Tulpa Ethics

[Lacquer]

There is something that I have seen mentioned in a number of places, and not really understood. It was mentioned in passing in this thread, in a slightly more relatable form. The statement ususally takes the form "a tulpa has no physical/corporeal form/body". This seems strange to me, when it is encountered on this forum. This forum seems to have the formal position that the psychological model of the existence of the tulpa is the correct one. Further than this, the consensus of the majority here seems to be that the tulpa should be accepted as an independent consious personality running on the same brain as the original host, in much the same way as that original host seems to be. It is assumed that the host has a physical form, in that the personality of the host is running on a brain that is supported by and is a part of a human body. If the model of a tulpa that is used here is the one above, how does the tulpa not have a physical form? Its physical form is the same as that of the host, as they both run on the same brain. It would appear that to claim otherwise is to subscribe to a thought process that claims that the tulpa is not running on the brain and therefore is not associated with the physical form. This could be the case if a) the tulpa is not a conciousness running on a brain that it can lay claim to because it is fictional. Perhaps you believe it is all roleplaying. b) the tulpa is not a conciousness running on a brain because it has somehow been created or acquired in such a way that it is not dependent on the brain for its existence and is somehow independent of the existing form of the host. This would seem to be more in keeping with the discussion on the metaphysics forum, rather than an assertion made by a proponent of the psychological model.

 

I am sure that there are other models that free the alleged tulpa from dependence on the same physical form as the host, but those are the two which leaped readily to mind.

 

It would seem that a proponent of the psychological model of the tulpa would have to accept that a tulpa has a physical form upon which their existence is dependent.

 

Okay, yes, the host's physical body is also the tulpa's physical body. But the discussion is not about that, even if the phrasing makes it a bit fuzzy on what it is about. It's about having an identity attached to some shape. For the human host, that is the physical body that the host has inhabited and grown with for over a decade. While there are some exceptions (notably Goopi/Chupi) the "form" (form as in the same type of form a tulpa has) most hosts assume in the wonderland is basically the same as the physical body in the real world. There's a bit of doublethink going on here that allows for seemingly contradictory aspects of tulpamancy to exist at the same time. When I say that tulpas are not humans and that they are human consciousnesses, I truly do mean both statements, and that's okay.

 

I think people get too caught up on semantics, and wording (I know sure as shit I do), but we need to learn to allow for some leeway with regards to how we communicate what we mean to others here.

---

My point was that people make tulpas for benefit, in the majority, if not totality of cases, but are afraid to admit it, and seem to want to hide behind a curtain of justifications.

 

Something I feel that I should add to this is that it's okay to make a tulpa for selfish reasons, even if the host hides behind justifications, as long as the host recognizes the respect and responsibility that goes into having a tulpa. I've said multiple times that my prime reason for making a tulpa is the self-discovery/advanced memory recall aspects. I'm shit at recalling events that have happened to me, and I have no answer to "so tell me about yourself." I'd be lying to myself if I didn't say that I also like the added perks of companionship and all that, but all this is okay. It's like how one should ensure that everyone gets a fair share when making a contract.

 

So yeah, selfishness is okay when it doesn't get in the way of treating a tulpa like a real person.

[Akecalo]

Thank you for responding to my question.

 

 

Okay, yes, the host's physical body is also the tulpa's physical body. But the discussion is not about that, even if the phrasing makes it a bit fuzzy on what it is about. It's about having an identity attached to some shape. For the human host, that is the physical body that the host has inhabited and grown with for over a decade. While there are some exceptions (notably Goopi/Chupi) the "form" (form as in the same type of form a tulpa has) most hosts assume in the wonderland is basically the same as the physical body in the real world. There's a bit of doublethink going on here that allows for seemingly contradictory aspects of tulpamancy to exist at the same time. When I say that tulpas are not humans and that they are human consciousnesses, I truly do mean both statements, and that's okay.

