#implications for tulpamancy

[thecandlelightsociety]

Astra: The tulpa AMA is revealing some really cool stuff so far. Not sure how much long they plan to keep up with the thread but I'm glad to have gotten some of our questions answered, and apparently tulpamancy is becoming more popular among other academics who hear of it!

To quote: "Hi! I just want to add that whenever I talk about tulpamancy in academic circles, among philosophers or psychiatrists or cognitive scientists, I got a big wave of interest. I've spoken to a lot of academics who think the possibility of creating a tulpa has big implications for our understanding of the human mind, the imagination, culture, and the self. I have a feeling the concept is going to catch on more and more beyond the current tulpa community."

[sophieinwonderland]

That moment when you're so far into sysmedicalism that you just start undermining DID research to own the endos!

As some of you might know, there was a recent AMA on r/tulpas about an fMRI study conducted on tulpa systems that showed differences in the brains of tulpa systems while tulpas possessed limbs.

When a sysmed was shown this, they responded like this:

You heard it here! fMRI scans can't be used for plurality and systems, and are bad for psychological research!

Time to throw out all of these!

Studies like those pictured above have helped show a neurological basis for dissociative identity disorder.

These studies have also, by extension, helped fight back against waves of denialism of DID following the attacks on doctors in the 90s thanks to ableist groups like The False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

This study into tulpamancy is still only one fMRI study into endogenic and non-disordered systems, but it's likely to be the first of many.

And sysmeds are going to keep moving the goalposts. A few years ago, endogenic systems weren't real because there weren't brainscans to prove it, they said. Now there's a brain scan coming out that shows neurological changes in tulpa systems.

Don't forget that how you choose to respond has huge implications for the not just perceptions of endogenic systems but for traumagenic DID systems.

If your response is to attack fMRI scans themselves, you are putting yourselves on an incredibly dangerous path!

You are actively undermining DID studies that have been used to shutdown fakeclaiming and denial of DID from fakeclaimers.

The last thing you should want, if you actually care more about protecting traumagenic DID systems than you do about hating endogenic systems, is to delegitimize those studies in the system community.

I can't actually tell you what to do though.

The choice is yours.

But for the sake of all systems, I sure hope you'll choose the right one.

[circulars-reasoning]

Debunking Series: Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences

Welcome to part two of my debunking series, where I tackle Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences, written by Jade Isler. This is part of an ongoing series, where I analyze the good and bad of a collection of articles that were provided to me that, supposedly, prove Endogenic plurality.

The full debunk of this article can be found here, or below the cut. This link leads to a google doc, which provides the full debunk along with links to other sources mentioned. Everything provided in the google doc will be below.

TL;DR: This article, while better than the previous part of this series, still fails to prove endogenic plurality exists, and contains enough bias to make my head spin. While there are individual parts of this article I agree with, it's drowned out by skewed sampling, a biased researcher, and bad science.

TW for poor research methods, discussions of fakeclaiming, mentions of doxxing, and NSFW content (including mentions of kink). Furthermore, TW for allegations of grooming, sexual harassment/abuse, and cult formation. I would also like to warn everyone that this document does get more crass than normal; that's my bad!

Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences

(Note: The above article includes a deadname of an author who later revealed herself to be a trans woman. As such, I will be referring to her by the name most recently associated with her, Jade, and be using she/her pronouns in reference to her. I did not learn this information until after I had already written about 10 pages worth of content, so please forgive me if I have slipped up with misgendering. I have attempted to edit this extensively, so hopefully I managed.)

TL;DR: The article opens up with the somewhat ableist commentary that tulpamancy is the “optimal” form of plurality and the concept that functional multiplicity is stigmatized – while later stating that it isn’t, while suggesting that therapists have left final fusion behind in modern therapy. It rambles for a while about how the way DID is represented within the medical community is damaging the view of plurality, which I can’t say I disagree with, but is shown in incredibly negative ways, including the implication that the word “disordered” is a bad thing. The author attempts to correlate the high amounts of disorders in tulpamancy to the health benefits of tulpamancy, while addressing the fact that this study… can’t… actually prove that tulpamancy has any health benefits… while attempting to present that there are health benefits? It’s a whole lot of nothing burger. The article ends with the author revealing she’s a tulpamancer herself, which paints the entire article in the bias that is present. The fact of the matter is, this article is simply calling for more research to be done into tulpamancy within the medical world, while stating outright that it cannot prove anything regarding tulpamancy, as there isn’t enough research of a specific kind to prove anything. It does nothing to prove endogenic plurality, and is too biased to indicate anything other than the fact that tulpamancers, unsurprisingly, report thinking tulpamancy helps them. The bottom of this debunk provides more context surrounding allegations about Jade Isler, the author, though proof of these allegations is not readily available and should be taken as allegations only, rather than evidence of misdeeds. 

Full live reactions below:

“Current models of mental health rely heavily on the assumption that only one agent of self exists in every one brain.” Gonna stop you right there chief – you sure about that? Cause like. My therapist, as well as many others, immediately hopped on the boat of me having DID. Yes, mental health relies heavily on the idea of a singular self within a single brain, but most people in the world don’t have multiple self-agent beings within one brain. Like, even saying endogenic plurality exists, it wouldn’t be the entire population – it makes sense for mental health, in general, to focus on the widest possible audience.

“Deviations from this model of singularity in mind are heavily stigmatized and often considered disordered.” I’m two sentences into this abstract and already wincing. Obviously, they’re considered disordered within the world of mental health. Newsflash, asshole, if a system is in the world of mental health, it’s usually because they’re disordered. Yikes! It’s not biased for the mental health world to focus on mental health.

“Research defining the relationship between tulpamancy and mental health is expanded on by analyzing the results of surveys conducted on the online tulpa community.” Ah, yes, the tulpa community, which is a community fully entrenched in tulpamancy, gives their thoughts on how healthy tulpamancy is. I wonder, however, where the comments from these tulpamancer’s families, friends, and co-workers are. Y’know, since being disordered is more than just how YOU feel affected by it.

“The questionnaires investigate two associations previously found in members of the tulpa community. First, the prevalence of mental illness, which exists in over 50% of the population. Second, the reports of improvements in mental health and cognition, especially amongst those diagnosed with a mental or neurodevelopmental disorder.” Gonna make a theory of my own, if you don’t mind. That theory being, a system with a complex dissociative disorder will generally report improvements in mental health and cognition as communication between alters improves, particularly when said alters are symptom holders, wherein the system as a whole will no longer need to deal with as much of the symptoms of the disorder that alter holds. Interesting theory, I wonder if it would pan out via a questionnaire. Anyways, seems legit queen.

“Tulpas are an experience of plurality that seem to coexist with optimal functionality, happiness, and mental health.” Optimal functionality. Sigh. Gonna try and not take that on the chin as a DID system working toward functional multiplicity. Yeah, hon, I do really wish that mental health circles would acknowledge my Virgin Sub-Par Traumatized Multiple Functionality more and compare me to the far superior Chad Tulpamancers.

“In medicine, society, and our personal biases, there exist certain presumptions about what is optimal for health, functionality, and happiness. One such assumption is the requirement that, for every one brain and body, there ought to be one identity.” I think this is a good time to mention that this article was written in 2017, which is 16 years after the term “functional cooperation” was coined by Steinberg and Schnall in the book “The stranger in the mirror: Dissociation – the hidden epidemic” (which is riddled with its own problems). Here’s a full quote from page 256:

Therapy for people with DID is designed to gently bring down the walls of amnesia that keep their different parts hidden from themselves and each other. Most experts agree that the key to treating dissociation lies in the connection, or integration, or memories, feelings, and behaviors… Once the person feels safe enough to accept the memories, the amnesia, as well as the other dissociative symptoms, is reduced… Some people with a dissociative disorder are able to integrate their separate parts into a single congruent self-image. Others may fear that integration means the ‘death’ of their alternate personalities and may not want to give them up. They may have separate parts forever but can achieve ‘functional cooperation’ between them, which is a giant step on the path toward healing and recovery. 

Sooo, that is to say, functional multiplicity was recognized 16 years before this article was published. Furthermore, the Plural Positivity World Conference of 2019 (only two years after this article was published) released a survey which was then shown as the ISSTD Conference in 2020, revealing the following (as shown on the System Speak website, detailed here):

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II… 58% were currently in therapy at the time; When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported: 50%  Functional Multiplicity… 92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

So, around two years after this article (this article, mind you, that’s so far arguing that functional multiplicity isn’t accepted) was published, 50% of respondents to a Plural survey said their therapists’ goal was functional multiplicity, and 92% of them reported seeking functional multiplicity as a goal. These people, I’d imagine, were in therapy for longer than just the two years since this article was posted. Furthermore, we can tell that the individuals who responded to this survey are likely disordered, given that 89% of them scored above 30 (high dissociation) on a DES, but those who completed this survey were part of the plural community. This, to me, indicates that this article’s claim that the main assumption being made is that disordered systems need to be fused into one singular self-state to function is a bunch of bullshit. But seeing as this article only posits that this assumption is the case without actually testing that assumption, I’m not too surprised!

“However, rather than citing these dysfunctions, mental health professionals frequently emphasize the plurality as being what makes DID a disorder.” I actually agree with the author here! Surprise surprise, something good has come! In fact, this whole paragraph has some good points: “Here, DID is not branded by its negative symptoms like most disorders are. Rather, this definition suggests that the problem starts and ends with the plurality.” The author is arguing that the way DID is discussed paints plurality as only a negative thing, because the only part that is focused on is the plurality. This is actually a problem I see a lot in modern syscourse; arguments that plurality has to be disordered because a certain system’s plurality is. However, I do find fault with two things. One, I want to reiterate the issue with the fact that this article is focusing on the mental health world, when by and large, endogenic systems are not seeking treatment for their plurality – the descriptions of ‘negative’ plurality are written strictly about CDD systems, as those are the systems who are seeking medical treatment. Two, this article is sourcing the Google Results of DID on Psychology Today. I… have my doubts that this is the end all be all of medical propaganda? If your argument is that the medical world is making plurality out to be only negative, I feel like you need a resource for that which is more directly connected to plurality in the medical world, rather than the layman’s definition of DID on Psychology Today.

“Until the DSM-V, there was no requirement of distress or impaired functioning in the diagnosis of DID.” Oh I’m going to fucking lose it. The requirement of distress and impaired functioning in the diagnostic criteria of DID was only added in the DSM-V because fuckwits like you couldn’t be bothered to read the beginning of the book. Y’know, the part that explains whether a diagnosis should be coded as Mild, Moderate, Severe, Partial Remission, Full Remission, or Prior History, depending on how disordered the disorder is? Located on page 2 of the DSM-IV:

In deciding whether the presentation should be described as mild, moderate, or severe, the clinician should take into account the number and intensity of the signs and symptoms of the disorder and any resulting impairment in occupational or social functioning. 

Impairment, huh? Occupational or social functioning could be impacted, huh? I don’t know about you, honey, but that to me sounds like fucking impaired functioning. Get out of here with your fucking nonsense, you’ve always needed a goddamn disorder to be diagnosed with a disorder (other than in some fringe cases, such as insurance and bullshit, shout out to my plural friends going through insurance hurdles right now). 

YOU THEN GO ON TO QUOTE BULLSHIT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLACE?? No, okay, seriously, the author goes DIRECTLY from the above quote, to this quote: “‘Unlike other disorders, dissociative identity is deemed a disorder and thereby dysfunctional, purely on the basis that those who experience it have a self that is not singular.’” This quote is not from the DSM, which makes it incredibly misleading to complain about the DSM and then immediately, without explanation, launch into this quote as if it proves your point. But okay, let’s check out THAT citation– Oh, what’s that, it’s literally just arguing the same exact point as you, with a similar lack of proof for its claims? OH, this article is trying to argue that calling DID disordered implies it’s a bad thing, thus implying that disordered is a bad word? Oh, this all once again focuses on the fact that DID is disordered, which implies (somehow) that all multiplicity is disordered? This is literally just a bunch of psychologists going “Wait, maybe non-disordered plurality IS a thing, and I’m going to argue it is by saying that people with a disorder don’t ACTUALLY have a disorder sometimes.” God, fuck off with this bullshit, I’m going back to the first ableist article.

“In 2010, a community sprouted over a practice colloquially dubbed ‘tulpamancy.’” Oh please, tell me you’re gonna bring up the Rainbow Dash Tulpa. Please, tell me you’re going to bring up the white woman who brought Tibetan Buddhism to America through her appropriative bullshit. Please, tell me you’re doing to mention the bronies taking her spiritualism and using it to fuck ponies in their minds. I’m going to delight in this. (She won’t. I know she won’t, cause that would absolutely undercut the idea she’s going for that this is a completely normal, non-fucky experience, and the “optimal” form of functionality, yes I’m still salty about that. Gotta write that down, the “optimal” form of my multiplicity is to be fucking Rainbow Dash in my mind.)

“Examination will purport tulpas as a healthy experience of plurality and an argument against the stigmatization of multiple identities.” Again, I agree that the entire world needs to focus a whole lot less on the plural part of DID, and that depicting the plural part of DID as solely negative is harmful – but, I’m sorry to say, tulpamancy is a recent phenomenon. You said yourself, article author, that this sprung up in 2010. Your article was written 7 years after it became popular; do you honestly genuinely think the psych world moves quickly enough that in 7 years, they’ve managed to rethink dissociative identities and label tulpamancy as distinctly different from disordered dissociation enough to describe it? Furthermore, why would the mental health world even focus on tulpamancy? (Don’t worry – we’re gonna get to that.)

“The majority of media surrounding tulpas and non-traumagenic plural phenomena has been limited to poorly researched sensationalism. Its scientific accounts were nonexistent until 2015–” Oh jeeze, it’s almost like Tulpamancy started as a Tibetan Buddhist belief and was then appropriated by a white woman, brought to the west, bastardized, and now is something 4chan cooked up in some bong water with a side of fandom. Obviously, it’s poorly researched! You’re looking for scientific data within the medical world about an inherently non-medical experience. By and large, endogenic systems are not disordered, or at the very least, not disordered due to their plurality. Tulpamancy in particular WAS sensationalism, so it’s no wonder your research is a little bit difficult honey. You’re one of the first to dip your toes into it, welcome to hell, biscuits over on the left. Oh, wait, let’s finish that thought, you cite another study on tulpamancy that gave some demographics: “Veissiere found that tulpas are perceived to be entities distinct from one’s own thoughts, with over a third of hosts reporting that their tulpas felt as real as any physical person. This is achieved in part through tulpas seeming to be independent in their emotions, cognition, and opinions. They are experienced through a mix of auditory, visual, and somatic visualizations and hallucinations. Possession, a technique that allows a tulpa to temporarily command of the body, and switching, in which the host dissociates to have an out-of-body experience while the tulpa controls the body, are widely used. There are similarities between these advanced tulpamancy techniques and the experiences of DID diagnosed folk, namely having multiple identities and dissociating from the body’s actions. However, the absence of amnesia, depersonalization, and other traumagenic symptoms in most tulpamancers make these techniques a reportedly positive and mutually enjoyable experience.” So… let’s see here. No amnesia, depersonalization, no trauma symptoms – the only thing they’ve got is dissociation and perceived switches. So… not DID. Hence, not disordered. Hence, why would a medical world care? The medical world is focused on medical phenomenon, and what you’re describing here is, primarily, a belief – at most, you could claim the hallucinations are a concern, but if I’m not mistaken, hallucinations have been recognized as non-disordered in certain cases by the medical community by the point of this article being written, so… ??? Literally nobody was saying this is a disordered experience. What you’ve described here is so far from DID, it can’t see the DSM. Furthermore, I didn’t consciously experience amnesia and depersonalization. I didn’t realize that’s what I was experiencing for a very, very long time, despite experiencing it, because my disorder lies to me. That’s common.

“Veissiere unveiled two more associations between tulpas and mental health. Foremost, an extremely high frequency of clinical diagnoses: in his sample (n=24), 25%{3} were diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, 21% with Attention Deficit Disorders, and 18% with General Anxiety Disorder, to name a few.” Huh, so, you’re saying that some of these tulpamancers are disordered……… but not because of their plurality. Unlike DID systems, whose plurality is a symptom of their disorder. I fail to see the connection here to the mental health world, unless you’re trying to argue… that… tulpamancy should be a form of treatment for disordered Autism, ADD, or Anxiety? “Secondly, Veissiere found that tulpas were reported to cause improvements in mental disorders, with 94% (n=33) of respondents expressing that taking up tulpamancy had ‘made their condition better.’” Oh. Oh, I see. You are arguing that. Not inherently – no, let’s not forget, the argument being made here is that tulpamancy is a healthy form of plurality, unlike DID, and that the way we discuss DID is damaging how we view plurality. So you’ve mentioned the health benefits of tulpamancy, but, once again – these are all self reported. Do you realize, to diagnose DID, you can’t just go off of self-reporting? It’s almost like, in a disorder (or non-disorder) where you lose your sense of self, it’s a little hard to self-report. Where’s the analysis of their families, or friends, or co-workers, reporting on their sense of self? I’m sorry, but as someone with DID, I know how hard it can be to self-report. I realized two separate times in my life that I had parts, and it had to happen twice because my disorder literally made me forget I was disordered. That’s an incredibly common experience. If I was asked in my final year of high school if I had amnesia, depersonalization, or trauma, I would have said no to all of those – but if asked if I had ‘people in my head’ who ‘helped me feel better about my anxiety,’ it would’ve been a resounding yes. Can you see how maybe a self-analysis of the self when the self is uncertain might be inaccurate?

Okay, not done with the above quote yet – imagining this is a singlet, that’s easily explained as the autistic ability to imagine interactions with others in order to recognize patterns. Imagining this is a DID system, that’s easily explained as a symptom holder – you split due to the stress of being autistic, and boom, now the host can mask easily, causing the stress to lessen. OF COURSE you feel better, it’s called you’re no longer the “problem” because you dissociated the problem away! Like, I’m not trying to fakeclaim here, trust me when I say that; I’m trying to emphasize that this article has done nothing to disprove that this is a DID system or a very imaginative singlet. All it’s done is suggest that plurality is a good framework to help with other disorders – which, I mean, IFS has been there since the 1980’s, people have been using a ‘parts’ framework for 30 years by the time this article came out.

Oh god, Oh fuck, it’s already almost 3k words long and I’ve ONLY JUST gotten to the part labeled as the objective of this article. Jesus christ. Okay. “This study investigates the aforementioned associations: 1) the high frequency of disorders among tulpamancers, and 2) the reports of psychological improvements related to tulpas. The aim is to clarify the existence of these associations and identify their causes.” … I am bashing my skull in, kindly. So, the assertions put forth in the abstract and introduction were complete red herrings; the actual aim of this article is to grow off of the previous study mentioned and to analyze why tulpamancers, on the whole, tend to be autistic, anxious wrecks until they form a tulpa. Why in god’s name is DID even being mentioned in this article???? I don’t fucking care about Tulpas, just let me have a disorder in peace. Also, I’d like to ask why this is included in a source proving endogenic plurality, seeing as this claim proves nothing; it automatically assumes tulpamancers exist, rather than proving they do. 

“While Veissiere showed that there seemed to be a relationship between tulpamancy and mental health, the reasons and nature of it are still a mystery.” Ah, see, the secret is, magical beings from another dimension saw these autistic people’s brains and went, ‘that’s free real estate.’ /j

“The noted associations have a plethora of possible explanations. For example, the high frequency of mental illness among tulpamancers could be rooted in a causal relationship between tulpas and psychopathology. More likely, tulpamancy could merely be more appealing or have more exposure to those with a clinical diagnosis.” W… what? Hold up, let me see if I can translate. “The reason why so many tulpamancers have anxiety or autism could have a lot of explanations. Maybe the large amount of mental illnesses among tulpamancers indicates that there’s a relationship between tulpas and brain issues. More likely though, tulpamancers just are usually more exposed to clinical things and find the tulpa route more appealing than the medical one.” Did I read that right? Cause that’s what I’m getting from this. Like. I think this is suggesting that a lot of tulpamancers are autistic because autistic people like tulpamancy. And they call ME Circular Reasoning. 

