Rationalistic Guide to Vocality.

[reguile]

This is it, sorry for google docs screwing up the margins.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pcDErb0e3X2myO5HMtNuSZe10dxk8X0iUHXWlCtlcqA/pub

 

I reformatted the PDF back-up copy, see here for my explanation -Ranger

 

T_Guide Reguile.pdf

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ranger
Set to [Vocality] -Unknown Mod; Added PDF back-up and link to formatting explanation -Ranger

[CyberD]

The words of a rationalist, I like it. There aren't many people out there who are willing to admit so openly the whole process is just a delusion. And of course it is.

 

Should I just be starting out I'd probably come away from this guide better for it. Learning different perspectives on the process when just starting out is incredibly important and this is one we don't see very often.

 

Sure you can start the process for fun and leave it solely at that but is it a bad thing if the tulpa means more to you than just "Something I made for fun?" So long as the delusion is understood and remains rational. Of course I don't think that is something that really needs to be told, instead it would be up to the person to learn on their own as they spend more time with their tulpa and discover how they feel about them.

 

EDIT: Due to the huge negative response here that I wasn't expecting to be so huge so quickly..... I'll simply put out there that I feel the guide would probably be better received if reworked as a general discussion on your views of rationalism, instead of being an actual guide in the guide section. You'd probably generate a better discussion with your ideals on rationalism in a different section of the forums.

[Linkzelda]

Quick recap at the bottom of this post for anyone that's too indolent for critical thinking.

 

 

At a glance, the OP feels as if they’re being rational, but they’re just like any person you find on reddit, .info, and other areas that try to apply a rational approach is often in guise of their insecurity of trying to see if tulpas can actually become “real” in relation to just the confines of their minds.

 

It’s these people that try to be more rational instead of combining it with basic usage of imagination and subjectivity that ends up having the most doubt than those who may be more naïve and stick to self-fulfilling prophecy philosophies such as the old “assuming as sentient” before the “treating as sentient while knowing they’ll still have to develop” ideology.

 

The attempt to make a “less crappy guide” ironically ended up being the apotheosis of the opposite, and here’s why:

 

First off, most all the guides are really old and outdated. I have yet to see a guide that addresses these sorts of issues without just kind of stating them as fact.

 

It’s because if a guide actually addressed those issues, they would assume they had a twisted logic. It’s what happens you’re in a community full of degenerates, autistic individuals, and incompetents that are so indolent that having a critical discussion about tulpas is highly improbable for the time being. It’s probably because of the age range of people still trying to identify themselves and their tulpas, and going through a cluster of emotions that can make them very insecure that prevents them from being reflective and wising up a bit.

 

Instead of focusing on how information, trends, philosophies, etc. dissipate fairly quickly, it’s more of seeing it as progression and improving from those naïve conceptual schemes of tulpas.

 

A Less-Crappy Guide

 

This is a matter of disposition, but for how the GAT system seems to want some professionalism, the earnest truth can sometimes be seen as immature here. Because of this, it will leave an impression that the writer has a disposition that anything that doesn’t seem to fit their approach is old, outdated, or “crappy.” In fact, they may think the writer is conceited.

 

Secondly, A lot of the guides take the “weak” approach to tulpa's.

 

Agreed, I find myself using the naïve route myself if I ever wanted to make future guides/articles/etc. because I know actually being earnest on existential questioning on tulpa’s would cause those that are predisposed to the slightest negativity will end up in a chaotic mess. That’s why the happy care-bear logic has been sustained for so long, people just don’t know how to bend their morals a bit before they snap.

 

Most guides take the route on tulpa that assumes the host will/should give themselves fully to the idea that their tulpa is a separate human being from the get-go, that you should “have faith” in your tulpa.

 

This can be argued in a myriad of ways. For instance, consider lucid dreaming and dream characters. It’s basically a combination of self-fulfilling prophecies, selective attention, planned out intentions with goals, and much more that has the underlying concept of how belief and intent are common for the existence of whatever thought-form in their dreams.

 

The same goes for tulpas in general, at some point the mere thought of believing in their existence before essence stems from a slight attachment towards existentialism. Since after all, due to the lack of information on ontologically explaining tulpas’ existence is lacking (and usually gets hammered down by grammar Nazis who skim through pages of information in 3 minutes and call it incoherent).

 

Honestly, I don’t like that much at all….Heck, it can get you much faster progress and much better results …..However, I do think that things like parroting fears and tulpa going "out of control" often stem from this sort of thought process.

 

This seems to be a non-sequitur by presuming that the same “assuming as sentient” philosophy will most likely lead to someone having doubt for their tulpas. Although I can agree with you to some extent, since I made a statement before that self-fulfilling prophecies like “assuming as sentient” is bound to lead to ambiguity and often an unstable way to approach perseverance.

 

However, there has to be a fundamental idea for people to derive on, but it doesn’t mean that same fundamental idea is the sole reason for people having cognitive dissonance in relation to the tulpa phenomenon. Because if they were to read your guide, they may get confused in their transient stages of optimism for the sake of initiating progress and end up in that same cognitive dissonance you’ve addressed that people seem to have with those naïve philosophies.

