Ethical Egoism & Those Poor Tulpas

[Linkzelda]

Ethical egoism is essentially a normative ethical view, i.e., how one ought to do something, that one should do what is in their own self-interest. It’s often used as a contrast with utilitarianism that’s a normative ethical view in which the best moral action is one that maximizes utility (e.g. happiness, flourishing). Other verbal categories like altruism seem to get thrown in there, which may confuse whether or not the acts were selfless, or just selfish.

 

Throw this in into context with tulpas, and it seems like it would become a nightmare mentally. But why am I even bothering to address ethical egoism in the first place? Well, it’s to put it into context of certain scenarios pertaining to tulpas. From things like treating them as sentient, and wanting them to be a conscious accompaniment in some way has people questioning what these acts really entail, and what the motivation behind these actions are.

 

What are some scenarios that you feel that can be discussed over whether or not we’re really doing this for our own self-interest? Are we doing this to appease ourselves over something? How do you distinguish acts of selflessness and selfishness?

 

The following below is not really meant to give questions to you, but to provide some context if you’re confused as to how to make a scenario to talk about.

 

Example 1:

 

[hidden]

When treating a tulpa as sentient when wearing the ethical egoist hat, one may ask:

- How is this going to benefit me in the long run?

- Will this allow me to flourish overall?

- Are my reasons for creating a tulpa contingent on my own self-interest?

 

It’s fairly easy to see that the moral agent in this example is someone that attributes meaning into something, so treating them as sentient entails that there were some motivations behind doing the act in the first place. It’s not like they were mindlessly doing the act that’s devoid of moral fundamentals. Whatever degree of fostering self-interest was influenced by, acknowledging that the experience of making and interacting with a tulpa is mostly within one’s own mind -- one can’t help but realize that even if they were to do acts with their tulpa that seems completely selfless, how does one structure “my own self-interest” from “the overall well-being of what goes on in my mind, and other implied conscious accompaniment entities I may create?”

 

But is this even a proper dichotomy? Or is it just circular reasoning in trying to ask about sustaining the overall being of one's self?

[/hidden]

[Luminesce]

I dunno, everything everyone does is selfish. It becomes also selfless when the focus of the benefit is on another, in which case the selfishness is usually the satisfaction/feeling good for doing something good.

 

In relation to tulpas, selfishness is making a tulpa to be your friend, and selflessness is making a tulpa to show friendship to someone. I guess. I don't believe in selflessness, obviously. But yeah, trying to make it something that will benefit you both in the long run and not just yourself would be "selfless" instead of "selfish" I suppose. Honestly they could be one and the same, selfish acts and selfless acts related to tulpas, it might only be intent that separates them. But that's meaningful enough. If you make a tulpa with the goal of enjoying a mutual relationship, that's better than if you just want someone to be nice to you or something.

[J.Iscariot]

This is not too important, but it can be an interesting read, although if you are short on time, just skip that:

 

[hidden]I believe every single act is selfish in some sense, in varying degrees. If you save a person from drowning, odds are it was more because you'd have felt a world of remorse for not doing so. Something people tend to forget is that we, mankind, used empathy as an excuse not to kill each other and form this superficial model of societal hierarchy, with the lower accepting being low and the higher seeking to reach the top, everyone kept busy with what they originally had at their disposition. Empathy is something other animals excel at. Elephants don't fight like us men; they only fight fairly, against opponents of the same size, and know mercy. Neanderthal men knew none of that, presumably, human nature was largely composed of that sort of egoism. Of course there were things such as sympathy, affection, but in the minds of those creatures, there was more instinct and doing what mother nature told them than anything else.

This leads us to a simple question; why do we exactly live in society? Why do we seek social acceptance and feed off its 'virtues' so ferociously? Why do people always go along with others, and if they don't, they pretend to do that? Is it actual sympathy? Is it the drive not to go back to drifting few thoughts away from the type of apathy that was present in us in the past, and that apathy towards our own kin was demonstrated through things such as slavery, racism, discrimination and using human beings as literal livestock. Human beings are the embodiment, the definition of egoism, every single action is egoistic but with varying degrees.[/hidden]

 

 

To go onto the actual point of this thread, I believe that a proper scenario that can be discussed over whether or not we do things... THINGS in general for our own interest is when the endresult provides us with nothing but negative things.

