Where does a tulpas concept of right and wrong come from?

Recommended Posts

I'm new here although have lurked for a few years.


I have read a lot of scaremongering and misinformation about tulpas "going bad" if they are "mistreated". How much of this is legitimate?


Basically I want to create a female human-ish tulpa that is subservient to me, like a pet rather than an "equal". I'm sure many people would have a problem with that, so lets just side-step that issue since it is not what the question is about, I am simply giving context.


I cannot think of any reason why it would "go bad" since a tulpa is just a manifestation of my expectations and I see nothing wrong with what I am planning to do. But will it still somehow resent me and go bad even though I have not programmed that kind of morality into it so it? If so, where would those kinds of social justice sentiments be coming from if not from me?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider tulpas as conscient beings on the same level as humans.

If you have a child, and make a slave out of him from the very beginning, he won't grow resentful (the state of slavery being his normality, having known nothing else) UNTIL exposed to other things.

He may get angry if (or when) he discovers that it isn't normal, that it shouldn't be that way. When he'll be in contact with other people.

Now your tulpa could only get in contact with or get informations about other tulpas from this place (unless you have real tulpamancers friends).

As long as she doesn't realize the state she's in, there's no real reason for her to go rampant.

Now I have a huge moral problem with that, but I don't think I'll make you change your mind like that.

But be careful what you wish for, as the simplest mistake might give it all away, and since she's living in your head, don't forget the razor-wired walls.

As for the scaremongering, it's exactly that : stories to tell people to treat tulpas decently.

Some of these stories possibly aren't made up, but they all do serve an end, they're not just innocent testimonies.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want her to have human intelligence, or just humanoid form? Because we've discussed tulpa pets before. I don't think there's anything unethical about treating a dog the way I've treated my dogs, and I don't think there's anything unethical about treating a tulpa with the intelligence of a dog in the same way, regardless of her form.



Of course there's the possibility that you don't want to treat her quite the way that I'd treat a dog, hence the human form. This raises the question whether a being with the intelligence of a dog can "consent" to sex, which brings up a bunch of ethical issues that I'd rather not get into. And oh god why did I even bring this up?



But yeah, as you say, it should be all about your own expectations. Except that sometimes we have expectations that we're not aware we have.


As an example, when Shari Lewis appeared to testify before congress about violence in television, her sock puppet, Lamb Chop got permission to speak. I've heard that after Lamb Chop's speech, one of the congressmen asked Shari Lewis if she agreed with Lamb Chop. Reportedly it took him over a minute to figure out why everyone was laughing at him, and retract the question.


So here we have a grown man who not only doesn't believe in tulpas but has never even heard of them, who instinctively makes the assumption that a puppet is a different person than the puppeteer. And I'm sure if you asked the guy prior to the incident, he'd never in a thousand years have said that he'd treat a toy like a human being with its own thoughts and opinions -- and yet he did just that.


So yeah, be aware that you might have expectations that you're not aware of. Lamb Chop doesn't even look like a human, but the expectation of independence is there. And you're talking about something that does look like a human -- when you've spent your entire life associating the human form with independent creatures.


To give another example, I've heard that in the old wars many soldiers never actually fired their guns. Like, the American revolutionary and civil wars. In those days, guns were front-loaded, single-shot things. And guns were found after the battles that had been loaded six or seven times without being fired once.


The reason was that these soldiers had spent their entire lives equating the human form with human life, which was valuable and not to be taken away on a whim. In those days, soldiers were taught to shoot with big, round, bullseye targets, and if the enemy forces had been composed of big, round, bullseye-shaped beings, the wars might have gone completely differently.


These days, soldiers, as well as law enforcement, are taught to shoot at targets shaped like people, and the problem of soldiers who don't shoot has completely gone away.

But on the other side of that, FPS games are pretty much conditioning our children to shoot at the human form. And many people object to that. It's not that video games make children violent -- because they don't -- but it does make it easier for a kid who's already seriously mentally screwed up to shoot at something shaped like a person. But that's completely off the topic at hand.



