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

[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...