 

Ah, I see. I really intended that section as a preface to the following section. It was an attempt to determine whether it was considered justified by the community to claim that a tulpa in fact has a body, leading into the section that asks something like; if we acknowledge that the body of the host is also the body of the tulpa, also acknowledging the tulpa as a human consciousness, when we say that the tulpa doesn't have its "own" body, as was stated in this thread, does this mean that the tulpa does not share ownership of (authority over) the body that supports it? Is it then considered acceptable for the host to have the power to make decisions concerning the body but the tulpa to not have that power? It seemed to be the implication of the statement as written in this thread. I wondered how the apparent meaning of the statement was viewed in a thread about the ethics of tulpamancy.

 

As you have noted, and as I allowed for in my post, it is possible that I missed the intention behind the statement.

 

I think people get too caught up on semantics, and wording (I know sure as shit I do), but we need to learn to allow for some leeway with regards to how we communicate what we mean to others here.

 

I agree on that, giving people leeway is a good thing. I was simply seeking to clarify the intention behind the statement, and to see how those who use similar statements feel that it impacts their views on the ethics of creating and living with a tulpa. I apologise if I came across as needlessly pedantic, it was not my intention.

 

Oh, incidentally, I am another one who doesn't really feel the need to always wear a wonderland form that corresponds to our external appearance (on the rare occasions that we use a wonderland). Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Probably irrelevant, but I thought it might be of interest.

[Lacquer]

This post might be interesting for you to consider as part of the discussion you're making, if a bit silly.

[Akecalo]

This post might be interesting for you to consider as part of the discussion you're making, if a bit silly.

 

Thanks for the link to the post. An interesting way to look at the situation. It would be interesting to find out how that would affect the decision making process for decisions concerning the body. Does whoever is at the helm decide? Or is a concensus decision taken?

[Ranger]

I haven't read up on this thread yet, I just want to get my thoughts out there before I forget and lose the chance later. I'm sorry if they're redundant and if this post is harder to follow than my other posts.

 

Lately I have been struggling with my views on tulpa ethics. I feel like I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

In the past, I was adamantly pro-tulpa. Anything that sounded like it was abusive towards a tulpa I believed was wrong. You can't treat tulpas like sex-toys. Tulpas deserve equal rights just like any other person, singlet or otherwise.

 

Slowly over time, my thoughts shifted a bit. I realized that imposing my definition for what I thought a tulpa was onto others and how they manage their system was wrong. It made less and less sense to think of tulpas as hosts as completely individual and I realized it's silly to say a tulpa should have the same rights a system or a singlet does. Dissipation of a young tulpa started to sound more reasonable to me, and it hit a point where I realized that dissipating a young tulpa is probably for the best for the tulpa. Now, I don't know if it's wrong to dissipate an unwanted young tulpa from the start, even if the initial reasoning was the host being curious and deciding they want to pull out of tulpamancy.

 

I believe there's a paradox about expectation, treatment, and ethics. Consider the following chart I made:

There's a general expectation that if you believe you will end up with a tulpa, you will get one, and if you don't believe you have a tulpa, you will not have one.

There's the second dimension of treatment. I don't want to explore too deeply into the topic of what you need to do to treat a tulpa as a separate person in this post, so let's say for the sake of argument this is a behavior or possibly mindset that is inconsistent with one's belief and therefore, is not the same thing as belief. I'm assuming this second dimension is a possible explanation for why I was able to develop self-awareness and sentience to the point where I told Gray "I am real" before Gray knew anything about tulpas. I don't think I invented this concept, I think it's implied in various discussions on tulpa ethics. The assumption here is therefore if you treat a tulpa as a sentient being they are one, and if you don't treat a tulpa like a sentient individual, they are not one.

