Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Think about any time you refer to a person, is there any time where it makes any sense to call a person 'it'?

7:37 PM

the only time it sounds right is when refering to a tulpa, therefore it isnt correct because a tulpa is a person.

did you even read?

somewhat

7:38 PM

skimmed

I don't think there is anything wrong with being able to perceive tulpas/hosts in two categories: personified or as a construct. You can take a look at them from two perspectives, and it doesn't dehumanize anyone, because it's just a tool of perception. Perceiving "tulpa" (as a part of the mind, as a general construct not a specific tulpa) as a construct allows you to look at it more abstractly and analytically, which allows more of a high level thinking about tulpamancy . It doesn't mean that you gender a tulpa as "it", you just perceive it differently, for a moment. I should clarify that for tulpamancy practice I believe that it is better to perceive a tulpa using their chosen gender/pronouns to personify it, it will only make the tulpamancy experience stronger, and I would never perceive someone's particular tulpa as an "it". The "it" is only for abstract thinking about tulpas in general. Thinking about it, there is nothing in my mind that I wouldn't be able to call "it" when thinking abstractly. Me, you, anyone, at their core is basically "awareness", everything else is just something awareness just absorbs and identifies with, but for some reason people don't have a problem to use "it" when talking about "awareness".

Rusty

the only time it sounds right is when refering to a tulpa, therefore it isnt correct because a tulpa is a person.

a tulpa (including the host) is not a person by itself, the person emerges when tulpas interact with most brain resources. also, a person, as an abstract construct especially their identity can be refered as it when talking in abstract.

i guess the only time i can think of where it is acceptable to call a human an it is if its a fetus (edited)

because you dont happen to be pro-life :P then it would be horrible to say it

abortion is not murder, dissipation is murder

No even if the person was keeping the baby i still think its acceptable to call the baby an it until its born/you know the gender. but a bit off topic

Rusty

i guess the only time i can think of where it is acceptable to call a human an it is if its a fetus (edited)

as An said, when talking about for example "a citizen" which is an abstract category of person could be addressed as it. likewise the tulpa that you are creating, as it would be addressed in a guide, could totally be addressed as it.

Just say what feels right. It shouldn't be a big deal either way.

yeah

Reguile

Just say what feels right. It shouldn't be a big deal either way.

thats what im trying to say

7:42 PM

if your system feels comfortable with it then whats the problem?

If you are concerned about tulpas of other people as separate persons, you might see some things like that as an abuse. Grooming is considered abuse too, regardless if family is happy with it or not. In my opinion considering tulpas completely separate people by definition is also one of mistakes here.

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

Click to see attachment 🖼️

If you consider tulpa a person and fetus not a person, it makes as much sense as options with "abortion is murder"

Dissipation is not murder, abortion is also not murder (edited)

so you agree the 4th option doesn't make sense Rusty? (edited)

8:07 PM

I mean I could understand people holding 3 other beliefs and even play devil's advocat for them, but not the 4th one

well, i would say dissipation is murder if the tulpa has been around for a long time and was not willing to be dissipated. then you are just being an asshole.

Rusty

Dissipation is not murder, abortion is also not murder (edited)

adoring someone isn't murder... i agree

sh

adoring someone isn't murder... i agree

shut the fuck up

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

I mean I could understand people holding 3 other beliefs and even play devil's advocat for them, but not the 4th one

Why? What's more person-like in a fetus than in a tulpa?

tbh i dont fully understand what that chart is

8:08 PM

oh i see

8:08 PM

nvm i understand it

With tulpa there is a matter of separation from host. Fetus is just incapable of being a person.

hmm, well since I consider a tulpa to be the same as a person, it would not make sense to me to say that abortion isnt murder but dissipation is

Alejandro

Why? What's more person-like in a fetus than in a tulpa?

a fetus has a pottential for a fully independent complete personhood, a tulpa is just a tini tiny part inside of all of your brain functions

Alejandro

With tulpa there is a matter of separation from host. Fetus is just incapable of being a person.

how do you know that?

Alejandro

With tulpa there is a matter of separation from host. Fetus is just incapable of being a person.

a tulpa still relies on another person, at least a fetus eventually gets out of them and is their own body and mind lol

I am pro-choice but I would never say something like that Alejandro

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

how do you know that?

Have you ever seen conscious fetus?

