Hello There, Guest! Register

There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
RaveCrazedDave Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 70
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2015
#11
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
(08-29-2017, 09:47 PM)Myshkin Wrote: How can you say they're the same thing with literally no difference between them when you mention a difference between them right in your OP? You said that tulpas are differentiated from servitors by having a personality, so why claim that there's no difference?

And where does the "simply" come from? Sounds like you're just being reductionistic. If tulpas can be described as servitors with a personality, then logically it follows that servitors can be described as tulpas without a personality. Put another way:

If T(ulpa)=S(ervitor)+P(ersonality)
Then S=T-P

That's like saying I need to call a servitor whose job is to remember things something distinct from a servitor whose job is to warn you of thoughts of your cat; this in no way invalidates what I'm trying to say.

(08-29-2017, 09:47 PM)Myshkin Wrote: Saying that tulpas are a subcategory of servitors is just one way of looking at the relationship between the two concepts; it would be as valid to say that servitors are a subcategory of tulpas. Your worldview gives preference to the former viewpoint, but to act as if it's how the world actually works is to mistake the map for the territory.

I think you're failing to see the object of my suggestion here, but I'll concede RaveRantyDave didn't make that clear at all. There is a huge difference between the amount of concepts, theories and assumptions we associate to tulpas and those we associate to the simple idea of the servitor. What I'm arguing is, we don't need all the bullshit that comes with the word tulpa. I've been very open about this, and I honestly think the kind of associations we make with tulpas are directly harmful to the psychological concept at hand from a scientific standpoint, which - and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong - this forum claims to concern itself with. Arbitrary distinctions made between things like tulpa and servitor, and the dogmatic way with which many people around the forums hold their beliefs of tulpas, which subsequently find their way into guides:

1. Undermine severely the power of thoughtforms and what they can do;
2. Hide the uniqueness of dealing with thoughtforms from person to person to those not familiar with the concept;
3. Stunt the spiritual growth of someone who would otherwise learn a lot about themselves with the experience of creating thoughtforms;

It's honestly like tulpas have become misinformation, in a way, and this is something that concerns me, because I believe thoughtforms can be really really useful, and can help people solve countless problems in their lives, and that includes thoughtforms with and without personality.

I'd like to give a quick example here: from all my years of trying to find a place to discuss psychology and the phenomena of the mind, no place has ever struck me as more down-to-earth, professional, understanding, and just all around solid as dreamviews, a community for discussing dreams, concerning themselves primarily with lucid dreaming. Lets take a look at just the definition from a simple starter's guide from that website:

Quote:What is a lucid dream?

A lucid dream is any dream in which the person is aware that he or she is dreaming. In other words, they are conscious of what's going on around them (unlike in an ordinary dream).

http://www.dreamviews.com/introduction-z...aming.html

This is the kind of clinical "it is what it is" view the whole guide takes. It takes no assumptions about the contents of the dream, or how to do certain things in a dream, or anything like that, and the concerns it addresses are things which have been statistically proven to be a factor - people do forget dreams - and where the author presents the suggestions on the Dream Signs sections, for example, they are merely presented as helpful tools, and never mandatory in any way. This is something seen throughout the whole forum; people are more concerned with teaching newbies how to get down and dirty with lucid dreaming so they can have their own experiences, than laying down sets of rules of what you should and shouldn't do; in fact, now that I think of it, there's an astonishing lack of "shouldn't's" in that community. When I'm around dreamviews, other peoples experiences and symbolism, actually empower me in my dream journeys: the other day, for instance, a guy said he had this trick of making things appear, which involved putting his hand behind is back and grabbing them there (I personally am a fan of the "this is just around the corner" trick, but I don't remember where I picked that up); it's just a mass chain of positive symbolism, enabling people to explore further and further.

Now, lets contrast all this to a guide (which I picked at random) from this forum. The guide is by Kiah, and can be found here: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-gene...-to-tulpas. And this is in no way a bash on the author, or at least it can't really be, because every single guide I have ever read on tulpas (save for one, which I'll mention later) is full of these same ideologies. I have nothing against Kiah, and I hate even thinking I offended someone, but I feel very strongly about this, and think the message is more important than what I personally feel. Lets start with this:


Quote:What is a tulpa?:
 
You’d think of all the things there would be to answer about this phenomenon, this simple questions would be one of the ones that could be. Unfortunately, no. As sure as some people think they are, no one knows for sure exactly what a tulpa is. Not only are there multiple beliefs on the entire matter, but also there are many different branches of belief for each belief. Here, I will cite the “What is a tulpa” guide from the website itself. I choose to cite this, because I tend to agree with most of what is in here.

Can you feel the absolutely brutal contrast between this "what is" and the one above? It's jarring. Yes, we do know what tulpas are. How about this for an explanation:

Quote:Tulpas are thoughtforms meant to mimic people or otherwise sapient creatures.

There, there's your definition. You honestly need nothing else but this. I'm not being reductionist, and I'm saying everything that is relevant; I'm telling the reader what they WANT TO KNOW. But lets continue:

Quote:First, the tulpa develops sentience through your talking to it, and (maybe) giving it a predefined personality. Then, as you practice visualizing your tulpa’s form in your mind’s eye, it gets clearer and more distinct, like anything would if you visualized it enough. Your tulpa's form can be absolutely anything you want. Anything from another person to a chair. Honestly, anything you can think of, or nothing at all.

Your tulpa becomes vocal over time, and you are eventually able to hear it. Sometimes your tulpa’s ability to speak happens at nearly the same time as sentience develops; you are just unable to hear them yet. Then you may begin imposition, where you can experience your tulpa’s form with your 5 real-world senses. Then you can try side experiments, such as possession. But you don’t necessarily have to do it all in that order.

Again, all this is doing is filling the readers mind with preconceptions, notions and arbitrary limitations (which the author hilariously tries to ameliorate by mentioning over and over "but it really doesn't have to be this way") about tulpas. It'd be much more productive - not to mention much simpler - to state what a thought form is, and later present a few ideas for how the reader could push that thoughform into the goal; that of mimicking a sapient creature. None of this is needed, and it is written in the same "matter of fact" way people on the fringe board of 8chan do when they are unironically (or so they claim) talking about casting Lightning Bolt lvl 2. It's always a riot when sentience comes up in these things.

Quote:Why should you create a tulpa?
Why you should NOT create a tulpa, and things to consider

This. Titles and sections like these perfectly support my point. These are sections solely based on molding, and directing the reader, and by extent, keeping it away of his own experiences, and introducing limitation. Now, don't get me wrong, I know thought forms can be dangerous, but I can be you anything, that if you explained the readers what thoughtforms actually are, they would be safer than with these half arsed excuses not to do what they want with their own minds. Seriously, stop putting these "why you should not create a tulpa" sections; it's unscientific to say the least, and harmful for the reader at worst.

Perpetuating things like

Quote:Your tulpa will be with you for the rest of your life, and they will be some form of responsibility that entire time.
(...)
There is no excuse to kill off your tulpa, regardless of whether you get bored, or they don't interest you anymore. You sign up for this responsibility as soon as you start making a tulpa. When you do, you need to see it to the end. Otherwise, you're just like the people I just mentioned before.
(...)
You should not create a tulpa specifically for their form.
(...)
Similar to not creating a tulpa for their form, you should not create a tulpa for the sole purpose of having sex with it. I mean really. Just how pathetic can you possibly get?
(...)
To branch off of the above reason, you should not create a tulpa to be used as a tool of any kind. That includes as a sex slave. Furthermore, they should not be created just because you need help with your homework.
(...)
You should not create a tulpa just because it sounds cool, and you have nothing better to do. Like I said before, this is a very serious thing.