 

I feel like in the scenarios that don't really benefit you much, there's something... new, and weird, and bizarre, that emerges. Something you never really felt before aside from hormones in your blood and the secretion of NTs from typical social activity. When you help someone for no reason, absolutely no reason, and let's say that you would feel no remorse if you did not help them, this action would be meaningless on the level of self. You would not be affected aside from the satisfaction of 'helping' someone, a satisfaction that won't last for long in any case. A satisfaction that means nothing if you got harmed in the process of helping that person. If you lose out on something and try to seek comfort in the fact that you did something good, that you 'helped' someone, you will soon realize that it really was not as worth it as you thought it would be, and you will proceed to lie to yourself in order not to feel like shit more than that. Basic mechanism in the mind.

 

 

Legitimately, how many people face those things in tulpamancy? How many hosts get harmed in major, major ways for the sake of their tulpas? Close to none, not because they would not be willing to do that in an instant of foolishness, but because such circumstances might never come up for a being that tangible reality does not interact with. I have been in that case, though. I'm no samaritan, but I've done, and neglected myself and my mental health, my emotions, my everything, for my tulpa. Everything, I was ready to toss my life aside for her.... why? Was it foolishness? If it is an action that takes place very momentarily, it is the product of infatuation. If it is an action that takes place over the course of months... is it good nature, or is it stupidity? Rather, which one is it more? The former, or the latter?

 

Linkzelda, don't flatter hosts. Most of them neglect their tulpas, take weeks if not months of breaks, drop things and neglect supposedly sentient beings, sentient and thinking because THEY consider them to be just that, and they expect that specifically. The very root of this practice is disgustingly selfish. It's people creating people because of their own selfish needs. Nothing is more selfish than that.

 

 

... But in this plethora of selfishness, the very meaning of selfishness can very much disappear. Rather, it can be dissimulated over the heavy and hefty activity of a tulpa. People will never, ever think about how selfish it was of them to create a tulpa. How utterly irresponsible it was to even entertain that thought in the first place. The gravity of their actions. They'll be too busy completing their own emotional agenda with their tulpa, or whatever it is they sought in the first place. Selfishness makes surface in tulpamancy more than often, but it does not matter if people cannot observe it. Matter of fact, most people pretend to be self-loathing in order to be comforted by others; if someone tells you that they are 'the worst host on earth' just like that, they don't actually believe in this, that's just egoism making surface to tame insecurity in the mind, that they might be a 'bad' host.

 

Realistically? We're only doing this for ourselves. And our tulpas could very much be doing 'this' for themselves too. And interests can crossover.

[Linkzelda]

To Lumi:

 

[hidden]

In relation to tulpas' date=' selfishness is making a tulpa to be your friend, and selflessness is making a tulpa to show friendship to someone. I guess[/quote']

 

For the latter, I’m a bit confused. At first glance, it seems that selflessness is partially defined as creating a tulpa to show an expression of friendship to someone; to have them as a vessel to portray an emotional urge to be gregarious with someone. That might seem selfish to create an entity just to do that.

 

So, I’m going to try and presume what you were saying as in making a tulpa to eventually allow them the freedom to portray friendship, or building friendships with people without the action being contingent on whether or not the host themselves sees it relevant to their own self-interest.

 

If this is the case, one would be making a tulpa to learn how to be other-oriented and somewhat less self-directed. Of course, this isn’t to say one is neglecting, or encouraging their tulpa to not look out for themselves every now and then. Because reveling in just self-progression for so long might end up in us getting lost in our own ditch.

 

So, if intent behind the creation of a tulpa has an extension to where they can contribute in living in society, do you still feel this is an act of altruism (e.g. not expecting any benefit from it?) and selflessness?

