multiples and otherkin (x-posted)

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

Well, I think this is my first official update in this community but I think most people are familiar with me. If not, I'll briefly introduce myself. I'm an outside walk-in to a system of several different people living inside one body/mind. I call myself an Angel of Death and believe myself to be over 700 years old [although I admit even I am skeptical to my own claims; I don't even take my own memories as absolute evidence of the truth of my claims e.g. I may be crazy :)].

That being said and all of this beingg taken into consideration, I find myself interested in the interactions between multiplicity(be it natural or disordered) and otherkinism(to coin a word).

It seems to me that there are many commonalities between the two phenomena and, while different in many ways, Kin seem to often share some traits with Multiples and vice versa. At the same time, the interactions and reactions between persons who consider themselves only to be one or the other are not always necessarily amiable. Some Kin think of Multiples as "crazies" and some Multiples seem to do the reverse; at very least there seems to be a good deal of skepticism as a subtext for their interactions with one another.

There also exist subtle differences in the language used between the two groups when it comes to terms and ideas that are at least superficially nearly identical.

Take the concept of a "walk-in", a term I use to describe myself to aid other people's understanding of me. Whereas Kin often use this term in a highly mystical and transendental fassion roughly similar to the old idea of someone either possesing or being possesed by a spirit(not necessarily evil although possesion certainly has that connotation culturally for many), Multiples tend to think of it as a common or a more internal experience where another person simply walks into the mind and takes up residence there.

Because of these observations, I am curious as to other people in both communities perspectives on each other and people's unique personal observations or general experiences with these ideas.

I find both groups of people and their interactions fascinating, largely of course because I consider myself both, and also because of the blurred line that marginally seperates people in both categories.

I look forward to the reactions and impressions of the people who respond, be they experienced in these interactions or completely uninformed of the paradigmatical juxtaposition these two groups usually fall into. Id est: Both the experienced and the newbie I'm sure will have interesting things to say.

Discussion in otherkin.

Comments

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

A large majority of Us are therian (some We suspect may be pure animal though), and obviously multiple as well. I know We're not the only system like this out there - Our SO's system and several close friends' systems also are multiple and majorly therian. I don't think multiplicity and therianthropy/otherkin have any correlation. However, I do think there are some similarities, for example some therian/otherkin who describe their "phenotype" as a somewhat separate entity from themselves, but don't claim it to be "multiple personalities". Sometimes polyweres can be similar to multiples, especially the ones whose multiple phenotypes are viewed separately instead of one hyrid creature. We're multiple, but many of Us just happen to be also therian. None of Us view Our phenotype as a separate entity - and the polyweres in here are all hybrid types - although inside most of Us can usually take either a human, animal, or anthro form. In my case I'm Ash the wolf therian, not Ash who has a wolf side. (I'll also note, I don't consider the phenotypes of other therian members of my system to be part of my phenotype.) And I think it would be that way whether or not I shared a body with others.

~Ash

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

I should probably become more familiar with therianthropy. I know _flute_ used to run with a pack of what she calls "furrythings" before she came to us, and I wonder if maybe they could be identified by those who know more about said subject than I.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

From a purely self-identity standpoint, it makes sense that you'd see an increase of otherkin in the multiple community. People in a multiple system, especially if they very rarely get a chance to use the body, have to get their sense of self and their body image from somewhere other than the physical body. It's logical that someone who either identifies strongly with an animal or who is looking for a role model and finds it in an anime would encorporate that into their self-image and see themselves at least partially as that animal. You can even take it a step further and say that because most of the people do not have a chance to have their own individual experiences learn from, they're more likely to encorporate ideals or personality traits, or aspects of themselves from fictional sources which would translate to some of them identifying as belonging to that fictional source or identifying as being one of the species/races in the fictional source.

Plus a lot of systems also seem to have more leeway with their 'physical' body in the system's world. If people can change the appearance of their hair at will and age-sliders can be physically adults or physically children depending on their age, why should it come as a surprise when others expand their physical self to include animal/anthropomorphic animal bodies?

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Reading about systems described by therapists during the dawn of awareness of multiples shows me that a lot of multiple systems in the past consisted primarily of "plain old human beings" who all identified as such, whereas today more and more systems contain therians/furries and other more abstract types of beings.

I am not wholly convinced I believe this is the case. (I'm not attacking you, just mentioning something I've been thinking about, lately.) For one, during the 'dawn of awareness' of multiplicity-- in Western society, anyway-- there was a HUGE crossover between Spiritualism and multiplicity. 'Multiple personality' was used by some to refer to spirit mediums who let channeled spirits share their bodies, which wasn't uncommon in old-time Spiritualist practise. (Allegedly-- I'm not saying I necessarily believe this was true or always true.) There was also the Doris Fischer case around the turn of the century.

