Tulpa Discussion Thread V1.2

[CobraCommando 37]

 

 

On an entirely unrelated note, "tulpaforcer" sounds like some manner of Power Ranger or tokusatsu. I'mma trademark that and make a TV show.

Power metal band "DAADAADADADADDADDAD TULPAFORCER FORCES THE WORLD" or something along those line's, Honestly I myself have multy personalty it's not really that cool. I take a cocktail of drug's every month and i'm back to work the next day nothing special.

[Rizoel & Crepuscule 491]

Making personas in your head, forcing hallucinations, deliberately creating a split personality (which doesn't sound like it should be possible) to talk to...I'm still seeing a lot of big red "crazy" flags. Certainly can't be all that mentally healthy to do such things.

 

Everyone is crazy.

 

Everyone.

 

Do you have a sexual fetish, Xanatos?

 

If you do, you're crazy.

 

If you don't, you're a liar. Everyone has a sexual fetish.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that everyone is crazy in some way. Crazy is a word people made up to feel good about not being open-minded.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Rizoel & Crepuscule

[Xanatos 162]

 

Everyone is crazy.

 

Everyone.

 

Do you have a sexual fetish, Xanatos?

 

If you do, you're crazy.

 

If you don't, you're a liar. Everyone has a sexual fetish.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that everyone is crazy in some way. Crazy is a word people made up to feel good about not being open-minded.

 

Reality: Crazy is a word used in various contexts, in this case as a synonym for "insane". Having a sexual fetish is not crazy. Believing that stop signs can talk and that turnips conspire against you is crazy. Having multiple personas inside your head is crazy. Merely acknowledging that is not narrow-minded.

 

I'm sure it makes some people feel good to think that "crazy" is some meaningless word made up by narrow-minded people but in reality, the brain is meant to operate in a particular way and when significant deviation occurs, that person is crazy. It isn't supposed to contain multiple personas and it isn't supposed to tell you that turnips are monsters from the fifth dimension. When it does, you're crazy. Nobody's ever diagnosed schizophrenia or sociopathy (or any other mental disorder) as "They're just open-minded" and they'd be laughed at if they did. CobraCommando doesn't take that monthly drug cocktail because he/she is open-minded.

 

And some people are asexual.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Xanatos

[Quilava 1,290]

the brain is meant to operate in a particular way

 

The only "particular" way the brain is supposed to operate is the way to keep you alive. The fact that the brain is able to do these sort of things is justification in itself that it is within the operations of the brain to be doing so. Saying "this is how something should work" is just going off of accepted "norms" and only then, going off said norms, can something else be considered crazy or insane. We are just utilizing our brains/minds in a way that, though it goes against current social norms, can lead to a better life down the road.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Lugia

[Shadowind 53]

It has since become obvious to me that our dialogue cannot continue because your major point is that we're insane and that's the entirety of your argument. That is an opinion and I cannot change your opinion on this matter because you share your opinion regardless of the information we share with you--your opinion is independent of anything we say.

 

Which is why I am feeling that you are indeed being narrow-minded.

 

Whether constructed or forced upon an individual, multiple personalities is indeed abnormal, but psychologists and sociologists and of course civil rights people enjoy discussing and debating about what constitutes insanity and your disregard for those discussions is a bit frustrating. The status-quo is not an appropriate means of judging the insanity of others.

There are plenty of people who would think we're insane yeah, but there are plenty of people who would reason that you are insane too for simply being different than they are.

 

For example, I am having trouble figuring out why you are in this topic. You do not seem particularly interested in exacting any kind of change here. You do not seem particularly interested in making us stop what we're doing. You don't seem to particularly care other than to just pop in and insinuate that what goes on here is something that should be shameful in an absolute way. That to share a body with another ego is shameful and should be shameful in all contexts of reality.

 

I do not wish for you to think that this is a good idea, but merely that this phenomena has CULTURAL history and religious/philosophical history and usage.

 

So the question is are we insane for trying, or in trying to make tulpa BECOME insane? At the same time, you are expressly saying that Cobra is also insane.

