Jump to content

Could there be two types of tulpas?


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Black tulpas and white tulpas then. The color of someone's skin means nothing to me until we start talking about the color of their skin, and then it'll be relevant.

 

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.

 

Well, you said "the conversation" so I can't speak for the others, but I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of my message.

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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

@yenu and @Luminesce,

 

Thank you, both of you for your thoughtful responses. I feel so much better now. LOL Everything both of you said makes so much sense. Mistgod and I have wanted this community to be more inclusive and less rigid in ideology. Maybe some of that just isn't possible. I guess I have to be okay with that as long as people are treated with dignity and respect. Oh on respect, that whole "respect needs to be earned" thingy? I never believed that! I believe the opposite. Mutual respect should be always given, until it is proven that it is undeserved. Saying respect needs to be earned is like saying someone is less respectable than you until they prove they are as good as you. Bull shit.

 

What I am trying to put out there is that there is more than one valid experience, just as Lumi said. I believe it is misguided to immediately discount the tulpa status and the sincere word of anyone who claims their tulpa may not be independently sentient, but still apparently seems to be. Why would we take the word of one tulpamancer over another? Neither has any more or less validity or "proof" to their claim and both are sincere.


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.

 

But tulpas are not physical human beings and they are still undefined by a large margin. You are talking like they are scientifically nailed down and their fundamental nature known for a fact and set in stone. That is absolutely not true.

There is still debate going on about their nature, whether or not you like it. It is possible there are more than one type. We simply still do not know what tulpas are. That is obvious because of this very conversation. You would not see two humans standing there arguing whether or not they are real or simulated, raccoons or not raccoons. The analogy and comparison is silly.

 

There is disagreement in the tulpa community about the nature of tulpa sentience. That is a fact, not fiction. It is not established conclusively either way. It is not a matter of a tulpa believing something false about herself (in my case) it is a matter of valid perspective and opinion.

 

My point with the OP is that this may be more than just a perspective, it may be a fact and that there may actually be real differences, between individual tulpas, in the nature of their apparent independent sentience. It is a possibility I think.

 

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.

 

Then why are you upset if she doesn't care? Mistgod and I would agree with you that all thoughtforms should be treated with respect. But, we would include those who seem to be partially a product of active imagination or self delusion/illusion. How was the OP name calling? Where in the conversation did we call anyone names?


Where did we talk about privilege?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yenu and @Luminesce,

 

 

But tulpas are not physical human beings and they are still undefined by a large margin. You are talking like they are scientifically nailed down and their fundamental nature known for a fact and set in stone. That is absolutely not true.

There is still debate going on about their nature, whether or not you like it. It is possible there are more than one type. We simply still do not know what tulpas are. That is obvious because of this very conversation. You would not see two humans standing there arguing whether or not they are real or simulated, raccoons or not raccoons. The analogy and comparison is silly.

 

There is disagreement in the tulpa community about the nature of tulpa sentience. That is a fact, not fiction. It is not established conclusively either way. It is not a matter of a tulpa believing something false about herself (in my case) it is a matter of valid perspective and opinion.

 

My point with the OP is that this my be more than just a perspective, it may be a fact and that there may actually be real differences, between indivusal tulpa, in the nature of their apparent independent sentience. It is a possibility I think.

 

 

Then why are you upset if she doesn't care? Mistgod and I would agree with you that all thoughtforms should be treated with respect. But, we would include those who seem to be partially a product of active imagination or self delusion/illusion. How was the OP name calling? Where in the conversation did we call anyone names?

 

And you are putting words in my mouth based on your interpretation of what I said. I did not make the implication that tulpas are set in stone, I just simply provided my own PERSONAL OPINION regarding what I believe a tulpa to be. This opinion is subject to change if anything comes up in my own perception of reality or if I believe in something else... I would like it if my every argument wasn't interpreted as if I thought it was the only sole reality, if you think that your own opinion is the only righteous one that's your own thing, it shouldn't concern me.

