Jump to content

All Thoughtforms Are Legitimate Creations


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

Tulpas are amazing. It is amazing that they are apparently independent consciousness in the mind of the creator. I love it! I love Tulpa Info and I love tulpas.

 

BUT...

 

I am a believer in all thoughtforms. I think all thoughtforms are equally legitimate and have equal value. This includes imaginary friends, literary characters, role playing characters, soulbonds, deamons, and tulpas.

 

To my mind, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with a person role playing a PC who wants to sit down and to talk to a tulpa within a make believe wonderland setting. It doesn't de-legitimize the tulpa nor imply the role playing character is a tulpa. They are both thoughtforms, just different types.

 

Tulpas have amazing traits in that they are independently conscious. That is neat beyond belief.

 

But my role playing character Turon Tursar (for example, I have many characters) is in fact a thoughtform made of the same basic material as a tulpa. He may have to be puppeted and narrated by me, but he is just as legitimate to me. He has been in my mind since 1985. No he is not a tulpa. He is a role playing character. But he is still important to me and may have some important things to say as I act him out.

 

My thoughtform Melian is somewhere in between a role playing character and a tulpa. I have no problem with this. None.

That perspective about thoughtforms is what is causing my angst with many people in the chat especially, but sometimes on this forum as well. I am not about to change it however. I am going to share it.

 

To those coming in from the chat rooms STOP ACCUSING ME OF LYING AND FAKERY. When it comes to all thoughtforms, including role playing characters and tulpas, they are either all equally fake or none of them are fake. I prefer to believe that there is no such thing as fake, only imaginary.

 

Imaginary things are important and have meaning. I want my role playing character to hug your tulpa.

 

EDIT: How are young tulpas any different from imaginary friends? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-how-are-young-tulpas-and-imaginary-friends-different

 

EDIT: One thing I would add is the joy I have in sharing Melian and letting her loose on Deviantart. She has so many imaginative and creative friends there. She has been drawn and painted dozens and dozens of times and been a character in literature (cameo appearances). Everyone seems to love her and want to spend time with her.

 

Just today a fan of hers, who is a professional comic artist, posted a new painting of her at a Christmas party with many of her story friends. Melian has no trouble or inhibitions with mixing it up with literary characters, role playing characters and any kind of imaginary person. She lives within dreams and so everyone is a person to her, imaginary or real. That is why I often say all thoughtforms are legitimate people. Because Melian feels they are. It doesn't matter if they even come from a story. She lives in day dreams and has walked through story worlds with fictional characters and talked to people in real life. To her, it is all one and the same thing.

 

Here is a close up from the painting posted by Nathan Rackley today. It is quite an honor for us.

 

melian_at_party_by_droakir_by_melianofmist-d9lc8u3.jpg

 

The original painting with all the characters can be found here on Deviantnart: Happy Holidays 2015

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

If they are legit to you, then thats fine. However, I have quite a defined idea of what a tulpa is.

You can not convince me that someone roleplaying or someone having just a normal imaginary friend is as legit as something someone put months of work into. You can not convince me that someone parroting responses is as legit as creating an apparently independent consciousness. If you are roleplaying or just have an imaginary friend, you have no place being in this place of science and research because you could just spout utter bullshit and confuse the already dense and confusing issue of what a tulpa is.

 

No one is going to stop accusing you of fakery because thats what roleplaying and imaginary friends are, they are fake. They are not all equally fake. You are talking fucking nonesense to make yourself feel better about your lack of tulpa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of definition versus value, or rather people are talking about them as if they're one and the same. Yes, all types of thoughtforms are legitimate, useful, what have you. But this is also primarily a place for discussing tulpas, autonomous thoughtforms. It's not that we don't see other types of thoughtforms as important so much as we've chosen a specific kind to focus on. Most people that come here don't really care that much about roleplay personas, they were drawn in by the concept of a full-fledged person in your mind. Not universally so but generally. And it's not like we disallow discussion of non-tulpa thoughtforms. The reason people are a bit touchy when they're brought up sometimes is their fear of "illegitimate tulpas", and their sense of "No, this is what a tulpa is. It can't be that." I wouldn't worry about it too much, but also keep in mind this is tulpa.info, not thoughtform.info.

