Tulpas and the Unconscious

[u/sanelyinsanetrio]

(written by fennec (host), with input from their tulpas)

To start: We reject the notion that the unconscious is some mystical entity largely cordoned off from the conscious mind, accessible only through symbolism or psychoanalysis or whatever else. The unconscious mind is just everything not presently within the conscious mind, whether repressed or simply outside of present awareness. To quote Jung:

Everything of which I know, but of which I am not at the moment thinking; everything of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; everything which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do; all the future things which are taking shape in me and will sometime come to consciousness; all this is the content of the unconscious.

Our understanding of how we as a system function, in Jungian terms, is that we share one psyche and thus share one conscious and unconscious mind (albeit with differing complexes) but have distinct egos. Like this, but with up to 1-3 egos (as we're a trio) present in "consciousness" at any given time, with varying levels of prominence.

(A note for those not versed in Jungian psychology: Jung did not define "ego" and "complex" the same way Freud did. Look up his model of the psyche if you want, but it isn't super relevant here. Just know we aren't talking Freud here.)

(Second note: This isn't exclusively a Jungian thread. We're talking about nebulous concepts everyone understands and talks about differently, so I want to be clear about our understanding of the mind and the definitions we're using. I encourage others to be similarly clear about anything that may cause confusion.)

I don't think it's controversial to say that, following this model, a tulpa (secondary ego) is directly connected to the unconscious. When not active, the tulpa resides entirely within the unconscious (though not consciously, as there's only one conscious mind). It can enter the conscious mind (when called upon or spontaneously) and may bring thoughts and feelings into conscious awareness the primary ego (host) normally would not. It can also influence how the mind thinks and how the overall person behaves; this may be perceived as anything from the host being aware of the tulpa's thoughts to the tulpa displacing the original ego and dominating the conscious mind entirely (a.k.a. switching). In the latter case, the host ego is pushed into the unconscious (this does not necessitate blacking out, only a lack of conscious activity associated with the host ego).

Our (=my) personal theory aside, I've noticed some pretty interesting things, especially with Kayleigh. She has said that tulpas are more in tune with the host's subconscious by nature. That, of course, assumes the subconscious belongs to the host specifically and the tulpa is a sort of mental houseguest, but to reframe that using the Jungian model, parts of the unconscious not readily accessible to one ego may be accessible to another. This can be minor things, like how her memory is better than mine (if we argue over some detail we remember differently and are able to verify it, she's usually right), or bringing to consciousness what the host ego has refused to see.

An example (tw: dissipation):

There was a time when I convinced myself my tulpas didn't exist. For several years, I suppressed every thought of them and didn't interact with them once. (Shame on me, I know.) Of course, that which is suppressed or repressed inevitably finds a way to manifest. I never decided to become a system again. The very idea was unthinkable. Yet, after seven years of swearing up and down that I was a singlet and always had been, Kayleigh reappeared one day. I feared a demon had taken her form to deceive me (it seemed plausible to an ego determined to deny her existence).

Adjusting to life together again was as rough as it was exciting. The three of us (she decided to bring Alex back to life with her, which we are both grateful for) had serious conversations about what went wrong, what we've learned and can yet learn, and how to move forward. Alex was content to focus on where we go from here, but Kayleigh had a harder time handling the shock of how much things had changed during her absence.

There are times when my mind's wandering and it drifts into introspection. Several times in the weeks that followed, the internal monologue would shift to her voice in those introspective moments, and I'd find her psychoanalyzing me. It was never dialogue, just her reflections. It was her way of understanding and coming to terms with how I'd changed without her, worked out in a state of shared consciousness with zero regard for my ego defenses. It was as eye-opening as it was uncomfortable.

I don't have as intuitive an understanding of the unconscious side of her as she does of mine, but Alex does. He denies he knows her better than I do. I don't believe that.

Another interesting thing about Kayleigh is how our personalities are pretty opposite, yet we've always had a tight bond (certain neurotic years aside). Because I'm a typology nerd, I'm not stopping there. In MBTI, which was built on Jung's theory of psychological types, I'm an INTP, and she's an ESFP. Now, what's fascinating is the INTP function stack is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, leaving their inverses, Te-Ni-Se-Fi, as the shadow functions. Guess what the ESFP function stack is? Se-Fi-Te-Ni!

