![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nematoddity.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesI thought it was worth posting the real Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Dragging it back on topic, though--how does this relate to multiples? Consider if someone in a system commits a crime--are the rest of the system subjected to cruel and unusual punishment simply because there's only one shared body between them? (It's not a theoretical discussion. It's happened, and at least one lawyer arguing for the system at large made this argument in court.)
Anyway. If we're up to theoretical debate, feel free. Otherwise ignore it. Believe me, I'm not trying to preach to anyone...in fact, if you'll notice in the document, there's no religious references save to everyone having the right to believe as they choose, barring that that belief does not directly impact another person's right to remain free and unhindered by cruel treatment.
Dragging it back on topic, though--how does this relate to multiples? Consider if someone in a system commits a crime--are the rest of the system subjected to cruel and unusual punishment simply because there's only one shared body between them? (It's not a theoretical discussion. It's happened, and at least one lawyer arguing for the system at large made this argument in court.)
Anyway. If we're up to theoretical debate, feel free. Otherwise ignore it. Believe me, I'm not trying to preach to anyone...in fact, if you'll notice in the document, there's no religious references save to everyone having the right to believe as they choose, barring that that belief does not directly impact another person's right to remain free and unhindered by cruel treatment.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 10:14 pm (UTC)But I do feel, that working together with my parts to try and reach an arrangement where an individual part can be "punished" for doing something wrong (for instance, one coming out doing something that damages my business when she knows better), like withholding something that part enjoys. One of mine, Rhea, enjoys eating gummy candy (which I hate), and when she's polite and asks, I grant it to her, but if she misbehaves and causes me or my system distress, I withhold it as "punishment", so to speak. My parts are mostly young, so I treat them that way.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 11:29 pm (UTC)That seems workable. I'm hoping, some day, for more contact with my people, but at the moment...it's just not there. I think, though, that my personal aversion to jail might be system-wide, from some conversations my partner has related to me, so that's something.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 11:39 pm (UTC)It might be slow. I'm still working on becoming more friendly with my peers, who are very distant, and feed me mingled memories and other thoughts that are very confusing.
Jail is a nasty environment. Confinement is especially unappealing to us, as we sort of feel confined within just one body, when there's more than one of us.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 11:14 pm (UTC)Of course, our system is incredibly cooperative and co-conscious. So this approach might not work for other systems.. If someone were to try to do something illegal, someone could push out and stop the body from doing it. If nobody pushes out and stops the crime from happening, we all should pay for what's done.
*shrugs* Like I said.. It works for us.. Might not work for other people who are less cooperative and co-conscious. *chuckles*
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 11:32 pm (UTC)So far, reading here and in other places, there's an amazing variety of systems of people. I guess I'd fit in with a frontrunner and others who are either buried, unconscious, or too damaged to come forward...though they might disagree, and I can't speak for them, because as I've said, I've only had contact with the one.
To me, from my perspective, a cooperative and co-conscious system sounds like the best thing...that way, decisions are made together, there are common goals. Or, at least, that's the outer perception...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-20 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 12:57 am (UTC)Here's a copy.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 02:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 08:03 am (UTC)I'm not sure what you mean exactly by how it relates to multiples.
Inside of our system we try to operate on similar principles. We allow people their own beliefs provided they don't harm others. Don't don't "lock bad alters up." We don't insist everyone has to be productive to be worthy of human dignity. Everyone has the right to own property, so we don't throw each other's stuff out (even if I think someone's interest in knitting is stupid, or whatever). And so on and so forth.
Outside of our system we are held accountable as a group, much like a board of directors can be held responsible for the actions of the company. That's fair and reasonable, in my view. We work hard to communicate and be aware of what's going on - kind of our version of due diligence.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 08:51 am (UTC)As for how I think it relates to multiples, I think the question is more about justice. Is it fair for a group to be punished for the actions of one member? Is it fair to whomever is injured by those actions for them NOT to be punished?
For our system, it's hard for us to conceive of not being responsible for the actions of our systemmates, but we're very firmly on the co-conscious end of the spectrum.
What, as a system or as a member of a system, would you ethically be responsible for if you don't have that co-consciousness? What would be steps to take to prevent problems if you are a system without that co-consciousness? I'm sure most of us agree that there needs to be justice, but, practically, what are some ways to work toward that when you aren't able to talk to other members of your system very well?
Catherine
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 09:25 am (UTC)You don't have to be in realtime discussions with the members of your system to keep things safe, though. There are lots of skills you can develop to prevent people from coming out when there's no one to watch them. It could be something as simple as removing means of transportation when more irresponsible members are using the body or having someone checking in on you periodically. And if you're talking about something really serious like someone in the system is going around beating up random people, there's always the option of checking into a hospital.
Unfortunately, I don't think teaching multiples how to maintain group responsibility will do much to change how multiplicity is played out in the courts. Many of the people using the MPD defense probably aren't even multiple. The rest of them are just using it as a get out of jail-free card. They're not concerned with behaving responsibly. A prime example is the system in the Minds of Billy Milligan. They all knew that the other system members were breaking the law. They just didn't care.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:39 pm (UTC)I feel rather certain that if I truely wished to commit an act that none of the others agreed with that I almost certainly could manage it, albeit I might have to manipulate my way through a few restrictions.
I'm also quite certain that one or two of the other members of the system, if they wanted, could simply choose to ignore them. Recently we had the rather frightful experience of having one of the others threaten, with the full intent and ability, to completely overwhelm the will of the majority in here and shut us all off from contact with the outside world. She would not have been able to maintain such a situation indefinitely but it certainly could have happened and she probably could have maintained it for several days and possibly even weeks.
During that time there would have been no controls, no ways for us to stop her from doing whatever she damn well pleased. If she had gone through with it she very easily could have ruined our lives and there wasn't a damn thing we could have done about it. My question then, is if she had commited a crime say, during that period of time where none of the rest of us had any ability whatsoever to stop her, should we all have been held responsible along with her?
Aside from situations such as that though I most certainly agree that people must take responsibility for their actions and, for the sake of interacting with the rest of the population at large, take responsibility for any actions of the others residing with them that they have any control over.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:02 pm (UTC)If daily life is jail for some people in a system, what motivation do they have for staying out of a physical jail cell? None.
And ultimately I think the answer for me still is "maybe not the first time" - although the law would not necessarily see it that way - but after that probably yeah. I realize that's pretty hardcore, but I think if multiple want to be able to, for example, be able to enter into binding contracts - get a driver's license - own property - systems do need to agree to work within a singleton framework at least as far as the laws of the land go.
Shandra
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:28 pm (UTC)We almost all got killed the one time Flute thought it would be a good idea to see if she could drive... and she was only out for five seconds or so. [sweatdrop]
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 06:02 pm (UTC)If you know that you have people with the capability to take over the body and the means/mindset to commit a crime, you need to have something in place to prevent them from doing that. You know the possibility's there. It's your responsibility to keep it from happening.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 06:20 pm (UTC)However, this does not mean that I would feel myself personally responsible if I had done all I could possibly do to stop him.
I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of whether others within a system should be held morally responsible rather than legally.
At any rate, it is (hopefully) a moot point for us now that he is dead(for good this time) and the one who killed him has been stabalized.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 07:14 pm (UTC)And I think that I could have maintained it for much longer. Especially had you and Makil and Len and the others gone through with that foolish idea to attack me! You really are stupid sometimes.
But then again I also think your the smartest man I know. Anyway, please stop making insinuations about me. i can do that for myself thankyouverymuch! ~_>
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:01 pm (UTC)1. What if I'm aware that I am a multiple, but as yet have no contact with anyone else?
2. Since, every time in my history I've 'gone down', I surface somewhere else, with no memory of what happened previously and no way to ask anyone save for anyone who might have been with me--how does this make anything that happened my fault?
Though I can easily see, knowing the way *my* mind works, that I might have found some subconscious way to put everyone else out because I was scared to death of Janice. As in, I thought that was the only way to control her. Which, now that I think about it, if that *is* what happened, that wasn't the most ethical thing to do...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:04 pm (UTC)I don't think it's your fault or even necessarily your responsibility - although finding out about that going down might be. But ultimately I think your life would suck more if for example you couldn't be held to an employment contract (in case someone else broke, say, a confidentiality agreement) than if you didn't have to be held responsible for the actions of others.
Just my 2 cents but - yeah, we have had issues, so that's why we've spent some time thinking about it. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 07:09 pm (UTC)If I wanted I could force my will and do anything I wanted and no one could stop me short of killing me inside. I might not even be killable inside, it would take at least five of the others fighting me I think to be able to take me down. if i wanted I could easily kill all but a few of the others.
If i forced my way and killed someone on the outside, would they be responsible? I only ask because before I agreed to let someone else on the inside stabalize me i was quite insane and planned on doing just these things and I am curious what you think the others level of responsibility would have been.
I think this was the situation
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:37 am (UTC)In terms of justice as a moral concept - I think it's a tricky one. In our system there certainly have been long periods of lack of awareness and co-consciousness so I sympathize, but we also as /soon/ as we could, worked at awareness. I suppose my own leaning is that for most multiple systems, there seems to me to be a capacity to chose to adress something or not, and if people chose not to address things then they are culpable.
Maybe the /first/ time you lose time and then find a (random example) $25 shoplifted thing in your closet you kind of get a moral pass on punishment, although obviously you should return the item. But if it happens again and you & your system doesn't address it - I think there is shared responsibility there.
Kind of like a host letting people drive drunk (the party kind of host, not the multiple system kind of host:)).
And... if a system is so dysfunctional that some of the system is going out and causing harm to people, I think for the good of both that system and society, they need to be restrained in some way until they are able to prevent it. Certainly if someone in my system were that out of control I would want external controls to be in place until we established our own.
In other words I guess I think that kind of responsibility takes precedence over whether it's 'fair' that I would be locked up for something I didn't do.
I don't know about "fairness" in general anyway. Being a member of a multiple system is not the fairest thing to happen to someone, but neither is being born into poverty or war or any number of things.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 11:28 am (UTC)I think that when you're given situations that are tremendously unfair, like what many of us have to face, sometimes it's better to worry about practical realities first and fairness later. You have to accept the current situation before you can change it.
We aren't alone in our heads, aren't always in full control of the shared life, the shared body. And maybe that isn't fair, but that's what IS.
I'm not one to give up on fairness, but it certainly is a complicated multilayered issue.
Catherine
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:43 pm (UTC)I agree. During a recent discussion with a friend of some of ours who shared a psychology class with us we outed to him and because he was an Administration of Justice major we worked round to this exact issue.
I realized in our discussion that if anything were to ever happen that caused one of the others who is dangerous(and there are a couple) to manage to break free of the restraints upon them on the inside, I would very much want to be restrained, for the sakes of my fiance, family, and friends.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 03:54 am (UTC)'Fairness' may be overrated. There's not much about this world that's fair, you're right.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 06:39 pm (UTC)As far as I know, from that time, and maybe before, everyone's still asleep. There's some activity, down in the depths where I can't access, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just being 'told' everyone's asleep. I have no way, at the moment, of knowing either way.
Last time I spoke with Janice, though, she was still angry, bitter, incredibly hostile, and wanted the world dead. Which frightens me on more than one level--because I, this *I*, have no memory of any abuse. We have blank spots in our childhood memories, but I don't remember anything else. And I loathe the whole 'repressed memory' thing...save that I seem to have one. So far, any therapist I've spent any time with discounts the possibility that I might be MPD without inhaling, practically. I have my partner's view to go on--and she knows I'm MPD, because the woman she married isn't me.
That's been another complication...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:19 pm (UTC)But I always do have a fear of him or someone else I don't have awareness of yet coming forth and being physically violent with others, or causing this body self-harm.
I wish you luck in your efforts, it sounds like you currently have peace on your own while you have the opportunity to live a singular life.. cherish that.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 10:41 am (UTC)We've got a couple blank spots in our memories too which I'm kinda uncomfortable with, but like you, I have no intents of letting anyone talk me into telling me what, if anything, we've repressed. They could be things purposely suppressed, they could be things just plain forgotten. We figure if they're going to come back, they'll come back eventually and we won't try to force it, and if not, either way, we can live with it.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 06:06 pm (UTC)And then again, how often have I been the frontrunner? Have I alwasy been in that position? Then whatever happened wouldn't have happened to me, necessarily...but still, you'd think I would have gotten some hint.
So I'm just baffled. I'm hoping more research is done and someone comes out with a theory that multiplicity is just another coping mechanism, and it just happens. That it's not always, but it can be, associated with terrible events in the child's past. But that sometimes, it just happens, for no direct discernable reason.
Of course, I'm hoping for hovercars to catch on, too... :)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 01:58 pm (UTC)~Kay'lona
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 03:59 pm (UTC)This is resonable but it seems to me, in many ways, to take it as wrote that once co-consciousness is achieved that it will always operate and will always be effective. Its possible this is because, indeed, the thought of losing something that often takes such effort to achieve can be frightening, especially in light of the massive ammount of limitations that would suddenly reappear.
The reason I bring this up though, and to bring it back to the point is this: what if members of a system can limit how much the other members are co-concious of with them at any given time?? Is that too dangerous an ability to allow to continue or is it reasonable that members should be able to have at least some semblance of privacy when they wish it.
For us, this is indeed the situation. I myself and I believe most of the others value this ability to have at least some privacy highly. Sometimes I wonder though at the safety of such a situation. If someone did something harmful or dangerous and was able to do it only because they were temporarily limiting other people's level of sharing their consciousness then we would all pay. On the other hand, privacy is not something to be thrown away lightly. I am very thankful that sometimes, if I need it, I can block out all the other thoughts and know that my thoughts are my own and that, if I want to do something entirely by myself, then I am truely independant for a short time.
I suppose in many ways this mirrors the constant debates in government centering on which value takes precedence: security of the citizens, or the privacy of those same citizens.
At any rate, I'm also curious if this is an issue for anyone else. Before now I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that most other systems had the same issues. After looking at the above discussion though, I am no longer certain of this.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:10 pm (UTC)I think privacy is a privilege and yeah, it's a nice thing to have - provided it's not abused to the detriment of the system. It's not a lot to ask that people adhere to a basic system of ethics (we're not talking about what not to wear here, but "don't beat people up" or whatever) _in exchange for_ that privacy. Some people don't agree to the same ethical standards, but they are willing to negotiate them anyway. For example we have negotiated "don't toy with others to the point of making them suicidal" in exchange for a mad-money allowance. It may sound strange, but there it is.
In our system we pool resources, but we have some limits ('responsibilities') that go along with the resources.
That's one perspective anyway. :-) YMMV but I've found it really helpful for us. To date. :-)
Shandra
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:54 pm (UTC){J}tatiana
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 03:47 pm (UTC)