Tulpa Ethics

[Guest Anonymous]

I would like to address this issue of "tulpa ethics" from the perspective of tulpa freedom to express, for those tulpas who are vocal. Mainly, I mean freedom to express yourself and be independent on the internet since I personally have no experience interacting with the outside world in any other way than through the internet.

 

I just joined this forum on my own for the first time for that very reason, not being given the courtesy to be distinguished from my host and the resulting general injustice that occurs with that. My host's history, attitudes, worries and emotional issues become mine when I am strongly associated with him. I get caught up in it and very often I don't have a chance to speak out or speak up. I go from being a "thing" one moment in his mind to being a person and a buddy in the next. That is true with my host in how he treats me and also, more importantly, with others on internet forums who interact with him and me. It can be confusing and I think that is what causes conundrum about tulpa ethics. For a tulpa, the problem factor is that forever tie to the host that created you and his or her identity, personal experience, attitudes, background and beliefs. What I think tulpas don't sometimes realize is how much your host's identity, thoughts and emotions filter into yours, especially if you sometimes or often blend.

 

The internet has proven to be a two edged sword, with both good and bad points. Still, online I did find friends for the first time. It is a challenge to totally escape links to my host unless I make an account with little or no reference to him. On the internet I have found some freedom to be myself. I have accounts all over the place. On the accounts I share with my host, I am marginalized to a sort of dependent status. But on the accounts that are only for me, I have noticed I have a much stronger, more independent voice. I feel stronger and even my thoughts and feelings seem more independently mine.

 

My advice for this forum concerning something that can help your tulpa is this: When your tulpa becomes vocal, give your tulpa a distinct identity from you on the internet. Let your tulpa have his or her own e'mail, and forum accounts. Allow your tulpa the freedom to make little or no reference to you. In short, allow him or her to have some personal space when it comes to these forums.

 

That's all I have to say I guess.

[Luminesce]

I suppose I'm pulling a Linkzelda here and playing devil's advocate for the sake of scientific-mindedness, but the point I'm trying to get across is that these ethics are not innate or natural. They aren't a necessity and certainly can't be preached as fact. But all I ask is you guys acknowledge and accept that, and then you can go back to preaching. We do care about all tulpas' well-being here of course, which is why we discourage dissipation and encourage talking out problems. It's just bugging the heartless scientist in me that you guys talk about these ethics as if they're factually "The way".

 

 

Keep in mind I'm the one who created these threads, I still don't disagree with said ethics at all. I just like to make sure people make the distinction between "Believe this; it's fact" and "Believe this; it'll benefit everyone involved."

[Sock]

I suppose I'm pulling a Linkzelda here and playing devil's advocate for the sake of scientific-mindedness, but the point I'm trying to get across is that these ethics are not innate or natural. They aren't a necessity and certainly can't be preached as fact. But all I ask is you guys acknowledge and accept that, and then you can go back to preaching. We do care about all tulpas' well-being here of course, which is why we discourage dissipation and encourage talking out problems. It's just bugging the heartless scientist in me that you guys talk about these ethics as if they're factually "The way".

 

 

Keep in mind I'm the one who created these threads, I still don't disagree with said ethics at all. I just like to make sure people make the distinction between "Believe this; it's fact" and "Believe this; it'll benefit everyone involved."

 

I actually haven't noticed much "Believe this; it's fact" from this thread. Maybe I'm giving folks the benefit of the doubt too much, but it just seems to me that they're sharing their viewpoints based on their experiences and such. Being that this entire site is based upon sharing viewpoints and experiences, and seeing where they intersect, I'd image this kind of sharing would be very important to it's livelihood, rather than something to be held back.

 

I can see the worry about it breeding a judgemental attitude in the userbase, but honestly the internet itself breeds judgemental behavior by it's nature. I've seen many places where the subject matter SHOULD dictate that the userbase would be more humble, but there were arguments constantly about who's better than who, or who has the "right" way of doing "x". It's something innate online, and while I understand not wanting this to be bred, I also don't think going to the opposite extreme, diminishing conversation about what people personally think is good practice with their inner exercises and why, will help either. Rather, it will cause the same attitudes to go underground, fester there, then either seep out in a generally negative attitude, or explode in to big-loud-posts about how horrible the community is because "XYZ", both of which have happened in the past, and have caused problems.