I'm not trying to talk you out of this. Just understand that you may want to take some additional precautions. Perhaps self-hypnosis or something. And I hope that if you do this, you make a progress report, because I'd be really interested in seeing how this progresses.

"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR at the bottom:


Nature vs. nurture aside,


I feel a tulpa’s concept of right and wrong can be akin to how we develop our sense of right and wrong seeing how the whole experience is going on in our head and perception of reality. Though it’s a bit more complicated than that since I’m sure we can be aware of every single unconscious thought, habit, predisposition that ends up being something the validates our tulpa, their moral compass, etc.


Although there’s going to be controversy in how people assess relationships with their tulpa, it’s not like our opinions will somehow make a tulpa inherently perform worst case scenarios based on actions that may be questionable (e.g. using as sex slave, or whatever people feel is sick or disgusting).


The scaremongering and misinformation could be people that tried to do things that were incompatible with their moral blueprint, and they constantly had those values nagging in their minds, which probably led to all sorts of emotions and reactions to the point where it became a shitstorm.


I cannot think of any reason why it would "go bad" since a tulpa is just a manifestation of my expectations and I see nothing wrong with what I am planning to do. But will it still somehow resent me and go bad even though I have not programmed that kind of morality into it so it?


Well, that’s the thing about self-fulfilling prophecies being a double-edge sword; if you get a nagging feeling that something you’re doing in the tulpa creation and interaction is going to end up in a mess, you may start behaving in a way where you’re consistently sustaining those beliefs, even if you’re aware of it or not. And when you have the intention set on having them as a “pet,” it’s easy to see why people would see that as “bad.”


Maybe they feel actual pets in real life, despite their sentience, would be inferior to us (e.g. level of sapience, creativity, etc.), and to associate those predispositions with the concept of tulpa, some may feel that’s adding more salt to the moral wound.


This perception (from the last sentence) could be seen as egotistical depending on how someone reacts to it, kind of like a person making a video on YouTube of them helping a homeless person, only to state the homeless person was a paid actor, i.e., self-deception that makes them feel good rather than being truly altruistic.


This ends up in posturing, or misleading yourself into thinking you’re doing something right by clinging onto the “right” thing to do with tulpas based on people’s dogma created if you don’t follow their ideology (e.g. a person that feels a tulpa shouldn’t be used for x reason).


And it becomes doubly difficult when you realize that in some way, the initial stages with creating a tulpa, and hoping to interact with them would involve a self-fulfilling prophecy at some point (e.g. treating them as sentient, and knowing they would need time to develop those traits that may validate their sentience, sapience, etc.).


So then you’d have to question if a tulpa’s existence has a telos behind that, i.e., is there really an ultimate and inherent purpose(s) that a tulpa’s existence can do for their hosts (“do” as in anything we as humans would do with each other in gregarious activities)?


One may presume that if they gather societal implications on right and wrong on tulpas, and how tulpas may develop their own sense of right and wrong that there would be some experiences that could be inherent, but it’s not as if they’ll (the presumptions) have long-lasting value. In other words, it would be unlikely that there would be some phenomenon that would exist objectively with or without people’s subjective interpretations and experiences going on that validates certain actions, behaviors, and the overall being of a tulpa.


So those social justice sentiments, and wondering if your tulpa would react to those in a way to fulfill those presumptions really depends on a lot of factors that we probably aren’t aware of with great certainty other than clinging onto the beliefs we’re already accustomed to. Because if you’re willing to presume that part of a tulpa’s ontology, or sense of being is derived from your expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies, you’d have to start questioning if their existence ends up being a stretched out self-fulfilling prophecy for the rest of your life, or if they turn out to be someone beyond that spectrum of expectations.


