Chat Thread

[Guest]

Thanks for the answer.

[GrayTheCat]

I'm thinking about publishing some kind of work that talks about the Grays, but I still feel like I need a lot more time to think about it and organize my thoughts.

 

I know the final product will be one of two things- a guide on how to create thoughtforms like them including how they work, recommendations, warnings and risks, etc. or I will write an essay explaining why these thoughtforms should be avoided in the creation process and what to do about it. I'm currently leaning towards the former, but considering how there are some risks I want to at least put a lot of time into thinking about it and make sure my beliefs are at least consistent.

 

With that said, I'm interested in using one or two terms that people are okay with calling them. I don't like the idea of calling them "demi-tulpas" because I don't like how it implies that they're "maybe tulpas" and I want to remove any uncertainty from the matter. Even though this is the grey area between a Tulpa and an NPC, I think a thoughtform is either their own person with their own memories and subconscious thoughts or they're not.

 

I'm also writing not really a guide but my thoughts down about Tulpa creation, and I think it would be good for you guys to see that before going three steps further, claiming I know how these thoughtforms work, and end up shoving my foot in my mouth and making a big mess.

[Apollo Fire]

I don't really know how useful something like that would be to most people. To me, grays seem like just automated characters that resemble sentience but aren't really. If people tried to make those for whatever reason, there would be a chance of them becoming sentient, which wouldn't be very good. There's not really a process to make automated characters either, besides just thinking about them for a bit. It's like any author coming up with characters that might seem a little independent: it's just your brain automating them for your own convenience, so you don't have to think through every action that the characters take, they just sort of flow. They're certainly not "demi-tulpas," as you said.

 

One thing I'm kind of interested in is the concept of mask/identity tulpas. Where you don't accidentally create a tulpa by imagining a form and talking to it, but by pretending you have a different identity, somehow, and it becomes real. It's not too common, but it's kind of interesting. People might say "those are just alters" but it's not likely everyone wants to call themselves an alter, especially if they're functionally identical to a tulpa other than in origin.

 

Piano would be a "mask tulpa," since he was created by the original Piano merge slowly adopting a new identity that gained independence. He's certainly not an alter, he's just a tulpa with different origins than most.

[Ranger]

I don't really know how useful something like that would be to most people. To me, grays seem like just automated characters that resemble sentience but aren't really. If people tried to make those for whatever reason, there would be a chance of them becoming sentient, which wouldn't be very good. There's not really a process to make automated characters either, besides just thinking about them for a bit. It's like any author coming up with characters that might seem a little independent: it's just your brain automating them for your own convenience, so you don't have to think through every action that the characters take, they just sort of flow. They're certainly not "demi-tulpas," as you said.

 

One thing I'm kind of interested in is the concept of mask/identity tulpas. Where you don't accidentally create a tulpa by imagining a form and talking to it, but by pretending you have a different identity, somehow, and it becomes real. It's not too common, but it's kind of interesting. People might say "those are just alters" but it's not likely everyone wants to call themselves an alter, especially if they're functionally identical to a tulpa other than in origin.

 

Piano would be a "mask tulpa," since he was created by the original Piano merge slowly adopting a new identity that gained independence. He's certainly not an alter, he's just a tulpa with different origins than most.

Cat was thinking about that, the idea of having a person believe they are someone else and then they turn into someone else.

 

I guess one could label me off as a "fictive" because I was based off of another identity and I can relate to the identity issues fictives and factives have. However, Cat gave me the option to start from scratch and I chose to accept the identity of Ranger as part of who I am.

 

I wouldn't say I live like that identity though. I have only expanded it, partly because there wasn't a whole lot of personality to the old identity anyway.

[Guest]

Cat, as you know, i feel your paper would be very useful, and obviously i'd like to review or even contribute if you like.

 

I don't mind calling them thoughtforms, but in my instance i then must say i have two very different 'species' of tulpa. One that needs constant forcing and another that is dormant most of the time, and doesn't require any forcing, but because of their extensive origin, couldn't possibly ever dissipate as a result. I still think calling them a tulpa adds the 'person' notation to them and they are more as Apollo described in that my subconsious mind is animating them possibly, but they are separate personalities and i don't consider them part of myself.

 

Why the sidestepping? Because to think of them as separate people gives them certain rights that are impossible to maintain without alienating existing members of the system. It's a stalemate leaning toward status quo, though like platonic love vs romantic love there is a small yet very strong line drawn between them and 'tulpas' as they are defined by this community.

 

In all seriousness, in my experience tulpas are a spectrum of thoughforms. My tulpas are significantly different than other tulpas we've met and respect. To say they are the same is like saying green is like orange only because they can both be made with yellow.

[Apollo Fire]

Fictive/factive is kind of a strange term, they also don't have much to do with tulpamancy and more come from DID/OSDD systems. They're meant to refer to a character from an outside source (a book you read, a movie, etc) that a thoughtform in your system believes themselves to be, either because they have memories of the character that were pulled out of the aether, or they just strongly identify as that character. It's not the same thing as a character of your own accidentally becoming sentient, I'd just call that a tulpa.

 

We have/had two characters-turned-tulpas, for a while they called themselves "soulbond," but that term is just way too meta and we don't like it anymore, so we'd just call them tulpas now. They identify with the original characters they were, because they were practically just tulpas put through fictional lives that they adapted to and changed. I have no idea how much of them was from the host controlling their personalities and how much was from just their own actual reactions to whatever happened to them in the story. It's not like there was a point when they gained sentience and rapidly changed from what host intended of them, they just sort of always stayed themselves as time went on, so that leads me to believe they've been sentient for a looooong time.

 

They're not a part of the system, they don't front and they don't talk to anyone, they prefer to be in stasis. However, I do talk to them every once in a while for guidance, and they've been coming around a bit lately for various reasons, though they definitely don't plan to be active system members.

[Guest]

Apollo, so i see now thank you. You've given them 'tulpa' title even though they are very different. Are they 'people' or just part of a shared subconscious?

[Apollo Fire]

They're tulpas, they're the oldest we've ever had. They just don't want to be around. They accidentally created Piano and then they decided to leave, I don't know. They're very different from us due to their origins, but they're tulpas. I don't even believe in a "subconscious."

[Guest]

Oh, so when you say 'brain automating them' in the context of sentient seeming characters, i just assumed you meant the subconsious brain. That being only minimally defined as an autonomous capable brain funtion separate from your consious control. The term 'subconscious' is of course a much broader subject.

 

So you say they're tulpas, tulpas=people, these particular people choose to stay asleep or whatever they do.

 

Interesting notion. Maybe I was assuming that some of my tulpa-like creations would necessarily have to be put into rotation or it would be unfair to them.

 

The flip side is, if they want to be, and i refuse, given they would have to be treated as people, i would suddenly be a malevolent dictator to their existence. This is the fear i have for accidental tulpas. Either be a big jerk to them or make everyone suffer.

[Apollo Fire]

They're kinda odd, they sort of feel as though it was their purpose in the system to create Piano, and after they did it wasn't necessary for them to stay, especially since it would be difficult to manage them and their needs, being 2 more tulpas. It's a bit of a strange way to think. But they've insisted on it for a very long time, about 1.5 years now. They refuse to be active unless they're needed, and they don't want to interact with any outside-system people.