Doris Fischer was a patient of Dr. Walter Prince (not Morton Prince, who worked with 'Miss Beauchamp') around the turn of the century. She initially presented with symptoms of anxiety and excessive lethargy (I think). At first it was very much along the lines of "Sybil"; further on in the course of her treatment he actually took her to a medium when her symptoms weren't going away.

Well, according to this medium, Doris was really possessed by 'entities.' (The idea behind 'entities' is that the world is inhabited by a variety of discarnate spirits-- some the spirits of deceased humans, some from other dimensions, who can appear as apparitions or possess the bodies of living people.) Doris was allegedly inhabited by a whole array of entities fighting for control of her body. The whole thing turned into somewhat of a sideshow, with Doris becoming totally dependent on both the medium and therapist; the medium seems to have been taking her and Dr. Prince for a ride, and she appears to have enjoyed the attention, and because of this, I have a lot of doubts as to whether she was really multiple at all.

Anyway, though, the point is more that 'entities' weren't considered to necessarily be human. I don't think the appearance of nonhumans in systems is a modern phenomenon strictly-- as far as therians and furries go, there have been quite a few cultures worldwide which held the belief that animal spirits can inhabit a human body. If anything, one could say that instead of a recent trend, it's actually a kind of atavism, returning to much older conceptions of many spirits inhabiting a body. (My personal opinion, actually, is that there were even in Doris Fischer's time self-aware multiples with nonhuman system members. The keyword is 'self-aware,' really-- then as now, therapists were seeing a highly skewed sampling of dysfunctional, noncommunicating systems.) For the record, while the majority of us that we know of are human, we're sympathetic to otherkin, therianthropy, and similar phenomena in general.

IIRC

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

It's not uncommon, although very unpopular to bring up at dinner parties, for members of some trauma induced multiple systems to identify as demonic, especially if their upbringing was particularly christian. Contrary to some views espoused by the satanic panic people, some their origin actually may come from christianity-themed abuse, in which the person doesn't feel they can look for help in that direction, so they begin to look in the other direction.

Whether or not these are actually demons coming in to protect the person from abuse, or simply a matter of self-identification, or both, is something that is difficult to discern, especially if you believe in the psyche's ability to shape the world around it.

--Me

Re: IIRC

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

[Snerk] I've never run into that directly but in many cases I would guess the people in question are getting what they deserve. Not because I would think it a good thing getting demons involved in one's life, whether they be real or figments makes no difference, but because I have been identified as a demon by our body's mother apparently, and that seemed somehow ironic to me.

Re: IIRC

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

*points to what you said*

We are very, very familiar with this line of thought.

Cricket and Hannah

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

*points to what sethrenn said* Plus the fact that at least one member of Doris' system said that she was not, as the others were, part of Doris' original personality, but an independent spirit from the "Other Side".

One must also take into account that in those days, doctors might deliberately leave out details which might appear too crude or indelicate. They might very well omit animal selves from an account of a female multiple client.

a lot of aspects about being multiple are still a mystery - such as some people having peers that speak languages which the "host" could never have learned, or having knowledge and talents the "host" could not possibly have. Spirituality probably explains situations like this better than science can at this point.

I think not. "Could never have learned" and "could not possibly have" point to wishful thinking on the part of the doctor as well as the client. A bit of background research invariably turns up some form of learning experience for the client in that body, in that lifetime. It's simply that the "host", in these cases, does not remember learning it or hasn't happened to mention it.

The gullibility of therapists studying multiples, particularly in the 1980s and 90s, cannot be overstated, and their reports of "knowledge the host could not possibly have" must be taken with several pounds of salt. Much of their professed astonishment that a client could know a particular thing is based on class or social prejudice, or on their own ignorance. Knowing but a few words of a language, they'll describe a client who can put a sentence together as speaking it perfectly.

This aspect of multiplicity is supposed to represent the unlimited powers of the mind to do anything. Unfortunately, this kind of Shakti Gawain thinking does not apply in the earth world. There must be some learning period for the body. This holds true in the case of peers as well as parts of a single self. A master-level chess player or a mighty swordswoman back on the homeworld won't be able to employ those abilities instantly on their first excursion to the front. Having an aptitude for said skills might allow them to learn quickly, but the body must be trained to those particular thought and behavior patterns.

