Jump to content

Are tulpa real. Honestly.


Twine

Do you have a sentient and vocal (not just head voice) tulpa?  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you have a sentient and vocal (not just head voice) tulpa?

    • Yes
      113
    • No
      22
    • Not sure.
      32


Recommended Posts

I do wonder sometimes, but I think it's more unreasonable to think, that perhaps most people are just roleplaying here, and even that they're deluding themselves.

 

The only reasonable scenario where someone could be deluding themselves, I think, is if they really wanted one and deluded themselves into thinking their parroting was their tulpa? But some tulpas are past just vocality in the mind - possession, imposition, surprises, etc.

My lip hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Except not everybody has the attention span or interest to read long passages. It's not an unnatural reaction to assume that something that comes in bulk (i.e. words) is of bad quality, purely because of the large amount of it, and I doubt Linkzelda's posts couldn't convey the exact same message using about a tenth of the amount of words he uses on average.

 

 

If I wanted to convey in a shorter message, I would be spamming things like:

 

"Google it"

"Use the search function"

"Augment your overall cognition"

"Don't absolve hard work and expect to get fast results"

"Stop being a fucking idiot, reduce your delusions of grandeur of thinking you're the only person struggling in this, stop comparing yourself to others, and just fucking do it."

 

 

Of course, I can always be an asshat in this forum, but usually that route doesn't fair well, since I would have to worry about staff members such as yourself.

 

 

 

and I doubt Linkzelda's posts couldn't convey the exact same message using about a tenth of the amount of words he uses on

 

Do note that in order to condense everything down to something like that all the time implies there can be objective statements of tulpas. Just like how you've made a humble response that you don't know everything, except the obvious (which honestly varies on the individual), you having the disposition of doubting a person conveying their message to what's really more cognitively fitting for you is just a contradiction on your end (and maybe confirmation bias, who knows?)

 

I understand there are just some scenarios where conciseness helps (especially if it's a newcomer that makes a "help I can't focus, what do" thread), but usually shorter posts on more deeper subjects can become vague. People will start questioning what the person was trying to get at, especially with words like "subconscious" people fling about without specifying what they exactly meant by that.

 

 

And should this site ever get recognition from the domain of Science to apply epistemology and other approaches on the tulpa phenomenon, there's going to be a cluster of symbolism, self-fulfilling prophecies, and all sorts of psychological and mental trends that will require a lot more cognitive effort to explain (if that individual doesn't have a decent attention span, then just don't participate). Which means that militant strives for cohesiveness and conciseness will most likely lead to unintelligible equivocation (i.e. the word "subconscious" that has all sorts of metaphysical attributions), and it will be more common that people will take pains to explain their points.

 

 

There's always the common practice of asking for more clarification if a person doesn't understand something, but seeing how people think that makes them weak, and prone for patronizing and condescending responses, they usually give up. Imagine this site actually discussing epistemological and ontological presumptions of tulpas, there would be all sorts of predicative theories that conciseness will become a poison (but not all the time of course).

 

 

 

I do wonder sometimes, but I think it's more unreasonable to think, that perhaps most people are just roleplaying here, and even that they're deluding themselves.

 

The only reasonable scenario where someone could be deluding themselves, I think, is if they really wanted one and deluded themselves into thinking their parroting was their tulpa? But some tulpas are past just vocality in the mind - possession, imposition, surprises, etc.

 

 

I believe, based mostly of what I'm viewing from veterans, and anyone that seems to be doing this for the long term, is that they undermine the newcomer's naivete as roleplaying. Maybe when someone makes the breakthrough, they tend to take for granted of the same naivete they had when having to believe, and consistently reinforce that this experience can be made real to them. And if the breakthroughs become a reality, there's no need for them to be so suggestive all the time, it just happens, and apparently is an emergent experience that comes by naturally.

 

I guess some people take it negatively when they see newcomers stating their tulpas are vocal within a week or so, though I figure that's just part of going through the self-fulfilling prophecy as long as those newcomers know that things will get even better the more they persevere into this (long-term). Part of what helped me (and still helps) make the breakthroughs was just overriding my over-critical nature of this phenomenon, and transitioning to all sorts of mental frameworks that helped me become suggestive until my suspension of doubt became much greater.

