Tulpa.info - tulpa-questions-2

Zen

Tulpas, tulpamancy, forcing, wonderlands...

Sort of unpopular opinion, but I agree with you on that

I especially despise wonderland.

4:51 PM

It's very escapist fantasy.

Tulpamancy doesn't convey the right idea either

We use our own terms for these. Thoughtforms, creating a thoughtform, developing or spending time, and world/space respectively. /shrug (edited)

It makes it feel like some sort of esoteric practice, which it actually isn't (edited)

Ah but there is the issue: Thoughtform in other traditions isn't just companions, it's entities above and beneath them, like servitors and godforms.

4:52 PM

As for tulpamancy, it strikes me as a joke, and repeating the same joke ad nauseam is just bad form. It was cute the first couple of times maybe. (edited)

Right, thoughtform is much less specific.

In chaos magic they are literally just called companions if I recall correctly.

4:54 PM

Daimon or Daemon is probably the closest western parallel that's specific, considering those are person-specific companion-spirits.

4:54 PM

Though they are supposed to be one-a-person.

4:55 PM

Like a guardian angel

Calling them that would certainly not improve pr with singlets, haha.

I use thoughtform too

4:56 PM

It's the most scientific one tbh

Thoughtform is solid and descriptive. I do like it.

4:56 PM

Tulpa as a word sounds like nothing to a western ear.

4:57 PM

Like at least if it was a loan word from greek or latin or something it would sound recognizable.

4:57 PM

But no one knows anything about Tibetan as a language.

4:57 PM

Though I must say, the script of Tibetan is perhaps the sexiest alphabet in the world if you've not seen it. (edited)

4:57 PM

It's lost and sounds silly when you transliterate it into the latin alphabet, though. (edited)

I'm more bothered by the idea singlets see tulpas as not human than I used to be.

Also I feel like I veered impressively off topic here, so returning to it let me address this point since it was your main one. I actually don't necessarily see tulpas as "human". I do not mean that to be ... well ... dehumanizing, but broadly speaking they absolutely can behave as not human and be built with that intent. The thing is, we anthropomorphize non-humans just as much as we do humans, so we can't really tell the difference unless it's us trying to simulate something lovecraftian where obviously there's no way to simulate something inconceivable in the first place. Anything we generate will inevitably veer toward a human understanding of certain behaviours, but they will still be non-human behaviours. Whether they think they're an animal or a spirit or whatever else. Even just in terms of syntax, I think it's a stretch to say that most tulpas have the experiences that we take for granted humans have. The lack of a real childhood is a pretty damn major one. The lack of a concrete form that you attach to as an expression of you automatically and from birth. It feels like thoughtforms who are not hosts are inherently disconnected somewhat from the human condition, but not completely. I can fully see why that would upset some tuppers though. Though I don't think it has to cause distress. Personally I don't ascribe to the notion that something is only worthy of compassion and equality if it is "human".

I find the idea interesting. I'm the "host" and have amnesia that covers my childhood. I do see your point on having a bank of experiences being important to identity. I see myself as very similar in composition to my tulpas. I have existed much longer, obviously. Perhaps there are some experiences I posses having been a singlet before that they never will. I also assume they will mature with time, acting more and more on the external world. There is no guarantee of that, I suppose.

Zen

I'm more bothered by the idea singlets see tulpas as not human than I used to be.

Also I feel like I veered impressively off topic here, so returning to it let me address this point since it was your main one. I actually don't necessarily see tulpas as "human". I do not mean that to be ... well ... dehumanizing, but broadly speaking they absolutely can behave as not human and be built with that intent. The thing is, we anthropomorphize non-humans just as much as we do humans, so we can't really tell the difference unless it's us trying to simulate something lovecraftian where obviously there's no way to simulate something inconceivable in the first place. Anything we generate will inevitably veer toward a human understanding of certain behaviours, but they will still be non-human behaviours. Whether they think they're an animal or a spirit or whatever else. Even just in terms of syntax, I think it's a stretch to say that most tulpas have the experiences that we take for granted humans have. The lack of a real childhood is a pretty damn major one. The lack of a concrete form that you attach to as an expression of you automatically and from birth. It feels like thoughtforms who are not hosts are inherently disconnected somewhat from the human condition, but not completely. I can fully see why that would upset some tuppers though. Though I don't think it has to cause distress. Personally I don't ascribe to the notion that something is only worthy of compassion and equality if it is "human".