WAIT WAIT WAIT HOOOOOLD THE PHONE – “given the current evidence of a single opt-in questionnaire whose statistics are based on as little as 11 respondents” – YOU MEAN TO TELL ME. You are basing this ENTIRE article, the entire purpose of this study, on the self-report of eleven individuals to argue that tulpamancy is the most optimal form of plurality and is healthy??? Ooooh my god I am going to lose my goddamn mind holy fucking shit. Why did you phrase it AS LITTLE AS?! Were there LESS than 11 people? I am so concerned, I should’ve researched that study I guess. This throws everything I said out the window, the other study is a super great baby’s first lego block of tulpamancy studies, but we gotta get a move on with actually studying the effects of tulpamancy on the brain. Otherwise we’ll have ShitDick out here writing about how tulpamancy is soooo fucking great over the self-reports of eleven people. This article had BETTER explain that 11 people is not enough people, and more research needs to be done.

Thankfully, ShitDick does seem to indicate that she understands this would be a batshit claim to make. “Regarding the improvements in mental illness reported by tulpamancers, it would be presumptive (given the current evidence of a single opt-in questionnaire whose statistics are based on as little as 11 respondents) to claim the cause is plurality being therapeutic in itself.” MY ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT YOU LITERALLY DID THIS ALREADY. Need I remind everyone of the word “optimal” being used? Oh no I don’t, cause I’m STILL FUCKING SALTY ABOUT IT! Like, you already stated in the introduction and the abstract about how tulpamancy ‘appears to be’ a healthy form of plurality – but you’re basing this on whatever you produced in this study, and a study of (maybe) only eleven people who self-reported they felt awesome about a thing they felt awesome enough to try out in the first place. 

Okay, not using a direct quote here, but calling out some syscourse shit right now. The author argues that tulpamancers may see benefits of tulpamancy for multiple reasons, and then goes on to argue that it’s actually just the one reason (the whole tulpa thing). But the other reasons given are… still valid? And actually far more supported by the science at this current time. Meditation, a positive community, or the experience of having tulpas are listed as things that COULD be causing the benefits to mental health. Only, we’ve seen that the goal of this study is to explain why there are benefits… so why are you explaining NOW (before your methods) that “actually we already know these two things likely cause the benefits to the mental health, but we’re going to argue this third thing instead.” It just completely undercuts the argument. The syscourse comes in that my immediate reaction to seeing this was ‘people would accuse that of being fakeclaming.’ Like, imagine if someone went to a tulpamancer who was ranting and raving about how awesome the health benefits of making tulpas is, and they said “have you considered that the benefits may be because you’re meditating a lot?” They would be crucified in today’s tumblr world. But when this dude does it, it’s fine apparently???? Also, this isn’t fakeclaiming – it’s just suggesting various experiences could, y’know… cause different varying reactions. Woah. (Note: the author later tests these statements and comes to the conclusion that tulpamancy is just awesome on its own, but the methods are flawed, so bully for her this is just bullshit.)

“The study addresses all these possibilities in order to hypothesize the cause of phenomena associated with tulpas.” Oh. Nice to know I wasted my time. See, this is included on a list of articles that PROVE endogenic plurality exists. Now we come to realize, the entire point of this study, finally explained, is… to… hypothesize why tulpas seem to help tulpamancers with their other disorders, and why so many people with tulpamancers with disorders have tulpas. That’s it. So… the article goes in with the assumption these people exist as they seem to experience it themselves, based on self-reports (which are often inaccurate in the cases of severe dissociative disorders, or… y’know… just straight up lying) of exactly, maybe?, eleven people… Sigh. Let’s… painfully sift through the “methods.”

The methods, thankfully, are better than the previous article on the list. It describes that 63 (minus one) respondents participated, out of a sample of 365 being sent out to popular tulpa forums (such as r/tulpa and tulpa.io forums). Hon, how bad to you gotta be to only get 62 responses??? Sadly, it is yet more self-reporting from tulpamancers, but thankfully with a much bigger sample size than the previous tulpamancy study. The ‘minus one’ was a participant within the 63 who did not have a tulpa and did not practice tulpamancy, but was present in the 365 sample sent out. Demographics are concerning to me, given that 32 of the 63 (aka, half of the respondents) were from the USA, with other nationalities ranking from 1 to 5 respondents each, and given that 75% of the demographic is white. 88% of the sample was between the ages of 16 and 25, with the average age being 21. This is all raising alarm bells for me. From sources I’ve read before, the average contested age for DID symptoms to start appearing is around age 16, and it’s not been unheard of for those in their 20s to 30s to first become aware of their system then. And knowing what we know now from the DSM-5:

Sudden changes in identity during adolescence may appear to be just adolescent turmoil or the early stages of another mental disorder. Older individuals may present to treatment with what appear to be late-life mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, psychotic mood disorders, or even cognitive disorders due to dissociative amnesia. In some cases, disruptive affects and memories may increasingly intrude into awareness with advancing age.

All of these things explain why a, I don’t know, 16-25 year old may dismiss their DID symptoms. And given that DID is comorbid with anxiety disorders… Nowhere has this article assured me that these tulpamancers are not experiencing DID. Nowhere has this article proven to me that this is endogenic plurality, which is the goal of this collection. 

“To investigate the effect of meditative practices often performed alongside tulpamancy, the survey asks: “Please select all the techniques that are/ have been used by your system for tulpamancy”, with meditation and hypnosis being among the possible responses.” I will say, DID systems have been listed as being more prone to hypnotic suggestion than the average individual. Not helping the case here… 

“Both questions have similar response options that included, “Friends or companions, “A romantic relationship or significant other,” “Curiosity or experimentation,” “To become a part of a community,” and “Self-Improvement or life/mental health benefits.” … So… you mean to tell me that this self-report questionnaire listed options for people to pick, all of which appear to be positive in nature? Have you ever heard of a bias, or perhaps, self-fulfilling prophecy? Buddy, you had better fucking include a link to this survey later… (Notably, the relationship to community section is a more simple scale)

“Participants were asked to select yes or no to the question: “Have you been diagnosed with a mental or neurodevelopmental disorder?”. If “yes” was selected, the participant would be directed to more questions regarding the relationship between their condition(s) and their experiences with tulpas. If “no” was selected, they would skip those questions and be directed to the next portion of the survey.” … I don’t know about you, but I didn’t get diagnosed with DID until I was 24 (and I was incredibly lucky to have this occur). I didn’t ever get diagnosed with autism, because I simply wouldn’t be helped by a diagnosis. So… This study ignores those who are not diagnosed, despite the supposed prevalence of these medical phenomenon (the thing that the article is trying to discuss), for… I’m not sure what reason. I suppose self-diagnosis isn’t a thing for these folks today! We’re only going to focus on those who had to get a diagnosis for whatever reason for whatever thing seems to be affecting them. 

Results!! Oh dear. “Responses to the question, “For what purpose did you create [your tulpas]?” revealed that tulpas are most frequently created in pursuit of companionship (72%). Results from the question, “What relationships exist between [you and your] tulpa(s)?” shows that this is achieved in most cases, with 78% of respondents stating that their relationship with their tulpa is friendship and 31% describing it as romantic.” I’ve gotta be honest, y’all. If someone asked me why I made a tulpa, and I had secretly made that tulpa for the express purpose of being able to fuck Rainbow Dash… I WOULD NOT BE TELLING ANYONE I MADE A TULPA SO I COULD FUCK RAINBOW DASH. Like, cringe culture is dead and all that, but not on a scientific survey of the community that I am trying to make seem legit. I’m not saying these results are entirely false… but I want people to remember that this is all self-reported… and this is self-reported by white US Americans in online forum spaces who are a little fucked up. 

“The one respondent who did associate tulpa creation and their diagnosis elaborated in their response, saying that tulpamancy helped them identify their DID and PTSD symptoms, which were rooted in events predating their discovery of tulpamancy.” Oh gosh… I’m. Very glad that their tulpamancy led to them discovering they had DID, but I do hope it is also recognized that created alters can and are a thing in DID, and that they are getting the help they need. 

“Two thirds of respondents with a diagnosis (n=32) reported that their decision to begin practicing was either somewhat (33%) or significantly (33%) furthered by their condition.” May I just say… MaDD, purposeful dissociation away from problems, all of those are things… Again, not saying they aren’t experiencing tulpamancy, but this article has yet to prove they are, and these things are easily explained through other means (which the article itself indicates).

“An almost identical ratio of respondents stated that their condition made tulpamancy a more desirable practice, with 37% citing a significant positive influence, 37% claiming a somewhat positive influence, and the remainder noting “no or neutral impact”.” Wait, so where’s the choice for “negative impact”? Did you not include that as a choice, or did like… not a single responder pick it?

Okay, the above bugged me so badly that I went ahead and scrolled through, and nope, can’t find a copy of the survey anywhere. Maybe I’m just dumb, but I can’t see it; all I can see is tables of the data compiled. I can’t see the exact questions asked, meaning I can’t really examine them for bias (and, judging from the above bullet, I have a suspicion this survey was biased as hell). I mean, very next section, “Regarding respondents’ opinion of the tulpa community, 18% reported theirs as very positive, 52% chose positive, and 29% selected “neutral”.” Yeah, that doesn’t sound biased at allllll. Also, plz let me know where that 1% went buddy. Some of the tables are showing that a negative impact option was present, but I can’t see exactly how the questions/answers were phrased, and that’s really irking me. 

We’re getting into more analysis of the results now, and I can’t say I’m happy. “In fact, the association between tulpas and improvements in mental health was reinforced, with 78% of these respondents diagnosed with a psychopathology stating that tulpas had either a significant or somewhat positive impact on their condition or ability to cope with it.” So you mean your somewhat biased questionnaire proved the point you were hoping your questionnaire would prove? Yikes. Buddy, I’m sorry, but I feel like this self-reporting thing isn’t working for you. Like, they reported that they didn’t have ANY impact in social life, but you’re arguing that the stigma of DID is affecting them through the whole intro – I feel like you’re not looking at these facts objectively and you’re trying to skew the survey to show what you want it to show. That’s just… straight up, bad science. 