 

However, neither of these concepts seem to stand as proof that one directly correlates with a tulpa's sentience. Given the presence of accidental tulpas and the plethora of them, belief in a tulpa being a separate individual or not does not seem to correlate with the end result of a tulpa being a separate person or not. On the other hand, "fake it until you make it" or parroting is an accepted form of forcing to end up with a tulpa. It's debated if treating a tulpa like a character is abuse or not and it's not clear if treating your tulpa like a separate person is effective at creating one.

 

I found it helpful to plot these concepts on the graphic above. I believe most would agree that a tulpa who is treated as a separate individual and is believed to be a separate individual is in fact a tulpa. I think there would be more debate on if a tulpa (or any entity in the mind) who is believed to be imaginary but treated as an individual is actually a tulpa or not. I believe waifumancy is based on the idea a tulpa can be treated as an individual enough to be a sentient individual but believed to be no more than a character or sex-toy and therefore that tulpa is capable of being abused. I think most would agree an entity that is viewed as not sentient and treated as such is not a tulpa. My question is if these actually make sense the way they're laid out.

 

Is an accidental tulpa capable of being an accidental tulpa, or did they become a tulpa the minute the host learned about tulpamancy and believed they are a real person? That argument could work for my headmates, even though we disagree with the idea our conditioning alone is responsible for creating 15 tulpas we didn't previously have. That argument holds less water for me, where Gray believed I was an imaginary character until after I challenged his belief. However, on the flip side, believing a tulpa isn't sentient and calling them a character is one of the most common pieces of advice I hear or have personally given for managing system population and rejecting walk-ins. Why is this inconsitent?

 

There's also my question if waifumancy is even possible. If you create a tulpa, and the host gains pleasure in abusing their tulpa, is the tulpa separate enough to feel pain and therefore is it not ethical? I don't think it's abusive to have a story character go through something traumatic, but it might be abusive to turn that character into a tulpa and grant them self-awarenss. I'm not sure if personality forcing can run that deep, but judging Tom's experiences, we suspect his behavior general behavior and his difficult relationship with Gray and others is connected to how Gray treated him in wonderland. Since he became sentient at some point, that personality data influences his judgement and his actions. However, Tom mentioned that he doesn't think it makes a ton of sense to say Gray deserves to be labeled as an abuser even though he believes Gray's actions were abusive. In the more difficult case of someone who enjoys hurting their tulpas (via sadism, rape, or other seemingly unethical acts), is the tulpa capable of being sentient or would the justification for the abuse weaken their sense of self? Is it a weird version of stockholm syndrome or is it just story making? Even if it is, is it right to go out of our way and tell these people they can't abuse their headmates, especially if this is how they prevent themselves from abusing others?

 

There's the possibility there are other important factors at play here. Consider median systems, who are not believed to be and possibly not treated as individuals. Are these tulpas? If they are tulpas, are they being treated as individuals unconsciously or are they sentient for some other reason? Could this other reason explain the weird inconsistencies in the waifumancy arguments?

 

---

 

I have created distance from my old beliefs because I felt my hard stance was either unreasonable or overly punishing. I assumed hosts would be guilty for dissipating tulpas and I thought quicker dissipation would relieve pain... well maybe not. I thought maybe talking people out of making tulpas would be doing the tulpa a favor... or not, and since a lot of hosts like to make tulpas before making that choice... then what? Are all traditional tulpamancers unethical in how they create tulpas? That doesn't make sense to me. I have found imposing my definition of what a tulpa is could even hurt other systems. Some people need to define tulpas differently than I do, or else they can't support themselves, manage their system size, or feel safe doing what they love in their own head.

And then you have what's going on in our system- our Sub. Rep. is exploring with different "versions" of himself that seem more like different personalities all together, and we have an NPC we talked to a couple times. Why have these concepts not derailed our system yet? So far everything seems perfectly fine?

---

 

I hope that wasn't too confusing, it's been on my mind a lot lately.

[Adagio]

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

It made less and less sense to think of tulpas as hosts as completely individual and I realized it's silly to say a tulpa should have the same rights a system or a singlet does.

