Something I struggled with a lot once I found out about being a system was not feeling as if I were a real person. As if I weren't "as real" as non-systems, because I was "just a part" rather than a whole individual.
If this is something you're struggling with, you're not alone in finding it difficult. It's incredibly tough to think of yourself as a system part rather than as a whole individual, especially if you're newer to the knowledge of the system.
Being an alter does not make you less than anyone else. It doesn't reduce your individuality, nor make you any "less real". Pieces of a puzzle are still real as themselves, as are the cogs in a watch. Fractions are still real numbers; just as real and important whole ones.
However overwhelming it feels right now, you can still achieve recovery from your trauma, and you can make peace with your system.
has anyone here who is plural had experience with the IFS/internal family systems model? did it help you? did it harm you? im conflicted about the whole thing. on the one hand, the practical advice of compassion and communication is great and very helpful! but on the other, the idea of someone viewing our system as just metaphorical ‘parts’ rather than whole entire people is invalidating and grating. idk what to think of it.
I have problems with the IFS approach for singlets too, but I really don't think it would help a system.
In fact, I think it could be extremely damaging to a system because the IFS model works on the idea that underlying all parts of you is the "true self" or "core self". This approach to therapy for systems has been tried before under different names (many uneducated therapists will view the host as if they are the "true self" and the other alters as if they are merely extensions of the host, which is essentially a different flavour of the IFS model) and it is incredibly harmful as it refuses to acknowledge that, when it comes to systems, each alter is their own separate individual identity rather than an extension or overlay of the host's. IFS treats the "Self" as if they are the leader of the group of parts, so a therapist using this model for a system would likely view the host as the "Self" or the "main one" or the "leader", and other alters as the overlapping.
In a system, each alter is technically a "part" in that each one of us is part of what would have been one individual identity if we hadn't experienced repeat+long-term trauma from a young age. However, this fact does not make any alter any less of a separate individual than they are, nor does it mean that the host is "the true one" or even "the main one" - the host is an alter too, after all. I'm the host, I'm also an alter. That's how it works.
The way that system alters are parts is not at all the same way that IFS views people in parts.
In IFS, the parts are also assumed to be integrated and therefore are naturally in constant or steady communication with all other parts. Rather than being an entirely separate individual or identity, the overlaying parts are viewed as "subpersonalities". This isn't entirely inaccurate in that everyone - including singlets - does have parts of themselves (how often do you hear the phrase "part of me wants to do X but part of me doesn't", or similar things?), but these "subpersonalities" are not separate identities or individuals - it's the same individual, the same person, reacting in a certain specific way to their environment. This is normal for singlets, it's not the same way for systems as when a switch happens in response to a change in the environment, it's no longer the same person.
Also there's the fact that traumatized parts (or, in the world of systems, the Trauma Holder alters) are labelled "exiles" and that just. 😬😬. y'know?
This isn't to say "avoid everything about it at all costs". If taking some of the practical advice for communication helps you and the rest of your system, by all means go for it! But I would highly NOT recommend going entirely for the IFS approach, or using a therapist who works on the IFS model. If your therapist is using IFS to treat did/osdd/ddnos/udd, you need a different therapist
friendly reminder that the satanic temple is an official recognized religion in america and therefore if you're a member you can't legally be denied an abortion, due to them believing in bodily autonomy & right to reproductive healthcare :)
Please stop sharing this sort of thing. This isn't accurate. The Satanic temple is famously bad at actually winning court challenges, abortion clinics and orgs routinely have to reject their financial "help" because it causes more problems to accept donations from "Satanists" and they've been repeatedly asked to stop "counter-protesting" outside clinics.
Claiming to be a Satanist is literally meaningless as far as actually accessing abortion goes. There's no "religious exemption" for abortions, no way of claiming or reporting that, and no way to actually access abortion because of it. It's a clever headline-grabbing gimmick, and that's it.
The Satanic temple is also hella anti-semitic, and their organizers often say the eugenics/hatred of disabled people part out loud as their "justification" for abortions. They're not helpful, they're not supportive, they're not welcome at most abortion clinics.
