multiplicity_archives | Gonna do the whole intro thing

Welcome. What was the site you found?

Ah, wait, never mind, found your posts on

soulbonding. You used our FAQ and the Layman's Guide. :)

Someone explain 'median' to me? Because I've only ever heard the term twice in my life, and both have been on this community, in the past two days. So I'm a tad confused. :)

Can be used to describe a system who feels 'more than single, less than multiple'.

Also used by systems who have 'blurring' between members.

Someone else can probably put it a lot better than me...

http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html#median

(I've tried to post that about six times, but livejournal is barfing. If a zillion copies of it show up later I'll zilch them.)

(deleted comment)

That's mediums. When we worked on Pavilion with several other systems, "median" was the word we came up with that was better than "midcontinuum". Someone offline told me it might get confused with "medium" and that we'd better make it very clear, so we tried to.

We really were just trying to get away from the idea of the "dissociative continuum" with singlets at one end and plurals on the other -- for one thing, it wasn't inclusive of plurals who (like ourselves) don't dissociate.

The essential idea was that a median was someone who really did feel that all their other people were aspects of themselves, or whose people depended upon one central person (whether they split from that person or not).

lilairen has explained her median experience (which is not quite like either of those descriptions) here in this community several times. (For example, http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/31898.html)

I think the term medium would better suit what I meant then than median under that defintion

When I use the term median I mean it in the sense that I am a host to an old spirit who has taken up residence. in the way that it is explained here: http://astraeasweb.net/plural/faq.shtml
Here is the main clip that I dervived it from:

"Is it possible for some of the people in a multiple group to be spirits of persons who have died and subsequently taken up residence in the present body?"

Absolutely. It is not at all unusual for multiples to have this experience. There has always been a certain amount of crossover between mediumship -- the perceived ability to communicate with spirits of the departed -- and multiplicity. In fact, at one time the term "multiple personalities" actually referred to mediums who were used to letting spirits visit for a time. "

Oh, yay!! I'm so glad you found that useful.

Ooookay...thought I had a handle on median as a term, and then you're describing something I refer to as temporary possession.

*PSigh*...I'm confused again. :)

Medium: Host to spirits
Median: Midcontinuum system

Though some people experience both...I mean everyone's experience is different, right?

Some people refer to old souls under the blanket term 'walk-in', along with system members who weren't initially with the body at birth, and turn up with their own history/memories.

Right, which is where I thought I had a place in my brain for it. Then Angelus said that their system is pretty much comprised of a spirit who came in and the body that spirit is now within, and frankly, that falls back on possession. Or extended mediumship, if you will. And fails to fall under your definition, astraea's definition, of 'median' at all.

Hence the confusion. :)

yeah I should have said medium or possesion

Okay...what? You were the one who said 'median' in the first place.

I give up.

well I was thinking medium and mediam were interchangeable but after all the debate on here I see they aren't. I am a medium...which as I understand it is someone who hosts a old soul of someone that has died. Sorry for all the confusion

Err, no--unless that term has changed too. "Medium", called by the New_Age-y "channeler", is one who contacts the dead. Period. Not hosts the dead, not lets them hang around--not intentially, at least, or not in my experience--just has the ability to talk to dead folks.

Astraea? Has that changed too??

Okay then I don't know what the hell to call it. Posssession?

Oh, yes it has. By a country mile as Gabe would say.

A medium is someone who contacts the dead, but back then (let's say 1860s to about the 1930s) mediums and spirits did all sorts of things together. Spirits collaborated with live people on writing (some of the best guides to mediumship were co-written by spirits), on art projects, and in public speaking.

(In fact, any woman who gave a public address of any kind in the 1800s (like antislavery, women's rights, health issues) was assumed to be channeling, because people believed that women weren't physiologically or psychologically capable of public speaking. It was generally assumed that a male spirit entered her body and spoke through her, or at least contacted her mind and told her what to say. This was called trance speaking even though most of these women didn't go into a trance. They were perfectly conscious and wrote their own material, but contemporary thought demanded that they must have had help from beyond.