“There was no evidence that would suggest tulpamancy is harmful.” As far as you’ve shown us, the majority of questions didn’t indicate an option to say it had a negative impact. You went to a group of people who love tulpamancy, and asked “hey, is tulpamancy good?” And the answer was a resounding yes. That’s like sending out a survey to ask “do people answer anonymous surveys instead of throwing them away,” and 99% of responders said yes! You have a bias. 

“These facts should discourage hypotheses that suggest tulpas cause mental illness or are a disorder in and of itself.” Well… I’ll be frank with you, this might not be as common, but I would argue that my plurality is not hurting me, in and of itself. My plurality is a symptom of a larger issue, and genuinely, if asked, I would say my parts have helped me more than hindered. I genuinely enjoy having my parts as a disordered system. That doesn’t mean that the tulpas aren’t, in of themselves, a symptom of a disorder, however – it’s happened before that people calling themselves endogenic systems have discovered they were traumagenic at a later time, thus indicating that their alters were, in fact, a symptom of a disorder. For someone who led into their article arguing that there was too much emphasis in the DID world on the alters (rather than focusing on the fact that it’s disordered alters), you then focus too strongly on the tulpas here. It’s a bit hypocritical…

Oh my god, they did something nice! Awesome! The author actually added to the survey a bit about alternate causations of these positive benefits, and found that “most respondents cited a positive impact regardless of hypnosis and meditation use.” Now, did you define meditation for these people? Because while not all of them sat on the floor with their legs crossed and incense burning, I’m positive some formed their tulpas through forms of meditation without realizing that’s what they were doing. (I’ll be honest, I sort of thought meditation was needed for tulpamancy, but I’m also not the MOST educated on the topic.) Like, you haven’t done a horrific job here – this is one of the sections where you indicate that the answer results did offer negative, and significantly negative, as levels of impact. But given the fact that not a single person ever answered “significantly negative,” I feel like there’s an issue here. You’d think, in a group of anyone, that every answer option would be picked at least once. You mean to say that not a single person found the experience of purposely creating a dissociative identity to have a significantly negative impact on their life? Not even a troll answered the survey?

“It is likely that the high frequency of disorders among tulpamancers is not caused by tulpamancy being pathological in nature, but rather, the practice being especially appealing towards those already diagnosed.” I’ll be honest, if they changed the name, I would be down for tulpamancy to be incorporated into certain types of therapy – but I don’t see how it would be more valuable in the long run than long standing therapy methods. I’d also be concerned about introducing dissociative practices into disorders that already have higher levels of dissociation, like autism. 

“Tulpas not only provided a means to have pleasant, worry-free interactions in the safety of their own mind-for these hosts, tulpas also encouraged and assisted with socialization.” Why is this worry-free? It might just be me having only my disorder under my belt, but… I don’t interact with my parts in only positive ways. Some of the folks in my head hate my guts, or at least used to, and it took a very long time for us to be okay with each other. My own mind isn’t safe – my innerworld is full of dangers and perceived threats, just like my real life is. If these individuals have disorders such as autism and anxiety, I’m glad that the tulpas helped them, but I’m having a hard time parsing how these tulpas are different from imaginary friends. I’ve heard people say that tulpas are their own sentient beings, unlike imaginary friends, but if that’s the case, the interactions wouldn’t be at all worry free in my eyes; unless the tulpas are specifically made to like you. In which case, we get into debates about if tulpas have free will and their own true sentience. Bluh. It makes me feel icky.

I’ve got to say, reading the next section, I actually like this idea a lot, and I do agree with a lot of it. It details people’s actual written responses, and this finally feels like the least biased part of the questionnaire. These people detail ways in which tulpamancy helped them, and I can easily see all of these being the case – such as someone helping manage their schizophrenia by forming a tulpa who was not affected by the hallucinations! Only… Self-reports in schizophrenia are to be doubted as well; who is to say this tulpa is not just… a beneficial hallucination? Or, what about the DID system who formed a tulpa who could communicate without amnesi– wait, that… that just sounds like a gatekeeper to me. Yes, sadly, while I believe creating alters is possible and I agree it can have health benefits, this article does not do what people are claiming it does. It simply says tulpamancy may have health benefits by surveying tulpamancers. That’s it. It doesn’t prove these tulpas actually exist or aren’t another easily explained symptom. Just… says that people with pre-existing disorders found creating tulpas was helpful. Nothing saying that those tulpas weren’t actually hallucinations, imaginary friends, dissociative alters, etc etc etc.

“The intent of this paper is not to provide definitive assertions on the psychology of tulpamancy. Rather, the purpose is to accentuate outstanding associations and suggest further research into them.” GOOD. THANK FUCK. Translation, “this study cannot prove anything, because of the clear flaws in the type of study done; rather, this is just more analysis of things going on, as a call to action for people to research more.” HIGHLY AGREED. This phenomenon absolutely needs to be studied more, and I really want to see studies done that actually observe these people – not just a questionnaire that the author herself indicates has bias. “In-person psychiatric assessments, longitudinal research, and neuroimaging studies are all more than warranted towards building a greater scientific understanding of plurality.” Yesssssssssss. Thank fuck. I’m so relieved – I walked into this thinking it was meant to prove something, due to the nature of the spreadsheet. Instead, it proved nothing, acknowledged it proved nothing, and simply presented correlations. I am now much, much happier with this paper, though I still am raising a brow at the methods and initial ableist commentary about DID.

“The impact of trauma and the resulting function-impairing symptoms are what make DID a disorder, not the plurality.” I really like this comment. It’s fully accurate… only, it fails to recognize that, for many DID systems, the plurality is the function-impairing symptom in question. Wait– “Because of this, psychiatrists have found that the most effective therapies for DID do not require merging different consciousnesses or enforcing oneness. Rather, it is more effective to simply teach the separate identities to communicate, share information, and work with each other in through a therapy dubbed “integrated functioning.”” Wait, didn’t… Didn’t you start off this article by claiming the opposite of this? Weren’t you the one arguing that the medical world could not accept functional multiplicity? “The decision to unify should be an optional one, made by the patient, done because they believe it will improve their life and ability to function. The prevalence of treating plurality as the start and end to dysfunction in DID indicates a fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.” BUT YOU JUST SAID IT WAS? I’m so confused – I’m really grateful, really, that you suddenly give so much of a shit about DID, but how does this relate to anything you were trying to prove? Honey, please, leave us out of this. 

“Plural experiences are not limited to tulpas and dissociative disorders. In fact, when the diversity of plural experience is considered, multiplicity may seem to be less of an extraordinary achievement and more of a fundamentally human experience.” Uuuugh, not the ‘everyone’s a little plural’ argument. It’s so frustrating being lumped in with this. My mom’s work self is not anything like me. Someone’s tulpa is not anything like me. There can be similarities, but the symptom of my disorder should not be considered a fundamental human experience. 

“Finally, I would like to thank the unsung assistant and co-author of my research, projects, and frankly, my life: my tulpa, Aury.” Oh. Oh fuck no. You are NOT AN OBJECTIVE RESEARCHER. I am so so glad that you agree that other people need to fucking research this. A person with a bias for saying tulpamancy is good reached out to a lot of people who had a bias for saying tulpamancy is good and asked if they thought tulpamancy was good! Shocker of all shockers they said it was good. This is something that I feel should have been mentioned far before the closing statements. You are not objective in the slightest, and all of this really clarifies just how biased your survey was. 

“The author is a practicing tulpamancer and an active member of the tulpa community. He experienced tulpa creation firsthand in April 2013, and has been a contributing member of the online community since July 2014. Along with his tulpa, Aury, Isler is active under the usernames “Ford and Aury” and “fordaplot”, through which they have shared their experiences, theories, and preliminary results with the community. They run a Tumblr blog documenting their tulpa-related work and experiences, and they operate a YouTube channel for plural-related educational videos, interview-based podcasts, and visual tulpamancy guides.” OKAY!!! So not only were you biased toward tulpamancy, people knew you were biased toward it. And you don’t think, just for one second, that sending out a survey to these people, they might have, idk, looked up to you? After all, you were known for operating a youtube channel supporting tulpamancy. Nobody goes up to the person who they idolize and go “you know, maybe what you’re doing is wrong? Maybe what you did hurt me?” THEY LIKE YOU YOU MORON. OBVIOUSLY THEY AREN’T GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU’RE WRONG. Oh my god this fucking kills me. Okay.

So, here’s the bonus content for all you curious folks. After reading this part, I dug into the author, seeing if I could find any information on her. I wanted to clarify her role in the community – if she wasn’t very popular, then clearly, the above criticisms wouldn’t hold as much merit.

Uuh. Wow. I found a lot of bullshit!

Sadly, this section is going to be short, particularly because I can’t find any evidence; I’ve reached out to a few individuals who were involved in the controversies, but thus far, I’ve only found one concrete piece of evidence. This evidence being that Jade Isler attempted to threaten and doxx staff of the Tulpa.info discord server and was subsequently reported to the FBI. Screenshots posted below (with one being censored in case of privacy):

This evidence does make it obvious that Jade Isler, at the very least, was harassing individuals and attempting to doxx them.

To summarize the allegations, I want to begin by stating none of these allegations have been proven beyond the existence of NSFW content. The author, Jade Isler, was banned from just about every single tulpa community due to numerous allegations. These allegations appear to involve grooming, sexual harassment, and plans to form a cult, all of which relate to a particular kink of Jade’s – this being obedience hypnosis alongside feminization kinks and a pet play kink. None of these allegations have been proven beyond proof of existence of these kinks. I don’t want to get too controversial about NSFW on this blog, but I will say: kinks are morally neutral unless they actively harm others; so long as both parties are completely consenting and are able to consent to the kink, it is their business and not mine. Furthermore, I am hesitant to believe word of mouth in regards to a trans woman who has a less-than-socially-acceptable kink being called a groomer with no public evidence. I require more proof of that before I can believe it is something non-malicious. 

