ext_5915 ([identity profile] ksol1460.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] multiplicity_archives 2004-10-17 10:54 pm (UTC)

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.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting