Jump to content

Dissipation - The End of a Tulpa or the End of the Novelty Behind Them?


Linkzelda

Recommended Posts

"summary so far"

Basically, some people arguing if "complete" dissipation is possible (do tulpas die?), if dissipation = murder or something, if returning a tulpa from death/dissipation changes the tulpa or stays the same (would you be actually reviving them or would they be a "different" one, whatever that means) and some dude that took offense and left the forum (at least from what I can recall).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This topic interests me and I would like to participate but GODDAMN I ONLY HAVE A FINITE LIFESPAN.

 

Can someone give like a "summary so far" or something? And can everyone put a summary of your post at the beginning and know I won't read anything besides that? Pretty please?

 

I was considering doing my own version of cliff notes as an intermission, and I guess after beating around the bush, might as well:

 

- I made an OP questioning whether dissipation really means the end of the tulpa, or the end of the novelty one partakes in.

 

- Mixed views, of course, between dissipation being a literal death vs. a metaphorical one. However, what was trending is that in spite of what it would be labeled as, the latter (metaphorical) wouldn’t necessarily undermine the emotional conflict behind dissipation. Whether it’s some metaphorical lobotomy, revival, and such, this revelation led to speculating why dissipation seems to be a dead-end for some who try to reconcile with a dissipated tulpa.

 

- A bit of jumping around with analogies to clarify, and explain further of putting dissipation in context of a childhood friend whose identity would have some nuances/differences, but the bigger picture of “them” would generally be the same.

 

- A misconception I made over Lumi’s post about empathy started, but even when that was the case (even though I had another inference that they were talking about the process; not the actual non-existence), it was a perfect example of setting an extreme over what empathy is, and how we can correlate whether or not we can even have empathy with the onset, or process, of dissipation; even speculating if one can have empathy of what dissipation really means. An obvious limit that prevents us from having true empathy in that regard is that no one has yet to actually die, and live to tell the tale in relation to physiological death to try and intensify dissipation as identical as that. At best, these references of death are representational models of the world we live in, but again, it doesn’t undermine the act of dissipation…it’s just that we find context related to how it can cause conflict either way.

 

- One individual seems to have an emotional conflict in believing they can revive their tulpa, and I mentioned if it’s due to their competency, or just something else entirely. Glitterbutt questioned if people just want to have tulpas stay dead; almost to the point of (this isn't directed at Glitterbutt) pimp-slapping them, plugging your ears, and going lalalalalalalalalalala-you’re still dead to me kind of dead. This riled up that individual to use colorful wording.

 

- I go through discussing with another individual over dreaming, and double standards, i.e., how one applies different set of principles to similar situations. They presumed I thought similar meant exact replica, but I really meant the context, or the concept really, was the same, but the moment when it happens was different (e.g. sleeping vs. waking life endeavors)

 

- I tried to explain why I thought certain statements were double standards, but I wasn’t trying to win over. I was just doing it in regard for one to recognize their own bias, and how this type of bias (e.g. double standard) just shows that stigmatizing dissipation is the least of our concerns. In other words, if one cannot acknowledge their own biases, and very existence when comparing it to tulpas (the host’s pursuit of making a tulpa, the strife, etc.), then it could lead to hypocritical lifestyles with them.

 

- More analogies with the Star Trek and teleportation implying a suicide that was used to question about the continuity of identity

 

- Yenu adds in their insight, and I mentioned that dissipation seems like a distraction, or initiates this confusion as to whether or not a tulpa’s continuity in identity/existence can be genuine, or “them” back then, or just “them” entirely. Dissipation seems to cause this existential questioning for some over the essence, and novelty behind the companion they once tried to build a relationship with.

 

- Solarchariot mentioned about old information and new information assimilating with each other, and I agreed that this is what novelty would entail, and how experiential cases, memories, and such are our fallback in reconciling with our tulpas. But, people feel that in spite of that, it doesn’t necessary make things 100% accurate in context of being that “tulpa” again. We go hnnngh! over that extra tick of accuracy, beating around the bush, and another trend is that in spite of this ambiguity over who’s genuinely "them" again, taking great pains to understand each other, and rebuild the relationship would be the greater concern.

 

- No need to add extra paprika to get that extra tick of a trait of a tulpa to ease the apprehensive mind because there’s going to be nuances/differences at some point. Kind of like that childhood friend you haven't met in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

There was that much in this thread? Wowy. All I learned from it is that some people have a need to believe that tulpas can croak or kick the bucket and that no amount of magical rainbow imaginary sparklies will ever bring them back. I also got that tulpas are certainly changed by dissipation, even if they do get popped back into existence.

