

[Linkzelda]

I’ll throw a theory at you

 

What if that repetition is their way of converting raw thought into something more direct and comprehensible to you? In other words, you’re probably used to what they’ll be saying because you’re also accustomed to their general disposition; when you’re accustomed to their general disposition, it would be natural for you to imagine how they would linguistically assess themselves when talking to you.

 

So when you’re giving those “what if” questioning to infinity, you shouldn’t be surprised that things seem to be repeated word for word. Maybe it’s just a sign to find more words to mean the same thing to sustain any assurance that they’re being authentic in their communication, and that it’s not really you actively trying to parrot their thoughts.

 

An analogue to hopefully further this conjecture:

 

- If we’re talking to someone we generally know in terms of disposition, philosophy, religion, politics, and things of that nature, and I mean knowing them fairly well, it would be natural for us to create some kind of conceptual projection of them; imagining how they would respond to the question. But in this circumstance, even though we can make presumptions of how they’ll behave, we won’t really know how they’ll formulate their response word for word; we could paraphrase it in advance at best if we really know them inside and out, but the exact phrasing is what separates that conceptual “them” from the “them” you’re interacting at that time.

 

So when you’re trying to imagine this in your head with your tulpa, it may seem complicated at times to go through that scenario where you can’t really know what they will say to you word for word. But if you’re going through the same “what if” question, and expecting a nuance in linguistic output, it’s no surprise that you can’t find anything authentic. What I think could be your struggle in this conjecture of mine is that you’re using their wording being dependent on that conceptual model you have in the back of your mind of their general behavior.

 

It’s something you can’t really touch; you can feel and get a grasp of it due to the accumulative experiential learning you’ve had with them in those what if questions, but it may not really be you parroting; you’re just not adding enough spice in your diction and wording. Kind of like me being a word slinger right now in this post, if I had a conversation with Eva or Ada, I wouldn’t think they’re parroting me (lol, I really just put myself as the one being parroted, how cute) because I would have my own personal set of conceptual what ifs on their general disposition, and how they may assess those kinds of questions.

 

Being aware of that construction of raw thought into something made comprehensible to us doesn’t have to subsequently mean we’re parroting. If we were aware of how they’re using that construction for communication, and actively wanted to alter it to our own pleasure, then in theory, that would be equivalent to parroting. But if it’s something that comes by like a fleeting thought where you’re not second guessing yourself, it could just be how they feel they can communicate to you with little to no semantical quibbling and confusion.

 

So to go back on how you construct those “what ifs,” when you’re actually faced in placing a question for them to respond to, you may be prone to naturally imagine how they would convey a message, and then they’re attached to how you imagine them conveying that message. So when the message is conveyed, you felt you went through a multi-pass rendering to convey said message. But think about it, if you were aware of going through those multiple passes of trying to convey that raw thought, wouldn’t you be aware of yourself going through the process, and stop yourself mid-sentence of said thought being constructed?

 

In other words, you’d probably stop yourself mid-sentence, and see you were parroting if you were actively (with conscious perseverance) constructing each multi-pass of how the raw and indirect through gets converted into something verbal. But let’s be honest here, do you feel you were doing something like that? If so, how you feel what’s coming doesn’t mean you’re always in some perpetuating parroting cycle where no shred of original thought and novelty can be apparent…it’s just a matter of expanding your word base.

 

But even if you did that, you’d then have to question how you react to making paraphrases of what they may say vs. what they’re saying to you, and being aware of the nuances that doesn’t make the paraphrase word for word; because then it wouldn’t be a paraphrase, it would be for verbatim. Do you see the difference there?

 

An analogue to emphasize this:

 

Host: Hey, what’s your favorite food?

(Back in the host’s mind): - “I have a feeling they’ll say this (-insert paraphrasing-) because of their general reaction to certain foods, and me asking them this question already.”

 

Tulpa: “ I like Lo Mein Noodles because ordering them spicy tastes good, and I like spicy stuff because of the rush of sensations felt from eating it, and it can be good with other kinds of meat as well!”