Is immoral, harmful, unscientific, and it honestly just tells me you don't have the maturity to put your personal feelings aside when trying to teach someone else about a concept, and that, by extension, you should probably not be making guides. Seriously, I can almost physically feel the dogmatic fist punching me through the screen as I read this introduction. The amount of "shouldn't's" is overwhelming, and all this does is give people negative symbolism, which will have consequences if people do try to do any of these things; so congratz, you've just succeeded in policing somebody's thoughts!

I'll refrain from showing anything else from the guide, but if you keep reading you'll see it doesn't deviate much from this. Ditto for any other guides I've read about tulpa creation.

The title of the thread is a bash on tulpas, and not actually meant to say we should call tulpas servitors. What I AM proselytizing, however, is that we should teach people about thoughtforms first, and then suggest ways of making them sapient, instead of teaching them a bunch of arbitrary regulations for creating a tulpa. Can you imagine a world where tulpa.info would have a basic explanation on thoughtforms, and then the guides and experiences people posted would just be an collection of cool things to do with and new ways to explore your thoughtforms as they apply to you, or otherwise anecdotal experience not presented under the guise of fact? Don't get me wrong, I know it'll never happen, because for the majority of people around, tulpas are some sort of special, borderline magical entities which are beyond comprehension.

Let me just say that after two years of being involved with this, it's mind boggling that Fede's guide (remember that?) which I remember was constantly bashed all the time, to the point I myself turned my nose up at it, still seems to be the most scientific and concise guide on tulpamaking around the whole forum. I'm only glad that together with Luna I have found out how simple this all is, and how much people muddle things up around here. But maybe Luna was right from the start; maybe she's not a tulpa after all. Not that she cares.

Anyway, I hope this was all somewhat coherent; I certainly tried my bestests and hardestest to make it so.
08-30-2017, 11:10 PM
Find Reply
Myshkin Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 15
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2017
#12
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
(08-30-2017, 11:10 PM)RaveCrazedDave Wrote: That's like saying I need to call a servitor whose job is to remember things something distinct from a servitor whose job is to warn you of thoughts of your cat; this in no way invalidates what I'm trying to say.


I think you're failing to see the object of my suggestion here, but I'll concede RaveRantyDave didn't make that clear at all. There is a huge difference between the amount of concepts, theories and assumptions we associate to tulpas and those we associate to the simple idea of the servitor. What I'm arguing is, we don't need all the bullshit that comes with the word tulpa. I've been very open about this, and I honestly think the kind of associations we make with tulpas are directly harmful to the psychological concept at hand from a scientific standpoint, which - and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong - this forum claims to concern itself with. Arbitrary distinctions made between things like tulpa and servitor, and the dogmatic way with which many people around the forums hold their beliefs of tulpas, which subsequently find their way into guides:

1. Undermine severely the power of thoughtforms and what they can do;
2. Hide the uniqueness of dealing with thoughtforms from person to person to those not familiar with the concept;
3. Stunt the spiritual growth of someone who would otherwise learn a lot about themselves with the experience of creating thoughtforms;

It's honestly like tulpas have become misinformation, in a way, and this is something that concerns me, because I believe thoughtforms can be really really useful, and can help people solve countless problems in their lives, and that includes thoughtforms with and without personality.

[...]

This. Titles and sections like these perfectly support my point. These are sections solely based on molding, and directing the reader, and by extent, keeping it away of his own experiences, and introducing limitation. Now, don't get me wrong, I know thought forms can be dangerous, but I can be you anything, that if you explained the readers what thoughtforms actually are, they would be safer than with these half arsed excuses not to do what they want with their own minds. Seriously, stop putting these "why you should not create a tulpa" sections; it's unscientific to say the least, and harmful for the reader at worst.

