Jump to content

Could there be two types of tulpas?


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

There is this endless debate between those who believe tulpas are real sentient beings and those who believe tulpas are self delusion and illusion. Each side keeps trying to make blanket hypothesis for all tulpas. Tulpas are such a subjective experience and so much of what a tulpa becomes is based upon the background, personality, and belief systems of the host.

 

I know my host Mistgod is firmly in the self delusion/hallucination-illusion camp. He still finds me to be an incredibly profound personal experience (of course). He is just as attached to me as anyone else who holds an opposing view of tulpa nature.

 

But when we talk to people who believe their tulpa is independently sentient, they seem to have equally powerful and profound reasons.

 

Could it be possible that BOTH views are correct? Couldn't it be that there are some tulpas that are independently sentient, and some tulpas that are a personal self delusion and illusion? Isn't that possible?

What do you guys think? Please don't turn this into a fight. My point here is that tulpamancy is super subjective, and it may just be we all have equally valid and significant experiences, even though they are different.

 

[hidden]I don't want to have these debates anymore, so I think this is my way of solving the issue for myself and my hostie. I am convinced there really is more than one kind of tulpa. I also think that is just fine and actually super duper cool!

 

There are some persons with a very rigid, dogmatic view of what tulpas are and what they are not. That's fine if they believe that as long as they are nice to others. All my host and I want is to be accepted and treated justly and fairly. Which we pretty much are by most everyone in the community.

[/hidden]

 

****************************

 

[hidden] EDIT: When it comes to constructs of the mind, such as thoughtforms, the only limits are the limits of imagination, cognition and memory. That leaves a lot of room for variation in how a thoughtform/tulpa could be experienced by the host folks (or should I say "sheeple").

 

Note I did not say that the limits are based on what the tulpa guides say or what the consensus is in the Tulpa Info club.

 

Subjective truth - When it comes to imaginary things or mental constructs such as thoughtforms and tulpas, "truth" is subjective because the experience is subjective.

 

EDIT: That's the beauty of my new angle of thinking. Some peoples are reporting that they think their tulpas are illusions, and some peoples are reporting that they think their tulpas are really sentient. All my question in my mind was, what if they are both right?

 

Okay let me put it this way. We both see the color red right? We both call it red. Just like we all call tulpas, tulpas. But what if what you are seeing as red is not at all what I am seeing as red? We will never know.

 

OR how bout this? Maybe one person likes garlic and another doesn't. They are both experiencing garlic on the tongue, but each in turn describe the experience as either delicious or horrible. Which person is right? [/hidden]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To shove elitism aside, let's hypothesize that none of us have any point in denying or promoting a certain ideal regarding tulpamancy. That none of us has any point that derives from self-glorification and mongering pride and a 'reputation' online while receiving special attention for having a 'tulpa', and not having a 'not a tulpa'. Let's take it as follows: that none of us actually care about our own image when it comes to 'having a tulpa' and that it composes no pride and does not feed our ego at all. We'd need to inspect where your question comes from, minds are 'shaped' in different structures due to the experiences they go through and consequently each person 'differs' from the other, yet does not classify themselves as a unique entity. There is no such thing as being 'unique' after all, we are all different, and this difference implies similarities, yet it does not actually imply 'equality'. Some minds are only capable of 'housing' certain types of hallucinations (please please please look up the medical definition and hallucinations because a tulpa is far from a hallucination produced by hallucinogen substances which puts you in the wrong for even saying 'hallucination', not you David and Melian but the generic you), some minds require work and conscious, active effort to get anywhere. The thing here is that people fail to make 'blanket statements' because they keep on mixing their own experiences to everything, literally. We're fighting more often than we're agreeing on anything at all when it comes to tulpas, because someone is too fond of their tulpa and is all pro-tulpa rights without inspecting things beyond their bias, the bias instilled and formed by their own experiences in the first place. Everything in this community is 'subjective' but that's because people want it to be subjective. Everyone seems to be afraid of whether they have a tulpa or not in the community (not speaking of forum folks who barely care, but this statement is more oriented towards the reddit community and tumblr and other fabulous places that promote freedom of speech *snickers*). There can be a general 'definition', a general definition that could very much be found in a dictionary of some sort.