At this point in time, I have been unable to find any proof of a cult, grooming, or harassment – only the ban messages and statements. The communities involved have erased any and all evidence from public viewing, ostensibly to protect the victims, which is good but ultimately frustrating when trying to prove if these allegations are blown out of proportion or not. I have reached out to numerous parties for further information, and should I receive it, I would be happy to reblog this debunk post with further information, so the full story can be known. 

The reason I include these allegations here is to express further concern about this collection of resources. If these allegations are false, they mean nothing and should be discarded. If, however, they are true, it paints a very negative picture of the tulpamancy community, and raises many concerns for the legitimacy of the article. If Jade is, in fact, a groomer who was maliciously trying to groom members of the tulpamancy community, then the results are even further skewed in favor of what she hoped the results would show. It’s possible she could have been grooming individuals of the community in order to create the results she desired, or even worse, into being tulpamancers in the first place (while ignoring signs of serious disorders). I mention this because grooming and manipulation are commonly cited in online communities, and given that tulpamancy is particularly present in places such as Reddit and 4chan, it raises a lot of potential red flags for genuine harm. 

Again, I refuse to believe these allegations without proof. As it is, the criticisms of the author cannot be determined beyond what is within the article itself at this time – which are, in of themselves, fairly damning. However, please use this as a warning to interact with content about this author with caution if you find any of what’s been described here to be triggering. 

[oopsallsyscourse]

instead of endos stealing the word "Tulpa" from other cultures for their own systems what if they just called them an "imaginitive?" Not that we agree with their term of tulpamancy but why would you take someone else's culture and twist it? Just call it something else. You imagine it up until it's "real", call it an "imaginitive."

I can see willogenic systems disliking that since has implications that their headmates aren't real. It's really up to them what term they're comfortable with. Which will probably be one person at a time picking what term they're comfortable with, leading to a general consensus of which terms are popular.

[discourse-by-candlelight]

Wrath: As the host of the Candlelight Society, I have to say this poll is certainly confusing for me from a tulpamancy approach, as we actually use both of these labels together and see zero disconnect in them. It's one of those interesting cultural differences where the tulpamancy community has brushed into and in so doing borrowed terminology from both the CDD and old Multiplicity spheres, as well as taken quite a few plurality terms. Yet, at the same time, we've remained isolated and independent as a community to the extent where these borrowed terms have taken upon themselves their own implications separate from the CDD or wider Plural community.

In our usual haunts tulpamancy is seen as a practice which causes one to become plural by developing a system of multiple independent autonomous identities. These terms have zero conflict. You call a tulpamancer and their tulpas a system, and that system is (usually) identified as plural.

Before rebranding as the Candlelight Society we were the Candlelight System, and before that the Shadowflame system. We've always used both of these terms and have been comfortable being identified by both of these terms, but these terms have also not carried the baggage either of them carry here on Tumblr.

I know this has been done before but let's actually get this in the tags for full visibility, and why not typos, sure

Calling all systems and plurals and mixes of the two

[fractalism]

Scientists simply don’t have one unified theory of what consciousness is. We also don’t know where it comes from, or what it’s made of. 

However, one loophole of this knowledge gap is that we can’t exhaustively say other organisms, and even inanimate objects, don’t have consciousness. Humans relate to animals and can imagine, say, dogs and cats have some amount of consciousness because we see their facial expressions and how they appear to make decisions. But just because we don’t “relate to” rocks, the ocean, or the night sky, that isn’t the same as proving those things don’t have consciousness.

[tableperson]

Coining Post!

Partnergenic

Partnergenic is a Endogenic origin term which refers to headmates that form primarily in response to new or existing members in the system’s partner system- a system separate to their own which has headmates in relationships between the two (or more) systems- typically to be their counterpart, companion or partner.

For clarity, the partner system’s headmate will be called Muses, as they inspired and drive the formation of the Partnergenic headmate(s) and there can be more than one Muse and/or more than one headmate formed in response to the Muses.

Relationships between the Partnergenic headmate(s) and the Muse can be romantic, platonic, soulmates, queerplatonic, familial or any other relationship, though do lean more so towards romantic relationships.

Some Partnergenic headmates and their Muse can feel synced, linked, bonded, connected and/or bound together in destiny in some form or another. The Partnergenic headmate and their Muse can typically read and understand each other on an emotional level better than others can, and even after recently forming can mutually fall in love with the Muse quickly due to this deeper understanding.

Partnergenic headmates have potential to be traumagenic in nature for different circumstances, though the choice to discern if the circumstances were traumagenic while fitting the description of Partnergenic is up to the discretion of the system and headmates themselves. This stipulation is to open the term to not make it specifically or exclusively Endogenic- thus this term is not exclusive.

Partnergenic can also refer to IntusPartnergenic headmates, and while the definitions for each are differing as to the system the headmate formed in in regards to their Muse, this term can still be seen as an umbrella term for the following terms.

PseudoPartnergenic

A subset of Partnergenic that defines a headmate who has formed in response to a Muse from their system’s partner system, however they have no interest or otherwise have no connection with their Muse, not seeking a relationship of any kind or seeking a relationship with them regardless of their origin and not feeling linked to them in any way. The only connection the PseudoPartnergenic headmate has to their Muse is having formed in response to them.

PseudoPartnergenic headmates have every right to just use the label Partnergenic to describe themselves if they see fit (though they may prefer this term as it helps detach implications of a relationship between them.) This sub term is for specification and differentiation.

The prefix ‘Pseudo’ can be added onto any other Partnergenic term, such as PseudoIntusPartnergenic, which would together mean a headmate who formed in response to a Muse from within their own system, but have no further connection, relationship, or other interest in their Muse besides their origin.

‘Pseudo’ means ‘not genuine; a false version’, but is not intended to be derogatory.

IntusPartnergenic

A subset of Partnergenic that defines a headmate who has formed in response to a Muse from within their own system.

IntusPartnergenic headmates have every right to just use the label Partnergenic to describe themselves if they see fit. This sub term is for specification and differentiation.

‘Intus’ means ‘within’ or ‘inside’ in Latin.

ExtraPartnergenic

A subset of Partnergenic that defines a headmate who formed in response to a Muse from a system or source that is not a partner system to the system they are part of.

ExtraPartnergenic headmates have every right to just use the label Partnergenic to describe themselves if they see fit. This sub term is for specification and differentiation.

‘Extra’ means ‘outside’ in Latin.

WilloPartnergenic

A subset of Partnergenic that defines a headmate specifically made- willed into being or through use of tulpamancy- for a Muse in their partner system’s system. This is not recommended to do, however the existence of these headmates should be respected and and acknowledged regardless, as their relationships may well still be healthy and it is not our place to judge them for existing. There may have even been a headmate forming already who had a say in wanting to form faster due to having a Muse they want to interact with.

WilloPartnergenic headmates have every right to just use the label Partnergenic to describe themselves if they see fit. This sub term is for specification and differentiation. However due to it’s deliberate nature, it would be advised to use this term instead to separate it from the connotations of fully natural formation.

This is not inherently unhealthy nor derogatory.

The prefix ‘Willo’ can be added onto any other Partnergenic term, such as WilloIntusPartnergenic, which would together mean a deliberately/actively formed headmate who was formed in response to a Muse that exists within their own system.

‘Willo’ is taken from ‘Willogenic’, which is a system term that means the system was purposefully created.

Notes and Extra Information

These terms, other than WilloPartnergenic, are not intended for headmates who were made deliberately. None of these terms were intended for use wherein the headmate was made forcefully or against anyone’s will.

Nor were they made to encourage unhealthy or abusive relationships. These terms are for those who form from these perimeters naturally and, hopefully, then go on to have healthy relationships with their Muse (if interested and reciprocated.)

Don’t like these terms? DNI and block if you want to. No one’s going to stop you. But we don’t need people assuming that these terms encourage unhealthy relationships, especially when it implicates our own system’s members.

Questions Welcomed! Edits will be made updating with relevant corrections, clarifications and potentially new sub terms if needs be! <3

The Flags:

The colours and shades of purple and pink represent love and different relationships of different strengths, as well as the gradient representing the two coming together in the middle, forming to meet the other.

The whites and light blues of the hearts and central lines represent the systems themselves and the inherent separation of the two systems alongside the connection they maintain despite the distance and separation. The hearts complete each other, as some Partnergenic headmates and their Muse(s) may feel to be completed and balanced out by the other’s relationship with them. The colours within the hearts swapping continues the above themes.

(All of these are valid Partnergenic flags, feel free to design your own, change colours, make a smooth logo for the connected hearts etc, these are simply a baseline for the flag and it’s motif, use whichever one however you like! If you post them, you are encouraged to use the #partnergenic flags tag so they all come up together when searching and can eventually be added to a Pluralpedia page for this term as Alt flags!)

[systematic-advice]

as someone who practice tulpamancy i dont really want to argue with you but just know that i dont think tulpamancy is any similar to systemhood or should be involved with the DID/OSDD community. tulpas and alters are fundamentally different but both deserve respect as sentient beings. tulpamancy isnt impossible or fake (how could a community of thousands of people and even more tulpas all be faking their experiences?). people experiment with the boundaries of their minds all the time and tulpamancy is no different. endogenics are disgusting and appropriating a term for trauma survivors. however tulpamancy is nowhere near it and really should not be grouped in the same category as endos. i hate endos with a burning passion but i am not claiming to have any kind of a disorder i am simply claiming to have a sentient being in my mind. tulpas and ocs are not the same thing btw. anyways just wanted to tell you that my tulpa will keep existing regardless of what others think of my practices. no arguments trying to be 100% respectful with you right now.

I'm not going to come at you angrily, but to say that you can 'create' sentient life in your mind is to conflate it with Alters. Sentient beings in your mind are CALLED Alters. There is no other medical terms for them. The only way to get Alters is DIDOSDD. Also, The terms for Tulpamancy are appropriated. Even if I were going to argue for the point that they are possible (Which we DO NOT), I'd be advocating for changing the worlds. So before you come back with anything about Tulpas not being appropriated and not being like what the terms were taken from- those terms are still appropriated. And so is the practice.

