Jump to content

Applying Hypothetical/Categorical Imperatives in Context of Tulpas


Recommended Posts

Disclaimer:

 

If you need clarification on anything – be it through me, another member, concepts, etc. be vocal about it. This thread isn’t prefaced as a devil’s advocate, as I don’t need to imagine myself taking a certain view for the sake of ironing out potential pros and cons over something. That doesn’t seem to go too well because people will take the OP at face value, and assume that person really IS using that concept to guide them even if they didn't explicitly state they support/are against the viewpoint. So rather, these concepts will naturally be prefaced as thought experiments (more on that in the OP) because ultimately, we are trying to iron out the what-ifs in our heads.

 

If potentially running around in circles, or figuring out what-ifs isn’t productive in your pursuit in creating, and interacting with a tulpa, or whatever circumstance you’re in, by all means, do not feel obligated to partake in this thread.

 

--

Side note:

 

[hidden]

I made this thread because honestly, I sometimes question my opinion of treating a tulpa as sentient in being a self-fulfilling prophecy. A member of the community gave an opinion of it not being the case for them, and I started to think that this may be a probability. Simply because treating them as sentient is just a statement, and whatever moral, or ethical implications reside in that statement is dependent on how the individual wants to react to that. I thank that member for being transparent in denying that probability of it being a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially at face value, it seems.[/hidden]

 

So, I felt that maybe if I made a thread where we put hypothetical, and categorical imperatives in context of tulpas, we would see when the statement could be potent as a self-fulfilling prophecy, or rather, as a performative basis. What that means for you guys, basically theorizing whether or not the statement causes us to perform in a way to attain the goal in mind. The goal doesn’t have to be just an end-goal; it can be progressive, and more imperatives are added on throughout the course of the journey. Also, we don’t have to apply it to treating tulpas a sentient. It can be anything you can imagine throughout this thought experiment with HI and CI.

 

Imperatives can be seen as instructions, or a means of guidance towards specific ends. These are basically thought experiments, and no, I don’t mean experiments where we objectify a tulpa’s existence with test tubes and monitors, I mean this thought experiments:

an experiment carried out only in the imagination.

 

Hypothetical Imperative (You can abbreviate this as HI):

originally introduced in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant' date=' is a commandment of reason that applies only conditionally.[/quote']

 

Categorical Imperative (You can abbreviate this as CI):

(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.

 

To chalk this up in simpler terms:

 

Hypothetical imperatives are usually formulated in an IF-THEN type of manner.

Examples:

 

“If I want to treat a tulpa as sentient, then I should find ways for them to put things into context as I can as a sentient being.”

 

This can even be extended as:

 

“If I want to treat a tulpa as sentient, and finding ways for them to put things into context as I can as a sentient being helps me achieve this more reliably than failing, then I should continue my pursuit in finding ways for them to put things into context.”

 

Simpler terms:

If Y (e.g. treat a tulpa as sentient), and if X (e.g. finding ways for them to put things into context…) helps in accomplishing Y more than it fails, then do X.

 

That’s a hypothetical imperative in a nutshell. If this does not make sense, here are more examples:

[hidden]Please take these loosely

 

“If dissipation is going to be heavily discouraged, and using ways (e.g. stasis, talking things out, etc.) helps me achieve that goal of not being motivated in dissipating them, then I should continue my pursuit in those ways (e.g. stasis, talking things out, etc.) for them to thrive.”

 

“If I want to communicate to my tulpa, then I should consider narrating to them.”

 

“If I want to communicate to my tulpa, and doing something like narration helps me attain that goal of communicating to them, then I should narrate to them.”

 

“If I want to increase my concentration in general, and doing guided meditation allows me to attain this goal, I should consider guided meditation.”

[/hidden]

 

Categorical Imperatives can be shorter than that:

 

“If striving for Y (e.g. treating a tulpa as sentient) gives consistency, then set Y (treat a tulpas as sentient).”

 

Basically, if the goal in mind doesn’t cause a major contradiction, then go for it.

 

More examples:

 

[hidden] ”If treating a tulpa as sentient isn’t going to cause a performance issue, then I should treat a tulpa as sentient.”

“You should treat a tulpa as sentient regardless of what people think how you should treat them.”

“Dissipation should not be done because it’s wrong, so don’t dissipate.” [/hidden]

This imperative is bit more militant, or a normative ethic, i.e., how one “ought” to do something. It could even be seen as an imperative that could become internalized for someone. Something a person obligates themselves to consider in spite of desires, and reasons that may contradict, or deny it.

 

If anyone needs clarification on this, don’t hesistate.

 

So, to put this into context with tulpas:

 

Obviously, these imperatives can be apparent in, but not limited to:

 

- Members just starting out in the community trying to find something as a basis to guide themselves on (e.g. guides, tips and tricks, any kind of information in the forum)

I’m keeping it broad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions

So, here are some questions for you:

 

- Do you feel these imperatives can be a useful thought process for others to consider in general?

 

- In which ways do you feel these imperatives can get out of hand when vocalizing an opinion over morals and ethics with tulpas?

 

- Are we limited to hypothetical imperatives given that categorical imperatives may imply something universal, or potentially inherent regardless of the subjective input? Are they compatible, progressive, or does doing either imply a contradiction?

 

- What are your hypothetical and/or categorical imperatives with tulpas? (If you can structure them in the manner I put in the examples, that would be great. If you want to extend on the reasoning, GO for it! If you want to add more in future posts, by all means, do so; it doesn’t have to be condensed in one post).