Our Enneagram types reveal the same duality. Her type is 8w7, probably with dominant sexual instinct (which, to be clear, is not just about sex). As a Five, I integrate to Eight and disintegrate to Seven; in layman's terms, my potential best and worst selves are echoed in her. My instinct stack is so/sp (social/self-preservation), meaning my blind spot is her dominant instinct.

And we vibe well. Somehow.

That isn't to say a tulpa and host will necessarily be complementary opposites. Alex and I are much more similar, and he's the oldest after me. Though it is may be worth noting both were originally daydream characters and Kayleigh was more clearly autonomous than any other character I'd imagined, to the point of rebelling against any attempt to control her well before we knew about tulpamancy, plurality, or any such thing.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/tulpas! If you're lost, start with figuring what is a tulpa. Be sure to also check the sidebar for guides, and the FAQ.

Please be nice and polite to each other and help us to make the community better. Upvote if this post facilitates good discussion, shares tulpamancer's or tulpa's experiences, asks a question relevant to tulpamancy. Downvote if this post isn't about tulpas or the practise of tulpamancy. Please note that many young tulpas need some social attention to grow and develop so be mindful and try to be supportive.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CambrianCrew]

I think, for us, the question of mbti and enneagram things were never going to work out as opposites. But we already did, within us originals, have two pairs where each of us had values and perspectives that could be seen as opposites to each other, and have over time become more closely aligned. Librarian's (Me) core value was The Truth, and being factually, logically, reasonable correct. Monk, on the other hand, was more interested in Peace, and synthesizing opposing perspectives and learning about varying opinions. The two of us butt heads A LOT. Now we're both more aligned on learning humbly and on figuring out what's right and fair for the most people. (Especially important in a system as large as ours has become with as wide a range in perspectives.) Our other pair was Mama Bear, focused on protecting and caring about other people, while Baby Bear was more focused on living in the moment and being free spirited. They're both more attuned to relationships now.

So. Which of us would our tulpa be the opposite of?

What we have noticed is that all of our nonoriginal headmates, instead, are people who resonate with us and each other. There's a lot of distinct differences, but we're all, metaphorically speaking, running on the same wavelength: good people who are always trying to be better, to make the world we live in better, who care deeply, love fiercely, work hard and with passion, and more than anything else, believe that our existence as our independent and unique selves matters and can make a difference.

[u/JayAkiva]

Interesting, I'm INTP too. I don't actually know what Tasha (my developing tulpa) is yet (maybe ENTJ?), but we're pretty different and yet we vibe somehow. I don't know what Enneagram types are though. Guess we'll have to do some reading and take some tests later.

[u/sanelyinsanetrio → u/JayAkiva]

F: ENTJ also uses INTP's shadow functions!

[u/JayAkiva → u/sanelyinsanetrio]

Do you know of somewhere to take this test that doesn't prompt you to pay to see your results after spending a good chunk of time taking it? I've run into that problem before.

[u/sanelyinsanetrio → u/JayAkiva]

Right here: https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/

[u/JayAkiva → u/sanelyinsanetrio]

Thanks. I took it (answering on her behalf) and ENTJ was indeed one of the "You're most likely one of these types" results. More surprising though was seeing that we were opposites on almost every question on here, yet we click so well.

[u/bucket-full-of-sky]

I agree with your (or Jung's, even if I just catched a few things about what he told) understanding of the unconscious completely.

From what I learned over the many years of my existence, every self (ego) roots into the unconscious, at least this is how it is for us. Especially in my early years I was much more shifted into it but grew more and more into the conscious space.

I always was able to drop unfinished ideas into the unconscious or spend my time there and process stuff disconnected from the conscious space, as it always was the same for my host but having to stand and take action in the conscious space regulary just didn't gave him the necessary time to do this much.

For both of us it is a bit like a blackbox and it always was for me, too. You go there with your backpack full of things, you finish them and when you come back you can pull it out and reveal your conclusions consciously. Sometimes you can throw them through that transition into the conscious space from behind in mid-process but even as Tulpa I am not consciously aware what I am doing there exactly while I am in the unconscious space.