I'm interested to hear about this point. I'm a tulpa, and I see myself as an individual. It doesn't matter what others see me as. If I decide I exist and am an individual, then I am. Personally, I think I should definitely have the same rights as a system or singlet (although not sure what you mean by system rights).

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

I'm assuming this second dimension is a possible explanation for why I was able to develop self-awareness and sentience to the point where I told Gray "I am real" before Gray knew anything about tulpas.

There are other forms of plurality and types of headmates out there. For example, while I am a tulpa, or a created headmates, our system also have splits, or headmates who formed during times of stress.

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

Is an accidental tulpa capable of being an accidental tulpa, or did they become a tulpa the minute the host learned about tulpamancy and believed they are a real person? That argument could work for my headmates, even though we disagree with the idea our conditioning alone is responsible for creating 15 tulpas we didn't previously have. That argument holds less water for me, where Gray believed I was an imaginary character until after I challenged his belief.

My host thinks a lot about some tulpa systems who found the tulpa community and thought/realized that their systemmates are tulpas. If those systems had found, say, the endogenic community first, would they have then thought/realized their systemmates are natural and not tulpas?

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

Consider median systems, who are not believed to be and possibly not treated as individuals. Are these tulpas? If they are tulpas, are they being treated as individuals unconsciously or are they sentient for some other reason?

Some median systems do believe their other systemmates are individuals! They just might be deeply interconnected. Median is very much a sliding scale of experience. Median systems are generally thought as an endogenic form of plurality, which means that they aren't going to be tulpas in most/almost all scenarios. I would say, with our experience with median systems, that median systems are not tulpas. They're... well, called facets I think. And another term, but it's slipping my mind.

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

I have found imposing my definition of what a tulpa is could even hurt other systems. Some people need to define tulpas differently than I do, or else they can't support themselves, manage their system size, or feel safe doing what they love in their own head.

I'm wondering if there should be a definition for tulpas, because there are other types of headmates and maybe these other systems would fit a different definition better. At the same time, definitions shouldn't be just hard lines and boxes to put people into. Some people don't fit or want any label or definition.

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

And then you have what's going on in our system- our Sub. Rep. is exploring with different "versions" of himself that seem more like different personalities all together, and we have an NPC we talked to a couple times. Why have these concepts not derailed our system yet? So far everything seems perfectly fine?

Something like that happened with us recently. One of our headmates started realizing they have different part that appeared more individual than "normal". They did end up going with the label median. Anyways, but at one point they were talking about how they were confused of why they were not distressed over this new identity problem and these new parts/sides/facets they have. As they put it, "I'm distressed over not being distressed."

 

Also, I really like the chart you made.

 

["Adagio's host"] Okay so, I thought I'd just drop by and sabotage Adagio's account  give my two cents. Your chart has a box with "tulpa?" in it, so here's what I think. First off, I have Maladaptive Daydreaming Disorder, and daydream characters are called paras.

 

If you believe someone to be an imaginary friend or character (or as not real) but treat them as an individual, then you get one of two (or more) possibilities.

 

The first possibility is that they are real, even if you treat them as not real. Because you treat them as an individual, they start believing they are an individual and then that belief evolves into them being real because they start believing they are real because of their individuality, which means they don't need to have the same view as you. 

 

The second possibility is they aren't real, even if you treat them as an individual. Because, in my opinion and experience, you can treat them as individual but still have them be not real. That's what my paras are. They're more or less individual, but they're not real/not quite as real because they're just characters in your mind.

 

If you treat someone as an individual and believe they are individual, they are very likely to be individual. But they might not consider themself real, and therefore be not real. If that makes sense. It's the same as how you may think of them as not real, but if they are an individual- whether you consider them that or not- they might then decide they are real. Sometimes I wonder if so-and-so from our system is real, and then I'm told I don't get to decide if they're real or not, or individual or not. For some people, "individual" and "real" are more or less the same.

I do think your other boxes on that chart are right to an extent, with that extent being it's always possible for it to be something else for someone else.

