Why do you think it's morally wrong to do certain things to a tulpa?

[TehLandshark]

First of all, hello all, this is my first time on the forums here. I'm glad to meet everyone, and I plan on making my first progress report soon.

Next, I don't plan on doing many, if any of the things I state below. I'm merely trying to find what the philosophical backing is behind some of the thoughts people have on tulpae. I'm a very philosophical person, so this is more out of curiosity than actual desire to do anything I say below.

Every time I see "It's irresponsible of you to create a tulpa if..." or "Is it really moral to do that to another sentient being with their own feelings?" or things of that nature, I really wonder where the philosophical backing is. I'll quote Kiahdaj's guide a little since he seems to sum up very well many of these things I'm talking about (TL;DR of the questions I'm asking below):

"There are people running around in the tulpa community who make tulpas as sex slaves--or kill them off impulsively when they get bored, or they don't turn out exactly as they want. These kind of people absolutely disgust me. Some of them justify their actions based on the fact that there is no proof that they are actual living beings with feelings. How sick can you get? They are perfectly fine with "killing" something, because there's a chance that they might not be alive.

If you are the kind of person who is capable of that, walk away now. I don't want to see you anywhere near this community."

> So the assumption here is that it's bad to make a tulpa a sex slave or kill them because they might be alive. Why do we have to assume that they are living beings and feel bad about doing bad things to them without some sort of proof? Why do we have to give them the benefit of the doubt? Even if they are living beings, why do we need to treat them with respect and dignity? Where do they derive this right to be treated decently from?

"There is no excuse to kill off your tulpa. I don't care if you get bored, or they don't interest you anymore. You sign up for this responsibility as soon as you start making a tulpa. When you do, you need to see it to the end. Otherwise, you're just like the people I just mentioned before.

Beyond whether you as a person are mature enough to make a tulpa, you should only do it for the right reason. Here are some reasons that are not good enough to create a tulpa, that I've seen a lot."

> I signed up for a responsibility? How does making a tulpa mean that I have to see it through until the day that I die? Why does the tulpa have a right to life?

"You should not create a tulpa specifically for their form. This mainly applies to those of you who are fangirls about something. Creating a tulpa specifically so that you can stare at your favorite anime character, or Twilight Sparkle in real life is unbelievably shallow. A tulpa is not their form, and they should not be treated as such. How would you feel if you found out that you were created just because your creator liked someone else a lot?"

> Why can't I create a tulpa for its form? Why do I just have to assume all of these things about the tulpa, all of these rights it has and how terrible it must be to have some reason for creating it? If someone wants to go and make the 80th Twilight Sparkle or their anime character, isn't that their decision, not yours? Why must we assume that the tulpa is anything more than a figment of our imagination?

Also, to answer his question, I wouldn't really care, to be quite honest. If I was a tulpa and I got to be a pony or a cool anime character, I would just accept that and get on with my life of being trapped inside someone else's mind. Which brings up another point: When you create a tulpa, going under the assumption that it is its own being, aren't you essentially damning a soul to living an existence trapped in another world someone else created for them that they can't escape from, thus rendering them a slave? Would it not then be immoral just to create a tulpa?

"Similar to not creating a tulpa for their form, you should not create a tulpa for the sole purpose of having sex with it. I mean really. Just how pathetic can you possibly get? I'm not necessarily against tulpa-sex in general, but creating one just because you don't have any game in real life, or because you want to have sex with a pony is too sad for words. Imagine how that would make them feel. Knowing that they were only created as a sex doll."

> So this is basically saying don't have any sexual fantasies because that makes you sad beyond words, and it again assumes that they have feelings. I just don't even feel like dealing with this right now.

"To branch off of the above reason, you should not create a tulpa to be used as a tool of any kind. That includes as a sex slave. Furthermore, they should not be created just because you need help with your homework. Tulpas can help you in a lot of ways, and they probably will--but creating one only because you want them to do things for you is horrible. That reason does not make for strong bonding. Living beings are not tools. Don't be selfish."

> Selfish? Isn't the entire purpose of creating a tulpa for self-gain? Other people around you don't get anything out of it. The tulpa itself wouldn't even exist without you creating it. How is having a practical reason for creating a tulpa wrong?