I agree with you somewhat,

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

However, depending on the givens one work from, it's not surprising how such views can arise.

For example, I do have a belief in the paranormal. This increases the amount of possibilities here. This person isn't a part of the "original body spirit", a concept that has it's own implicit assumptions, such as, the fact that a body has one, or that it has one. This person has had a instance of cryptoamnesia. This person is a psychic, and picked up just enough of that language from an outside source to be able to piece together that sentence. If you believe in some sort of collective conciousness, you've got another possible source.

All of the above may be possible, assuming you believe in the initial assumptions required. Unfortunately, without audiotapes, or transcripts of sessions, I can't really discern what's going on, nor do I know what assumptions may have lead to the conclusions of the therapist in question, or any ulterior motives, for that matter.

There is some study on what you are describing in the last paragraph, which may make matters have a bit more leeway, but it's still too early to really tell. However, if anyone wants any credit, in any context, they should be ready and willing to put their money where their mouth is. This shouldn't be an offensive concept or statement either. I think it should hold true pretty unilaterally.

--Me

Re: I agree with you somewhat,

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

So, to take a stab at what you are saying here... You managed to either understand or speak a language foreign to you without realizing it because of whatever reasons one might think caused it, in your case you say being psychic.

Sorry if that's incorrect but I wasn't quite sure I understood your meaning.

As for the last bit, is it possible for you to tell me where these studies are taking place or provide reference for the curious despite its state of completetion? And no, it shouldn't be an offensive statement, people should be willing to back up any claim with evidence. Especially of paranormal ability.

Re: I agree with you somewhat,

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Actually, the closest I come to an unexplained knowledge of a language, if I were to attempt to ascribe it to anything, could probably be attributed to cultural memory, spurious as that is.

I was talking about a hypothetical circumstance, and hypothetical explainations.

I'd need to find it again, we can look, I think she had found the link.

It basically involved people meditating on or visualizing certain physical activities, while others practiced more conventionally. The results indicated the meditators were not as far behind as expected. This is a much different statement than dead even however, and i'm very hesitant to make that declaration.

--Me/Her

Re: I agree with you somewhat,

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

This was the case with a friend& of ours. At a relatively young age, they had a unit on archery in gym class, and were able immediately to demonstrate a relatively high level of skill. They generally did not do well in most athletics (although they were champion distance swimmers).

Unknown to anyone else, the group had learnt archery in the Scouts a year or two before, so had a grounding in the basics. One of them had taken this knowledge back to his own world and constantly practiced. So while the rest of the gym class were still trying to figure out how to get the arrow onto the string, this gentleman came forward and hit bull's eye after bull's eye without even seeming to half try.

A mental practice effect definitely exists. We saw a piece on television about Olympic figure skaters who are taught "guided imagery" simply to familiarize themselves with running through their routines mentally, accompanied by the music they planned to use. I believe the woman interviewed said she felt this helped her by about 10%-15%, but that since she also did plenty of physical, earth world practice, she couldn't really judge how much the mental runthroughs helped overall, only that they did.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

The gullibility of therapists studying multiples, particularly in the 1980s and 90s, cannot be overstated, and their reports of "knowledge the host could not possibly have" must be taken with several pounds of salt.

I think what was very often happening was that in systems with no communication, the others were learning things on their own time, and while the ostentible 'host' may have believed they could never have had an opportunity to learn it, they simply didn't have the memories of the others learning it. Arthur of the Billy Milligan system, for instance, could read and speak Arabic, but he was a scholarly sort of person who had put in his own effort to learn it-- he didn't pick it up by osmosis.

Many of the therapists were also probably working off the assumption that the person believed to be the host was in control of the body most or all of the time, and that only therapists could elicit a deliberate switch, whereas in reality, even in systems where a frontrunner really was kept deliberately ignorant, the others had been coming up front for years to do their own things.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

"There must be some learning period for the body."

I think this statement is probably too general and absolute. There is nothing that says that someone could not arrive who would be perfectly adjusted to the body or simply adapt themselves to it in next to no time.

That said, I agree that this is not likely to happen very often and that your general subsequent analytical statements are truely, very resonable and insightful.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

I am not saying this is the case here, but I have often heard this argument used to dismiss both otherkin and multiples as merely being disaffectected head-jobs who either associate themselves too much with something or dissociate themselves to much from everything.

While this may be the case in some situations, I by no means think it is true in all, or even most instances of otherkin or multiplicity.

I'm not entirely sure whether you intend to imply that this is an applicable theory as to the causes of the two for everyone, but it almost sounds like it.