 

Mistgod's point is that other types of thoughtforms are valuable, too, and shouldn't be ignored (or criticized) for not being tulpas. And I guess everyone else's point is "I wanna hear about tulpas!"

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

If you are roleplaying or just have an imaginary friend, you have no place being in this place of science and research because you could just spout utter bullshit and confuse the already dense and confusing issue of what a tulpa is.

 

No one is going to stop accusing you of fakery because thats what roleplaying and imaginary friends are, they are fake. They are not all equally fake. You are talking fucking nonesense to make you feel better about your lack of tulpa.

 

This attitude is glaring example of everything that is wrong with the tulpa community. Prissy elitist snobbery wrapped in the For Science motto to make it okay. For Science Zealot exposes the role player.

 

Tulpas are so amazing and I so don't have one. I feel so ashamed and intimidated.

 

EDIT: This was so good I wanted to add it here too in my response:

 

Most tulpas are "unfinished" and the tulpamancers write about trying to force and develop them. Are they then "fake" in that unfinished state? At what point are they not fake? Where is the fake to not fake boundary? LOL I love that Anderson! OMG!

 

Under that logic, every beginning tulpa starts out as totally fake. LOL Are the tulpamancers who consider these fake tulpas liars as well? Or are they delusional and confused about what is real or fake? At what point does the fake baby tulpa become more legit than say an imaginary friend? There is the "surprise me" test. Melian has already passed that one many times. Is she still fake? You know, come to think of it, when I was a kid, sometimes my imaginary friends seemed to surprise me. Were they more legit at that point and less fake?

 

No one is going to stop accusing you of fakery because thats what roleplaying and imaginary friends are, they are fake. They are not all equally fake.

 

Hmmmm.

 

So young tulpas are somehow less fake and more legitimate? I am not following the logic at all. So, if you start with a imaginary friend (which is fake supposedly and less legit) and you force to make it into a tulpa, when does it become a tulpa and not just an imaginary friend? When does the fake-ness go away?

 

It can't be the narration that makes the young tulpa less fake than an imaginary friend because I talk to imaginary friends too, which is narration. It can't be the visualization that makes a young tulpa less fake either, because I visualize an imaginary friend. Isn't that like forcing?

 

Melian is partly autonomous, similar in many ways to a young tulpa being parroted. Is she fake then? Are young tulpas fake then like her?

 

You can not convince me that someone parroting responses is as legit as creating an apparently independent consciousness.

 

Apparently this person is unaware that some of the guides actually do not condemn all parroting and that it is even stated as sometimes helpful. Maybe he hasn't read the guides as extensively as I have. Also, maybe he is unaware that sometimes it is difficult to know if you are parroting a young tulpa or not, so there is probably a lot of parroting going on with many young tulpas? Does parroting make a tulpa automatically fake and illegitimate?

 

MY CONCLUSION ON THIS: A young tulpa is indistinguishable from an imaginary friend and a very old and seasoned imaginary friend may just qualify as a tulpa. They are equally legitimate and equal in value.

 

Another question: Could a role playing character become an imaginary friend and then qualify for the above? When does it then become not fake and legitimate?

 

If you are roleplaying or just have an imaginary friend, you have no place being in this place of science and research because you could just spout utter bullshit and confuse the already dense and confusing issue of what a tulpa is.

 

But if the issue of what a tulpa is can be described as "dense and confusing" how can we know what it isn't? How can we be sure a tulpa is "more legit" if we aren't even sure as a community what a tulpa really is? What if my imaginary friend is actually a tulpa? Why would I have no place here again? I am confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

If they are legit to you, then thats fine. However, I have quite a defined idea of what a tulpa is.

You can not convince me that someone roleplaying or someone having just a normal imaginary friend is as legit as something someone put months of work into. You can not convince me that someone parroting responses is as legit as creating an apparently independent consciousness. If you are roleplaying or just have an imaginary friend, you have no place being in this place of science and research because you could just spout utter bullshit and confuse the already dense and confusing issue of what a tulpa is.