"You should not create a tulpa just because it sounds cool, and you have nothing better to do. Like I said before, this is a very serious thing--it is not to be taken lightly. If you do something because you're bored, then that means you must not have thought it over well enough."

> If you're bored, have nothing to better to do, and think it sounds cool, how is that a reason not to create a tulpa? If I can't have a practical reason but I can't create a tulpa for no reason at all, what the hell is the point? Why doesn't everything have to be deemed immoral and everyone thinking of doing these practices shamed?

 

"If you do decide to do this even after thinking hard about it, just make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. You need to see this through to the end, and treat your tulpa with all the love and respect that you can. I don't care if you think tulpas aren't separate beings or not. You should give them the benefit of the doubt.

You need to know that you're capable of giving them the time they need. You need to know that you have the patience to wait for their development, even if it takes a lot longer than you thought it would.

 

So now you need to make the decision. If you decide that you're not mature enough, and or you can't handle it, then I respect that greatly.

If you decide that you can do it... Well then, good luck to you.

I hope you know yourself well enough."

> You don't care what we think? Our capacity for reason doesn't matter, the fact that there is no evidence to support tulpas being a separate being or having some set of inalienable rights doesn't matter, but only what you think does?

TL;DR Why do we have to give tulpas the benefit of the doubt that they are their own separate beings? Even if we do, why do tulpas have rights, and why shouldn't we violate them? Why does it only matter what you think (Kiahdaj)? Why do you need to call it sick, or disgusting, or sad to make a tulpa for this or that reason at every opportunity?

 

Don't get me wrong. I would never create a tulpa as a sex slave, or to be used as a tool, or just because I was bored, or just because I wanted to make an anime character come to life. I highly doubt I will "kill" my tulpa even if I get sick of it. But when you start making assumptions about the nature of tulpas, the morality of doing things to tulpas, promoting your way of thought as the only valid option and then proceed to write in a manner that just shames anyone even thinking of disagreeing with you, it makes me wonder if all of this effort into being Mr. Nice Guy with my tulpa even matters.

[Kraph]

There's the point : if you don't think of tulpas as conscious life forms that deserve to be treated as such (with care and respect), don't make one. Damn, you'd be a terrible human being.

On a completely unrelated topic, how old are you ?

[Linkzelda]

Not going to respond to the experiential case for you, but as for the question of the thread:

 

I honestly feel that how others respond to individuals treating their tulpas as magnifying one subtle action into them potentially becoming innate psychopaths/sociopaths that have no conscience. Especially if they subscribe to the belief that tulpas are part of themselves, it seems to be self-stultifying for others to start raising their morality picket signs and shun down others that are really just hurting themselves.

 

And I think part of that morality naivete and the panglossian philosophies is due to where the person started in their journey. For me, if I didn’t have some experience over the 3 years or so with lucid dreaming attempts beforehand, I would probably be conflicted with morals as well. A rudiment people should have in mind is that as long as the person isn’t going to do something that would lead them into a high state of psychosis, or some psychological ailment that prevents them from distinguishing reality and such, there’s not really a “limit” a person should abide to.

 

And seeing how most may intend to live with their tulpas for long term, most of those moral and ethical constraints may end up in self-sabotaging behavior, which really defeats the purpose of why one would want a tulpa in the first place. And if you take into consideration of the young age group this forum has in general, I highly doubt anyone would consistently be able to strip their conscience so much to lead into that worst case scenario.

 

Whether it’s sex, or even wanting to get into a relationship, it’s what the person and their tulpa decide to do that matters in the end, especially since it’s a personal conceptual experiential endeavor. If they end up on the wrong side of the spectrum, and can’t salvage whatever chance of saving themselves, that’s their issue. This is why others should get into concepts like lucid dreaming more, because they’ll start seeing those same morality crisis pop up in their dreams more frequently compared to the waking life tulpa creation process.

 

At some point, they would develop some competence that they’ll just have to bend their morals and ethical approaches for the sake of flourishing and functionality. But if they start making tulpas with naïve and generic moralities, they’re really just causing an inner war (or leading to one) with themselves. But that’s what you get when you’re part of a community where people think going through psychosomatic experiences of kissing or having sex with one’s tulpa automatically labels them as sex slaves.

