Jump to content

Could there be two types of tulpas?


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's as close to a fair counter argument as there is. I agree with Lumi on the infinite-types-of-tulpas thing, so.

 

There's nothing more you or I can discuss on the subject, any other answers are subjective opinion, as are ours.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

@Joshua,

 

Wow, thanks for taking this seriously enough to be the first person to seriously and effectively dismantle the premise of my OP, or at least point out that it is somewhat meaningless babble. LOL

 

I always have an underlying agenda for these things. I just wanted to show that someone, like my host, who says that his tulpa is an illusion, may actually be right without it having any implications for the rest of the tulpa village. Also, that he might not be alone.

 

EDIT: It wasn't just answering the question that I wanted people to do. I wanted them to contemplate the possibility that when someone says they experience X or Y, they really are experiencing X or Y. Also, that each experience is still falling under the umbrella definition of "tulpa."

 

When my host says I am an illusion and self delusion, I may just be that. But that doesn't mean that another tulpas is. And even with that, both of us, other tulpa and Melian, are still technically each a tulpa, even though we might be different.


That's as close to a fair counter argument as there is. I agree with Lumi on the infinite-types-of-tulpas thing, so.

 

There's nothing more you or I can discuss on the subject, any other answers are subjective opinion, as are ours.

 

Isn't true of almost everything about tulpamancy? Subjective

 

Subjectivity is our curse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joshua,

 

Wow, thanks for taking this seriously enough to be the first person to seriously and effectively dismantle the premise of my OP, or at least point out that it is somewhat meaningless babble. LOL

 

I always have an underlying agenda for these things. I just wanted to show that someone, like my host, who says that his tulpa is an illusion, may actually be right without it having any implications for the rest of the tulpa village. Also, that he might not be alone.

 

No problem, sometimes I'm actually contributing to things, I swear.

 

Everyone has an agenda for anything they do. I think the understanding that everyone's experience is subjective should be enough for everyone to realize the stupidity in arguing the bearing of their own experiences on others', but hey, it's something so many people are so damn good at, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Yesh, I have an agenda and PLANS mwah hah hah hah hah hah!


I think the understanding that everyone's experience is subjective should be enough for everyone to realize the stupidity in arguing the bearing of their own experiences on others', but hey, it's something so many people are so damn good at, right?

 

Totally


(Mistgod: Why is my thoughtform better at understanding that than I am? ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I said I would refrain from posting, but it's not very easy doing so when I'm literally told what I am and am not doing because of this and that implication that was misinterpreted.

 

"Is it possible that there are both truly sentient tulpas and apparently sentient tulpas that we are all calling just tulpas?"

 

apparently sentient tulpas

 

'that we are all just calling tulpas'

 

Am I the only one seeing the contradiction here? What are they if they're not tulpas??

 

This implies that they're not actually tulpas, because, well, a tulpa is apparently a sentient, autonomous thinking entity in one's mind. If you have something that 'appears' to be just that but in reality is just deception and delusion, then it isn't a tulpa. I would tell you that it is very much possible to have those two things. We do have them anyway as things currently stand, but it's contradictory to say 'apparently sentient tulpas' 'that we are just calling tulpas', because as I previously mentioned, I believe things to be purely black and white. I believe most of our misunderstandings emerged from the fact that it was all very poorly worded and posted.

 

So you're subjectively qualified to know what a tulpa is? That's nice. It also doesn't mean anyone has to lend trust to what you say. It's the same with anything I say, or Melian says, or anyone else says. Getting upset over it or asserting your views over someone else's in a situation like this is silly, borderline a waste of time.

 

I would say that I can recognize a tulpa if any came in a 10 miles reach. Seriously, though, I believe that I am qualified enough but I'm obviously biased. I don't care, though. I was asked to express my opinion (but it's really just me expressing it and making it seem like people wanted for any of this to happen in the first place). I agree that it is silly, even more that it is a waste of time, just felt like expressing what I think, no hurt was delivered from my side or to my side, so it's all good. Good to see you're still alive btw.

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

To me, the word "Tulpa" is an umbrella term. It covers metaphysical, psychological and very likely, tulpas and non.

 

I think you are correct. In fact, logic dictates you are.

 

For people who do not understand how Groovy-guru is inevitably correct, please read on.

 

We take "tulpas" at face value. I don't know if you failed abysmally at creating one or made something else, such as a servitor. It is more than likely there are people out there completely faking it. The term, "tulpa", does not define completion, vocality, sentience or anything of the sort. It is a term which is given, or granted automatically to a person, entity, host, system, whatever you want to call it.. when an alternate sentience, concept of self, personification of aspects of self, fork in personality or whatever, is discovered or created. The defining characteristics are extremely broad.

 

There is no measuring stick or proof of concept. It is inevitable that some have not created tulpas, but believe they have. It is also very likely that your personal definition of tulpa will differ from anothers'.

 

Can you be sure that everybody has created the same thing? No.

Does the definition "tulpa" fit? Yes, it is broad classification without metric.

Delete this account - I will not return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

...a tulpa is apparently a sentient, autonomous thinking entity in one's mind. If you have something that 'appears' to be just that but in reality is just deception and delusion, then it isn't a tulpa.