Alejandro

With tulpa there is a matter of separation from host. Fetus is just incapable of being a person.

thats just with your arbitrary definition of fetus

Alejandro

Have you ever seen conscious fetus?

you have been a fetus and you are conscious now

Thinking about it, there is nothing in my mind that I wouldn't be able to call "it" when thinking abstractly. Me, you, anyone, at their core is basically "awareness", everything else is just something awareness just absorbs and identifies with, but for some reason people don't have a problem to use "it" when talking about "awareness".

It is true that many parts are referred to with "it." Awareness, identity, personality, the brain, a hand, the whole body, an emotion, the "self" and so on. At what point does it stop, though? When considering all these parts, where is the person in there? It feels as though some will reduce the human organism into just parts and there is no person, not even the parts that self-identify as people. Yet you (general) wouldn't look at a person walking down the street and dehumanize them like that. So why dehumanize headmates? To me "tulpa" and "host" are already the "person" aspect(s) of the system.

The "it" is only for abstract thinking about tulpas in general.

What is the general abstract way to refer to a tulpa as "it"? When speaking to a new host, do you refer to their not-yet-vocal tulpa as "it"? In guides, that is the scenario, describing to hosts how to treat their tulpas. At that point I would have the new host refer to their tulpa and think of their tulpa as a person

Alejandro

Have you ever seen conscious fetus?

depends on how far along the fetus is. There is a point were I beleive abortion is murder. I am pro choice but there is a point where its too grown for be to consider it a clump of cells. Now, idk what that point is because I have small brain and dont know how they develop, but it does exist

Txoka

you have been a fetus and you are conscious now

I used to be an embryo too.

Congrats?

Rusty

depends on how far along the fetus is. There is a point were I beleive abortion is murder. I am pro choice but there is a point where its too grown for be to consider it a clump of cells. Now, idk what that point is because I have small brain and dont know how they develop, but it does exist

I believe that point is after birth. Newborns aren't persons either. Their mental capabilities aren't enough for self-awareness yet.

Alejandro

I used to be an embryo too.

and what if you were a tulpa?

Aya

Thinking about it, there is nothing in my mind that I wouldn't be able to call "it" when thinking abstractly. Me, you, anyone, at their core is basically "awareness", everything else is just something awareness just absorbs and identifies with, but for some reason people don't have a problem to use "it" when talking about "awareness".

It is true that many parts are referred to with "it." Awareness, identity, personality, the brain, a hand, the whole body, an emotion, the "self" and so on. At what point does it stop, though? When considering all these parts, where is the person in there? It feels as though some will reduce the human organism into just parts and there is no person, not even the parts that self-identify as people. Yet you (general) wouldn't look at a person walking down the street and dehumanize them like that. So why dehumanize headmates? To me "tulpa" and "host" are already the "person" aspect(s) of the system.

The "it" is only for abstract thinking about tulpas in general.

What is the general abstract way to refer to a tulpa as "it"? When speaking to a new host, do you refer to their not-yet-vocal tulpa as "it"? In guides, that is the scenario, describing to hosts how to treat their tulpas. At that point I would have the new host refer to their tulpa and think of their tulpa as a person

I agree, if someone is making a tulpa I would encourage the host to talk to their tulpa and consider them as a person

highly disagree with that, but not really the topic. this is tulpa discussion

8:14 PM

we arent here to talk about abortion

1

8:14 PM

we dont need to debate so much about abortion to talk about dissipation

Txoka

and what if you were a tulpa?

The different I is a tulpa. Fetus consists of all the flesh while a tulpa is just a part of a human being.

Alejandro

The different I is a tulpa. Fetus consists of all the flesh while a tulpa is just a part of a human being.

a tulpa cannot have any meaningful conciousness by its own, nor can it talk, nor can it be functional

Alejandro

The different I is a tulpa. Fetus consists of all the flesh while a tulpa is just a part of a human being.

prove it pls

(including the host just so you all dont get offended)

Txoka

a tulpa cannot have any meaningful conciousness by its own, nor can it talk, nor can it be functional

they need much more than just itself to be a "person" and you dont necesarily need to give them that (your brain resources) if you dont desire so (which would mean dissipation)

Txoka

they need much more than just itself to be a "person" and you dont necesarily need to give them that (your brain resources) if you dont desire so (which would mean dissipation)

that is just like a fetus

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

prove it pls

Both are by definition. Fetus is the whole human body in a certain stadium, while tulpa refers to a certain headmate/identity.

if you assume fetuses cannot have a full brain which is just wrong

how is fetus not a person by definition?

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

how is fetus not a person by definition?

because they so decided

a fetus and a tulpa arent really comparable because a fetus is unaware, unformed and just not a person yet while a tulpa is a fully functioning, fully formed, fully aware person. they both rely on another person but they are not on the same level

at which point a human being gets conscious then?