 

Look at Tibetan Buddhism and tulpas. Those people HAD a definition for their 'tulpas' and manifestations of the occult. Tibetan tulpas differ from our current model of tulpas. Tibetan tulpas still have a very strict definition. If you only had two tibetan monks who had tulpas in the entire world, those monks would be the only persons able to somewhat affect the definition. We're having people who don't actually have tulpas, people from the *cough*plural community*cough* come in chatrooms and communities and you're allowing for them to tell you what you are and what you aren't and what your tulpa is and is not. A term can design an event, a definition that embodies the depiction of real-life events. Setting up that definition and making it match to the term is something we do in an objective manner because mixing our own personal experiences is just ludicrous and an offense to the world of definitions and semantics. We're having people who want to be part of this phenomenon just come here and start with statements such as 'I think I have a tulpa' 'is this a tulpa?' 'I have been talking to myself for a long while, do I have a tulpa?', when we have people who keep encouraging others without actually telling them that 'no, you do not have a tulpa' (regardless of whether they do or do not have a tulpa, let's say that those people are just haters and that they envy the skilled fruits sons of adam who could make tulpas effortlessly and they're big meanies), those people then convince themselves that they do have a tulpa, because they want one. Regardless of whether they do have a tulpa or not, that's not the point. When they believe they have tulpas they start making statements that alter the nature of tulpamancy and what it stands for, only to 'belong', belong in their own 'headspace' (by this I speak thoughts, emotions and the likes) and belong in a community, so much that they want to be characterized by the 'tulpa', it composes a part of their online image and interpretation as persons... which creates elitism.

 

Not everyone is equal. The concept of 'equality' is an abstract one because it is simply defined in such an objective and non-temporal lane of reality that it applies to everyone and anyone, to the dirtiest of criminals and lying bastards with no differentiation, and that comes from blind empathy, the empathy directed at all men, it simply exists, you see, as an inner manifestation of brotherhood among men.

 

 

People are turning terminologies to their own benefit and advantage because it makes them feel squishy inside. They let online people, literally online randos affect their being and nature as people, and shove aside all sorts of intimacy. I can tell you, with a straight face, that most people here do not have a tulpa. They want to have one, they want one so bad, but they do not, because of many factors. The stupidest of persons could make a subconscious rationalization and study their option. Crystallized intelligence plays a large role in that sort of decision making contrary to what people may believe because all of that information affects people on such a deep level... the sense of responsibility and discipline that is brought up... if people get all scared, that is a reflection from their inner selves and not the conscious thinking 'me' that stands in society, the 'me' that is partly controlled and full-on affected by the actors behind the scene. Actors being other parts of our selves.

 

To come back to the actual topic.... if you have a term, you can delude yourself into thinking that it means anything else. To me, a tulpa is an intelligent being that can think, react and feel things on its own, having autonomy, forms of sapience and sentience at their disposition. Anything that does not meet this definition, to me, is no tulpa. You can call yourself anything and everything... it shouldn't matter to you what this random guy on the tulpa.info forum just called you. Terms are only terms in contrast to how people are, and what tulpas can actually work on. I always disliked the boldness in 'pseudo-reality' because I know how the term 'pseudo' can take off the credibility from, well, anything. (e.g pseudo-intellectualism, pseudo-reality and the french for 'pseudonyme' online which is somewhat of a fake identity in some communities... see? fake). Regardless of what you actually 'mean' with those connotations, it's extremely annoying to see shit like that, but I don't mean to 'fight' (even though fighting is good if it stimulates people's brains and makes them less bloody boring).