If you're worried we're anthropomorphising things in our own minds, I assume the "us" is in there somehow (can we trust ourselves to tell us from a thought or thoughtform apart?) and to anthropormotphise ourselves is either a stretch or us doing exactly what were supposed to be doing. Humans are human because we assume they are or not. While I can understand not wanting to point to everything that makes up a human a person, I think it's safe to assume anything that seems sentient and self-aware can safely be assumed to be human, even if it's just a simulation (isn't that what your brain is supposed to do? Simulate an identity?). I don't believe there are any differences between hosts or tulpas aside from labels. It's debatable if tulpas and hosts are separate in the first place, and when combined into one entity I don't believe there's much confusion over who is human or not. Therefore, I believe the tulpa must be equally as human as their host, and to call the host or even a regular singlet not human might be a hard argument to make. "You're only a human because you think you are!" doesn't really make sense even if it seems like a satisfying explanation in some contexts. It also sounds dehumanizing too, at least when I say it like that.

I find the idea interesting. I'm the "host" and have amnesia that covers my childhood. I do see your point on having a bank of experiences being important to identity. I see myself as very similar in composition to my tulpas. I have existed much longer, obviously. Perhaps there are some experiences I posses having been a singlet before that they never will. I also assume they will mature with time, acting more and more on the external world. There is no guarantee of that, I suppose.

@koma - jump I don't have childhood amnesia (I think) but I have a hard time remembering my childhood and had a similar line of thinking. After college started I felt trapped in time for a bit and was tempted by the idea my identity was created relatively recently while my "childhood me" was someone else. I'm glad I never seriously entertained the idea, and later I could see how me in the past became the me I am now.

"You're only a human because you think you are!" doesn't really make sense even if it seems like a satisfying explanation in some contexts.

I suppose this depends on your semantics surrounding "human". Debatably the term is purely a label in itself. Within humanity there are broad experiences that do not align at all due to neurodivergent brains being a thing. This raises a number of questions as to whether you consider something patterned after a human mind human by default or not. Would we consider an automaton based one-to-one off of human cognition human? It seems so arbitrary to me to say yes to that. On the lower end of the spectrum your reasoning here is so broad that you must realize it applies not only to tulpas but to any thoughtforms? Including servitors. Including things like in that book in #tulpa-research ; Individual emotions extrapolated into hallucinations. Whenever your mirror neurons fire up and accurately predict the behaviour of a dog, or even something rudimentary like the classic chicken, is that thoughtform human? You realize that debatably you could call any idea in your head a "human" according to that logic? I think that if we extend the term human too liberally it is essentially meaningless. I would actually be so bold as to say any idea or identity that the brain cooks up is patently not human by default. Being human to me requires experiencing the human condition, and more importantly being raised as a human. This is because I consider it a piece of identity labeling. Being a person isn't a given though, for any thoughtform. We're more than capable of using our person-simulating parts to simulate animals or things that are a bit weird, since they're designed to be able to copy and predict essentially anything with exposure.

1:46 PM

However if I were to be rigorous, I would possibly say that none of us are human, because human refers only to the body as a whole. And Hosts and Tulpas are not the body. They're just software. A second order thing produced by the body's functioning. I'd say that lungs aren't a person, but that's a poor parallel - It would be closer to say that breath isn't a person. (edited)

First, I consider anyone who meets the classification of homo sapien human. If something happened to their mind, even if they are in a vegetative state, they are still human. Second, I don't think it's too broad to say any random thought or thoughtform in your head isn't human. I don't know if the thoughts an octopus has can even be compared to human thought. Octopuses are extremely intelligent creatures, but they may not think remotely the same way we do. Maybe the concept thoughtforms or language make no sense to an octopus, and they know concepts we don't even know exist. Third, even though we have less sentient parts (like the cells of our body), I don't think it makes them inhuman. I doubt your hand will protest for free will anytime soon, even if you made a hand thoughtform it's something else telling your hand what to do, not your hand giving orders. The human body can experience human experience but a host/tulpa can't? I assume all experience is being perceived by whoever is directing the body

The human body can experience human experience but a host/tulpa can't?

To be clear, I was offering two perspectives there, not one. One that I would personally say resonates, humanity-as-a-label. And secondly, that identities or individual parts of a human or human-derivative parts do not constitute a human by themselves.

2:52 PM

But yes, it's clear we differ on our definitions, and that's fine.

2:58 PM

To devil's advocate though if your definition revolves around what is a "homo sapien" then I think my reasoning still stands. A human lung isn't a human. Human breath isn't a human. A brain by itself isn't a human. A thought isn't a human. A homo sapien is a species of organism defined by possessing a number of traits including being a primate, being bipedal, and having a large complex brain designed for social interaction primarily. Identities are completely superfluous to that definition of humans.

2:58 PM

A homo sapien is a fairly strictly defined, concrete, physical thing. An identity is an abstraction.

I should clarify- homo sapien is the pointer, the creature it points to is the human, in it's entirety.

I was concerned at how nonsensical this conversation was but it seems it boiled down into something reasonable. The human is the physical organism, the abstractions that take place within the mind of the organism are not discrete separate humans, but, again, abstractions within the human. But as a thoughtform, I would not say I'm not human, I am part of a whole human, these are my hands, my body, and my thoughts are human thoughts.