 

Well I already know from experience that even if you've read this much, I have not changed your mind. But I'll say this anyway.

 

This is some snake oil shit, this ain't some insanity shit.

If nothing else we're a bunch of assholes stealing culture from another historical society and thinking that it is right for us. Like NeoWiccans or something. Are NeoWiccans insane or "wrong" for believing in magic and a moon goddess?

 

It may SEEM like there's a huge difference between thinking having more than one personality being looked down upon is essentially the same as looking down on bronies for liking a little children's show, but they're actually fundamentally the same concept. Two ideas are seen as creepy because they're simply not the status-quo, there are just different levels of "strange" going on here.

Think us strange but do not think us insane in the context that insanity is a trait that is "wrong" to have. Because there are plenty who want to do away with the word insane anyway.

 

When a mental condition or perspective causes harm to others or themselves is when that condition becomes pragmatically "wrong", for obvious reasons.



Lastly I want to comment on

 

CobraCommando doesn't take that monthly drug cocktail because he/she is open-minded.

I'm sorry but this sentence doesn't even make any actual sense. This implies I or others would think that Cobra taking medicine IS open-minded for his/her situation.

 

What? How the hell would anyone even think that?

 

Obviously Cobra takes medicine because the multiple personalities interfere with his/her ability to live a daily life! That's the only reason you would take medicine for any condition is because you wish to stop it out of fear of what will become of you otherwise.

 

There are people with dissociative identity disorder who get along with their other personalities and have mutually beneficial relationships. But they're still insane right? And we should tell them they need to fix themselves? No, I say, that is unreasonable interference with another person's life. If they wish to change themselves with medicine that is their business but if they are not harming themselves or others then it is no one's business but their own.

 

The privilege we unfortunately have over Cobra is that Cobra did not choose to have multiple personalities. Since this was not a choice, there is little personal control, and the situation has been abhorrent to Cobra such that Cobra takes medicine to make it stop.

 

Those who make tulpa's have control and influence over our other personalities to guarantee that the relationship is beneficial.

 

Oh I almost forgot. We  had another member join in from earlier who had dissociative identity disorder AND then proceeded to make a tulpa. Her experiences were that the two were still somehow different, and that her tulpa was not effected by her medication, if I recall correctly. Her tulpa was also interested in helping her in a genuine, sincere way.

 

In conclusion, if you want to have an opposing opinion with someone and wish to share it, and you want to think yourself open-minded while doing so, the very least you can do is not toss around words and language as if the western world has empirically solved all metaphysical questions about the brain and reality and the universe. 'Cuz we haven't.

[Xanatos 162]

The status-quo is not an appropriate means of judging the insanity of others.

Those who make tulpa's have control and influence over our other personalities to guarantee that the relationship is beneficial.

 

The status quo is the only means of judging sanity or lack thereof. If humans went around skinning each other as a simple matter of course, the people who do that sort of thing wouldn't be called insane. But we don't, so they are. Though by Rizoel's logic, those guys are just more open-minded which is totally fine and normal.

 

A personality over which you exert control and influence. You have just described an imaginary friend. Why all the made-up terminology when the term "imaginary friend" already exists?

[Shadowind 53]

The status quo is the only means of judging sanity or lack thereof. If humans went around skinning each other as a simple matter of course, the people who do that sort of thing wouldn't be called insane. But we don't, so they are. Though by Rizoel's logic, those guys are just more open-minded which is totally fine and normal.

 

A personality over which you exert control and influence. You have just described an imaginary friend. Why all the made-up terminology when the term "imaginary friend" already exists?

This sentiment is incorrect because you do not take into account that humans are naturally compelled to protect themselves, and that there is safety in numbers, which lead to the invention of the Social Contract. Your example does not fit into a social contract, but multiple personalities does not interfere with the social contract.

[Quilava 1,290]

@@Xanatos

 

Another thing I would like to bring to light about tulpae and their usefulness/harms would be that, if done correctly (kind of hard not to do it correctly), they can almost be a type of "medicinal marijuana" if you will.

