How Much Are You Willing to Sacrifice?

[Solune]

I'll give you my gun headmates when you take it them from my cold, dead hands!

 

In all seriousness, I've told multiple people irl and most either distanced themselves from me or now pretend like I didn't tell them (which is a bit awkward).

My mom got a little concerned but eventually, when she realized I was fine, joined the latter party.

I think the worst thing that ever happened when I told somebody was that they accused me of going through a phase.

Though I realize others may have had it worse.

[Paranoid Llama]

One of the reasons I created a tulpa was so that I could isolate and alienate myself without facing the obvious human complications of being socially uninteractive, so yeah I'd say I'd sacrifice a lot.

[Linkzelda]

[hidden]

While we understand the benefits of Tulpamancy, but we also must understand what this is and how society will view us. Unless we intend to keep it an eternal secret, this is something you can and will be ridiculed and harmed for. In ways they can help alleviate this, but I feel it's often a topic not discussed enough. Why?Because I believe how real you see your tulpa as dictates how far you would go for them.

 

I remember a few years back, I made a series of articles, or whatever, on ostracism in relation to this phenomenon with tulpas. But, I deleted the guide since at the time, the structuring was bad, and the categories in the forum was severely limited (looking back, it would’ve been an article entry, if anything after those revisions).

 

Anyway, when I see a thought experiment posed in the question stated in the OP, there’s a large assumption that concept of tulpas is so horrific to other people that they would somehow, out of the blue, want to ostracize you. I mean, if they wanted to do damage control, and do the whole ‘I’m doing this for your best interests’ ordeal, then okay. But whatever the case, human nature is subjective, and we can’t really prophesize how people would react to this precisely.

 

When I see a question like in the OP, it seems not so much about what you would do outwardly to others, but rather what you would do from within. Because, another thought experiment I would use to test out this thought experiment in the OP is the beetle in the box analogy coined by Wittgenstein. In a nut shell, it’s where a group of people have a box with their own beetle in it, but the thing is, none of them can open it to see whether or not the beetle is there.

[/url]

The beetle is analogous to our subjectivity; our qualia. No one, even if they were to know one reveled in the idea of tulpas, has direct third person access to our subjectivity. If anything, this question could be reacted in a manner where the person accepts this futility that people seem to do when they do damage control on something horrific in their perspective; they accept the fact that they can just put up a front, and convince others that they don’t want to partake in the experience in the first place.

 

After all, it’s not like we can validate to everyone about tulpas that makes them feel at ease, maybe people who are open minded, but the  knee jerk reaction towards anyone wanting to play with their cognition a bit ironically involves those individuals having a mindset that they can, again, have direct, third person access into a person’s subjectivity. In a way, the individuals that criticize, or would potentially adopt a negative mindset would have to create a thought experiment of actually believing tulpas would be real, even though they can’t prove this empirically, and thus they mirror what the other person in question is doing.

 

In other words, with ‘treating a tulpa as sentient,’ that one would assume the host applies virtue in, those that criticize the person that end up doing damage control, ostracizing, etc., have to in some way treat that tulpa as sentient, albeit, they just go by wishful thinking. And even if they don’t, and they categorize it as hallucinations incarnate, and what have you, the only thing in their mind is just tempting the person to avoid interaction with their own mind.

 

But what about other phenomenon like lucid dreaming? Unlike with tulpas, lucid dreaming is a scientifically proven phenomenon, but it doesn’t convince a mother that their little Johnny interacting with dream characters is naturally a safe thing. That’s because either the lack of information on the subject, or personal upbringings with society and cultural context makes them likely to see even a scientifically proven phenomenon as justification to tap into one’s cognition in their nightly sleep.

 

But, you see, whatever the semantics, and whatever lacking, or substantial supporting of XYZ, the human condition is subjective, and can make people throw logic out of the window. That little Johnny that may be deemed schizophrenic for interacting with figments of their imagination that they want to be ‘lucid’ in experiencing in would get a similar treatment with tulpas. It seems the only difference is that their awareness is shifted, with tulpas, mostly with waking life vs. dreaming experiences.

 

Because the mother can be aware that she has dreams as well, and could apply theological justifications (e.g. they’re all demons coming after her), or whatever. And if she has these dreams on a nightly basis like everyone else, and she sees the experience of being lucid in them as negative, demonic, or a means to ostracize her little Johnny…it’s just nothing but cruel irony; it becomes a matter of what seems to be something only crazy people experience, but not acknowledging that if this is the case with lucid dreaming, then everyone that has the capacity to dream is crazy as well.

 

Shift that towards the tulpa phenomenon, the semantics and virtue signaling is similar at base value, but just approached differently; maybe not by a lot, who knows, this is just conjecture. But in this long post of a thought experiment within a thought experiment with an example of applying that thought experiment, one would have to think….Is it really fruitful to inform others over what’s going on in your subjectivity when one clearly knows that no one can access the other person’s beetle-in-the-box, i.e., one’s subjectivity?

 

Even when taken as a rhetorical question, a revelation a person may have is wondering whether or not emotionally investing in validating this to others along with not knowing how human nature in others would react to this is even worth it at all. IMO, reveling in this question just convinces me that silently bearing the burden that one’s tulpa can’t really be treated as sentient to others; just the host, and the recipients within the cognition of the host in general is pragmatic in the long run.[/hidden]

 

 

TL;DR

 

Because like the OP acknowledged with:

 

Unless we intend to keep it an eternal secret, this is something you can and will be ridiculed and harmed for.

 

The thing is, unless advancements in exploring consciousness, and I mean literally accessing a person’s subjectivity in some way along with getting context out of that subjectivity are made, we individually will have our own subjectivity kept a secret. We may try to vocalize about the experiences of that subjectivity, but ultimately, it’s our little secret. Not because it’s out of fear, but because human cognition and advancements related to that have not been made; we’re forced to accept this futility unless stated otherwise.