 

Anyone can react to a certain ideal in the wrong way, and it just shows that things are really subjective even if there’s a rational approach for more rigid and seemingly pragmatic explanations.

 

Even if it's slower, less efficient, and even if it turns people away from tulpa because "it's not real", I do think that it's very preferable to take an outtake on tulpa that focuses less on having that sort of faith or “trust”.

 

This depends on how much you’re actually exposed to individuals who do want to be rational. I’ve talked with a few members from other communities that definitely try to put up a BS filter to avoid themselves from garnering a false hope during the tulpa creation process. However, I see a common trend with these people focusing more on trying to validate if the tulpa can have a different and often metaphysical bent on being “real” to the host and their perception of reality.

 

It’s because of that attachment towards that speculation that often makes them scavenge for the negatives rather than practicing. Which leads back to what you stated to how things may be slower, of less efficacy, and such. But what can be used to argue against your claim is that seeing tulpas as a long-term commitment will obviously involve the host and tulpa going through progressive paradigm shifts in perspectives, ideologies, and much more. At some point, the individual will be able to wise up and learn from those past conflicts they had with doubts. So for you to be making dispositional statements based on the circumstantial events with short-term doubts and fears ends up making your claim just as shaky as any other ideology.

 

ll preface this by saying that I am nowhere near the "higher level" of experienced people when it comes to having a tulpa. My tulpa and I cannot switch, possess, or do any form parallel processing or even form complex thoughts.

It’s “ I’ll ,” not “ll.”

And this right here is a common trend I would like to address. Those who try to apply the rational approach on tulpas will always have a cluster of doubt with utilizing pre-existing knowledge in psychology, sociology, and much more to find a connection. Because they’re more honest of their current state of progress, how they explain to create a tulpa is usually going to be derived from the same “old” and “outdated” guide submissions.

 

Ultimately, you could say that from this statement of yours that your explanation of tulpas will most likely be generic. Presuming you’re going for pragmatic and rational applications into the tulpa creation process, you’ll be limited to deriving from older concepts and making your own ideology for the sake of individuality and uniqueness from other guides you think are old and outdated.

 

Seems like a futile attempt in general, but it just shows we’ll have to be resourceful despite of this.

 

Etc: a word I use when i'm too lazy to be sure i'm covering all angles and am trying to get a general point rather than a objectified list across.

“I’m,” not a lowercase I with “’m” attached to it. Etc. doesn’t cover all angles, it’s an indolent attempt to state that all angles can’t be covered.

I don’t think this needs to be in the guide submission in general. A common trend people go for is “Man, sorry, I typed this at 2AM, so I might be lazy in my wording.” And wanting to cover all angles in a guide submission is almost improbable, and due to the short size of this guide submission, clustering those alternatives with a rational approach isn’t practical.

 

People reading the guide submission should already get a lot of implications from the disclaimer you presented above.

 

So, now to list the basic goals of creating a tulpa...

 

(Spoiler: Highlight to reveal)

 

1) I LIED! THERE ARE NO GOALS!

If you made a statement here,

 

This will only discuss the process of creating a tulpa which is vocal.

 

Then why are you making this contradicting claim for it after? This will make people imply you have no intention of actually explaining the process of creating a tulpa, and will inform them that you’re just going to go into tangents and rambling off into things. This only raises questions on whether or not you’re actually being rational with having competence to stick to a purpose and explaining it fully without giving these contradicting claims.

 

You do not force or create a tulpa to reach a goal. The process of creating a tulpa has no end, it is only an activity.

 

An activity has to have an endpoint, so it’s probably unintelligible equivocation on your end in explaining this. If you’re trying to express that the tulpa creation process and whatever comes beyond that is a progressive activity that’s long-term, then merely find some words to syntactically compose competently.

 

I think of forcing like I think of sports. It's not a game you play to win. You can try as hard as you can to collect your goals if that's your thing, ………you just play the game to have fun just playing the game.

 

I can empathize for you that people should enjoy the journey more than just the end-goal, but it doesn’t mean having some sort of plan (that can be flexible for any upcoming circumstances that may challenge it mind you) shouldn’t be considered as well. It’s that same logic you’re promoting to focus more on quotidian (or day-to-day-activities) that doesn’t seem to be supportive for your attempt in rationalism. A pragmatist/rationalist would consider balancing spectrums with planning and living in the moment.

 

I can tell you now that there typically is a way to accomplish most goals without a tulpa, and typically that way is more efficient than creating a tulpa (although less fun!).

 

Again, since you’ve admitted before that you don’t have much progress in possession and other tulpa-related activities, what you’re stating is fairly outdated and old. I can’t really give you hard evidence on this, but the more you gain experiential learning on the potentials tulpas can have with augmenting overall cognition and metacognition, the more your opinion on this will change.