 

No one is going to stop accusing you of fakery because thats what roleplaying and imaginary friends are, they are fake. They are not all equally fake. You are talking fucking nonesense to make yourself feel better about your lack of tulpa.

 

Wrong.

 

The definition of tulpsa may vary among a lot of people. Some people think that voices in their heads are tulpas, such voices being generally issued out of being intrusive thoughts, being developed into something sentient and whatnot. Another example. Some people make an imaginary cabin, house, land, nation, planet, galaxy, shit, I don't know, put imaginary beings there and interact with them, imagine interactions, parrot until shit happens, until something happens, until they realize 'I WANT THIS' or 'I DO NOT WANT THIS'.

 

Science? Oh, please. As much as I respect this site, there is never any scientific research going on. Most of what happens is people discussing in terms of pseudo-science and employing layman's terms because there are no other most of the time due to their lack of knowledge. People who do have the knowledge and funds have no interest in tulpamancy. All of this forum is people going online, posting about their forcing, circlejerking back in Fede and Avalanche's day, taking it to chatrooms because they care more about sympathy and acceptance than their goddamn tulpa. This is NOT science. This is a joke, an offense to what science truly is. With all the due respect for Pleeb whose lecture we've read, there isn't any scientific discussion going on ever. I researched my own stuff and came to my conclusions, and am still coming to other conclusions, because I'm documenting stuff by myself, without this community, or chat, or people trying to tell ME what MY tulpa really is.

 

A lot of people claim they feel like they're parroting. An oldfag once left saying 'I am tired of talking to myself all day'. What, is it that tulpamancy cannot work out for some people?

 

If Melian IS 'fake', a 'delusion', one that Dave has obsessed with for so long, over 3 decades, isn't she bound to be real at some point? Hell, the age of the Melian concept beats most of what elitists from chatrooms have to offer. If anything Melian counts as one of the oldest thoughtforms, is that incorrect? Who are you to define what is real, and what is fake? Are you Mistgod who's more apt than anyone to define how his interactions with Melian go? What IS a tulpa? This is all your brain. Every single part of it, it's your brain, you can think of it is as subconscious shit or whatever there may be to it, shit, I don't know. But with time, things get 'real'. I've met tulpas who were 'years old' act just like their host, always taking his side, circlejerking with him and even going as far as 'marrying' him for the sole purpose of acceptance and sympathy from the host's side. A lot, a LOT of what happens in this community is NOT what you think it is.

 

And after all I've seen, I can say that Melian and Mistgod, just like Sock and his system, stand out to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

fear of "illegitimate tulpas", and their sense of "No, this is what a tulpa is. It can't be that." I wouldn't worry about it too much, but also keep in mind this is tulpa.info, not thoughtform.info.

 

Mistgod's point is that other types of thoughtforms are valuable, too, and shouldn't be ignored (or criticized) for not being tulpas. And I guess everyone else's point is "I wanna hear about tulpas!"

 

But tulpas are thoughtforms and many of them begin as imaginary friends or even role playing characters. Also, there are obviously things that can be shared by others with related experiences, even if they do not have a tulpa but something else.

 

Why all this fear about muddling the definition of a tulpa? I thought they are clearly defined in the guides and on the main page? Do you guys not know what they are yourselves?

 

I think I get what a tulpa is. I don't seem to be confused on it at all really. But that is just me, I am confident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. Enough of this.

 

 

Mistgod spent just as much time creating Melian as any other tulpamancer, and by that I mean more time than almost any tulpamancer has been alive. What he created was a person in his head, who he imagined doing many things that entertained him, and that the character also found fun. What he created is not what we currently strictly define as a tulpa, because he was not guided in his creation process, it happened on its own. So he made no walls of "This is you, this is me" to separate them. Melian was simply front and center in a lot of his daydreams, no "I'm pretending to be Melian!" or "Melian is totally her own sentient conscious person!" Just imagined scenarios. This is, in its essence, what tulpas are. To create a tulpa just requires some more defining context - this is you, this is me, your thoughts happen on your whims, not mine. A tulpa is a roleplay persona that you've trained your mind to run on autopilot. A tulpa is a literary character in a novel you're writing that has just a bit more awareness of its existence than it should. A tulpa is an imaginary friend that you've made an effort to stop controlling through direct conscious intent, for the sake of seeming separateness from you.

 

Melian lies somewhere between these, though, if you specifically care about her. Mistgod has a massive amount of experience knowing what it's like to be her, she's more well-developed than most tulpas I'm willing to bet. Fleshed out personality, appearance, reactions and opinions on a multitude of scenarios. The only thing she lacks is Mistgod's "OK" on her autonomy. She does do things of her own accord, when she wants, without his direct conscious intent. But as a result of her "simply existing" for, what, 38 years? He isn't comfortable attributing our strict defining characteristics to her. Because our strict defining characteristics are subjective. A tulpa is not really anything completely different from an imaginary friend, or a roleplay persona. Just like the sounds that we make and call "words" don't actually mean anything. We've set up boundaries to group our subjective experiences more closely together for ease of sharing them, teaching others, and reaffirming that we're actually doing things "correctly." Obviously there is no "correct" way to have a tulpa, as there is no "correct" way to live, but the opinions of others matter to us anyway. Despite the phenomenon he's experiencing being so closely similar to the one we aim to define and share, his subjective experience is just a little different, and it's been too cemented into how his mind works for him to just say "Oh, I guess you guys could be right" and completely believe it.

 

And that's as it should be. The belief that all tulpas must be just-so, that everyone else must experience the exact same things as you (which is impossible) is what we call elitism here. Claiming your subjective experience is the true experience and discrediting others'.

 

So can we call Melian a tulpa? In my opinion, yes. In every way except for Mistgod's acknowledgement of her being completely autonomous (and I mean acknowledgement, because she is) she is what we allow to be called a tulpa here. If you think otherwise, you're falling for an illusion that all of us here with tulpas are experiencing the exact same thing. Why do your guys' tulpas think they go somewhere when you aren't thinking of them? Why do they worry about the nature of their existence? My tulpas are perfectly logically comfortable with the nature of their existence and how they work. No one I know has tulpas like mine. We all talk as if our thoughtforms are totally the same thing as each others', but they're not. They are however close enough to our defined "rules of what makes a tulpa" that we let the differences slide. As it should be. So whether Melian is a tulpa, and whether any specific person has a tulpa, is up to the individual's opinion of how much we should let them differentiate from us and still qualify.

 

 

And Mistgod's point, after all of this, is that the definition of tulpa that we've created is great and all, but a thoughtform not meeting that exact definition is not suddenly valueless or "illegitimate", that they still have their purpose, that they should be taken as seriously as we take "tulpas." And I agree. Like I said in my last post, this is tulpa.info, not thoughtform.info, but a forum for video games may discuss soundtracks, game design, and even hardware without straying from its intended purpose. And if that video game forum knows what's good for it, they won't argue whether or not specific games are really true video games, or that RPGs are the only games worth playing.

 

This post took exactly as long to write as its accompanying song lasted. Cool.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

 

Wrong.

 

The definition of tulpsa may vary among a lot of people.

 

Thanks, this was a good counter and it is absolutely true that the definition varies. There is also disagreement (with many not just me) on whether or not a tulpa is purely illusory consciousness or not. It is by no means established as scientific fact on Tulpa Info. If that is the assertion that MonsterKid was making, that everyone where agrees tulpas are real consciousness, it is totally incorrect.

 

Intolerance, snobbery, fear, finger pointing, and false assertions. I have seen too much of it these past six months.


Melian: @ Luminesce

YOU ARE EPIC AWESOME!


You can not convince me that someone roleplaying or someone having just a normal imaginary friend is as legit as something someone put months of work into.

 

Oh just to stir this up a bit more. Did you miss the point that my role playing character Turon Tursar has been around since 1985? I haven't put just months into creating him, but decades. Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

fffffff

 

Dracky, you are adorable. What does ffffff mean? That is not very articulate. Are you contributing to this discussion by passing wind? If it is an attempt to persuade against all thoughtforms being equally legitimate (not sure for sure that is what ffffff mens) it wasn't a very effective scientific argument. If it was such an attempt, it pretty much sums up what any tulpamancer could bring to the table against it. Wind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...