 

The thought experiment (in the OP), IMO, when paired with another thought experiment, like beetle-in-the-box, seems to convince me to just embrace the futility of accessing another person’s subjectivity because it’ll be an emotional headache to convince others that I interact with on a daily basis.

 

Oh, to answer the OP, I guess the only thing I would be sacrificing is my own ego of wanting to reach out to others in hopes that they would accept this phenomenon. Which means I probably would sacrifice the potential behind that urgency because it would literally just be ego, on my end, to feel that those around me can take the time to accept this without doing damage control, and horrendous virtue signaling.

[| Ada |]

Just in case no one gets the bigger picture behind Linkzelda's post...I'm assuming that the only thing he'd be sacrificing is the human condition in fearing that all personal interactions with others in his life will end up in dust. It sounds more like an incentive rather than seeing it as letting go of your tulpas like Ash does with his Pokemon just to make people feel at ease. Because it's a distraction from the fact that at the end of the day, people can put up a front to make the critics feel at ease, and still revel in the ideation of tulpas. In a way, it's beneficial that human cognition has yet to make any advancements on consciousness, and how to empirically analyze it along with harmonizing with the hard problems with consciousness in general.

 

Of course, his opinion seems kind of cutthroat, and more of taking advantage of the liberation a person can have with their subjectivity, but, you do what you gotta do. When people tell you how to deal with your own inner turmoil even though they can't access it, what's the point in distracting drama with the human condition?

[| Eva |]

| Ada |

Physicality.....it's one way for people to identify that the person they're talking to is real. But when a sense of otherness with a tulpa shares that physicality (via possession and/or switching), nothing would change to others because they'd still just be people. But isn't that beautiful in of itself? It would only validate to a tulpa, personally, that in spite of not being acknowledged for being a tulpa, they can be seen as people. A sentient being; someone another person acknowledges as sentient, even though said person cannot confirm if there's another personhood, or continuity of self.

 

 

But so what? It's all inclusive anyway, IMO. I see this as a tulpa finding inner peace.

 

 

Just posting this here because it's like Ada found her place in this world. I think it also answers that question she posed at the end of the previous post. Really, what's the point in this distracting drama with the human condition to find validation through others? If you can find inner peace in the face of adversity that is criticism, I think from that point, one has found a silver lining to the dilemma that plagues their soul, metaphorically speaking on the 'soul' part.

[Linkzelda]

When someone in your head finds existential closure more than you ever could, it's a reminder that even when you're going through inner turmoil, there's always the opportunity for unconditional, positive reinforcement. Thank you for the thread, OP. I'm still learning something new every time, and I realized what self-progression means, now. I will never forget what she said. It's the type of thing that bleeds into your psyche, and changes you. The only enemy, IMO, when it comes to tackling that fear of ostracism and negativity from others is yourself; one becomes enslaved by the expectations of others, but they shouldn't let that effect their yearning for inner peace with tulpas.

 

This is my answer, as a human being.

 

 

 

It's things like this that makes me love this forum.

 

[tulpa001]

Those are some impressive insights, and I'm happy for you and the epiphany of | Ada |.

[Linkzelda]

Sorry, going crazy now with this philosophy. More musings in relation to this thread (this thread is a freaking gold mine)

 

 

For added justification to that post of mine:

 

 

The more I look at this thread and the question posed...The more I become addicted to silence. Not silence as in alienating myself from others. The silence of inner peace is addicting, and the more I realize this, I realize how one’s tulpas, in a way, have to silently bear the burden just as much as I have to in dilemmas posed in the OP. The difference now, is that inner peace can bleed onto others, and gives one's tulpas an incentive to do the same to others, even though physicality may serve as a border from others understanding what's really going on in a person's mind.

 

But that’s what we’ve been fighting for. Self-progression, self-actualization, and learning to become the existential heroes from within. This makes all the struggles and pains to get to this point look trivial. Even if criticism may deem Ada as a hallucination…If a hallucination can exhibit insight like what I’ve read….then you know what….this is where I would humbly say, IF this ever is proven so:

 

I will continue creating this hallucination. But I know from the bottom of my heart, if I truly were to be open-minded to that criticism, I would have to acknowledge that the brain creating continuities of selves is merely an illusion. But that doesn’t make sense to me, personally, because at the end of the day, when a tulpa puts up an existential mirror in front of you to reflect on…I cannot hold a candle to whatever my brain was able to instantiate towards Ada to have that revelation. Yes, this is my ego talking. But this is the ego that understands the inner peace, now.

 

I am so happy. All of the posts I’ve made in the past…are merely a stepping stone to keep moving forward. This trivial drama is actually good food for thought…I would be lying if I didn’t say that was the case. I’m sorry, I’ll stop this hype I’m creating.

[tulpa001]

Eh, well you know what I say. It's the same.

 

My host has the philosophy that to optimise the learning of new concepts and skills, it is necessary to cultivate the ability to slide between different worldviews and perspectives in a controlled manner. Tulpas provide an obvious advantage to the cultivation of this skill, providing their systems with the abiliy to hold at least two complete worldviews or perspectives in a dissonance free manner.

 

It is my belief that based on the research conducted on tulpas so far, that this tactical advantage of being able to hold multiple perspectives dissonance free has actual, major advantages to people in terms of allowing them to understand themselves and others.

[Lucilyn]

Tulpas provide an obvious advantage to the cultivation of this skill, providing their systems with the abiliy to hold at least two complete worldviews or perspectives in a dissonance free manner.

 

idk where you got that idea or who could be an example of such a thing... no one comes to mind, here

 

 

 

oh wait that's us