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

[TehLandshark]

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.

I'm not a Buddhist, and I'm not extremely informed on the principles behind it, so I can't speak on that. I don't think that making a tulpa requires me to become a Buddhist, but I can see where you're coming from.

I just don't see the logical connection between "I'm convincing myself that it is conscious for the purpose of making it," and "It must be treated as being conscious." If someone thinks of a tulpa as conscious to make it and use it, why do they have to respect it?

I wouldn't expect the tulpa to make progress under harsh conditions, but the tulpamancer, if concerned only with the utility of having a tulpa, could shape it into a desired state by whatever means necessary and then proceed to abuse it. An "evil" tulpamancer wouldn't be concerned with development so much as using the tulpa as a tool.

It's fine, I just don't like being called a terrible human being is all.

[Linkzelda]

 

I just don't see the logical connection between "I'm convincing myself that it is conscious for the purpose of making it," and "It must be treated as being conscious." If someone thinks of a tulpa as conscious to make it and use it, why do they have to respect it?

 

Again, you're taking words too seriously, which is why you should relax your faith a bit on the confusion on why a person "must" treat the tulpa as conscious (maybe it's best to see it as treating them as sentient instead). If you can't see a logical connection, this is really a matter of engaging in more reflective endeavors. Like I've stated before, if you're confident in your ability to treat them with respect, then there's no need to worry, because it would be something you would naturally do.

 

But it seems as if it's a conflict for you to have a natural disposition to treat a part of yourself with respect. It's not really a difficult cognitive ability to process honestly, and if you read anything anyone has been stating, the treatment is done for the sake of building rapport in general. Maybe it's difficult for you to conceptualize that seeing how you're probably skeptical like many newcomers as to why one would need to go through the self-fulfilling prophecy of treating a tulpa as sentient entities that also may need time to develop as well.

 

 

Maybe you should answer these questions:

 

• Do I have to treat myself decently enough?
  
• Do I have to have be sociable with others that would be naturally inclined to help me throughout my life?
  
• Do I have to treat them as sentient?
  
• Do I have to be glad that I could be aware of what the mind can do overall for good in this?

 

 

It's kind of obvious on how you can arrive to a solution for that. And I feel there's something else bothering you, care to expound more on what may be adding on to the frustration?

[Guest Anonymous]

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/

 

Eh, the more you know.

 

There's a difference between potentially hedonistic selfishness vs. actually being able to build rapport with thought-forms for a myriad of reasons

 

Justify the initial creation of tulpas -- not what you do for them. Someone existing purely for one's self is selfish because the tulpa cannot choose otherwise. They are there for you because of you.

 

(e.g. self-actualization and fulfillment).

 

Do say.

 

This would raise the question on the activities one may do with thought-forms (every instance of them)

 

You treat them like a human. That's more than flexible.

 

in our natural sleep are acts of egocentric behavior.

 

What?

 

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.

 

It is a selfish act, not a selfish mindset/behavior.

 

Would you believe that if a person genuinely wants to be grateful of what their mind can do in relation to tulpas as selfish?

 

You can be grateful all you want. You still have someone bound to yourself with no choice in it.

 

If it's to the point where the person treats the tulpa like shit, or a sex slave, then that would be selfish behavior.

 

Yes, that's a behavior. Selfish behaviors are generally considered bad.

 

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.

 

Yes. If they're happy about everything that's great. Selfishness is fine in moderation. Remember, we're only human. Most tulpas are happy to be alive; happy their hosts made the decision to start this process. It doesn't change the fact the host indulged in himself for his own sake.

 

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.

 

It's the moral implications of playing god and creating things for one's self. Again, indulgence in moderation is completely fine. So long as both parties are happy in the end and enjoy it, there's truly nothing wrong with this. If things go awry, it's both tulpa and host's job to solve the issue.

 

Now cut me up, Jenny.

[TehLandshark]

I won't respond to most of this because just about everything that isn't about tulpa sex boils down to this: we treat them with the same respect because they are conscious. You also pretty much conceded that there is no proof available to someone who hasn't undergone this. So either A) I accept that all tulpas and like-human things are in fact conscious and that consciousness demands respect, or B) I don't. I'm going to go by the figment of your imagination theory for now.

When I force, I make that assumption and I tell myself before every forcing session that my tulpa is in fact conscious, but I know in the back of my head that any of my perceptions of them being conscious are the result of me telling myself over and over again. By merely seeing all of these people talk about their tulpas, I have enough proof that tulpas exist, at least in your mind, so I'm not letting my doubts about the actual nature of a tulpa stop me from making one.

 

Then change your profile age to undisclosed.