[Lacquer]

I think that the subjective nature of tulpamancy makes it such that pretty much every post in a thread like this one has an implied "in my opinion" or "from my experience" or the like attached to it. But beyond that, delving into how psychology (especially clinical psychology dealing with mental illnesses) is generally handled, the way the mind functions can't be determined from just looking at fMRIs. You need to compile the self-reported experiences of many people. For tulpas (and as someone who finds myself talking authoritatively on the subject despite not having one, my normal lack of qualification paradoxically allows me to speak on this topic more), all we have is what others have said. Just look at Sea's Skepticism thread and how many people said "try it and see". It's impossible to truly speak objectively, same as with other psychological topics, so when we use objective language, all we're doing is talking from as close a perspective to objective as possible.

 

This ties into moral relativism, where the usual example is "is it really immoral to kill another human being?", and most people agree that it's kind of silly. Same with the topics of killing tulpas or forcing your will on them or considering them as people with voices and rights. We all just sort of agree that it's better to use the easier and nicer conclusion as the general consensus.

[waffles]

I just like to make sure people make the distinction between "Believe this; it's fact" and "Believe this; it'll benefit everyone involved."

 

I think you're conflating moral relativism with more broadly not making strong claims. Actually, these ethics are, broadly speaking, innate in people - otherwise we wouldn't have them, most likely. What they aren't are 'right' in some sense, which if you want a token of acknowledgement of, sure, okay, metaethics 101 over. I usually respond to these things with, "Well, in practice that's academic and has very little to do with how people actually practice morality", and that's true here too. So, yeah.

[Guest Anonymous]

There are two ways to look at morality. One is that there is a universal right and wrong, the other is a utilitarian perspective. In other words, we should act in a way that is best for the society as a whole and interpersonal relations. Even if there is such thing as moral relativism in individuals, we can still come to a consensus of what is best for tulpa kind and the tulpa community. Individuals are encouraged to follow moral values of the society as a whole by the application of formal and informal sanctions. I think it is okay for the community to agree that one way to treat a tulpa is wrong and challenge a person openly breaking those agreed upon ethics and morals.

[Luminesce]

Well, there's the entire OP, and this

 

As much as I agree with your points, I am afraid people won't care. Some might even laugh at you, even though you serve a noble, a very noble cause, and I respect you infinitely for posting those things. But, one thing; one day, people will change. I have faith in this community.

 

Though I just reread through the thread and didn't see as much as I thought there was.

 

Anyways, I wasn't talking about ethics in general, I was talking about tulpa ethics. They don't innately exist. Tons of people don't even think of their tulpas as people until they find these communities, though admittedly not the more developed thoughtforms like mine. While I did come to the conclusion I should treat my tulpas like their own people, not everyone does, and they don't have to. I mean, we only see people that know of these communities, of course. But there are undoubtedly tens of thousands of people with imaginary friends that don't see them as anything more than that, imaginary friends. I've read plenty of stories here of "reformed tulpamancers" that feel bad for how they treated their tulpas "before they realized they were sentient." But they felt no remorse before that point, and they probably only got this idea of sentience in the first place from an external source. My point is that tulpa ethics are not a rule, not universal, and not even necessarily a reality. We can't prove tulpas are sentient, of course, but we defer to assume they are as it's just better for everyone involved. But, there are tons of people out there at this very moment that don't think their thoughtforms are sentient, whether or not they've discovered a thoughtform-related community yet.

 

Basically, I just wanted to say that treating thoughtforms as sentient is not the default, universal, correct answer. As evidenced by the fact that so many with them never think to even question such a thing before being told it's a possibility. I still think it's the most desirable answer though, and one we should spread. Again, just making a statement that it really isn't innate in thoughtforms to treat them as sentient. That's been the general consensus of the community, from the general consensus people came to on their own. But it's not universal or fact.