 

Since you have the power to aid in their construction, you are able to make it so they can be helpful in your everyday life. Tulpae can be extremely helpful if the person in question has very little trust in others but still needs/wants/would like someone they could communicate with and not have to worry about being judged, or anything they feel could happen were they to do it to anyone else. Since tulpa and host are, essentially, of one mind, and, if allowed, can have access to everything about you; your fears, interests, etc., they would be able to have complete trust in their tulpa and might be able to get better and learn to trust others as well. 

[Xanatos 162]

This sentiment is incorrect because you do not take into account that humans are naturally compelled to protect themselves, and that there is safety in numbers, which lead to the invention of the Social Contract. Your example does not fit into a social contract, but multiple personalities does not interfere with the social contract.

 

"Social contract" is a term applicable to various ideas. You'll have to be more specific. Regardless, if I'm talking to somebody and they randomly become three other different people, I'd say that interferes quite a bit with things.

 

@Lugia: A persona in your head that you create, control, and talk to in lieu of other people...And we're back to "Why all the made-up terminology when the term "imaginary friend" already exists?" Tulpa, tulpaforce, tulpabonanza, you're describing an imaginary friend. Why make it more than what it is? If not an imaginary friend, you're describing a deliberately-induced split personality which still just sounds unhealthy for one's mind.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[Chigens and Kay 3,831]

"Social contract" is a term applicable to various ideas. You'll have to be more specific. Regardless, if I'm talking to somebody and they randomly become three other different people, I'd say that interferes quite a bit with things.

 

@Lugia: A persona in your head that you create, control, and talk to...And we're back to "Why all the made-up terminology when the term "imaginary friend" already exists?"

 

I don't think you understand. You don't "control" this "persona". It has it's own thoughts, opinions, and actions.

 

Whereas with an imaginary friend you control everything about it.

[Quilava 1,290]

That's just like saying why have the terms Gouda, Feta, Cheddar, when the term "cheese" already exists?

 

Different words are used for different scenarios, even if they fall under the same general catagory. We could just call all the cheeses in the world, "cheese", but how would we differentiate the many kinds that are different, both subtly and substantially.

 

The same goes for tulpae, servitors, imaginary friends, etc. They are all considered "thought-forms", but what differentiates them is, least to us, is their level of sentience and how much we interact with their actions. Imaginary friends are simply just dolls that people use for what ever tickles their fancy and forms are of no matter. Servitors are like the previous, except they are made for a purpose (usually a single purpose), however they do not possess any true sentience and cannot act based on their own thoughts. They are basically, in a sense, slaves (though, from saying that, I can feel a bit of unease from someone >.>). Tulpae are fully sentient beings that have their "own" set of thoughts and can think full themselves. 

[Xanatos 162]

I don't think you understand. You don't "control" this "persona". It has it's own thoughts, opinions, and actions.

 

Whereas with an imaginary friend you control everything about it.

 

How? If it is a construct of your mind, its thoughts and opinions would be whatever you decide as you are the one creating it. And as a mental construct, it logically can't have actions other than what one hallucinates and/or visualizes.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[Shadowind 53]

"Social contract" is a term applicable to various ideas. You'll have to be more specific. Regardless, if I'm talking to somebody and they randomly become three other different people, I'd say that interferes quite a bit with things.

 

@Lugia: A persona in your head that you create, control, and talk to...And we're back to "Why all the made-up terminology when the term "imaginary friend" already exists?"

It only interferes in the sense that you do not have visual cues to know who you are talking to. In theory you can have a coherent conversation with all the personalities involved. Whether you chose to speak to a person like that or not is up to you. Which is why it is not a violation of the social contract because any inconvenience it causes you is caused by you choosing to be there of your own free will.

 

I don't know how old you are but I am starting to have a reasonable assumption that you have not formally studied philosophy academically yet. So I'll do my best.

 

The social contract is an idea that humans exchange "freedoms" in exchange for "protections" and obligations. Philosophers have been known to argue about what the basic social contract is, and expanding on it is, of course, LAWS. In the united states where I live, it is typically not appropriate to interfere with someone's life regarding their mental health unless they become a danger to themselves or others. That is both a law and is appropriate with most social contract theories.