 

(Back in the host’s mind): “Hmm, seems to fit how I paraphrased how she would respond, even though her response had some linguistic nuances in it, but I still feel it’s resonating with how I paraphrased how she would respond to it”

 

Host: “God damn it, I’m parroting.”

 

TL;DR:

 

Eva: Try to create more subjective what ifs instead of creating an iteration loop of a few set of what if questions, and maybe fixate awareness on certain nuances/variations of their response, even if it may fit how you would generally paraphrase themselves assessing the question at the time, and see if it’s something you would say. If it’s something you would say, try to replicate that what-if scenario, and see if you’re aware of yourself actively constructing the indirect thought from start to finish through multiple passes of conveying the message; because chances are, if you were aware of that, you’d probably stop yourself mid-sentence before the response was stated, or you wouldn’t even state it at all because you were aware of formulating it word for word in the first place.

 

You know what I mean? It would be fairly redundant for us to say something we feel we constructed actively (compared to passively being aware of a fleeting thought from them) from the beginning, and hearing it out only to feel we really constructed that word for word; the awareness of that isn't really construction of words, it's just awareness of those experiences eventually coming in some shape or form, i.e., sentience. BINGO! ( I think?)

[Raetin]

I can tell you that narration here and there didn't get me anywhere in terms of progress. After a few months of just chatting with Reah with narration sprinkled throughout the day, it didn't get me anywhere. If your going to do narration, you have to do it frequently everyday. If you can't, you'll have to sit down and actually work with your tulpa. This is what I learned from that experience.

[Lunaclipse]

I can tell you that narration here and there didn't get me anywhere in terms of progress. After a few months of just chatting with Reah with narration sprinkled throughout the day, it didn't get me anywhere. If your going to do narration, you have to do it frequently everyday. If you can't, you'll have to sit down and actually work with your tulpa. This is what I learned from that experience.

 

I used extensive and frequent narration for the best part of 16-17 months. That is what I've been doing for so long, along with a few separate methods alongside.

[Linkzelda]

If you truly did extensive and frequent narration for 16-17 months, somewhere along the line, you would be able to come up with all sorts of ideas to talk about, even if they’re just random, and even nonsensical at times. There would be some kind of connection made where you don’t have to go through so many iteration loops that seem to be redundant, because you would ideally have a kind of imagination that could support your presumed propensity of being a steady conversationalist with your tulpa(s).

 

Things like this even makes me convinced that we should have a steady progress log (private and/or public) on how much time we devoted throughout the day with our tulpa, albeit without any kind of expectation that a certain threshold of time will equal a certain breakthrough. Because what may be extensive and frequent for you may be a cakewalk for others, and trying to gauge out the ideal frequency will just be biased in some way because everyone has a different mindset and work ethic. Some can probably do the work you did over those months in less time, depending on how they schedule themselves. And if you’re doing something over and over again without having some gradual attempts that can be mentally taxing for you, then you’re probably stuck on plateaus. It’s like doing something steady, and boosting it up with more than you can handle, then toning things down, and going through that cyclical trend to keep active while also finding a way to have that system balance out with your personal life.

 

Maybe you just need to do more than you can, or find another method where you’re forced to tap into your imagination. Or maybe it’s a matter of developing a mindset where you can constantly see yourself being content with acknowledging their existence in some shape or form. Though it’s easier said than done because not everyone is going to want to make more sacrifices than needed when they can’t have some frame of reference with breakthroughs (e.g. having a voice to talk to make themselves assured), and then comes the receptivity for more doubting comes in, and we’re at a dead-end here.

 

But being aware of that dead-end, and seeing if all those aggrandized claims we make is enough or not, is better than just going through the same process with lackluster intention because we learn to humble ourselves, and keep going.

[Lunaclipse]

An analogue to emphasize this:

 

Host: Hey, what’s your favorite food?