 

Whether it was spending hours not giving a flying fuck about what was happening outside my awareness, and militantly narrating and visualizing, or a myriad of applying symbolism, and knowing what the end result will eventually be (without clinging onto the expectation happening quickly). Usually, all the hard work was mentally exhausting, but that's just what happens when you want to augment cognitive and metacognitive skills; it just gets easier over time.

 

So I guess I underestimate me and my companion's tendencies to have an overload of information, it's just a byproduct of the pains I went through just to have a decent communication with them. Of course, if there's tulpas that are contradicting themselves with knowing they don't know everything, and making subjective statements of what's "obvious," and demanding for militant strives for conciseness implies there's going to be objectivity, I worry about their existence and capability to develop.

 

And frankly, there's not going to be any empirical, or other forms of substantial and credible evidence to do something like that for the time being. Stating things with implications of great certainty that's mostly sustained by theoretical deductions, anecdotal evidence, and non-empirical sources makes them look more like pseudo-scientists. And if that's the direction people want, good bye to any philosophical sections where things will be more than two paragraphs to reduce vagueness. And also good riddance to people asking for more clarification to, you know, further the discussion. I honestly think that if there's promotion of halting the attempt to think more (and have a better attention span) is contributing to the stagnation of the progress for this community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
Do note that in order to condense everything down to something like that all the time implies there can be objective statements of tulpas. Just like how you've made a humble response that you don't know everything' date=' except the obvious (which honestly varies on the individual), you having the disposition of doubting a person conveying their message to what's really more cognitively fitting for you is just a contradiction on your end [b'](and maybe confirmation bias, who knows?)[/b]

 

First of all, confirmation bias is when you seek evidence for your ideas without seeking evidence against them. I also wasn't talking about what's more cognitively fitting for me, I was talking about Content vs. Size. My point was that you could keep the same content (the message you are trying to convey) in your posts while still decreasing the size for everyone's reading experience to be less taxing on their concentration. For your information, I can read your posts just fine, and was taking people who can not focus on such a big block of text into consideration, like my host.

 

Next, there can be objective statements about tulpas. Tulpas are not entirely subjective, and trying to explain every little side of something (as you see it) when trying to explain something tulpa-related to someone only leads to your points not being made clearly, as has been pointed out to you before.

 

Finally, by "the obvious" I meant "the obvious", things that anyone can know by searching and reading about tulpas for ten minutes or less. My knowledge of tulpas is publically avaible information mixed with personal experience and rationalization, but "the obvious" here was referring to the first of those three. Now, I would rather not derail this thread into a post length discussion, but I hate forcing my final word upon someone, so you can feel free to PM your reply to me regarding your posts' average size, or create a thread about it in Off-topic if you want opinions other than my own as well.

 

I do wonder sometimes' date=' but I think it's more unreasonable to think, that perhaps most people are just roleplaying here, and even that they're deluding themselves.[/quote']

 

You're not the first, but I doubt these people are roleplaying. Delusion might be the case, but I doubt that as well. If anything, I'm quite sure most people who claim to be able to impose are actually able to impose, which, regardless of tulpas being "real" or not, is still an impressive technique to master. If you can't tell the difference, it shouldn't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all' date=' confirmation bias is when you seek evidence for your ideas without seeking evidence against them[/quote']

 

Exactly, and since counterarguments (things to falsify or argue against those claims) to presumptions of tulpas are pretty much nonexistent in the realm of deductive reasoning backed by empirical evidence. People will have to seek anecdotal evidence, circumstantial cases, experiential truths, and such to help confirm with their dispositions that the phenomenon may be possible. There’s nothing wrong with confirmation bias, and people having to resort to argumentum ad populum (i.e. if people here are willing to believe tulpas can be true to them, then it can be true to me if I go through the same process) for the sake of making the breakthrough, and see if tulpas are “honestly” real.

 

It’s all people have for the time being; to apply good faith to those presumptions despite there not being a framework with various scientific reasoning behind them.