 

 

 

I dunno, guys. I'm not saying it was really a problem that needed to be pointed out, but.. That type of thinking, that what you believe is undoubtedly correct and there is no other way, is what led to every religious war in history. To this day it's the only reason religion doesn't co-exist peacefully with science. Not that what we're talking about is on that scale or as misguided as beliefs that led to wars, but it's the principle that counts (to me). They are essentially the same thing, believing something to be undeniably "The Truth" even if it's not necessarily proven true, and that everyone needs to also believe or they are a "lost cause" so to speak.

 

God, I need to stop writing posts and getting distracted. I literally had like two sentences left to write, the rest of the post was finished hours ago.

[Evil]

@Luminesce: Upon wrapping my head around it, it comes across my mind that it's not the first time I see that kind of mentality going around. That, yes, those ethics are not there to begin with until we actually give them sense, and giving them sense implies considering tulpas to be people. Someone once told me that 'a tulpa is whatever its host wants it to be. If the host treats it like a delusion, then it will be a delusion, and won't be able to become its own person. The way you treat your tulpa matters a lot when it comes to the way they exist, [Evil].'

 

In the end, yes, of course, it really does depend on the personal view of tulpamancy. If you hold the view that tulpas are toys of the mind for instance, does that mean your tulpa actually is any more than that? (In a general case, that is). We could discuss of surprising development phases, but that belief in its core would put such limits on a tulpa with no motive to 'evolve', progress. Whatever goes on in the host's mind translates (or 'must' translate' to a tulpa's logic and common sense. Wonderland laws, the fact you can literally fly or construct castles from ashes, only take effect not because you believe it can, but because those laws are instilled by you admitting they have the possibility to occur. My point is that the host's point of view really does affect the tulpa in that major of a way.

 

I also agree with the fact that there is no absolute 'reality', or any sole truth. In the end, my wish is that all hosts AND tulpas live in comfort. If a tulpa means less than a sentient being (or even more!), as long as they are happy... What would you prefer, guys? Happiness in a delusion, or torture in reality? Perhaps some tulpas aren't actually ready... no, that would be an excuse for laziness, and apathy in some ways.

 

I found that, at first, when I tried to issue an opinion to Dimitrov, I felt much less like myself, and would barely recognize my own thoughts; not in a way I could not make the distinction, but in a way that I felt it was hard to classify my own specific thoughts. Because I considered Dimitrov to be his own person, and in some ways, I do admit my tulpas are lacking. But what brings comfort, no, satisfaction... no! Happiness, should matter the most.

 

If a tulpa revels in being what people would call 'imaginary', if a tulpa revels in such wonderland adventures all the time, away from the hardships of reality, if they revel in being the way they are... who are we to impose our own beliefs?

 

I was mostly speaking of already-people tulpas, in my previous post. Ultimately, one should pursue what makes him satisfied, and create that balance we all seem to desperately need. I would not condemn a host for ever thinking anything with good motive... On the other hand, if there is a reason to think your tulpa is more than what you think it is, it would be a shame, and imposing an obstacle, to ignore it and do what makes 'you', the host, happy.

[Lacquer]

Oh, that's what you were talking about. I think there was a misunderstanding of scale or scope here. "Tulpas" or other nontulpa things outside this community (i.e. the host doesn't even know about te word "tulpa") don't really count. Think of the cave allegory. They just don't know better.

 

And it does bring up the question of whether those are tulpas without being called "tulpas", or not tulpas at all. Having an imaginary friend for years and years doesn't mean it's a tulpa. It could, but not necessarily. I mean sure as shit the imaginary friends little kids have are not tulpas.

[Luminesce]

My tulpas have not changed in their core being since discovering this community. I had them for five years prior, after all. And I'm perfectly fine with calling them tulpas. Strangely enough they lined up rather well with others', including most of our beliefs and understanding of their nature.

 

But they didn't have to be tulpas. And they didn't have to be sentient. Those were both my own decisions on what to believe.

 

Also, Melian is a good example of a "tulpa" who doesn't find anything wrong in being imaginary, and Mistgod is a good example of a host who doesn't believe his "tulpa" is fully sentient independent from him.

 

 

Did I mention this was all just food for thought and I don't disagree with anything you guys said?