*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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 10:40 am (UTC)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.