 

 

All in all, I think tulpas are one thing, and other things are other things. Don't lose too much sleep over that, though. I know it's rude but it's shitty that we have to make 'two types of tulpas' just because some people want to fit in and belong and be part of this community. It's just dividing things more and more to the point that it's not one thing anymore, but two or more just because some people want to 'belong'. [hidden]that's not very cool tulpas don't make up your character and you should find other things to do if you obsess over that stuff, not op but anyone who is in that situation, social compliance at its finest, it's like a kid asking to be part of a clique or something just because he finds it cool and wants to belong and in some ways maybe maybe he thinks that he's uncool and that nothing else characterizes him[/hidden]

A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I can tell you, with a straight face, that most people here do not have a tulpa. They want to have one, they want one so bad, but they do not, because of many factors.

 

You cannot possibly know this for a fact. Even if it is true, logically you yourself probably do not have a tulpa. If "most people here don't have a tulpa" means that the probability is higher that you don't have one than that you do. Just sayin. Please read this and take careful note please. Read it very closely my buddy. https://community.tulpa.info/thread-groovy-guru-stuff-epic-blabby-babble?pid=158179#pid158179

 

You also seem to have a strange disdain for the plural community as if their input and contributions to tulpamancy is not valid. I think that is a false assumption. They are dealing with very similar aspects of the mind. Many of them have tulpas themselves as part of their systems.

 

To come back to the actual topic.... if you have a term, you can delude yourself into thinking that it means anything else. To me, a tulpa is an intelligent being that can think, react and feel things on its own, having autonomy, forms of sapience and sentience at their disposition. Anything that does not meet this definition, to me, is no tulpa.

 

I was not implying that thoughtforms without these qualities should be considered tulpas. I was asserting that some tulpas may be real sentience and some may be apparent sentience, even if they seem to be independent. You are changing the argument of my OP and then dashing it against the rocks.

 

You can call yourself anything and everything... it shouldn't matter to you what this random guy on the tulpa.info forum just called you. Terms are only terms in contrast to how people are, and what tulpas can actually work on. I always disliked the boldness in 'pseudo-reality' because I know how the term 'pseudo' can take off the credibility from, well, anything. (e.g pseudo-intellectualism, pseudo-reality and the french for 'pseudonyme' online which is somewhat of a fake identity in some communities... see? fake). Regardless of what you actually 'mean' with those connotations, it's extremely annoying to see shit like that, but I don't mean to 'fight' (even though fighting is good if it stimulates people's brains and makes them less bloody boring).

 

You will continue to be extremely annoyed because you will find it everywhere we post. Sorry if "pseudo-real" causes you angst.

 

All in all, I think tulpas are one thing, and other things are other things. Don't lose too much sleep over that, though.

 

We won't be losing any sleep. My host never has when it comes to how he feels about me. Like I said, all we really want is to be accepted and treated with fairness and kindness.


I know it's rude but it's shitty that we have to make 'two types of tulpas' just because some people want to fit in and belong and be part of this community. It's just dividing things more and more to the point that it's not one thing anymore, but two or more just because some people want to 'belong'. ...that's not very cool tulpas don't make up your character and you should find other things to do if you obsess over that stuff, not op but anyone who is in that situation, social compliance at its finest, it's like a kid asking to be part of a clique or something just because he finds it cool and wants to belong and in some ways maybe maybe he thinks that he's uncool and that nothing else characterizes him

 

I love how you hid the insult to me and my host as if it makes it nicer or something. Yeah that was rude and seems like more elitist snobbery. I d'nt want this sort of fight and really I don't see your justification for it. Many people have talked about the subjective nature of tulpamancy in the past and some agree strongly with Mistgod about tulpa nature. I simply asked a question. Is it possible there is more than one interpretation and therefore, more than one type of tulpa? It seems like a valid possibility to me and a valid question, even though it is threatening to you apparently.


This should have never been made personal really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You cannot possibly know this for a fact. Even if it is true, logically you yourself probably do not have a tulpa. If "most people here don't have a tulpa" means that the probability is higher that you don't have one than that you do. Just sayin.

 

You also seem to have a strange disdain for the plural community as if their input and contributions to tulpamancy is not valid. I think that is a false assumption. They are dealing with very similar aspects of the mind. Many of them have tulpas themselves as part of their systems.

