Tulpa dissipation

[warriortiltheend]

 

The way I perceive tulpamancy tells me that a tulpa is not imaginary. Imaginary would just be something lame taken out of me actively imagining something, having to put effort in getting her to talk for instance, but she says so much that it's hard for me to catch up. Tulpas are definitely not 'only imaginary', I don't know about headmates and the likes, but tulpas have emotions, feeling, the capacity to exist in autonomy and rationalize by themselves. This is only my view, though. My imagination has always been utter shit and one of the only things that do make sense in my life is her.

 

That's what I meant to say, yeah.

 

I percieve my tulpas as real. They're real to me, at least.

 

I just meant that in the grand scheme of things, I don't think someone should be put in jail or something for killing a Tulpa. I think the reason behind it should be looked at.

[Linkzelda]

Is it wrong to put an end to a tulpa's life?

 

TL;DR - I would first dodge that question and ask whether or not there needs to be moral consideration for ending any other thought form’s life (e.g. dream character). Then I would use analogues, comparative analysis, and find any potential impasses of assessing moral consideration for hypothetical dangers for tulpa dissipation. Then, I would make my peace, and see it as a heuristic for a tulpa to implicitly augment their means of being sentient, and take ownership towards coping with that (which would technically be an opportunity for them to grow).

 

 

For those who didn't: What do you think' date=' overall.[/quote']

 

 

• If there’s a concern over dissipation for tulpa, it seems to entail that one is concerned about a tulpa being aware of moral consideration for their existence. Dialogue with existence and nonexistence either becomes a matter of context with this spatio-temporal reality, just in a person’s mind, or a mix of both. If we were to talk about the first with this reality, there’s no way I could prove to anyone that their existence is as genuine as anybody else I interact with; their existence would still be a state of non-existence towards others.

 

• Which makes one realize that it seems to be easy to take moral consideration of entities that can exist and interact with this reality vs. having to make an internal schemata of moral consideration towards someone who’s “realness, and “existence” is mostly contingent on how far the person is willing to treat them as sentient.

 

• Because a critic would argue over the efficacy of having to take moral consideration of non-existent entities in their own context of what validates an existent being. They may see it as a waste of time and energy to even revel on hypothetical dangers that may come with something like dissipation.

 

• And if one adds on other types of thought forms (e.g. dream characters), and the realization that everyone has dreams on a nightly basis: That means that each person would go through an experience where they interact with a dream character, and the moment they wake up, said existence of what would be a non-existent entity (in context of them not physically existing) would be a fading memory. The individual can cherish the experience, and hope to set expectations of referring to their existence that’s contingent on mental experiences. But to them, making moral considerations for tulpas vs. other types of thought forms makes one question if the individual is setting themselves up to be a grandiose hypocrite.

 

• In other words, to attribute emotions, bringing awareness to moral consideration of an entity that could be labeled as imaginary, or purely mental just as other types of thought forms, and having higher preference towards tulpas would create double standards and hypocrisy in some way. And creating a schemata of moral consideration in context of “existence” for this reality may cause some existential fallacies (e.g. having to exist for things to be made better or worse off for them).

 

• So, if there’s an impasse with that context, the individual may be convinced to shift the line of reasoning in context of what goes on in their mind, but it doesn’t mean it’s an ideal way to mitigate the issues with the other context.

 

• If one were to include whether or not mental events can initiate physical events (and vice versa), it would bring up a topic on the mental event of a tulpa dissipating would somehow physically stagnate a person’s brain. If this presumption is taken as a personal truth for that individual, by that logic:

 

o Anyone that uses the hypothetical model of treating someone as sentient within their cognitive reservoir and imagination would be prone for a self-performed lobotomy, metaphorically speaking. In other words, whether it’s a dream character, or a tulpa, to feel that the hypothetical dangers of dissipation would cause physical dangers as well would probably be contingent on how real that person wants those presumptive models to be; they’re potentially setting themselves up for their own psychosomatic strife. If they feel there’s a slice of cognition cut off, that would imply that they believe this can intrinsically happen to anyone creating a tulpa, and they would have to consider the backlash of each dream character, and other thought forms that may not have as much preference to them being dissipated on a day-to-day basis. People are still able to reign in their own existence, and do quotidian activities in spite of the nightly dissipation of other entities in their natural sleep.

 

• However, in spite of this, this can be a heuristic for an individual to learn to make their peace on how they assess themselves with moral consideration of tulpas brought into being within the host’s cognitive horizon. They can see that the hypothetical model of treating them as sentient can be assessed as well simply because the tulpa has the chance to take ownership of their presumed competency to find a way to cope with those burdens and responsibilities of coming to being within one’s everyday cognition. Just like how the host would be going through taking the mantle of having responsibilities with the probability of something like suicide, and other forms of death being an option for them.