[identity profile] itsa-wallaby.livejournal.com
I've been wondering lately whether these other people in my head are actual people or if they're just me being dissociative, and how to figure it out. My therapist refuses to entertain the possibility that they're actual people, so no help there. Can anyone think of some way to find out..? Or is this one of those "only you can tell" sorts of things?


EDIT: Look, the therapist comment was just to say that I'm not getting any help from him. He does NOT affect the fact that I don't know whether I'm just dissociating or if they're real people, and this question would have probably been asked with or without him. I have a lot of issues to deal with, and I am not seeing him for multiplicity, it only comes up because I told him about it once and he asks about it if we run out of other things to talk about. He's even told me that it's okay if I don't believe him. His stance is that they are dissociation, not people, and that there is a reason why they are there, and that I need to ask them until they give me an answer other than "well, why are *you* here?" I disagree with him about the question, but I do not know what to think about whether they're dissociation-induced or real people. Some days I believe they're real, some days not. Today, for example, I do believe they are real and separate people and that I'm not even the first one who was here. Two days ago, I believed we were all the same person and that I was dissociating sometimes, and sometimes "I" even thought that while talking to others or while being someone else.

I appreciate all your comments, I really do, just please leave my therapist out of it, because he has very little to do with this question.
[identity profile] netdancer.livejournal.com
Things have been a bit heavy here, so I offer up this word game as a contribution where everyone can be as clever, unclever, silly or whatever. This is an Existential Flamewar...just post a reply in the theme of the post above you. I'll start.


Rambly rant posted at three AM on Monday night, broken into paragraphs and obviously the work of several members of the posting System. It complains about lack of content to read on the Internet, cold feet, bad coffee and misbehaving cats, and somehow comes around to blaming all this on People Who Pretend To Be Multiple, Damn Them. Then the original poster apologizes profusely for system mates and proclaims that bed is needed.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
The following is rumination by our Lucifer Davison:
The idea that there could be people born multiple instantly means that for a small minority, the system (no pun intended) is wrong. They are not matching the identity of the common person on the street. They are instead: Comments, anyone?
[identity profile] sharpsight.livejournal.com
N) Is there any system that can claim (for it to be possible in the relevant system) to have two members thinking in depth about two completely unrelated things, at the same time, without interference or necessitated timeslicing/timeswapping? That is, is it possible for there to be two coherent, uninterrupted and unrelated streams of thought to be gone through during the same period of time? (Hopefully the terms I've used are unambiguous. *worries*)
[identity profile] rabbitsystem.livejournal.com
I was reading a book today (The Singular Self, Rom Harre) that tries to clarify the meaning of 'self'. Quite apart from my problems with his chain of reasoning, the author also says I'm not real, or else not human.

"Only those human beings who display a single, continuous Self 1 [singularity of point of view] as an aspect of whatever Self Three [the publicly presented self] they may from moment to moment be presenting are to be counted as psychologically normal, perhaps even as persons properly so called."

Excuse me? There's more than just me in this head, so I'm not a person? How did you figure that out?

He appears to regard systems that share memories as even less real that those who don't, on the grounds that to be an 'I' means to have a completely unique autobiography. Well, my autobiography IS unique. Because it's me that's telling it, and because I am not the same person as Ellen whatever he thinks on the matter.

Admittedly he's working from the usual psychiatric 'fragmented singleton with amnesia' model, but that still implies that people brought into being by trauma aren't people. I've shared a head with such people, I KNOW they can be people!