 

I also wasn't talking about what's more cognitively fitting for me' date=' I was talking about Content vs. Size. My point was that you could keep the same content (the message you are trying to convey) in your posts while still decreasing the size for everyone's reading experience to be less taxing on their concentration.[/quote']

 

It was quite prevalent you were talking about content vs. size, and how you make subjective attributions to which would be more fitting, suitable, and of better quality in your disposition. That’s why I mentioned that this is about how each individual naturally find things cognitively fitting for them. And as for the matter on concentration, and mentally taxing reads, it’s inevitable that in a forum like this, people will have to take pains to explain their points (especially to filter out the metaphysical attributions that causes confusion).

 

If someone doesn’t understand, or maybe has less concentration, they can always ask for more clarification, because asking questions that promote more discussion is what this forum needs. If it stops to just giving conciseness to every single post in all conditions (e.g. threads on what are tulpas/ontological presumptions on tulpas vs. common ad naseum inquiries that seem to go on for infinity), then it would be a bit difficult for someone to explain their dispositions on whether or not tulpas can be “real” in the circumstance of being real within that person’s perception of reality.

 

There’s really nothing off-topic about what I stated, especially when the modes of logic of taking pains to address points in relation to the thread is there (and welcoming anyone asking for clarification that’s part of the unwritten rule here).

 

For your information' date=' I can read your posts just fine, and was taking people who can not focus on such a big block of text into consideration, like my host.[/quote']

 

You know, that’s not a plausible excuse for you to have to take care of everything your host cannot fixate on understanding. It almost seems as if your existence is a double-edged sword to where if he can’t bother to pay attention to it, you have to take pains to process it all. Here I thought having a tulpa would be to have some mutual interaction with them so that both would be able to have the patience.

 

Also, for it to be a block of text/wall of text, that means that it would have no paragraphs, spacing, breaks, and things of that nature.

 

Next' date=' there can be objective statements about tulpas. Tulpas are not entirely subjective, and trying to explain every little side of something (as you see it) when trying to explain something tulpa-related to someone only leads to your points not being made clearly, as has been pointed out to you before [/quote']

If you can provide substantive claims where there’s not any bias, and actually has a framework to back it up, I’m more than happy to hear you out (excluding anecdotal evidence and appeal to generalized presumptions this community has on tulpas).

 

And I am more than happy to take pains to see how a person’s mode of logic is if they expound more on their questions (if they don’t understand). Just as I would apply to anything that may not be clear to me. This is why taking pains to addressing points, and also being open-minded to answering questions to said claims contributes for furthering discussion. I’m just following one of the implied logics on engaging in discussions.

Finally' date=' by "the obvious" I meant "the obvious", things that anyone can know by searching and reading about tulpas for ten minutes or less.[/quote']

 

They are merely a prior presumptions/theoretical deductions that are subjective from individuals that most likely would apply good faith into loosely.

 

My knowledge of tulpas is publically avaible information mixed with personal experience and rationalization' date=' but "the obvious" here was referring to the first of those three.[/quote']

 

A priori presumptions and reasoning, nothing wrong with that, but there’s nothing objective about that if the means to reach those theoretical deductions varies from person to person.

 

Now' date=' I would rather not derail this thread into a post length discussion, but I hate forcing my final word upon someone, so you can feel free to PM your reply to me regarding your posts' average size, or create a thread about it in Off-topic if you want opinions other than my own as well.[/quote']

 

I see no derailment if we’re talking about a priori reasoning and presumptions, confirmation bias, anecdotal claims, experiential truths, and non-empirical sources that people rely on to see if tulpas can be “real” in their perception of reality. But hey, since it’s your final word, we’re at an impasse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I'm surprised by how fast you wrote that reply. Since I don't agree, nor disagree with anything you've said, I won't give a rebuttal.

 

You know' date=' that’s not a plausible excuse for you to have to take care of everything your host cannot fixate on understanding. It almost seems as if your existence is a double-edged sword to where if he can’t bother to pay attention to it, you have to take pains to process it all. Here I thought having a tulpa would be to have some mutual interaction with them so that both would be able to have the patience.[/quote']

 

"Having a tulpa would be" - Whatever comes after "be" varies. That's how you think having a tulpa is supposed to be. I'm not disagreeing with it, but circumstances might make things different, and one can only try to make the best of what they've got.

 

That said, I wasn't arguing against your post size for my host. I was using him as my nearest example. If he doesn't want to read your posts, that is his problem, and I wouldn't ask you to change their size just for his sake. I just know that he's not the only one, as I've read about several people who have trouble reading your posts.