 

Just don’t revel in the Internet sensationalism, and understand that even if one did go through processes to militantly damage themselves, it would be their problem, and not ours. We can always try to inform others to heavily think about what they're going to do, but other than that, what's "morally wrong" is a matter of disposition.

[TehLandshark]

There's the point : if you don't think of tulpas as conscious life forms that deserve to be treated as such (with care and respect), don't make one. Damn, you'd be a terrible human being.

On a completely unrelated topic, how old are you ?

 

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I'm going to treat it with respect and what not, I'm just asking for either A) the proof that they are conscious life forms, or B) the philosophical background as to why I have to treat them with respect regardless. I have my reasons for creating one, and thinking of them as conscious life forms and respecting them seems to work out for everyone else, so I'm going to do that. I'm just asking for someone to answer my question.

There's no reason to call me a terrible human being over something like this.

I'm not going to reveal my age, simply because I don't do that online. I will tell you that I'm over 18, but I'm not going farther than that.

---

words words words

 

So in your view, if you ignore the theories behind tulpae being their own separate entities with consciousnesses and feelings, the only moral issues to consider are whether you are harming yourself and your own personal views? That's what I seemed to get out of it, correct me if I'm wrong.

I can definitely agree with that. I have my reasons for making a tulpa, and I'm going to treat her with the respect that others do simply because it seems to work for them, but I just can't comprehend why some people seem to have this attitude that anyone who goes against the community's conceptions of morality and the nature of tulpae to be "disgusting" or "sad beyond words". I haven't been in this community for very long at all, and I may have misjudged the community at large due to the guide I was directed to. I just wanted to see what opinions people really have on the issue, thanks for the honest well thought-out response.

[Linkzelda]

So in your view, if you ignore the theories behind tulpae being their own separate entities with consciousnesses and feelings, the only moral issues to consider are whether you are harming yourself and your own personal views? That's what I seemed to get out of it, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Woah, let’s backtrack and re-read what I posted. What I was getting at was ignoring the constant spewing of individuals that negatively slam their moralities at you, and automatically shut you down for your actions. My post had no remnant to suggest that one should absolve themselves from seeing tulpas as “separate entities,” or anything of that nature.

 

When I stated “harming yourself,” or having an internal war with yourself, that’s including you and whatever thought-forms you decide to engage and interact with. Maybe you were aware of this, but I just wanted to get that point clear just in case.

 

But I just can't comprehend why some people seem to have this attitude that anyone who goes against the community's conceptions of morality and the nature of tulpae to be "disgusting" or "sad beyond words".

 

Those individuals most likely have their tulpas somewhere along the line of logic when they declare things like that. Especially when their tulpas would generally have little experiential learning in their own existence that they themselves would go through a huge learning curve (i.e. using pre-existent knowledge/experiences/etc. from the host) with the implications of independent rationalization, and other qualities of cognition in general.

 

So people who state things negatively on morality most likely need to re-assess their values to reduce cognitive dissonance between what’s pragmatic for flourishing and functionality vs. what’s clearly a spiraling descent towards damaging lifestyles.

 

I haven't been in this community for very long at all, and I may have misjudged the community at large due to the guide I was directed to. I just wanted to see what opinions people really have on the issue, thanks for the honest well thought-out response.

 

I’m curious to know which experiential cases of others having negative attitudes towards morals and ethics on tulpas. I could imagine that if you looked at older threads and guides since the forum started, there would be a lot of negative front loading, but the current state of the forum, I think people are gradually wising up now.

 

Of course, there's always those elitists that still exist that will never broaden their competence on things like that, and those are just the ones you want to avoid. Especially ones with delusions of grandeur, and never seem to realize how their tulpas may very well be defending their egos when they see a conceptual framework that isn't compatible with their belief systems. And those individuals probably lack the competence to see that their declarations to others are often negative and emulate qualities of what would be a sociopath (or just a troll).

 

It's when they realize newcomers, or people just starting the process, have a hard time conceptualizing the tulpa phenomenon because they're doing a comparative analysis with conflicting beliefs. Either way, creating your own subjective standards with your tulpa is inevitable at some point, so just take what everyone says with a grain of salt.

 

If you're positive on your capability to treat your tulpa well, you don't need to worry about the dispositions of others too much. Those individuals will either wise up, or just live a contradicting lifestyle.