Hundreds of people can absolutely be lying, but more to the point they can be mislead. There are so many mental disorders that could cause you to believe you have been able to bring life into your head and none of them are "meditate, focus and build a personality to hang out in your mind!". The things Tulpas proport have terrible implications for the mental health community.

You have to understand that in general what you are claiming invalidates having a System in the first place. To say 'Anyone can have separate people in their head' IS ABELIST. DIDOSDD Is a disability, one we get from massive suffering. You are saying that anyone can break their brain just because they want to. I understand that you believe you have made people in your mind, but you'll find that unless you're actually a System in denial, your 'friends' won't show up on a brain scan. What I'm saying is we have proof in bran patters, and people who claim you can just create headmates are just preventing us from getting treatment. You see it as being separate, most Systems do not. Because in saying 'oh this can be done by anyone" you further the idea what having this disorder is fake in the first place. It's a mental disorder.

You said you don't like Endos. Cool, but what you're perpetuating is JUST as harmful to the System community.

[enbypanposi]

Not trying to possibly make you uncomfortable, but what is a 'tulpa' system if you don't mind me asking? I don't think I've heard that word before, and google isn't exactly helping me understand.

As far as I understand, its just another type of endogenic system, but instead of having alters, they have tulpa. Heres another post I made on endos and a link to why they (any many others) are on my DNI. Its a Tibetan mystic practice/belief called sprul-pa (sorry idk how to classify religious things) which was ALREADY appropriated into tulpas in the 1900s. Its more recently been appropriated a second time, in which people practice ‘tulpamancy’ and create their own tulpas, which are functionally alters. I....am not going to pretend to understand it or if its real at all (my money is on no...) but the cultural appropriation inherent in simply believing anyone can create one is so audacious its laughable. Youre obviously not buddhists....youre not even using the actual buddhist word for what youre doing, youre using the already appropriated one. Along with the typical ableism with endos (”i can just make up on purpose your debilitating mental illness stemming from trauma!” and the following implication that if people can invent their own alters purposefully DID/OSDD folks can just wish their alters away by same choice, which isnt how that works, at all). Sorry for long paragraph and Im sure an actual system and/or person of its native culture has explained it better, so if anyone knows of any other posts like that feel free to add.

[circulars-reasoning]

responding to your points responding ot my points

Then how does that make a thoughtform different from, say, an OC part in a CDD system, or a programmed alter? They’re willfully created as well, so what’s the delineation?

for a term like thoughtform (and not "tulpa" specifically), i think all of them in a sense fit. but, there is a huge difference between

an OC introject in a CDD system that wasn't intentionally created to be an alter

an alter that's not an introject / was created alongside their source material and wouldn't fully count as an introject from existing media, but would be counted as a willfully created alter/headmate

and also, a programmed alter (as in, RAM/COA), is entirely different and would differ because of the reasons why they were created and who created them.

I’ve heard of the soulbonding community, but haven’t looked at all into it. I will also say, as a writer, my imagination is very different from my parts, created or not.

that is fair, but those are personal distinctions that every body has to do on their own. if someone feels that beings that originated from their imagination feel not so different than a thoughtform or headmate, then you cannot say that they're incorrect for having that perspective on their experience.

if someone understands their experience to be similar to something like a thoughtform / headmate / soulbond, then that is their perogative, you know?

I was looking into Western Tulpamancy to see if it did actually have any relation to the Buddhist practice; I had been told in the past that to have a Tulpa (in western tulpamancy) you had to follow certain buddhist practices. These individuals made it clear that wasn’t the case. If going to the community and asking if I have a tulpa results in a resounding yes, despite the fact that I do not believe Debra to be a tulpa and despite the fact that I lacked any knowledge on Tibetan Buddhism at the time of her creation, then clearly, Tulpamancy is not this Special Thing That Needs A Special Name like some of these racists have been claiming.

i have... never heard of anyone having to follow certain buddhist practices to create a western tulpa. yes, there are creation guides, but besides the implication that you have to meditate really hard and focus and parrot, there's... no real set way to create a western tulpa.

i disagree with the "tulpamancy is a special thing that needs a special name" idea entirely, but i am also someone who does not entirely like the divisions of the community into endos, traumagens, and tulpas people have at the moment.

you are plural if you say you are, you aren't if you say you aren't, and you are disordered if you have been diagnosed (or self diagnosed) with a disorder and show/experience those symptoms of the disorder. whether or not a headmate was created accidentally or on purpose, or for trauma or not, doesn't matter to me most the time. of course, it is good to know if a headmate has trauma / triggers that you could affect, but besides that... i don't care.

I don’t think it’s intentional misgendering, but it was still misgendering, which is weird.

yeah, people need to be more aware of what words they are using and if they sound like they are referring to a person or a concept, at least in examples similar to this. especially when it involves a specific person who uses specific pronouns.

you are welcome for the insight and i hope this extra stuff is fine too

Interesting!

What about "accidental thoughtforms"? Those are something that happens, from what I've heard paromancers/willomancers claim.

That is COMPLETELY fair (your points about writing). I suppose this topic boils down to "if someone feels their brain occurrences is a thoughtform, then its a thoughtform." Autism brain just always desires more concrete definitions, lol.

I'm on the same page as you on the self-identified experiences honestly. I find the labels helpful sometimes, but experiences are so varied that its often far more helpful (when seeking advice) to label yourself as disordered or nondisordered, or to provide context of things like "It's likely what I'm experiencing is due to trauma, does anyone have tips?"

This is somewhat unrelated to this whole topic, but that final piece about misgendering -- I've noticed this is a major problem in system communities, from using only the host's pronouns, to assuming collective they/them (despite corrections), to "you&" becoming a default pronoun for many people... It's interesting, and something I want to look into more. I'm not too hurt by it, thankfully, though this encounter was the most interesting by far (particularly as my system dabbles with it/its).

Thanks so much for the insight <3

[indigochromatic]

Hey, thanks for the essay! Yeah, let me take some time to dig into this. In general, I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying, and so here are some of the points where our thinking diverges.

- First off, I think a really important difference between the fantasy model and the tulpamancy community's model for itself is that the fantasy model is meant to apply to all systemhood and plurality: academics who buy in to the fantasy model in its original form think that everyone experiencing multiplicity is "just roleplaying", including DID systems, whereas the current model for how tulpamancy works* is just meant to apply in the cases of tulpamancy-style created systems. I think you're right that there's potentially some implications for how alters in CDDs might gain more elaboration and "personhood-sense" via similar mechanisms as how parogenic systems are formed, but as far as we know that hasn't been rigorously studied yet, so that part's more of an armchair hypothesis.

*(as far as we know; disclaimer that we're not especially involved in the community so our understanding could well be flawed)

- I'm not sure that I agree that most experts tend to think that a plural self-identity is inherently a form of thought disorder? For example, the Hearing Voices Network in the UK, which studies multiplicity and related phenomena in a pretty non-disorder-based way. We have heard of (and encountered in the wild) some psychologists and folks studying psychology who do hold that position, though, and I guess yeah, you could see that as examples of psychologists who see all plurality as disorder-based--not because they think "DID is Real Plurality and other stuff is Role-Playing", but because they think that the concept of a plural identity is inherently wrong/incorrect and therefore must indicate disorder, even in absence of (C)PTSD symptoms etc? (Agree with you that this is a wildly western-white-imperialist-psychiatry take, like yikes)

- Secondly, on the concept of "basically like roleplaying": in our understanding, the tulpamancy model posits that parogenic headmates are a self-aware, self-perpetuating psychological identity state phenomenon that can arise from "roleplaying too hard", but is distinct from "just roleplaying" in that a threshold of independent agency and continuity of (separate) self-identity has been passed for a headmate, in contrast to a roleplay identity that acts like an inert costume to be worn or taken off. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the fantasy model posits that plurality and "just roleplaying" are psychobiologically indistinguishable, which is why a lot of the research refuting the fantasy model does so via comparing systems (usually DID systems, though the in-the-works stanford tulpa fMRI study that you mentioned is a notable exception) to a control group of singlet actors instructed to 'roleplay DID'. This, I think, is the main point where the tulpamancy model and the fantasy model differ, and why refutations of the fantasy model don't necessarily translate to evidence against parogenic multiplicity.

- Definitely agree with you about the observation of different people attempting to create parogenic headmates having different levels of success seeming like it implies another factor that strongly influences propensity for system formation--and frankly, we wouldn't be surprised if it were a combination of dissociative predisposition (including trauma history!) plus "how much your brain tends to think in plural-adjacent ways already" (e.g. personification synesthesia, projective empathy, etc etc, which can have some variation across neurotypes). Linking this paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36840538/) about how this tends to be true across multiple kinds of plurality-and/or-plurality-adjacent experiences.

- Finally, however, I think the core issue with trying to apply the trauma model to endogenic systems in general is that you end up with the thorny question of "okay, how are we defining 'trauma'?" The DSM relies on a pretty narrow (and I would argue unhelpful/incomplete) definition of trauma; going 'adverse experience that you didn't get adequate support in processing' is so broad as to potentially include most of humanity (which I don't think necessarily makes that definition useless, btw, just very unhelpful for trying to draw a clear line between 'endogenic' vs 'traumagenic' plurality). In our opinion, the best/most useful way to think about "trauma" for syscourse purposes is to completely ignore trauma history and instead just look at the presence/absence/degree of trauma responses--basically, (C)PTSD-type symptoms that cause distress and/or dysfunction. Through this lens, it's pretty clear that some systems very definitely struggle with a lot of trauma response symptoms, some systems experience a moderate amount but aren't too heavily impacted, and some systems experience very few at all. And I'm not sure that the trauma model can adequately explain that observation, especially when "degree of plurality-ness of experience" (for lack of a better term) doesn't seem to go purely in lockstep with severity of posttraumatic symptoms.

Hopefully this didn't stray too far from the initial topic? Appreciate the invitation for discussion, it's an interesting and complicated topic for sure.