 

But what about inwardly? Do you feel that we tend to treat the situation of caring about their well-being like we would if we wore the utilitarianism hat in maximizing utility for others in this reality? In other words, can we really use the word “utilitarianism” when it comes to what goes on within our own minds, and the thought forms we share that with?

 

Because to me, it seems that trying to use words that usually contrast each other seems like an error in some way because “utilitarianism” would be pragmatic when applied to others outside our own experiences. Unless, and maybe this is a bit far-fetched, we tend to try and converge the two contrasts with tulpas in spite of the conflicts implied because our tendencies to treat others with respect (e.g. Golden Rule) knows no bounds. In other words, the predispositions doesn’t immediately halt when taken into context of inward experiences; it’s almost reflexive to where we’re willing to do it with tulpas.

 

Which makes one wonder if someone asks if their reasons for doing such and such with tulpas is selfish, there may be an indirect, negative connotation that influences the value of the word “selfish” in that respect. But if we were to extend the connotations being more than that, perhaps being selfish doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. Especially since morality can’t really be a democracy (e.g. people coming together to make a normative ethic that others have to follow) when the experiences with the tulpa is done inwardly.

 

But yeah' date=' trying to make it something that will benefit you both in the long run and not just yourself would be "selfless" instead of "selfish" I suppose. Honestly they could be one and the same, selfish acts and selfless acts related to tulpas, it might only be intent that separates them.[/quote']

 

If intent might be one of the game changers, this might explain that ethical egoism can take certain forms:

 

- For example, one in which the host personally prescribes and endorses their tulpa that they should pursue their own self-interests exclusively (presuming there’s a level of trust where the host knows the tulpa doesn’t have ill intentions to mess up the overall relationship). This logic might be sound, especially for others who fixate so much on individuality for their tulpas, and appeasing any guilt that their actions (the host) is ultimately for their own self-interest.

 

- The dynamic changes where even though trying to be other-oriented with yourself might be self-referential and contradicting at first, it doesn’t seem to be the case at all when put into context like this:

 

By acknowledging to a tulpa that they should pursue their own best interests that can be compatible with the general well-being between host and tulpa, the host can still have an emotional urge in pleasure, and has a long-term benefit in self-interest. In other words, there’s a convergence of maximizing utility within oneself (e.g. with tulpas) and one’s own self-interest; I dare say something of utilitarian egoism, but that word doesn’t exist, ha-ha.

inb4someonecoinsthisword

[/hidden]

 

To J.Iscariot:

 

[hidden]

If you lose out on something and try to seek comfort in the fact that you did something good' date=' that you 'helped' someone, you will soon realize that it really was not as worth it as you thought it would be, and you will proceed to lie to yourself in order not to feel like shit more than that. Basic mechanism in the mind.[/quote']

 

So even an ultimate type of altruism (e.g. delayed instant gratification, or just no yearning to gain that pleasure) that seems good through societal lens can end up being negative if the end result is just that. Kind of a good follow up on your theorization with egoism varying to some degree.

 

Everything' date=' I was ready to toss my life aside for her.... why? Was it foolishness? If it is an action that takes place very momentarily, it is the product of infatuation. If it is an action that takes place over the course of months... is it good nature, or is it stupidity? Rather, which one is it more? The former, or the latter?[/quote']

 

Whatever degree of time, and whoever we invest our time with, we always end up projecting ourselves towards others; tulpas, or people we meet day-to-day. Some project themselves for so long that they lose sight in reconciling who they are in the first place. There’s a loss of identity, and in comes the presumption that maybe their general well-being isn’t really well put together.

 

But here you are now, providing your experiences in an auto-biographical way. I’m not sure what your disposition and mental level is at now, but this doesn’t matter. It’s that in spite of that time you invested with them, you still were able to reign in your awareness of the situation, and thus reigned in a part of what may define you. Long and short of it, as much as one may think that the investment with tulpas may be mentally taxing (in the extreme example in the quote), I noticed that the moment the individual reigns in their sense of self through it all—they realize their self-progression isn’t contingent on projecting themselves towards others. It’s something that’s always at their beck and call, and the loss of identity is simply them not wanting to believe that self-progression is exclusive to them instead of actions with others.