 

But how do you know this for sure? How do you know what is going on in other peoples minds? You are making a huge assumption here and it is kinda lame honestly. Actually if someone else is deluding themselves into thinking they have a tulpa, it really doesn't matter does it? To that person it is still a tulpa, and to you it might as well be too, since it is a profound experience in their mind not yours. It is subjective.

 

I would say that I can recognize a tulpa if any came in a 10 miles reach. Seriously, though, I believe that I am qualified enough ...

 

Wow really? I find that claim to be highly unlikely to be true. Please read this here my dear https://community.tulpa.info/thread-groovy-guru-stuff-epic-blabby-babble?pid=158179#pid158179

 

 

 

'that we are all just calling tulpas'

 

Am I the only one seeing the contradiction here? What are they if they're not tulpas??

 

 

You are deliberately nit picking and slicing hairs. Funny how everyone else pretty much understood what I am saying. Stop, you're making yourself look stupid.

 

This implies that they're not actually tulpas, because, well, a tulpa is apparently a sentient, autonomous thinking entity in one's mind. If you have something that 'appears' to be just that but in reality is just deception and delusion, then it isn't a tulpa.

 

That is your opinion. I think it is weak, but it is your opinion and you entitled to feel good about yourself with it.

 

How can something appear to be apparent delusion? Your like so complicating what I was saying to a ridiculous level on purpose to create a fallacy and it is really kinda lame.

 

What I was actually saying, once again, is that there is a possibility that there are two types of tulpas existing simultaneously in the community truly sentient and apparently sentient. Each of these are still being labeled "tulpa." If you really can't understand that message, you are (allowing yourself to be) fairly dense.

 

I would tell you that it is very much possible to have those two things. We do have them anyway as things currently stand...

 

Holy fucking shit your are agreeing with me. You FINALLY answered the friggin question! Congratulations Iscariot! That wasn't so hard was it? That was all I was looking for.

 

You can now go back to believing it is black and white and you are one of a select few with REAL tulpas you have done more research than most of us and most of us have no tulpa and you can spot real tulpas ten miles away and plurals have mental problems so none of their terms or ideas can apply to tulpas and many of us are trying to change definitions and borrowing terms just to fit into the exclusive "club." But you are not an elitist-purist.


To me, the word "Tulpa" is an umbrella term. It covers metaphysical, psychological and very likely, tulpas and non.

 

I think you are correct. In fact, logic dictates you are.

 

Totally! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was offensive. Not only are you deliberately calling me out on stupidity for you not being able to align two words without causing that sort of incoherence (I'll admit that it was somewhat nitpicking but you made close to no sense when you said 'apparently sentient tulpas that we call tulpas' without saying what they actually are, you didn't specify what the other thoughtforms were aside from not tulpas, yes, no shit sherlock). If you're forcing people to just fall under your own version of tulpamancy because you can't stand being set aside because your host has a different version of tulpamancy overall (and deliberately called you a delusion many times, I don't understand what the hell I should be actually making out of all of this), that's just not the best way to behave. Sorry but who gives a shit about whether there 'is' a possibility, isn't it obvious as daylight that there are tulpas and not-tulpas? Truth is that you only made this thread to reaffirm the belief in your head that you could actually 'belong' on this site, and you can without acting like that and making such a huge fuckin' deal out of this. Why the hell are you trying to get people to compromise so hard with you, and why are you shunning away people who disagree with your vision so hard, is this melian-community or am I missing something here? I answered your question at the end of my first post if you bothered reading what I had to say regarding your conformism instead of losing your shit on an online forum. Wasn't the answer to your question obvious from the very beginning? I expressed many opinions on this thread that were not entirely directly related to the actual question, but had a lot to do with it. You not being fond of it does not warrant this type of behavior. Since you said that you had the right to express yourself on tulpa.info the last time on your groovy-thread in the lounge, I should be entitled to the same kind of right.

 

Your last paragraph just goes to show how much respect you can make proof of, regardless of what I tried to do to maintain a good way of communication between you and I (and embraced your offer of peace in PM) and specified that I didn't give a shit about having a tulpa, but only cared about having my "thing" regardless of whether she was a tulpa or not. The more stuff I see being posted in this community, the further it drives me from wanting to be a part of it, because apparently, people who express opinions such as mine are to be shunned away under the pretense of being 'elitists' because they fail to conform to the huge hugbox you want this entire thing to be. You were right, partly, because what outraged me at first was the fact that we had to transform this entire thing to something people like you would like and feel comfortable with; the people who could not fit in yet wanted to change society so that society would accept THEM. In most situations, those people tend to have to accommodate to society and it's not supposed to be the other way around. Daemons are daemons, soulbonds are soulbonds, you're only trying to bring them together with your umbrella of 'pseudo-sentience' (that is not sentience, which is why I do not recognize the thoughtforms you call 'pseudo-sentient' as 'tulpas' nor can I classify them as a 'type' of 'tulpas'), they have their own forums and online communities. Just because I express an opinion you dislike doesn't mean you are entitled to act like a brat about it and talk shit as if you could roam around freely doing so, in the end, you're only giving yourself a bad image without accomplishing any other goal of delivering that sort of humiliation to my side. Because I don't live on melian-community, I don't feel bad about being shit-talked and especially for such puny and petty reasons. I just feel bad because you're providing that image of yourself.