Perpetuating things like

Is immoral, harmful, unscientific, and it honestly just tells me you don't have the maturity to put your personal feelings aside when trying to teach someone else about a concept, and that, by extension, you should probably not be making guides. Seriously, I can almost physically feel the dogmatic fist punching me through the screen as I read this introduction. The amount of "shouldn't's" is overwhelming, and all this does is give people negative symbolism, which will have consequences if people do try to do any of these things; so congratz, you've just succeeded in policing somebody's thoughts!

The distinction between tulpas and servitors is no more arbitrary than the distinction between red and crimson. Whether or not drawing a distinction between two things is arbitrary depends on whether or not the distinction is useful for a specific person or situation. In many cases, drawing a distinction between any two shades of red is arbitrary, so you'll usually hear them all lumped together under "red", but if you're painting something and you want to use a specific shade of red, then the distinction is no longer arbitrary.

Just because the tulpa-servitor distinction is not useful for your purposes doesn't mean it's not useful for anyone else. Most people here aren't interested in thoughtforms as a whole, but in thoughtforms with a particular set of characteristics. To distinguish this type of thoughtform from other types, we call them tulpas.

What you seem to want is for the site to drop its tulpa focus and be about thoughtforms in general, but this is like going to a site about dogs and saying that it should be a site about pets in general. If you want to talk about thoughtforms other than tulpas then go find or make a site about that instead of going into a site that's about tulpas and complaining that it isn't about what you want it to be.

As for the "shouldn'ts", they're simply moral guidelines for the treatment of tulpas based on the conception of tulpas as sentient beings, which is the dominant view on this site. It's a call for empathy, no different than telling a child that it's wrong to pull on a dog's ears because it hurts the dog. If that's thought policing then you might as well say the same for all of morality.

For death begins with life's first breath, 
And life begins at touch of death.
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017, 03:16 AM by Myshkin. Edit Reason: clarifications )
08-31-2017, 02:28 AM
Find Reply
RaveCrazedDave Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 70
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2015
#13
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
(08-31-2017, 02:28 AM)Myshkin Wrote: The distinction between tulpas and servitors is no more arbitrary than the distinction between red and crimson. Whether or not drawing a distinction between two things is arbitrary depends on whether or not the distinction is useful for a specific person or situation. In many cases, drawing a distinction between any two shades of red is arbitrary, so you'll usually hear them all lumped together under "red", but if you're painting something and you want to use a specific shade of red, then the distinction is no longer arbitrary.

Just because the tulpa-servitor distinction is not useful for your purposes doesn't mean it's not useful for anyone else. Most people here aren't interested in thoughtforms as a whole, but in thoughtforms with a particular set of characteristics. To distinguish this type of thoughtform from other types, we call them tulpas.

This whole thing tells me that you either didn't read my post, or that you missed the point completely.


Quote:What you seem to want is for the site to drop its tulpa focus and be about thoughtforms in general, but this is like going to a site about dogs and saying that it should be a site about pets in general. If you want to talk about thoughtforms other than tulpas then go find or make a site about that instead of going into a site that's about tulpas and complaining that it isn't about what you want it to be.

Yes, because since dreamviews's concepts are based on awareness, it is an awareness site, not a lucid dreaming site, right? What are you talking about? Lets take your dog site analogy, for instance: how would it be unreasonable to have an introduction on what pets are? Of course, everyone knows what a pet is, so that'd be a bit absurd, probably, but not everyone knows what a thoughtform is; most people don't! A simpler analogy to understand would be taking a site about beagles and never once telling people what an actual dog is.

Thoughtforms are a FUNDAMENTAL of tulpas. When you begin studying art, you do your circles, your cubes, your cylinders, your cones; that doesn't mean art is about those things, but they make up the platform for you to be able to do other things.

And now answer me this: Is fede's guide not about tulpas? If you say yes, you're contradicting yourself, because that's just the sort of guides I'd like to see around here.

Quote:As for the "shouldn'ts", they're simply moral guidelines for the treatment of tulpas based on the conception of tulpas as sentient beings, which is the dominant view on this site. It's a call for empathy, no different than telling a child that it's wrong to pull on a dog's ears because it hurts the dog. If that's thought policing then you might as well say the same for all of morality.

Honestly and frankly, nobody cares what your morals are. Stop fearmongering and shaming people for doing what they want to do with their own minds; it's not your business, so kindly shut up. There is a place for empathy and general relationship advice in this forum, yes, since it is a forum about tulpas, but that is no excuse to include "moral guidelines" in guides introducing people to the subject; that's plain dumb. Teach them what thoughtforms are, and they'll be smart enough to extrapolate the dangers of it.

Rule number one of making a guide: It's a guide, not your soapbox.

I think it's shameful for a website which has the words

Quote:“For Science!”

under the title, even allows - nay, idolizes (refer to fede's guide once again) - these kinds of morality filled speeches.

Most of the people in this community care little or nothing about actually teaching people about the concept of a tulpa (that it is a thoughtform, and how those work). They are in favour of instead preaching their moral views as if they were writing for bumbling retards with no sense of self preservation.

Things like these are the reason why the questions and answers thread is so full of questions which would instantly be quelled by a basic understanding of thoughtforms.
08-31-2017, 12:36 PM
Find Reply
tulpa001 Online
<void>
Forum Moderators

Posts: 1,958
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,015
#14
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
Okay guys. This debate is somewhat humorous.

To clarify: A tulpa has more in common with the original identity in a body than a servitor. Consequently, any reductionistic effort to equate tulpas and servitors also equates humans and servitors.

Which is funny. But also, a perfectly valid, though technically from a semantic perspective, a sophistic stretching of the meanings of words, philosophical inquiry. I think most people here understand this.

If you want to research the implications of this line of inquiry further, I suggest researching philosophical zombies.



(08-30-2017, 11:10 PM)RaveCrazedDave Wrote: I've been very open about this, and I honestly think the kind of associations we make with tulpas are directly harmful to the psychological concept at hand from a scientific standpoint, which - and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong - this forum claims to concern itself with.
As you wish. This is actually a complicated can of worms. The site's tagline is "for science". Which is actually a nerdism more than anything.

The site's official position on most things is not to have an official position on them. Though, the answers provided on the official FAQ page can be considered the official position, they are up for change.

The site's staff mainly concern themselves with running the site, and for this purpose the site has goals and objectives. But they are also up for change if necessary.

Finally, the site's community has a mixture of positions. This is the other interpretation.

There are several debate threads about this if you really want to become confused.



*picks Kiah's guide at random*

heheh.



"Tulpas are thoughtforms meant to mimic people or otherwise sapient creatures."

*shudder*

No, that is incorrect. It leaves out core traits. The one trait it lists is untrue for most tulpas.

The only correct part of that definition is "tulpas are thoughforms"



I should probably explain what Kiah's guide is. It is a summary of the thoughts and opinions of tulpamancers at the time. One could say the greatest summary of the art, way back when it was written.

Oh, also, too bad Fede sort of rewrote his guide in response to all the criticism.

You know I totally agree. Kiah's guide is filled with normative claims. But you can't just support the truth of normative claims without first proving morality. It's not scientific.

I'd say if Luna doesn't care, she has a good chance of not being a tulpa. Which is interesting all on its own. But a lot more evidence is needed. Perhaps a daemon of some sort. I mean, if I learned anything, tulpas are not simple, and cannot be simply understood. If Luna is able to answer these questions cleanly and simply, for herself, then she is unusual.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
08-31-2017, 12:59 PM
Find Reply
RaveCrazedDave Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 70
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2015
#15
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
It's pretty clear to me we have radically different views on what tulpas are, so I'll just drop the subject itself for the most part. I do wish to address some points:

(08-31-2017, 12:59 PM)tulpa001 Wrote: Okay guys. This debate is somewhat humorous.

