Fear = shortcut to sentience?

[Candellaith]

In the beginning of my tulpamancing efforts, I had a lot of fears and I wasn't sure whether I'd like to have a tulpa or not. However, I noticed that the tulpa's sentience developed really fast. I would also get strong emotional replies from them.

 

At some point I stopped tulpamancy and now that I restarted again I have made much slower progress than back then. I have been reading some reports from the people who have been afraid of their tulpa and as a result, their sentience had developed in a matter of weeks or even days.

 

It seems that fear could be a shortcut to sentience, but what kind of issues could this "method" have? Could their personality become hostile if you're afraid of them for example?

 

Maybe it's not about fear, but that fear just happens to be a powerful and more easily sustained motivator to keep your attention at your tulpa at all times (at least partially unconsciously), while also having the added bonus of expecting them to be alive and able to do things on their own?

[Linkzelda]

You're probably trying to conceptualize fear as a catalyst for your tulpa to prove to you that they're sentient with the strong emotional responses you're getting. You could say that initially, that when you find ways to tap into unconscious triggers (since the unconscious mind obviously contains the emotions in general), you could presume that your tulpa will derive from that.

 

But then it becomes a challenge on whether or not it's your tulpa or just your subconscious mind tapping into unconscious emotional triggers and giving it out to you. And honestly, the practical way (at least based on the lack of evidence with verifying sentience) is to treat them as sentient. Because when you have the intention to know they're sentient, your unconscious mind will follow.

 

As for fear itself, it does seem to make sense in what you're saying, especially if you had a loved one, you would be more fearful of losing them rather than loving them. But again, it's kind of going a bit too much in thinking with using just one emotion as a shortcut to sentience, because you can use positive intentions and strong cheerful emotions or anger or envy or whatever emotion to bring about sentience as well.

[Candellaith]

And honestly, the practical way (at least based on the lack of evidence with verifying sentience) is to treat them as sentient. Because when you have the intention to know they're sentient, your unconscious mind will follow.

 

But again, it's kind of going a bit too much in thinking with using just one emotion as a shortcut to sentience, because you can use positive intentions and strong cheerful emotions or anger or envy or whatever emotion to bring about sentience as well.

 

The fear of a tulpa does (pretty much automatically) imply the expectation that the tulpa can do things to you on their own and that they can be sentient, so it's harder to slip into the mindset of simulating your tulpa yourself with parroting and worrying about parroting it instead of trusting the subconscious more.

 

Also fear might be easier to sustain. What I mean are the cases where people are like "don't think about your tulpa, don't think about your tulpa" when they decide to not want one, and as a result they will actually think about them more and the sentience develops as a result of the fear. I guess that it requires some anxious/neurotic traits to be able to utilize fear like that, but it can also be a really fast (if a silly) way to make progress in comparison to the usual struggle that a lot of people seem to have with getting the motivation and keeping it up.

[Linkzelda]

If you feel you can have a tulpa that's sentient with feelings of fear along with your critical factor and many psychological defense mechanisms that's ingrained in your mind that will see your reason of fear as a means of not having one (the tulpa's development) in the first place, that is why engaging in that masochistic thinking is a detriment to progress.

 

There's the type of doubting where people sustain some skepticism, but they still take the chance to engage into faith of their tulpa being sentient (because they know the healthy skepticism can be their port of call if things get too confusing to them). If a person seriously has to go through psychological predispositions to use fear/anxiety/worry/extreme doubt, to really sustain that emotion and expect that's a "shortcut," then they are sorely going about this in a damaging way.

 

When you stated:

 

 

The fear of a tulpa does (pretty much automatically) imply the expectation that the tulpa can do things to you on their own and that they can be sentient, so it's harder to slip into the mindset of simulating your tulpa yourself with parroting and worrying about parroting it instead of trusting the subconscious more.

 

You're actually contradicting yourself here, because to follow with the logic with the supposed "automatic" fear with having tulpa do things on their own, this also encroaches the host having behaviors that they're going to be parroting because of their fear of not wanting a tulpa that is autonomous. Because your logic is cancelling out how there's all sorts of unconscious processes in your mind going on, the supposed "fear" that the tulpa will do things on their own in a negative ambition is not "automatic" for every one of us.

 

Sure, there may be moments of anxiety and worrying with our progress, but again, that's only if the host themselves goes through those predispositions. If you're using fear with how tulpa can do things without us knowing and think that's a catalyst for greater sentience, you're mixing up the definition of sentience with something else.

