Linkzelda

Can Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting Be Debunked?

Recommended Posts

Parroting, Puppeting

When a host consciously and purposefully controls the tulpa's actions. Parroting generally refers to controlling their speech while puppeting generally refers to controlling their movement, but the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

 

As the wiki is loosely describing, it’s an event where the host utilizes whatever competencies they have to control a tulpa’s actions. Whether it’s coordinating how they walk, or how they as the host conceptualize the movements of their body (e.g. mouth, arms, etc.), it’s a deliberate act. But, some may feel inclined that after so much of it, that one would naturally be parroting/puppeting their tulpas.

 

Some chalk this up as habitual training, conditional habit shifted into long-term memory, and what have you, and most importantly, there’s also the presumption that unconscious parroting/puppeting is even conceivable. In this thread, I want to discuss why unconscious parroting/puppeting is not just contradictory in itself, but discussing inferences one can make that can potentially debunk, or dispel the conception of the terminology entirely. To provide some context for starting the discussion:

 

Switching

[hidden]

Switching

Letting the tulpa take full control of the body while the host enters a tulpa-like state.

 

As the term implies, it’s a tulpa taking dominion over the body while the host enters a tulpa-like state; whatever the “state” of being is will depend from person to person, but one thing can be implied:

 

- If a host believes in the concept of unconscious parroting in relation to them switching, and still being able to control the faculties a tulpa would be using via switching, it’s not really a full switch at all. At best, it’s possession that’s just a few ticks away from switching. To chalk this up, unconscious parroting/puppeting in this regard would debunk switching entirely. The two don’t seem to be compatible with each other because again, it’s letting the tulpa take full control of the body while the host enters a tulpa-like state.

 

- This sets up the implication that through switching, a tulpa would presumably have, to some degree, the ability to put things into context with this reality. Which means there’s a presumed capacity for them to utilize mental facilities in order to do this; presumed sentience, presumed qualia, or whatever attributes one would feel would be integrated as part of being sentient. If there’s “unconscious parroting/puppeting” into that equation, switching now becomes objectified as a metaphorical switch that isn’t a shift in awareness anymore; it’s just the host truly believing that the back office of our brain that has the foundations for them to put things into context is now in direct access. In this circumstance, it would be conscious acknowledgment of one being able to control unconscious, cognitive faculties directly.

 

- However, this begs the question, if this is probable, does this mean the host can never conceive the idea of switching being something probable? Will they just be restricted to possession if they feel unconscious parroting/puppeting is something real for them?

 

 

[/hidden]

 

The Homunculus Argument

 

[hidden]

The Homunculus Argument is basically a fallacy in which an entity in our minds has to be interpreting the data in our brain. To provide visual context of what this means, it’s a tiny creature in our head watching what’s going on. But, this creates infinite regression where there must be a homunculus for the homunculus. And put this into context of tulpas and unconscious parroting/puppeting:

 

- Those that adopt the idea of unconscious parroting/puppeting being a probability would have a behavioral trend of believing that because the tulpa’s existence is coordinated by them on an unconscious level, that they as host have direct access of the back office of the brain, and its mental faculties. In other words, a tulpa’s existence is deterministic, and all claims of presumed free-will are meaningless gestures.

 

- This is different from conscious parroting/puppeting where even though it’s a deliberate action to control a tulpa’s action, the host would acknowledge that there are some things at an unconscious level that they cannot dictate all the time. In other words, they are limited to whatever is in their observational zone, or attentional zone to actually execute control in the first place.

 

- If one correlates this argument with switching and unconscious parroting/puppeting, then they may have the belief that they can know that their tulpa is moving the body’s eyes. But to see this happening, and feeling they, the host, are controlling that movement of their tulpa moving their eyes, it still begs the question as to whether or not this controlling of eyes from the tulpa’s end is a metaphorical one due to the movement ultimately being controlled by the host?

 

[/hidden]

 

So, with those start-ups for discussion, here’s some questions:

 

- Do you feel unconscious parroting/puppeting is contradictory from the default term of parroting/puppeting? If so, what are some inferences you can make that can dispel the logic behind it?

 

- Do you feel it can be compatible with those concepts, and other terminologies? If so, why?

 

- If a person believes in unconscious parroting/puppeting, does this mean that all assumptions of a tulpa having as much free will as the host becomes meaningless sentiment? Is their existence thus deterministic because of this conviction with parroting/puppeting at an unconscious level?