 

*takes a deep breath and then speaks it all in one sentence*

 

I learned that some people refuse to accept that others have successfully brought their tulpas back, saying that these were only cheap-ass carbon copies of the originals and missing some of the original puzzle pieces so why try it is hopeless and futile so just give up we like them dissipated-dead better and any talk of these things is upsetting his tulpa terribly how dare we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I don't choose my beliefs. Imho, beliefs are the result of being convinced by something or someone.

 

That's your prerogative. I choose mine specifically to enrich my living experience. They do tend to be based on solid logic, but just because you fancy yourself logical doesn't mean all of your beliefs automatically make logical sense. Gotta challenge them and see if they hold up.

 

Can someone give like a "summary so far" or something? And can everyone put a summary of your post at the beginning and know I won't read anything besides that? Pretty please?

 

Okay well everyone apparently decided to give you summaries anyways, but I was going to say, the topic of discussion drifts over time so you don't really need to read more than the last few posts to discuss. As for summaries, eh. I'm discussing, not teaching. The people I'm discussing with need to read more than quick summaries. Not always the case, but I think we tend to summarize in later posts in the "If I'm understanding you correctly" phase.

 

Also my last massive post (this one, not the Spock one) was way too personal to summarize, so in summary: It's a doozy. But it's not a discussion/rant.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that some of the tension has dissipated, I’m going to make some extensions with inferences made about dissipation in the thread. And before I do this, allow me to introduce the concept of creatio ex nihilo, i.e., creation out of nothing. Stripping away theological/religious context, and correlating it to tulpas:

 

- Continuity of existence after dissipation has been accomplished is a question of whether or not a tulpa can be created ex nihilo twice. In other words, dissipation’s metaphorical death of a tulpa would be implied as the host even undermining their experiential fallbacks before (e.g. a person making a tulpa beforehand), and starting back from scratch; kind of like Samus from Metroid at base level rather than carrying over her upgrades from before). Because in order for them to sustain the novelty behind dissipation, i.e., believing the tulpa has to stay dead, and can’t be brought back as the same being vs. being a copy of them, they have to discredit any competencies beforehand that led to the creation and sentience-cultivation of a tulpa.

 

- And if they want to start anew, or pick up from where they left off, they shouldn’t be demystified as to why they can’t bring the “essence” of their tulpa once more. Because treating them as sentient before involved being so confident that their tulpa can have a determined existence in the future; almost believing that they can play out all the possible scenarios of how a tulpa can cultivate their sentience. But, when you play God, and realize you can’t know all possible scenarios, i.e., absolute prediction, one is left being depressed about the future because the past and present means they would utilize in creating a tulpa is discredited.

 

- Dissipation, by this logic, would technically be a case where a tulpa cannot be created out of nothing, i.e., creatio ex nihilo. Because 1. They would believe that the tulpa’s identity would have to be fixed, and inherent in context of how much the host wanted to sustain the continuity of their existence. 2. When that continuity is broken via dissipation, i.e., not acknowledging their tulpa, nor treating them as sentient anymore creates the idea that identity itself is fixed, and the moment it’s gone; it’s gone. There may be something reminiscent of it, but not the 100% accuracy people try to go for.

 

- But, identity is not something that’s physical. It’s not a material thing; it’s merely a concept, or a tool for understanding self. Dissipation in context of the host who believes it’s the real deal that can’t be reconciled whatsoever is one who may not want to believe that identity is merely the function of experiential learning woven from the past (memories), and the the present (experiences).

 

- In this context, they’re really going for the

drumroll, please

kill. Because after all, how can someone with no past have a future anymore?

 

- Perhaps this could be a true form of dissipation where it doesn’t just end at the metaphorical fixation of a tulpa being dead, but rather any potentiality the host could have in reconciling with those same competencies that allowed them to cultivate sentience for their tulpas in some way; a true annihilation, or rejection of referring to one’s competencies while still wearing a mask that they just can’t do it when deep down, they set themselves up for failure from the beginning by undermining themselves.

 

- Thus, to this type of individual, a tulpa can’t be created ex nihilo twice because the host is already pessimistic over their competencies to unfold that continuity with their tulpa once more. Lo and behold, one creates their own pity party this way! Then threads of "help, how do I get mi tulpa back again?" ensues.