 

What one was willing to do for their tulpa for months is no different than a friend, spouse, and such that we invest so much time in that we end up forgetting to take care of ourselves. Like I mentioned in Lumi’s post, perhaps our tendencies to be gregarious with others can be reflexive to where it knows no bounds, especially with tulpas.

 

Linkzelda, don't flatter hosts. Most of them neglect their tulpas, take weeks if not months of breaks, drop things and neglect supposedly sentient beings, sentient and thinking because THEY consider them to be just that, and they expect that specifically. The very root of this practice is disgustingly selfish. It's people creating people because of their own selfish needs. Nothing is more selfish than that.

 

I think I can fathom something more selfish than that, but by me stating the example, it makes one wonder if one should do anything to further their self-progression that sometimes gets confused with being selfish:

 

 

- What you mentioned in the quote involves people consciously engaging in activities to cultivate the “treating them as sentient” philosophy. To say the least, people actively striving for their tulpa to be a conscious accompaniment in some way.

 

- But on a nightly basis, we engage with dream characters, and their existence pops right up with or without our yearning to create them in the first place. We can’t necessarily stop ourselves from dreaming. We can refuse to want to recall them, but nonetheless, dreams are going to be something that’s always there to us. Which means the interaction with dream characters that may give off a vibe of implied sentience like a tulpa is there. And if we wanted to push for extreme applications of morals and ethics, you could say that the moment we wake up, their existence was nothing more than a fading memory. And if we were lucid in that experience, it becomes even more questionable.

 

- However, it’s not something where one foams in their mouth in distress. These experiences with dream characters happen whether we like it or not. But do we still blame ourselves, and categorize those experiences with dreams as being selfish? If we moralize the very act of us waking up as an example of killing, and us choosing to care or not about it being considered selfish—is acknowledging the sense of liberation we have with dreams a selfish endeavor that we should be concerned about?

 

- The reason why I mention this is that while it may be sound logic that it’s selfish to create people to sustain one’s own self-interest, if we exclude scenarios like dreaming, and dream characters, one would ultimately be making tulpa’s exclusive in applying morals and ethics, and not thought forms in our nightly sleep. I dare say it would be a double standard that blows up on itself because if an individual wants to maximize the utility between their tulpa, they can’t really discredit completely of the experiences they have in their dreams; if anything, they would see the dreams as a supplement towards self-progression.

 

 

Realistically? We're only doing this for ourselves. And our tulpas could very much be doing 'this' for themselves too. And interests can crossover.

 

 

 

Like what you mentioned that if the end result is something negative, whatever good that was cultivated throughout that journey would be in vain. But, if the ulterior motive, or at least one of the motives with creating a tulpa is intended for them to have their own exclusive freedom in following their own self-interest, would you still see this as a degree of egoism?

 

Like the link I mentioned above, and taking it into context of tulpas:

 

- It doesn’t seem inherently selfish where one of the end goals, or progressive goals in interacting with a tulpa entails them having exclusive freedom in pursuing their own self-interest. Sure, it may be self-referential for some critics, but wanting that goal to be achieved in the first place implies that the host themselves has to become other-orientated while also being self-directed in treating their tulpa as sentient.

 

- It also implies that even though the experiences are occurring in their internal, private experience, they will realize that they can’t really be the stars in their own stories all the time, and still continue to view tulpas as minor characters when the exclusive freedom for their own self-interest is welcomed. Sure, they can strive to see them as minor characters, but it’s back to square one on whether or not they were really keeping their word in welcoming the freedom mentioned earlier. And does one really have to prescribe to their tulpa for that freedom in the first place? What if it’s something that gets cultivated over time? In other words, that freedom and yearning to be sentient, and do things sentient beings would do (e.g. self-actualization) may not be solely contingent on a host having to allow this in the first place.