[Kraph]

I wasn't giving you actual advice as you made a clear point in your post, that was simple hypothesis and a neutral "you".

What I meant was you can't assume something isn't a living being until clear proof of it, the Valladolid debate alone says enough.

Tulpamancy emerged from budhism and, while it evolved in a different direction, i consider some principles still apply.

Furthermore, if the tulpamancer creates something he considers as a conscious being, he has responsibility over it. That means he has to treat it as well as he would treat any other living creature.

And I don't expect a tulpa to make progress easily if put under extreme stress, suffering or any related oppression.

 

My point was, if you consider hurting it or using it in wrong ways, you don't have to make one. What would be the point ?

 

Anyway, sorry if I seemed offensive and/or aggressive, I didn't mean to.

[TehLandshark]

 

Woah, let’s backtrack and re-read what I posted. What I was getting at was ignoring the constant spewing of individuals that negatively slam their moralities at you, and automatically shut you down for your actions. My post had no remnant to suggest that one should absolve themselves from seeing tulpas as “separate entities,” or anything of that nature.

 

When I stated “harming yourself,” or having an internal war with yourself, that’s including you and whatever thought-forms you decide to engage and interact with. Maybe you were aware of this, but I just wanted to get that point clear just in case...

 

Yeah, I got that, I just misworded my response. I was just saying that those are the only moral issues you have to consider other than those relevant to the concept of the tulpa being its own entity.

[Linkzelda]

Ah okay then, thanks for clarifying that, and I hope things go well for you if you choose to continue the process, TehLandshark.

[Guest Anonymous]

> So the assumption here is that it's bad to make a tulpa a sex slave or kill them because they might be alive. Why do we have to assume that they are living beings and feel bad about doing bad things to them without some sort of proof? Why do we have to give them the benefit of the doubt? Even if they are living beings, why do we need to treat them with respect and dignity? Where do they derive this right to be treated decently from?

 

To start, killing a tulpa is symbolism. Dissipation is the act of them degrading in a sense. The host isn't giving them enough attention and can essentially fade out, be forgotten. The tulpa isn't dead, more so inactive. The physical killing of a tulpa is again, symbolism. It's because the host wanted to visualize death. It is intentional. Intentional killing of things tends to be viewed poorly from where I'm from.

 

Proof? In a philosophical argument? Hahaha. Good luck. The benefit of the doubt now, here's the kicker: tulpas can exhibit introspection. Independent ones at least. From what I understand, humans are the only creatures known to do so. If something has humanistic characteristics, conscious thought, feelings, does it not deserve the right to live, the right to dignity? I think so.

 

Since I'm mentioning consciousnesses, don't try on getting me to prove them. The solipsist in me will say otherwise.

 

> I signed up for a responsibility? How does making a tulpa mean that I have to see it through until the day that I die? Why does the tulpa have a right to life?

 

Again, consciousness. Responsibility comes in 'cause you started it. You are accountable for what you do. Culturally that's what happens. Though, all culture is assumed.

 

> Why can't I create a tulpa for its form? Why do I just have to assume all of these things about the tulpa, all of these rights it has and how terrible it must be to have some reason for creating it? If someone wants to go and make the 80th Twilight Sparkle or their anime character, isn't that their decision, not yours? Why must we assume that the tulpa is anything more than a figment of our imagination?

Also, to answer his question, I wouldn't really care, to be quite honest. If I was a tulpa and I got to be a pony or a cool anime character, I would just accept that and get on with my life of being trapped inside someone else's mind. Which brings up another point: When you create a tulpa, going under the assumption that it is its own being, aren't you essentially damning a soul to living an existence trapped in another world someone else created for them that they can't escape from, thus rendering them a slave? Would it not then be immoral just to create a tulpa?

 

This is less philosophical and more so it helps the tulpa progress. If you want a piss-poor sex slave, let your pants decide on what your tulpa looks like. If you want to have a meaningful relationship, take the advice.

 

Figment of imagination... to start, that mindset is counterproductive. Placebo affects tuppers heavily at the start. Look at those hour counts that every newfag seems to despise. If you think a tulpa is a seperate consciousness, they're seemingly more inclined to act like one. If you truly believe they're "just" delusions, they will be. Independence will be harder to develop.

 

Or so I've witnessed.