I thought I had already, I must not have hit save, or just plain switched to on from off when I mistakenly thought it was on by default. It's funny how much respect you gain in an instant by saying "over 18," like it legitimizes my claims or that I'm now automatically incorrect.

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

I... I don't... well... I'm just not gonna take a side on that.

---

 

Again, you're taking words too seriously, which is why you should relax your faith a bit on the confusion on why a person "must" treat the tulpa as conscious (maybe it's best to see it as treating them as sentient instead). If you can't see a logical connection, this is really a matter of engaging in more reflective endeavors. Like I've stated before, if you're confident in your ability to treat them with respect, then there's no need to worry, because it would be something you would naturally do.

 

But it seems as if it's a conflict for you to have a natural disposition to treat a part of yourself with respect. It's not really a difficult cognitive ability to process honestly, and if you read anything anyone has been stating, the treatment is done for the sake of building rapport in general. Maybe it's difficult for you to conceptualize that seeing how you're probably skeptical like many newcomers as to why one would need to go through the self-fulfilling prophecy of treating a tulpa as sentient entities that also may need time to develop as well.

 

 

Maybe you should answer these questions:

 

• Do I have to treat myself decently enough?
  
• Do I have to have be sociable with others that would be naturally inclined to help me throughout my life?
  
• Do I have to treat them as sentient?
  
• Do I have to be glad that I could be aware of what the mind can do overall for good in this?

I'm not skeptical of the ability to make a tulpa. I've seen many people make tulpas on these forums, I'm not close-minded to the point of assuming this is the greatest mass-troll in history. Nor am I skeptical of my own ability to create one. I personally don't care about whether tulpas are conscious are not, because I know that I can accomplish goals X Y and Z through making a tulpa and that making a tulpa is possible.

It's kind of obvious on how you can arrive to a solution for that. And I feel there's something else bothering you, care to expound more on what may be adding on to the frustration?

 

The only thing that frustrates me is that others blindly accept tulpas as human. Respecting them and assuming sentience seems to work for everyone else, so I'll do that for the sake of it being helpful. But when we start treating these... things, people, thoughtforms, whatever you want to call them, tulpas as if they are human, it's like devaluing humans themselves, at least in my mind, if that makes any sense whatsoever. If you believe that you have to treat other humans with respect, shouldn't we draw the line somewhere on what is and isn't human? And if you draw it at consciousness, then don't you want to be sure that it's conscious? From an objective standpoint, it seems to me like tulpamancers perceive the existence of a conscious tulpa because they desired it to be so. Having a tulpa that seems to be conscious doesn't mean it's conscious, it means that telling yourself 800 times that you have a conscious tulpa tends to make them seem pretty conscious.

I reread my own response up until now and I see what I'm doing. I'm contradicting myself, saying I can create a tulpa (implying that I assume sentience) while openly contradicting any evidence of their sentience. If this truly stops me from making a tulpa, then I guess I'm not ready for it or I'm too hard-wired to reject the possibility of it. But only time will tell. Maybe my tulpamancing (I'm assuming that's a word) adventures will lead me to an epiphany that they are indeed conscious, maybe not. Either way, my own journey towards tulpadom (I'm having too much fun with this now) is separate from my questioning on the forums.

[Viceroy]

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.

 

All that huh? I just thought it was nerdy and gross and that's where the thinking no longer had to continue

[soapjackal]

If we assume that your Tulpa is a part of your psyche and/or soul why would you commit negative actions toward yourself? That just seems like a bad idea.

[TehLandshark]

If we assume that your Tulpa is a part of your psyche and/or soul why would you commit negative actions toward yourself? That just seems like a bad idea.

 

First of all, although I haven't and never wish to try it, I would assume that if you created the tulpa specifically for that purpose, than you wouldn't feel pain or remorse by committing those actions. I might be wrong, but I'm not going to test the theory.

Second, even if it's a bad idea, isn't it that person's choice? Why is it morally wrong to hurt yourself?

[Linkzelda]

Justify the initial creation of tulpas -- not what you do for them. Someone existing purely for one's self is selfish because the tulpa cannot choose otherwise. They are there for you because of you.

 

Here are some approaches:

 

• Absolving yourself from antinatalistic philosophies on tulpas helps seeing how not doing so would contradict how people would subscribe to tulpas being a part of themselves. If there's actually implications of a negative value of their birth, especially if they're deemed as a part of yourself, it leads to internal conflict. I simply avoid situations and impasse philosophies like antinatilism (in this circumstance of the birth of tulpas).

 

 

• Absolve yourself from fatalistic philosophies of how tulpas are always going to be victims of the host's selfishness. Again, that leads to contradicting thinking that's already combined with the implied autonomous rationalization of tulpas. It's better to acknowledge the reality and move on instead of having existential questioning over the initial creation process.
  