To clarify: A tulpa has more in common with the original identity in a body than a servitor. Consequently, any reductionistic effort to equate tulpas and servitors also equates humans and servitors.

I didn't argue any of this, and that clarification doesn't clarify anything to me, and I don't even know what you're trying to say there. Are you implying you can't have a tulpa whose personality is radically different than yours?

Quote:As you wish. This is actually a complicated can of worms. The site's tagline is "for science". Which is actually a nerdism more than anything.

The site's official position on most things is not to have an official position on them. Though, the answers provided on the official FAQ page can be considered the official position, they are up for change.

So you aren't actually interested in finding out how these things work, instead preferring to give people a safe place where any kind of thought, no matter how ridiculous (in fact, the more ridiculous, the better, apparently), can be entertained? Good to know, maybe I'm in the wrong place.

Quote:Finally, the site's community has a mixture of positions. This is the other interpretation.

There are several debate threads about this if you really want to become confused.

Can you imagine if people accepted every "dreams are actually magical and you can even go into other people's dreams and fite them!" kind of opinion which passes through dreamviews? This is what people do around here.

Quote:"Tulpas are thoughtforms meant to mimic people or otherwise sapient creatures."

*shudder*

No, that is incorrect. It leaves out core traits. The one trait it lists is untrue for most tulpas.

Alright, what other "core" traits would you add to the definition, then? Ok, lets say then that tulpas don't deal with just sapient thought forms. Here's a rewrite then: Tulpas are thoughtforms meant to mimic creatures. Made even less specific by you, not me. Sapiency is a simple trait of human personality, not of tulpas or whatever.

Quote:*picks Kiah's guide at random*

heheh.

I don't get what you're trying to get at here. Are you implying that I didn't pick it at random?

Quote:Oh, also, too bad Fede sort of rewrote his guide in response to all the criticism.

I feel the need to clarify I don't like fede's guide that much, I just think it's a good example of the tone a guide should have.

Quote:I'd say if Luna doesn't care, she has a good chance of not being a tulpa. Which is interesting all on its own. But a lot more evidence is needed. Perhaps a daemon of some sort.

This is honestly the most bizarre thing I've been told around here. So how would you separate a deamon from a tulpa, then?
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017, 03:38 PM by RaveCrazedDave.)
08-31-2017, 03:37 PM
Find Reply
tulpa001 Online
<void>
Forum Moderators

Posts: 1,958
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,015
#16
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
I could have a tulpa whose personality is radically different than mine. But I don't want another headmate.

And yeah, we have a high tolerance for ridiculous on the surface beliefs. I mean tulpas. Also, you don't see me shutting down your fringe perspective.

Quote: Alright, what other "core" traits would you add to the definition, then? Ok, lets say then that tulpas don't deal with just sapient thought forms. Here's a rewrite then: Tulpas are thoughtforms meant to mimic creatures. Made even less specific by you, not me. Sapiency is a simple trait of human personality, not of tulpas or whatever.
Nope. Same problem. Tulpas are not thoughtforms meant to do anything. If you use that word, you miss the core.

Here. Tulpas are:
-thoughtforms
-the experience of another person in your head
-either intentionally created, or intentionally worked on at some point.

The thoughtform part is not part of the definition. But it is believed to apply to all tulpas.

The reason they are created is not part of the definition.

Some would add:
-not an imaginary friend.

This site explicitly adds:
-not a form of roleplay.



I don't know daemons well. but this is what I believe them to be:

A thoughtform that is a manifestation of your subconscious mind. They behave in a person like manner, allow you access to your subconscious and give advice.



