Thoughts on tulpa creation?

[J.Iscariot]

What are your thoughts on creating a tulpa for reasons such as 'I want a friend', 'I am lonely and I would like someone to listen to me', 'Hey, why not? I am curious' and the likes? Vote in the poll and let me know.

[SomethingDire]

I voted on the second option. Saying "I want a tulpa for this- I want a tulpa for that-" It does annoy me, but who am I to judge?

 

EDIT: I meant creating a tulpa for very specific purposes-- Like I want my tulpa to be this and not that, I want them to be that but not this-- That's the type of stuff I do not agree with. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear before.

 

Other than that, every reason is selfish, but selfish does not mean bad in all cases.

[Drakaina]

I'm neutral to annoyed by it. I operate on the idea that selfish =/= unethical. Things can be done for the self that have no ill effects on the people around you (or within you on the case of thought forms).

 

I couldn't vote for the positive options because while not all selfish actions are harmful, some are.

[waffles]

I don't agree with any of those options. Going on the consequentialist line of thinking that I've mentioned in previous threads like these, in my experience making tulpas for those reasons tends to work out fine or good, on balance. That's not to say that that'd be the case for any reason, or that you should be able to do whatever you want.

 

To SomethingDire I'd counter that you must have some reason for creating a tulpa, otherwise you wouldn't be creating one.

[spruce]

What would be an unselfish reason to create a tulpa?

 

I think some reasons are definitely more selfish than others. As much as I don't want to judge anyone, I kind of do judge people who do it solely because they want a hyper-realistic masturbatory aid. But, ultimately you make a tulpa because you want to make a tulpa. The tulpa doesn't exist yet, it can't tell you it wants to be created. It's a selfish decision.

 

That being said I voted for 2 and 3. Honestly everything people do is inherently selfish, but as long as those selfish things aren't super harmful there's no sense caring about it. But at the same time I do judge people for creating them for what I perceive to be extra selfish reasons, even though I know it's kind of hypocritical of me to be judgemental of some things but not others.

[J.Iscariot]

I don't agree with any of those options. Going on the consequentialist line of thinking that I've mentioned in previous threads like these, in my experience making tulpas for those reasons tends to work out fine or good, on balance. That's not to say that that'd be the case for any reason, or that you should be able to do whatever you want.

 

To SomethingDire I'd counter that you must have some reason for creating a tulpa, otherwise you wouldn't be creating one.

 

We do not have to associate selfishness with negativity. It could lead to something positive as it could lead to something negative. I believe that you can actually study the probability of something negative happening if you keep in mind the conditions some people suffer from, from all sorts of things going from domestic abuse that creates a not-so-tulpafriendly midst to mental conditions and the likes. And you simply don't hear back from the people who end up in a bad situation, doesn't mean the don't exist.

 

The selfishness we study here in this domain is the root of the action and the ulterior motive that is ported on how the tulpa functions. We've had this discussion in the past, though.

[waffles]

I believe that you can actually study the probability of something negative happening if you keep in mind the conditions some people suffer from, from all sorts of things going from domestic abuse that creates a not-so-tulpafriendly midst to mental conditions and the likes. And you simply don't hear back from the people who end up in a bad situation, doesn't mean the don't exist.

 

That's exactly it, it's an empirical question about whether these bad things do happen, how frequently, how badly, and so on.

 

I think you ought to expand a bit more on what you see as a "bad situation" - as far as I can see, people who tend to disappear will have ended up with no tulpa, or something along those lines. That's just neutral, I think. If they're actually worse off than they were without a tulpa, would they leave here? I'm not sure they would. Whether or not you'd be inclined to say that we don't see many of them because they all leave or because it doesn't happen is hard to cut.

 

Thinking back to that other thread, about potential downsides (I guess all these threads are on this same theme) I don't remember seeing many there that were either particularly major or something that would make someone leave, and not tell anyone about it. The most major one that I can think of, where a host disappears and leaves tulpa/s in control forever, they aren't very inclined to leave. And I've seen some people who've had that happen, on here. It's pretty uncommon, and I don't know how you'd quantify the downside; is it a bad thing, on net, compared to the host living on their own? I don't think it necessarily is.

[Temar]

Lots of complex ethical questions lately. I'm sensing a theme, Judas. ;)

 

Anyway, I don't think I can answer this thing, because you tacked on some crazy implications to some of them:

 

Neutral = "hosts know better?" Nope, can't jive with that.

 

I speak for most of my system when I say that we take things on a case-by-case basis. I'd be lying if I said that the idea of someone creating a tulpa for sex doesn't squick me out, but I also know it's not my place to judge people for expressing a natural function of biology. The purpose of a tulpa's creation is between the tulpamancer, their eventual tulpa, and whatever ethical considerations they have between them. Best I can hope for is that, whatever their reasons for creating the tulpa, I would hope their reasons are benevolent.

 

Though I will admit that I will feel the need to jump in and give my 2 cents if I see indications that either tulpamancer or tulpa appear to be abused or disenfranchised because of whatever their situation is. That, I'll judge, but that's usually after the tulpa has already been created, so the original reasons for that creation might not even matter anymore.

 

Guess that's my response: generally neutral, but not because the host knows best.

[J.Iscariot]

 

I think you ought to expand a bit more on what you see as a "bad situation" - as far as I can see, people who tend to disappear will have ended up with no tulpa, or something along those lines. That's just neutral, I think. If they're actually worse off than they were without a tulpa, would they leave here? I'm not sure they would. Whether or not you'd be inclined to say that we don't see many of them because they all leave or because it doesn't happen is hard to cut.