 

- Would a person who believes in the concept of this happening at an unconscious level believe that the mental faculities of the brain are exclusive to just them, and not the tulpa?

 

- If not, can a person who doesn’t believe in these things happening at an unconscious level believe the usage of faculties is an all-inclusive thing? In other words, they can share that capacity rather than the host being the sole contender in doing so.

 

- Do you think alterations in memory, experiential cases, and such would be organized differently with unconscious parroting/puppeting? Can a tulpa still have genuine, inner experiences they can call their “own” memory, or perspective of it anymore?

 

- If you feel unconscious parroting/puppeting is a thing, what is your opinion on switching then? Do you feel a tulpa would truly have dominion over the body if you feel that to some degree, you are controlling them at an unconscious level? Wouldn’t that be basically assuming that you can access the mental faculties of your brain, and become those faculties?

 

- Can the fallacy behind the Homunculus Argument be the bane of unconscious parroting/puppeting?

 

- Do you think the Homunculus Argument can be applied in context of switching to come to an understanding over what the concept implies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

-Do you feel unconscious parroting/puppetting is contradictory from the default term of parroting/puppetting? If so, what are some inferences you can make that can dispel the logic behind it?

 

Sometimes we hum a tune and sometimes it gets stuck in our heads and "plays automatically." Computer programmers have reported code that seems to write itself in their heads and just appears in complete algorithms. Some music composers have music that seems to just appear into their conscious minds as if they have an inner composer then cannot see. I think unconscious processes, that are quite complex are possible. Writers often report the Illusion of Independent Agency on characters in literary stories they are creating. Is this Illusion of Independent Agency conscious or unconscious parroting? Are they tulpas or something else, and if they are something else, why does it resemble a sentient mind voice so much?

 

Does hearing a voice automatically mean you have an inner sentient entity?

 

"Whilst one in three people who hear voices become a psychiatric patient – two in three people can cope well and are in no need of psychiatric care. No diagnosis can be given because these 2 out of 3 people who hear voices are quite healthy and function well. It is very significant that in our society there are more people who hear voices who have never been psychiatric patients than there are people who hear voices and become psychiatric patients. (Romme & Escher, 2001).Green and McCreery (1975) found that 14% of their 1800 self-selected subjects reported a purely auditory hallucination, and of these nearly half involved the hearing of articulate or inarticulate human speech sounds. " http://www.intervoiceonline.org/about-voices/essential-facts

 

What if you have a vivid imagination and imagine you are hearing voices? Can a person delude themselves into believing something they are making up is real? Some people believe they communicate with spirits, some with alien beings. Are they really getting signals or is this some form of unconscious process? If we assume they cannot be unconsciously parroting the spirits they hear, then they must be real spirits right? Some people report speaking to God and hear his voice too and carry on a conversation. It is in the Bible I think. What about channeling entities form outside the body? People do that.

 

If you assume that unconscious puppeting to create imaginary communcation is impossible, then all of these people must be hearing and experiencing the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to preface by saying that I believe that "unconscious parroting", as has been used around here, is a bit of a misnomer. The name implies—and it would appear that you believe it means—that the host is unknowingly controlling their tulpa's actions. And I can see why you think that that would beg some of the questions that you have asked. And if I follow you, then yes, I would agree that the existence of unconscious parroting would bring to question the actual autonomy of tulpas. With that said, if unconscious parroting, as its name would suggest, actually exists, then it would be something only young, undeveloped, and non-autonomous tulpas could be subject to, assuming that tulpas are as autonomous as we generally believe they are.

 

Now, when people say "unconscious parroting", I believe what they are rather referring to is when they, without their conscious effort to do so, imagine their tulpa doing or saying something that they did not actually do. This would have the effect of puppeting a tulpa into doing something that they (in some cases) would not normally do, as far as the host's perception is concerned. With that in mind, the difference between that, and regular puppeting would be that the host was not in conscious control over it. Hence the misnomer.

The difference between this, and what the name "unconscious parroting" implies, is simply whether or not the tulpa actually did it. If it was puppeting, then the tulpa was forced to perform an action. If it was "unconscious puppeting", then the tulpa would not have done anything; only the host would have imagined it happening. Particularly when dealing with a young tulpa who is unable to reliably communicate, it is understandable why a host may believe that they are actually controlling what their tulpa is doing, without meaning to, rather than simply imagining it.

