Suddently realising how deeply tulpamancy changed everything

[noizy]

After 3 years into tulpamancy, we started to work very concretely on our long time goal: giving lenaelle the opportunity to have her own life. That's how realized how far we've gone and, most of all, measure the scale of what having a tulpa really mean, how defining being two persons in one body is. It's frightening, demanding, and all other sorts of "ings" as you can easily imagine, including some surprisingly positive changes of course. But, overall, it's so huge that I still have difficulties wrapping my mind around this. Anybody willing to share similar experiences?

[Aurora]

I believe that it's only moral to bring someone into this world if you can give them a reasonably good quality of life, for tulpas it means letting them to be as independent as they wish and to have their own lives. It is very demanding on the host and it affects their life a lot, kinda like having a child. Only a child can grow up, move away and take care of themselves, whereas a tulpa will always need your time and attention.

 

There are good and bad things about it. I've given my host new perspectives and experiences that he would have never had without me. I add a lot of meaning to his life and lift his spirits. On the other hand, I need some of his time for myself in order to have a life I want. He's spent so much time on me that most people would probably call it unhealthy (thousands of hours). But that is just our way of life.

[| Ada |]

I think Linkzelda forgot he was posting in that other thread he made to get some quick reference to use for the OP in this thread. Here's his opinion to the OP:

 

 

 

I would make a theory that in some way, based on the idea of ‘treating a tulpa as sentient,’ that a person would realize the sense of liberation that’s possible along with the responsibilities that the individual creates for themselves. In other words, I think one eventually gets coerced into thinking these same thoughts of yours. There’s an analogy me and two of my companions throw around with in describing ‘treating a tulpa as sentient’ as putting up this existential mirror.

 

Because this phenomenon seems to be exclusive to each person’s own subjectivity, in order for them to create a meaning out of what it means to be sentient, they have to look back into experiential cases of them being sentient beings all of their lives. And when this gets stressed along with the push for an implication of free will, it seems like a double-edged sword at times because at one angle, the sense of liberation can make a person assured that there aren’t absolutes in this quest of treating a tulpa as sentient. But, on the other hand, because of this, it may make one focus so much on the necessity of being and the contingency behind the endeavor, and this creates a conflict that would be known as instrumentality.

 

Instrumentality can be this weird feeling of having to progressively put forth our energy in having virtue, and taking action in life. Treating a tulpa as sentient can be correlated to instrumentality; the host feeling the need that they have to constantly put effort in doing so, and even when they don’t want to do so, that takes effort in itself (e.g. dissipation, putting a tulpa in stasis for metaphorical implications, etc.). From active forcing and passive forcing, and trying to maintain some kind of repetitive upkeep in a tulpa’s presumed continuity of self can make a person question the whole endeavor entirely.

 

And when a person becomes self-aware about this, an existential horror can be apparent; the fact that the individual can have complete freedom within their own subjectivity, and the countless possibilities of how one ‘ought’ to do XYZ when it comes to this endeavor can make them creeped out in a way. When adding in virtue that there can be another continuity of self that can be just as sentient as we can, it can become mentally taxing. It can even make an individual feel horrified that this existential mirror, metaphorically speaking, is constantly there, and they can be aware of this, but also choose to deny it at the same time because it just adds on to the dilemma that we truly don’t know the capabilities of our own mind.

 

Trying to find solace in this, and trying to find solace in still maintaining this supposed ‘upkeep’ of it all forces one to evaluate the value behind it; to see if this virtue of treating a tulpa as sentient can have some collective benefit in creating harmony with yourself (e.g. self-actualization, self-realization, etc.). And when there’s varied interpretations of just one concept, there can be countless definitions, and because there aren’t absolutes, it can feel like an alien barrage of virtues trying to have continuity.

 

It makes one feel they can’t find grounding, and something like existential boredom, i.e., finding things in life both uninteresting and potentially without any inherent meaning adds on to this conflict. It almost seems as if the individual in question has to find ways to cope with it all through distracting themselves in everyday life, and adding a tulpa into that lifestyle as well, but never really coming to a closure to solve this conflict. There are countless ways to try and remedy this, but something I’ve been pushing for myself is the idea with existentialism, more specifically on existential heroism in which the person has to come to terms in embracing their intellect; even if there’s not much to go by, and continue creating subjective meanings while acknowledging there may be a purposeless world out there.

 

Because by being paralyzed by their own intellect; paralyzed by not putting energy into having effort, ‘treating a tulpa as sentient’ seems to be a burdening task. And even having negative mindsets doesn’t seem to help because if one cannot have the urgency to embrace this supposed ‘upkeep’ of progressive cultivation of sentience towards a tulpa, then how can they, as hosts, embrace this realization that they themselves have to put effort into existing in the first place?

[noizy]

I think Linkzelda forgot he was posting in that other thread he made to get some quick reference to use for the OP in this thread. Here's his opinion to the OP:

 

 

As english isn't my mother tongue and i'm not very familliar with existentialism, it is very hard for me to understand your comment, but i'll do my best to explain why i don't relate to such views.