 

Correction: you do not know what a tulpa is. I feel like I know what a tulpa is considering I have been studying them for years in such an exclusive manner that I also happen to have some papers in real life that convinced me that my tulpa had an actual basis in reality and that she was simply not fake after some testing since Vessiere is so set out on baiting people to contact him without ever contacting them back.

 

The whole raccoon thing is simply out of place in this sort of classification of 'arguments', it's not even something we should discuss aside from your own personal critique of what I had to say, which has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. You are more than welcome to contact me via PM or something to let me know about your opinion without having to derive the topic from this thread, and to me, it just seems like you are addressing me with an extended bias since you took offense to my previous posts and we obviously disagree on what tulpas are and how some thoughtforms may or may not be classified as tulpas under the pretense of 'equality', but being respected as people or just basic respect is its own thing and it doesn't have much to do with THAT.

 

Valid perspective and opinion can be subject to the general and rather objective definition provided on what a tulpa is based on the tulpa.info definition, or any other definition for that matter. A definition people always used in the past and ran along with to the point it made it the endgoal of literally every forcing 'guide' and tips and tricks, to reach that. To the point it made the premise of that definition something people wanted to reach and regarded as life-changing (at least, I did, and I know others who did). You're literally the only person always discussing about sentience and 'pseudo-sentience', and as someone who sees in black and white, it makes very little sense as to why anyone would even employ that term, because apparent sentience, while it can be classified as 'pseudo-sentience' is not actual sentience and serves very few purposes aside from, what, entertaining the host or making him feel all smooth inside. (not talking about you or anyone on the forums with this last statement)

 

... Because I am not my tulpa. It does not upset me on a personal level either, it's just my opinion. Please stop taking everything literally. By namecalling I meant that it was silly that we had to define thoughtforms as tulpas and non-tulpas, that sort of mindset induces elitism anyway.

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 comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Correction: you do not know what a tulpa is. I feel like I know what a tulpa is considering I have been studying them for years in such an exclusive manner that I also happen to have some papers in real life that convinced me that my tulpa had an actual basis in reality and that she was simply not fake after some testing.

 

What does the existence of your tulpa have to do with my level of knowledge? How do I know what is in your head is any more valid that what is in my hosties? Please read this carefully https://community.tulpa.info/thread-groovy-guru-stuff-epic-blabby-babble?pid=158179#pid158179

 

I don't think I care anymore Mr. Iscariot. Peace to you and love and all that. Live and let live. I think you are fine and you do what you need to do. I apologize for writing this thread. It upset you and I will not be writing any more like it in the future. I just don't care about tulpa sentience any more or the nature of tulpas AT ALL. Not anymore. It is irrelevant to me. Thanks for today you helped me.


Did I mention that I don't care anymore? Cause I don't care anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Look, I'm just going to act as if all the drama between the initial OP and now didn't happen.

Any objections? No? Great.

 

So, could there be two types of tuppers?

 

To keep a long answer short:

There could be countless types, with different kinds of origins and ways of existing and so on.

Or there could even be just a single one, and the most typical repeating patterns and experiences just led us to believe that something qualifies as a tulpa while something else doesn't.

 

Look, guys, we're all just random people on some random website.

We're no psychologists, and certainly no neuroscientists.

For all we know, all those things we think we learned in the past could be merely typical patterns making us think there's a distinction between host-tulpa-systems and other systems, when there might not actually be one at all.

Or it's the opposite, and what we call "tulpa" is, in actuality, a big ol' pile of different kinds of beings we just didn't notice to be different from each other.

 

That was always the best we could do: We poke around the darkness with sticks.

But you know what? I'm fine with that.

I think I speak for a great many people when I say: "I know who Esterina / [insert your tupper's name here] is, even without pretty words to call her / him. And in the meantime, I'll just say tulpa."