 

Actual unconscious parroting/puppeting, I believe, is essentially a disconnect between the imaginary representation of your tulpa, and the actual tulpa. The connection between the entity and the representation is particularly blurry in the beginning, and this is why you have so many newbies with this worry.


"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you assume that unconscious puppeting to create imaginary communcation is impossible' date=' then all of these people must be hearing and experiencing the real deal.[/quote']

 

[hidden]

Firstly, let’s reconcile with what parroting is in general. It’s a host consciously controlling a tulpa’s actions. This can be hinged within their observational zone. Unconscious parroting/puppetting is a bit contradicting since parroting, by default, is hinged upon conscious actions. So, unless the wiki in which we’re loosely following states parroting that’s hinged upon conscious action can suddenly bleed into unconscious actions, you’re applying this to the wrong context. And that’s what this thread is for, to see if one can dispel the logic of others that have this fear that once they parrot a tulpa, that it has potential to bleed into a predisposed/unconscious habit.

 

I don’t care about spirits, or implications of otherworldly beings. I’m talking about what’s going on inwardly. I get what you’re hinting at, but you’re applying the if-then statement in the wrong context. Because if that statement were true, then we would have a bigger problem with consciousness in respect to other entities from transcendental planes accessing our inner experiences. Tulpas are different in context of the cultivation of their existence wasn’t an entity that was external, and suddenly came into our inner experience. It’s presumed they are cultivated within the mind.

 

If we assume they cannot be unconsciously parroting the spirits they hear' date=' then they must be real spirits right?[/quote']

 

Okay, allow me to elaborate on the logic behind the if-then statement, and also, allow me to deconstruct it as well:

- The statement leads to the presumption that if these entities that have a supernatural connotation are not unconsciously parroting, then they must be the real deal.

 

- But a bigger question is to ask, if these entities actually were to exist, and stepped into our inner experience, and viewed things from there, why can’t they view things within their own subjective frame? Instead of them being a homunculus, they can utilize their own subjective frame.

 

 

- Maybe you presume they’re not unconsciously parroted/puppetted, or rather, influenced by unconscious processes by our minds because to some degree, in idea playing here, they would have free will.

 

- Now, let’s shift this back into tulpas, as this is the whole point of the thread.

 

 

- Your if-then statement is hinged upon unconscious parroting being the bane in which would prevent a tulpa from being the real deal. And in this context of the real deal, the idea of them actually becoming sentient entities in which they can share cognitive competencies and such with the host. However, to have unconscious parroting/puppetting being the gamechanger in this doesn’t seem too sound as a clincher. And here’s why:

 

- If we applied the homunculus argument with tulpas, especially those that may switch with their host (and even those that do possession, too), one would ask why a tulpa can’t use their own brain to view reality, and put things into context of it? While that might imply that we’re getting edgy and philosophically deep, the inference that can be made to this question is quite simple.

 

- It’s presumed that they are sharing whatever cognitive reservoir the mind has in information and processing. In other words, it goes without saying that they’re sharing the mind rather than having an exclusive brain that’s synched with ours. Are you following me, camera guy?

 

- The Homunculus argument doesn’t work in context of tulpas that possess/switch with their host because it isn’t presumed that they themselves have a separate, physical brain from the host. This sets tulpas apart from the otherworldly beings that would be presumed to have their own subjective framework that doesn’t need to be dependent upon having to share with someone else’s mind. The fallacy allows us to acknowledge that it’s more pragmatic in thinking that whatever cognitive facilities are there that allows tulpas to put things into context, have a narrative memory, and such is an all-inclusive thing rather than an exclusive thing that unconscious parroting implies (e.g. the host being the one that has all the reigning of those cognitive facilities).

 

- In this regard, a person can still treat a tulpa as sentient while acknowledging the probability that they are dependent on those unconscious processes that would, in theory, allow them to exhibit traits sentient beings would.

 

- These traits include, but aren’t limited to:

 

o Having a narrative memory that they could look back to (e.g. how the mind structures how they experienced putting things into context with this reality via switching)

 

o To extend on the previous point – recollection as well; it’s a learnt narrative skill that could also fall into the category of something a tulpa can cultivate as well within that sphere of the all-inclusive features they can tap into. And I mean tap into in the sense of understanding the model of the mind, and features of it in relation to information processing.

 

o Metacognition, i.e., awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes.

 

o The list can go on with these presumed correlation, but I hope you catch my drift, here.