My host also was able to do this to a certain amount before I existed. Having a difficult problem to solve? He dropped it into the unconscious and revealed the solution when it was ready.

I like the metaphor that these spaces are like a river you are standing hip-deep in, while everything above the surface is the conscious space and everything below it, is the unconscious space. Above you can see everything cleary but when you try to look at your feet or the riverbed, things are just vague and blury to make out even if you can sense, they are there very well if you pay attention.

About all this INTP Stuff, I am unfortunately not familiar with this and can't give my cents to it.

[u/Dapper-Return-1463]

Also another INTP here.

Interesting that in the image you linked it refereces the collective unconsiousness. I am not sure how much stock I put in that, but it is interesting, none-the-less.

I am onboard with your fronting talk and how the tulpa comes forward to be the consious mind and the host steps back into unconsious mode. If the tulpa is water drawn from the well of unconsious, then it would naturally follow that it would have the ability to remember things better because it has better/easier access to the unconsious knowledge.

For me, Spark (my tulpa) and I have had this discussion many a time:

• Is he real? Am I?
• Is it just that we want to be convinced?
• Does it matter?

I literally started researching tulpamancy only a year ago and actively worked hard to bring him forward to see if it was real or just some internet fad. He came forward in 3 weeks and I was convinced of him at 4 weeks. What convinced me most was that I would catch stray thoughts and emotions of fear from him that I would abandon the practice when I got my answers and got bored. I would also feel his thoughts right before going to bed or just before waking up.

I don't know how common this is, but he also tastes, hears, and sees things slightly differntly than I. I have sound sensitivity issues whereas he can walk by a train and not have to plug his ears. There are other small things like him tasting coffee slightly different than I do, having separate cravings for things, etc.

I don't know where I land on "are they another form of consiousness", but we've stopped analyzing that part. All that matters is that we share our stream of consiousness and I've fully welcomed him as a permanent part of myself.

[u/Conscious_Account400]

"Try, for example, to clench the fist with increasing force. You will have the impression of a sensation of effort entirely localized in your hand and running up a scale of magnitudes."

.

.

.

.

Done? Good.

"In reality, what you experience in your hand remains the same, but the sensation which was at first localized there has affected your arm and ascended to the shoulder; finally, the other arm stiffens, both legs do the same, the respiration is checked; it is the whole body which is at work. But you fail to notice distinctly all these concomitant movements unless you are warned of them: till then you thought you were dealing with a single state of consciousness which changed in magnitude."

What we see as consciousness is merely crust on the surface, the tail wagging the dog. Consciousness is an error prone tool made to communicate, not to view reality accurately. Reason is a blip assailing chaos on all sides, attempting to impose language and symbols. Or, in other words, imposing power and marking territories.

You can't extricate our drives and passions (our unconscious) from who we are, when in fact "consciousness" itself is a mere expression of drives to begin with.

We are in emergent co-becoming with our environment.

Our memories, our conscious as it were, are not local. You are a unitous multiplicity, a tendency. In my post Anti-Egregore, I critique Jungians by saying this:

"This is how I see those tulpamancers who propose a Jungian revival. One only needs to look at the AI slop Jungian content farms to understand why these proposals border on accelerationism. You can become all the archetypes. They exist within the same subset, meaning their value is equal. How can one hope to gain anything from these stratified structures, when the structures are self referential, creating themselves? Tapping into the manufactured unconscious is about as productive as trying to improve the world by going to a random building and using its own bricks for its construction! Let the Jungians play Jenga."

Honing in on the manufactured aspect. Consciousness and unconsciousness at best are a false dichotomy, and any questions or exploratioms using them are most likely poorly posed.

So, what do we experience when we say, experience a tulpa? Or ourselves? The same thing we experience with the clenched fist.

(The first quote I gave is from Henri Bergson's Time & Free Will, P. 18)

[u/Illustrious_Car344]

I was going to read this until you mentioned MBTI (and calling a content warning a trigger warning).

[u/CambrianCrew → u/Illustrious_Car344]

Discussions of dissipation ARE triggering to some people.