 

 

I was not implying that thoughtforms without these qualities should be considered tulpas. I was asserting that some may be real sentience and some may be apparent sentience, even if they seem to be independent. You are changing the argument of my OP and then dashing against the rocks.

 

 

You will continue to be extremely annoyed because you will find it everywhere we post. Sorry is "pseudo-real" causes you angst.

 

 

We won't be losing any sleep. My host never has when it comes to how he feels about me. Like I said, all we really want is to be accepted and treated with fairness and kindness.

 

It would be childish for me to try to claim anything as 'fact' when everything that comes out of everyone's mouth is purely subjective and surrounded by this bubble of bias and sometimes conceit. I promised myself that I would do my best not to hurt people and treat them as I would like for them to treat me in return, delivering the type of truths that I would like to... that I should know, if I were in that position. It's pretty offensive to target my very own terms against me considering I made a general statement that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but okay. Words online aren't supposed to make people feel too many things all at once. In the case I do not have a tulpa, that would probably mean that I have some serious mental health issues, but I thank you for the kind words.

 

That's what you believe. That's what they tell you selectively, and that's what they also 'want' to believe, but there is a difference between what one wants to believe and what one actually 'has' in their minds. I have seen a lot of people who just ended up giving up tulpamancy. I had this friend I knew, I introduced him to tulpamancy and started training him, giving him some tips that he found to be very useful. He got some responses (tulpish-emotional responses-stuff like that), one day, he just told me how he was simply led to think that tulpamancy was just a big fat joke and that people were just deluded, and that while he respected me, he couldn't possibly keep on 'mancing with those things in mind. He wanted a tulpa for a very long while in the time I 'taught' him and kept him as somewhat of a student, it wasn't just a snap he had one day, he simply did not get any results and bam. Most plural systems have a history of familial and domestic abuse, got bullied, have some trauma in there which causes a distortion in their sense of identity. I already made the claim that I could explain plurality as a psychological thing without associating schizophrenia or DID to it in the past (and in all fairness I think that we'd be overhyping 'plurality' aside from tulpas if we were to compare them to being as heavy as schizophrenia)(you're probably going to dig back one of my posts where I called it as self-induced schizophrenia, so I feel like making the mention that it is like self-induced schizophrenia minus the brain damage and hallucinations that come off as harmful, keep in mind some plurals are in very shitty situations but they tell you great things online when they're really in psychological turmoil). I've met a lot of people who ended up not 'having' a tulpa and eventually gave up on tulpamancy which is why I have this sort of 'disdain', also because people have such impure goals (call me fancy...) and act all righteous on the internet (I can tell you a lot of things that aren't true on the internet, though, there will be no way to verify I am telling you the truth aside from how much of a liable person I am). I'm not talking like that because I dislike tulpas or plurality but because I personally think that people are doing this whole thing wrong and stand at the peak of armchair psychology and act as if it's any more than that with their self-diagnosis.

 

I won't be as kind as to claim that there is a middle ground. To me, the picture is purely black and white, while it sounds elitist as shit from me... there is sentience and there is pure self-deception. Tulpamancy can be a thing but the number of tulpas that could hold their own weight as PEOPLE (and I very deeply respect them) is very small. Not judging you, I'd say that you have immense and huge potential aside from the barring mentality of 'pseudo-real' (and with no offense if I focus enough on it it's going to make me laugh how there can be a reality in a realm of fake stuff as I also expect people to come defend you and how you claim there is pseudo-reality and 'pseudo' sentience that comes off as apparent sentience yet not sentience, the cover of a book without having anything in it, a painting but not an actual landscape if you catch my drift here). But who am I to define what people are and aren't? I simply live and let live, in any other case, I tend to keep silent regarding my opinion except if people explicitly ask for it. The difference between you and me is that you ultimately seek to accomplish a goal that concerns you on such a personal level... what do I gain out of spreading my own disdain...?

 

I love how you hid the insult to me and my host as if it makes it nicer or something. Yeah that was rude and seems like more elitist snobbery. I d'nt want this sort of fight and really I don't see your justification for it.