The statement that a tulpa is human or a person should be taken or intended as a statement of fact, but a statement of intent and/or desire.

I don't think "human" and "person" should be used interchangeably.

11:53 AM

You can be a person without being a human

@Maenethal - jump true im not a human

Hello, Jack

hi

@Zen i remember that you've called Felicja my "waifu" a bunch of times

10:02 PM

why are you using such a derogatory term for her?

its not derogatory

10:40 PM

actually its a term of endearment

10:40 PM

!!

10:43 PM

so it's this

10:43 PM

instead of this?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/821731704112152576/932767043571302420/unknown.png

10:46 PM

the latter one is obviously written by someone who is very anti anime, so yes the former is more accurate

Imagine your tulpa not counting as a waifu

Deleted User

instead of this?

this is the problem with crowdsourcing definitions

12:20 AM

people are edgy

i know

12:22 AM

i personally believe that "waifu" is a derogatory term

sounds like a cute way to say "wife" lol

uhhh

12:23 AM

yet still

12:23 AM

i asked ZEN for the explanation

12:23 AM

not the dumpster-for-banned-tulpa.pl-users owner and a troll (edited)

Deleted User

not the dumpster-for-banned-tulpa.pl-users owner and a troll (edited)

okay nerd

Deleted User

not the dumpster-for-banned-tulpa.pl-users owner and a troll (edited)

I would hope it would be obvious that I do not mean the term maliciously. Especially given that I use the male version of the term for my own tulpa. It is definitely slightly facetious and slightly literal at the same time. If you wish me to cease I will do so.

Imagine getting worked up over a random word because you arbitrarily decided it's derogatory

Exactly, person with a name that is a derogatory term for someone black.

Please keep your us-centric definitions of words out of my face

I'm in the UK, I'll have you know.

Don't be mean to each other, guys :(

I am not

Zen

I would hope it would be obvious that I do not mean the term maliciously. Especially given that I use the male version of the term for my own tulpa. It is definitely slightly facetious and slightly literal at the same time. If you wish me to cease I will do so.

nah, i just need to get used to it tbh

it's just a cute way to say "wife"...

Zen

I'm in the UK, I'll have you know.

spook is a term with multiple meanings and i havent heard anyone use it in the sense you're talking about

8:38 PM

shouldnt keep forcing ur definition on them

Spook

I am not

i like your name and think u have a cute avatar dont let him bully you !!

Deleted User

i like your name and think u have a cute avatar dont let him bully you !!

Why thank you, yours cute too!

Eh? Bully? For pointing out one of the definitions of the word? 'Kay.

11:04 PM

It was a facetious statement. Y'all motherfuckers need to get a grasp on the way of the bant.

2:00 AM

... (edited)

2:01 AM

how to treat these things?

The latter you can at least handle the basics - get enough sleep, exercise, eat healthy, get plenty of water/don't be thirsty.

>_<

The former can be complicated and you probably honestly just have to distance yourself from whatever you're obsessing about

even if they're the same things for months,if not years?

Probably not - and that's why it's hard for me to give you advice - everyone and their situations are different (edited)

specifically:

Mathias, one of my earliest OCs
Jacob "Dokuro" S. , that man who ruined my sanity
Felicja
that weird android fetish (formerly related to Felicja a lot, but thanks God not anymore.)
the strange feeling of being "dirty" - both physically (yes,even seconds after taking a bath) and mentally "am impure, i require cleansing"
guilt tripping 24/7 over some random drama on the internet
the doom 2 mod i should've been working on
a constant feeling of emotional, intellectual and spiritual regress compared to 3 years ago
the realization that almost the entire knowledge i've learned in schools have disappeared and now i know literally nothing about the world around me

(edited)

Probably beyond my ability to give you good advice on this one minus the always true "keep active, keep healthy" . It doesn't help everyone but it's a start, and if you can get your brain on a good gear a lot of the feelings of being "dirty" can go away.

2:15 AM

Maybe look into some self help books or articles about confidence?

nah

2:17 AM

the lack of confidence isn't mostly a problem anymore

2:19 AM

the bottom two ones are the ones that cause the most problems (edited)

2:21 AM

(and maybe the 24/7 Guilt Tripping ,but i think i'm able to get used to it)

2:21 AM

why?

2:22 AM

because these two are not just feelings... (edited)

2:22 AM

but reality. seriously every time i talk with anyone about anything most people simply know more than me about anything - from chemistry to physics to literature to law to tulpamancy. (edited)

2:24 AM

anyway

2:25 AM

that's a #TULPA QUESTIONS channel,not # VENT

@Deleted User You feeling alright, bud? Like, in general?

Best kind of #vent is a therapist.

aw shit, here we go again

Maenethal

@Deleted User You feeling alright, bud? Like, in general?

It depends on what kind of "alright" you mean and what's your definition of feeling alright