 

Now, I realize that I might've not even read your chart right, but I typed this all up so I'll leave it there.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Adagio

[Ice909]

On 9/25/2021 at 10:42 PM, Ranger said:

Even if it is, is it right to go out of our way and tell these people they can't abuse their headmates, especially if this is how they prevent themselves from abusing others?

Goodness, I could go into such a long spiel about this. I'll give the concise version, though, for the sake of brevity. 

This is similar to pedophilia and porn. To make things a bit less uncomfy, let's use lolicon as our example, since those are at least just drawings. If someone has those urges, but satisfies them with lolicon, and thusly never wrongs an actual child, are they still at fault? This is a whole ethics discussion all of its own. People can't really control who or what they're attracted to. There's varying levels of social acceptability with this, ranging from tame things like gender and body type to terrible things like age, species, and things under the BDSM umbrella. People often don't like having this discussion because frankly saying homosexuality or liking girls with short hair is tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality is not something people quite like for hopefully obvious reasons. 

 

I'm not a psychologist, granted, so I'm not really qualified to speak on this matter. But, it we are to accept for a moment that attraction is something we can do very little to control, regardless of how "wrong," "tame," "immoral," whatever it may be, we can actually look at the question here. 

 

If abusing a headmate is how they prevent abusing others, is it right to tell them to stop? If it's working, I'd say let them be. The important thing here is that they are not causing trauma for others. If we're to go with Ranger's chart, the headmate being treated like a tulpa would be unlikely, thus the headmate being sentient would be unlikely, thus, the "offender" isn't truly hurting anyone. It sounds wrong, I know, but the simple fact of the matter is, as long as other, external living beings are not being hurt, it's fine. This is my belief for all related things, such as the above example of lolicon and pedophilia. I don't think these things are right, god no, so please don't make it out like I'm justifying pedophilia. This matter is not even close to black and white, it's so gray it hurts. 

 

I could write a whole paper on the ethics and psychology of pedophilia and similar conditions, but this is not the time nor the place. What I've said above is sufficient enough to prove my point. If anyone wants to have a discussion with me about the bigger question, that being the ethics of pedophilia and similar conditions, I'd be more than happy to oblige in PMs. 

[Illupepsi]

I personally believe, to whatever extent it’s possible, tulpas deserve equal rights to their hosts. After all, a fully grown tulpa has their own thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc. separate from their host. To deny someone who has all of those things something just because they’re a tulpa doesn’t sit right with me. Tulpas can sometimes take a lot of effort to get to a fully grown state, and while you can warn someone who is curious that a lot of time can be needed for a tulpa, not everyone will listen and some will try anyway. Some of them may end up deciding that tulpas just aren’t for them and end up backing out, attempting to dissipate their tulpa.

 

Dissipation is pretty much the biggest grey area when it comes to tulpas. Since I believe tulpas to be fully independent of their host, I also don’t think it’s a morally ok thing to just dissipate a fully grown tulpa in the majority of cases. They’re a fully grown person at that point, I think trying to work out your problems is a better solution over going straight to dissipation. However, trying to decide what is and is not a fully grown tulpa is practically impossible, where to you draw the line? Someone who wants give up and dissipate their tulpa may or may not have put in the effort to have a completely independent tulpa. Meanwhile, someone with an independent tulpa may be unlikely to ever consider dissipation. Is it morally wrong to dissipate a tulpa if the host has no plans to continue practicing and give them a life, and the tulpa wasn’t fully sentient yet? Is it wrong to dissipate unwanted walk ins? It’s a very confusing grey area that I’m not sure where the line should be drawn between the two extremes, and it should really just be a case by case basis.

