Multiplicity

When I stop writing/playing them, they go "on hold" - they don't die, they don't sleep, they just stop where they are until I get back to them.

That's true with my thoughtforms, too. The way I see it, they're just not connected to linear time the way my conscious mind is. When I'm not paying attention to them, as far as I can tell, they 'go back to the unconscious', which, according to Jung and other depth psychologists, does not exist in linear time.

However, I also regard linear time as an illusion, so it's not like they're missing out on much. I think that, in some ways, their state of consciousness is actually higher than my current one. In another way, it's like comparing apples & oranges.

Also, a few times people have told me that my characters went wandering around outside my body and visited them without my conscious awareness. Of course, this could also be subjective.

I'll note also that for some people, soulbonds are extremely separate and independent, and outside the bonder's conscious control. In fact, this seems to be the case with the majority I've seen in the soulbond communities.

From what I've heard in multiple forums, a being can start out as an imaginary character and develop into a completely independent self, capable of fronting the body and living in the physical world.

From:

I believe I can see what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessarily what

sharpsight was asking. Furthermore, simply because he's a multiple doesn't necessarily mean he can answer that -- that's why he's askin'.

From:

kangetsuhime.livejournal.com

Instinct will tell you. We got a new system member by saying "Hello? Anybody out there?" but equally you could in theory create a life. It does seem to be very tied into what you instinctually feel would work.

From:

shandra.livejournal.com

In our system people have had (internal) children, so that would be the only way I know of in the present. It doesn't explain the past. It's a moral issue for us though: should you bring kids into the world knowing they won't get their own bodies? Hard stuff.

In our system (can't say for yours) it would be much easier for someone to take on learning skills (say for fronting) than to make a whole new person to do that. I'm not sure if that relates to what you were asking though.

From:

ninalyn.livejournal.com

No one in our system has ever (that I know of) been consciously created by someone else. Sometimes we see new people, but it's almost a feeling as if they're a long-lost friend. There's familiarity there even with people who have just come into being.

Honestly, I don't know how people in our system are created. I know it's possible to split off of one another, but generally it doesn't happen. During a period of stress, one of the children split herself into 3 separate girls, all of whom responded to the same name. They were different ages, though. I think that's a bit of a unique situation, though, because none of us feel as if anyone else is a split from an entity that was once whole.

Enough babbling. I'm sure I made no sense. :P

-Marie (avec Juliana)

From:

sethrenn.livejournal.com

I don't think this is something where you can really say there is a general procedure. Some groups who make new frontrunners do it by a 'plan,' sort of; some people really do split off parts of themselves to make someone new; some people kind of 'copy' their traits to a new person.

If you want to try doing so, I'd suggest going along with whatever feels right for you-- there really isn't a 'wrong' way to do it, only what works for you and what doesn't work for you.

From:

cirape.livejournal.com

I belive Dizzy took a part of her spirit to create me (it seems that perhaps hers regenrates when she does this?). While I was mostly based on a roleplaying character the others ues, I was made to fullfill a specific purpose (of course, now that I'm a person Dizzy feels horrible for this).
The other created member of our system was created by a great desire to shut down, to an extent. I don't know exactly how he came to be, however.

Sadly, I think its a "it depends on the people involved and situation" thing. I doubt you can get one clear answer.

--Troy

From:

I was made but none of us can remember it. It's just something we know. We don't know if people can be made in different ways.

A few years ago we decided that we wanted a new person. There were some specific things we wanted but mostly it was just time for someone else. When it came time we just knew how and we performed the ritual/ceremony. The procedure worked and after a few weeks of gestation the new person woke up. The person filfilled only one of the things we specifically wanted but that was OK because we knew going into it that we had no control over how they'd turn out. Personally, we tend to assume that anyone who claims to be able to make people to exact specifications as though they were dialing up a mail-order bride is full of crap. People just aren't that simplistic.