 

Thinking back to that other thread, about potential downsides (I guess all these threads are on this same theme) I don't remember seeing many there that were either particularly major or something that would make someone leave, and not tell anyone about it. The most major one that I can think of, where a host disappears and leaves tulpa/s in control forever, they aren't very inclined to leave. And I've seen some people who've had that happen, on here. It's pretty uncommon, and I don't know how you'd quantify the downside; is it a bad thing, on net, compared to the host living on their own? I don't think it necessarily is.

 

No tulpa is definitely a loss. If you end up with giving in to intrusive thoughts or some forms of self-deception... do you realize the enormous amount of time you lost out on in which you could have done productive stuff? In economy, if you're not making at least minimum wage you're making a loss, and if you take a minimum wage job instead of a more and well paying job, then you're also losing money, time is money, and time is precious in our lives that are limited. Someone who fails and only obtains a delusion (in their books eventually I mean) would have lost out on a lot of time. If you have a company and it's not making any profit yet it's not losing out anything on the level of electricity bills or monthly payments for other services, you're facing a loss because you could be profiting. If you have a certain surface, say 100 acre, and you're not using them currently for anything at all then you're making a loss when you can make profit. Same thing applies to tulpamancy. If you spend your time 'deluding' yourself then you're still losing out because you could profit so much more if you followed, say, different methods, put more effort in the short-term activity active forcing tends to be, stop neglecting on the long term and passively preoccupying yourself with thinking about the tulpa who barely speaks and barely talks. More than that, if you CAN spend that time developing a tulpa through different methods, then the model I previously presented applies; you are losing out. THAT is negative. I used to mentor this kid, he ended up wasting literally 3 months of his time and of MY time to tell me that 'this is all a lie you are also deluded bah it didnt work for me so it can't work for other people'. You need to realize that even though most don't express it, this thing doesn't work out with everyone. A lot of people hold a certain interest that is issued from temporary hype and it dies off after a while. Even then, we cannot dismiss the possibility of those events happening.

 

A bad situation is forcing the tulpa to do stuff that it may not want to do. For instance, to fulfill the host's infatuation in a certain concept, to make the tulpa do certain things that may be against what they'd really want without expressing it, hurting your tulpa through actions you are not aware are actually harmful (and yes, this happened to many people, I'm the proof of it too.). It CAN happen. You just don't hear about it because people feel too shitty to tell others about it. Or they end up dissipating the beautiful things they had in their minds after a misunderstanding. An intrusive thought. A close one noticing some out of the norm activity and making remarks about it, and going as far as to forcing you to attend a psychiatry clinic. It happened. Tulpas going 'rogue' and making their hosts go through a world of pain and pure delusion (koomer-jake/vinyl). It happened too. We cannot consider that 'oh, you don't hear about those often so those are outliers.' The biggest mistake one can make, as a matter of fact, is to consider that you can dismiss all negative cases because nobody is speaking of them actively (and by no means am I implying that you are doing that, not at all), that is just something I wanted to point out to. It is provable that you can affect your tulpa on subconscious levels, but that is another discussion. If you, the host, has such power over the tulpa (autonomous or not a tulpa is a tulpa even if it needs the host's attention), the power to purely alter it and by that meaning altering the way it exists and perceives life, its sense of identity to suit your own needs (it happened with some people), then what freedom is in place? An imaginary wall of limitations is what.

 

A LOT can happen without attentive care, and let's be honest; hosts get busy in real life, with other physical people, some forget about their tulpas for weeks or put them in a wonderland because they cannot be bothered due to other occupations in which they can also give their tulpa attention if they bothered. So much can happen if one focuses on their own personal goals, but that's just what I think.

[Sock]

 

No tulpa is definitely a loss. If you end up with giving in to intrusive thoughts or some forms of self-deception... do you realize the enormous amount of time you lost out on in which you could have done productive stuff? In economy, if you're not making at least minimum wage you're making a loss, and if you take a minimum wage job instead of a more and well paying job, then you're also losing money, time is money, and time is precious in our lives that are limited. Someone who fails and only obtains a delusion (in their books eventually I mean) would have lost out on a lot of time. If you have a company and it's not making any profit yet it's not losing out anything on the level of electricity bills or monthly payments for other services, you're facing a loss because you could be profiting. If you have a certain surface, say 100 acre, and you're not using them currently for anything at all then you're making a loss when you can make profit. Same thing applies to tulpamancy. If you spend your time 'deluding' yourself then you're still losing out because you could profit so much more if you followed, say, different methods, put more effort in the short-term activity active forcing tends to be, stop neglecting on the long term and passively preoccupying yourself with thinking about the tulpa who barely speaks and barely talks. More than that, if you CAN spend that time developing a tulpa through different methods, then the model I previously presented applies; you are losing out. THAT is negative. I used to mentor this kid, he ended up wasting literally 3 months of his time and of MY time to tell me that 'this is all a lie you are also deluded bah it didnt work for me so it can't work for other people'. You need to realize that even though most don't express it, this thing doesn't work out with everyone. A lot of people hold a certain interest that is issued from temporary hype and it dies off after a while. Even then, we cannot dismiss the possibility of those events happening.

 

I don't intend to get too deep into this discussion, but I've seen this argument pop up every so often, and something about it bugs me. The above isn't an argument against tulpa in particular, but against pleasure seeking in general, and doing things that do not directly relate to economic gain.

 

With a change of a few sentences, it can suddenly be about why movies are bad and a loss, why video games are bad and a loss, why books, comics, etc are all bad and a loss. The biggest issue I see with this argument as it is used here is that, more often than not, the person saying it is deeply entrenched in all of those other things. As such, the argument in my view is undermined by the speaker's willingness to peruse other pleasure in other things, which often waste both time AND money.

 

As such, I find it to be a very weak link, and it may be better to find a stronger argument against the exercise.

 

Peace.