 

Yes, it’s understandable that hosts will eventually realize that what their tulpa can do is something they can do themselves. But it doesn’t mean that having a thought-form that has a totality of implications for being a sentient and more autonomous entity wouldn’t have some benefit. Again, because you lack experiential learning on this potential, your current conceptual scheme on this is still outdated unfortunately.

 

Want better memory? Study!

I can’t stress this enough. A tulpa will do little to nothing for your abilities to memorize.

 

It’s not a matter of having long-term memory that’s potent for rapid retrieval and all that. It’s more of the host having a tulpa where they can share information with (even if it’s just a pseudo-dialogue in your perspective) that can actually make them enjoy the process of study. And with anything a person can actually enjoy doing, the brain would blast dopamine all over the place that may lead to them salvaging what they’re trying to memorize.

 

The idea here is that tulpas can be a beneficial secondhand insight towards developing cognitive and metacognitive skills in memory. It’s not like anyone should absolve themselves from using their own brain though, it’s more of group thinking between host and tulpa. Even if there’s implications of a more autonomous and sentient mind, how those implications can actually create something beneficial is what counts.

 

Need a friend to talk to and need to feel accepted? Honestly, this is what friends are for, go out and make some.

Tulpa should never be used as replacement for real life human beings.

 

It should be blatantly clear that no one should have a tulpa to live a hermit crab lifestyle and become isolationists. However, people tend to make this claim because they’re focusing more on the short-term circumstances with individuals with human curiosity who will inevitably do a comparative analysis on relationships with their tulpa vs. anyone else they interact with.

 

At some point, they will learn how to combine those relationships to coexist with each other. And friends, whether it’s a tulpa or a human being, have their limits. Because I’m pretty sure when an individual sees a larger dynamic in relationships with tulpas, how they view normative gregarious lifestyles with others goes beyond their urge of wanting to become isolationists.

 

Again, what you’re saying isn’t really anything new here, and can easily be destroyed with using retrospect to see how things will invariably change in time.

 

Again, tulpa are a thing which really shouldn’t be defined as a goal.

Although I won't stop you from trying, I can assure you that, in most cases, you can get much more benefit elsewhere.

 

With this logic, this furthers how people shouldn’t really rely on this being a tulpa creation guide in the first place. If you were a true rationalist that can actually be vicarious of people’s positions of their journey into this, the whole “optimism” and “courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality” naiveté logic is a transient stage for progress, not something that has to be long-term. Huge difference.

 

I am not here typing this to help you create a new person, or to help your brain develop a cordoned off area of axons and neurons that can create thoughts entirely separately from yourself. This is a guide on the art of self delusion, and i’m sorry if you do not like that fact, or if I kill off a cool fantasy by saying this, but honestly I think this is better said than not.

 

“Self-delusion,” not “self delusion”

 

I guess you felt you were being rational here, although how you’re syntactically wording things here seems to promote how you’re applying neuroscience and panpsychism into this. Usually only using those two as ontological presumptions of what makes a tulpa is fairly outdated and ends up being pseudoscience if there’s an intent to be rational about it.

 

I think it’s fairly obvious and common for people to understand that tulpas may be a delusion/trick/simulacra/figments of one’s imagination, but it’s not like they can’t adapt accordingly to coexist despite of that probability. If anything, I can already tell that if you happen to still create a tulpa, you’ll be going through the same existential questioning and bewilderment like anyone else.

 

Tulpa seem extraordinary at first glance because they ARE extraordinary at a glance, but once you get into the details it’s all a delusion.

 

This is only because you have yet to have experiential learning that tulpas can be a secondhand totality of insight, self-discovery, and much more. In fact, if you consider Lucid Dreaming and how it has much more imaginative potential with consciousness exploration, what you’re saying becomes an understatement. I’m not sure if you’ve had personal research with Lucid Dreaming, but you if you did, you would know that seeing this as a delusion isn’t hard to swallow and embrace.

It’s more of seeing how that delusion/figment of your imagination/simulacra/etc. can lead to development in overall cognition and much more.

 

In other words, a man who thinks they are sick will waste time and recources trying to get better, and in the end they might not actually get better despite treatment. A person who is actually sick is not wasting resources, and will actually find real usefulness in medication.

 

“Resources,” not “recources”

 

This is a non-sequitur and unintelligible equivocation to what you bolded as a rhetorical question on the thought process. You’re presuming that a person can’t find compatibility with the process to what they would deem waking life as reality. In fact, a more rational individual would see that how they view reality may be something they internally create, which means there may be the probability of their perception being skewed.

 

And the concept of tulpa would further that questioning, and if you add in research into Lucid Dreaming, there’s a monumental questioning on what truly is reality. Because sticking to the more temporal view on reality as going through quotidian lifestyles and being part of the rat-race for creating a sense of purpose and meaning involves bending some morals at some point to prevent the rationalist from snapping altogether.

 

You can still have a tulpa while fully accepting and embracing the idea that your tulpa is less a sentient creature and more a delusion.

