Renaming "Tulpa" (and other tulpa terminologies)

[Lacquer]

Thinking about it, I like the sound of "tulpa" as plural, but I think "tulpas" sounds more proper (which it is), so I'll keep using that.

 

To noobdreamer, I think I read somewhere that adding -as is an acceptable pluralization, making tulpaas. Whatever.

[Guest Anonymous]

Then again we were discussing the implementation of the word into the english language, but I thought it might be interesting.

 

Just thought somebody would be interested in that, that's all!

I don't want you to use tulparnams XD

 

And who the hell uses octopodes?

 

Whatever.

 

Exactly.

[Sands]

And who the hell uses octopodes?

 

Same nerds who use fora. And foci, though foci seems to be more widespread. Still makes you look like a nerd though.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

Same nerds who use fora. And foci, though foci seems to be more widespread. Still makes you look like a nerd though.

 

I can understand fora (I think it sounds pretty good), but foci? Never ever heard that, not even during latin lessons.

[Sands]

No? Plural for focus. It's pretty gay.

[Tulpony]

I don't see why we need a singular pluralization as long as everyone knows what it means. All forms (particularly tulpas and tulpae) are pretty much accepted on the forum despite the nitpicking and besides, it's not the first word to have multiple plural forms, like fish and fishes.

[Sands]

And you seem to be one of those who doesn't understand there actually is a difference between fish and fishes. You use fish for one species of fish, fishes when there's multiple. When there's 5 derps in the tank, there's 5 fish. When there's a derp, herp, hurr and durr, there's four fishes. It's not that complicated.

 

Is there's a need for one plural on these forums? Well there's no need for it, just that we got 1. an annoying Latin plural for a non-Latin word some people use because they think that's the correct one and 2. people saying there is no standard plural for the word tulpa even though there is, which is tulpas. Because this is English and the loanword is much older than this community. Use the annoying one all you want, but if you go around spouting bullshit about it being correct or tulpas not being a standard one, you just seem ignorant as fuck. So, you keep using it, keep that in mind.

[Guest Anonymous]

Tulpalamas.

 

*throws down microphone and walks off the stage*

[left blank]

[Carried over from this discussion to reduce derailment. Forgive me if it reads a little disjointed.]

 

Since "tulpa" sounds like some New Age foot cleansing meditation thing, it's a little weird to call what we're doing "tulpa". There is also the issue of the fact that we stole the word and changed its meaning, so anyone from the outside looking at this would think of it being a magical being made by buddhists.

 

...

 

Ideomorph and Psychomorph kind of act like Thoughtform, so those are ideas.

 

What we did is take the formerly spiritual/metaphysical practice and distill it down to its roots. We took all the baseless fantasy out of it and we were left with just psychology.

 

...you shouldn't treat this psychological tulpa perspective like any of the spiritual perspectives. We've made our way of making tulpas into a way more befitting of today, like what has happened to meditation and yoga.

 

I'm a wayward web-drifter from a distant realm, and I'll admit that I raised an eyebrow at the antithetical "tulpa" and "For Science!" juxtaposition on my first visit. Both of my eyebrows practically relocated to my hairline when I discovered the whole affair was steeped in bronies. I feel old and confused.

 

This might sound like overly semantic quibble, but the word "tulpa" assumes a great deal of lofty Eastern esoterism by default. The root word alludes to the creation of a fully tangible, often deific corporal manifestation, originally a divine affirmation through nirmāṇakāya*. These figures were considered visible and palpable to many people rather than a single “host”. In other words, "god form," "god emanation," "god body," or "constructed Buddha" are more direct translations than "thoughtform". At least, nothing I've ever encountered on the subject has presented it differently so far.

 

Gleaning new psychological jargon from an intrinsically spiritual concept is a revision rather than distillation. So, in my humble opinion, stating that "tulpa" should not be approached from a spiritual perspective is like assigning "varana" to an online community for primate hybridization and expecting it to remain free of Hinduism. That's what I was trying to convey [in the original discussion].

 

I'm totally sympathetic to wanting a catchy epithet for "a hallucinatory/illusory companion created through willful dissociation/deconstruction of ego boundaries" (also documented as an involuntarily demonstrable neuroscientific phenomenon). I've been there. I'm sure there are more relevant options that aren't as entrenched in mysticism as "tulpa," ones that would also provide the community with a unique and neutral image that pleases everyone.

 

Folklore still offers some open-ended titles, like "muse," which has long been used to describe a creative spirit companion. "Umbra" suggests a shadow, something intangible we rarely pay any mind, but from which we cannot be separated. There's also the obscure fetch, or fetchwyf, a self-conceived entity of Irish legend. Interpretations of it have ranged from macabre to mystifying, so it has a malleable definition.

 

Or, yeah, Lacquer's proffered word invention challenge.

 

Inter-cerebral-apportioned-consciousness-anomaly?

 

Winner.

 

I'm also partial to the highfalutin hipster fusion that is "meta-ego". Fresh. Accurate. Sexy. Trendy. Pseudointellectual while maintaining a colloquial edge. You've probably never heard of it. Everybody wins.

 

Ultimately, I think it's critically important for a group like this to boast a name that accurately reflects its objective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you all seem to be attempting to pioneer a contemporary psychological precept that requires a strictly materialist/empiricist slant. It might prove difficult to attract an appropriate audience by using an obsolete Tibetan term—one that's largely propagated (at least from an outside perspective) by a cartoon fanbase.**

 

That's my 25¢, and I'm flat broke.

 

*The "Trikaya" has already been reinterpreted through Western esoterism by pre-New Age cult leaders, but maintained the basic concept.

 

**Nothing inherently wrong with that, just difficult to take seriously from an academic perspective.

[Lacquer]

25¢ well spent. That was very well put together.