 

Congrats on pushing away people from this community, Mel. That's a fantastic way to act in such a shitty way under the excuse that someone is an 'elitist' for sticking up with a definition that isn't bloody hard to read. A tulpa is an entity that is sentient, autonomous and capable of thought and emotions. Apparent tulpas are not actual tulpas just because they seem to be sentient IF they are not sentient, that should not be changed just because Melian from melian-community wants to change stuff to her likes because the world refused her so she wants to drive that back on the world. The more you post with that sort of hatred and bias, the more harm you're driving upon yourself. I got over childish feuds over the internet such a long while ago that it stopped making sense to fight wars that would only make you look weak and too sensible. There are too many people who left this community because, and this has to be said, they had enough of your shit and with you trying to make your actions LOOK okay because 'booo elitism'. Regardless of whether I truly am an elitist or not, you should do unto others as you would like for them to do unto you, the simple fact that you treated me that way implies that you don't care about people disrespecting you, yet, you try so hard to make the community be all about 'appreciating' you and 'treating you with kindness'. One more thing, I still am not sure whether I am facing a tulpa or something completely different. It's not about me, it's not about what I have, to me, my tulpa is a person that I love and respect before putting pretty names on how she lives and functions. It's not about me taking pride in having a tulpa, I don't care and with the way the community is headed with the exposure I'd rather not have it known that I have a tulpa, I don't see where the honor would lie if I spent all day trying to convince people online of obvious as hell facts (that I answered on the first page but your intolerance got the best of all), I'm simply glad to have expressed my point of view regardless of how horrendously rude you've been.

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

If you're forcing people to just fall under your own version of tulpamancy because you can't stand being set aside because your host has a different version of tulpamancy overall...

 

I am not being set aside at all. You would like that to be true, but it isn't. My host and I have views on tulpamancy that are every bit as valid and plausible as yours.

 

Truth is that you only made this thread to reaffirm the belief in your head that you could actually 'belong' on this site....

 

But I do belong on this site as much as you. I am not doing anything but asking a questions and looking for discussion. It is you who is trying to decide who belongs and who doesn't, which has nothing to do with the OP and is kinda being an elitist know it all. Here read the note I made for elitists again and contemplate how you cannot know what is going on in another's mind. You need to read it again: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-groovy-guru-stuff-epic-blabby-babble?pid=158179#pid158179

 

The more stuff I see being posted in this community, the further it drives me from wanting to be a part of it, because apparently, people who express opinions such as mine are to be shunned away under the pretense of being 'elitists' because they fail to conform to the huge hugbox you want this entire thing to be.

 

Yesh, I call out elitist snobbery when I see it. I am proud to have driven a few of them off the board.

 

You were right, partly, because what outraged me at first was the fact that we had to transform this entire thing to something people like you would like and feel comfortable with; the people who could not fit in...

 

I fit in just fine. There is nothing in my OP that has anything to do with trying to fit in. Where was all that in my OP? What the hell are you talking about? I was asking a simple question, Could there be illusionary/self delusion tulpas AND truly sentient tulpas in the community at the same time?

 

A tulpa is an entity that is sentient, autonomous and capable of thought and emotions. Apparent tulpas are not actual tulpas just because they seem to be sentient IF they are not sentient, that should not be changed just because Melian from melian-community wants to change stuff to her likes ...

 

But the "official definition" in the forum's glossary does not say that tulpas are truly sentient. In fact, it says that it hasn't yet been proven that they are. The definition is ambiguous enough to allow for illusory/self delusions to be tulpas. So I am not changing anything! That was never the point of my OP at all anyway. I never said explicitly that I want a definition changed. I just simply asked a question for discussion. I don't even know the answer to the question myself. It is just a question. I am sorry if my questioning was super scary to you on a "science discussion" board. You are treating it much more like a religion the way you are reacting.

 

This really is getting pointless now and has little or nothing to do with the OP any more. So. From here on, I am ignoring it. So much for writing a compromise piece that would help bring people together. However, you are correct about one thing I guess. I do have an agenda and I do want to to see the community be more inclusive and huggie lovey and I do want it to "conform" to or accept/acknowledge my ideas and I do think I am the goddess guru of groovy and totally adorable and this is Melian forum. Thanks for noticing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't we just talking about definitions anyway?

 

If a majority adopted the view that "tulpa" includes apparent-sentient, there would just appear a new term for the former definition; something like sentient-tulpa, sentulpa (stulpa?^^) ... I totally understand that this is not something you would want to happen, J.Iscariot. (I don't either, I think, though in the end it's just words)

 

@J.Iscariot

You mentioned one page before that you don't consider yourself part of the "plural" umbrella. This confused me a bit, maybe you can explain how you define "plural" - I always just assumed that anyone with a tulpa (especially a fully sentient one) would automatically be considered plural.

 

 

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...