If not, my apologies for misunderstanding.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

I am not saying this is the case here, but I have often heard this argument used to dismiss both otherkin and multiples as merely being disaffectected head-jobs who either associate themselves too much with something or dissociate themselves to much from everything.

I think that's not what he was saying here; it read more like that trauma-based multiples would have more material to draw on in creating other selves because they would be aware that things like therians, furries, etc. existed. Previous generations had to learn about such things by reading books of mythology and folklore. Now it's all over the tube.

This was, certainly, the argument used by psychiatrist George Ganaway to explain away multiplicity as simply a series of exciting stories told by the client to entertain the therapist for approval and recognition as a Special Person, viz. this set of rants from some months ago:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sethrenn/56091.html

Golly, Captain Zen. For a singlet, he sure knows a lot about plurality!

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Oh, we're not espousing Ganaway's views by any means. That post got kind of truncated and we didn't really conclude it properly.

He's essentially saying that plurality is bogus because it has such things. We're saying children (singlet or plural) tend to shape their self-identity(s) in terms of the examples set by not only the people around them but the input they get from books, tv, films, etc. and there is nothing on earth wrong with that.

In order to be aware that someone in your system is a dragon, it's helpful if you know that dragons exist. That part is fine. The chilling effect occurs when people around you aren't willing to accept you're plural because you've got a dragon in your house, or do accept you're plural but think that having a dragon is "going too far".

It doesn't occur that often in normal nonplural people since it would literally involve parents locking their child in a closet... There is one kind of cultural situation I can think of where this signifies. Some kids are raised in homes where there is no television and the only book allowed in the house is the Bible. If they either split from trauma, or even if they were multiple to begin with, their people might very well take after, or be perceived by them / have a self-perception in terms of, Bible heroes.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

Heh, thanks. I like that last line too. B)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

YES *pointing to what you said* that is what I mean.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, thanks. I read your other comments and find myself agreeing with you alot. Don't worry about alienation, at least not from me. I don't even really get that upset with people who flat think I'm crazy or stupid, and you didn't come anywhere near saying anything offensive, let alone like that.

For the last part, its interesting for us because I think I can say, without fear of being contradicted, that none of us who are living in our body today, feel attached to it, or even feel as though it is theirs in any real way. The one guy in here who most closely identifies with our physical body is mostly that way because it just sorta happens to be closer to the body he has in our head-world than anyone else's is.

He's relatively at home in it but even he finds it uncomfortable and restricting at times, mostly because he is(inside) and would be(outside if he got out to excercise enough) in really good shape. Unfortunately, he's the only person in here who would really be willing to excercise much and he doesn't because he doesn't come out that often.

As a result, we generally just comply with whatever our wife wants us to look like because she(they) care more than any of us. I generally just see the body as an interface with the outside world anyway, and thus, the way it looks and operates is only important in how well it allows us to interact with the outside world.

So it still has value, and still gets taken care of... just more from a pragmatic set of reasons than because any of us really identify with it or really care for it in our own asthetic sense.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

It doesn't sound from the context like he meant it in the George Ganaway sense; more like, with the media explosion we are having now via cable, satellite, more access to Japanese anime and more unusual kinds of entertainment, so kids know that these things exist, and are more likely to recognize them if someone like that turns up in their system (if a gateway system), or feel cultural permission to create one for their system (if they're splitting people off or creating them from a central point), and, such people may themselves feel more comfortable or relaxed about making themselves known as what they are.

man, that was incoherent... COFFEE...

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

The things you seem to be think of in terms of "otherkin" seem to me to be more clearly defined as therianthropy, soul-bonding, and, uh, "furryism?", which are almost like somewhat seperate subclasses that could be termed "otherkin" but are by no means generally representative of the whole group. Sort of like calling someone who was "mid-continuum" multiple. It could be seen as correct but in more of a technical sense than anything else.

If you consider spirituality, religion, and animism to be "mythology" then I suppose what I would think of as otherkin would fall under your description of people associating themselves with fictional characters.

At any rate though, what you are saying makes sense. I suppose I just tend to think of it, especially involving concepts of multiplicity, more along the lines of having a new person "arrive" from outside the system, bearing with them their own set of memories and identity.

That's the way most all of us who would call ourselves Otherkin came to be here. Not because of association but because that was a part of our identities before we ever arrived to share this body. At least a few of the others in this situation could leave again and remain existant and lead their own former life in whatever world they came from at any time if they so chose.

