Jump to content

Viceroy general


Viceroy

Recommended Posts

What can I say, you could tell your best friend ALMOST everything. but with tulpa, you can say EVERYTHING.

 

It's great to have someone like that who'd always understand you. Tulpa is just the thing.

Chloe - That cheerful girl with ponytail.

Aigis - The male cyborg that looks like raiden in MGR.

Vixen - Half dragon female who looks like Mary in DMC3 when in human form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

A man is: His thoughts. His feelings. His liver. His skeleton. His hands, and feet, and fingers. His books, his car, his music. His friends and family. His tulpa (???)

 

Who is his tulpa, then?

 

"Their" thoughts? "Their" feelings? "Their" liver? "Their" skeleton? "Their" hands? "Their" feet? "Their" fingers? "Their" books, car, and music? "Their" friends and family?

 

And their host.

 

This is just what I've heard, but... some would argue that the only difference between a Tulpa and a human is that a tulpa doesn't have a physical body, but "Dave" and "Dave's tulpa" can switch roles, and DT drive the body around while D lives as a tulpa. With the only ultimate fundamental difference being who was "the creator" and who was "the created," or even less meaningfully, who "was here first" and who "was here second."

 

To which I ask: How many agree that this is true? Can Dave take back his body from a possessing tulpa if he wants? Does he have certain intrinsic, natural ability that complements his role as originator of the tulpa? Is Dave really a tulpa when DT is controlling the body? Can Dave be dissipated at the will of DT?

 

I must postulate that this school of thought, as I understand it, is logically preposterous. There certainly must be a clear, fundamental, intrinsic difference between host and tulpa. The idea that they are peers and equals in every conceivable way is surely impossible.

 

***Edit***

 

Thanks for the sincere replies but fuck whatever I said specifically about "love;" I understand that a human can have affection and attachment for just about anything, and this is only to be judged as healthy or unhealthy on a case-by-case basis. That, and everything thus far, is just me spitballing and rambling, trying to articulate and measure my feelings and position (which, by the way, is why it was called Viceroy General - its title is meant to communicate the non-specificity of its direction) against that of others. I'm ultimately just trying to understand the nature of a tulpa - my specific personal distaste for the emotional dependence stems from my confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject your definition of being real; there is no way to know for sure that anything we experience through the senses is real, including our own bodies.

Let me quote that brilliant philosopher, Renes Descartes:

Note that this excerpt is preceded by his statement that this thought experiment starts by assuming that all knowledge may be a lie (think the false world in the Matrix).

 

 

"I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it. (Descartes, Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body)."

 

See, if our existence is only provable because we know we are thinking, then tulpae are subject to the same train of logic. This can only prove to a tulpa that it exists, obviously, but the same is said of all individuals. I submit to you that it is no more possible for my own mother to prove she is a real being than it is for my tulpa to do the same, and vice versa.

In the likely event that I post something strange or foolish, please read my name again.

 

Tulpae: Pinkie Pie, D-Pad

Birthday: October 15th, 2012, November ??, 2012

Form: Mares

Stage/progress: Sentient, internal communication, extreme emotion sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tulpa is as real as the host, why are they not equals? Also, if you start using insults and antagonism one more time I am reporting you.

In the likely event that I post something strange or foolish, please read my name again.

 

Tulpae: Pinkie Pie, D-Pad

Birthday: October 15th, 2012, November ??, 2012

Form: Mares

Stage/progress: Sentient, internal communication, extreme emotion sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have chosen to ignore all posts from probably crazy. Press "reply" to view.

 

As a courtesy to the public I will respond to the final question you have the privilege of asking me:

 

I never made any assertions that tulpa "aren't real," nor do I believe so. So I'm not sure where this question is coming from. Besides, "real," especially in this context, isn't a scaled measurement; it's binary, meaning it is or it isn't real, not "how real" or "as real" as you put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never made any assertions that tulpa "aren't real," nor do I believe so.

 

You implied it, or at least implied that tulpae are inferior to their hosts. See below.