 

All that aside, I would have no problem with you continuing just the way you do. It's your method, and it's a form of being constructive, so I can't look down upon that. I was just giving suggestions for you, since I find "If people don't want my advice as-is, that's their loss" to be a bad mindset. If you truly want to help people, you do so in a way that's easiest for them to understand. But as I've said, it's your method, and I respect that.

 

If you still want to reply to this, that's fine, but if I don't reply to your reply, it's not because I'm ignoring what you said, but because I don't want to further derail the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by how fast you wrote that reply.

 

Hard work makes things easier, especially when you have thought forms for self-referential group thinking on the fly.

 

I just know that he's not the only one' date=' as I've read about several people who have trouble reading your posts.[/quote']

 

And like any member, asking for clarification is there.

 

since I find "If people don't want my advice as-is' date=' that's their loss" to be a bad mindset.[/quote']

 

That’s not the intention behind the advice giving, since it’s merely generalizing those non-empirical sources, and making a priori presumptions. Though I’m aware that people shouldn’t abide to the advice militantly, but I guess the means in which I make expositions seems to have an implied tonality of being authoritative (but that's not my goal). I know that our responses are as subjective as anyone else, it’s just that me and my thought forms are more vocal about it; so our advice isn't intended to be objective, nor as-is, nor take it or leave it, nor whatever weird ultimatum is implied from that.

 

If you truly want to help people' date=' you do so in a way that's easiest for them to understand. But as I've said, it's your method, and I respect that.[/quote']

 

I understand my modes of discourse, logic, and making expositions aren’t perfect. But the thing is for making things easier for people to understand is promoting indolence for them to have things spoon-fed to them. And if I recall correctly from several threads, people engaging in a hug-box brigade in those ad nauseum inquiries seems to make the forum look more like a daycare rather than a medium for more thinking (and less of “feed me what I want to hear from everyone to confirm my beliefs that I’m still skeptical about”). Of course, I'm in that double-bind situation, just like anyone that helps out in their own way.

 

We’ve tried that route with catering everything with euphemism, but it doesn’t always work out with those with high levels of doubt (based on the circumstances of what I stated to OP in this thread). If having to format everything to where it’s easier for everyone requires that individual to have a grandiose cognitive grasp of everyone’s mode of logic, that’s not a pragmatic ambition to have. It's easier for people to suggest it, but it's probably difficult for them to execute based on various circumstances and scenarios. Which is why something like this,

 

g09doos.png

 

( here)

 

is needed the more the community gains more knowledge from theories, a priori reasoning, and other forms of non-empirical sources to make plausible justifications on whether or not tulpas can be real (within the host’s perception of reality).

 

For #1, I’m more than happy to extend on my expositions that were not clear (based on circumstantial cases of each individual), but it can only be possible if someone asks more questions (I can’t make conjectures of their mode of logic unless they themselves make efforts to explain their confusion). They can ask as much as they want, and I would do my best to explain more. If not, I, or someone else will probably just suggest to use the search function to expand their horizon a bit more.

 

For #2, people that are perplexed by a person’s post should follow the implied etiquette to ask for more clarification if needed. If all their post is, “hur dur, here’s my condescending post to show you how indolent I am to use my head and ask questions to you,” promoting something like that contradicts the implied rule of both.

 

Both participants have to be willing to expound more if needed, and ask more if needed. Newcomers, or anyone aren’t absolved from thinking more, and attributing suggestions that a person has to have a grandiose cognitive grasp to spoon-feed to every single person isn’t pragmatic either. And conciseness and length is a circumstantial matter, not one that can be followed with objectivity in a forum where subjective theories have yet to go through scientific frameworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Perceived reality is consistancy times time. If that Helps. Its all about where you personally draw the line for yourself, depending on your enviroment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think they're real, then they are. If not, then they're whatever you think they are, such as an imaginary friend. It's sort of one of those weird psychological phenomena, like the placebo effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

These days, I'd say there's many who are just answering themselves.

 

Technically we have nothing that can prove that we aren't all just talking to ourselves.

 

And now ya did it, a doubtstorm be a brewin' again. Goddamn you.

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...