Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa

[Guest Anonymous]

Not every thread I write is about your impression and opinion of me, yet you turn them that way. That was my point in this and everyone can see it. You do the same thing to AGGuy. I really wish you could stay on topic and not turn every one of my threads into a veiled critique of Mistgod and me and an implication that I am not qualified to be a tulpa.

 

We get it Iscariot. Thanks.

[J.Iscariot]

If this is not pure antagonization and turning people against a specific figure for holding a different opinion than yours and you getting hurt over it, I don't know what it is, despite me staying respectful at each and every instance of our encounters. Even after your hateful PM and consistent implications over what I am and am not doing because of your natural bias over people 'wanting' to target you as if it was anything glorified.

 

Let's make this clear, Mel. I am going to write this in big letters.

 

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. I DO NOT CARE IF YOU ARE A TULPA OR A DELUSION. THAT IS THE LEAST OF MY CONCERNS. ADDITIONALLY, THE FORUM IS NOT ABOUT YOU AND EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD TAKE TO HEART.

 

You could be a butterfly and I could not care less. You always take shit on a personal level and it ends up hurting you. But hey, what do I know?

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, then stop talking about me then in my threads and implying I am a not legitmate.  I don't do that with you.  I make no statements about your tulpa in any way, implied or explicit.  You are doing that about AGGuy and me.  Your opinion, worked into every thread, is that we are somehow coming in and "trying to join the club" where we don't belong.  If you didn't care, you would not make those snide-snobbish remarks.  It IS elitism, and it is a overtone to your responses to my threads or we would not even be having this conversation.  Why just you Iscariot? Other disagree with me all the time.  Why do I get those impressions from your responses and not theirs?  Why are you discounting the fact that others are recognizing what you are doing?

 

I don't believe that anyone here aside from Melian comes on the forums to actively discuss the classification of tulpas and putting all thoughtforms, ranging from roleplaying to actual 'tulpas' under a specific criteria, on an equal level.

 

"on an equal level"  See?  You have classified me as "not a tulpa" in the past because I do not claim independent sentience but rather blend with my host.  Then once categorized by you as some other kind of thoughtform, you imply as such I am not as equal to a tulpa.

 

Not everyone is equal. ...People are turning terminologies to their own benefit and advantage because it makes them feel squishy inside.  I can tell you, with a straight face, that most people here do not have a tulpa.

 

Again, you state not everyone is "equal."  There is no way you can possibly know who has a tulpa and who doesn't or the quality of the thoughtform in their mind compared to yours.  These statement is arrogant as hell.  

 

The entire damn issue here is that people get hurt over other people having different opinions. I'm known for being a 'smug elitist' but I always, always specified that my opinion was simply my opinion. It qualifies me and my tulpa, and possibly people who adhere with it.

 

Yesh you are only stating an opinion.  You say your opinions "qualify" you and your tulpa "and those who adhere with it." Yes, as a higher quality, and at the expense of others.  You put me down implicitly by doing so.  First, to you, I am not a tulpa, then I am not of the same quality as what you got in yer head.  How do you know?  You can't see in my hostie's head.  You have no idea of my "quality."

 

If this is not pure antagonization and turning people against a specific figure for holding a different opinion than yours and you getting hurt over it, I don't know what it is, despite me staying respectful at each and every instance of our encounters.

 

But you haven't been respectful, you have been condescending and dismissive and judgmental.

 

Sentience isn't something you can characterize to your own liking just because you want to join that club.

 

I am not trying to "join a club" and my host and I have explained that I do have a form of shared sentience with him.  I don't see why we cannot describe our own experience and why it should be dismissed with disdain by the likes of you.  You cannot know what is in our mind and the quality of it.  Only my host and I  can do that.  I am a legitimate and valid member of this "club" already, thank you very much.

 

I always disliked the boldness in 'pseudo-reality' because I know how the term 'pseudo' can take off the credibility from, well, anything. (e.g pseudo-intellectualism, pseudo-reality and the french for 'pseudonyme' online which is somewhat of a fake identity in some communities... see? fake). Regardless of what you actually 'mean' with those connotations, it's extremely annoying to see shit like that...