If this is how I'm likely to be regarded I'm never coming out at all.
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
We were thinking about the nature of reality itself. My system is having a big division over this, even though the peacekeepers such as Godzilla, Tom, and Archimedes are trying to stop this from getting out of control.
Have those of you that had other worlds gone through a phase like this one, where your system is divided on whether it is real or not and if so, how did you pass through it?
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Why are systems increasing in number? Assuming you don't count the Gerasene Demoniac, there are reports of systems with over 200 to 5000 members. We ourselves are one, and we are curious as to why these increases are occuring, and a good old-fashioned what-if. If Sybil had never been written, and Billy Milligan had still come along, what would have happened for the pictures of Multiples? Might we intsead of  3v1l p$ych0t1c hysterics have been plagued with a deluge of males who are uber-violent? Is there a connection between the gay community and the multiple community?
[identity profile] pengke.livejournal.com
I’m sure everyone has read someone’s post on this community or read a comment that made you stop and think, “I don’t believe you.” If you haven’t, either you don’t read the threads very closely or you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here, because there have been some very outrageous claims made here over the years. (But that’s an entirely different discussion.) I want to know what people think when they come across one of these statements that they just can’t believe.

Do you:
Read more... )

Also, do your thoughts change depending on why you can’t believe the statement? For example, is there a difference between someone claiming to do/be something that you think is impossible and someone contradicting themselves or claiming that something happened in real life that could not have happened?
[identity profile] pengke.livejournal.com
This was meant to be a response to one of Luwana's comments but the post was stolen. We figured it would be good as a broader topic anyway.

Why would concluding that individuals in a multiple system are the product of chemoelectrical impulses be devaluing? Anyone who believes that would believe that all people/personalities are the product of chemoelectrical impulses. Why is the belief in souls necessary for the belief in multiplicity?

Are people afraid that if there's a physiological basis for having/developing a plural identity system then that would cancel out their personal ideology? Are you afraid that people will point to it as evidence that we all just have the shared delusion of being separate people? Do you believe that having a physiological cause for multiplicity would mean that your multiplicity was fake and none of the other people are real?
[identity profile] fadingtogrey.livejournal.com
My boyfriend's wife, when we were all talking about multiplicity, said something interesting the other day, and I'd like to know what everyone thinks about it.

I was talking about how some people in a multiple system will go through bouts of depression, and they take a lot of time "inside" so they don't have to deal with anything. I've known a couple systems that may have been saved from suicide for this reason. My point was that almost everyone has the desire to just "go away" for a while, and in some multiple systems, this is perfectly achievable, while still keeping the body alive.

So, she said something like, "I wonder if having more than one person in a body is a step forward in evolution." Her idea was that a functional multiple would have more resources than a singlet; if one person didn't want to or wasn't able to handle something, someone else could (ideally) come forward and take care of the task.

I don't agree that it's necessarily a step forward (but goodness was I floored to hear that from her!). It seems to imply that multiples are better than singlets, and that's not the kind of thinking I want to encourage. But multiplicity might just be a sort of evolutionary experiment. What do you think?
[identity profile] jadedmosaic.livejournal.com
Right now I am I guess one would call "stealing time" It is officially Elaine's time to be out surfing the net. But tonight I nicely asked her if she would mind going to bed so as not to where out the body cause it is super run down, but allow everyone to collectvley get some sleep. read moreRead more... )
[identity profile] silence1986.livejournal.com
How does multiplicity, in your opinions, relate to theories of having multiple selves, like Transactional Analysis, Voice Dialogue (Hal and Sidra Stone's theory) or Psychosynthesis? Are people who follow psychosytnhesis, voice dialogue etc. in therapy or the like substantially different from multiples or is it part of the continuum? Can multiples use these theories to understand their systems better? I, for example, feel that these theories are rigid and my system doesn't conform to them - beyond being much more formed than simple "ego states" -, but they do make sense in some ways in clarifying my system. I, by the way, am only mid-continuum at most.
[identity profile] draegonhawke.livejournal.com
I'm putting this forth not because I think it's the One True Reason, but because it's a possibility that interests me and I'd like to hear discussion and opinions.

It's something that's grown out of my response to people who think it's crazy that I have fanfic characters in my brain on occasion, or who don't understand how I can process two contradictory interpretations for one character at the same time, and it's something that helps me to understand when people say that they have a character from a TV series or a game or a book or whathaveyou as part of their system; it also helps me understand how two different systems may have the same person within them.

It has to do with understanding the soul as an abstraction.... )

Thoughts? Comments? Corrections or questions?
[identity profile] netdancer.livejournal.com
A while back, we wrote this for non-multiples interested in multiplicity.

Read more... )
[identity profile] spookshow-girl.livejournal.com
It seems to me that quite a few people here subscribe to a paradigm in which it's easily defined who is the "original" or "host". This may work for their systems, in which it's clearly defined who is associating with the body, and who is not. It seems to me, however, that it's not nearly as universally true as some people present.

How does a person deal with a few of the systems present here, in which some may not have never had someone present who identifies with the physical appearance of the body? Does this mean that they cannot be the "original" or "body" person? Is this the case even when they aren't a multiple? Many singles do not believe their reflection is an accurate representation of who they are. Does this mean they lose all rights to their body? What kind of implications will that hold for transgendered people?

What about other systems, in which there are attributes of more than one system member present in the physical body? People who are completely unrelated to each other can look similar enough that people will confuse the two. I've personally experenced this, and I also know I'm not alone. People have gone to jail in cases of mistaken identity. It's really not all that uncommon for people to bear more than a passing resemblance to each other, so is it really that impossible for this to happen in a multiple system?

I've seen it mentioned that the person whose name is present on their identification is the original person. This has a few, IMO amusing, implications. With a little paperwork, a single person, or a multiple system, can change the name on all of their identification, including their Driver's License. It's actually not all that difficult, and many singles do so. If the name on the Driver's License is to be used as some sort of proof, couldn't anyone in the system just change the name on the relevant forms of ID so that it matches with their own personal name, and thus alter their status within the system? That could turn out to be a very bad day for the person who had originally identified as the host.

What if noone identifies with the name bestowed at birth? Plenty of singles are uncomfortable with their birth names. After all, they did not choose the name, it was chosen by their parents. If one must identify with their birth name in order to claim that they are the original inhabitant of the body, what does it mean when someone who is not multiple chooses to change their name, and no longer uses their birth name. Does this mean that they are no longer the "original" person? What if they never really identified with the name, or always hated it and avoided using it?

Conversely, what if more than one person in a system identifies with the birth name? First and last names are not universally unique. In some cases, it's not even a coincidence. In some families, it's custom to use a specific first name for all their children, such as the name of a grandmother, grandfather, or saint. They differentiate between the children using their middle names. I've encountered someone from such a family, and my sister has encountered a set of twins with the same first and last name. Given this, how impossible is it for two system members to identify with the same name, perhaps using nicknames, or chosen middle names in order to differentiate themselves in casual conversation? How is it invalid if there was a concious choice involved, as the case may be among some singles? In any case, no matter the reason: who is the original, when more than one person identifies with the name given to the body at birth?

When people assert that it is easy to identify who the body person might be, are they just taking the easy way out by denying the experiences of these corner cases? Do they for some reason believe that these issues which exist outside the context of multiplicity, somehow magically become rendered null and void once you are talking about a multiple system? Have they never encountered these issues before? If so, where are they living?

The reason I ask, is because here on Earth people don't always feel that their reflection, their driver's license, their name, or their gender at birth, are really reflective of who they are as a person, nor are they unique identifiers. There are jobs and undustries which rely on this fact. Yet somehow, some of these people have the gall to accuse others of living in a fantasy land.

[identity profile] shandra.livejournal.com
1. What's been your most 'classic' multiple moment? (Meaning finding someone loudly proclaiming his gay maleness at a women's book club or whatever, not trauma stuff.)

2. What's been the most humorous moment related to being multiple?

3. What's the stupidest comment you've ever gotten from someone about multiplicity (yours or in general)?

4. What's the best comment or support you've ever gotten?

5. Pick one system mate and say what you like best about them or sharing a life with them.

I will answer these in the comments later too, I just ran short on time. :)
pthalo: Two unicorns in love (Unicorns)
[personal profile] pthalo
cross posted from our journal

I've either lost my mind or am a genius. On the bus home, I realise Chomsky's x-bar theory and the minimalist theory he replaced it with, can be reworded quite nicely to represent multiplicity. subjacency violations, c-command, binding, governing categories, ye olde x-bar theory, and multiplicity. )
[identity profile] nontrinity.livejournal.com
Hey everyone. We found this article today, Mapping Your System, and were wondering if these kinds of things really help communication and stuff.

Most of us are leaning toward the scrapbook idea, but it'll be a HUGE undertaking since it's so hard to wrangle everyone up to participate in a group activity like that. And the littles are loving the idea of making a jigsaw puzzle where everyone designs their own piece.

So yeah, has anyone here tried to "map" their system?



Aug. 29th, 2005 03:17 pm
[identity profile] colligocarus.livejournal.com
I've been doing some research on what exactly people believe multiplicity is and isn't. I've read every website I can find and much of the literature, and still the questions remain unanswered (or answered in too many widely variant ways).

On the internet/web, people keep expanding or revising the term "multiplicity" to make it mean seemingly very disparate things. In the medical community, only if you correspond to the DSM IV classification of DID or DDNOS can you possibly be considered multiple, IF the doctor in question believes in multiplicity, something which is becoming more and more uncommon.

What is authentic multiplicity? How do you discern it from wishful thinking, delusion, fakery, etc? Is there a definition of multiplicity that means something, or is it just a nonsense word, all sound and fury?

How does "soulbonding" (in the new sense) compare to more traditional multiplicity in actual living? Is "soulbonding" actual multiplicity, a form of fantasy/wish fulfillment, or something else entirely?

How much do "survivorwhine" (to use Amorpha's term) and "non-disordered" multiples really have in common? Is it even the same kettle of fish?

Why the enmity between the "natural" and "trauma-based" multiple? Why the enmity between disordered and non-disordered multiples?

Is natural multiplicity the same as multiplicity caused by trauma at the base level? Are we actually witnessing two distinctly different phenomena which are only similar in appearance?

Categories and labels exist to help us classify and give meaning to the phenomena we observe. What does the label "multiple" or "plural" actually mean?
[identity profile] sethrenn.livejournal.com
After some comments in a few recent threads, I was thinking about the issue of peer-pressure as it relates to multiple systems, and people feeling that their systems/groups/etc "should" be a certain way simply because other people's are.

Have people felt inadequate for having 'too few' people in their systems, or for not having a world or a place where they go when they're not fronting-- that they're 'not multiple enough'? (Or, conversely, depending on where you go, for having too many people or too large a subjective world?)

I know that during the time when the MPD/DID model was the only game in town, a lot of ideas about "what MPD is" derived from the media or from highly influential cases, and a lot of what seemed to be standard or universal aspects of multiplicity were actually the result of patients being told that "everyone has (x)" or being surrounded by other patients who did. If you're pressured for long enough and told "but every multiple has an ISH," eventually you're going to fabricate one just to end the demands, and even believe in it if you have to, if you're sufficiently invested in the doctor continuing to take you seriously.

I don't believe this is going on to the same degree as it was during that time, but the fact that I see people asking questions like "I think there are more people in my system, how do I find them?" fairly regularly makes me wonder why they think there are undiscovered others, and if they're basing it off their own evidence or on the numbers they see in other systems. Or "where is our internal world"-- same deal. (This also works in reverse-- that is to say, attempting to change your system because you think it's 'too weird'; you might want to be careful who you tell about it if you think that's the case, but we've certainly seen the messes which can be left to clean up if you try to bend someone too far.)

I tend to agree with [livejournal.com profile] spookshow_girl's comment that trying to force your system to be something it isn't (as distinct from agreed-upon, cooperative change) is an unwise idea. I know there's still the widespread perception that high numbers mean you're "more multiple" than if there are two or three of you, thanks to ideas about "degrees of fragmentation" (and a way to prove you suffered if more abuse = higher numbers). It's a perception I wish I could erase, and in any case, trying to increase the head count often seems to lead to nothing more than labelling someone's separate moods as new people. Trying to change one's system because you feel it 'should' be a certain way, and not because everyone involved wants to work towards change, rarely produces any good results, if the cases I've seen are any indication.


multiplicity_archives: (Default)
Archives of the Livejournal Multiplicity Community

March 2013

17 181920212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 08:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios