A small Tulpa is easier to Vizualize?

[schettinoman]

I been wondering if the actual size of the tulpa can make a difference when you are trying to make a visualization of it for the first time.

 

And when I say small Im talking about a Tulpa with the size of a doll or a bug, I know that lots tulpas have different sizes and most people dont have a problem with it, but I been wondering if someone really had less effort or problems with vizualization just beacuse the tulpa is small.

[historical]

Maybe you're thinking not of relative size, but of amount of detail. Anyone can impose a Colossus from that game (that I really need to play) if they try to...but with the details down to the dot? Heh.

[Kiahdaj]

The way it works with me, and I'd imagine most others, is; the less you have to visualize, the easier.

It's easier to retain details, when there aren't as many to focus on.

[schettinoman]

Maybe you're thinking not of relative size, but of amount of detail. Anyone can impose a Colossus from that game (that I really need to play) if they try to...but with the details down to the dot? Heh.

 

I dont think its impossible to visualize something that big with deep detail, yet I wonder the ammount of mental effort that would require, in this case with little tulpas due that they could require less concentration being a smaller spot or area to focus on.

 

 

The way it works with me, and I'd imagine most others, is; the less you have to visualize, the easier.

It's easier to retain details, when there aren't as many to focus on.

 

I know that less detail could be better, but I been wondering if you would have to work some details with less effort if the tulpa was small

[Jun and Alexis]

We should get Q2 and QB in here as well as whoever had the pixie tupper (Name escapes me). I think for people like me with terrible visualization this might be a thing. I remember reading a similar thread about imposing a "doll" of sorts, having the tupper possess it, then having them grow to normal size, though I could assume there might be like, a form identity crisis if that's possible. Whether they're the doll or have their own form.

 

Would very much like some feedback from tiny tuppers.

[Guest Anonymous]

To be honest, a small tulpa is no different from a big tulpa. Perhaps logic might dictate so, because smaller usually means less detail, but there's plenty of cases where smaller still means a lot of fucking detail, and therefore a lot to think about. Likewise, bigger might also mean less complexity, but you could have a giant blob for a tulpa, and it could still be more difficult to do so...

 

So yeah. Size doesn't do it. Complexity does.

[Splooshie123]

(I remember reading this in a guide somewhere. forgot the name)

For visualization purposes, distant objects appear smaller, right? Distance also reduces the amount of detail you can see. Try visualizing with your tulpa standing as far as possible while still being recognizable, then gradually coming closer as your visualization gets better.

 

EDIT: Triple ninja'd while eating lunch.

I agree with Moon Shooter. And like I said, you can see more details the closer something is. If it's far away, you can't see all the details, therefore it seems less complex.

 

Before I started making a tulpa, I experimented with a couple of different forms. One was a realistic-looking cat-sized dragon. Scales. Tiny scales. Everywhere. So yeah, complexity is the real issue. Not size.

[schettinoman]

We should get Q2 and QB in here as well as whoever had the pixie tupper (Name escapes me). I think for people like me with terrible visualization this might be a thing. I remember reading a similar thread about imposing a "doll" of sorts, having the tupper possess it, then having them grow to normal size, though I could assume there might be like, a form identity crisis if that's possible. Whether they're the doll or have their own form.

 

Would very much like some feedback from tiny tuppers.

 

I kinda like the idea of imposing dolls, since it must really reduce the amount of vizualization that you do, but still makes me wonder if its a matter of perspective since the doll can be pretty big if its really close or small if its far away.... interesting.

 

To be honest, a small tulpa is no different from a big tulpa. Perhaps logic might dictate so, because smaller usually means less detail, but there's plenty of cases where smaller still means a lot of fucking detail, and therefore a lot to think about. Likewise, bigger might also mean less complexity, but you could have a giant blob for a tulpa, and it could still be more difficult to do so...

 

So yeah. Size doesn't do it. Complexity does.

 

well even if theres detail or not, still the size could mean something since it sounds like a matter of perspective too... thats what I been wondering

 

For visualization purposes, distant objects appear smaller, right? Distance also reduces the amount of detail you can see. Try visualizing with your tulpa standing as far as possible while still being recognizable, then gradually coming closer as your visualization gets better.

 

now this is an interesting answer, and it would be an actual good process to make the vizualization better, but still dosn´t really tell if the creator of a tiny tulpa would require less or more effort for visualization since its always in a perspective, close and far away at the same time despite the detail.

[historical]

mother of god its a serial quoter.

 

As far as perpective, I think that doesnt matter in imposition since it is implied. And as far as the size of tulpa, I think the restrictions are only in your mind.

 

inb4 matrix quote, Neo.

[Jun and Alexis]

Moondevourer: It should still work like as far as I know. There are people with shapeshifting tulpers here, but maybe that's just in wonderlands. I'd assume as a worst-case scenario if you already know what they look like through visualization, then imposing them would only be difficult if you would watch them change. They may either fade out and back in or you can just turn your head away while they change and look back.

 

Moon Shooter: See, the reason I still think tiny tuppers would be easier isn't the amount of detail, but the perspective in itself. In theory, because they're smaller, you can get up close to them without causing distortion or loss of detail. Usually when I see Ayako, because she's so close, I'll only see the top half of her, if that, but it's clear. When I zoom out so to speak, all the details blur, as it does with regular vision, however seeing her is easier... I think I'm contradicting myself here. Although if I were to picture a tiny little thing like a pixie, even with a good amount of detail, because I can fit it as a whole in my mind's eye it seems to be easier regardless of detail. I don't know. I think Nonfiction is right. The restrictions are probably in my mind solely because that logic I described makes sense to me. Any input on this, guise?