 

Agreed, but it will obviously take some application of bending one’s moral/conscience/ethics/conceptual schemes/etc. to have a decent level of rapport with their tulpa with that ideology. The secret with living with that mindset is to not attach to those thoughts of their questionable existential parameters of origin.

 

This isn’t something revolutionary you’re stating here, and it doesn’t seem you’re providing much originality than the circle jerking Richard Dawkins-esque reddit groups that take no action into this. All theory and no action my friend.

 

When you can hold the conflicting ideals of “I have a tulpa” and “my tulpa is likely a delusion” in your head at the same time, you gain all the benefits of having a tulpa with none of the drawbacks of not having any disconnect from the real functionings of the world.

 

http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Cognitive%20dissonance

 

Good luck with the incongruent thoughts! It can only be a benefit if the person is flexible with their conceptual schemes, ideologies, and can bend their morals. This only adds on how people should stay clear from this guide submission until they developed a more rational, pragmatic, and subjective mindset about this.

 

Wait a few weeks, if you are really truly new here to this “community”.

 

Your Join Date is December 2013, maybe you should take your advice for once. Unless you were part of another group before actually making an account on .info, it seems you’re feigning authority more than being rationalistic on this.

 

Ok, time to begin on the actual guide part, which may honestly end up as one of the shortest parts to the guide, as it’s more important to have a good mindset than to follow a series of rigid steps in making a tulpa.

You have an extra space at the “mindset than” part.

So essentially, you made a huge disclaimer before actually having the guide ACTUALLY be focused on tulpa creation in a rationalistic mindset. You don’t really need to validate with your previous explanations as a backup before making the actual attempt of the process of creation. Just something to point out speaking from experience with dealing with grammar Nazis and indolent individuals who have militant strives for conciseness that will only fit their approach.

 

Okay, so for this part of the guide, I honestly think it should be stripped entirely. If anything, you should present the creation process first, and then go about your personal ramblings on basic contemplation on what would ontologically define a tulpa (e.g. delusion/simulacra/figment of one’s imagination/etc.)

 

 

 

NOW to actually give a critique on the creation part.

 

Wait, I don’t need to, because it’s clear you’re deriving from concepts from guides you feel are old and outdated. Which ultimately makes your explanations as generic as anything else. There’s nothing new here whatsoever. There’s not even a unique application for symbolism, or a set of symbolism applied here at all.

 

Tulpa is something you do for fun, and for fun only. It’s a hobby, an activity, etc. Tulpa aren’t objects to help you through your life or magical beings of any sort.

 

With how you seem to have an ineptness for having a conscience despite of the subjective origins of tulpas, people would infer that when you say “for fun,” it could be for something unpredictable and potentially damaging. And making the last sentence to that quote seems to contradict what you were saying. Because when you say “tulpa is something you do for fun,” it implies they’re an object you use as a means to have fun.

 

Do you see where I’m getting at here?

 

I’ll update this as I go further, but I have a suspicion it’ll be a looong time, so until then. Goodbye.

 

“Long,” not “looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong”

 

It’s rare for me to actually militantly give more negatives than alternatives to a guide submission, but it’s really difficult to give alternatives to a person that feels like they’re being rational and has considered all angles when they’re still just as naïve as anyone in the initial stages of tulpa creation that tries to make a guide out of the process.

 

I disapprove of this guide tremendously, I can't find any way to euphemistically state this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quick recap:

 

• I’ll update this as I go further, but I have a suspicion it’ll be a looong time, so until then. Goodbye.

   
  Again, you should follow your advice and actually go through the experiential learning process of creating a tulpa before making a rationalist approach towards it. And just maybe you’ll see that your ideologies may change dramatically.

 

• http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Cognitive%20dissonance
   
  This is what the guide is frontloading about. Non-sequiturs, straw man arguments, red herrings, and all sorts of fallacies in the attempt to seem as if you’re being rational about this.

 

• The actual creation process was shorter than the disclaimer and contradicting and an outdated rational approach you attempted. And it wasn’t even anything unique or something of a higher caliber to back up your claim of making a “A Less-Crappy Guide” you made for your Preamble.

 

• This may have a condescending and patronizing overtone, but maybe you should wait a few months and update this guide for a massive revision

 

• Also, if anyone actually has this guide as a supplement to their tulpa forcing endeavors, it's an existential crisis just waiting to happen

 

The ONLY thing that would salvage this guide to from the brink of existence is if you actually go through the experiential process after a few months, or even a few years has past. You’ll have a more rational and pragmatic standpoint on tulpas until then.

 

EDIT: You seemed to have made the guide for tulpa creation with a tulpa that's already vocal, maybe it was just a syntax error you had there.

 

Disapproved.

[reguile]

This is a matter of disposition, but for how the GAT system seems to want some professionalism, the earnest truth can sometimes be seen as immature here. Because of this, it will leave an impression that the writer has a disposition that anything that doesn’t seem to fit their approach is old, outdated, or “crappy.” In fact, they may think the writer is conceited.