 

This statement is quoted from my thread about types of tulpas (real sentience and illusory/delusion) and was totally off topic. The OP never mentioned pseudo-reality.  Your response was a reference to my personal beliefs, not to the OP.  It was a statement aimed directly at my host and I who have written extensively about our concept of pseduo-reality.  I had nothing to do with the OP.  It is perfect example of the kinds of things you were writing.

 

All in all, I think tulpas are one thing, and other things are other things. Don't lose too much sleep over that, though. I know it's rude but it's shitty that we have to make 'two types of tulpas' just because some people want to fit in and belong and be part of this community.

 

Again, this was from my two types of tulpas thread and is totally off topic.  It is implying that I, as the author of the thread, am "trying to fit in."  I already fit in, thank you very much.

 

It's just dividing things more and more to the point that it's not one thing anymore, but two or more just because some people want to 'belong'. ... it's like a kid asking to be part of a clique or something just because he finds it cool and wants to belong and in some ways maybe maybe he thinks that he's uncool and that nothing else characterizes him

 

Again the elitist "you are just wanting to join our exclusive group" rhetoric.  

 

I won't be as kind as to claim that there is a middle ground. To me, the picture is purely black and white, while it sounds elitist as shit from me... there is sentience and there is pure self-deception. Tulpamancy can be a thing but the number of tulpas that could hold their own weight as PEOPLE (and I very deeply respect them) is very small.

 

How in hell do you know that?  Again, you just can't.  You are being elitist.  You even admit it yourself.

 

Correction: you do not know what a tulpa is. I feel like I know what a tulpa is considering I have been studying them for years in such an exclusive manner that I also happen to have some papers in real life that convinced me that my tulpa had an actual basis in reality and that she was simply not fake...

 

I don't know what a tulpa is, but you do?  You have done greater studies on it than I have in an "exclusive manner?"  I don't know, but this really does comes off to me that I am "fake" while your tulpa is not fake.  Your "papers" from your tests apparently prove that somehow.

 

... we obviously disagree on what tulpas are and how some thoughtforms may or may not be classified as tulpas under the pretense of 'equality'

 

Again, these statements concerning "equality" come after implying I am a thoughtform other than a tulpa, and that I do not know what a tulpa is.    It is prejudice and disdainful elitism on your part.

 

 

You're literally the only person always discussing about sentience and 'pseudo-sentience', and as someone who sees in black and white, it makes very little sense as to why anyone would even employ that term, because apparent sentience, while it can be classified as 'pseudo-sentience' is not actual sentience and serves very few purposes aside from, what, entertaining the host or making him feel all smooth inside. (not talking about you or anyone on the forums with this last statement)

 

I love how you dismiss my host's beliefs as only "entertaining the host and making him feel all smooth inside" only to immediately try to pass it off as something other than a personal attack. Disagreeing with the concept of pseudo-real is okay, but the personal attack was not.  OH and by the way, I have never used the term "pseudo-sentients."  You are misinterpreting my category of existence that my host and I call "pseudo-real," which as nothing, NOTHING, to do with sentience.  

 

 

...daemons have their own term, don't they? Daemons have their own definition and term. Soulbond have their own definition and term, median systems also do that, plurality, headmates, etc.... the whole bias I hold is because I absolutely hate it when plurals try to stick their own definitions in our faces, because I regard myself as non-plural. I don't 'hate it' that Melian has an opinion and wants to share it (and it has some good points, too, not that I am 100% contrarian), I hate it that a term has to bend down because, with no offense to ANYONE, it HAS to make people happy.

 

Okay here you are just being bigoted.  You know that my host and I use the plural qualifiers "median system" and "blended."  You also know that many people in the community identify as plurals with mixed systems of different types of thoughtforms (soulbonds, daemons and tulpas).  Here you are quite clearly dismissing anyone who identifies as a plural or a tulpa with plural traits as doing so just because they want to "be happy," and not because they actually ARE experiencing plurality. You are making an arrogant assumption that what you have in your mind is righteous and what others have is somehow invalid or not credible.  It is elitist and making a lot of assumptions about what is in another person's mind.

 

This implies that they're not actually tulpas, because, well, a tulpa is apparently a sentient, autonomous thinking entity in one's mind. If you have something that 'appears' to be just that but in reality is just deception and delusion, then it isn't a tulpa.