(Back in the host’s mind): - “I have a feeling they’ll say this (-insert paraphrasing-) because of their general reaction to certain foods, and me asking them this question already.”

 

Tulpa: “ I like Lo Mein Noodles because ordering them spicy tastes good, and I like spicy stuff because of the rush of sensations felt from eating it, and it can be good with other kinds of meat as well!”

 

(Back in the host’s mind): “Hmm, seems to fit how I paraphrased how she would respond, even though her response had some linguistic nuances in it, but I still feel it’s resonating with how I paraphrased how she would respond to it”

 

Host: “God damn it, I’m parroting.”

 

 

It's always a word-for-word repetition, which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish anything different. I've tried a variety of expectations, all with a word-for-word repetition of what I expect. Varying the question has no effect either.

[Linkzelda]

I see, so the personal assurance on your end can’t be contingent on just what’s being declared to you, parroted or not. So then it’s a matter of developing a disposition of how you see narration. You could go with the logic of expressing yourself in some way through your tulpa through some form of communication (e.g. narrative, declarations of experiential learning in the past, asking a series of questions), but that’s merely the stepping stone with narration, in my opinion; especially if it ties into being one of many ways to be consistent with the definition of tulpaforcing in general.

 

What I mean by this is that narration seems to validate one type of sensory description, i.e. what’s being heard on your end. So when you’re practicing methods to create iteration loops for that type of sensory description, you have to think about how you can tie that with other sensory descriptions. Do you imagine your tulpa reacting a certain way when declaring those words you seem to have heard to infinity by now? Do you also have a sense of how they’re also feeling from something like body language? Do you find yourself being engulfed in inward awareness of using other sensory descriptions while asking those questions?

 

Do you imagine yourself in a position where you believe they’re steadily acknowledging your input of queries to them, and you imagining them being able to answer in a way that can be somewhat autonomous from your conscious awareness of the experiences you’re having? Narration seems to be, in my opinion, one of those mediums to augment that kind of experience where there’s multi-sensory descriptions and understanding of what’s going on. Because when you tap into something like visualization of their face for instance, even if you say the same question over and over again, there would be subtle nuances every now and then. And even if you mastered focusing on visualizing the same series of nuances and reactions over and over again, then you have to consider the environment they’re also reacting in.

 

So it’s probably more of having that kind of experience made readily to you easily while also not having to consciously create those environments for them. They’re (the environments) are existing in the background while your tulpa can react to said environment, and what you ask of them, and how you interact with them as well. So maybe like others have stated, narrating the dickens out of your tulpa may not be enough as that seems to advance a certain kind of sensory description and experience.

 

But the thing is, you have that set of competencies logged somewhere in your mental repository, so you can use that in attempts for other ways to get that extension of feelings of your tulpa existing to you in some way. What seems to be my constant mode for doing that now is image streaming for long hours every now and then, and hopefully sacrificing some hours solely for that daily, with a day or two of taking a break. And even though it seems to be that I’m typing what goes on in my mind for hours, the thing is that I’m personally experiencing those sensations while typing them down when directing those sessions in imagining my tulpa’s existence.

 

In my experience, when you push yourself for an exercise like that, you’re going to start seeing experiences made readily that are just begging for you and your tulpas to react to it in some way. But maybe that’s not your intention, as you’re mostly probably trying to get a response from them verbally. But for me personally, the verbal aspect may be nice and all, but that’s just one stepping stone in acknowledging their existence. I really have one of the best moments of forcing when I’m actively having to describe how I’m experiencing it all, because said information can even be used to narrate to my tulpas while also imagining what went on at the same time, except the imagination comes by quicker because the experiences have been logged in some way.

 

But that’s just my work ethic and method for forcing nowadays. It may not really be suitable for you since it really does take a lot of sacrifice to reach that result. But when those connections have been made, you can tone things down a bit, and go about your day with them. But I can’t really validate how that feels when telling you because ultimately, it’s just an explanatory gap that I’m not competent enough to describe in detail.