 

The social contract is an implied contract that by living together humans agree not to harm those in their society in exchange that they'll protect one another if need be, against say, another society that wishes to invade. That's the social contract in basic. A murderer has no place in the social contract. The social contract is neutral about someone who talks to oneself.

 

http://mongolianmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rousseau_contrat-social-1221.pdf

 

This will explain it better than I. This is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" written in 1762. If I'm not mistaken it had a big part in the writing of the United State's original constitution.

 

I am not saying you have to read the whole PDF but now I've given you no excuse to not know what it is if our dialogue continued to remain related to it.

 

But in short, what does it matter to your existence and happiness if someone believes they have an imaginary friend that has become sapient and capable of independent thought?

 

Which is a great way to explain why we have the "made up language". In addition to tulpa being a foreign word meaning "construct" (noun, not verb), meaning we did not make it up, we only made up tulpaforcer as a colloquial way of referring to ourselves, the difference between an imaginary friend and a tulpa is... well would you say that someone with disociative identity disorder merely has imaginary "friends"?

 

Of course not. We do not content ourselves with imaginary friends in the common sense of that phrase, we only seek to emulate a multiple personality case in its most ideal sense, one of symbiotic relationships. It starts out as imaginary friends and it grows from there using psychological principles that old dudes just so happened to discover a long ass time ago.

 

Kinda like how modern medicine keeps reinventing the wheel with natural remedies that native americans, africans, and asians had for who knows how long. Yeah some of them are placebos but the placebo effect itself is fascinating!

 

OH OH OH. In fact this reminds me of a video I saw in my first psych course. There is a african tribe that literally has a method of curing dissociative identity disorder! I don't know if it is merely a placebo effect or not, but someone with multiple personalities was idnetified as being "possessed by spirits" by his tribe. An investigator was allowed to film and document their ritual, which included the "patient" shall we say doing a traditional african dance for his respetive tribe for something like 24 hours without stopping, and included eating a medicine of mixed substances I can't remember because I was distracted by the fact that afterwards he was told to slit the neck of a goat and suck out its blood.

 

Well.... as strange as that is, it worked, and the patient was "normal" afterwards.

 

This is actually a good example of our earlier discussion on normalcy, the status-quo, ethics, and what constitutes insanity. Plenty of people would find the above cure distasteful insane, and an affront to modern medicine.

 

but it worked

 

I wonder if I can find that video on youtube...

[Xanatos 162]

It only interferes in the sense that you do not have visual cues to know who you are talking to. In theory you can have a coherent conversation with all the personalities involved. Whether you chose to speak to a person like that or not is up to you. Which is why it is not a violation of the social contract because any inconvenience it causes you is caused by you choosing to be there of your own free will.

 

I don't know how old you are but I am starting to have a reasonable assumption that you have not formally studied philosophy academically yet. So I'll do my best.

 

I wonder if I can find that video on youtube...

 

Philosophy doesn't strike me as a very profitable thing to study in an academic institution. Such things are best left as hobbies. Do find the video if you can. I'm less inclined to call all of that an affront to medicine as I am to wonder why they thought it would work. One doesn't just dance for 24 hours and suck a goat's neck on a hunch, I'd imagine. Then again, I once balanced a can of cold soda on my forehead for ten minutes to cure a migraine...Didn't work when replicated with a plain ice pack. Not sure why...

 

I would not say one with dissociative identity disorder merely has imaginary friends but this is not dissociative identity disorder. This is a persona of your own creation over which you have significant control, and that aligns more with an imaginary friend. But then you've got Chigens up there with the "It has it's own thoughts, opinions, and actions." bit that aligns more with DID.

 

What determines when this personality takes over? It surely must at some point if it is to have actions, as actions require a body. How are its thoughts and opinions conveyed? Just in your head? That could grow very bothersome if it couldn't be shut up. And if it can, having its own actions and thoughts, it could just keep going anyway. If it has its own thoughts and actions independent of you, to what extent is your control?

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[Shadowind 53]

Philosophy doesn't strike me as a very profitable thing to study.