 

How do you, as a human, form a deep emotional attachment to a tulpa when its nature, at least in my opinion, would logically exclude it from being seen that way? I know it's not a popular viewpoint, and it may not be the correct viewpoint, but I can't help but see them, as a concept, as anything but tools, and toys. Nifty little tricks and conveniences to be used for selfish betterment.

 

How do you see them as something separate from you, something to whom you can give anything? They're not a "them;" they're a partitioned you.

 

There certainly must be a clear, fundamental, intrinsic difference between host and tulpa. The idea that they are peers and equals in every conceivable way is surely impossible.

I come out of hibernation once in a blue moon.

 

They/them pronouns, please. (I've been using this display name since 2012 and people won't recognize me if I change it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am me. I have my thoughts and feelings. He is him, he has his thoughts and feelings. There is the body - our body, our cat, our apartment, our belongings. We both have our own friends, some we share, some we don't, but we do know the people the other meets as well as they do. It just would be hard to consider someone your friend when you're not the one spending most of the time with them, you know.

 

The only reason we even call Roswell a "tulpa" is because that explains others his origins better than anything else, even if it is a bit silly to be calling us something different from our point of view. I was the first and he was the second, that's what there is to it.

 

Of course I know this body well and can control it, I was born in control. I can force control back, but it will feel strange if he's not letting go. He funnily enough is the worse of us two when it comes to letting go, so sometimes forcing control back is necessary, but at least then he is trying to give it back. He too has taken control of things without permission just to see if he can. Our rule is to not get in the way if the other is using the body, however, so we don't like doing things like that.

 

I can't say if it is possible to take control when the other is in the middle of doing something very physical. Like we wouldn't want to try it when one of us is riding the bike and risk falling over. Hope you understand our reasons.

 

And when it comes to being dissipated, I doubt it is possible to kill anyone off like that unless they too are willing. And even then I am not sure.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You implied it, or at least implied that tulpae are inferior to their hosts. See below.

 

I'll respond to the supposed implication of inferiority, let's just be clear that there is absolutely no relation between "inferior" and "real" and that any train of thought which might lead one to conclude otherwise is preposterous.

 

Although I did not specifically use it, the term "inferior" isn't necessarily demeaning - it can be used as a descriptive of a relationship between one entity and another, with one being superior to the other, (in some way established through discourse) and the other being inferior to it (in the same way).

 

Now that I've made it clear that the term is not in and of itself to be taken as an insult, do you still need me to respond in some way to those quotes of mine?

 

Sands: A person's identity involves things like their ownership of things like pets, living spaces, and vehicles. "That's my car" or "That's Tanya's cat" are statements uttered which help establish identity for a person. So in the same way that regularly confusing another person's things (an aspect of their identity) for your own would be unhealthy, confusing your tulpa for something it isn't is also probably unhealthy.

 

As I said, logically it is sensible to me that a person can have "healthy multiplicity," but that requires lucidity and accurate knowledge of one's situation. For if you mistake something for another thing then there are going to be resultant problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sands: A person's identity involves things like their ownership of things like pets, living spaces, and vehicles. "That's my car" or "That's Tanya's cat" are statements uttered which help establish identity for a person. So in the same way that regularly confusing another person's things (an aspect of their identity) for your own would be unhealthy, confusing your tulpa for something it isn't is also probably unhealthy.

 

As I said, logically it is sensible to me that a person can have "healthy multiplicity," but that requires lucidity and accurate knowledge of one's situation. For if you mistake something for another thing then there are going to be resultant problems.

 

I don't think what you own has to do anything with who you are. Sure, they show things about you to others, but if I were to lose everything, I would still be me. It would be tough of course, but I wouldn't stop being me because I lost things. My life would change and it would change me like time and events usually do, but in the end, I would still be me.

 

When you have made a tulpa and you have been together for a while and once they start getting very interested in the world outside your head, it would be cruel to not share your things. We share the body, why can't we share the plates we eat off of, why can't we both own this chair I am sitting on right now but he too has sat on many times? While we are more like roommates than a couple, I wonder what you think about those who buy things together? I don't see many couples talking about his or her bed if they sleep in the same one, it's their bed.

 

This is his home as well. Saying it isn't wouldn't be very welcoming, now would it? What would be his home then? Would he have to buy his own?

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...