I don't think I am unique in this, but at the same time, I am also sure that not all kin-others in multiple systems are the same way, and I'm also sure that not all "walk-in" otherkin are the same way. That's part of why I find the subjective interactions so fascinating.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in walk-ins.

The idea of walk-ins is an attempt to explain subjective memories. It may be your personal belief that you have those memories because you came from somewhere else but there's no need to force that belief on other people. It's like trying to prove the existance of god when all you really want is the person to respect your belief in god.

Actually,

[devcandy.livejournal.com]

He says:

That's the way most all of us who would call ourselves Otherkin came to be here.

You say:

The idea of walk-ins is an attempt to explain subjective memories.

His statement is no more guilty of forcing his belief on you than your statement. In fact, his statement could easily be viewed as simply indicating what his belief about himself and others in his circumstance, or stating what he is, depending on your opinion. He is not making any statements as to what you are. Your statement, however, can easily be viewed as attempting to tell him what he is.

You are not asking for respect of your beliefs. What you are doing, is telling them specifically, not that you believe their beliefs are wrong, but that they are objectively wrong about themselves.

Please think this over: If you can make a statement which declares for someone what they are, why can they not make a statement, that declares for themselves, what they are?

Arashi

Re: Actually,

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

I'd have to say, I think you're right. It doesn't really upset me though. If they want to try and force their opinions on me, they are perfectly welcome to try and I'll go ahead and try to listen without bias. They just shouldn't expect to make much of an impact in this particular area. ;)

I Pengke care about consistent logic though, I suppose they will definitely need to consider your last statement very carefully and examine themselves.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by subjective memories? I don't remember hearing that term before in this sort of context.

And I don't try to force that belief on other people. Often, I think of it as just me being a little insane or just having strange, unexplainable memories. No one need believe that they are real or even that I'm not insane. The only thing I really care about is that people know that I have them and that they hold a great deal of value to me, despite their seeming insanity.

And now that you say that you don't believe in walk-ins, I think most of what you said in your first responce now makes sense to me. Thanks.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

Subjective memories would be any memory that either obviously didn't happen to the body or you have no way of verifying it if physically happened. They are, as you said, unexplainable memories. Most of us feel that type of thing is much better off being left unexplained. Any theories you come up with are going to be impossible to prove anyway.

We understand why the whole alternate universes/astral traveling/reincarnation into the body ideology is appealing to people with these memories because it seems to give their memories validity. But really the walk-in thing is just the explanation they chose to believe. When you say that you're walk-in and a god of death, if people are going to believe you they will first have to believe in reincarnation, believe in gods in general, believe in the god of death specifically, believe you're being serious, ect. When you say this is my personal history blah blah blah and it's important to me whether it really happened or not, all they have to believe to accept that is that you're not deliberately making things up.

Otherkin

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

I deal with otherkin on a daily basis, system-mates make it difficult not to.

I personally do not identify as otherkin, I'm human, perhaps monstrous, but more monstrous human than otherkin.

I don't by necessity dislike otherkin, but there are certain concepts taken as a given there, that do get my hackles in a bunch. There are some that occur in the multiple community as well, which do the same.

I can believe in some crazy shit, but I do try to not presume it should be a given for everyone else. It should be a given that I have these beliefs, and that I will defend them, but so long as we're not talking about manipulative and abusive invalidation, I'm not so sure where the problem should lie.

An example of manipulative and abusive invalidation would be: "Your multiplicity is trauma induced, therefore you are not real, and I have a right to treat you as a second-class citizen, or can completely decide to not take any of your needs into account, and presume I'm on some moral high ground of trying to make the "real person" healthier."

I might not take some people's needs into account, but at least I'm aware of the morally ambigous ground on which I tread at times.

--Me

Re: Otherkin

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I run into that alot too and if I am ever trying to explain being either multiple or kin to anyone I always take steps in setting it up to minimize that sort of reaction, although to some extent it is almost always still present. Occasionally even with my wife.

[ghostwalker.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you consider vamps as 'Kin. (Soem do, soem don't. *shrug*) Soem within are vampiric as well, but i'm not certain how it all relates to being multiple. I'm vamp with or without the others, so i suppose it doesn't relate at all? I don't know, I'm still musing on that one.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

I would consider it to in most cases but not all. One of our others is vampiric but as a result of an internal accident more than anything else.

I would say though that one member of a system can be otherkin, or a certain kin-type, and the system as a whole would not be. At least that is how it is for us. I would consider myself something other than human and several of the others would in different ways as well, but many of the others are just plain human, so the system as a whole is a mix. I suppose one could have a system whose members are all "other", just as there are systems that are all human although I've never met one.