They also support the former False Memory Syndrome Foundation, which was a group formed specifically to deny the existence of repressed memories as well as conditions like DID or other forms of dissociative amnesia.
The daughter of the founders is the person who coined the abuse term DARVO (of which this WHOLE SITUATION is an example), and they founded it when she tried to confront them about childhood abuse she remembered.
The Satanic Temple claims this support comes from their attempts to squash false rumors of Satanic Ritual Abuse from the 1980's Satanic Panic, but they're partnering with an abusive organization that harms survivors in the process.
People have tried to confront them about their support of an organization that invalidates abuse survivors and they stand by that specific value :/
Things I have seen people mocked and fakeclaimed for:
- Having alters who are mentally/ emotionally a different age than their body.
- Having "littles" (child alters).
- Alters who speak in different voices.
- Being able to drive (yes, really).
- Being in a relationship (yes, really).
- Not being institutionalized for life.
- Also being transgender.
- Also being autistic.
- Talking about their DID.
- Having more than 10 alters.
This isn't even a slightly exhaustive list, but each item here is absolutely ridiculous. All of these things are incredibly common within people who have DID. I say this both from personal reference as someone who's professionally diagnosed and because many of these things can be backed up with research. Please don't speak about things when you have no idea what you're talking about and aren't remotely qualified.
Alters may have different ages, for instance much younger or older...
Several child alters exist in most people with DID.
The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech...
... Can a person with dissociative identity disorder live a normal life? Considering that we are all unique — as are our personal versions of normal — the answer is yes.
Many trans people experience no sense of multiplicity whatsoever. Many people with multiplicity have no trans experiences at all. However, it’s not uncommon for both to be present together.
People with Autism Spectrum Disorder show an increased risk of experiencing traumatic events... Results showed a higher Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder rate in the Autism Spectrum Disorder group.
A person living with DID may have as few as two alters or as many as 100.
[In polyfragmented DID] typically over 100 alter identities exist.
And last I checked, speaking openly about mental health instead of hiding doesn't make anyone a fake.
I’ve always wondered whether being a system is a blessing, curse or both depending on the day.
(I’m a singlet btw…is that the right term?? or is that smth only systems can say? like I don’t have DID or OSDD, I am just one person in this pigs meat of a body- )
Well, the dissociation, memory problems and blurring - all of which are direct results of trauma - all suck. Not recognizing your own feelings, not remembering or being emotionally connected to things that you've done, and having alters who struggle with holding trauma and all the issues that come with it all sucks. It's also possible to have awful arguments within the system, or have alters feel like they're unwelcome (eg because they hold trauma and the system isn't ready to accept that they have trauma).
But on the other hand, having people there can be good sometimes. If you get too tired or overwhelmed and you're able to switch out and let someone else take over, or having others to vent to or talk to about things, having people that (with good communication) genuinely become friends or family members, that's the good part.
When people say they hate being a system, ime they're usually referring to the dissociation and arguments, rather than the state of being a system itself. Conversely, when people say they like being a system, they usually mean they like having people to talk to and rely on, rather than the state of being a system itself.
I feel more and more like the negatives of Tumblr (and the DID community specifically) outweigh the positives of using it as a platform to talk about mental health.
idk which system/system members need to hear this but you don't need to provide every detail about your system or headmates just to prove yourself on this website.
You probably get this a lot but what are Tulpa systems?
This is a relatively new blog, so no we haven't yet lol. Even if we had, don't worry about asking "repeat" questions!
This is going to be LONG, you have been warned. Links to sources are throughout.
Note: this is not about sysmeds or endos or anything to do with that discourse. This is specifically about "tulpa systems".
What is a "Tulpa System"?
A "Tulpa System" is the name used by people who believe they've willingly created other consciousnesses that live in the same head as them. They call these other consciousnesses their "Tulpas".
Now, I could have left it there, with a brief explanation. However, I do want to explain this whole thing properly; I haven't yet seen a full post going into "tulpa systemhood" and the problems with it. So I will.