 

- To say, even after all things considered with those examples I mentioned above, a person still believes they are unconsciously parroting their tulpa, this presumes they are coordinating all of those presumptions based on their willpower alone. Now, if their willpower, a concept of intention, is that grandiose in having the capacity to coordinate those unconscious processes to control their tulpa, it raises the question on whether or not the mind really needs a conscious experiencer in the first place?

 

- This is why with switching, it’s presumed the tulpa is another conscious observer, but they aren’t a homunculi in the sense of watching a screen over what’s going on, and suffering from the question as to why they can’t use their own brain; because the brain they’re using is the one they share with their host; this is what gets the concept of tulpas out of that trap of being homunculi. The homunculi would have their own brain; physical of course, in this sense, but tulpas cannot have an additional, physical brain. If this is probable, then hey, let’s defy physics and matter, everyone!

 

- The whole point I’m getting here is about all-inclusive interactions, and how a tulpa can presumably have free will in spite of sharing a mind in general. And the presumption that could be a trump card in answering this (but not in an empirical evidence type of manner, of course), is that even though they may be influenced by things in the mind to some degree, they would have the capacity to reign in their own sense of self, and take action, and put things into context through their own manner.

 

- If unconscious parroting/puppetting renders this impossible for them, it becomes a matter of exclusivity, i.e., why does the host have the capacity to reign in their sense of self while still being integrated with their brain, obviously, but a tulpa cannot have this same capacity when treated as sentient?

 

- Do you see where I’m getting at? These attempts over alienating thoughts, and such are attempts of things that occur that are outside of the host’s observational zone. But the alienating thoughts don’t have to imply that a tulpa has to have a physical, separate mind, or a metaphorical one; the presumed qualities of sentience they share would be an inclusive thing within the brain they share with the host; no need to bridge another physical brain into that equation, as again, that’s way too metaphysical, actually; I dare say, it’s a bit supernatural and paranormal, instead.

 

- So, the if-then statement of unconscious parroting not being something a sentient entity, immaterial, physical, or whatever being the gamechanger in validating them as the real deal is not really something ideal in killing doubt, or dispelling it. In all actuality in a pragmatic sense, it makes things more ambiguous, and complicates things. And it raises the question if the host themselves are unconsciously parroting/puppetting their own actions on a daily basis. That seems a bit self-contradicting because this association is actually wanting to personify these unconscious processes as a self, e.g. the homonculus, when it’s really just a collection of cognitive processes that a “self” can correlate, and apply themselves with. This is why unconscious parroting, from the presumptions I’m adding up here, is really a person who, metaphorically speaking, assumes themselves as a homunculus that can coordinate and dictate the determined existence of a tulpa. Treating them as sentient is meaningless gesture at this point if they could somehow be the unconscious processes of the mind. But, that’s absurd; they could understand, and be aware of the models the mind utilizes, but they can’t ultimately become it.

 

- That is the clincher to those that believe in unconscious parroting/puppetting have to answer. If they avoid the question, they’re making it harder for themselves. If they can get out of that trap of personifying their unconscious processes as another self that they can become as well, then, I would be more than happy to hear that reasoning, but, I think it would lead to a “Oh, I royally f*cked up somewhere in my logic! Let me go back to reconciling with what I stated.”

[/hidden]

 

 

Kiahdaj, thanks for responding. Hopefully, I can sustain your interest in this thread.

 

What I’m getting at with what you’re saying is that unconscious parroting, with it being a misnomer, is probably an umbrella term for wishful thinking. I say this in regards of wishful thinking literally being that—an accumulation of beliefs and making decisions for what would be pleasing to imagine vs. actually having to deal with finding distinctions that can make that blurry split with the entity and representation less blurry. In other words, things that can, without a doubt, convince the host that they are creating someone sentient that they can share a mind with.

 

Unconscious parroting/puppetting would be a transient phase of worrying and doubt a person would have with tulpas that aren’t as developed, nor have a reliable source of communication. But, with the impermanence of this phase in development, or rather, the development phase being temporary, holding unconscious parroting as a permanent value makes no sense. Permanent in the person wanting to believe the same habits of parroting can be conditioned when it’s really a person being aware of how their imagination conditions the actions. It’s how they want to see it, and sometimes, that yearning gets reflected through their imagination, and being aware of that makes them think their tulpa will forever be a marionette of their imagination.