 

Host aren't fully independent from their surroundings and I don't expect tulpas to be. If you rely on the existence of an object that apparently have a degree of independence (the body) to define one's individuality, headmates aren't independent. If you rely on a more systemic approach, independence of hosts, tulpas and an "outside" world is more than questionable. It doesn't lead anywhere, and may even impair our ability to progress in the practice of tulpamancy. Tulpas's independence isn't the problem here, independence in itself is; and I find the concept of identity more useful as it involves both differentiation and resemblance and, conveniently, is used to describe the psychological mechanisms by which we usually define who we are. It is then easier, I find, to see that tulpamancy isn't so much about sentience, or consciousness, that it is about identity. And that's what really strikes me about tulpamancy, this revealation of the depth and complexity of our narratives. It goes way beyons everything that i've ever expected or imagined.

 

It doesn't dismiss the question of free will, but it's a concept which, in my opinion, doesn't have any clear and convincing definition that I could rely on to build and sustain a worldview, even less to fuel an existential crisis. I can perceive and I know how it feels to make a decision, be it free will or an illusion of free will doesn't change much to that. Clinging to a certain idea of individuality and free will can be a burden, and I hope to have progressed past that a little bit, thanks to meditation. But just a tiny bit, and that's the catch : experiencing from within that my self is just a facet of something else go so violently against the usual narratives of our very individualistic culture that it is painful. It seems easy to grasp at first, theoretically, but there's a difference between knowing the fruit and tasting it. So many things suddenly get stripped away. Hopefully that's not letting go that is a burden, only what you're leaving behind.

 

 

I should add, for honesty, that that I find existentialism very unpleasant in its way to put emphasis on an overly pessimistic interpretation of life. Sartre is very antipathetic and even Camus, that I love, sometimes hold those depressing views unfortunately. I don't understand why one would do that to himself, it is unnecessary, this world is brutal enough not to cling to pain with such vehemence.

 

 

Anyway, I can easily imagine that my poor mastery of the English language will lead to a confused discourse. I hope that a little bit of what I wrote makes sense to you, if not, don't over-think it, I might just not be able to express clearly my ideas in English, sorry for that.

[Linkzelda]

Host aren't fully independent from their surroundings and I don't expect tulpas to be. If you rely on the existence of an object that apparently have a degree of independence (the body) to define one's individuality, headmates aren't independent.

 

If you mean surroundings as in mental phenomenon, then yeah, it would be an inclusive endeavor. Because by presuming it’s not inclusive, i.e., within one’s own mind, then it creates a problem of exclusivity, and whether or not the individual can even know their own mind. If you’re talking about surroundings in this reality, then I think it’s questionable on the contingency behind the host’s independence from the surroundings; I think a more reasonable association would be the physicality in which the host and tulpa share.

 

If you rely on a more systemic approach, independence of hosts, tulpas and an "outside" world is more than questionable. It doesn't lead anywhere, and may even impair our ability to progress in the practice of tulpamancy.

 

Just for clarification, and this may be me jumping the gun, I’ll try to see why it seems to be a dead-end when you look at it through a systemic, or universal approach. I’m sure it would lead to the fact that we live in an objective reality that can still exist with, or without evaluators. Independence of the host, tulpas, and an outside world; if there is the implication that it doesn’t lead anywhere, then I guess you’re trying to find continuity within the three concepts. If these three concepts were somehow inclusive, I think it’s more of fixating on tulpas and hosts being inclusive rather than having the reality outside of their subjectivity being part of that; it would create the implication of some kind of subjectivist ideology, i.e., mind over matter (e.g. panpsychism, panexperientialism, etc.).

 

Or, maybe you’re saying that the individual can’t be fully independent from that objective reality in the sense that they can’t project themselves out of it.

This is understandable, and for others that feel that can really do this is actually misusing the works of fiction where it’s easy to have a God’s eye point of view to feel they’re being objective, and when they go back to experiencing their subjectivity, they’re demystified once again.

 

It is then easier, I find, to see that tulpamancy isn't so much about sentience, or consciousness, that it is about identity. And that's what really strikes me about tulpamancy, this revealation of the depth and complexity of our narratives. It goes way beyons everything that i've ever expected or imagined.

 

The thing is that ‘identity’ seems fitting for you is probably because we as human beings spend most of our lives cultivating an identity. But applying this to tulpamancy, or even just in the sense of continuity in consciousness and what have you, ‘identity’ ends up being an umbrella term for consciousness, sentience, and such. It’s merely mitigating the issue with semantics that seems fitting. Nothing wrong with that as long as the person realizes they need those components for the sake of creating context rather than shrugging off the concepts that allows them to do so in the first place (e.g. sentience implying that an individual can apply things into context for a given situation).

 

It doesn't dismiss the question of free will, but it's a concept which, in my opinion, doesn't have any clear and convincing definition that I could rely on to build and sustain a worldview, even less to fuel an existential crisis.