Rusty

a fetus and a tulpa arent really comparable because a fetus is unaware, unformed and just not a person yet while a tulpa is a fully functioning, fully formed, fully aware person. they both rely on another person but they are not on the same level

a tulpa is unaware unless you decide to let them be aware

8:20 PM

which is giving them access to your brain resourcess

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

how is fetus not a person by definition?

By what kind of definition (except species-wise) is human fetus a person? It surely has a potential to grow into a human being capable of being a person but it will no longer be a fetus when it happens. (edited)

I cannot make Error not aware of things around us, thats how the brain works. I cant just cut him off from existance. That would be dissipation

Rusty

I cannot make Error not aware of things around us, thats how the brain works. I cant just cut him off from existance. That would be dissipation

yes

Alejandro

By what kind of definition (except species-wise) is human fetus a person? It surely has a potential to grow into a human being capable of being a person but it will no longer be a fetus when it happens. (edited)

i didn't say it was a person, you said it wasn't by definition

that would be dissipation

so please explain

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

i didn't say it was a person, you said it wasn't by definition

Then it seems we misunderstood each other.

Alejandro

By what kind of definition (except species-wise) is human fetus a person? It surely has a potential to grow into a human being capable of being a person but it will no longer be a fetus when it happens. (edited)

is an egg a chicken?

what did I not understand?

A tulpa does not always rely on the host. I'm not at all relying on my host to be aware right now, for example.

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

what did I not understand?

I didn't understand what you referred to when you said "prove it".

Aya

A tulpa does not always rely on the host. I'm not at all relying on my host to be aware right now, for example.

ofc, i think we already stablished that the host is just another tulpa

8:23 PM

anyone who can switch will know that (edited)

true, Error can be fronting and not rely on me in any way. i do not have to exist for him to exist. If one day I just popped out of existence for no reason Error would contenue to function without me.

Aya

A tulpa does not always rely on the host. I'm not at all relying on my host to be aware right now, for example.

Yeah, you are right, it's not a host you are relying on. You rely on the same resources they rely on though.

Alejandro

Yeah, you are right, it's not a host you are relying on. You rely on the same resources they rely on though.

this has been my point from the start, how can you not get it?

you are relying on the same body, not the personality that is the host in that body. A tulpa only relies on their host while they are still young

Txoka

this has been my point from the start, how can you not get it?

I don't know when it looked like I don't get it.

when you just realized 2h after i told exactly the same

8:25 PM

imma go

8:27 PM

changed my mind

Aya

A tulpa does not always rely on the host. I'm not at all relying on my host to be aware right now, for example.

why did you think we disagree with that? (edited)

Your statement was "a tulpa is unaware unless you decide to let them be aware which is giving them access to your brain resourcess" which implies a tulpa is relying on the host. (Rusty's statement sounded the same way) Yet, I know you understand the nature of tulpa/host/system. So I do not think we are in disagreement, but the tension of the discussion makes things difficult

Aya

Your statement was "a tulpa is unaware unless you decide to let them be aware which is giving them access to your brain resourcess" which implies a tulpa is relying on the host. (Rusty's statement sounded the same way) Yet, I know you understand the nature of tulpa/host/system. So I do not think we are in disagreement, but the tension of the discussion makes things difficult

by you i didnt actually mean the host

8:30 PM

just words become weird at this point

To clarify, what is the "you" which allows a tulpa or host to be aware?

that would be awareness, no? if it's one that allows it or many doesn't make a difference

Awareness is simply aware... it is aware of the feeling of thoughts forming, decisions being made, but I do not think awareness is making decisions. It is a difficult subject to examine and talk about

Aya

To clarify, what is the "you" which allows a tulpa or host to be aware?

tulpas are just parts of your identity that you selectively let out and decide to dissociate from

I have been practicing a lot of meditation in the last 2 years and got more grasp of awareness than I had before

all tulpas collectively decide some things like "who fronts at what point" did you think this was the host?

I can talk about it more in study other day, but to be short, awareness "absorbs" an identity, "decisions" etc

8:36 PM

those things can happen without awareness or with it (edited)

Txoka

all tulpas collectively decide some things like "who fronts at what point" did you think this was the host?

or maybe no tulpa takes that choice actually

8:36 PM

maybe some other brain function does

Imo a whole person consists of all tulpas (including host)

but its deffinitely not they host

Alejandro

Imo a whole person consists of all tulpas (including host)

no, tulpas are just a tiny part of your brain