Nah, it’s already ever so slightly crowded over here. I’m pretty sure half of us would immediately veto any plan that included “make another tulpa” as a step.
{{How about traumagenic formation, for something requiring creating another person in your brain, @Felight? We can drop that if it's too Tumblr syscourse-y though. Lots of toxic there...}}
Tulpas shouldn't be made just cause, they should have a valid reason, and people should be highly conservative with the speed and extent their systems grow
(Aside: I disike it when people cast misunderstanding language as “semantics.” Semantics is about what language means. Words have meanings, and context and connatation is a part of that meaning.)
I don’t necessarily think creation of a sentient life is a net positive, or even a net neutral. But it’s a matter of not dictating what people can and cannot do inside their minds.(edited)
the key point being that the functions of morality that effect people fail to function well when we are speaking of things that do not leave a person's brain
3:04 AM
a tulpa can be created and dissipated with no real harm or loss
3:04 AM
perhaps a person choosing to abuse their tulpa, might have a teensy little bit of a mental problem
3:04 AM
but the effects of dissipation are greatly overstated
3:05 AM
rather than being looked at as some murder or death, it should be looked at as what it is
People who are led into believing that a tulpa is just an identity that can be dissipated at will with no consequence (and, as you indicated by extention, that they can be dissipated by the tulpa at their will with no consequence) are being fed unwarranted fear - and additionally not advised in a way that will lead to a beneficial relationship between the host and any tulpas.
3:08 AM
After all, by that logic - why treat a tulpa postiively in the first place if it is just a 'way of thinking'?
3:08 AM
It is possible to abuse a tulpa - it is possible to keep them from interacting with others (after all, just as a host's interaction with a tulpa is not important in the same way as interaction with external individuals, the same holds true for the tulpa as they are the same type of 'thing').
In addition, I did also point out - tulpas that can think autonomously (as in: On their own, without aid from the host) are effectively impossible to dissipate. That would indeed be "well invested".
the tulpa isn't some abused little section of the mind, it's a means through which the person is thinking and acting
3:11 AM
it's better thought of as a series of mechanisms and systems you set in place that, while they can run as a habit or an assocation, are not like a fully separate thinking human being.
Ah, to use your terminology, I don't expect the average person to do anything. I expect the average "original identity" to treat a tulpa based on how they learn what a tulpa is in the first place.
3:13 AM
As such, by teaching them that a tulpa is some autonomous pre-programmed mechanism that runs its course and isn't actually sapient at all - or by attempting to teach them that they, and their tulpas, are effectively just imagined identities without any independent agency at all, then you aren't actually teaching them what a tulpa is, and encouraging them to treat a tulpa that can be created in a way that would be considered abuse.
