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

[Guest Anonymous]

Greetings. I will answer this from my main Mistgod account, even though the OP was posted under my new Yoda account. That account is meant to be associated with my tulpa experiment (now in its first few days of forcing).

 

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.

 

In a general sense, for most tulpamancers, I assume that having a larger goal in mind is preferred when it comes to why they would puppet their tulpas. I think the consensus in the tulpa community is a tulpa that is not subservient but equal to the host.

 

In my particular case, the way Melian evolved, she remains dependent and subordinate to me. She would not use the word "subservient" as she wold argue she does not serve me at my discretion and call. I do not own Melian. There is no plan or goal for her to become less dependent or less subordinate. Melian is fulfilled and content as she is.

 

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.”

 

When I puppet Melian it is mutual. Melian wants it to happen as much as I do and it is a key component of who she is and her purpose or "telos." The Melian Show day dreams are daily entertainment and interaction for both of us. Also, Melian is happy with her role of entertainment, emotional support, companion and muse for me. She is like a house wife with important domestic work at home in support of her husband, not in a negative sense, but as "housewife" was once held in high regard. As far as personal creativity and expression goes, she loves to make up nonsense words and stories, composes episodes of the Melian show, design dresses and outfits to show me, dance, do her own art and hang out in her dreamscape mansion with its many entertainments and amenities.

 

She also has a role to make me laugh, similar to a court jester. She enjoys this tremendously and is good at it. Humor is a huge component of Melian. She likes and wants to make me smile. It makes her feel fulfilled to make me laugh or others laugh and spread love, mirth and joy to others.

[Linkzelda]

In my particular case' date=' the way Melian evolved, she remains dependent and subordinate to me. She would not use the word "subservient" as she wold argue she does not serve me at my discretion and call. I do not own Melian. There is no plan or goal for her to become less dependent or less subordinate. Melian is fulfilled and content as she is.[/quote']

 

Subordinate is a synonym for subservient, though. Unless I’m misreading this post, I think there’s just an equivocation when you mentioned that you don’t own Melian as I didn’t have intentions of something related to “mental property” of yours that may be stripped of implied rights, or anything. If you’re posting how you see her as subordinate to you, but her not accepting that mentality, I can see the distinction. But, if this isn’t the case, it seems a bit contradicting to presume she’s dependent and subordinate to you, and not feel that she’s also subservient to you, which again leads me back to what I mentioned of the “I am myself” vs. “I own myself” that may arise.

 

 

When I puppet Melian it is mutual. Melian wants it to happen as much as I do and it is a key component of who she is and her purpose or "telos."

 

Completely understandable, and I think when going back to the question of the OP, figuring out the answer on whether or not a tulpa “owns” its image could be rephrased a bit. Like, instead of it being a question on whether or not they own their image, but more so of them being able to have just as much, or a certain degree of utilizing the everyday cognition they presumably share with their host that brought up those rudiments to shape said form. There could be a difference of the image you imagine of her everyday, but it may not have a direct correlation of the image she has of herself. Like, daydreaming of her, but said experience of her not being the final call of her image; just one of many ways to conceptualize her.

 

If one were to treat them to the point that they do not own them, it leads to more equivocation as to what circumstance:

 

- They do not “own” them as in them not being part of the totality of the host’s mental reservoir?

- They do not “own” them in having significant control of shaping who they are?

 

I refer to this again if we challenged these questions for circumstances of one agreeing that they have a reign of the totality of themselves; processes, and such (even for autonomous processes that function with or without one’s conscious action). I don’t mean to imply that the subservient/subordinate involves some kind of indentured servitude, or a mental slave for someone. Depending on what worldview the individual holds, they could see their tulpa as part of themselves that they can call their own in context of the totality of their “self.”

 

It just becomes ambiguous if “own” has a connotation of “property” with a mix of “reduced, or relinquished reign of implied inalienable rights as an entity.”

[Guest Anonymous]

@Linkzelda

 

You have made some good points here. I think what I meant by not subservient is that I don't regard Melian as a mere tool or object. I do regard her as a person. I also believe she is imaginary make believe. That would seem contradictory, that she is both a person and imaginary make believe, unless you take into account and understand my concept of imagination and the pseudo real. I believe it is possible for someone to be both imaginary make believe and sort of real at the same time. It isn't logical I know, it is similar to many religious concepts that are considered "divine mysteries" because they make no sense in a physical tangible way. Some of my beliefs concerning Melian are more bordering on meta-physical and religious in nature than scientific in other words.

 

Melian is subordinate to me, because my mind created her. I do "use" her and she "serves" me in many ways, so I suppose your point is valid that perhaps she is both subordinate and subservient. But I don't think of her as a piece of property (indentured servant) but as a companion and helper. Anyway, you are absolutely spot on.

[Sadame]

Since tulpas and hosts form a unit and the host created the tulpa, it's technically a kind of co-ownership. And ethics are arguable when it's about ownership of what is still a part of one's own mind. But what's the point in creating a tulpa of all things if they're not supposed to own themselves and their own forms? It's a simple matter of common courtesy not to puppet them or deny them their autonomy. One could, but it wouldn't be very nice, and if one wanted easy access and ownership, there are less complex things than creating a tulpa for that.

If the tulpa in fact wants to pass some of that ownership of their form back to the host, there's no problem because they chose that. But that in-between step of letting them choose is essential.