 

I would not say one with dissociative identity disorder merely has imaginary friends but this is not dissociative identity disorder. This is a persona of your own creation over which you have significant control, and that aligns more with an imaginary friend. But then you've got Chigens up there with the "It has it's own thoughts, opinions, and actions." bit that aligns more with DID.

 

If it has its own thoughts and actions, where does your control end? What determines when this personality takes over? It surely must at some point if it is to have actions, as actions require a body. How are its thoughts and opinions conveyed? Just in your head? That would grow very bothersome if it couldn't be shut up. And if it can, having its own actions and thoughts, it could just keep going anyway.

Philosophy is the birthplace of literally every last single thing in your life. Everything. Every last single solitary thing. I cannot politely disagree with you on this one, to think that philosophy is worthless is ignorance.

Philosophy is the defining point of human social evolution. Every single science ever developed was born from philosophy. Bertrand Russell says that a question only ceases to be philosophy when there is a true answer for it. Philosophers asked all the scientific questions that became science only when they were answered. Psychology itself remains the science most closely interlocked with philosophy. I haven't even met a psychology student or professor who has not studied philosophy.

 

At this point the only way I can even talk to you is by feigning interest in anything you say.

 

Okay. Tulpa cannot be controlled. If you control them you failed. In the same way we define day as to be the time that the sun is up and night to be the time that the sun is not up in the sky, a tulpa by definition must be capable of independent thought and action. In fact, they can arrest control of your body although they're extremely poor at it.

Tulpa frequently have differences of opinion with their creators. Frequently. Frequently. An imaginary friend is a puppet. A tulpa is not this thing. A tulpa can get into an argument with its own creator.

 

When does control begin and end? Sapience. It is an imaginary friend for awhile, until all of a sudden it starts doing things you didn't tell it to do or say things you didn't tell it to do. It starts having its own opinions and liking things you might not like or liking things for different reasons than you do. Since they are borne from you they remain similar to you, but they're never exactly the same.

 

Just as I am not the same person I was last year or the year before.

 

Tulpa have free will. It becomes a tulpa and is defined as a tulpa when it achieves free will. It is an imaginary friend until it obtains this, and it will obtain this WITHOUT WARNING.

 

Its thoughts and opinions are conveyed the same way we convey ours. Talking. You talk to it and it talks back. You show it something and it comments on it. So on and so forth. Some tulpas even make their own friends independent of the host when the host allows the tulpa to control the physical form.

 

And yes if it did not shut up that would be bothersome. But do the majority of the people you meet unceasingly try to talk to you? Do you go into the supermarket and a large number of people start immediately trying to talk to you, constantly?

 

What about your personal friends in real life. How many of them never stop talking?

 

I am guessing few. Tulpa have personalities. If it is not in the tulpa's personality to be a dick to you, then you have like, no problems.

 

 

 

 

But seriously philosophy is important. Or if you think that the only goal of learning is to make a literal profit, money, then you're not a true scholar.

[Quilava 1,290]

@Xanatos

 

This will be my last post about this.

Your type and your type of posts are nothing new to this thread, everyone who are against those with extreme differences in thoughts compared to us always try to bring to light the "dangers" of tulpae and every time they get killed and put down. Nothing you say can really change how most of us feel for our and others' tulpae. We weighed (at least, I hope others did) the risks when we chose to go down this road. Yes, there are some risks, but we found the pros to be more powerful and worthwhile than the cons that are associated with this sort of thing.

 

I bid you, adieu~

[Xanatos 162]

I cannot politely disagree with you on this one, to think that philosophy is worthless is ignorance.

Its thoughts and opinions are conveyed the same way we convey ours. Talking. You talk to it and it talks back. You show it something and it comments on it. So on and so forth. Some tulpas even make their own friends independent of the host when the host allows the tulpa to control the physical form.

 

And yes if it did not shut up that would be bothersome. But do the majority of the people you meet unceasingly try to talk to you? Do you go into the supermarket and a large number of people start immediately trying to talk to you, constantly?

 

What about your personal friends in real life. How many of them never stop talking?