How did we get here?
Tulpamancy is historically the English word referring to a very specific, very old religious practice done by Buddhists (particularly in Tibet, though it is found in other areas too) This involves the spiritual belief that one can create a "Mind-made body", which can then be used to transport that person's soul to the higher realms during meditation. (Relevant source linked; info is on page 117, and then pages 125-134). This "mind-made body", or "emanation body", is also called a Tulpa. It is not a conscious being of its own, nor a separate personality or state of self; it is a non-physical body. It is part of a deeply personal ancient practice of meditation and the belief in spiritual ascension. (Note: this source is on hard-to-read text and is written in verbose language. However, it is written by a member of Tibetan Buddhism and a man with a PhD in clinical psychology. It also contains further references and sources within it).
In the late 1800s/early 1900s a new religion was founded in America, called Theosophy. The founder was Helena Blavatsky, who claimed to have been enlightened in Tibet, and created the religion based on her enlightenment. She claimed it wasn't actually a religion, but.. well, for one, it fit all the definitions of "religion", and for another most of the followers conveniently ignored her claim anyway. Most Theosophical beliefs aren't relevant to this topic, but you can read about them on the wikipedia if you're interested.
Theosophy drew from many religions, but the part taken from Buddhism that was drawn from is the idea of this "mind-made body". Blavatsky originally stated that within each human being, there is a second state of the soul known as the "higher being/ higher self". The Theosophist goal of personal ascension is to unite with your higher self, thus becoming a whole being. According to this belief, the higher self is not a conscious or separate being, but it is a different state of the soul; The human soul needs to undergo several transition states before reaching the point of unification, all of which are achieved through meditation and spiritual practice. This "Higher Self" was (occasionally) called a Tulpa.
(^This paragraph references information discussed heavily in a book. Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of Theosophy, by Bruce F. Campbell, published 1980 by the California Press. Unfortunately, I cannot find a full free copy of the book online - only excerpts like the one linked here. If anyone has any idea where to find a copy online for free, tell me so I can link it!)
Later on, however, the founder changed this and moved away from teaching about a "higher self" to merge with. She instead claimed that you have a singular immortal spirit that remains after death, and latches on to a new mortal soul and body in a never-ending reincarnation process. Now according to her, this immortal soul was the "Tulpa", not the higher self as said before.
Even later, two British Theosophists, (Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater ) both of whom claimed they were clairvoyant among other things, wrote a book called Thought-forms (published 1901) in which she argued that thoughts are not abstract, but are things with tangible ties to what Theosophists consider physical and spiritual reality.
According to the book, thought-forms can be one of three types:
-One that takes the image of a "Thinker". If you imagine yourself to be in a place different from where you are (if you're in your room, picture yourself in the kitchen, for example), what's actually happened is you have created a "thought-form" body that is actually in the place you pictured, at least whilst you picture it (then it disappears again).
-One that takes the image of "Object". If you're an artist and you picture wanting to paint/draw/sculpt etc. a vase, you're actually creating a "thoughtform" version of that vase, which again vanishes once you begin the art.
-One that takes its own form. This is its own conscious being, separate from the person creating the thought-forms.
These "thought-forms" are what Tulpa refers to according to Besant/Leadbeater. The third one is the one we're interested in. This is the first claim that you can create entirely separate, conscious beings entirely by yourself.
I want to make it clear that the people who created this idea both also believed that the act of picturing yourself in a location would somehow generate a version of you that appears in that location. At this point, the term "Tulpa" has been absolutely appropriated by these Theosophists (or Neo-Theosophists as Besant/Leadbeater have sometimes been called) to mean something it truly does not mean.
Later into the 1900s, a different belief system known as Western Esotericism (also known as Western Occultism) became hugely popular. It's an older belief system, but as it gained popularity it also changed wildly in nature as different people would think it stood for different things, and then those new beliefs would gain popularity as well. The Western Esoteric belief in "thought-forms" was taken from the Neo-Theosophical beliefs mentioned above, and whilst it was far from the most popular parts of their belief system, it was believed that you could "create" Magical entities through practices heavily influenced by other beliefs, such as Wiccan witchcraft.