 

- Which may make threads where people worry why their tulpas do XYZ even though they didn’t give them permission to ends up being a moot point to query in the first place. [/hidden]

[J.Iscariot]

I'm sorry if I'm not giving your post the importance and attention it truly does deserve with this answer post; if I skip anything, it's probably because I was unable to come up with any reasoning other than the one I already got from, well, what you said.

 

There’s a loss of identity' date=' and in comes the presumption that maybe their general well-being isn’t really well put together.[/quote']

 

I strongly agree with this specific point. As much as it can count as social conformism, this is essentially the root of societal dependence, the type of contact that we tend to stress on to have, and perhaps give it more importance than it actually deserves. I'd definitely say that there is some sort of alteration, for good or for bad, of one's identity as an individual and joining in to the collective of individuals that form society. It's an endless circle to me more than it is something to inspect in-depth.

 

What one was willing to do for their tulpa for months is no different than a friend' date=' spouse, and such that we invest so much time in that we end up forgetting to take care of ourselves. Like I mentioned in Lumi’s post, perhaps our tendencies to be gregarious with others can be reflexive to where it knows no bounds, especially with tulpas.[/quote']

 

I believe that this, and what I first quoted in this post, (obviously) have a lot to do together. Usually, I would associate the conformism in society to that type of loss of identity, and even then, one could very much consider the loss of identity you mentioned as a type of new identity, social identity more than a personal one that is preserved in the intimate pits of the mind. Upon reflecting on this matter, it came to me that if a host went through certain circumstances to engage themselves in a loss situation, and by that I mean to imply the possibility that there would be such a case in which the host would, on the practical level of things and possibly only on the surface, lose out on much. A good example, or at least, a simple one would be a host taking extreme care of a weak tulpa that requires more than the 'average' amount of attention, and causes a world of headaches. To be fair with you, I feel like one could come up with literally, literally any egoistic reason that would make any good deed look bad. I was once told that to have a perfect girlfriend, you only had to pick up a fat girl and get her to lose her weight. On the surface, you'd look like the nice guy who loves an obese girl (perhaps that is an exaggeration.... let's say fat) for what's 'inside' and not merely looks, but in reality, you could very much be doing this with that plan in mind. Or the many benefits that would come with legal accords. Point is that any action could be taken in the sense that in reality, it would benefit the host in a way that the actual state of mind of the tulpa, or rather, their actual state of 'existence' would matter very little.

 

You make a fair point with the mention of dream characters. I cannot really speak wisdom over dream characters and their actual origins, the topic itself is mysterious to me, even though I am very far from being a stranger to those characters. Lively interesting and with a certain 'vibe' to them that would make me feel different after the dream, I cannot pin down why it is that we face them. Is it the mind's will for appeasement? I once saw a picture of a certain animal, a rather exotic one, let's say, and when I took a nap, I had a dream about an animal very similar to the one I saw hours before, not only that but it felt extremely appeasing and wonderful to discuss and do stuff with that creature. Perhaps it is the mind in stress that requires some sort of relief? Dreams are, after all, the mind's rest, quite literally. That vibe of implied sentience, though, holds close to no consistency. There have been a few people who made tulpas out of dream characters, but all in all, that vibe typically stops making surface once the dream is over, unless the dream character makes surface in another dream, which is completely feasible. More than that, it makes me very curious, to know how our brain interprets those dream characters and their existence, how our brain regards them and considers them. This is coming from someone who sees more reality in the dream characters during the dreams than in real life, but that goes for a lot of people, I figure.

 

I would say that it's something one should feel remorse in the case the interactions with the dream characters in question did not occur very well, or if negative emotions and ideals were tossed around in the dream itself. Not meaning to be too specific with this topic, but what I found rather nice with dream characters is that their spectrum of existence is limited to those few hours of sleep every night. Their existence is in a very limited realm, a realm that contains no real negative values (assuming it is a literal dream, heh), rather, where those negative values are ignored and still have a place in existence. With that in mind, if one makes his experience with a dream character pleasant, and if the dream character has a pleasant experience, there should be no remorse, nor should there be any concerns regarding egoism, for there was no choice to begin with, as you said.