 

I am guessing few. Tulpa have personalities. If it is not in the tulpa's personality to be a dick to you, then you have like, no problems.

 

But seriously philosophy is important. Or if you think that the only goal of learning is to make a literal profit, money, then you're not a true scholar.

 

Where did I ever say it was worthless? Nowhere. Do try not to read what isn't there. I said it was not profitable, as in money. Important as it is, there is no money in asking the questions. Insofar as I've seen, formal academic learning costs quite a bit of money so if I were to pursue such learning, it would be toward something I can turn back around to make a profit. Hence I prefer to study philosophy on my own time, for free, as a hobby. As for not being a "true scholar", I must point out that you are the one that read "It isn't profitable." and equated it to "It is worthless." A misunderstanding, likely, but nonetheless...

 

 

My thoughts are conveyed in my head as often if not moreso than through talking. A tulpa, being in my head with me, would potentially convey thoughts the same way, would it not? If I'm out and about, what's to stop it thinking - not talking to me, just thinking on its own - of all manner of distracting things? I talk to myself sometimes. Is it incapable of this?  Or is it aware that its thoughts can distract, and thus avoids talking to itself?

 

And as for allowing control (these should be my last questions for a time, as my interest has become enough to delve into personal research)...In the case of DID, as I understand it, there is memory loss when a personality takes over. Is it the same here or more akin to being locked up in your own head? The latter sounds far more interesting.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[Shadowind 53]

Where did I ever say it was worthless? Nowhere. Do try not to read what isn't there. I said it was not profitable, as in money. Important as it is, there is no money in asking the questions.

 

 

 Or if you think that the only goal of learning is to make a literal profit, money, then you're not a true scholar.

:V

 

And since this is a psychological and philosophical discussion whether you would want it to be or not, the simple matter is that philosophers do in fact make money. And there's money to be made in asking the right questions. All of science is done by asking a question. I'm sorry but that's a simple fact.

 

 

As for not being a "true scholar", I must point out that you are the one that read "It isn't profitable." and equated it to "It is worthless." A misunderstanding, likely, but nonetheless...

 

Well duh. People who criticize something as not profitable are saying that it is not worth their time while implying that they only care about money.

For example the meat industry finds it unprofitable to treat livestock as living creatures.

 

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because someone takes an accusation to be an accusation means that they're actually the perpetrator, one that has been used in courts to no doubt get criminals on the street and win money for the defense attorney by confusing the issue.

 

A better example might be how Gordon Freeman find's black history month to be racist, would you call him a racist for even thinking of that conclusion? If so, then that's troubling.

 

And no, tulpa's thoughts do not interfere with your own. They have their own ego, the only thing you'd share is a body and a subconscious. The subconscious thinks all kinds of things independently of your ego. It is only reasonable to understand that another ego would as well. Plus, you are once again showing a certain lack of understanding on all the topics we've discussed if you do not realize that in individuals with DID, their alternate personalities can go undiscovered for maybe years because their thoughts are independent!

 

Psychology is a lucrative career. Why is it that you know less on the subject than me? Knowledge and differences of opinion are mutual exclusive so we can disagree even if we know the same material, but it seems that is not the case! The only thing that I'm thankful for in our dialogue is that we're still remotely on the subject of tulpa.

 

EDIT:

I'm not going to continue the argument but as anyone can see in the post below me Xanatos has decided to leave for which I am glad.

Because

 

Actually, quite a lot of science is done in answering the question. The asking alone is of little use.

This has got to be the most horrifying thing I've ever read from someone who thinks they're putting forward a logical argument. Especially one who seems to think that hypocrisy means that because I thought someone who only wants to make money would assume something to have no value means that I think it has no value and that is not the definition of hypocrisy like, at all. The linguistic barrier here is unapproachable. I suggest everyone else refrain from continuing the discussion as well.

 

http://youtu.be/XyOHJa5Vj5Y

 

Here's why. The discussion is literally impossible to carry on.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Shadowind

[Xanatos 162]

All of science is done by asking a question. I'm sorry but that's a simple fact.