 

 

 

You treat them like a human. That's more than flexible.

 

That’s understandable and obvious, but my response was in relation to how you felt there was no workaround through the process being a selfish act.

 

What?

 

Instead of stripping part of what I stated, maybe it’s best for me to post all of it:

 

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.

 

This shouldn’t be difficult to conceptualize. You made the claim that it’s difficult to work around how you feel it’s a selfish act in the first place. I was merely giving you a case where thought-forms in dreams would have to be questioned in that claim on whether or not they exist out of entrenched predispositions for selfishness (or egocentric behavior). I was really asking you on whether or not you feel everything in your dreams (thought-forms and all) are always derived from selfishness?

 

Either there’s some patchy hidden dualism you have implied in there, or maybe you feel acts of bettering one’s self through parts of themselves is selfish. It seems like a self-defeating logic to think that’s a bad thing (or even selfish).

 

It is a selfish act' date=' not a selfish mindset/behavior.[/quote']

 

You can be grateful all you want. You still have someone bound to yourself with no choice in it.

This is where the host and tulpa have to start acknowledging how to share a body then. If a person continues feeling the tulpa has no choice whatsoever, either the host doesn’t acknowledge how the tulpa would adapt to that reality, or something else entirely. I’m not trying to deny that tulpas would be bound by their hosts inevitably, I’m just stating why others attach themselves to the thought without learning how to relax their morals and ethics a bit.

 

Yes' date=' that's a behavior. Selfish behaviors are generally considered bad.[/quote']

 

The treatment of a tulpa as sentient would be in tandem with a mindset. “Treating” a tulpa as sentient is the same as behaving/going through the mannerisms of how one would conceptualize a sentient entity. And since you’ve made a distinction here:

It is a selfish act' date=' not a selfish mindset/behavior.[/quote']

 

I would like if you could expound on what you feel is the difference between behave vs. treat when they’re all part of the mindset most in this community subscribe to in the first place.

 

It doesn't change the fact the host indulged in himself for his own sake.

 

Again, this isn’t to deny, change, or give euphemistic assurance to distract from that reality. And seeing how you made a thread here (http://community.tulpa.info/thread-subselves ), I’m wondering on how you personally define a tulpa through an ontological standpoint. If there's anything one can deduce from that thread is that you probably felt them being a part of yourself wouldn't really lead to selfishness since it would be saying that you're selfish to your own self.

 

That logic is the epitome of self-hatred, and that's why I felt you were contradicting things a bit.

 

It's the moral implications of playing god and creating things for one's self. Again, indulgence in moderation is completely fine. So long as both parties are happy in the end and enjoy it, there's truly nothing wrong with this. If things go awry, it's both tulpa and host's job to solve the issue.

 

Alright, I really want to know the mélange of moral philosophies you’re using that would make you have a disposition like this. It sounds like fatalistic thinking along with antinatalism justifications of tulpas (e.g. how their existence in general is always going to be based on selfishness).

 

 

 

 

@TehLandshark, I do apologize if it seems if I was being negative towards you. It was fairly difficult for me to conjecture how you usually approach this situation, so thank you very for much for your openness to your situation.

 

Having a tulpa that seems to be conscious doesn't mean it's conscious' date=' it means that telling yourself 800 times that you have a conscious tulpa tends to make them seem pretty conscious.[/quote']

 

That’s the thing with the self-fulfilling prophecy of treating them as sentient beings from the start. Seeing how the community bases ontological presumptions on tulpas from that (to some extent), it’s really the best way (for now) to explain the concept. How one utilizes psychological standpoints to go beyond the workings behind the self-fulfilling prophecy and such is what this community is aiming for.

 

I completely empathize with you that the limited explanations can have others feel doubtful since that would lead to thoughts on whether or not tulpas are sophisticated hallucinations, delusions, and what have you. From experience, all I can tell you is that the things that’s happened with me, Eva, and Ada go beyond my level of understanding of how their existence came to be. It’s really a progressive learning curve to try and crack down ontological standpoints and predictive measures that can actually be proven.

 

But seeing how we’re far away from that reality, it’s really going by good faith with others, and trial and error. That’s what happens when there’s lack of assurance and credibility towards the tulpa phenomenon. But that’s the challenge for any phenomenology that seems illogical at first.

 

But when we start treating these... things, people, thought forms, whatever you want to call them, tulpas as if they are human, it's like devaluing humans themselves, at least in my mind, if that makes any sense whatsoever. If you believe that you have to treat other humans with respect, shouldn't we draw the line somewhere on what is and isn't human?