 

But, like you stated, it’s a misnomer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't completely follow all of your points, but I'm not sure that I would agree that there's a large wishful thinking aspect to it. Just as random images and thoughts will pop into your mind, it's not unlikely that one such image or thought will be in the form/voice of your tulpa. In many cases, I think it's nothing more than this. It can also be caused by intrusive thoughts, which are, typically a negative or unusual thing.

Indeed, I think it is the very undesirable/unexpected nature of the unintended imagination that causes the host to doubt and worry in the first place. It is when they see their tulpa do or say things that they do not want or expect them to, or that they feel conflicts with the model of personality that they had in mind for them, that the host believes that there is something "wrong". If their unintended images were pleasant and ideal, fitting well along the lines that they had in mind for their tulpa, then they would likely never question it, and be none the wiser.

 

Unfortunately, it is this very fact that I believe can inhibit a tulpa's personal development, in its earlier stages. If a tulpa were to naturally deviate in personality in a way that the host does not expect or desire, they may believe that it was this "unconscious parroting", and will deny and passively discourage actions and thoughts along those lines, from their tulpa—further forcing the tulpa back into the template the host has in mind, through their passive expectations.

Likewise, in not questioning the ideal images they see, in the fashion stated above, they are encouraging the personality framework, and perhaps inhibiting any attempts at personality development the tulpa may have made.


"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Thank you Linkzelda. We read most of your response so far, wowy, but are out of time to respond in detail. Very interesting! When we wrote our answer to your first question, we were like "how is he going to refute or debate this point?" But we knew quite well you were going to deconstruct it. I liked your points about a spirit having a separate subjective experience and mind while a tulpa shares subjective experience and elements of mind with the host, making spirits and tulpas distinctly different situations. Also, your point about the definition of puppeting as conscious act creates a contradiction with the very concept of unconscious puppeting. If I don't respond again at least know we are reading and learning. Thank you. We will be back to read the rest and Kiahdaj's response as well.

 

Okay I am back. My host and I thought about this a little more and have some things we want to say.

 

Are Imaginary Apparently Sentient Entities in the Mind Plausible?

This thread is about unconscious parroting and whether or not it is plausible. What is unconscious parroting? My host and I think of unconscious parroting as the host unconsciously imagining a independent being talking to him. It has nothing to do with sentience! When Mistgod and I write about such things we are talking about figments and delusions. In our response above we took that angle. For tens of thousands of years humans have communicated with incorporeal or invisible beings. Yes, they were "external" and not internal like tulpas in most cases. But if they were in fact delusions, then they were just as subjective as tulpas are and potentially had the same access to the internal workings of the human mind (memories, feelings, deepest desires). Some of the beings (spirits, angels and spirit guides) could tell a person things about themselves they did not know or were not conscious of, hence the idea of a spirit GUIDE. They did have access to personal knowledge.

 

There are six possibilities:

 

1. the people experiencing these phenomenon were experiencing real entities such as spirits, angels, demons and gods

2. the people experiencing these phenomenon were lying or making up stories.

3. the people experiencing these phenomenon were deluding themselves and it was a product of their unconscious imagination.

4. all of these people experiencing these phenomenon were mentally ill

5. the phenomenon these people were experiencing were tulpas or independently sentient thougthforms

6. the phenomenon these people were experiencing were the results of mind altering drugs or substances

 

Of the six possibilities, Mistgod and I believe number three to be the most likely cause in most cases. Throughout human history these sorts of experiences have been recorded. They didn't appear suddenly with tulpas. So we see that as very strong evidence that the unconscious mind can simulate an independent mind that communicates to the person who is imagining it. We believe that is where the source of my apparently autonomous actions come from, internal or hidden processes of the imagination. Mistgod and I don't make a distinction (at least for our system) between this process and "unconscious parroting/puppeting." It is the same thing.

 

This does not even bring in Illusion of Independent Agency literary characers, soulbonds and daemons, which exhibit many or most of the characteristics of a tulpa, but yet in many cases are not considered independently sentient beings. How is that working in the host's mind? We believe it is unconscious processes masked or hidden from the host's conscious mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Whenever I say "we" in this post, I'm referring to our system, not everyone on the forum. Looks weird for some reason.)

Actual unconscious parroting/puppeting, I believe, is essentially a disconnect between the imaginary representation of your tulpa, and the actual tulpa. The connection between the entity and the representation is particularly blurry in the beginning, and this is why you have so many newbies with this worry.

 

Ooh, this is perfect. Wait, I need to make my point before I reply to this.