 

This is intercommunication. I originally had this named "A crappy guide", before I edited it to say "A less crappy guide. I was referring to the guide itself in the title as being less crappy than the un-edited version, and I did that because I couldn't think of a good title, and honesty I still couldn't think of a good title when I named this post. The only word that came to mind was "rationalistic" and it seemed to fit at a first glance, so I used it.

 

because I know actually being earnest on existential questioning on tulpa’s would cause those that are predisposed to the slightest negativity will end up in a chaotic mess. That’s why the happy care-bear logic has been sustained for so long, people just don’t know how to bend their morals a bit before they snap.

 

I call this living a lie for the sake of security. Those predisposed to the slightest negativity should have left as soon as they read the first disclaimer that I put at the top. I did not intend this guide for everyone, just those who do not want to "live a lie".

 

For instance, consider lucid dreaming and dream characters. It’s basically a combination of self-fulfilling prophecies, selective attention, planned out intentions with goals, and much more that has the underlying concept of how belief and intent are common for the existence of whatever thought-form in their dreams.

 

So dream characters are a parallel to tulpa? dream characters are sentient? Dream characters don't start being "just a dream" as soon as you wake up? I made this guide so you wouldn't have to have an undying belief or unwavering faith in order to make a tulpa.

 

This seems to be a non-sequitur by presuming that the same “assuming as sentient” philosophy will most likely lead to someone having doubt for their tulpas.

 

Again, I said this at the top. I wrote this guide as much for me as I did for anyone else, this is an organization of my experiences and my thoughts on tulpa up to this point, in guide form. This is what I experienced when making a tulpa, although it has been formed somewhat by asking questions of random members on the IRC.

 

but it doesn’t mean that same fundamental idea is the sole reason for people having cognitive dissonance in relation to the tulpa phenomenon.

 

Nope, that would be the idea that tulpa should be entities that are fully capable of replying and developing conflicting with the fact that when one tries to make a tulpa, they aren't. Parroting fears exist and are so common because parroting IS what a tulpa is, just in a deluded sort of way.

 

Anyone can react to a certain ideal in the wrong way

 

Hence my disclaimer at the beginning.

 

This depends on how much you’re actually exposed to individuals who do want to be rational. I’ve talked with a few members from other communities that definitely try to put up a BS filter to avoid themselves from garnering a false hope during the tulpa creation process. However, I see a common trend with these people focusing more on trying to validate if the tulpa can have a different and often metaphysical bent on being “real” to the host and their perception of reality.

 

I said it a few times already. This is an absolute worse way of creating a tulpa than other "non-rationalistic" methods. The only benefit here is that there is more stability, and more truth.

 

You are talking to one of "those people".

 

This is a different, but not metaphysical bent on tulpa being "real" to the host and their perception of reality. That's what this guide is written for.

 

So for you to be making dispositional statements based on the circumstantial events with short-term doubts and fears ends up making your claim just as shaky as any other ideology.

 

These are not short term doubts and fears. These are conclusions I have come to after seeing how other people do things with tulpa, and how I personally experienced the creation of a tulpa. The doubts and fears of tulpa not being "real" in the classic sense will last forever in my case, and without an alternate method I would not be here at all.

 

It’s “ I’ll ,” not “ll.”

 

Those who try to apply the rational approach on tulpas will always have a cluster of doubt with utilizing pre-existing knowledge in psychology, sociology, and much more to find a connection. Because they’re more honest of their current state of progress, how they explain to create a tulpa is usually going to be derived from the same “old” and “outdated” guide submissions.

 

Derived from is not the same as. Everything is derivative. I'll address this more later just as you do.

 

Ultimately, you could say that from this statement of yours that your explanation of tulpas will most likely be generic.

 

I say multiple times during the actual guide that the reader should go and read other guides. I do not try do disguise this in any form or way.

 

If you made a statement here,

 

The fact that there are goals is implied when I say "here are some goals". I'm not going to list a bunch of stuff just to say it was all just a joke.

 

Then why are you making this contradicting claim for it after?

 

Being vocal is not a end goal, it is just just one of many steps. Secondly, when I said goals, I was implying for someone to have an "end goal" such as "doing X better".

 

An activity has to have an endpoint

 

Death, or the decision to stop forcing/having a tulpa is a perfectly fine endpoint.

 

but it doesn’t mean having some sort of plan (that can be flexible for any upcoming circumstances that may challenge it mind you) shouldn’t be considered as well.

 

I can agree with this, but I didn't really consider that people would take goal to mean "a goal to achieve with a tulpa". Although I still don't think that having an end goal is too good of an idea, because it turns the sport of tulpa into one where you "play for points" instead of "playing to play".

 

what you’re stating is fairly outdated and old.

 

the more you gain experiential learning on the potentials tulpas can have with augmenting overall cognition and metacognition, the more your opinion on this will change.

 

Except I say that just training your brain to do these things directly can be more beneficial than having a tulpa. I do not say that it's impossible for tulpa to have a benefit, I say that if you goal is to improve yourself, you are better focusing on improving yourself than making a tulpa.

 

It’s more of the host having a tulpa where they can share information with (even if it’s just a pseudo-dialogue in your perspective) that can actually make them enjoy the process of study.

 

Or you can just learn to enjoy the material you are studying.

 

The idea here is that tulpas can be a beneficial secondhand insight towards developing cognitive and metacognitive skills in memory.

 

And you can be a firsthand one without a tulpa. A tulpa is not an independent or free-thinking being. It is the illusion of one.

 

However, people tend to make this claim because they’re focusing more on the short-term circumstances with individuals with human curiosity who will inevitably do a comparative analysis on relationships with their tulpa vs. anyone else they interact with.

 

I make this claim to say that you should never create a tulpa to replace human relationships. It does not matter why others make the claim.

 

With this logic, this furthers how people shouldn’t really rely on this being a tulpa creation guide in the first place.

 

I agree. Nobody should rely on this guide entirely, they should read it, consider it, and do their own thing.

 

the whole “optimism” and “courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality” naiveté logic is a transient stage for progress, not something that has to be long-term. Huge difference.

 

So what, lie to people and expect them to come to the conclusion "that was all a lie" in a perfectly smooth and (because apparently he who uses bigger words is obviously right) non-consequential fashion?

 

“Self-delusion,” not “self delusion”

-

 

although how you’re syntactically wording things here seems to promote how you’re applying neuroscience and panpsychism into this.

 

I actually mean to allude to that it's impossible for the brain to do what I mentioned, so I guess your somewhat right here, even if it's just me saying others are wrong instead of trying to use neuroscience.

 

I think it’s fairly obvious and common for people to understand that tulpas may be a delusion/trick/simulacra/figments of one’s imagination, but it’s not like they can’t adapt accordingly to coexist despite of that probability

 

That's what the point of this entire guide is...

 

This is only because you have yet to have experiential learning that tulpas can be a secondhand totality of insight, self-discovery, and much more.

 

Again, nothing more than a person can do without a tulpa. If they can truly be a secondhand totality of insight, self-discovery, and much more than everything I understand about what makes tulpa work is wrong and/or off, and honestly it doesn't match up with just about anything i've experienced or heard from people when asking then questions about their tulpa.

 

In fact, if you consider Lucid Dreaming and how it has much more imaginative potential with consciousness exploration, what you’re saying becomes an understatement. I’m not sure if you’ve had personal research with Lucid Dreaming, but you if you did, you would know that seeing this as a delusion isn’t hard to swallow and embrace.

 

LD and tulpa have next to nothing to do with one another. One is a dream state that occurs naturally in the mind when a person questions if a dream is a dream, and the other is not.

 

Seeing things as a delusion is not hard to swallow and embrace, that's what this whole guide is about.

 

It’s more of seeing how that delusion/figment of your imagination/simulacra/etc. can lead to development in overall cognition and much more.

 

Nothing more than a person wanting to develop their cognition without tulpa, as said before.

 

“Resources,” not “recources”

R

 

You’re presuming that a person can’t find compatibility with the process to what they would deem waking life as reality. In fact, a more rational individual would see that how they view reality may be something they internally create,

 

In fact, a more rational individual would see that how they view reality may be something they internally create

 

Bullshit.

 

The idea that reality is just a delusion is something that isn't able to be proven or disprove. To say a rational person would come to some conclusion like that with next to no evidence asides "oh, but it could be" is not rational in any shape or form.

 

If you are talking about how a person viewing reality being different, but not reality itself being different you have a whole different point entirely. But that doesn't mean that a persons view can effect what is actually reality, and it doesn't change that if you view reality as something different than what it actually is than it is a delusion.

 

and if you add in research into Lucid Dreaming, there’s a monumental questioning on what truly is reality.

 

Lucid dreaming is a dream, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't bring any questions as to what is reality, because dreams always end, and you always wake up to realize they were false and did not occur.

 

Because sticking to the more temporal view on reality as going through quotidian lifestyles and being part of the rat-race for creating a sense of purpose and meaning involves bending some morals at some point to prevent the rationalist from snapping altogether.

 

"because sticking to a more normal view on reality while going through a persons daily lifestyle and being part of the endless search for a purpose involves bending some morals at some point to prevent the rationalist from snapping altogether"

 

You can speak like a damned normal person, i'm assuming you know that right?

 

And this is going into philosophy far more-so than it is a criticism on my guide. It's becoming clear you disagree with what I say in my guide, rather than how it is written or how well it says it. You seem to be allowing opinion to cloud your ability to actually criticize things.

 

And honestly I have no idea what you mean by this

 

Do you mean that it's impossible to view reality as a thing which is just existing, and that because we endlessly look for a reason to exist we can't live with the view that we are nothing but a physical system with no purpose at all?

 

And what do you mean by morales here? Are morales not subjective and dependent on the society/species/group you are in?

 

The secret with living with that mindset is to not attach to those thoughts of their questionable existential parameters of origin.