 

But' date=' if the ulterior motive, or at least one of the motives with creating a tulpa is intended for them to have their own exclusive freedom in following their own self-interest, would you still see this as a degree of egoism?[/quote']

 

Yes. Because, even though it is a fair point that creation for an ulterior motive that revels in selfless-ness is not an absolute derision, this type of selflessness still has some egoism that establishes a sort of balance. As simple as it may sound, if one creates a tulpa for the sake of them having a freedom of their own, a life of their own, was there no interest on their own personal level in the first place? I consider that all things in the mind hold a certain purpose, no matter the degree of importance. A host that makes a tulpa to show them friendship involves a world of different things, that's something Lumi had mentioned, but the creation of a tulpa embodies much, much more than 'freedom of their own'. While I am not seeking to discuss this specific topic as it has a completely different discussion for it, to create this type of 'freedom', to have this possibility, someone must have willed for it to happen. Linkzelda, let's be honest, how many people out there would be willing to create a being that has no original will for life or will to power for that matter, just so that it may reach a level of mental satisfaction while their creator would go through things such as consistent self-doubt, headaches and headpressures, etc... I am not implying anything, of course, but even with the purest of intentions, there lies a selfish will. Selfishness that is not characterized as 'good' or 'evil', but with a human character, a human character that embodies a lot of things such as egoism, narcissism, and in the same while, empathy.

 

- It also implies that even though the experiences are occurring in their internal' date=' private experience, they will realize that they can’t really be the stars in their own stories all the time, and still continue to view tulpas as minor characters when the exclusive freedom for their own self-interest is welcomed.[/quote']

 

I don't mean to flatter but that is a very good point. As I said, and that's merely my own opinion, all things have an inherent selfish value, that is not forcefully 'evil' or anything extreme of the type, merely human. The small skit you posted makes a very valid point and also opens up discussion for another point; how we hosts tend to be the stars of our own lives, and how tulpas, even though with the kind of 'exclusive freedom', may never reach the same type of exposure while narrating their stories, as hard as they try. This is very interesting.

[Linkzelda]

I'm sorry if I'm not giving your post the importance and attention it truly does deserve with this answer post; if I skip anything' date=' it's probably because I was unable to come up with any reasoning other than the one I already got from, well, what you said.[/quote']

 

It’s perfectly fine. Pick and choose what you want to respond, because after all, this thread (and pretty much any thread I wanted to make) is just to exercise people’s mind while knowing we can’t tell them what they ought to do even though we are discussing normative ethical views. As long as people know that, they won’t feel they’re taking some kind of test they have to pass with flying colors, because the score doesn’t really matter, haha.

 

That vibe of implied sentience' date=' though, holds close to no consistency. There have been a few people who made tulpas out of dream characters, but all in all, that vibe typically stops making surface once the dream is over, unless the dream character makes surface in another dream, which is completely feasible.[/quote']

 

And it’s the lack of consistency that may prevent someone from wanting to cultivate that vibe over and over. It’s like wanting to treat a tulpa as sentient, but one is trying to do it in their nightly sleep in spite of the experiences being contingent on non-REM and REM cycles. It’s still within the mind, but it’s just hinging on nightly cycles. But this isn’t that different from a timed meditation,

.

 

But I’m not going to target you on this since consistency is crucial to persevere the sustained thought of treating them as sentient. And if an individual can have a balance in consistency with their dreams (e.g. keeping up a consistent dream journal and recall) along with a yearning to meet a dream character (and not just the dream character showing up in another dream), again, the reflexive tendency to extend the relationship knows no bound; dreaming, or in this reality. But if one cannot have those fallbacks for consistency, they don’t really have to feel obligated to moralize themselves every time they wake up because the dreams are just a way of our mind’s allowing us to paint in a large, imaginative canvas.