 

Well this here really is your opinion, but it is terribly biased.  It dismisses all tulpamancers who consider their tulpas to be illusory apparent sentience as invalid and "not a tulpa."  It may be your privilege to have this opinion, but it is another example of why I am saying you think like an elitist.  The definition of a tulpa is still subject to debate in this community and certainly is not as nailed down as you are implying here.  Couple that with your statements that thoughtforms other than tulpas are not equal to a tulpas, it is kinda insulting to a lot of people.

 

I would say that I can recognize a tulpa if any came in a 10 miles reach. Seriously, though, I believe that I am qualified enough ...

 

Really?  I am not even going to address this one.

 

If you're forcing people to just fall under your own version of tulpamancy because you can't stand being set aside because your host has a different version of tulpamancy overall...

 

I am not being set aside at all.  You would like that to be true, but it isn't.  My host and I have views on tulpamancy that are every bit as valid and plausible as yours.  

 

Truth is that you only made this thread to reaffirm the belief in your head that you could actually 'belong' on this site....

 

But I do belong on this site as much as you.  I am not doing anything but asking a questions and looking for discussion.  It is you who is trying to decide who belongs and who doesn't, which has nothing to do with the OP and is kinda being an elitist know it all.  Here read the note I made for elitists again and contemplate how you cannot know what is going on in another's mind.  You need to read it again:  https://community.tulpa.info/thread-groovy-guru-stuff-epic-blabby-babble?pid=158179#pid158179

 

The more stuff I see being posted in this community, the further it drives me from wanting to be a part of it, because apparently, people who express opinions such as mine are to be shunned away under the pretense of being 'elitists' because they fail to conform to the huge hugbox you want this entire thing to be.  

 

Yesh, I call out elitist snobbery when I see it.  I am proud to have driven a few of them off the board.  

 

You were right, partly, because what outraged me at first was the fact that we had to transform this entire thing to something people like you would like and feel comfortable with; the people who could not fit in...

 

I fit in just fine.  There is nothing in my OP that has anything to do with trying to fit in.  Where was all that in my OP?  What the hell are you talking about?  I was asking a simple question, Could there be illusionary/self delusion tulpas AND truly sentient tulpas in the community at the same time?

 

A tulpa is an entity that is sentient, autonomous and capable of thought and emotions. Apparent tulpas are not actual tulpas just because they seem to be sentient IF they are not sentient, that should not be changed just because Melian from melian-community wants to change stuff to her likes ...

 

But the "official definition" in the forum's glossary does not say that tulpas are truly sentient.  In fact, it says that it hasn't yet been proven that they are.  The definition is ambiguous enough to allow for illusory/self delusions to be tulpas.  So I am not changing anything!  That was never the point of my OP at all anyway.  I never said explicitly that I want a definition changed.  I just simply asked a question for discussion.  I don't even know the answer to the question myself.  It is just a question.  I am sorry if my questioning was super scary to you on a "science discussion" board.  You are treating it much more like a religion the way you are reacting.

 

But apparently I am imagining that he is being an elitist and I am only picking him.

 

OH WAIT, there is MORE!  

 

I come from a very specific mindset that the term plurality, while it can embody positiveness and self-empowerment, is generally a detriment to mental health. The way I personally regard it, plurality is in a lot of cases the result of trauma, the effect of abuse, domestic violence that people went through, a very strong reaction to their dissociation of their sense of self. ...Regardless of what headmates, soulbonds and daemons actually are, it wouldn't feel right for me to compare them to tulpas (not on the level of capacities or 'hurr tulpas are cool im so elite') because tulpas are the product of a conscious act full of efforts, planning and responsible decision-taking. ....To me, an individual cannot be plural. That in itself is a contradiction. I refuse terms like 'double' 'singlet' and even 'system'. To each their own, though.

 

So plurals have mental problems as a result of trauma.  So anyone who has a plural system, or a plural system with a tulpa is invalid somehow apparently.  He dismisses plurality terms and so invalidates and discredits thoughtforms such as myself who have traits of plurality. He does have the right to this opinion, but it is an elitist opinion.

 

You don't understand, Melian. You're regarding this as something you can totes talk about, but it's like blogging about an actual person... a high school girl with a crush on some football team leader will blog about it, sure, but only for so long. People here don't tend to associate their tulpas with this site, they don't have 5 threads and don't feel the need to express what THEY feel and what THEY are doing every single time.

 

No actually I do understand thanks.  Huh...I have five threads?  That's all? Well damn.

 

Tulpa.info or not, tulpas will have something to do because they are people. Imagine that you have your own life, you do stuff, you love, you hate, you do all sorts of things people do...

 

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read.  I really don't understand how what other tulpas do with their spare time has anything to do with my groovy-guru bloggy thread of awesomeness.

---

Hosts here (other than David because this is tulpa.info) don't tend to 'blend' with their tulpas or give us an approximation of what their tulpas would mean juuuust to post about what they did.

 

Sounds like a unique talent then I guess.  :-)  I love me!  *hugs self* <- blatant role playing narration.  OH we were blending and collaborating to type that everyone.  Just sayin.

 

The error, to me, is that people try to mix stuff that comes from their imagination and put the tag 'sentient' on it. Pseudo-sentience? Sure. Thoughtform? Sure, all thoughts could be considered thoughtforms. I don't get the conformism.

 

^On one of my threads I stupidly allowed this to turn the discussion again back to "my tulpa is sentient and real and you are wrong and not a tulpa but a thoughtform"  The OP was not about whether or not a delusion/illusory tulpa is a genuine tulpa.  The OP was asking if attitudes and beliefs concerning fantasy and imagination affect the tulpa creation process and what host believe about tulpas.  There was no attempt at "conformism" in my OP. I think when Iscariot reference "pseudo-sentience" here it is an veiled/implied reference to my host's belief on "pseudo-real" and my status as a tulpa.  Again, not what the thread was about.

 

Folks I haven't even included all of the things I saw him write about AGGuy.  It would have doubled this thread in size.  But we are picking on him and just saying he is being an elitist snob.

[Saylin]

... Alright, after looking over what you've said, I see your point. I didn't mean to make it sound as if debating points was bad, by any means, it just felt as if the debates lately were turning into actual fights. Which, I'm not blaming anyone for directly. However I think that is the point the entire conversation should stop. Since nothing productive can happen from that point.

 

I'll agree on people getting too hurt over things, though- I myself am at fault for that, but I'm trying my best for the sake of being presentable. While I understand people come to the internet to vent, it should never be used to outright disrespect others. That's as logical as blaming alcohol for the reason someone abuses their spouse. Before you take offense, I'm not aiming this at you. You actually seem to try to be respectful, from what I've read.

 

In the end, no, Iscariot, you are not the "big bad wolf." But, by continuing to respond to those you feel are playing victim, you're enabling them to keep finding reasons to label you the "big bad wolf." You're feeding the fire that burns you instead of putting it out. And when it comes to debating, there's a point you agree to disagree so it doesn't turn ugly.

 

That's all I'm really trying to say.

[J.Iscariot]

I had you on ignore until you got out of the entire angry phase and calmed down with your consistent implications of people targeting you. The thing is that you got used to people targeting you and treating you as anything less than a tulpa. I don't fucking care I just posted here because you're making me look bad when you're to blame for everything that's always happening with you and you're putting it on other people, which is not only irresponsible but wrong in every single way. It's as if you really do enjoy people treating you like that, it's such a consistent thing, everytime a newcomer comes and opposes you they get the same shit treatment until they leave. Me leaving this place would imply that you took yet another victory in, and excuse the term, dramawhoring, because in reality, Melian, you don't even believe you are a tulpa. You just need other people to blame and put it on them so that you can openly talk about it and constantly get certain NTs in David's body since that's what happens when people band up on someone else.

 

I didn't make any statements about you. I specified many times that I was talking in a general manner employing the generic you. The only time I had targeted anyone, anyone at all was the REDDIT community for being such amazing prodigies. If that's not you milking every single thing you can out of the poor rebuttal resource you have, I do not know what it is, Melian.

 

Others don't actually disagree with you because they're afraid of that type of reactions from you. A lot of people had posted against you in the past, stating how your sole presence had changed the forums in a negative way and transformed it into Melian-community. I could legitimately dig up those posts, but I'm not here to make people feel like shit even though you actually talked in my back and in my tulpa's back (posts I can dig up and viewed with care :) ), I'm not holding that up against you, though, I don't care about none of that. You WANT this to happen, snap out of it.