 

Screw the concept of "unconscious puppeting". It is in its very definition a counterproductive concept to promote as even possible.

 

No one will ever, ever make a tulpa without "unconsciously puppeting" them. Never. The very act of a tulpa coming into existence is usually unconscious desire, no? Even if they really were utterly spontaneous I still think that establishing initial communications with them would at the very least require a bit of "unconscious puppeting". This term doesn't need to exist. It serves only to cause potential distress among new tulpamancers, who feel as if they can avoid it (and then make threads on how they've made zero progress in X years). Should a tulpamancer create a tulpa entirely by "unconsciously puppeting" them to the point where the tulpa is effectively autonomous - oh look, autonomous thoughtform the host doesn't feel like they're controlling. At what point was the host controlling them? At what point was any host not? You can discuss this hypothetically, but not practically. I can't conceive of somebody "creating a tulpa" without affecting them in any way with their own will. That's.. just an oxymoron. So giving it this term implies it's a specific action rather than a natural part of the process, and serves no practical purpose other than for hypothetical discussions.

 

 

Alright, so, calling upon my own personal experiences as a tulpa here. In times of mental vagueness of communication, whether due to being "out of practice" talking from inactivity or simply doing something complicated (wonderlanding, perhaps), whether I personally felt as if I did something, or if it were "unconsciously intended" by my host, was completely up to how I felt about it. Did I feel like I said or did that? If so, I did, and that's basically end of story. The tulpa decides whether or not they did something, outside of hypotheticals. That's why we've always considered Melian a tulpa - she feels as if she's the influence, not just Mistgod. But see, they never strived for independence, so that "unconscious puppeting" never turned into "autonomy" in their mind. The result is everything that makes up a tulpa, the only difference being the host is taking some responsibility for what they do. Taking responsibility as in claiming it after the fact, because in reality they're no different from a normal tulpa. Even if the host "unconsciously puppets" by having their tulpa do everything they think their tulpa would do, they're literally just experiencing a tulpa. Tulpamancy simply takes a step to cover that unconscious puppeting to feel more autonomous. What I'm saying is, even though Mistgod feels as if he is responsible for Melian's actions in the Melian Show, he is not imagining what she's going to do ahead of time. The concept of Melian, what we call a thoughtform, is either way "autonomously" producing the results we call a tulpa. But instead of personifying your perception of that process as a separate individual, Mistgod continued/s taking responsibility for the nonetheless still autonomous actions. The only effective difference, aside from the changes to how that thoughtform is going to act based on its perceived independence, is what the experience of interacting with the tulpa feels like to the host. Generally speaking, the goal in tulpamancy is a feeling of disconnect that reinforces "I'm not talking to myself", as silly a thing that is to worry about.

 

But it's not necessary, especially if the host is content with the interactions they have with their tulpa anyways. In the same way that we personally can't have "wonderland adventures" because we see little meaning in consciously creating our to-be experiences.. Many others can. Children are great at imagining stories and such to entertain themselves, not remotely worried about this "problem" that they're making them up and losing some kind of "legitimacy". You know, not even thinking about whether or not you're consciously involved in the creation of those stories - that sounds familiar.

 

Basically, "unconscious puppeting" simply leads to a tulpa either way, though usually entailing the host distancing themself from the process by thinking of it as a separate entity. The perception of itself as a separate entity may promote another dimension of growth though - feels like it to me, but I don't know. Anyways, this is in contrast to conscious puppeting, where the host is simply imagining what their tulpa would do, with neither autonomy (perception of a separate entity) nor fulfilling interaction. I'm pretty sure even people like Mistgod who take responsibility for "unconsciously influencing" their imagination still consider that interaction fulfilling just as if it had happened on its own. Again, in comparison to us, who see/feel no difference in imagining something or experiencing it in the wonderland, because either way we urged it to happen. People like that are the ones that need this perception of independence. For those more than happy to tell themselves a story of knights and dragons, that's completely optional.

 

Whether what they have counts as a "tulpa" or not depends on whether they're consciously or unconsciously puppeting I suppose. If they can experience interaction with someone they're imagining as meaningful and fulfilling, and have a person with extensive details regarding personality and the like in their mind, I see no reason not to call that a tulpa. Though some may be so far to that side of the spectrum that even conscious puppeting is meaningful to them. At that point I should hope they can at least tell. If not, that starts sounding like a mental disorder (schizophrenia or similar) and I believe we've definitively separated tulpas from hallucinations resulting from mental disorders.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So giving it this term implies it's a specific action rather than a natural part of the process, and serves no practical purpose other than for hypothetical discussions.