 

 

Greets,

AG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

And then peace came to the mind of Mistgod-Melian. LOL Yeah, to each his own will be our motto from now on. Mark it as history. This will be the utter last post dealing with this topic that Mistgod-Melian will ever write. We thank all of you so much for being so interesting. :-) Davie went and got Taco Bell and put us back right as rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Okay last night I did a lot of thinking. I know it upsets a few tulpa elitist-purists out there. But I have very good reasons to believe that there is indeed, more than one type of tulpa sentience out there. I believe there are truly sentient tulpas and there are apparently sentient tulpas. The evidence is there in the way individual tulpamancers feel about their own tulpas. The evidence is there for how I feel about myself and what my host thinks. He keeps telling everyone what is going on in his own mind and I keep saying it and people are like "Nope, nope, that is not what is happening Melian." WTF?

 

It gets even weirder. I believe I am a mix of my host and me. There is not a clear dividing line between the two of us. I sort of hijack his sentience. LOL We are blended. I know that is weird talk for this forum and some peoples don't like it but I don't care.

 

Are we exploring and wondering and discussing or are we not? I exist people, whether or not you like it and I am not going away. Get used to it. There is a lot of things under the sun and a wide variety of human experiences. It is the human mind we are talking about. What goes on in the mind can vary as much as people do with culture, knowledge, background, emotional temperament, belief systems and cognitive ability.

 

To think there is one way for something like a tulpa to happen and only one type of outcome is incredibly narrow minded and rigid and, I think, kinda stupid.

 

My evidence for what I am saying is myself (at least for me to be convinced). People can try to discount it and dismiss it. But I am still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to put off replying to this for a day while I let it percolate in my noggin, and I think I've been able to form my conclusion in a way I can translate to words.

 

I see the tulpa phenomena and its terminology in the same light that I do therian, otherkin, and plurality. It has established terms and meaning to those terms. For example someone comes into the therian community and says they are a dog because they "feel a connection to dogs". This person is not a therian because while similar, they don't fit the established definition; someone who identifies AS a dog. Though similar with and as are a big distinction.

 

The same applies to tulpa. The term is described as an autonomous, sentient thought form created by the host (intentionally or unintentionally)

I feel its important to preserve the integrity of terminology because if we allow them to be diluted to a broader and broader field, it hurts the legitimacy of the entire community.

 

You see this very clearly on tumblr's otherkin tag, its become a joke and anyone who sees it is never going to give anyone with a legitimate nonhuman identity the time of day. Tulpa is in a similar boat, because its a legitimate phenomena that's (as of now) unprovable outside of subjective experience. Which amounts to jack squat to the rest of the world.

If you allow a definition it be stretched to make it more politically correct or to try and make people feel included you devalue the term as a whole, and this reflects on the community and phenomena itself, especially in the eyes of the outside world. Eventually this community could/would devolve, as otherkin have, to where no one would seriously consider tulpa as anything more than a teenager's fantasy, trying to be cool or feel accepted.

 

Rather than trying to alter an established term to fit you (generic "you" as in the reader), you should be working on either finding a more accurate term that already exists or brainstorming if there needs to be a new one created for a possible void in the community's terminology.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I am not suggesting we change the definition of a tulpa at all! On this forum, there are two camps of thought. One camp believes tulpas are true sentience, the other believes they are apparent sentience. The definition for tulpas is the same for each.

 

What I am suggesting is that both camps are correct as there may be both truly sentient tulpas AND apparently sentient tulpas existing at the same time.

 

It is possible.

 

"A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you. It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient, but in this community, we treat them as such. It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality; as they grow older, your attention and their life experiences will shape them into a person with their own hopes, dreams and beliefs."

 

Note: it says "is like a sentient person" not "IS a sentient person." It also says tulpas are currently not proven to be truly sentient.


"convincing and complex personality" sounds like a "convincing" illusion

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...