 

Another great question you’ve brought up, and I can definitely see why this adds on to your frustration. Yeah, when it comes to experiencing the phenomenon and how tulpas presumably utilizing pre-existing knowledge/memories/the totality of the confines of the host’s mind, it raises questions on the value of our existence that took a long and gradual experiential learning to develop.

 

And when there’s a concept like tulpa that can suddenly emulate qualities of a sentient entity, and one that can independently rationalize for that matter, it’s definitely going to defy and potentially devalue ontological explanations of human beings in general. Finding that line, or finding the deadlock is probably going to be one of many aspects the communal base is trying to discover.

 

If this truly stops me from making a tulpa, then I guess I'm not ready for it or I'm too hard-wired to reject the possibility of it. But only time will tell.

 

Having cognitive dissonance on validating a tulpa’s sentience from experiential cases and anecdotal evidence is common for others to deal with. But you were able to be reflective and realize you were contradicting yourself. But that’s good that you identify the flaw, and like you’ve stated, only time will tell.

 

Maybe my tulpamancing (I'm assuming that's a word) adventures will lead me to an epiphany that they are indeed conscious, maybe not.

 

I can’t give you scientific or solid proof of this, but from personal experience, you’ll eventually have many shifts in paradigms that would “validate” or “confirm” their sentience. Until that happens, you’ll just have to keep on trucking. That’s one of the most difficult parts in the initial stages: going through the mannerisms of treating them as sentient while practicing tulpa-related activities in development all for seeing if the breakthroughs will be experienced.

 

 

If we assume that your Tulpa is a part of your psyche and/or soul why would you commit negative actions toward yourself? That just seems like a bad idea.

 

That is the million dollar question.

[TehLandshark]

@TehLandshark, I do apologize if it seems if I was being negative towards you. It was fairly difficult for me to conjecture how you usually approach this situation, so thank you very for much for your openness to your situation.

 

 

That’s the thing with the self-fulfilling prophecy of treating them as sentient beings from the start. Seeing how the community bases ontological presumptions on tulpas from that (to some extent), it’s really the best way (for now) to explain the concept. How one utilizes psychological standpoints to go beyond the workings behind the self-fulfilling prophecy and such is what this community is aiming for.

 

I completely empathize with you that the limited explanations can have others feel doubtful since that would lead to thoughts on whether or not tulpas are sophisticated hallucinations, delusions, and what have you. From experience, all I can tell you is that the things that’s happened with me, Eva, and Ada go beyond my level of understanding of how their existence came to be. It’s really a progressive learning curve to try and crack down ontological standpoints and predictive measures that can actually be proven.

 

But seeing how we’re far away from that reality, it’s really going by good faith with others, and trial and error. That’s what happens when there’s lack of assurance and credibility towards the tulpa phenomenon. But that’s the challenge for any phenomenology that seems illogical at first.

 

 

Another great question you’ve brought up, and I can definitely see why this adds on to your frustration. Yeah, when it comes to experiencing the phenomenon and how tulpas presumably utilizing pre-existing knowledge/memories/the totality of the confines of the host’s mind, it raises questions on the value of our existence that took a long and gradual experiential learning to develop.

 

And when there’s a concept like tulpa that can suddenly emulate qualities of a sentient entity, and one that can independently rationalize for that matter, it’s definitely going to defy and potentially devalue ontological explanations of human beings in general. Finding that line, or finding the deadlock is probably going to be one of many aspects the communal base is trying to discover.

 

 

Having cognitive dissonance on validating a tulpa’s sentience from experiential cases and anecdotal evidence is common for others to deal with. But you were able to be reflective and realize you were contradicting yourself. But that’s good that you identify the flaw, and like you’ve stated, only time will tell.

 

 

I can’t give you scientific or solid proof of this, but from personal experience, you’ll eventually have many shifts in paradigms that would “validate” or “confirm” their sentience. Until that happens, you’ll just have to keep on trucking. That’s one of the most difficult parts in the initial stages: going through the mannerisms of treating them as sentient while practicing tulpa-related activities in development all for seeing if the breakthroughs will be experienced.

 

You've been anything but negative this whole time. I want to thank you for all of these new insights, but also to end this discussion. I'm thoroughly convinced that I can make a tulpa, but trying to argue or even understand the philosophy of this entire issue without having a significant amount of experience in creating and developing a tulpa seems pointless. I live in an entirely different world from just about anyone else in these forums. For now, I think I'm going to stick to the basics and ignore any doubts in the back of my mind. Again, thanks for answering my question properly and helping me wrap my head around this entire issue.

[Duvainor]

It doesn't matter if a tulpa is anything more than talking to yourself. It's wrong to treat them as unwilling sex slaves or to hurt them because it's wrong to do that to ANYTHING. Even a well-crafted allusion. Seek actual therapy if you find yourself wanting to murder or rape, for the good of society.