 

Sentience is just the tulpa being able to have a type of sensory awareness or being competent in making a perception of things with senses, it's not you acknowledging that they're there, the term for that is just "awareness" on your end of thinking. Sapience is their ability to make deductions from the sensory awareness, to make a model of realities and such just like we can.

 

 

And honestly, the type of "fear" people have with tulpa is when they think they're coming out of an other-worldly dimension and assume there's a literal dichotomy with them and the host. They've deluded themselves away from wondering how expansive the unconscious mind is in terms of storing identities, information, etc. Unless there's actual evidence of tulpa being created from a spectrum beyond the confines of our minds, that level of thinking fear leads to sentience, when you're confusing it to you being "aware" of them out of that fear is simply going to hurt the person in the long run.

 

It can even be demeaning for the tulpa as well trying to develop themselves because if their host isn't able to be safe around them, how in the world do you think the tulpa will be "okay" with that?

[Candellaith]

If you feel you can have a tulpa that's sentient with feelings of fear along with your critical factor and many psychological defense mechanisms that's ingrained in your mind that will see your reason of fear as a means of not having one (the tulpa's development) in the first place, that is why engaging in that masochistic thinking is a detriment to progress.

 

If the mind prevented having an autonomous tulpa due to the defense mechanisms understanding fear as a reason to not have one, the phenomenon where sentience is apparently greatly accelerated by such fears could not be observed. From what I've gathered, using a kind of reverse psychology (probably the wrong term) is possible. If the mind didn't understand the object of the fear as real, I'd imagine it wouldn't react to it as if it was real.

 

There's the type of doubting where people sustain some skepticism, but they still take the chance to engage into faith of their tulpa being sentient (because they know the healthy skepticism can be their port of call if things get too confusing to them). If a person seriously has to go through psychological predispositions to use fear/anxiety/worry/extreme doubt, to really sustain that emotion and expect that's a "shortcut," then they are sorely going about this in a damaging way.

 

It can even be demeaning for the tulpa as well trying to develop themselves because if their host isn't able to be safe around them, how in the world do you think the tulpa will be "okay" with that?

 

I understand that the tulpa might not be okay with it, which is why I asked about the dangers in the first place. On the other hand, they might want to comfort you instead of getting angry, or take any other behavior (possibly influenced by the personality trait basics you might give them).

 

Also I'm skeptical towards (some) skepticism; mostly due to some reports that some hosts have not been able to hear their tulpae until after they had tried their best to let go of all doubts.

 

You're actually contradicting yourself here, because to follow with the logic with the supposed "automatic" fear with having tulpa do things on their own, this also encroaches the host having behaviors that they're going to be parroting because of their fear of not wanting a tulpa that is autonomous. Because your logic is cancelling out how there's all sorts of unconscious processes in your mind going on, the supposed "fear" that the tulpa will do things on their own in a negative ambition is not "automatic" for every one of us.

 

What I meant was the kind of mindset where you end up thinking about your tulpa more due to purposefully trying not to, it doesn't have to include parroting for the sake of killing autonymity on purpose. But yeah I suppose that most who are afraid of a tulpa and decide to not have one don't get it "automatic" like that (as in the mind starting to treat the tulpa as real, even on many subconscious levels, due to the fears).

 

Sure, there may be moments of anxiety and worrying with our progress, but again, that's only if the host themselves goes through those predispositions. If you're using fear with how tulpa can do things without us knowing and think that's a catalyst for greater sentience, you're mixing up the definition of sentience with something else.

 

Sentience is just the tulpa being able to have a type of sensory awareness or being competent in making a perception of things with senses, it's not you acknowledging that they're there, the term for that is just "awareness" on your end of thinking. Sapience is their ability to make deductions from the sensory awareness, to make a model of realities and such just like we can.

 

I might be mixing the terms up. I mean't the tulpa's development in general as an autonomous personality, and the increased awareness on the host's end.

 

And honestly, the type of "fear" people have with tulpa is when they think they're coming out of an other-worldly dimension and assume there's a literal dichotomy with them and the host. They've deluded themselves away from wondering how expansive the unconscious mind is in terms of storing identities, information, etc. Unless there's actual evidence of tulpa being created from a spectrum beyond the confines of our minds, that level of thinking fear leads to sentience, when you're confusing it to you being "aware" of them out of that fear is simply going to hurt the person in the long run.