Literature published at this time describes these entities as simple, and as parts of a person's natural aura, rather than as fully separate or fully formed conscious beings. This publication from 1912, for example, described them as follows:
A thought form is practically a bit of the detached aura of a person, charged with a degree of his prana, and energized with a degree of his life energy. So, in a limited sense, it really is a projected portion of his personality.
So the meaning of "thought-form" has changed, and once again the meaning of "Tulpa" has changed. Now it's not one of the three options discussed above, as proposed by the Neo-Theosophists - it's something else entirely.
However, in 1924, we got a callback to those Buddhist beliefs with Alexandra David-Néel, who also visited Tibet. She claimed that Tulpas were "magic formations" and that they could "free themselves" from their creator's control. She claimed that she had created her own Tulpa in the form of a monk resembling Friar Tuck, the character from the Robin Hood folk tale, but that her Tulpa had gained sentience, become destructive and needed to be destroyed. (read that again because..holy fuck)
Later on, she said that her experience "may have been" a hallucination.
Are you keeping track? Don't worry if this has been confusing, it's been a lot. We've gone from:
The ancient Buddhist belief in a second, non-physical body; one that can be used as a vessel to transport your soul to higher planes, to
The original Theosophical statement that you have a "higher self" inside of you, that you should aim to merge with to become whole, to
The re-written Theosophical statement that actually no, it's not your higher self, it's your immortal spirit that reincarnates and binds with mortal souls over and over and over again, to
The Neo-Theosophical belief brought about by self-proclaimed clairvoyants who believe that you can create fully conscious beings by yourself, and also that whenever you picture an object you're actually creating a spiritual version of that object, to
The Modern Western Esoteric belief that you can create Magical entities, but they are simple in nature and exist only as parts of yourself, to
The ?????? belief that these entities are not only not just parts of your aura, but are real full beings in your head, that they can gain sentience/consciousness by themselves, escape control of the creator, and can be destroyed once they do so. (Sidenote, if the Friar Tuck tulpa was conscious, surely by destroying it she like...committed murder?? Destroying what she claimed to be a sentient, conscious, free-thinking human being, that's...that's murder right? Ok fuck I don't have the time or energy for THAT rabbit-hole right now, back to what I was saying)
"But what does this have to do with Tulpa Systems?"
Don't worry, we're getting to that now.
In around 2009, the term "Tulpa" began being used as a term for a sort of "more real" imaginary friend. "Tulpamancy" as it became to be known was a small subculture found in certain online communities, including Reddit and 4chan way back when. "Tulpamancers" believed that these beings were at least somewhat conscious and autonomous. The subculture of Tulpamancy became far more popular with the creation of Bronies, a nickname given to adult fans of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic cartoon TV show. Bronies also came from 4chan. (Although calling them simply "adult fans of a kid's show" doesn't exactly explain the whole story. The Brony fandom is somewhat infamous).
Essentially, lots of Bronies wanted to be friends with their own versions of the Pony characters, and believed they could "create" sentient versions of these characters to live in their heads. Some wanted to do this for....nsfw reasons.
This progressed further, and the belief that you could create conscious beings along with severe misunderstandings of what it means to be a System eventually lead to the existence of "Tulpa Systems". The American Psychological Association has records of a survey done on people who claim this practice, and found them to be primarily Euro-American, White, Upper-Middle-Class, and aged from teenager to young adult, and that they "cite loneliness and social anxiety as an incentive to pick up the practice". (Note: The source cited above contains significant inaccuracies relating to the nature of Dissociative Identity Disorder, and is also not a study of the validity of Tulpa systems. It is merely a survey of those within online Western Tulpa communities. DID will be discussed later, and is different to how this source describes it. This survey source is only being used for its information on "Tulpa System" demographics)
Now. Why do people hate them?