 

- However, in spite of this, this actually brings a chance of opportunity for others that may have neglected their tulpa for x-amount of time. If there isn’t a militant endeavor in undermining one’s competencies, or cultivating an inferiority complex I should say, the tether of a tulpa’s continuity in their identity and existence is still there, but what makes people forget that probability is that we put into context of playing God, and behaving in a manner that we indirectly structure ourselves in this creator mentality where we want to believe they have a determined existence in the future again, and yet are not willing to reconcile with their competencies to make it so. So, to start anew, one could see that instead of treating identity as fixed and inherent, they would view it as a progressive type of concept that gets woven with the past and present; the novelty of their existence has the impression of always being in constant flow in this way.

 

For an added bonus, maybe this is why people feel that when you're killing a tulpa, you're really killing yourself, metaphorically speaking. If you can't acknowledge your own existence, nor acknowledge your own competencies that allows you to even be aware of that, then yeah, you're killing that potentiality!

 

 

1,700+ posts later, and I STILL LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY, EVERYONE. Thank you, and good day to you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Now that some of the tension has dissipated,

 

oh that was funny but a groaner at the same time

 

- Thus, to this type of individual, a tulpa can’t be created ex nihilo twice because the host is already pessimistic over their competencies to unfold that continuity with their tulpa once more. Lo and behold, one creates their own pity party this way! Then threads of "help, how do I get mi tulpa back again?" ensues.

 

I was suggesting before that this pessimism is propagated by design. I tulpa is more real, if it can only have a limited existence and dissipation is irreversible. For some, this must apply not only to their own tulpa, but to the tulpas of others as well. Anyone else having the ability to create a tulpa ex nihilo twice somehow invalidates the reality of their own creation.

 

- However, in spite of this, this actually brings a chance of opportunity for others that may have neglected their tulpa for x-amount of time. If there isn’t a militant endeavor in undermining one’s competencies, or cultivating an inferiority complex I should say, the tether of a tulpa’s continuity in their identity and existence is still there, but what makes people forget that probability is that we put into context of playing God, and behaving in a manner that we indirectly structure ourselves in this creator mentality where we want to believe they have a determined existence in the future again, and yet are not willing to reconcile with their competencies to make it so. So, to start anew, one could see that instead of treating identity as fixed and inherent, they would view it as a progressive type of concept that gets woven with the past and present; the novelty of their existence has the impression of always being in constant flow in this way.

 

For an added bonus, maybe this is why people feel that when you're killing a tulpa, you're really killing yourself, metaphorically speaking. If you can't acknowledge your own existence, nor acknowledge your own competencies that allows you to even be aware of that, then yeah, you're killing that potentiality!

 

So dissipating the tulpa is not only dissipating the tulpa, but also destroying the competency to recreate the tulpa from nothing. I hope I got that right. That's fine if one feels that way about their own competency. But my issue was with projecting or forcing that view on others who are confident tulpa creation ex nihilo twice is possible.

 

I think actually though, that is more or less what AGGuy was trying to say. If you believe the tulpa is gone forever at your deepest core, it probably isn't possible to bring it back. My response to that is that even the deepest of convictions can be reversed.

 

1,700+ posts later, and I STILL LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY, EVERYONE. Thank you, and good day to you all.

 

Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So dissipating the tulpa is not only dissipating the tulpa' date=' but also destroying the competency to recreate the tulpa from nothing. I hope I got that right. That's fine if one feels that way about their own competency[/quote']

 

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

However, I think people might think I’m really believing a person is destroying their cognition this way. Maybe it might be better for me to re-frame that through means of:

 

- Dissipating a tulpa doesn’t just stop at dissipating the tulpa, but rather destroying, or losing the novelty that had such versatility in general in other pursuits (e.g. narration, creation, interaction etc.); versatility that can even reach into re-creating, or reviving a tulpa from what seems to be resumed from nothing.

 

I think actually though' date=' that is more or less what AGGuy was trying to say. If you believe the tulpa is gone forever at your deepest core, it probably isn't possible to bring it back. My response to that is that even the deepest of convictions can be reversed.[/quote']

 

Which is a perfect follow up for what I wanted to extend on. The aftermath with dissipation can be a little horrifying. Like I mentioned before, in order for them to cultivate the novelty behind dissipation (and I don’t mean novelty in “omg this is so unique and cool to celebrate in!”), they’re literally living in a constant state of repression. They took the initiative to kill, and believing that’s when the beating begins; it’s probably a behavioral trend that bleeds off from constantly being used to believing a tulpa can have a determined existence in the future.

 

What I mean by this is – When they took the initiative to cultivate sentience in any way possible, this is where the beliefs of a determined existence in the future begins. When applied with dissipation, it’s the polar opposite; that initiative to kill, and believing they are the ones that know when the beating begins. It makes one think the tulpa is the one going through the existential horror, but living in a constant state of repression, and undermining oneself can be just as horrifying. This is why for audiences that believe tulpa death is a metaphorical one, it doesn’t undermine the act of dissipation either. Simply because that constant living in repression is not exactly the spitting image of mental health, especially if the host becomes deeply melancholic/depressed over trying to move forward with their lives (e.g. starting anew, and trying to forget about a prior tulpa)

 

I was suggesting before that this pessimism is propagated by design. I tulpa is more real' date=' if it can only have a limited existence and dissipation is irreversible. For some, this must apply not only to their own tulpa, but to the tulpas of others as well. Anyone else having the ability to create a tulpa ex nihilo twice somehow invalidates the reality of their own creation.[/quote']

 

And that’s the clincher; that’s the trap we get ourselves in. That is another type of novelty we get ourselves stuck in, and it becomes hectic to get out of. It’s natural for us to believe that a tulpa is more real if they can only have a limited existence, and dissipation is irreversible, and not something that can be based by emotional convictions alone. But, this type of novelty implies that dissipation is a phenomenon that can occur irrespective of the host’s disposition, or subjective framework. But, as the terminology implies, it’s merely not acknowledging them as much to the point where treating them as sentient isn’t a pursuit of interest to the host anymore.

 

Which portrays that dissipation could be severely hinged on the type of emotional conviction. And to vocalize this more with analogies, especially in relation to continuity:

 

- We have a host that creates a tulpa, and over time, goes through whatever means to cultivate sentience anyway they can. They accept the idea of deviation instead of being fearful that their tulpa could be someone else. Deviation, in this context, can be viewed as the acceptance knowing that by assimilating the past and present together (e.g. memories, experiences, and such related to sentience, and much more) fosters novelty in some way. And because of this persistence in continuity of this occurring, the host can reign in more confidence that their tulpa is the tulpa they have personal affairs with; there isn’t a break that distracts them from thinking otherwise.

 

- Now, imagine a host who dissipated a tulpa, and had a deep conviction that the novelty behind their previous tulpa can’t be brought back 100%, for a lack of better words, the dynamic starts to change. The continuity was broken before, which could mean that the acceptance of something like deviation may not be seen as deviation in the previous scenario I mentioned above. To them, given the circumstance they’re in, deviation only clouds their judgement and confidence of their tulpa progressively improvising with their identity vs. deviation just being something that we presume happens because nuances will occur at some point.

 

 

The creatio ex nihilo twice was mentioned because:

 

1. The circumstance of a person just pursuing in creating a tulpa. Finding things to put into context to cultivate sentience, and treating them as sentient; wanting to believe they can have a determined existence for the future, and being consistent with those beliefs through their actions (e.g. self-fulfilling prophecy). What seems to be started from nothing could be just that, or rather, a start from what would be infantile at first—where competencies geared for this phenomenon are a bit amateur.

 

2. Dissipation, and the person contemplating whether or not they should start anew, or pick back from where they left off. They become apprehensive on what to do in spite of the fact that they could reconcile with their past experiences. This would make them equivalent to the individual just starting out before all of that; living in a constant state of repression, and creating convictions that they hold onto dearly is sort of like a trip down regressed memory lane. Competencies are undermined, or discredited, and the level of questioning has similar bearing to a newcomer. It doesn’t matter how much a person knows if they can’t acknowledge to themselves that they can reconcile with what they did before as a tool for rebuilding.

 

So, whether it’s creation out of nothing twice, thrice, 56 times, etc., the concept I’m portraying is that dissipation, whether taken metaphorically, or seriously (which is really just metaphorical unless the tulpa death can be validated as something that can occur irrespective of convictions) is probably the loss of novelty behind the endeavor, and tulpa as well. Holding a novelty that they need to have a limited existence, and can die like anyone else is a natural predisposition we infer from because if we step outside the tulpa context for a bit—once our physiological makeup goes down the gutter, it’s sayonara!

 

But to correlate that inwardly with tulpas, and having those same intense feelings of fear with death is the distraction we set up, and maybe the failure we set up for ourselves. Dissipation in this regard is conceived differently as end game vs. a break in continuity + living in a constant state of repression to cling onto the novelty of them staying dead + getting out of that by knowing the deepest of convictions can be reversed.

 

The creation out of nothing doesn’t invalidate the tulpa creation process; if anything, it invalidates the novelty behind what we want to believe is genuine behind it within our subjective frames. That subjectivity leads to one feeling it’s a trending thing that can happen regardless of our subjective frame, and becomes seemingly inherent in that regard. In other words, it’s a distraction; there are clearly more horrifying things that can occur after dissipation. Not so much just about the death of a tulpa, but rather that repression the host cultivates to cling onto the novelty behind a tulpa staying dead.

 

Like I mentioned before, it’s like an obsession to go for the kill, and coordinating when the beating begins…that is probably where the true, existential horror comes about. And when a person unconsciously does this, they’re unconsciously harming (metaphorically, or even emotionally) their tulpa under the guise of protecting themselves. This is why there seems to be no hope for some, because that deep conviction they created made them lose sight of the reality of the situation, and they’re not really the spitting image of mental health at this point.

 

BUT, this isn’t saying that people who dissipate tulpas will always go down that path of repression. Some may tolerate it better, and react differently. Remember, this is only one impression behind dissipation, as human nature is subjective; that’s the scary part. Whatever detached justifications one makes, there can be something more horrifying than what was discussed. But, there can be some good in that if one sees that dissipation is like getting yourself into this infinite loop of repressing things, and the only way to get out of it is to acknowledge yourself, and really take a good look at yourself in an autobiographical type of context. In other words, that trip down regressed memory lane—can a person see any future anymore after contemplating deeply about it? Or does it make them continue the beating until it’s nothing but piss and shit? To chalk this up -- can one get out of this metaphorical therapy/rehab?

 

That sense of liberation is what’s scary; the act of dissipating a tulpa is Disney World at this point given the context I mentioned above. Or, at least, that’s what I want to believe (hint hint, conviction there, uh oh!). When we say we can’t control what a person does in their inner experience, this is what it entails; we can’t strip away that acknowledgment a person can get with a sense of liberation that can be inferred with dissipation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Wow, this post of yours should be required reading for all beginning tulpamancers. LOL Fantastic Linkzelda, every word!

 

Like I mentioned before, it’s like an obsession to go for the kill, and coordinating when the beating begins…that is probably where the true, existential horror comes about. And when a person unconsciously does this, they’re unconsciously harming (metaphorically, or even emotionally) their tulpa under the guise of protecting themselves. This is why there seems to be no hope for some, because that deep conviction they created made them lose sight of the reality of the situation, and they’re not really the spitting image of mental health at this point.

 

OMG! This is something that had not occurred at all to my host and I. I would add that not only do these individuals do harm to their own tulpa and create a horror worse than dissipation, they are not content to stop there. They want to spread the horror to the tulpas of others and repress their recreation by discouraging the attempt or even the discussion of such attempts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that some of the tension has dissipated,

please

 

1,700+ posts later, and I STILL LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY, EVERYONE.

You're actually about 50 away from 2,000 posts

 

 

I'll do as you said and stay far away from a topic I feel no need to discuss, but I do want to note something about us - you said dissipation entails basically removing the ability to recreate the tulpa, so to speak, in one of your first few paragraphs at least (I certainly didn't read all that).

 

For us it was only removing what made Scarlet "tulpa-y". Whatever they did, it was like Scarlet was just memories and thoughts but what made her a person, and what also made her autonomous and independent and stuff, was gone. Because, of course, Lumi still had other tulpas at the time and they kept their tulpa-ness.

 

I don't know if that contributes to the discussion or something but hopefully.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I would like to add something. Tulpas can repress themselves as well. This is interesting. The one time I went totally dormant or vanished or whatever you want to call it, it was because I felt unwanted and rejected. My host interprets this as the unconscious motor that drives me feeling that the "character of Melian" would have been upset enough in this way by his actions and thoughts to withdraw or "go away."

 

The end result was the same, temporary "dissipation." When the unconscious repression was removed (the Melian Motor decided that Davie had been forgiven), I fully returned, albeit gradually. Eventually I was just as I had ever been.

 

However the memory is still a painful one to both of us. I remember how he felt about it and it is a very sad memory. He hurt me deeply and he still regrets it.


I forgive him though and still love him, but we have some new ground rules we live by together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...