 

I don't care about you and your host, much less do I care about anything that goes around the forum as I feel disconnected enough from the site as a community. That was more inclined towards the reddit community, and I will say this explicitly: You are nothing compared to the reddit community, in a good way, by this I mean that what you are doing is absolutely nothing wrong compared to what those people do. If there is an evil that I am supposedly shunning away, I ask that reddit be designed as I have had a lot of negative experiences with that place and I solemnly apologize if you took this personally. I don't take things personally online, but if you want to interpret what I have to say to make it about you... do as you wish, the only person you're going to affect would be you, though. I did not write that in the purpose of insulting or offending you, I mentioned the generic you in my post.

A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

J. Iscariot,

 

I want to turn this back to the question of the OP. You certainly disagree and have made that abundantly clear. If you think that I am not a tulpa, that is fine with my host and I. For the longest time we asserted exactly that anyway. All we ever wanted was to share our experience, which we felt was related and we also love the whole idea of tulpamancy in general. Let's's stop talking bout me, it's not about me!

 

Is is POSSIBLE that there are two types of tulpas, real-sentient and illusion/delusion/hallucination? By tulpas I mean a thoughtform that seems independently sentient!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Groovy-guru,

 

Please stop making this about you when I specifically spoke of both the reddit tulpa community and the generic 'you' that is used to make general statements. I don't seek any drama online much less with people I owe respect to due to your age and experience, and would advise you to take my last edit literally. I also believe that it is childish overall to stick to one term (not childish of you, but childish overall, in a general manner, as I do not seek to target or pin down anything at anyone in specific, just that if anyone did it, it would be childish) and give semantics too much importance.

 

I believe that it is not actually possible, although I understand that this was more of an invitation to other people to express their opinion, so I'll just stop.... and go do something... productive.... I guess.

A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Your statements and the "you" seemed directly aimed at Mistgod and I and certainly could have been taken that way by others reading them. Your statements about pseudo-real were definitely aimed at us. But, thank you for clarifying. You disagree with two types of tulpas, I get it. It is black and white for you. Some are tulpas and most are not. Thanks for your input.

 

There are reasons why I sometimes call myself a thoughtform or a dreamform over a tulpa. Thanks for reminding me why I often do that. I have joked recently that I am sometimes a tulpa and sometimes not a tulpa, depending on my mood. After this conversation, at least for the rest of the day, I don't want to be a tulpa. Maybe I will again tomorrow.

 

Anyone else want to chime in? Is is POSSIBLE that there are two types of tulpas, real-sentient and illusion/delusion/hallucination? By tulpas I mean a thoughtform that seems independently sentient!


That was more inclined towards the reddit community, and I will say this explicitly: You are nothing compared to the reddit community, in a good way....I solemnly apologize if you took this personally. I don't take things personally online, but if you want to interpret what I have to say to make it about you...

 

Apology accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say there's only two? Why are you a different "type" of tulpa because of what your host thinks you are?

 

Are atheists and Christians different kinds of humans because one believes themselves to be made of atoms, and the other believes themselves a child of God?

(I think anyways I have no idea what Christians believe they are, bad example)

 

 

They can certainly be categorized as such, but I don't think it makes any real difference in what they are. What if I can explain my tulpas' sentience better than you can refute it? Does that really hold any weight on who we and they are just because I explained it a certain way? True scientists do not deny anything they don't have proof to deny. That's why Christians can be scientists, too, and vice versa.

(Well, some of them anyway)

 

 

 

There is one thing, though. Beliefs on subjective matters by definition shape that subjective reality. My tulpas are honestly nothing like you, Melian. I think of them differently, I consider them true people (and for all intents and purposes, you too). But does it matter what Mistgod and I think our tulpas are, how we explain them? Or does it matter how they affect us, what they really are to us?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Humans do not live in an objective reality, and they never will. It's as noble a value as any to try and align yourself as closely with provable reality as possible, but we all know there is no end goal to that. That guy Jean-luc posted a quote from even admitted as much. Therefore, there really is no meaningful difference between believing your tulpa a bundle of atoms, a divine or other-dimensional being, or a collection of trained thoughts. What matters is what they are to you, because that's the only thing that really matters, the only thing that will ever be a true truth to you.