This leads back to your query and concern of why a tulpa will “go” bad if their existence has a label on it that people would feel is inferior rather than “equal?” Well, those reasons why they may go bad is probably how both the host and tulpa react to the premises behind morals and ethics. If the host feels they’ll end up doing something bad because they didn’t conform to societal expectations of how one “ought” to exist with a tulpa, then self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g. behaving to be consistent with the negative doubting) may encroach into the psyche of their minds, and things start backfiring.


That same fixation on doubting makes them forget that as long as they can reciprocate in a positive and decent fashion with their tulpas just as they would to any other human being, or even pet in real life. So don’t take for granted of your ability to question why a tulpa would go haywire on you in the first place if one reason for that to occur is if the host, and even the tulpa start behaving in ways to be consistent to the negative thinking. It seems from your post that you already know how to treat someone with respect, be it them as a pet, or just another entity that could have just as much qualities of sentience as you have.


So then it comes down to existential questioning, and what it means to be a sentient entity, and what it means to exist:


- What does it mean for a tulpa to exist who was created from a totality of whatever goes on in the host’s mind?


- What does it mean for them to find meaning in their existence where their existence may not have a telos/ultimate and inherent purpose in the first place?


- What does it mean to be a certain label, or a certain selfhood for a tulpa, and even the host themselves?


- Does a cumulative totality from communities like this and others of what a tulpa “ought” to be, and what a host “ought” to do really have much weight in making the journey easier?


There’s more questions that can be formulated, but it’s really about how you want to assess those concerns. An example could be like the universe of Batman where one may presume the world (in that universe) will always be a shitty place. But the difference is how Batman, and for example, the Joker respond to that premise. We have Batman who creates his own brand of justice and being a vigilante of some sort while the Joker probably doesn’t consider being the totality of chaos and hell itself, because it’s either fun, or what he does doesn’t really matter in the end while ol’ batsy is probably creating a false sense of justice that wouldn’t have long-lasting value.


You don’t have to know the origins behind the presumption of a tulpa’s ability to create subjective meaning to gain solace of what to do with them. This is where things become more philosophical, and having an inquiring mind can help a lot in hopefully finding answers. But it becomes difficult where philosophical underpinnings on tulpas are so subjective that a person can go anywhere.


So it doesn’t really become a matter of worrying about social justice sentiments anymore. It’s really a matter of your own personal disposition of the whole journey itself, and whether or not you choose to fulfill and live out the subjective meanings you create along with your tulpa as well if you feel they can contribute to that (i.e., existentialism), even if those meanings may not have long-lasting value that can exist objectively.


This can create a sense of liberation, but also a nightmare for some who may not be able to process all that freedom that’s possible. Because then they’ll wonder if they’ll dive into the rabbit hole, and start doing things they’ll regret, and if it would affect their tulpa’s existence. But from personal experience, by the time your tulpa’s existence becomes so obvious to you, seeing a few nightmares, negative thoughts, or even social dogma doesn’t really mean they’ll start reformatting their existence, and potentially go haywire on you.




Even if people’s opinions on what one “ought” to do with a tulpa, and vice versa becomes equivalent to standards of PETA (or in this case, PETT; People for the Ethical Treatment of Tulpas), they shouldn’t really be an intimidation to you especially if you feel confident that you can reciprocate in a manner where your tulpa going batshit crazy on you is highly unlikely.


Although cumulative knowledge from societal implications of tulpas can be a nice medium to assess how to go about the journey, they’re merely supplements in creating your own subjective meaning with your tulpa. If you try to cling onto what’s right and wrong based on what communities state to you, you’ll be living with a lot of contradictions that would probably make things problematic for you.


So don’t take for granted of your confidence in reciprocating in a positive manner with your tulpa because it’s something people can overlook sometimes. It’s like thinking what appears to be subtle small talk with a person you meet ends up being something very important later on in their lives, or how they live out their lives.


Create your own subjective meaning with your tulpa, and just take societal views on morals and ethics on tulpas lightly. And if those views need to be a medium for you to create your own path, then feel free to do so as long as you don’t feel you’re obligated to fulfill them to completion for validating your life with your companion.

Share this post

Link to post
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.

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.