 

Honestly, what the heck are you trying to say? This isn't the 1800's, and I cant do much more than just guess at what you are trying to say here.

 

Is the secret to being able to have a tulpa while thinking of the tulpa as a delusion to not ever attach that knowledge of the tulpa being a delusion to the tulpa itself?

 

Because i'd kind of agree with that, and I kind of attempt to do that in this guide. I try to drop a lot of the "it's a delusion" as soon as I hit the actual guide part.

 

This isn’t something revolutionary you’re stating here, and it doesn’t seem you’re providing much originality than the circle jerking Richard Dawkins-esque reddit groups that take no action into this. All theory and no action my friend.

 

Yeah, you definitly aren't attacking this guide due to it being badly written. You are attacking it because you disagree with what I have said.

 

Good luck with the incongruent thoughts! It can only be a benefit if the person is flexible with their conceptual schemes, ideologies, and can bend their morals.

 

And yet again, this is why the disclaimer is there.

 

Your Join Date is December 2013, maybe you should take your advice for once. Unless you were part of another group before actually making an account on .info, it seems you’re feigning authority more than being rationalistic on this.

 

Yes, I must have written all of this is what... two days of knowing about tulpa

 

So essentially, you made a huge disclaimer beforehand before actually having the guide ACTUALLY be focused on tulpa creation in a rationalistic mindset.

 

I made the guide how I did for good reason. I meant the background to be before the guide because, as you have said, the guide itself is nothing that is really new. This is nearly all about the mindset and the "idea" of what a tulpa is.

 

Wait, I don’t need to, because it’s clear you’re deriving from concepts from guides you feel are old and outdated.

 

I said that I feel a lot of the guides are old and outdated. I did not say all guides are, and I did not say everything the guides said are. The old and outdated part is the parts where tulpa are treated as some entity that is fully separate and capable of acting on it's own.

 

The new part is not in the guide, it's in the presentation and background.

 

With how you seem to have an ineptness for having a conscience despite of the subjective origins of tulpas, people would infer that when you say “for fun,” it could be for something unpredictable and potentially damaging.

 

It very well could be, and if a person wants it to be than so be it.

 

Because when you say “tulpa is something you do for fun,” it implies they’re an object you use as a means to have fun.

 

Not an object, an activity, and yes. Why else would you make a tulpa?

 

but it’s really difficult to give alternatives to a person that feels like they’re being rational and has considered all angles when they’re still just as naïve as anyone in the initial stages of tulpa creation that tries to make a guide out of the process.

 

Ah yes, I am but a noob and you are the superior intellect, I bow down to your words.

 

is if you actually go through the experiential process after a few months, or even a few years has past. You’ll have a more rational and pragmatic standpoint on tulpas until then.

 

You assume I have not.

[waffles]

Disapproved. I'll keep it short and sweet.

• 
  Your actual guide is just a rehashed generic creation guide. As far as I can see, not only does your attitude that tulpas are delusions have no effect on your creation process but you don't offer a single thing that is unique from other guides.
  
• 
  Your grammar is atrocious.
  
• 
  "I have yet to see a guide that addresses these sorts of issues without just kind of stating them as fact.". You do the same thing; you just state everything you think as fact. You don't even tell us why you think a tulpa is a delusion.
  
• 
  Your definitions aren't the best, especially 'possession' and 'wonderland'. Possession - "when the mechanism that forms the tulpa is capable of controlling the limbs of the body at the same level of host-intervention that the tulpa creating responses requires." - what is a host-intervention and how do I do it? Wonderland - an imaginary world which is to the form as the form is to the tulpa - I'm crying tears of poetry but I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
  

 

As a final note,

“Dont follow hour guides”

Is this a joke?

[reguile]

I did intend this to be mostly a re-hash sort of thing.

 

I think we have different definitions of atrocious.

 

Host intervention is just the host doing anything. Honestly I'm not sure how to better say it or describe it.

 

the wonderland makes the tulpa's form feel more real just like the tulpas form makes the tulpa feel more real.

 

I did change the part of the guide where I said "I have yet to see a guide that addresses these sorts of issues without just kind of stating them as fact." I didn't exactly mean to say that.

[Sands]

The others have said some points already but I'll add some more.

 

First of all, are tulpas delusions. Well, I don't know, but you somehow seem to know despite no one knowing anything for sure because there's really no way to test things. When I started to get interested in tulpas, placebo was what I started thinking. Placebo is a delusion. But its effects are real and those have been proven. A tulpa? Well thinking that you have another voice in you head is a delusion, but does it stay as such? We don't know and neither do you. You claiming you do already makes the warning bells ring in my head. My suggestion in this community has always been: if someone claims they know something about tulpas for a fact despite not having done any actual scientific research on in, don't listen to them. Pretty delusional to think that someone knows something no one knows for sure yet, in my eyes.

 

I think the grammar issues were pointed out already as is the whole not much new ideas. You guide isn't really one I would be following because I can't say I like the methods in it. And what's up with the disclaimers and introductions being longer than the actual guide? Man. It's like you think you have so much more to say than you actually do.