Mediumship came in several flavours -- one could merely converse with the dead, which was called mental mediumship. But there were plenty of people who allowed spirits to move right into their bodies and take temporary control. For instance, if a mother died and her children got in touch with her through a seance, she might want to hug and kiss them and she could do so through the medium's body. Temporary possessions of this nature -- physical mediumship -- were and still are very routine.

Generally a medium had one or two spirits that she related best to. While it's a mistake to refer to this in terms of a "guide", these spirits would usually help facilitate contact between the medium and other spirits who wanted to come through. Sometimes a medium and a spirit were extremely compatible and friendly to the point that the spirit would move right in and coexist with the medium, exactly like a walk-in today. For a few days, or a few years, or forever. The term for this activity in those days? "Multiple personalities."

New Age channelers behave in the same way. They don't just talk to the angels, Atlanteans or whatever -- they often let them take physical control.

In Spiritualist terms,

angelusstrigoi is engaged in physical mediumship by hosting a spirit.

you got to love words with multiple definitions. Thanks for helping clear up all the confusion. Now I have a term to use that hopefully others can understand.

Well, I'm not so much challenging what Angelus is saying--what's true for you is true for you, as the saying goes--as much as I'm trying to figure out what sort of conversation we're having.

I still feel like I'm lost in the shoals somewhere. I've never felt 'multiple personalities' equals 'hosting spirits'. One thing's one thing, the other thing's the other thing. Maybe I'm being intransigent, but words have to mean something or they have no value.

I also don't quite buy that muses are soulbonds, either, but then, maybe that's me, too. I have muses, and they nag me, but they are not real. I know they are not real. Any power they have over my actions--which is mostly in the realm of, getting me to write things--is power I've given them. So I don't understand that term either.

Maybe I'm at the point where I just smile politely, and back away slowly out of the conversation.

I meant that I am multiple as well as a host to spirits. I wasn't equating them. Just saying that I had an array of things going on.

No, not at all, I got that. And it's good to identify terms, to identify who and what you are--I mean, ultimately, that's your call, your answer, but it's also nice to have terminology that supports your conclusions.

It's just, the various terms in this thread have been all sorts of confusing. :)

yea they sure have been

I still feel like I'm lost in the shoals somewhere. I've never felt 'multiple personalities' equals 'hosting spirits'. One thing's one thing, the other thing's the other thing. Maybe I'm being intransigent, but words have to mean something or they have no value.

I also don't quite buy that muses are soulbonds, either, but then, maybe that's me, too. I have muses, and they nag me, but they are not real. I know they are not real. Any power they have over my actions--which is mostly in the realm of, getting me to write things--is power I've given them. So I don't understand that term either.

I have to say that you appear to be confusing our and

ksol1460's personal beliefs with the beliefs held by other people which we are reporting and describing. I can tell you that we, at least, certainly don't necessarily believe that mediumship equals multiple personality, or that characters you talk to are muses. When I say "some people call it this," I'm not saying "this is what I believe." In fact, in some cases, my beliefs are quite divergent.

All I'm doing is telling everyone what I've discovered other people believe, or the terminology I've noticed them using. I have no idea how people came to associate the concept of muses with talking to characters. I can't tell you why, so don't ask me "how do you figure"! You would have to ask the people who use the term that way if you want to know how they use it. This is not me giving my personal beliefs here. I'm just telling you what I've seen.

I apologise if this is a little curt, but I do get pretty annoyed when I'm trying to explain what a certain group of people believe, and have it automatically assumed that these are my beliefs as well. I do understand that you're trying to get all the terminology straight, but as far as terminology I don't use personally, I honestly do not know why it was chosen by others. Again, you'd have to ask them.

*blinks*

Look. I'm not assuming any people here believe in the validity of the terms that are under debate, because not a one of you--save for Angelus, who has since changed terminology--has said "I believe this". And almost everyone has referred me to some article or other,

ksol1460 going so far as to email me their definitions page because LJ was apparently coughing that day.

Since I'd never heard 'median' before two days ago, and had an entirely different definition for 'soulbond', I think my confusion is understandable. And I think I've been as polite as possible when folks are tossing me words that don't mean what I've held them to mean for more than ten years.

I will grant you, this phrase:

Okay. Take three. Muses are soulbonds? How the hell do you figure?

was a tad abrupt, but you answered it calmly, it gave me more to think about, and I thought that end of the thread had tapered to a close.