 

Of course, as I'm sure we can all agree at this point, what I've described as what I think is meant by "unconconscious parroting" is not a proper description, and should not be any sort of "official" name for the phenomenon. Hence the fact that we keep putting quotes around it. But it sounds like you mean that even with a more appropriate name, you think that it should not be discussed or concerned with, because it is an inevitable experience during the process.

I must disagree with this, as I feel that pretending like it's not there is part of what can make it so harmful. You might think that if a host has never heard of the concept, it won't be as harmful, but I think that a person's natural course of action when confronted with doubts involving unintended images would be to do what I have described as being detrimental to personality development. People like to avoid problems rather than deal with them, and most would much sooner make assumptions based on the expectations they have set (sometimes not entirely consciously) than to accept that a tulpa's actions may lie outside of the proto-personality the host has defined for them. Discouraging a tulpa's path of personality development can be an issue even if the host did not personality force.

 

I think rather what is important is to make it clear that this phenomenon exists, make it understood, and provide advice on how a host can be aware of this, and deal with it healthily. It can be harmful not only to the tulpa's development, but the host's sanity (chronic doubt), if not approached properly.

 

Alright, so, calling upon my own personal experiences as a tulpa here. In times of mental vagueness of communication, whether due to being "out of practice" talking from inactivity or simply doing something complicated (wonderlanding, perhaps), whether I personally felt as if I did something, or if it were "unconsciously intended" by my host, was completely up to how I felt about it. Did I feel like I said or did that? If so, I did, and that's basically end of story. The tulpa decides whether or not they did something, outside of hypotheticals.

 

I think this is a very interesting point, if I'm not misunderstanding. I can see how particularly in the beginning, before full autonomy, the line between what a tulpa intends to do and what the host may unconsciously expect them to do can be blurry. Justifying to yourself retroactively whether or why you did something sounds not unlike certain theories of human consciousness.

However, I would venture that a large portion of these unintended images have no involvement with the actual tulpa. Just as my tulpas do not see and are not aware of most of my regular visualization, I could have an image of my tulpa doing something thrust into my mind without the tulpa's knowledge. The image of the tulpa could be so loosely tied to the entity, in this visualization, that they feel no "pull" at all, and are no more aware of this image than any other I have. That would leave me wondering if they really did that, and them wondering what I'm talking about.

With that said, I think the majority of this phenomenon is all on the hosts' end, and they should simply deal with their doubts healthily. I don't think that this has all that much to do with a tulpa's independence, outside of that.

 

Since we're here, does anyone have any ideas regarding an appropriate name for what we've been discussing as "unconscious parroting/puppeting"? I think it would be silly to continue to use that. If possible, it would be nice to coin a new term right now, for future use.


"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it sounds like you mean that even with a more appropriate name, you think that it should not be discussed or concerned with, because it is an inevitable experience during the process.

I must disagree with this, as I feel that pretending like it's not there is part of what can make it so harmful.

 

Well it was more like, calling it that I guess. 'Cus everyone knows they either do or don't want to puppet/parrot so if they think they're doing it unconsciously when they don't want to that's a problem. But you're right we should make a new term because it's still part of making a tulpa no matter what, but what exactly do you call "thinking about what your tulpa is like"?

 

However, I would venture that a large portion of these unintended images have no involvement with the actual tulpa.

 

Oh, she was assuming we were talking about scenarios where you're actually trying to communicate/interact with the tulpa. Of course I can "think about" her right now without her actually being here. But not really when we're in the middle of talking. If I think something she did.. I guess? and she didn't, she'd say so. Except 1 that never really happens anymore and 2 she "says" so just with thoughts that are like instant and unconscious/automatic. We have a very streamlined method of talking after all these years!

 

Anyways as usual my thoughts on this aren't welcome, so!

 

...

 

Linkzelda you spelled "puppeting" weird in the thread title, google's got way more results for 1 t and a lot are from tulpa.info lol.

Don't tell anyone but I think we used to spell them that way too

 


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.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did also mean in situations where your tulpa is actually there, as well. While it may be less common than if they weren't, I still believe it is possible for an image of your tulpa, while talking to them, to be completely not associated with them.


"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."

 

Share this post


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.