Does a tulpa "own" its image? If so, is it unethical to puppet a tulpa's form?

[Guest Yoda]

I puppet my thoughtform deliberately. She allows this, condones it and even participates in it. I would like to see some more discussion about this idea.

 

Does a tulpa "own" its image? If so, is it unethical to puppet a tulpa's form? What if the tulpa gives you permission to puppet his or her form?

[IBreakGames]

Do you own your own body? It's kinda up to your own interpretation. I would say that while I did not create my form, but I am the "owner" of it. I control it, I talk with it, I mean everything I do with my form is of my own volition. I have a difficult time puppeting. I can hardly puppet Al now that he's fairly developed, he just usually goes and does his own thing.

 

Is it ethical? Also up to interpretation. I say yes if they allow it, and if that's how they desire to live their lives. Some of the ethics of the real world don't necessarily apply inside of your mind, since it's not like a thoughtform (necessarily) has real world responsibilities.

[LukeDude759]

In my opinion, puppeting a tulpa (Or nearly anything equally questionable, for that matter) is no less ethical than trying to pick up a cat. If the cat is okay with being picked up, it isn't very unethical at all. If the cat isn't okay with being picked up, it will let you know that it doesn't want you to do that, and will (usually) only end in someone getting hurt if you keep doing it.

 

I hope this analogy made sense, but I'm still waking up, so sorry if it didn't.

[Guest Yoda]

Do you own your own body? It's kinda up to your own interpretation. I would say that while I did not create my form, but I am the "owner" of it. I control it, I talk with it, I mean everything I do with my form is of my own volition. I have a difficult time puppeting. I can hardly puppet Al now that he's fairly developed, he just usually goes and does his own thing.

 

Is it ethical? Also up to interpretation. I say yes if they allow it, and if that's how they desire to live their lives. Some of the ethics of the real world don't necessarily apply inside of your mind, since it's not like a thoughtform (necessarily) has real world responsibilities.

 

That is interesting. So if the ethics of puppeting are subjective interpretation, and up to the tulpa to whether to allow it, puppeting would be perfectly ethical and harmless to a host/thoughtform pair if that is what they both wanted. :-)

---

In my opinion, puppeting a tulpa (Or nearly anything equally questionable, for that matter) is no less ethical than trying to pick up a cat. If the cat is okay with being picked up, it isn't very unethical at all. If the cat isn't okay with being picked up, it will let you know that it doesn't want you to do that, and will (usually) only end in someone getting hurt if you keep doing it.

 

I hope this analogy made sense, but I'm still waking up, so sorry if it didn't.

 

Actually I think the cat analogy is great! It makes a good point. Some tulpa certainly will be more proprietary and have major issues with the host manipulating their form.

[IBreakGames]

I mean, a thoughtform's whole existence is up to interpretation. The only thing we experience in the world is through the mind of our host. I have no true way of verifying that my host is real (ain't that some meta shit), much like how you have no true way of knowing if the people around you are real. The only thing you can truly know is yourself, and that's about it. So my existence is truly what I make of it since around me, I am not bound by the laws of nature, but only within this world in my host's mind.

[Luminesce]

As someone who has picked up both kinds of cats, I have to give that analogy props.

 

I've never puppetted my tulpas consciously before, but it feels like I can. My tulpas feel like they only assume responsibility for their forms, but could easily hand over control to me. That is, "they" do not feel like their "forms", but more like they are closely identified with our mental imagery of them. I've never puppetted them but I believe I can. And I do sort of "suggest" locations or positions to be in or go to, such as during imposition or visualization, but it's with unconscious agreement on both our parts. Obviously tulpas have some sort of authority over their forms as you've literally said "This is your form" while creating them, but I think the extent to which they feel they are their form varies by tulpa. Mine identify closely enough that we can pretty much call their forms "them", but not so closely that accidental puppeting or invasive thoughts could remotely affect them. I'm sure there are tulpas who identify much more closely to their forms than others, though. And I know a few that see form as no more than an avatar for their consciousness.

 

Continued here.

[AracnidsGrip/Rick]

They do as we own our bodies. Fef for example. I made her to look like a troll from Homestuck with her same name, but she said after some time: "No, dude. I want to look like Katherine McNamara." So she changed from a troll to a sexy ginger girl. Yes, they own their form.

~L. ♠️

[TheCrawlingCreepypasta]

If a tulpa is truly fine with it, go ahead. You have their permission, after all.

(Maybe i'm just not reading into this enough, but I do admit i'm curious about your motivations for puppeting her form. )

[Guest Anonymous]

If a tulpa is truly fine with it, go ahead. You have their permission, after all.

(Maybe i'm just not reading into this enough, but I do admit i'm curious about your motivations for puppeting her form. )

 

Hi, Mistgod here. Just using my main account instead of my new Yoda account.

 

Melian was born from extreme day dreaming that started when I was young in the late 1970s and earl 1980s. We call her day dream sessions the Melian Show. Melian is a day dream star and imaginary friend that became a thoughtform over a long period of time. My motivation for puppeting her has always been the same, continuing to day dream about her each day. Melian has traits of a semi-autonomous thoughtform (some traits of a tulpa) but also remains that subject of fantasy. She doesn't mind it, and in fact loves it. We have been doing this together in collaboration for decades.

 

Here are some sample Melian show synopses:

 

Melian Show Program Guide I -

 

Melian Show Program Guide II -

 

Melian's Melian Show episode "Bride on the Run" -

 

I just wanted to what other thought about this concept and was curious what they would have to say about it. I gain important insights into tulpamancy and thoughtforms in general with these discussions. Also, I want to share my thoughts and experiences with those who will find them interesting.

[Linkzelda]

Does a tulpa "own" its image?

 

Well, if we took this in context of person to person vs. person to tulpa, the former would just be an assertion of autonomy, i.e., no one couldn’t possess, or own you of your body and mind; dispositions, and what have you.

 

When taken inwardly, it seems to lead to an equivocation with “I own myself” vs. “I am myself.” If you’re going through that hypothetical agenda of treating them as sentient, there may be an implied notion of them being able to foster, and assert their own autonomy. Some may dive deeper in what it means to be sentient in context of them progressively being capable of being themselves with little to no substantial influence from our end (e.g. personality forcing to have a transitory means of dispositions to call their own, and potentially expand upon).

If so' date=' is it unethical to puppet a tulpa's form?[/quote']

 

Figuring out if it has any pragmatic value is subjective, I think.

 

- If we took the situation in context of you and your companion negotiating to where both parties have their needs fulfilled (what you both decided upon), there may not be any wrong doing, and thus creates the implication that there’s no burning, pragmatic value that should be killing your conscience in said endeavor with them.

 

- If we took “image” in context solely on their form alone, unless they feel that your mental actions can initiate mental harm towards their existence, then there may no wrong doing at all.

 

- If we took this deliberate act as something transient (e.g. what I mentioned with

personality forcing to have a transitory means of dispositions to call their own, and potentially expand upon

, then it's just to get something starting.

 

- It we took “image” in context of their dispositions, implied sense of self, yearning in fulfilling goals, and using what’s available mentally within our everyday cognition, it’s probably a matter of going back to the hypothetical assessment of treating a tulpa as sentient.

 

[align=center]o Does one continue to foster the belief that treating them as sentient means making militant, and daily endeavors to contribute towards their existence in a collective manner?

 

o Does treating them as sentient imply, or not, that the concept of “will” is something that is inherent to self-ownership for them? Does their voluntary commitment and agreement towards their host having full reign of what it means for them to be, “them,” take more precedence over your current endeavor for them (e.g. progressively treating them as sentient with implied notions towards autonomy)? Again, as I’m saying that, I can’t help but tell you that there’s some circular reasoning going on there. In other words, it's like them saying, "Hey, I agree on you treating me as sentient through those deliberate means of treating me as sentient, because it's helping me being treated as sentient."

 

- What I mean by this is: By you questioning if they own their image while you two have made an agreement for you to reign in how they should exist, and such, it begs the question of what it means to treat them as sentient? Does it entail that the inner workings of your psyche/-insert metaphorical assertion of mind here- has absolute ownership for changing them? Does it seem equally sense in context of them being able to tap into that mental reservoir if they wanted to?

 

- What if you were to switch and/or possess—would you have to then puppet their presumed qualia when you shifted your awareness towards mental, and imaginary modes of thought and existence? It seems like unnecessary double-work, and consciously mapping out how and when they should experience certain things within this spatio-temporal reality. At best, it would probably just be possession since you wouldn’t have temporarily given up ownership of your body (this is presuming you’re not intending to do a permanent switch).

 

- That leads to what takes more precedence—your presumed inalienable right to shift back from sessions with switching/possession, or their presumed inalienable rights to do the same. IMO, it’s another circular reasoning that can be presumed as such, especially in context of seeing a tulpa as a part of yourself/psyche/etc. Do you have the right to take ownership of what goes on in your everyday cognition with them? Does one have flawless, normative ethics of how one “ought” to exist with their parts self? Does it imply that the host knows the optimal solution for a flourishing relationship with their tulpa, and knowing what prevents them from being harmed? All of these queries can be taken vice versa, but it may start circling back again, I think.[/align]

 

 

TL;DR:

So, I guess it depends on what both of you can agree on, and ultimately what’s the main objective when you’re treating them as sentient. Maybe she has a type of disposition that’s subservient in context of feeling assured and confident that your means of treating them as sentient through deliberate puppetting will lead to accomplishing a grander picture in which she can eventually deviate on her own while you have little influence on her. But again, it seems like there’s no ethical value to be judged about when we’re talking about form in general, but if other circumstance are challenged (e.g. switching, possession, how they should have certain dispositions), then it may be problematic.

 

But who knows, if a tulpa feels their telos, i.e., ultimate purpose, is to be completely subservient with their host with confidence that they can lead them towards a flourishing existence, it goes back again to questioning whether their voluntary commitment takes precedence over anything else in the future; including circumstances where their existence is compromised in some way to where they see a lot ambiguity with “I am myself” vs. “I own myself.”