(deleted comment)

From:

To paraphrase Dr. John Lilly, from his book Deep Self (about his research with isolation tanks): "Any self can be a program. Any program can be a self."

Or, in other words, any 'part' of consciousness can be experienced as either personal or impersonal -- or perhaps somewhere in-between. (I regard the two as a continuum.) This includes one's own conscious self, the 'ego' as writers often call it. (Of course, in a multiple system, there is more than one 'ego'.) In the Eastern half of the world, there are entire philosophies focused on the idea of learning to 'transcend the ego' -- that is, to perceive oneself as impersonal, to experience impersonality.

Is personhood superior to impersonality, or vice versa? I think it is quite relative. Being a 'person' means having a particular kind of focus. Being an impersonal batch of consciousness means having a different kind of focus. Both are equally valid and meaningful.

Re: Creation. My theory of creation is that, ultimately, all creation is self-creation. That is, the 'part' of the donor that creates the new entity is ultimately the same 'part' that becomes the new entity. This process may be either conscious or unconscious. When it happens unconsciously, a person may not remember their own creation. But then, most people don't remember growing from a zygote into an embryo or fetus, either.

For example: I, Myrna, created Mely. That is, 'I' shaped a part of 'me' into the entity known as Mely. Who did the shaping? The 'part' that was also shaped. Therefore, it could equally well be said that Mely shaped herself -- that I, as Mely, shaped myself; or, to put it less dualistically, that we, acting mutually, shaped ourself into Myrna-and-Mely. Or even that Mely used Myrna's consciousness as the tool with which to make herself.

To use one of my favorite quotes: "A hen is just an egg's way of making an egg." ;-)

(deleted comment)

From:

Does it? A lightning strike is focused but that does not constitute selfhood. And when you say 'a batch of consciousness' I am not sure what you mean...

I think we are using the word 'consciousness' in two different ways. You seem to be using it to mean individualized or egoic consciousness, whereas I am using a broader definition -- the metaphysical idea that everything contains, or is made of, consciousness, but not necessarily personal consciousness. Thus, a rock or a lightning bolt contains 'consciousness', even though it is not a person. It is an impersonal type of consciousness. This general, impersonal consciousness is known by terms like prana or mana. These vary in exact definition depending on the source. For example, here's a description of 'Prana' as 'life force energy' which is also 'consciousness', from a Vedic/Ayurvedic viewpoint: http://www.pranictherapy.com/pranictherapy.htm . I don't necessarily agree with everything in this viewpoint, but it's good enough to portray the idea in general terms.

So is becoming and creating the same thing? I may create a character but do I become that character? Perhaps that is what makes a great actor. But once I am no longer in the process of creating or becoming the character, will that character then adopt selfhood and begin to create themselves from me?

I do think that actors become/create the character within themselves to some degree, but the experience differs for the individual. As for the character becoming separate, as I've said, some people say that that has happened. You can probably find more accounts of that type on the Soulbonding forums. Mine tend to remain closely connected to me; they only become autonomous in REM dreams (or, possibly, when they are visiting other people.)

One cannot create oneself, because that means that one would have had to exist in the first place, in order to do the creating. An act of creation requires that a creator exists.

Well, my/our way of interpreting this is that the new being comes into existence as part of the creator, and the 'part' that is being created participates actively in the process of its own design & formation (whether there is conscious awareness of this or not.) I realise this is rather paradoxical. I also like to think in terms of the theory of Self-Organizing Systems: a system 'bootstraps' itself into existence through the interaction of its parts.

In terms of This Party: Mely, as part of me, created herself. I, as Myrna, created the part of me that is Mely. The part of us that is both mutually created us both. We both mutually created the whole, etc. Think of a Moebius strip, or that image by Escher of two hands drawing each other.

This is the way a Nondual (or, to use the contemporary term, 'Median') type of entity like myself experiences things. Your experience is evidently quite different. I am curious, do you have any memories of your own creation, or Creation in general?