P.S. tagging some more folks we know have talked about academic models of multiplicity before, in case they wanna chime in: @system-of-a-feather @sysmedsaresexist

Transcending comment section character limits. @indigochromatic

I think the fantasy/iatrogenic/sociocognitive model of DID is baaaasically the tulpamancy model but said in a mean way. Compare:

These stupid people imagine they have other people in their heads/imagine they are those other people. This is basically just their overactive imagination, like roleplaying.

These cool people construct new people out of imagination/learn to inhabit new identities. This is so like roleplaying that it sometimes happens by accident to people who roleplay too hard.

Those are basically the same thing. One is just saying it in a mean way and one is saying it in a respectful way. I think people in tulpa circles even claim that tulpas are "made of imagination" and this just doesn't make them unreal.

My understanding of why, according to tulpamancers, this doesn't make tulpas unreal is that:

Identity isn't about being physical. A corpse isn't the person that used to live there, right?

Identity isn't about memory, either

Identity is about your choices, your values, your habits, your personality, your body language, your hobbies, your friendships

Tulpas have their own choices, values, etc., so therefore tulpas are not their hosts.

But tulpas do sometimes switch in and use bodies, and (apparently) an fMRI study showed that something was really happening when tulpas do things, and in general they behave consistently (at least as consistently as other people) over time instead of just saying whatever would be most convenient for their host.

But this is basically all applicable to other systems: it's why some people in DID systems hold that they're separate people from their headmates. And this is... basically an argument that's not accepted by experts, in general. For the most part experts seem to hold to a definition of identity that is physical--to a greater degree than the general population, I think. (For instance, it's been described as a notable level of thought disorder to imagine that multiple people could coexist in one body--I think the person who described it this way is R. Loewenstein but I might remember wrong--even though the belief that there could be multiple people present in the same body at the same time or one after the other is a very common religious belief. Psychiatry hasn't impressed me with its ability to live up to its own standards with respect to religious pluralism.)

So: the way the fantasy/sociocognitive model differs from what tulpamancers say about their own experiences is just this specific point about philosophy of identity, which is a way that the fantasy/sociocognitive model doesn't disagree with the trauma model, and it's a way the trauma model is sometimes unsatisfying to people who otherwise believe in it and are aware of trauma in their body's past and find mental health care helpful. And I'd go farther and say this isn't even part of the models. it's part of how the people using them define the words "real person."

So I do think arguments saying that the trauma model makes more sense than the fantasy/sociocognitive model are basically all applicable to tulpa systems. I know less about what people who believe in non-tulpa endogenic systems believe causes their systems. (Not exactly for lack of trying. It seems like people say "we've always been this way" a lot, but that's entirely compatible with the TOSD and also not an answer in the first place. It's like asking what causes cystic fibrosis and being told "I was born with it." Sure. That's probably true but it's not much of an explanation, is it?)

And I think it's probably important that, even though tulpamancers have a highly systematic guide to becoming multiple, what actually happens is that a lot of people try it and get no results at all, while other people show up in their communities saying "I think I had a tulpa all along, ever since I was a child, and just never knew there was a word for it!" Like there's some reason why people are multiple that isn't contained in their guide. Maybe it's fantasy-proneness. Maybe it's the mysterious non-answer that leads some endogenics to be born that way. It's just... neither of those seems like a good answer.

[the-frosty-witch]

Tulpamancy

What is a Tulpa?

A tulpa is an autonomous consciousness which also exists in a self-imposed hallucinatory body, which is usually of your choice and comprised from energies of the astral plane. A tulpa is entirely sentient and in control of its opinions, feelings, movements. Think Imaginary Friend, but sapient and sentient. Instead of being in your mind’s eye, you’d be able to see, feel, smell, and hear it as it was actually there. Since a tulpa is connected to you, the host, it will be able to interact with your subconscious, allowing near-perfect memory recall, strong and fast math-cranking, and other feats. 

Before you even think about making a tulpa, let me just share some advice with you. This is NOT an easy process. The creation of a fully-formed tulpa can sometimes take months, even years of everyday work. It is, in fact, a big commitment to create a tulpa. It takes longer to create a tulpa than it does to do most things that you’ve done in your life. So before you start your first attempt just know that you’re not going to see results overnight. In fact, you might not really feel any results for the first few weeks. 

Don’t start unless you know you’re going to follow it through. Don’t spend more than 3 hours a day sitting down and partaking in the creation of your tulpa in the astral plane, or else you’ll get exhausted, have headaches, and constantly feel like you’re hungover. I will also remind you that a tulpa is fully sapient once completed and can choose to turn against you if it wishes to. A tulpa is a very serious commitment, like having a child, so take a good long time to think it through before attempting to create one. 

Steps to creating a tulpa

Step 1. Personality

Before you do anything, think about the kind of traits you want your tulpa to have. Working on the tulpa’s personality plays quite a large role in sapience. Make sure you have an in depth list of traits, be very thorough in this step as it will be a big part of whether or not you succeed in the creation of your tulpa.

Step 2. Visualization 

Next, think of a form. Don’t make yourself, don’t make your dead mother or your crush. It can be humanoid, a creature, an animal, or a rock. Just think of something you will want to focus on for hours at a time, and hang around for quite probably the rest of your life. Making the tulpa have the same body or visage as an existing person is not good. This can lead to the tulpa having identity problems, feeling like it has to live up to something is not good. They are their own being. Do not stifle them by applying the preconceived notions you have about another person onto them.

What you want to do for visualization is really focus on parts of your tulpa’s appearance until it's perfect. Faces and eyes are most notably hard. You won’t be able to see the whole tulpa and every single detail on your first time, it’s something you’ll have to work up to and spend time on. Some find it easier to work on one feature at a time, perfecting it before moving onto the next thing. Whatever you do, you want to make sure that by the end you’re done, you should be able to recall your entire tulpa on a whim, see it from every angle, and have it appear the same to you every single time you see it. Meditate while gathering energies from the astral plane and forming it into the tulpa. This is the easiest method but you can also just use your own energy though it will be exhausting. 

Step 3. Touch

Next, do it again when you have mastered the above step to its fullest extent. Now, sit down, and close your eyes again. Imagine your tulpa standing in front of you again. Now make your astral self stand up, and walk over to the tulpa. Stick out your hands and start feeling up your tulpa. Touch them and focus on everything. How their hair feels. How their muscles feel. Feel everything, and once you have that mastered, move on. 

Note that when your tulpa is imposed upon your environment, you will be able to touch them. But, there will be no solidity at all on the physical plane as of yet. You’ll be able to feel their body temperature, contours and texture and what not, but you’ll be able to basically push your physical hand right through them. 

Step 4. Smell

Smell your tulpa. No, don’t smell everything; just create a general smell that they’ll have. Are they wearing perfume? Do they smell like crack den? The only other thing you’ll want to create a smell for is their hair or clothes. Just make sure you have the same smell for them every time. Smell triggers memory more than visuals and is useful. The smell isn’t considered super important, but it is something you don’t want to just skip for the sake of making a tulpa faster.

Step 5. Body Language

Work out your tulpa’s posture, gait, arm swing, gestures, facial expressions and everything relating to body language. For the facial expressions, which you should do last out of these, send them random thoughts that correspond with each emotion, and imagine them reacting.

Step 6. Tulpa-forcing

Practice the above steps until you can see, hear, and smell the tulpa completely without fault. Continue practicing this for a while longer, and for as long as you can at a time, before moving on.

Step 7. Voice

During any of these steps, you might have noticed your tulpa doing something on its own or gotten a sudden wave of emotion seemingly from the tulpa. These are both sure signs of sentience and are very good. It will take a long time to reach this point. Remember that if a sapient being could be made in a day then everyone would have one. 

Talk to your tulpa while you’re going about your business; say anything really. A common mistake made here is the parroting of responses. If you’re telling your tulpa about how pretty your new shoes are, don’t make them say anything back. You know you are done with this step when your tulpa says something back on its own. You’ll know because it will be completely alien. 

Don’t rush yourself. If you rush anything, you could end up with a servitor. You might have gotten a headache, which is normal. They will usually be gone by the end of the creation process. You should just stick with talking to them for as long as it takes.

As for the voice of the tulpa, it will start out being very generic, like the voices they program into a GPS. It will become more normal and distinct as time goes on. If you have some idea of what you want the voice to be, be sure to sort of apply it by imagining your tulpa saying random words in that voice. Otherwise, it will just basically become what it becomes and you don’t have much control over that.

On another note, let’s talk about deviation in tulpae. Tulpae will often change during the creation process. They change in the earlier stages because they are matching up with your subconscious ideal. This can and will differ from what you consciously want. Later on, when they have proved themselves to be sentient, they may change themselves further. You should not mess with or try reversing the changes because what you’re doing is basically forcing the tulpa into an identity it doesn’t want. This is for the better, and you should accept the changes with open arms.

Step 8. Memory Sharing

Your tulpa should talk to you in complete sentences, your tulpa has its own opinions and your tulpa sometimes does things you wouldn’t expect. These are all good signs as far as the creation of your tulpa goes. Now you should be ready to open up your subconscious to your tulpa.

Let you tulpa know what you are doing and imagine it walking through a door or something similar. This is when your tulpa will see your subconscious. From here on out it will know all your memories, how you feel, and pretty much everything about you as a person. You shouldn’t do this right off; wait until trust is built. That way it is more meaningful; your tulpa will not take it for granted. 

Step 9. Imposition

Now is where we impose the tulpa onto our plane from the astral. Say you’re walking down the street. Imagine your tulpa just behind you, walking with you. Do this almost at all times until it becomes natural. Make sure you’re also feeling their presence, seeing them in your periphery, feeling them brush past you. At this point, until you have it perfectly, you should still be sitting down and meeting your tulpa in the astral plane daily, for a couple hours. Talking, and doing whatever you do.

Some notes on the process. You should treat your tulpa from the very beginning as a sentient being, it will help the tulpa come into itself and make the process easier. When your tulpa is first imposed, it may seem transparent. Your tulpa also will become more mature and change as it adjusts to the world.