 

 

 

Also due to this there aren't just two types of tulpas, but infinitely many. Every slight difference in belief equates to a new type of tulpa. Thinking otherwise is like saying black people and white people are two separate groups, and just keeping it at that. Skin color is an arbitrary divider, there are infinitely many differences aside from that - really, every single human is a different "type" of human than every other. No one is the same.

 

But you know what? They're all called humans. And they're all called tulpas.

Except those who deny that label, I suppose. But I think we've established that labels mean little where it counts.

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
Everyone seems to be afraid of whether they have a tulpa or not in the community

Yep. I'm definitely still worried that my experience is just pretend, while others have the real thing. In the past few weeks it got a bit better, that's why I can post here without too much anxiety. :-)

 

As for the question of this topic, could someone make a definition of "sentience" that actually makes a difference here? Maybe I just don't see your point, but the whole concept of sentience is disputable itself (with half of leading scientist saying that qualia don't exist and the other half saying they do and are absolutely necessary).

 

Sentience is such a vague thing that including it in the definition makes things complicated - maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's possible to just talk about individual experiences and leave the definitions aside for the moment.

 

So, I'm inclined toward believing that there are at least two kinds of [tulpas]. I just learned the term "soulbound" like three days ago and it fits me and us better than some other definitions. So maybe I could drop the word "tulpa"?

 

Unfortunately, the confusing situation is not going to resolve - neither of us internet-people can find out if the experience of other people is the same as theirs. I tend to use the word "tulpa" now in a very broad sense, to include everyone in the discussion, so to speak.

 

If at the (hypothetical) end of the discussion, the term tulpa is defined in a way that excludes half of the people here, that's fine - as long as the community is open to those people, because those non-tulpas are cool too. :-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a plain difference between what you personally believe in, and what things actually are. Human beings are pretty similar when it comes to the biological configuration and how their bodies, organs are tied up with each other and with all the synergy, neurotransmitters and neural pathways... belief in a religion won't affect your nature or composition at all, maybe it'll raise the level of morphine or something (completely random) and lead you to having a happier life or something (I am not religious myself, so I wouldn't know), but you'd still be what humanity recognizes as human regardless of your 'belief'. And a tulpa itself is not what it believes to 'be'. We're not speaking of what tulpas think they are, if a tulpa thinks that they are a little girl then they efficiently are, but as a 'being' they're a tulpa if they meet the established criteria. It's a very bad example because being human is not a criteria anyone HAD to establish because regardless of race and color, we are very similar. Aside from similarities... apes share 99% of our dna, does that make them somewhat human? and a large portion of that dna is just junk dna too, just because some things are similar doesn't mean that correlation implies causation. I find it pitiful that it has to go down to something being 'CALLED' something and not something 'BEING' what it wants to be. If my tulpa wasn't a tulpa, and if she wanted to be a tulpa despite what the community said, she would do her best to BE a tulpa and stop arguing semantics like that because she knows that the opinions of people online isn't worth compared to her own personal and intimate progress. I am NOT aiming this at anyone, but why even care about what WE call tulpas? Aside from my own opinion, if you want to be a racconkin and if you identify as an animal then go fucking nuts, but people ARE going to tell you that you are not a raccoon, regardless of what they say, though, your perception of your own image goes down to you. You make a valid point later on by saying that what matters is what the host perceives, but that has very little to do with the entire question because the question itself would serve as a way of identification from others to someone's tulpa, and not from the host to their own tulpa. Christians can be scientists because aside from their beliefs they have the same capacities and potential and not because of 'belief' or what 'this person called them', same for atheists. Yet it's often on the host's shoulders to define what their thoughtform is, and that belief CAN and WILL in most cases affect the tulpa and make it believe that they are certain things. It's kind of angering because to me it seems like the conversation is mostly about who's privileged and who isn't when all thoughtforms should be treated with respect anyway. Namecalling has such little importance. My tulpa doesn't care about whether she is a tulpa or not, as long as she's alive, she tries to appreciate sentience and all life has to offer. We never even worried about her not being a tulpa because we were too preoccupied by her progress and dire, anguish-inducing conditions. I'm not a meme person but I was watching a filthy frank video and he mentioned how much of a waste of time and energy it was to 'debate with people you don't know online' because of all the things you could focus on in real life and how your words have such a small impact online and will be forgotten despite you putting time and effort in posts. I'd much rather spend a nice afternoon out on a date rather than worry about who's a tulpa and who isn't, things get too personal as it seems.