 

And yes, making a tulpa is a selfish thing. There's no way around it.

 

> So this is basically saying don't have any sexual fantasies because that makes you sad beyond words, and it again assumes that they have feelings. I just don't even feel like dealing with this right now.

 

Tulpa sex is fine. Sexual fantasies are fine so long as both parties are consenting. Don't post about it on the internet because it makes this site look even more ridiculous.

 

Really, that's all we're asking.

 

> Selfish? Isn't the entire purpose of creating a tulpa for self-gain? Other people around you don't get anything out of it. The tulpa itself wouldn't even exist without you creating it. How is having a practical reason for creating a tulpa wrong?

 

Again, there's no way around the selfishness. Though let's be honest, most tuppers are spoiled beyond belief. They can be gods of the internal wonderland if they wish it. Some food for thought.

 

> If you're bored, have nothing to better to do, and think it sounds cool, how is that a reason not to create a tulpa? If I can't have a practical reason but I can't create a tulpa for no reason at all, what the hell is the point? Why doesn't everything have to be deemed immoral and everyone thinking of doing these practices shamed?

 

A lot of this comes from the site wanting you to actually go through with the process. Those that come in to this for the hell of it tend to drop out quickly once they find out this isn't something that will give them instant gratification. You have to work for a tulpa.

 

> You don't care what we think? Our capacity for reason doesn't matter, the fact that there is no evidence to support tulpas being a separate being or having some set of inalienable rights doesn't matter, but only what you think does?

TL;DR Why do we have to give tulpas the benefit of the doubt that they are their own separate beings? Even if we do, why do tulpas have rights, and why shouldn't we violate them? Why does it only matter what you think (Kiahdaj)? Why do you need to call it sick, or disgusting, or sad to make a tulpa for this or that reason at every opportunity?

 

Why do we give them the benefit of the doubt? Because you give every other human the same benefit and tulpas act like humans. Naturally the morals you follow with humans drift over.

 

For why we call things sick and disgusting when we can? Because this site strives to be science bound. It's damn hard to be taken seriously when you have genderfluid quadsexual twenty tulpa strong twelve year olds discussing how they're performing fellatio with their Rainbow Dash.

 

We look bad enough as is. Bashing out the explicit is because we don't want to look worse.

 

I will tell you that I'm over 18, but I'm not going farther than that.

 

Then change your profile age to undisclosed.

 

Also, here's a tip: The correct pluralization of tulpa is with an 's'. Get off the 'ae' bandwagon. Else, welcome to the site.

[Linkzelda]

From what I understand, humans are the only creatures known to do so.

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403141442.htm

 

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/660

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1861845/

 

 

 

And yes, making a tulpa is a selfish thing. There's no way around it.....

 

Again, there's no way around the selfishness. Though let's be honest, most tuppers are spoiled beyond belief. They can be gods of the internal wonderland if they wish it. Some food for thought.

 

There's a difference between potentially hedonistic selfishness vs. actually being able to build rapport with thought-forms for a myriad of reasons (e.g. self-actualization and fulfillment). This would raise the question on the activities one may do with thought-forms (every instance of them) in our natural sleep are acts of egocentric behavior. Selfishness, egocentric, narcissistic, and other self-glorifying ideologies and psychological predispositions usually ends up with the person warping their reality if there's someone that may challenge their upbringing and conceptual frameworks. And also not being considerate or thoughtful of others they're interacting with.

 

One could argue on how it would be kind of contradicting for people to presume every instance of the tulpa creation process leads to selfishness. Would you believe that if a person genuinely wants to be grateful of what their mind can do in relation to tulpas as selfish? If it's to the point where the person treats the tulpa like shit, or a sex slave, then that would be selfish behavior. But if it's the case where they treat them with respect and gather vicarious insight from their tulpas, I wouldn't think that's selfish. That's just being proficient in being aware of the entrenched capabilities of the mind for implicit knowledge, and the natural desire for self-sufficiency through parts of themselves/manifold personalities/or whatever terminology people usually subscribe to in ontological presumptions of tulpas.

 

It's like saying the intrinsic abilities of the mind for overall good and utilizing those abilities are selfish. If there's really no way around from seeing that distinction, then maybe it's another deadlock the community needs to reassess and conquer.