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

[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.