 

Or the fears can also stem from the actual possible dangers of tulpamancy such as accidental tulpae, accidentally hostile tulpae, and others that could be seen as a threat, as well as maybe the realization that it's a lifelong commitment. Also I don't see how the fear implies that the tulpa had to be "brought" in from beyond the confines of our minds (maybe I misunderstood), it's just created like you create one when you give them attention in normal tulpaforcing.

[Linkzelda]

When it comes to people having "accidental" hostile tulpae, it usually ends up being that for several reasons, the most prominent is just the expectations for one being hostile (because the unconscious mind makes a thought-form because of the totality of experiential learning, schemata of reality, belief systems, etc.)

 

And I don't deny that using that type of reverse psychology is an option for a host to use, but based on the rudiments behind fear, and even fight or flight responses, it's impractical. Simply because if you were to go to the Questions thread and tell a newcomer or a disheartened member that might be losing motivation, if you tell them they can do reverse psychology to bring about sentience to their tulpa, I doubt they would take that as an approach for progress.

 

And it definitely won't be something that can be producible for everyone in general, because people are going to have personal feelings in the methods/techniques/etc. that they use, and because it's not something that would be practiced by everyone, because of the steps with fear, it's not a shortcut, it's just dragging out the process longer.

 

That's why when Fear is presumed to be a shortcut, it's only if the host knows what their doing, but we don't know how the tulpa will respond to that when their host tells them,

 

"Hey, I just wanted to let you know that your existence in general was brought about with me using reverse psychology on myself!"

 

Now, it's one thing to use reverse psychology on an entity (friends/families/strangers/animals/etc.) that's OUTSIDE of the confines of your mind, but it's a completely different matter when you're using it ON yourself and the confines of your mind, especially when your tulpa is an expansion of yourself (in a subjective way of course).

 

 

So unless you can actually apply this logic of using fear to do reverse psychology on a person, the application is going to send the newcomer or member into more stress and anxiety. Please do enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding anything here though.

[Candellaith]

I don't deny that the different methods work for different people and their situations, and the differences in how easily they could get into such a state, and thus the possible impracticality of attempting to teach such a method for users in general. But if the person does experience accelerated progress of a tulpa, associated with the fears, they will not have to make an extra effort attempting to understand the fear concept, and instead they could just be told to go with it and maybe later stop fearing once their tulpa has developed a decent vocality and independence. It's like riding an avalance to get to the bottom of the mountain; at best it's fast, and at worst it could be dangerous (implying that the expectations of hostility can actually turn the tulpa hostile, or that they can become such due to being used reverse psychology on).

[Linkzelda]

At best it's detrimental, at worst, it's a trip towards sadomasochism.

 

Even if you can cleverly think of ways to induce fear as a means of a catalyst for faster sentience, the rudiments behind it would not be something everyone would do. It's absolutely useless no matter how much you try to twist, turn, and use metaphors, analogies, and such to try to make it look like it's practical in convincing newcomers, or even scientists for that matter that might be interested in how to actually conceptualize the tulpa phenomenon.

 

In a world where one of the most important things to do is to produce and get results, especially with Science, imagine how Psychiatrists, Sociologists, and other Scientists would interpret your presumptions with fear and reverse psychology.

 

Unless you can convince newcomers and see them produce results with that without them going ballistic, depressed, and disheartened with their already stacked paranoia, anguish, pain, and other psychosomatic occurences, your thinking is admirable, but the application is damaging and USELESS.

[Candellaith]

If it works for some, how is it useless? I never said that it cannot be dangerous or that it could apply on everyone and their situations. If there are cases where the tulpa rapidly progresses due to fear, and then the fear turns into trust as the tulpa is able to communicate and bond with the host better, I'd say that it's an option to be considered.

[Linkzelda]

When things work for some, it won't work for the rest. The aim for shortcuts is having it applied for people in general and produce consistent results. If only a few people can get to it, it means it's not a practical shortcut at all, that means it has to require a certain level of thinking that not many people can have readily accessible to them.

 

Shortcuts means there's workarounds out of something difficult, no effort involved (fear requires tremendous effort when the mind and body works for equilibrium), and can omit several steps from other conventional methods. Unless many members make their own post here (or you quoting on other members, which will still just be few, but not a convincing few) on how your logic can help with faster sentience, this is just speculation with "ifs."