 

- Do you think hypothetical imperatives can become categorical? Or, do you feel CI naturally presumes there’s an HI? Do you feel there’s a certain process in which these should be conceptualized?

 

- Do you see these imperatives as a catalyst for action in your pursuit of creating, and interacting with a tulpa?

 

- Is “treat a tulpa a sentient” a categorical imperative, then? Do you feel it’s something that can be done unconditionally, or is it limited as a conditional behavior/means of action? Or, is it a hypothetical imperative?

 

 

You don’t have to be limited to these questions, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that categorical imperatives should be the bread and butter for tulpamancers over hypothetical ones. Hosts differ wildly from each other as do the kinds of tulpas they make, as well as how ingrained those tulpas are in their psyche. You could write a hypothetical imperative with all the conditionals you like and I bet there'd be at least one host where none of the conditionals would apply. But what a host and tulpa can do is find the universal truths a categorical imperative needs inside their own environment. And to be able to go by those directly relevant imperatives would be the most helpful to them.

 

Of course, that leads to the likely outcome of one host having completely different opinions about a tulpa subject than another. But that's really not a bad thing. My firm belief is that we should all embrace contradiction over trying to eliminate it. Because seeing another person's opinion on a matter helps me rationalize why I believe something I do and thus strengthen it.

 

Plus, every host probably already makes categorical imperatives already even if subconsciously:

1. Treating a tulpa as a separate entity inside your head makes them more independent.

2. Some amount of doubt is normal, but doubting too much hurts your tulpa's development.

3. A tulpa knowing their host left his phone in his car today and didn't say anything about it until he looked for it a few hours later makes said tulpa a jerk.

 

Making statements like this can either spur tulpa related action or be the result of tulpa action. "Treating a tulpa as sentient is the right thing to do" would certainly cause / shape your actions though.

 

I also want to point out that the above really requires a well developed tulpa, since it should be a group exercise between them and the host to figure out what the imperatives are. Yet even people starting out with tulpamancy would benefit more from categorical imperatives. They shouldn't think "Well, this strategy would work best if I want X, Y and Z out of my tulpa, since then their development would follow a more straightforwards path." They should instead think "This strategy makes the most sense to me personally so I'll get the most out of it."

Currently share myself with four other entities.

Noriko was created on December 15, 2014.  Sabari was created by Noriko on January 22, 2015.

Anzu was reborn on May 23, 2016.  Xiri returned on June 16, 2018.  Both had been inactive since 2012.

Progress Report | Ask a Question Thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Well replying to the side note rather than the hypothetical imperatives because I didn't understand that as much - tulpa sentience can be a self-fulfilling prophecy (/it can help), but I don't think it is one. Like it could happen or it could not. Or it could happen when you didn't think they'd be sentient or it could not happen when you thought they would. But, seven years ago when the other three were still not sure what they were and Lumi was trying to figure it out, I don't think they were so different. I mean, he could've said "I think you're imaginary friends that I control but that's okay" and they would've been the same. But he would've thought of them differently, and they would've thought of them differently. Someone can decide they don't think their tulpas are real anymore and their tulpas might believe that too. But that's just influencing what is with what you think is, and the effect of that can vary a lot right? People have said they stopped believing in/paying attention to their tulpas but their tulpas persisted, and Mistgod definitely has what we would consider a tulpa if he only agreed. Just different labels, which end up affecting what was labelled as it's treated that way.

 

Did that answer your questioning of whether tulpa sentience "is" a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you believe hard enough I'm sure it will be, but otherwise it could or could not be.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think categorical imperatives exist at all in relation to tulpamancy, and if any, they would be rare. It would be the type of ethic that can resonate with everyone that can be compatible for their given virtues; some may choose to feel it’s all imaginary in the end, and others feel other circumstances (e.g. possession and switching) may seem like an understatement to assume they’re imaginary vs. real.

 

An example of a potential categorical imperative is “Treat a tulpa as sentient.” To treat someone, imaginary, or real, as sentient isn’t necessarily something a person can disagree with. And I think the reason being is that it allows them to create their own benchmark of ‘correctness’ in how they go about treating someone as sentient. This refers back to what I mentioned with virtues being different, and certain endgames people go for, e.g., stopping at mind-voice interaction as a closure, or switching as a closure.

 

Other than that, I think we all hold onto hypothetical imperatives given that subjective experience and varied benchmarks of ‘correctness’ makes to where “If person does/believes X, then Y.” Self-fulfilling prophecies aren’t exclusive in being successful as some can backfire. Self-fulfilling prophecies are merely sustained thought with subsequent action. A person can treat a tulpa as sentient…as if they are sentient, and that ‘if’ allows things like “imaginary,” “imaginary real,” “illusion,” “delusion,” etc. Some may take the ‘treat a tulpa as sentient,’ and create a virtue where that “if” doesn’t exist because whatever reasoning they have is geared towards really believing they are sentient, and seeking virtues that can coincide with those thoughts.

 

In this case, IMO, anything that could be a categorical imperative, something potentially universal for tulpamancy are ones that are more of a thesis, or a crossroads for virtues to take shape and form. And those categorical imperatives don’t necessarily have to be picture-perfect as long as the results seem to come by more often than it fails.

 

Basically, if the categorical imperative can flourish with the state of affairs the host gets themselves into with their tulpa, then they can say with confidence with statements that don’t have an “IF-THEN” implication, e.g., ‘treat a tulpa as sentient.’ This is probably because there’s a societal context that gives a sense of closure that no matter how many if-then statements a person gives with hypothetical imperatives, the ethic of ‘treating a tulpa as sentient’ is a catalyst for them because it’s malleable.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...