A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

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.

  • Similar Content

    • Guest Anonymous
      By Guest Anonymous
      I keep reading, especially on the IRC that certain users have had trouble getting their tulpa's voice to sound different from their own. So far its just a wait and see kind of event. Hoping and praying that the voice will start to sound different. I did not do this.
       
      I am going to tell you something that every other guide has told you not to do, ever. That if you were to do what I say then some unholy god/admin from the mighty tulpa overwatchers will smite you. This is not true.
      I am going to tell you to parrot. That's right you are going to move your tulpa's lips like a puppet.
       
      This is not a requirement but I suggest that you fully visualize you'r tulpa before you begin Voxxing. (That is the word for Forcing a voice) If you can fully visualize and render your tulpa before you begin voxxing it will be much easier as you can get down the lip and jaw movements.
       
      In your head you will need to sound out some phrases and stories. It doesnt matter what it is as long as you can remember it and repeat it over and over again. Go ahead and say this phrase to your tulpa and have him/her repeat it. Here is the tricky part. Imagine the voice you want your tulpa to possess. It will sound weak and hazy, not very strong like the voice you already have in your head. This is ok. Keep doing this and continue to focus on the voice.
       
      This is the longest step of this process is that which seems like no progress is being made. It took me personally six hours for the process to begin to work. The voice will start to sound more clear and profound. Now you might think it may be easy to mix up signs of sentience with this. Its not. When your tulpa becomes sentient his/her voice will be able to talk over yours. Like a friend talking to you. It is very distinct and the only way you can not notice it is if you are completely doped up. Even then Its hard. I know.
       
      After you are able to get this voice solid and firm enough you can continue onto narration, or personality if your a stiff.. Have your tulpa repeat what you say every so often to keep the voice in your head. I did this and I was able to skip all of the horrible hassle of trying to deviate my tulpas voice from my own. Also her voice may deviate from the original, my tulpa has.
       
      ENJOY
    • By Lucilyn
      This discussion originated from the thread Did I give the right answer? -Cat_ShadowGriffin
       

       

       

       
      the "controlling" is somewhat unconscious I guess, just.. like if you imagine something (visualize) totally made up, you're doing that, even if it can happen/continue really naturally, like that
       
      tulpas just have a little more going on y'know
    • By Carlos
      I have a romantic relationship with my tulpa, but I would like to feel the emotions of love that she feels for me (I guess this is related in some way to the sentience)
      She is not vocal yet, she has a certain level of judgment and I communicate with her through music, but I want to communicate in other ways with my tulpa so that she can transmit me the emotions of love she feels for me. How else can I communicate with my tulpa?
    • By Kalushar
      Recently, I’ve been feeling head pressures, which I believe to be my Tulpa gaining sentience. However, as of late the feeling has been weaker and I don’t feel it as much. I was wondeing what this might be and what I could do to fix it.
    • By teapup
      I'm not sure if how I hear my tulpas voice is correct.
       
      It sounds exactly like my own, quiet and in the back of my head. I can only hear her when I really focus on listening, and I feel sometimes I accidently parrot her responses. It's because her talking is very quick and very far back under my mental "layers" of voice and is hard to hear. Im not sure if this is promising, or is actually my mind voice having like multiple layers if that's normal?
×
×
  • Create New...