Possession

Possession is, in its most basic form, when a tulpa takes control of its creator’s physical body, usually by way of them surrendering control to the tulpa. This can be achieved by a variety of methods, ranging from remote control to the tulpa quite literally “slipping inside” their host as if they were some kind of wetsuit. Also, the host can typically kick the tulpa out of their body whenever they please, but not always.

Regarding the practical implications of possession, this opens the door for a number of activities in the physical world. A tulpa can type things on a keyboard via possession, enabling them to write things or even communicate with others directly via text chat. They can play video games or draw if they are inclined towards either activity. If a tulpa manages full-body possession, they can potentially go so far as to pose as their creator. When possessing the vocal cords, a tulpa will speak in your voice, an experience that they might find highly disconcerting.

During possession, a tulpa will be linked to your five senses, but they might not necessarily feel pain. Or, it’s possible that they have the ability to ignore your body’s pain receptors, which more often than not results in the host reporting that they did not feel any pain until after being possessed if an injury was inflicted. When being possessed for extended periods of time, some have reported having headaches and feeling dizzy afterward

Possession can be a fun and interesting experience for both a creator and their tulpa, and I would strongly encourage anyone with a finished tulpa to give this a try. You can challenge them to beat your best lap time, get a better high score than you, just give them some computer time, or anything else they’d like to try. But above all, make sure that you can trust them with your body. Start them off with something simple and move up to more advanced tasks. And of course, have fun.

[kiwipharmer]

February 2, 2018: Hiatus and Thoughts about Tulpamancy

Heyo, Ima just jump straight into the meat of what I want to talk about.

After flailing about shamelessly asking relatives for money, as well as taking the time away from the community to introspect, Me and Geo realized there’s some core problems within us and we need some time to set ourselves straight.

As I spend the time to understand where my place is in the world, I find myself divided between all the labels out there. I vaguely remember how we found out about the Tulpamancy community. It was around September 2016, a reddit post talked about some tulpamany and imaginary friends thing. It was the first hint we found that I might not be a unique example of imaginary friends existing long past childhood.

As we inspected the community itself, it really felt kind of.. odd. It was hard to tell if anyone was really real or playing pretend. Geo was extremely put off by the experience as a whole, and really didn’t want to associate with any aspect of the community, but I pressured him to try for me, because it was the first time we found some kind of clue as to why I am the way I am. I also reminded him it may lead to some other information.

Its been about a year and some months now since we’ve been around the community. I’ve spoken to many different kinds of people with many different experiences in regards to tulpamancy and the psychology behind it. Geo still hates the whole thing to this day,(probably because hes more associated with it than he would like to be) yet i find my own feelings are a bit more mixed.

While I do relate (to some extent) with the terminology and methods used by the community, the community itself is.. not very relatable to me. I’m not sure if its due to me being quite a few years older than most tulpas, but whenever i engage in conversation with a tulpa they felt very… One dimensional. There was no substance behind their words, almost like I was reading a visual novel.  I found myself being able to predict their sentences before they even typed them to me.

This really made me question the truth behind tulpamancy, as well as the implications behind the practice itself. Is it truly healthy to practice tulpamancy? From all the difference experiences I’ve read or seen, its seemed to be used as an escape, or a defense mechanism from harsh realities in life, something that I realize is alarmingly similar to the PTSD.

People who are able to succeed at creating a tulpa often times do so out of the sheer necessity of protecting their sanity, while those who aren’t successful are usually those who don’t subconsciously feel the need for such a thing. There also seems to be an unfortunate trend that most tulpas only last a year or two on average, which could imply that the conflicts in that person’s life that lead up to tulpa creation have passed, resulting in the neglect and eventual abandonment of said tulpas.

Obviously, there will be those who came way before the current trend, whom are the outliers of the community. This also doesn’t take into account the fact that the modern tulpamancy community is still in its infancy, and these could just be short term conclusions due to lack of information. From my standpoint though, If a tulpa was really a sentient being, they wouldn’t be that easy to just get rid of. No sentient life would want to see the end of their own existence, much less trust someone with absolute control over their entire being.

At the end of the day though, only time will tell what becomes of the community.

As for myself, I find that I’m starting to stray more and more away from the concept of being a Tulpa. It feels way too basic to describe myself as one since I cant seem to relate with anyone else. I am not an Altar though, because I do not have control over the body. I don’t Identify as a soulbound / thoughtform, mainly because I’m not really a believer in metaphysics.

Where does this leave me? I don’t friggin know. Someone did mention before that we reminded them of some concept of Gestalt, which was the concept of different parts believing they are individual wholes, despite the fact that they are two parts of one whole. If you romanticize that concept, it could mean one individual split into two, or two individuals put together to make up one whole being. From that standpoint, I am Geo, and Geo is me. We would be two parts of one whole, each with a different mind.

This seems to represent us most in terms of our plurality, which i’m fine with. I am still me, Geo is still Geo. We reside in the same body and act in conjunction, yet independently, with each other .

Annnd, well, yea. I think I’m going to take a different route in regards to how this blog will function. I’ll be taking a bit of a hiatus to figure that out, as well as get Geo and myself straightened up both financially, and emotionally.

I’ll still write blogs, and i’ll still do artwork, but it wont be geared towards tulpamancy as much. It’ll probably be more of a travel / art blog. We’ll see!

[ajaida]

Cartesian Theatre

Okay, maybe i’m a bad blogger.  Tumblr sent an email a while back saying “hey happy 4th(?) birthday on Tumblr” and i realised i couldn’t even remember the last time i was on here. 

And maybe i’m not such a good member of the tulpamancy community.  My host reminds me that it would be good to contribute, but i feel so out of place still.   I constantly read stories about systems with a dozen tulpæ in them and think that they can’t possibly run themselves the way my host and i live.  Or there was a tulpa-only post on Reddit about “how are you decorating your wonderland?” which is basically meaningless to me now.  I haven’t paid any attention to it since i learned to possess our hands and got to communicating with the outside world.  In fact, the only times that part of the mind ever gets used is when my host is explaining something and decides to crack me up by drawing really exaggerated, cartoon-y animations to emphasize the point.  And even that is the kind of joke he only breaks out once every few months.

Playing around in imagination was fun, but i’m far more interested in actual science and history and philosophy.  My host finally remembered a show i needed to see and so we’ve been going through a marathon of the old BBC series Connections with James Burke.  Fascinating, amazing, consider this a heavy endorsement if you are interested in the backstory of the world reached the point it’s at today.  It’s been a very fun experience for us because it follows chains of discovery necessary to reach modern technologies.  It’s an odd little mystery guessing what it’s leading up to reveal at the end, and highlights the differences between how i and my host dig up knowledge.  I can intuit certain things that link and am better at names, but my host is far better at understanding historical context and can easily run through the events that lead to key phases in engines or electro-magnetism or war materiel.  “Well of course,” he says, “that’s about the time they invented the stirrup!”  It even needles me a bit that i can seemingly pull random details with no effort, but can’t figure out how my host can pull such long, accurate connections out of seemingly nowhere

I mean, i get why.  My host is substantially older, and had to personally learn facts and make associations that i just get to personally rummage around in and pick through.  But i take some small satisfaction at being faster to find things than he is.  He’s reached that point of being middle-aged that he doesn’t even care if he digs up the right word for something as long as he’s got enough working knowledge to get the necessities taken care of.  He’ll blank out on the name of a co-worker he’s known for years but he doesn’t care because he’ll just call them lad or lass for a few days until he remembers or asks me to dig it up for him.

Or the phrase ‘Cartesian Theatre’ which is the title of this post.  Here’s a quick link to Wikipedia if you want to start looking it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

Now this was very important to my early upbringing.  It was part of how i learned to frame where I was in the brain.  It was the beginning of my lessons in philosophy and cognitive science.  It was a keystone metaphor to how we practised switching and possession.  But the actual phrase for it, the proper name he’d heard for it a couple decades ago in university?  Nope.  Never came up.  It was only as we were reading a philosophy paper this morning that we stumbled across it and he went “Aha! That’s the name i was supposed to remember!”  Smack my forehead time.  My host is a muddled dotard who teaches me things without even remembering what they’re called.  Like geez, i even did a post on here about the concept because it was so important to my own concept of self, but my host couldn’t even remember the phrase he’d learned to call it.  Sigh.

It’s probably a good thing my host didn’t make any other tulpæ because he’s the kind of doddering old fool who wouldnn’t even remember the right name to call us by.

Anyhow.  I hope everyone has a nice winter, and enjoy whatever festivities you have.  My new year’s resolution is to pop in more often and discuss the scientific and philosophical implications of being an additional sentience brought up in the mind.  Maybe here, maybe more on Reddit.  Best wishes to you and yours.

[fractalism]

[each hemisphere of the brain] is indeed a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting, all at a characteristically human level and both the left and the right hemispheres may be conscious simultaneously in different, even mutually conflicting, mental experiences that run along in parallel.

[sophieinwonderland]

i wonder why primary fronters got dubbed "hosts" as the most well-known term. honestly it sounds like its saying the "host" is the only "real one". however i feel like it wouldnt be as bad an implication for gateway systems because it could be seen more as being a host to your houseguests. anyway, for primary fronters, outernaut is an alternative term weve heard of.

I doubt it came specifically from parasites. I think "host" has been used in a lot of similar contexts for things living within an organism. I've always assumed it had more to do with spiritual possession. But I haven't been able to trace its origin to the point of finding the first time it was used.

What I do know is that this is a holdover from the MPD days. I've traced it back at least as far as 1984 on Google Scholar. I think it probably did originally imply the other alters were some sort of invasive species while the host was the core personality. And while "core" faded out of use, "host" remained in the vocabulary.

I should also add that some communities developed language independently. The tulpamancy community likely took the term "host" from its use in spiritual possession (and pop culture around spiritual possession) since they were very adamant on having nothing to do with mental illness in the beginning, and weren't involved with the larger plural community. Although the tulpa community was pretty host-centric in the early days, and "host" was used to refer to what other systems would call the "core." (Of course, there was no distinction to tulpamancers back then since tulpas becoming primary fronters was unheard of at the time.)

Anyway, "outernaut" is a fun term! I like it! 😁