 

I feel you, here. It’s a topic that can be branched out in so many ways that there can’t be a black and white logic of it.

 

Clinging to a certain idea of individuality and free will can be a burden, and I hope to have progressed past that a little bit, thanks to meditation. But just a tiny bit, and that's the catch : experiencing from within that my self is just a facet of something else go so violently against the usual narratives of our very individualistic culture that it is painful. It seems easy to grasp at first, theoretically, but there's a difference between knowing the fruit and tasting it. So many things suddenly get stripped away. Hopefully that's not letting go that is a burden, only what you're leaving behind.

 

That’s part of instrumentality; where clinging onto a continuity of self and feeling the individual has free choice in some regard can seem like a burden. Because it requires effort in some way, and a person tries to practice to see if the effort eventually becomes effortless, or in psychological terms, having unconscious competency of it, and maybe conscious competence of that unconscious competence.

 

That ‘usual’ narrative is that unspoken objectivity of ourselves; we utilize that God’s point of view to try to analyze it, but when we’re experiencing it, we’re demystified as to how to seek closure in it all, and it seems to go beyond our imagination. There’s actually some terms in existentialism that extends on this, and I’ll go on to respond in your other sections of the post that sees existentialism in a negative light.

 

I should add, for honesty, that that I find existentialism very unpleasant in its way to put emphasis on an overly pessimistic interpretation of life. Sartre is very antipathetic and even Camus, that I love, sometimes hold those depressing views unfortunately. I don't understand why one would do that to himself, it is unnecessary, this world is brutal enough not to cling to pain with such vehemence.

 

Maybe in spite of each philosopher having their own take on the manner, they acknowledged something about the human condition. And one of those aspects is called existential boredom, i.e., feeling reluctant to do anything with the added awareness that there may not be much inherent purpose collectively. Man decides to negate this existential boredom by finding ways to become free from it; almost as if they’re swinging on a pendulum between two extremes (e.g. existential boredom and existential anxiety).

 

Existentialism is merely acknowledging to emphasize on freeing/negating oneself from this existential boredom, and such by still creating subjective meaning, and taking part of instrumentality as a tool for self-progression. The ‘pessimistic’ viewpoint you’re catching on with it are probably sentiments of those who associate nihilism with that. However, that specific type of nihilism can be categorized as existential nihilism, which can tend to be antithetical to existentialism entirely. It’s because both concepts emphasize on subjectivity that they probably feel one in the same to you, but there is a difference.

 

However, both ironically can coexist in some way because they would acknowledge that even if there isn’t, or they can’t know about inherent meaning in the Universe, they don’t shrug off that the individual can choose to revel in their own narrative, and create a subjective series of meanings to go by in life.

 

Anyway, I can easily imagine that my poor mastery of the English language will lead to a confused discourse. I hope that a little bit of what I wrote makes sense to you, if not, don't over-think it, I might just not be able to express clearly my ideas in English, sorry for that.

 

It’s not so much about mastery in language, but the fact that even when people use certain words that should create a collective understanding over what’s going on, people can still interpret countless definitions from those words that were intended to be generic. In other words, even when we feel we’re using easy-to-go by words, it becomes vague and ambiguous to others to skew it a bit because this whole practice is contingent on the subjective nature of the human condition.

 

No hard feelings towards you, at all.

[tulpa001]

I should add, for honesty, that that I find existentialism very unpleasant in its way to put emphasis on an overly pessimistic interpretation of life.

Looking up the movement, I see a school of thought that emphasises free will and individuality.

 

Though, usually, when me and my host think about existentialism, we are thinking about existential questions. Like the fascinatingly thoroughly unprovable assertion that the universe exists.

 

More to the point though, our universe is deterministic. Therefore, nothing is independent of anything else unless they are outside each other's light cones. But you can speak of operational independence. This is called freedom, or individuality for humans.

 

That’s part of instrumentality; where clinging onto a continuity of self and feeling the individual has free choice in some regard can seem like a burden. Because it requires effort in some way, and a person tries to practice to see if the effort eventually becomes effortless, or in psychological terms, having unconscious competency of it, and maybe conscious competence of that unconscious competence.

It can feel like a burden. But if I can take a moment to share my host's compatibilist view, which I share, free will and independence are not challenged by the deterministic nature of the universe. Those who feel effort in defending such notions are running away, terrified of their own shadow. They are chasing ghosts.

 

Determinism has no link to lack of control. Control itself is not associated with the concept of choice and self determination. Instead, determinism is the discussion of an aspect of temporal dynamics. Cause and effect. Free will is a discussion of an aspect of cognition. Decision making.

 

Cause and effect, that the link between one moment in time and another be rational, rather than completely random, is absolutely necessary for a process of life to exist.

 

Decision making is a process whereby an object comes to understand and appreciate the world around it, then forms an opinion.

 

Completely unrelated, except that you can't appreciate something except under the circumstance where life is possible.