Tulpa-ing someone else

[Kiahdaj]

I can't help but wonder why you felt it necessary to make such an elaborate post, given the fact that it is apparent we are on the same page.

 

My entire argument was based on the fact that the words "you can create a tulpa with hypnosis" were used. Just as you said, it would not be the hypnosis magically creating a tulpa, but you still making a tulpa by the same means, albeit with a possibly helpful aid.

 

My whole point in all of this was to say that hypnosis won't do all the work for you, and therefore you are not creating a tulpa with hypnosis any more than you could create a tulpa with peanut butter.

Are you following?

[Linkzelda]

Yes I'm following you in this mental dance just fine. Don't worry, the elaborate post didn't require mental exhaustion on my end. It's just that when OP agrees that idea is implausible (how he worded it), and we both agree the idea is implausible, there's no need for us to worry about the conflict that's been cleared up.

 

However when you mention this,

 

therefore you are not creating a tulpa with hypnosis any more than you could create a tulpa with peanut butter.

 

This brings back the problem again with the non-sequitur. If you were on the same page as I were, if you were truly on the same page of the elaborate post you couldn't help but wonder why I did so, hypnosis is an aid, so it can be something you can use with the tulpa creation process. When you talk about peanut butter (that's also an aid), you're trying to make it look as if hypnosis is only as equivalent as peanut butter's efficacy in being an aid to use "with" actually going through the process of making a tulpa. Because pay close attention with the wording here,

 

albeit with a possibly helpful aid.

 

....and therefore you are not creating a tulpa with hypnosis any more than you could create a tulpa with peanut butter.

 

This is why this is a non-sequitur. You acknowledge that hypnosis is a potential helpful aid towards the process of creating a tulpa (because of what it can produce to give the urgency of doing), but then you go back to saying how it's only as efficient as creating a tulpa with peanut butter as an aid in its own level of efficacy. This is how the logic doesn't follow up again, because I already stated how hypnosis has way more use than using a peanut butter.

 

 

And just a pro-tip, I do take into consideration of my habit to make overly-long posts, but it's just for the sake of clearing misconceptions to any newcomers. We both get the idea, but the posts I give is to inform others that don't have the insight we have to get the bigger picture. One thing I learn is that just because I know something and other people can follow along with me, we can't have inherent biases that those who don't will follow up with us.

[Kiahdaj]

Except you see, I don't only allow for the statement "created with" to be used when it comes to aids that were particularly helpful. There is no mental line an aid must cross in effectiveness that allows for that statement to be said, unless it were really doing the majority of the work.

I'm not implying that hypnosis in this case would only be as useful as peanut butter; just that, while one is more effective than another, in the end, they are both just aid, and forcing did the majority of the work.

[Shui]

Except that that's probably not a tulpa?

Sure, you could hypnotize yourself into hallucinating, but what makes a tulpa a tulpa is (allegedly) its sapience, which there is no reason to believe that polar bear had.

 

No, it certainly was not sapient at the beginning. It was a servitor and had no personality of its own. However, I would say that by the end of the excerpt, it had developed both. I also think that hypnosis could have given the bear sapience and a previously-known personality. Estabrooks could have told his mind to give the bear the personality of (...what's the 1940s equivalent of a pony?...) Bugs Bunny, for example. Because the personality is already known in full detail, I think this would have had the effect of instant personality -- but it's not creating a personality with hypnosis.

 

...forcing did the majority of the work.

 

Define "forcing".

 

"Hypnosis" is often defined as a sleep-like state. That's how it got its name, in fact. But the guy who named it, Dr. James Braid, quickly realized that he had given it the wrong name -- he discovered that there isn't a single major phenomenon of hypnosis that couldn't be induced from a waking state. He tried to rename hypnosis "monoideism" -- having the mind focused on a single thought -- but the new word never caught on.

 

The truth is, monoideism is what hypnosis really is. In recent decades, hypnotists have found that aspects of the practice that used to be thought essential, like induction and deepening aren't needed at all. The Human Givens Institute says that hypnosis is anything that gets a person into that state of mind. By this definition (and by many other definitions I've heard) forcing is hypnosis.

[Linkzelda]

I cannot even fathom words to show how right Shui is right now.

[waffles]

No, it certainly was not sapient at the beginning. It was a servitor and had no personality of its own. However, I would say that by the end of the excerpt, it had developed both.

What makes you think that? From that account all the bear did on its own was appear, which is pretty reasonable. You don't count everything that pops up in your head as sentient, do you? The bear never talked and apparently never showed free will beyond appearing sometimes, which is what you'd expect from your unconscious, right? Appearing in dark corners, at the foot of the bed; classic nightmare stuff.