The problems with Tulpa "Systems":
1) The blatant disrespect towards Buddhists and Buddhism. The idea of Tulpamancy and the creation of Tulpas was stolen from them, the meaning absolutely bastardized and warped by numerous Westerners over the course of the next hundred years, changing multiple times so it "fit" different beliefs - including being redefined TWICE by the same person, Helena Blavatsky, the creator of Theosophy. Even then, the bastardized meaning of Tulpa had nothing to do with creating conscious beings until that Thought-form book. And then it was changed another few times over more decades and is now used by white Western teens and young adults to apparently ""create conscious versions"" of their favourite characters, ocs, or even just types of people. It's hugely culturally appropriating.
2) You cannot create conscious beings. It is neither scientifically nor neurologically possible to create consciousness. Humans can create things that appear to be conscious, and the human mind is fantastic at believing itself, but humans have been studying consciousness and its creation for decades now; I have tried and tried and tried to find a sliver of evidence anywhere that it's possible, and I can't find it. If you or anyone else has evidence that it is, please let me know.
3) Even if Tulpas are real (they're not - most academic literature I've seen refers to them as a form of induced hallucinations, as does one of the wikis; induced hallucinations is what you can safely say they're most likely to b), people with Tulpas still aren't systems, because of what systems are. Systems are not multiple consciousnesses in one mind - rather, they are one consciousness that has split off into separate parts/alters. Comparing cases of multiple consciousnesses to cases of separate parts of one consciousness is damaging to systems as it plays into the old stereotypes and outdated information surrounding "Multiple personalities", a misconception that systems are trying very hard to get away from due to the stigma surrounding it.
4) I can't believe this is something that has to be said, but encouraging young people over the internet to deliberately give themselves hallucinations is probably a bad idea.
5) The Tulpa "System" community is incredibly predatory, to singlets and systems alike. Since spreading further than the old Brony communities, online Western Tulpa communities will often rope in lonely, depressed or anxious young people and will convince them that this will help them with those things or even fix their problems. I've seen kids as young as 13 on this very website saying that creating Tulpas will help them be a part of "one big happy family"; I've even seen it where kids from abusive homes - people who do not have actual support from their real families - are convinced by the Western Tulpa community that creating Tulpas will help them.
It hurts systems too, and not only with the language misuse; I've seen plenty of cases where young, vulnerable systems are roped into this and end up entirely convinced, for months (sometimes years), that they created their system on purpose - this is especially true for systems who do not remember their trauma, which is very common. Once they realise that this wasn't the case, the damage is done and the system as a whole is much worse off for the experience. It's incredibly difficult to accept you're in a system, yes, but it is much harder to try and pick up the pieces and work on communication after you've spent months or years telling yourself that you quite literally made it up. This is even more the case given that some Western Tulpa communities believe, like Alexandra David-Néel, that these consciousnesses should be destroyed if they become destructive. Many systems have persecutors, which are alters who harm the system in some way. Acting like these persecutors can or should be destroyed due to their destructive nature is unbelievably damaging. In fact, I decided to make this blog after yet another system I saw had once thought they were a "Tulpa System" and had been severely hurt as a result.
TLDR: "Tulpa" and "Tulpamancy" are stolen terms that represent ancient and important Buddhist practices that have been appropriated time and time again until we reached today's Westernized definition, which started regaining popularity between 2000 and 2010 due to Bronies wanting to have their favourite characters as irl friends. Since its popularity, the Western "Tulpa" community has started co-opting terms like "system", despite systems being inherently different from Tulpas (even if Tulpas are real). There is also zero evidence, past or present, that humans can create consciousness, and the idea that we can is often used to lure in young and/or vulnerable people and convince them that creating Tulpas will help solve their problems - whether those problems be depression, anxiety, lonliness, or even things like living with abusive families. Systems are also harmed in the process, as young people who have just realized they are in systems can become convinced that their system is actually "Tulpas" - i.e. things that they made up - rather than alters or parts, which is incredibly damaging to the system as a whole.
theartofmadeline
dailybridgerton
discoholicmusic
jimmyeatworldofficial
2087
germansingergirl
vaporwave
gamechangershow