Edit: everyone picks Kiah.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017, 04:28 PM by tulpa001.)
08-31-2017, 04:08 PM
Find Reply
RaveCrazedDave Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 70
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2015
#17
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
Well, and I think the discussion is not productive anymore. I think plenty was said to show people my point of view and help them make up their own opinions on it.
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017, 06:54 PM by RaveCrazedDave.)
08-31-2017, 05:09 PM
Find Reply
Myshkin Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 15
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2017
#18
 
RE: There is literally no difference between a tulpa and a servitor
(08-31-2017, 12:36 PM)RaveCrazedDave Wrote: Yes, because since dreamviews's concepts are based on awareness, it is an awareness site, not a lucid dreaming site, right?[ What are you talking about? Lets take your dog site analogy, for instance: how would it be unreasonable to have an introduction on what pets are? Of course, everyone knows what a pet is, so that'd be a bit absurd, probably, but not everyone knows what a thoughtform is; most people don't! A simpler analogy to understand would be taking a site about beagles and never once telling people what an actual dog is.

Thoughtforms are a FUNDAMENTAL of tulpas. When you begin studying art, you do your circles, your cubes, your cylinders, your cones; that doesn't mean art is about those things, but they make up the platform for you to be able to do other things.

Apples to oranges. Awareness is a skill needed to succeed in lucid dreaming, thoughtforms are a category of things that tulpas belong in. You don't need to know what thoughtforms are in order to make a tulpa (as evidenced by a number of people on this site), just like you don't need to know what furniture is in order to build a chair. A tulpa equivalent of awareness in your analogy would be forcing, not the concept of thoughtforms.

And I don't get how your beagle-dog analogy is any different from my dog-pet analogy.

Quote:And now answer me this: Is fede's guide not about tulpas? If you say yes, you're contradicting yourself, because that's just the sort of guides I'd like to see around here.


Honestly and frankly, nobody cares what your morals are. Stop fearmongering and shaming people for doing what they want to do with their own minds; it's not your business, so kindly shut up. There is a place for empathy and general relationship advice in this forum, yes, since it is a forum about tulpas, but that is no excuse to include "moral guidelines" in guides introducing people to the subject; that's plain dumb. Teach them what thoughtforms are, and they'll be smart enough to extrapolate the dangers of it.

Rule number one of making a guide: It's a guide, not your soapbox.

I think it's shameful for a website which has the words


under the title, even allows - nay, idolizes (refer to fede's guide once again) - these kinds of morality filled speeches.

Most of the people in this community care little or nothing about actually teaching people about the concept of a tulpa (that it is a thoughtform, and how those work). They are in favour of instead preaching their moral views as if they were writing for bumbling retards with no sense of self preservation.

Things like these are the reason why the questions and answers thread is so full of questions which would instantly be quelled by a basic understanding of thoughtforms.

I take it you don't consider tulpas to be real people, right? Because if you did you would believe that you're not just doing something with your own mind, you're also doing something to someone else. If thoughts could kill from there would be nothing wrong with telling people not to think those kinds of thoughts, and if you have a tulpa then your thoughts can, if not kill, at least hurt them.

Also, stop fearmongering and shaming people for doing what they want with their own guides; it's not your business, so kindly shut up.

"For science" is a joke, not something you should be taking seriously. Tulpas are inherently unscientific because they're unfalsifiable. The forum's "scientific focus" simply refers to the belief that tulpas aren't paranormal phenomena.

"They are in favour of instead preaching their moral views as if they were writing for bumbling retards with no sense of self preservation."
"Teach them what thoughtforms are, and they'll be smart enough to extrapolate the dangers of it."

I don't think you understand what morality is. It's not about self-preservation or avoiding dangers, it's about not doing bad things to other people.

Y'know, if you didn't keep bringing up science I would be almost certain that you were a chaote, judging from your practical-minded approach to thoughtforms. You're far more likely to find what you're looking for on a chaos magic site.
>inb4 magic doesn't real
Whether or not magic is real doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not working under the assumption that it's real gets you the results you want. Same goes for science: it doesn't matter whether or not mass, force and energy exist as anything more than abstractions, what matters is that treating them as if they're real gets you useful results.

For death begins with life's first breath, 
And life begins at touch of death.
08-31-2017, 07:10 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication