Sign in to follow this  
Carnivorous M.

Can tulpas keep each other from dissipating?

Recommended Posts

Pretty much what it says on the tin, honestly.


Tulpas need attention to live, more or less, and it's generally accepted that if they are ignored they'll dissipate over time (although there are some varying factors/reports here, including hibernation, revival, and strong tulpas surviving on their own). Host pays attention, tulpa lives and grows; host ignores tulpa, tulpa fades and dissipates.


There are also reports of recursive tulpa creation, which means tulpas can force each other into existence, which means that they also have the ability to maintain other tulpas' existence.


So what this leads me to wonder is, could Tulpa A keep Tulpa B alive if the host started to ignore Tulpa B? Would B be able to return the favor if the host started ignoring A as well?


This also raises a whole host of other questions in my mind, some more directly related to the subject than others. Can strong tulpas create recursive tulpas without the host's supervision? Can non-recursive tulpas of the same host force for each other? Is it possible for a recursive tulpa to find a new hostulpa in a way that would be impossible if they weren't all in the same system?


Apologies if this is in the wrong place or anything, and also if some of these concepts are different enough kettles of fish that they should be in separate threads, please let me know.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that if tulpa A is autonomous, and itself can go without attention for long periods of time, then A could create and support B. If B gets gets to reach the same level of autonomy that A has, then it could do the same for A. Though if A is already self sustaining I'm pretty sure it wouldn't need B.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I could imagine that if a host went through experiences of investing in so much time, even to the point of being obsessive about, with treating their tulpa as sentient, it would become something that bleeds into their mental repository where they may not have to be fixated on consciously providing what you would could call “sustenance” in their companion’s existence.


It’s probably because that desire is ingrained in their mind, and they have yet to want to eradicate it despite of the circumstances that may have tempt them to dissipate them intentionally, or merely forgot about their existence due to lack of awareness. But it’s very questionable and challenging to know if a tulpa’s existence is contingent on a host’s conscious strive to acknowledge them so that their tulpa in turn would acknowledge their host as well; so that cyclical loop of acknowledgment may be one of many rudiments that may for example:


- Tempt a recursive tulpa to find reasons why another tulpa should exist (e.g. to foster a stronger sense of camaraderie, knowing from experiential learning from their own, or through their host’s memory of what it means to them to personally care about the existence of someone else, even if they may only really be real based on their host’s private and subjective experience)


- Maybe allow said tulpa to appear in other shapes and forms where the host feels they’re another tulpa, but it could just be a tulpa using those forms as expressions of themselves in some way.


- Whatever circumstance where a tulpa and/or host actually makes a set of ethics when it comes to sustaining the existence of someone within their subjective experience or not.



Most of your questions seemed to be based on the assurance developed from appealing to the populace, or what you presume is something that can be “socially accepted,” or whatever you feel is actually a social norm that has a domineering force in influencing people’s morality and mode of ethics when creating a tulpa. And when you bring up the topic of dissipation for this circumstance, it raises the question:


- What’s really being dissipated here? Or who is really be close to being dissipated?


The tulpa in question? Or rather the disposition the host, and even the tulpa fosters of what it means to sustain the existence of themselves in some way. In other words, is it really just the concept being dissipated, or the tulpa themselves? If we take into consideration of other anecdotal claims (and the plethora of more claims) of hosts who felt they dissipated their tulpas, took a hiatus from the tulpa endeavor, and came back only to find their tulpa coming back to their awareness, albeit in a different light, does that tulpa’s existence have to be contingent on the conscious strive from the host to further their propensity in treating them as sentient?


If it gets to that point, one may have to imagine of how they have to change those predispositions where they probably accepted that they exist in some way, and see how they can destroy those latent yearnings that have been made; things that they’re content with that it would seem impractical to them to want to do so because they may realize they may be tempted to create another tulpa, albeit with experiential learning of the emotive responses, and the philosophical and ethical weight on their shoulders from their past mistakes as part of their progressive learning curve to do things more intelligently.


But again, this also brings back the same query I mentioned before: is it really just the concept of what the host, and even that implicitly autonomous tulpa that can refer to themselves, their host, and the tulpa they interact with being dissipated, or the actual tulpa themselves? Because if you’re putting their existence in being wholly contingent on conscious strives (from the host’s end, or a tulpa trying to sustain another existence of a tulpa) for sustaining said existence, it just ends back to begging the question like I’ve been doing in this post.


IMO, to get out of that dead-end, a nice start would be to criticize social norms that have such an influential factor in the host, and even a tulpa trying to sustain the existence of another tulpa, and see if those societal systems of moral and ethics really have to be inherent rudiments that validates who, or what concept is really being eradicated, and move forward from there. But remember, things are always dripping with contingency when we believe certain “norms” are actually plausible ethics of how one “ought” to force, or acknowledge their tulpa’s existence before they “dissipate.”


This is something where, IMO, the host and the tulpa have to come to terms within their own private and subjective experience, and map out their own morality and ethics to foster assurance that they can be individuals that can be self-referential from what they’re trying to do rather than being contingent on what “social norms” tell them what to do. And maybe, just maybe, the question begging subsides.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't contribute much except to say that it was touched on in Pleebs famous lecture. Here is a paste bin save.


And here is a summary/discussion of the lecture on this very forum.


The answer Pleeb came up with is yes, a lone tulpa can stimulate themselves at a certain point and multiple tulpa can stimulate each other (stop giggling).

Tulpa: Jack.

Started: Saturday June 28th, 2014.

Form: My avatar, on the left.

Progress: He is sentient, but not vocal.

Share this post

Link to post
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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.