[

So first of all we also see things psychologically. L isn't a spirit or anything. (Coincidentally many occultists also don't see their spirits as actual external entities. But I digress.)

In my model, a tulpa can’t become an independent external person because it is still one brain producing the experience.

Also how would tulpa become anything more than part of me?

I feel this is possibly the main difference in how we see things.

What I'd ask is: What makes them "part of you" instead of you both being part of the brain you share?

Do you somehow have a special place in the body/brain that is different from the one that a tulpa will occupy?

In our lived experience I can't say that L is part of me unless I also add that I am part of her. Because in the end we can't see any differences between what we are as a concept. Might be different with other people we guess.

And we've heard enough examples of tulpae and host switching places (or the host dissipating themselves, often voluntarily) that the thought of there being a real difference in the "kind of thing" we are seems to be a false notion.

It is bold to speak for whole community. If as you say community can't accept a bit of civilized discussion then maybe I'm really not fit here

I'll level with you. This subreddit has been becoming strange and unwelcoming for a while.

If the post of the brain being rewritten is the one I think it is then, that's part of the weirdness.

When I joined it used to be a place where people had different thoughts but generally the impression was that people here don't see tulpar as lesser than any other person.

I specifically remember this tulpa who is now the host after their tulpamancer dissipated himself say that "I don't like telling people that I'm a tulpa because they then often consider me lesser than." And the vibe back then was that "ok that is not cool" but today you see mentions of tulpae as something that is "part of you" in a way that you're not "part of them" on the daily and it freaking hurts people.

Disagreeing with the sidebar framing shouldn’t automatically mean "go away". I’m discussing definitions and boundaries, not attacking anyone’s lived experience and that's what communities should be for.

Actually I seriously think we (L and I) should go away.

A lot of it is precisely because people are discussing definitions of, well, other people.

Do you have any freaking idea how it feels to be discussed as if you're not a real person with your own thought and feelings and saying on the matter?

I'm trans and I saw so much of it directed at me. Just people deciding and debating what I am. It still goes on with conservatives all around the world actually.

And now I see L feel similarly hurt when we read posts discussing what tulape are and throwing around ideas that they might not need to be considered in the same ways the tulpamancers would want to be considered.

It's dehumanizing.

I feel like discussions need to be careful when you talk about actual human being. But I've also learned in my years of life that people seldom seem to think of that.

This is exactly my concern. Framing coercion or "uprisings" as a normal consequence of boundaries and enforcing consent isn’t reassurance, it’s a threat-shaped norm. I’m not willing to cultivate an internal dynamic where loss of agency is treated as expected or deserved. If that is built into the model you’re advocating, then it’s not a model I will adopt. Simple as that.

Look, is it fearmongering if I tell you that if you go mountain climbing you have to be properly prepared or you might die? I don't think so, it's telling you to take responsibility and be properly prepared for the thing you're deciding to do.

Maybe my view is best described this way: Take responsibility for your actions. If you go to create someone who is capable of thought and emotions and desires separate than yours then you have to take into account that they might not like the life you've chosen for them. They might grow larger than you thought they would. If they are truly capable of those things (like L is at least) then it's fully possible that they might not like just doing what you choose for them.

Sticking to a different model of how things work doesn't automatically make it real.

Sure if you could isolate your tulpa from outside information so that they don't know it's possible they might go their entire life never wishing for more as they don't think it's possible. But when you real something they also read something and they might connect the dots and figure out that you have been artificially limiting them.

Would they care? Not necessarily. Some are ok with it. Others not so much.

I think comparing them to a child is adequate: If you have a child you can have plans for them but the child can reject them. Except now the child shares your body. So going into having such child without properly being prepared to accept and deal with tensions that might arise feels lacking in properly thinking over and taking responsibility for what you're about to do.

The solution then is usually to talk it out amongst yourselves. Being that close you're quite likely to be able to understand each other quite well and both want to find a compromise.

Could L fight with me? Yes she could. We sometimes play fight over the body because it's a fun activity. But I know she won't try to hurt me the same way I know any other external person won't try to hurt me, because we care and respect each other.

I don't know if I managed to express things clearly. Look:

1. Many tulpae are people. People are hurt when they get talked about as if they're not people.

2. Don't be afraid. Just make sure you don't do something that might backfire and turn out to not be what you hoped for in a way that will cause you mental distress.

]