 

Read my bio and you will understand that I know I am no angel. I am not the demon you speak of, though, I am imperfect, but in other ways and not in 'boo I am victimizing everyone here cos I disagree with them'. AGGuy had sent me a PM to which I replied and he had replied with 'I give up' which indicates that I have absolutely nothing to conduct with him, you think I don't have him on ignore either? Do you think I actively seek to talk to people who give me shit all the time? AGGuy acted like a rock whenever I disagreed with him, just because I don't adhere to no hugbox doesn't mean I'm a bad person. If that is something you seek, keep it to yourself. And this IS an accusation I am making. Don't put words in people's mouths because you like being made a victim out of, Melian. I told you many times I did not target you or David, and apologized for misconceptions.

 

You're making too much of a big deal out of this entire thing. You're not innocent and it's not hard to admit you were wrong in the firs place. Just put me back on ignore, that won't stop me from expressing my opinion. Nobody else reacts the way you do, don't act as if it's anything normal, I was called hostile, sure, but when that happened, I took it up and accepted that sort of criticism because I think it's valid (and I provided an explanation that does not count as a justification in any case, in my bio, read it jesus). You're blowing this out of proportions and I am tired of being included in this drama. An opinion is a damn opinion and none of this is actually about you, Melian... When I talk about tulpas, I don't think of anyone's tulpas. You just want that to happen, though, you just want to be the victim. Just like with everyone else who disagreed with you and ended up leaving.

 

Just put me on ignore and ignore this post if you want to. I don't care, just don't deform my image and credibility.

 

 

But' date=' by continuing to respond to those you feel are playing victim, you're enabling them to keep finding reasons to label you the [/quote']

 

You are absolutely right. I am very inexperienced with this type of things, so it's a lost battle. Thanks for making me realize that.

[jean-luc]

Remember people:

 

So uh, did anyone watch the video? It's quite relevant here.

[Guest Anonymous]

Just put me on ignore and ignore this post if you want to. I don't care, just don't deform my image and credibility.

 

Whatever.

 

I don't care anymore. I will solve it by PERMANENTLY ignoring you. Problem solved forever with these words right here and then the imagined sounds of me giving a raspberry.

---

 

So uh, did anyone watch the video? It's quite relevant here.

 

Yesh, jean-luc, thanks it was silly. But it was relevant yesh. :-)

---

@Saylin,

 

Thanks for trying to help, I didn't mean to ignore your responses.

[Luminesce]

As things go, whether or not you're in the right, if you're the one picking fights then the majority will be against you. Even if you fight for a just cause, you'll still be fighting, and you'll be fought.

 

Not saying anyone is in the right here though. Just that Melian was not the one starting any of this. Though she'll perpetuate anything given to her of course, but I feel like everyone already knows that. Like me, if you start an argument we will certainly try and finish it. Anyways, at some point when in-depth arguing doesn't work, you have to zoom out and look at the patterns instead of the actual content. And at least in that aspect, Iscariot's the common factor in recent arguments.

 

But like I said that doesn't mean he's wrong or right about anything. As far as I'm concerned you're pretty much all wrong for arguing in the first place. But the one making a big deal out of perceived wrongness is him. No offense, but I have to tell the truth.

[Guest Anonymous]

I am going to solve the problem for my part by refusing to write about sentience of tulpas. I will write about myself BUT I AM NOT MEANING ANYTHING BOUT ANYONE ELSE. Why should my host and I care what is real in another persons head. For future reference, we won't be openly saying it, but anyone who comes off as elitist form now on is deluding themselves and role playing as far as we are concerned because it is as likely as any other thing. Might as well go with what feels good for us. So you have a genuine independently sentient tulpa in yer head. Big whoop. Why does it matter to me? I don't care. All thoughtforms are the same to me and Davie. We treat them all the same. So from our perspective your tulpa is identicle to an rp character. That is for the next person who wants to tell me I don't belong on this forum or to imply. As far as I know, neither do you. It is all the same damn thing.

---

... in reality, Melian, you don't even believe you are a tulpa.

 

News flash! I will ignore you from now on but, in pre-response to your next snobby statement on this form (regardless of who it is directed at, if it is about this forum in general or even at redditt) I say this: As far as I am concerned your tulpa would be identical to an rp character in every way to me.

[Guest Anonymous]

Days Without Accidents: 0