 

Define "forcing".

I can't speak for Kiahdaj but I think most people would say "spending time with your tulpa", or perhaps "paying attention to your tulpa" past more specific applications such as visualisation or personality work. For clarity here I would add the condition that you do this believing your tulpa to be sentient, or to become so in the near future.

 

"Hypnosis" is often defined as a sleep-like state. That's how it got its name, in fact. But the guy who named it, Dr. James Braid, quickly realized that he had given it the wrong name -- he discovered that there isn't a single major phenomenon of hypnosis that couldn't be induced from a waking state. He tried to rename hypnosis "monoideism" -- having the mind focused on a single thought -- but the new word never caught on.

 

The truth is, monoideism is what hypnosis really is. In recent decades, hypnotists have found that aspects of the practice that used to be thought essential, like induction and deepening aren't needed at all. The Human Givens Institute says that hypnosis is anything that gets a person into that state of mind. By this definition (and by many other definitions I've heard) forcing is hypnosis.

I've often heard it defined as a state in which you are highly suggestible, but I guess yours works too. Still, I can't begin to fathom how they could even begin to be considered identical.

[Shui]

Not identical. Forcing is a subset of hypnosis in the same way that hypnotic pain suppression is a subset of hypnosis.

 

Some people define hypnosis far more loosely. It has been suggested for example, that elements of dream interpretation can be applied to waking hypnosis. Since houses in dreams usually represent the self or the mind, and cleaning represents removing negativity and overcoming obstacles, with the right mindset, cleaning your house can be considered a form of hypnosis.

 

Likewise, a tulpa obviously represents a person, and doing things to interact with them is reinforcing that idea that they're a person. Depending on how loosely you define hypnosis, watching a movie with your tulpa could be considered hypnosis.

[Sands]

Implying I'm going to read all that, but if hypnosis requires you to trance, my forcing wasn't even close to hypnosis seeing that I wasn't close to that state.

[waffles]

Some people define hypnosis far more loosely.

Depending on how loosely you define hypnosis, watching a movie with your tulpa could be considered hypnosis.

Let me just stop you there.

 

The dictionary says that hypnosis is

an artificially induced trance state resembling sleep, characterized by heightened susceptibility to suggestion.

We can play the "Well if you define the word like this then I'm right" game all you want, but it's probably one of those fallacies with names. If not I'll come up with a clever name to make me feel superior to other people. Either way, I don't see how you can really tell me that with a straight face.

 

It has been suggested for example, that elements of dream interpretation can be applied to waking hypnosis. Since houses in dreams usually represent the self or the mind, and cleaning represents removing negativity and overcoming obstacles, with the right mindset, cleaning your house can be considered a form of hypnosis.

Don't even start with the new-age meditation/self-hypnosis self-help books that you see on Amazon. Just don't even start. They're almost as bad as the definition thing.

 

Not identical. Forcing is a subset of hypnosis in the same way that hypnotic pain suppression is a subset of hypnosis.

I'm sure this linked in with what was below it, but let's just look at that comparison. From what I understand, hypnotic pain suppression involves hypnotising someone and then telling them that they hurt less. Note the first bit where you hypnotise them. At no point did I hypnotise myself when forcing.

[Shui]

The dictionary says that hypnosis is...

 

The dictionary definition is like defining sleep as "lying motionless for prolonged periods". Technically somewhat true, but rather missing the point.

 

We can play the "Well if you define the word like this then I'm right" game all you want, but it's probably one of those fallacies with names. If not I'll come up with a clever name to make me feel superior to other people. Either way, I don't see how you can really tell me that with a straight face.

 

Don't even start with the new-age meditation/self-hypnosis self-help books that you see on Amazon. Just don't even start. They're almost as bad as the definition thing.

 

I'm sure this linked in with what was below it, but let's just look at that comparison. From what I understand, hypnotic pain suppression involves hypnotising someone and then telling them that they hurt less. Note the first bit where you hypnotise them. At no point did I hypnotise myself when forcing.

 

This is entirely a matter of semantics. I don't agree with every definition of hypnosis out there, and frankly I don't think watching TV with a tulpa is really forcing -- that's why I worded my last post so carefully.

 

On the other hand, hypnosis does not require induction, deepening, swinging pocket watches, or spinning spirals. Hypnosis is about entering a suggestible state of mind and getting suggestions. And the suggestions don't need to be put into words. Visualization has long been a preferred form of hypnotic suggestion.

 

What you seem to be saying is that it's not hypnosis because nobody told you to visualize. That's like if you said it wasn't robbery because you just waved a gun and never actually told the teller to put the money in the bag. Visualization was suggestion enough.