So, what, you thought about it and then got upset? Why?

On medians, I found this...

http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/66617.html

(Especially what lilairen said!)

So, that clears up medians...sort of...and now confuses me on soulbonding--I thought a soulbond was what I had with my partner, where we are bound through love and marriage, we are in tune with each other's emotional, mental and sometimes physical states...you're meaning something different, I'm thinking. :)

Soulbonds tend to be 'crafted' if you like. The difference is in the genesis. Soulbonds tend to begin existence as story characters, RPG characters, movie characters (or actors), or representations of another person, but take on their own existence through evolution in a system.

Soulbonds can be little more than 'masks' or fully evolved autonomous members. They become more than they initially were, sometimes being virtually a 'living' representation of the initial character, sometimes developing individually to the point that they barely resemble at all the initial created character.

It has been said in the past by some that soulbonds or soulbonders(systems or people who soulbond) don't constitute 'real' people, but I think that's a bit silly, considering most trauma based systems are completely crafted through need and evolution of the mind, just under different circumstance.

A soulbond tends to be classed differently to a system member 'created' for a purpose or a specific task. It tends to only be applied to system members that have the basis in a character of fiction, or a 'larger than life' person (like an actor or celebrity).

Anyone else feel free to butt in with your definitions - I'm not an 'expert', and if this is going in the FAQ, it should have all possible input and viewpoint!

:o)

How long has this term been in use? Because I think it's been co-opted. I've been using 'soulmate' and 'soulbond' since I was eleven or twelve; I'm thirty-eight now. I know terms are used and redefined, this just seems kind of an odd placement of an existing term, you see.

"Soulbonding" was first used to refer to the connection between persons from "fictional" sources and people here in the world-at-large in about 1996 by Amanda Flowers of the "Just For Writers" or JFW Writers' Club.

Much more here:
http://childofmana.tripod.com/soulbondingfaq.htm

Then yep, I've been using it far before then. Interesting. Well, at least I can deal with my interpretation, I'll just have to remember other people use it different ways. :)

That's what we do too :) We've taken to calling "the deep emotional bond between people" as spirit bonding when we are on line, just to avoid confusion. The gaming and New Age communities still say "soul bond" for that, with the New Age implying that this might be a connection you have with the same person over a number of different lifetimes.

I might have to switch, too. Argh. Why can't they change to spirit bonding, though? They're the interlopers...arghshuttingupagain...

I know terms are used and redefined, this just seems kind of an odd placement of an existing term, you see.

I have always thought that was really the wrong word to use for it, but it seems to be pretty emplaced now, and it's hard to get people to switch terminology just like that. You're right, though, the original meaning of the word 'soulbond' was along the lines of what's described in this article (http://www.otherkin.net/articles/soulbonds.html).

I'm guessing that when fanfic writers started using it, they weren't aware of it having another connotation.

Pretty sure, because reading through that article? That's how I've always used the term.

Hrmph. Fanfic writers. Figures. :)

well. most of the time it refers to what

iamshadow said, but I suppose sometime it could also refer to a strong bond between two people...honestly, I really don't like the term, I think it's cheesy and not specific enough, but it's what we've got. ;)

Well, there's no reason you -have- to use the word soulbond to refer to a character like that. I've also seen them called muses, or just characters who talk to you. The only real purpose terminology has ever served, I think, is to make one's own experiences more readily understandable to others.

Nrrrr...what now?

This is the sound of Nema's brain melting. I swear. Every time I think I have a handle on something, it bites me in the ass...

Okay. Take three. Muses are soulbonds? How the hell do you figure?

Some writers refer to a character who talks to them as a muse. This is, of course, a pretty far cry from the original definition of a Muse, but there are some circles where it's used to mean that.

That's the original meaning. The term was picked up by a group of writers to mean the process by which a person from a "fictional" source -- books, movies, games, etc. -- becomes mentally and emotionally connected to a particular person in the world-at-large.

There is a discussion on this at
http://www.livejournal.com/community/soulbonding/154425.html
which may further enlighten things.

(Gotta love that girl's icon. - Jay)

Hello, from another multiple and otherkin ^_-

Gonna do the whole intro thing

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

no subject