manuelmanuel

is it cruel to create a tulpa?

Recommended Posts

To address some of those points.

 

A person also contains an identity. Identities are not part of personalities.

 

Indeed, the vast majority of your position is contingent on the truth of the anti-natalist position. There are two primary groundings for this position. The natural, and extremely dangerous unsustainability of exponential growth. And that a person does not care what happens to them before they are born, but does after they are born.

 

About half of tulpamancers have active and well developed wonderlands.

 

It is an unsafe assumption to assume a tulpa will not be able to pursue their ambitions. Like some, tulpas have small ambitions, like others, tulpas have strong wills and make it happen.

 

Oh, last, I could decide I don't want a tulpa anymore. But I would be powerless to make that a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good question!

My tulpa (Vin, 7 months old, advanced)would like to respond to your question:

 

"My host wondered that exact question too. In my opinion, existence is not only rewarding, but fun. My host has occasional moments where he forgets about me a little, but because I'm strong willed, I can always remind him again and we'll be back to being normal within minutes. Overall, things between us are great! I'm not like a fully 100% human with my own body, but life is still amazing and wonderful! In fact, being a tulpa is better than having your own body in my opinion. haha I know that sounds weird, but I don't mind my state at all.

 

Think of it this way: I could have never existed in the first place. I'm greatful to be alive and have the opportunity to even experience life.

 

********And you mentioned killing tulpas, and I feel like this is important for everyone on the forums to know. If you don't love your tulpa enough to keep them around, then you messed up horribly during the construction. You forgot the most important part: love. Your tulpa should accept you and you should accept your tulpa. Share your thoughts and feelings with each other, and in the process you'll create the strongest bond known to humankind. No two physical being could create a bond like a tulpa and their host. Not even the strongest of friends, the truest of lovers, or the closest of brothers could come close to what a tulpa and host shares. It is indescribable. It's an experience that changes the unchangeable. The people who "killed" their tulpas have never reached this level of understanding. It isn't cruel, it's stupid. They were so close to success and understanding, but forgot this important step. Anyway that's all I have to say about that. I hope this helped, and I hope someday you can experience tulpamancy like I did."


"Now THATS a bad username"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-natalist ideologies doesn’t seem to bring a productive, or optimistic mindset when applied to tulpas. Granted, one wants to create their own moral grounding, and treating them as sentient involves embracing some kind of virtue(s) in hopes that the mind will manifest whatever experiences to provide a personal testament, to the host, that the tulpa-in-question is someone with the same potential, as the host, in being another conscious evaluator (which implies all of the potentials with sentience).

 

With this in mind, in the most generic sense, if one applies an anti-natalist worldview, it sort of reaches a self-referential dead end, and creates, IMO, a type of double standard. In other words, if we’re talking about different forms of thought-forms, and how the mind creates them, one has to, in their quest for preventing suffering overall mentally, look at the bigger picture. Everyone has dreams on a nightly basis, with or without their conscious interruption in them (e.g. being aware in their dreams, etc.).

 

This unconditional pumping the brain does in those dreams creates those dream characters that can in some way emulate sentience. Of course, some may not really apply morals on them because it seems to be dependent on how proficient the individual wants to cherish the dream recollection, and the sense of novelty they may have experienced with those dream characters. If we’re applying prevention of suffering of potential sentient entities within our own minds, by logic of this, we’re constantly dissipating thought-forms on a nightly basis. But, just not in a manner of dissipation with a tulpa in waking life.

 

Imagine for a moment that this occurs unconditionally, and to have these anti-natalist thoughts may have you exhausting your emotions, and energy way too quickly, which may actually lead you into thinking it was all for naught, and that it was futile in the first place. Or, it may have you thinking, “Aha! I knew I was right!” But, to be so critical and negative of how the mind furthers the implication of another sentient being in your mind for whatever reasons, is to be critical of your own brain’s tendency to create representations of continuity of selves.

 

It makes one question how you, one continuity of self that developed awareness over time, can suddenly think of all this, and not be dissipated as a simple concept they wanted to cultivate? One has to question what allows this unconditional reigning of one’s self while knowing the mind can easily emulate qualities of sentience. It’s a cruel question indeed, but not really cruel in creating a tulpa because the anti-natalist implies some kind of inevitable suffering that sentient creatures can be aware of, and to prevent this at all cost.

 

If one applies this inwardly, it’s like a perfect recipe for existential issues, wondering about instrumentality (how we create novelty into the things we do in life daily), and such. It can get to the point where even when you think about the novelty of us being able to create subjective meaning, something inside you will eat it all up, and tell you that there is a sense of purposelessness. And that’s the feeling one may get when they contemplate on the concept of instrumentality (e.g. how one seemingly has to contribute in some way of some kind of mental upkeep with a tulpa’s existence, and how the mind continues this upkeep as well). But, this leads to a self-referential thinking as to why your brain even bothers to sustain your continuity of self? You see, it creates a type of hatred in one’s existence, and to extend this urgency to create meaning while feeling a sense of purposelessness with another continuity of self just mitigates/shifts the issue.

 

The words actually end up being scapegoats, or something/someone to blame for that doesn’t really have any responsibility in it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To create another angle at what Linkzelda is talking about:

 

- Instrumentality, the thing that serves as an instrument or means to an end, can create a sense of anxiety when applied inwardly because naturally, one gets into existential questioning – like, “Who am I?” “Why am I capable of being sentient over time? “How is it that I have continuity over time vs. other thought-forms, whether in dreams, or in simple imagination in everyday day life?” “Is it my physicality, auto-biographical context (e.g. one’s past experiential cases), etc.?”

 

- Applying anti-natalist virtues inwardly in this only fuels this line of thinking that may lead to a negative reaction instead. The questions are more of a thesis, and how a person reacts seems to be a collective presumption of how to assess themselves in the world. With the ideology of anti-natalism and its strive to prevent suffering among sentient creatures in general (e.g. the rat race of having some kind of upkeep in life with others, themselves, or just goals in general having a potential of suffering), it creates this type of dead-end that creates more confusion because the brain has tendencies to unconditionally pump novel experiences to us (e.g. how it someone is structured in a way to where we have subjectivity, and such).

 

- And when one goes deeper into this, they’re trying to figure out, in a way, of how to become their unconscious mind. But, this raises the question in figuring out what’s operating that person in being able to do something like that. In other words, the line of questioning leads to figuring out what it means to be the backoffice of the mind when one can’t really personify this backoffice; just in metaphorical terms, not literal ones where it can be easy to point where such and such creates XYZ (e.g. sentience).

 

- And the thought of dissipation, IMO, when applied with this ideology becomes even more difficult because the whole strive of suffering comes into play of how the person who may end up doing it has to deal with the aftermath of it all. Because to try to figure out if a tulpa-in-question would have a painful experience is to correlate this to one’s physicality somehow being affected by this similar to death.

 

- And yet, this becomes confusing because now one is playing with their imagination of wondering what it means to be both dead and alive at the same time; some weird quantum mangling of stuff beyond human comprehension. And maybe we’re not supposed to really figure out what allows us to continually have an identity/self because we just can’t become the unconscious mind. Because the concepts are merely representations of how the brain does XYZ, but those representations shouldn’t be considered as the actualized, empirical way to somehow control one’s unconscious mind with the blink of an eye.

 

 

It just leads to a dead-end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, treating dream chacacters as sentient is to raise the very question of if tulpas are sentient in the first place, as it blurs the line between imaginary sentience and real sentience. If you can place tulpas in the same category as random imaginings, then how can a tulpa be said to be alive or real?

 

Though, this perspective may be due to my particular experience. For I have a strong sense of sentience myself, and dreams feel lifeless and empty.

 

Yet I can imagine another perspective where a person feels insulted that their dream characters whom they have come to love are thrown under the bus and disrespected so, to the point where they are not allowed to compare to tulpas.


Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@manuelmanuel:

 

I very much do see your concern. If it were up to me, I would place an 18+ rating upon the site, or at least its community forum, as I certainly don't think children or troubled adolescents should be going through some of the content or interacting with the ill and predatory individuals herein. (granted, parental/guardian supervision as well as how easily one can defeat such age requirements are valid concerns, yet this is another kettle of fish entirely)

 

There's only so much I can do, yet I still feel partially responsible when I read about someone considering egocide because of problems in their lives or who have up and destroyed their tulpas simply because they don't satisfy this urge or meet that expectation...for the very least, it would be nice to see these persons be directed to the proper care, should they or their loved ones determine such resources necessary.

 

As for the subject of paracosms ("worlds"), have you considered that some tulpas and hosts eschew such imaginative places in favour of physical reality? I'm still experimenting with imposition, yet my self and my own like to think of the world we share as a kind of inter-connected "wonder land".


I've seen good people bleed

And I thought I'd seen it all

But my own two eyes would prove me wrong that day.

 

There are things that I've done

Only seen by the sun

And those things will be buried in my grave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, treating dream chacacters as sentient is to raise the very question of if tulpas are sentient in the first place, as it blurs the line between imaginary sentience and real sentience. If you can place tulpas in the same category as random imaginings, then how can a tulpa be said to be alive or real?

 

Though, this perspective may be due to my particular experience. For I have a strong sense of sentience myself, and dreams feel lifeless and empty.

 

Yet I can imagine another perspective where a person feels insulted that their dream characters whom they have come to love are thrown under the bus and disrespected so, to the point where they are not allowed to compare to tulpas.

 

Irrespective of how one engages with their everyday cognition, dreams, or in waking life, the idea of sustaining the thought of treating someone as sentient in your mind along with subsequent action seems to be the same. The only difference is where you’re shifting your awareness to practice this virtue.

 

In other words, because one would be in the dreaming state, there’s the idea that automatically, the existence of these thoughtforms via the label of dream characters exhibit pseudo-sentience. Some individuals may continue their lucid dreaming events to meet certain dream characters, and with experiential context over time, the progression of what seems to be a sentient entity within their nightly sleep is a similar virtue with waking life endeavors with creating a tulpa.

 

It’s one state of being marginalized into being chalked up as a figment of one’s imagination while the other state of being in this reality seems more real, and yet one cannot seem to somehow project said tulpa-in-question into this reality for others to see, i.e., there’s no direct, third person access for others to see, and treat as sentient.

 

So the question of how one can confirm if a tulpa can be said to be alive or real is to assume one can become the backoffice of their brain that allows this sentience to be instantiated, or manifested. It’s a thought experiment that seems to encourage the ideation of tulpa creation in waking life while undermining the potential learning value dreaming experiences can give. It seems that regardless of the state of being, whatever allows the brain to instantiate sentience, it seems to do so while in dreams (e.g. the countless dream characters who go in and out), and the continuity of self that is the host, and whatever tulpa-in-question.

 

It doesn’t seem the categorization seems so varied and nuanced since a person can practice the same virtue of treating thoughtforms of several upbringings in their head all the same. There may be differences, but it seems to just be when a person engages in an altered state of awareness. Whether or not they choose to shrug off one and lose all novelty over it while being biased towards another is up to them, I guess. But, this just mitigates the dilemma of marginalizing one over the other; as if there can’t be some kind of rapport to appreciate that instantiation of sentience can be probable regardless.

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.