 

Also at first it seems like you are talking against blindly believing in your tulpa, yet at the section where you talk about them getting vocal, it's like you say you gotta start to blindly believe things you hear is your tulpa. I don't get it.

 

Protip: before you write a guide, be sure you actually have a lot of experience. You lack it. You talk about things you say you and you tulpa can't even do yet. Why did you write a guide now? You could have waited a few months to build tons more experience and actually have something to work with.

 

Disapproved.

[Linkzelda]

Agreed with Sands, and if you want to give a presentation of what a tulpa actually is, check this thread out for more critical discussion:

 

http://community.tulpa.info/thread-what-is-a-tulpa?

 

I was going to give OP an 11-page response, but for the sake of saving some space:

 

I'm open to your perspective on tulpas, and I absolutely love any perspective that challenges my own, but this is something more suited for General Discussion like the link I provided above.

[reguile]

"Well, I don't know, but you somehow seem to know despite no one knowing anything for sure because there's really no way to test things."

 

Let's ignore personal expierence and jump straight to a few things that we do know.

 

Tulpa require the attention of the host to exist or do things, and the only time they dont can easily be said to be made up interactions.

Most everything involving tulpa is based on having the belief that a tulpa is about to say or do things.

There is never a actual thing that tulpa can do which the host does not have to participate or cause. Imposition, possession, vocalization, etc, all require host input and control.

 

And yes, there is no way to "prove" anything here, but it's easy to look at the evidence presented in droves across what the community says and come to a conclusion.

 

I thought I was pretty clear in the guide when I said that it was based off my own expierences and things, and I really want to know what you mean when you say I should spend another few months at this, because i'm not entirely new here (I am to .info, but not tulpa).

 

"Also at first it seems like you are talking against blindly believing in your tulpa, yet at the section where you talk about them getting vocal, it's like you say you gotta start to blindly believe things you hear is your tulpa. I don't get it."

 

This is exactly what i'm saying, and i'm saying that you should be able to hold these two conflicting ideas at the same time. The idea that your tulpa is a thing in your mind that can reply and talk to you can exist at the same time the idea that the tulpa is a delusion does.

 

"You talk about things you say you and you tulpa can't even do yet."

 

I say these things because of two reasons. 1, I haven't achieved them yet, and 2. I believe a lot of them entirely impossible, and have been making tons of progress on the "complex thoughts" aspect of things, to the point that I could almost edit saying I can't do that yet out of the guide entirely.

 

Creating a tulpa is not about following steps and instructions. This is not a guide mainly composed of steps and instruction, and it was not intended to be one.

[waffles]

I think we have different definitions of atrocious.

It's bad enough for sure.

 

 

Host intervention is just the host doing anything. Honestly I'm not sure how to better say it or describe it.

the wonderland makes the tulpa's form feel more real just like the tulpas form makes the tulpa feel more real.

Tell people both of those things.

 

 

I did change the part of the guide where I said "I have yet to see a guide that addresses these sorts of issues without just kind of stating them as fact." I didn't exactly mean to say that.

Your new line doesn't really make any more sense though.

 

 

Tulpa require the attention of the host to exist or do things, and the only time they dont can easily be said to be made up interactions.

Most everything involving tulpa is based on having the belief that a tulpa is about to say or do things.

There is never a actual thing that tulpa can do which the host does not have to participate or cause. Imposition, possession, vocalization, etc, all require host input and control.

Possession doesn't and, having switched, nothing does.

 

 

This is exactly what i'm saying, and i'm saying that you should be able to hold these two conflicting ideas at the same time. The idea that your tulpa is a thing in your mind that can reply and talk to you can exist at the same time the idea that the tulpa is a delusion does.

You want doublethink? Mention it. Right now you're just contradicting yourself because you didn't make that clear.

 

 

I believe a lot of them entirely impossible

Yeah that must be it.

 

 

Creating a tulpa is not about following steps and instructions. This is not a guide mainly composed of steps and instruction, and it was not intended to be one.

You know your "actual guide part" is steps and instructions, right? You know that's what a guide is, right?

[Sands]

There is never a actual thing that tulpa can do which the host does not have to participate or cause. Imposition, possession, vocalization, etc, all require host input and control.

 

Oh thanks for telling me I had no idea, man, all my personal experiences must not exist or be anything because these few things we somehow know despite them not actually being things we know trump all. Funny how I've been here for a year and a half and haven't seen all this evidence you are talking about.

 

You're writing a guide about how to get a vocal tulpa. You think you should be making a guide about creating tulpas when you haven't even really managed to make a tulpa that's pretty independent and shit? I disagree with that, if you think it's a good idea. Writing a guide isn't the first thing you should be doing when you get a vocal tulpa. Getting vocal is one of the first steps, after that comes so much more. This is one of the mistakes the newbies coming in from IRC and such usually make, rushing and thinking they already know all they need to know about something when they've just scratched the surface.

 

Blindly believing isn't very smart or rational at all. Better edit your title.