Jump to content

Renaming "Tulpa" (and other tulpa terminologies)


Lacquer

What's the correct plural?  

125 members have voted

  1. 1. What's the correct plural?

    • tulpas
    • tulpae
    • both (with the same meaning)
    • both (with different meanings)
    • neither


Recommended Posts

To me, the word 'it' implies something subhuman or non-sentient. I don't think I could use it to describe a tulpa. It just feels wrong, to the extent that getting a tulpa's gender wrong feels much less wrong than using 'it.' (Did that make sense?) You wouldn't say "For someone [note that gender is indeterminate here] to achieve success, it must work hard," for example.

 

No- you'd say, "for someone to achieve success, they must work hard."

 

They is gender neutral, and it is gender indistinguishable, to my understanding. So something that doesn't have a gender or the gender is mostly irrelevant or indistinguishable (i.e. she's my dog vs it's my dog, that is a bee vs she is a bee), which I believe tulpa might fall under, as they can change anything about themselves to my understanding, including their gender(?).

 

However, note the "they" in my sentence. I do strongly recommend using "they" and "he or she" whenever possible, of course, but I don't think it's that terrible to in very certain context call the tulpa an it. (e.g. "It's a boy/girl" when referring to a newborn - when the gender of the newborn is indistinguishable like that of a dog for example, "it" applies when trying to describe him or her)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, saying something like "they" or "them" is grammatically incorrect, and "it" is pretty much the only viable pronoun for a gender indeterminate tulpa in the first place. I can see why "it" might feel like it de-humanizes, or de-values, a tulpa in a sense, but if a tulpa is literally an it, why would they want to be called something they are not, or do not identify with?

Note that it's a whole thing about perspective, it's really all based on who it is. However, I won't argue against someone who wants a pronoun for people who general gender rules do not apply to.

I apologize for not finishing my thought. I say in such instances we ought to freely choose between 'he' or 'she.' That is, in one post I might use 'he,' in another I might use 'she,' and I have no way of selecting other than chance. This is the only solution that I feel comfortable with. 'They,' as you said, is grammatically incorrect, 's/he' makes me stop for a quarter-second, and 'hir' is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since "working with" doesn't show active versus passive, I thought that it could be "passively working with" and "actively working with" or "working with for an active session". Just ideas, throwing it to the wall and seeing what sticks.


Also putting more emphasis on what is happening during the session, like "visualization", "narration", "just hanging out", or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, saying something like "they" or "them" is grammatically incorrect, and "it" is pretty much the only viable pronoun for a gender indeterminate tulpa in the first place.

 

Why, I'm glad you think this! I disagree and am part of a personal vendetta to change this. Note the following:

 

 

We've got this nasty little lexical gap due to the fact there isn't really much of a practical application in the real world of a pronoun for "genderless" people, as that is practically non existent. But here come us tulpamancers being able to create literally anything we can think up and suddenly lexical gaps abound. We don't have words that describe a sensation, as in you cannot give someone the experience of something with a word.

 

Welcome to every writer and philosopher ever. And anyone ever, really.

 

I apologize for not finishing my thought. I say in such instances we ought to freely choose between 'he' or 'she.' That is, in one post I might use 'he,' in another I might use 'she,' and I have no way of selecting other than chance. This is the only solution that I feel comfortable with. 'They,' as you said, is grammatically incorrect, 's/he' makes me stop for a quarter-second, and 'hir' is just stupid.

 

Ew, gross. Putting a preconception on someone is much worse. I disagree about the incorrectness, see my first spiel.

“Just sick enough to be totally confident”

-H.S.T.

"Same thing; a soul's made of stories, not actions."

Progress Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "it" only has a derogative meaning if you think of it as being that way. "It" just simply describes something which doesnt have a clear sex. Not having a clear sex doesnt make anyone or thing less then they are.

 

Using he or she for a sex you dont really know, is just giving out false impressions to others and hence many of us prefer to use the term "it"

Jesse (human male) DOB 16th April 2013 

Working on imposition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I thought of something. What about "metamind"? And instead of hosts or tulpamancers or whatever, we can be called "metaminders".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those of you that are getting hung up over "it" vs "he/she" vs "(s)he": Allow me to point out the Wikipedia article on gender-neutral pronouns. Specifically, the section on "invented pronouns" might be worth a gander. Yes, they do feel slightly pretentious, and (at first) unnatural (in spoken speech especially!), but they attempt to address the issue of knowing which pronoun to use for an entity whose sex is either unknown or does not conform to the more-prevalent male/female genders. Sexes. Thingies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "it" only has a derogative meaning if you think of it as being that way. "It" just simply describes something which doesnt have a clear sex. Not having a clear sex doesnt make anyone or thing less then they are.

 

Using he or she for a sex you dont really know, is just giving out false impressions to others and hence many of us prefer to use the term "it"

 

Daintygal is technically gender-neutral at her current age due to her species, she doesn't see "it" as derogatory at all.

I don't see how it's offensive to call a tulpa an "it" if they're okay with 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...