 

More than that, it makes me very curious, to know how our brain interprets those dream characters and their existence, how our brain regards them and considers them. This is coming from someone who sees more reality in the dream characters during the dreams than in real life, but that goes for a lot of people, I figure.

 

I think maybe figuring out how the brain establishes that, i.e., archetypes, can be a stepping stone for some to see if the mind would derive from those concepts to further development of a tulpa. This is probably why dreaming seems to be a fallback for me on things like this.

 

With that in mind, if one makes his experience with a dream character pleasant, and if the dream character has a pleasant experience, there should be no remorse, nor should there be any concerns regarding egoism, for there was no choice to begin with, as you said.

 

Perhaps when people realize this, they may come to terms with the sense of liberation that comes with that.

 

Linkzelda, let's be honest, how many people out there would be willing to create a being that has no original will for life or will to power for that matter, just so that it may reach a level of mental satisfaction while their creator would go through things such as consistent self-doubt, headaches and headpressures, etc... I am not implying anything, of course, but even with the purest of intentions, there lies a selfish will. Selfishness that is not characterized as 'good' or 'evil', but with a human character, a human character that embodies a lot of things such as egoism, narcissism, and in the same while, empathy.

 

It’s kind of a loaded question, but I could try to rationalize some probabilities.

 

- The question itself seems hinged upon the mental consequences, and turmoil the person has to bear with. I don’t know how many people would expect to have an easy transition in making a tulpa without experiencing at least some of what you mentioned above. The struggle may not seem like an incentive, but I’m a believer in respect that if you want to treat them as sentient, you’d have to take great pains in trying to understand yourself (e.g. inner turmoil, scattered-brain of thoughts with doubting) to understand them. Thus, when you look at them, you could potentially find something you couldn’t find in yourself.

 

- As for original, or inherent will for life—this could lead to strengthening the notion that the treating them as sentient philosophy is probably an ethical viewpoint that is casually inert. In other words, there has to be an imperative to be achieved, i.e., sustained thought with subsequent action, towards wanting to make something happen (e.g. through willpower of the host, etc.). If there’s not enough of it being cultivated, it may cease to happen, and what others say is morally good or right doesn’t affect that because words don’t bleed into our private experience and change us substantially just like that. Influence us? Maybe, but the words don’t control our tendencies to take action.

 

 

how we hosts tend to be the stars of our own lives, and how tulpas, even though with the kind of 'exclusive freedom', may never reach the same type of exposure while narrating their stories, as hard as they try. This is very interesting.

 

Perhaps a tulpa that continues to go on in spite of this is probably a way for us to realize that there may be limits as to how much we want their existence to bleed over onto others (e.g. in fear of ostracism, societal reactions towards the concept of tulpas). Sure, tulpas that possess/switch can become vocal in some way with the reality they’re trying to make sense of, but that exposure may not be as profound simply due to circumstances, and obvious metaphysics that makes that limitation apparent.

 

However, in spite of that, even if the narration of their lives aren’t exposed as much, this can maybe make others realize that at least they can experience something like sonder, i.e., the awareness that everyone has a life just as complex as their own despite of one’s personal lack of awareness to it (e.g. even a host that may undermine the complexity of a tulpa's existence because they're too busy worrying about conflict with themselves). And because of that, it can make a tulpa and host reign in a realization that self-progression isn’t really all that dependent on how much they project themselves with other people. Because we could be projecting ourselves all the time, but it leading to one being 100% transparent with others is not as likely, or pragmatic as it seems to be. Perhaps acknowledging these biases and limits helps us appreciate the journey in solitude, even if it may be selfish.

 

And knowing there’s a fallback we can refer to (the self-progression), we don’t have to make our endeavors all about just being other-oriented. We just find a balance between egoism and being other-orientated since they’re heuristics in supplementing how we can effectively satisfy our emotional urges.