 

People who criticize something as not profitable are saying that it is not worth their time while implying that they only care about money.

 

A better example might be how Gordon Freeman find's black history month to be racist, would you call him a racist for even thinking of that conclusion? If so, then that's troubling.

 

And no, tulpa's thoughts do not interfere with your own. They have their own ego, the only thing you'd share is a body and a subconscious. The subconscious thinks all kinds of things independently of your ego. It is only reasonable to understand that another ego would as well. Plus, you are once again showing a certain lack of understanding on all the topics we've discussed if you do not realize that in individuals with DID, their alternate personalities can go undiscovered for maybe years because their thoughts are independent!

 

Psychology is a lucrative career. Why is it that you know less on the subject than me? Knowledge and differences of opinion are mutual exclusive so we can disagree even if we know the same material, but it seems that is not the case! The only thing that I'm thankful for in our dialogue is that we're still remotely on the subject of tulpa.

 

Actually, quite a lot of science is done in answering the question. The asking alone is of little use.

 

People who say something is not profitable are saying "There is no profit in this thing." Anything beyond that is just an assumption of the listener which in this case would be you. You claim that one who thinks the only worth in learning is money is not a scholar, and then you immediately take "[x] is unprofitable" to mean "[x] is of no worth whatsoever". That is the connection you made, Mr. Scholar. I don't see a fallacy in noticing hypocrisy.

 

I know less on the subject because the only psychology class I've taken bored me out of my mind. Another benefit of informal learning is that you only have to learn the parts that are of interest.

 

Gordon Freeman...I'm afraid I do not know who that is but it is hardly racist to consider such a thing. Hell, I'm inclined to agree with the idea.

 

I'm thankful for many things but it isn't Thanksgiving so I won't be listing them. But (unless you've anything more to say on the thread topic) I will be going away as I've gathered all the information I need here at the moment.

 

And do pardon any lack of understanding. I'm afraid my mind does not pick up connections so easily. Though that does raise the question of whether or not a damaged brain might produce a flawed tulpa...But that's the fun of discovery.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[MelancholicMemory 2,024]

A better example might be how Gordon Freeman find's black history month to be racist, would you call him a racist for even thinking of that conclusion? If so, then that's troubling.

I believe you are referring to Morgan Freeman. This video to be specific.

Gordan Freeman is the protagonist of Half-Life. Not calling you out or trying to invalidate your points or anything. I actually agree about a lot of it. I just thought I'd correct that.

 

Anyway, after a long absence, I'm back in this thread. First, about my tulpa. Clarice, my second tulpa attempt failed much like the first in ways I rather not discuss. I have decided not to try again until I sort out the issues in my head because I think it has some impact on my tulpa creation ability. In case someone comes,using this to support an argument that tulpae cause mental illness, I could like to point out these are issues pre-dating my first tulpaforcing attempt. I'm still gonna lurk here though because I do find tulpae interesting, and I wish I could make one. Also, Crepuscule is absolutely hilarious.

 

Also, this isn't saying much, but for a while I was a psychology major and took some classes, and from what I know based on my experiences and what I've read online, a tulpa does not resemble schizophrenia. Just sayin'

Edited July 14, 2013 by Mellon Collie

[Shadowind 53]

I believe you are referring to Morgan Freeman. This video to be specific.

Gordan Freeman is the protagonist of Half-Life. Not calling you out or trying to invalidate your points or anything. I actually agree about a lot of it. I just thought I'd correct that.

Curse you Half-Life!

oh my gosh thank you for pointing out my unbelievably hilarious Freudian-slip. Yes I meant Morgan Freeman. :C

[Xanatos 162]

I believe you are referring to Morgan Freeman. This video to be specific.

Gordan Freeman is the protagonist of Half-Life. Not calling you out or trying to invalidate your points or anything. I actually agree about a lot of it. I just thought I'd correct that.

First, about my tulpa. Clarice, my second tulpa attempt failed much like the first in ways I rather not discuss. I have decided not to try again until I sort out the issues in my head because I think it has some impact on my tulpa creation ability. In case someone comes,using this to support an argument that tulpae cause mental illness, I could like to point out these are issues pre-dating my first tulpaforcing attempt. I'm still gonna lurk here though because I do find tulpae interesting, and I wish I could make one. Also, Crepuscule is absolutely hilarious.

 

Also, this isn't saying much, but for a while I was a psychology major and took some classes, and from what I know based on my experiences and what I've read online, a tulpa does not resemble schizophrenia. Just sayin'

 

Now Morgan Freeman I do know...

 

And not to pry (which, oddly, people say just before prying) but how does one fail to make a tulpa? Does it simply never gain sapience, or slip out of one's control? And if the former, how long does one try until they declare the attempt a failure?

 

Insofar as I've read about the condition, schizophrenia can produce hallucinations. Someone was on about forcibly hallucinating tulpas into one's vision earlier. Hence the connection. Though it sounds like an undue nuisance, having to pause and visualize them doing things...

Edited July 14, 2013 by Xanatos

[MelancholicMemory 2,024]

Now Morgan Freeman I do know...

How could anyone forget that voice?

 

 

 

And not to pry (which, oddly, people say just before prying) but how does one fail to make a tulpa? Does it simply never gain sapience, or slip out of one's control? And if the former, how long does one try until they declare the attempt a failure?

I almost had her done, when she suddenly disappeared. After a long time, I couldn't get her to come back.

 

 

 

Insofar as I've read about the condition, schizophrenia can produce hallucinations.

So can going without sleep too long. Hallucinations are a common symptom, but it's not what defines the condition. Mental illnesses rarely are that simple. It's really the way you think, not the things you see and hear that define schizophrenia. Explaining it in detail would be long and difficult (my teacher did a whole 3 hour lecture on it), but I'll just recommend you read up on it more, even if it's just the wikipedia page. Also check out the Wain cats. I actually have a family friend who has paranoid schizophrenia, and trust me there's a big difference.

 

A tulpa cannot be a mental illness anyway, because it is desired, does not impair functioning, and can be removed at will. I think it belittles people with schizophrenia when you compare their condition to something like this. I'm not offended though or anything.

 

 

 

Though it sounds like an undue nuisance, having to pause and visualize them doing things...

You'd think so, but it's not. And when they start doing things themselves it's pretty amazing.

[Shadowind 53]

Mellon your my hero. You explained it much better than I. Its kinda weird that people continue to confuse schizophrenia with personalities.

 

BTW I just realized that a good example of tulpae in media, if accidental, is ghost dad from Dexter. Harry returns in the show as what I call "ghost dad" but isnt real. He acts just like a tulpa.

[Inngy 18]

So I'm about 17 days into creation. I've went over all of the personality traits, and I've been narrating occasionally. The thing is, I haven't forced since Tuesday of last week(AKA Day 12). I feel like I'm just not motivated and not into the whole thing anymore. I feel like I started slacking after Day 2 because I ended up not doing full hours, instead I would do 25 minutes, take a 5 minute break, and then do another 25 minutes. I would love to have a fully completed tulpa, I'm just not sure I'm ready to put the work into that tulpa at this point in my life. I've been having family issues lately and that may or may not have made me depressed, I'm not sure. The thing I'm worried about is I've kind of begun to feel an emotional connection to my tulpa, and I begin to feel sad when I think about just forgetting about her(beginning to feel a lump in my throat like I'm about to cry as I type this). I've seen small deviations like a color change, or a small size increase, but that could have just been me. I've also felt a pressure in the back of my head, but nothing consistent, it's mostly just when I'm forcing, or thinking about her. I hope she's not sentient because if I were to stop now, I don't want to hurt her. I really don't want to continue because I feel that would only hurt her even more. I just need some advice. Feedback is appreciated. I feel like an idiot for not thinking about this more, and any hate I receive is deserved.

 

EDIT:

I spoke with a member on this thread, and I've now decided I'm going to continue on with tulpa creation. I feel like part of my lack of motivation I was feeling was because I was impatient. I realize tulpas take work and I'm willing to coontinue. I'm going to start my next session tomorrow after work.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Inngy