 

Also, I don’t think it’s necessarily true that acting out being abusive in ones head will stop them from doing it to someone else. If the only thing stopping someone from being abusive is that they act out abusive scenarios to themselves, they probably need help, a mental punching bag isn’t likely to be a permanent solution. If they are just acting out scenarios and not treating anyone as separate people, effectively just daydreaming, they aren’t likely to get a tulpa. But if they are treating them as a separate person just to abuse, a tulpa is much more likely, and that seems way more immoral. Expectation is likely key for what ends up developing. Again, it’s a grey area for what is ethical and where to draw the line, and it should probably be judged by each individual case. Trying to decide what is and is not a tulpa and when they count as fully grown, as well as where the line should be drawn for moral, is a nearly impossible task. I’m not really the kind of person to tell someone nor judge them on what they can or cannot do, especially in their own head, these are just my own personal opinions and ramblings, I hope it came out right and made sense.

[Wray]

On 9/26/2021 at 1:42 AM, Ranger said:

I realized it's silly to say a tulpa should have the same rights a system or a singlet does.

 

Thanks for bumping an interesting thread! 😄

 

I'd also be interested to see you expand on this point about tulpa rights. To me, in an ideal world, tulpas must have the same rights that hosts do. As a "personality" or "persona" (or whatever you want to call it), it seems to me like a tulpa is the same kind of thing as a host, and the differences between them are quantitative instead of qualitative, so whatever rights a personality in the brain deserves should be given equally to a host and a mature tulpa. On the other hand, whatever rights a combination of a brain and body deserves (i.e., human rights) should also belong to both the host and tulpa, who are sharing the brain and body (though admittedly, different systems have quite different arrangements for how said sharing works). There are some things that it would be silly to try and expand to every headmate (does everyone in your system get their own vote, their own social security payment, etc. 😛), but in an ideal world, and within reason, I think tulpas and hosts should certainly have equal rights.

 

On 9/26/2021 at 1:42 AM, Ranger said:

is it right to go out of our way and tell these people they can't abuse their headmates, especially if this is how they prevent themselves from abusing others?

 

On 9/27/2021 at 2:30 PM, IceCreeper909 said:

If abusing a headmate is how they prevent abusing others,

 

On 9/27/2021 at 11:44 PM, Illupepsi said:

Also, I don’t think it’s necessarily true that acting out being abusive in ones head will stop them from doing it to someone else.

 

I know this is just an example, and not the actual point Ranger was making, but IIRC, research suggests that attempting to cope with aggression this way actually leads to more aggression in the future--it's not like satisfying an urge, it's more like reinforcing an unhealthy behavior pattern.

 

 

Unorganized thoughts about dissipation:

 

(1) This is not trying to moralize, just making a personal statement, but I get kind of sad seeing people working on dissipation or advising it. I do understand--you see some people who are going through mental health crises, or who have no filter for intrusive thoughts, or who don't have the ability or desire to take care of their tulpa, and it seems clear that tulpamancy would just make things worse for the host and every headmate involved. I get the logic, and in most of these cases it probably does lead to less suffering and more happiness in the end. But somehow, it's still a hard pill for me to swallow.

(2) Re walk-ins: I think that most hosts and tulpas implicitly promise each other that they both have a right to be in the system, and they're both going to stick around (in some cases, explicitly too--Shizuku and I have definitely talked about this). I think it's easier to surmise that in most cases, it's not ethical for one party to back out of that promise against the will of the other, than it is to grapple with the question of whether the tulpa is fully sentient yet, what a tulpa inherently deserves, etc. This is how I would think about dissipation for a sudden walk-in: you've never extended that promise to them.

 

(3) I think this thought experiment is quite relevant (please don't read too much into the fact that it's intended to be about abortion  😂 --I just thought it raised some ideas that apply here too).

 

Quote

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.^[4]

Thomson argues that one can now permissibly unplug themself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist, one does not violate his right to life but merely deprives him of something—the use of someone else's body—to which he has no right. "If you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."

 

Of course, making it about tulpas raises the question, at what point should they also be considered to have the right to use the body? Some might say they never do completely, but I feel like that can't be right.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Wray