And isn't an egg still just a hen's way of making a hen?! ;-P

It goes both ways, I think. Mutual co-creation.

From:

Who says souls have anything to do with multiplicity?

Parents create their children. There's nothing imaginary, god-like or dungeons and dragons about that. It's widely accepted that systems can unconciously create people, especially if they're created in response to some trauma, what's so different about some systems being able to consciously do the same thing?

(deleted comment)

From:

A good number of us don't believe in souls.

You can't compare parents to cults. As to whether the parents are able to create the child's consciousness, obviously they are or the children wouldn't have a consciousness. OK so it's more a matter of formation of the brain blah blah blah but still you go from no person to a little baby person with it's on consciousness. Why you're spouting crap about influence I do not know.

And no we're not talking about imaginary friends. Imaginary friends are imaginary. They are not real. I am a person. My brother is a person. A. is a person. No one rolled the dice and came up with our attributes. No one sat around and daydreamed about us. We just didn't exist until someone decided to make us exist. Everything else developed on our own unique to ourself.

As for how it's done, like I said earlier, we have a ritual that goes through this long complicated procedure that results in a person. We can't say what is physically happening during the ritual, of course, because we weren't hooked up to an MRI at the time. I could make up hypotheses but we don't care so I won't.

(deleted comment)

From:

So now you're trying to say we're not independant, autonomous people because you've decided we can't be? Uh-huh.

How about this: you fuck off and we'll just continue our existances over here.

(deleted comment)

From:

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know how to read?

We didn't just decide to become multiple. We have decided at various times to make new people. There is a difference.

Nor are we "making up people". The ritual is the process through which we create new people. There isn't any making them up. We have no control over how the people develop and turn out. We simply give them life. Nor do we become them. I am myself. I am always myself. I am not Chris being me. Akaia is not us being her.

If you want to debate something then debate it don't spout patronizing bullshit then turn around and start talking out of your ass.

From:

Well, I can tell you how I create thoughtforms. I am not multiple, however, since my thoughtforms don't actually inhabit my body. We share a common consciousness & identity rather than a common body.

Back in the old days of computing, when you wrote a new program you had to 'compile, link and run.' That's close to how I construct my thoughtforms. (I prefer the older term 'thoughtform' to newer ones like 'soulbond' or (one I especially dislike) 'soulpuppet'.)

First, I 'compile'... that is, I make up the character. With me, it is a lot like storytelling or roleplaying. I don't think that makes my thoughtforms less real, however -- any more than, say, a bridge is unreal because somebody built it out of concrete or steel. They may not have 'external' existence, but they are real patterns in my/our consciousness.

Sometimes the character's name just pops into my head. Sometimes it's symbolic, or derived from a literary source. Sometimes, an entity will show up in a dream or hypnagogic (half-asleep) state.

The next step is to 'link'... that is, to link up the pattern in my conscious mind to the deeper levels of my/our unconscious. This is sort of like planting a seed in the soil so that it can send down roots. I do this by meditating, merging the new character I've created with the underlying layers of our psyche. Sometimes this occurs spontaneously, sometimes it requires a conscious effort.

Finally, I 'run' the thoughtform... I begin to 'tune in' on his, her or its consciousness. Some people literally see and hear their soulbonds in their heads. I don't; I don't have very much in the way of mental imagery. It's more like I tune in on their 'vibration' and sort of 'guess' what they are thinking or feeling. To some extent, it's a form of roleplaying, since I can step into the characters' identities. But, as I see it, roleplaying itself can be a vehicle for reaching deeper levels of awareness. Through identifying with a character, one takes on the character's identity. This could be regarded as a nondualistic or 'median' approach to creating personalities. (The concept of 'Median' is rather similar to the Eastern concept of 'Nondual', an analogy I find rather interesting.)

The way that I know a character has 'taken root' is that I start getting things I didn't expect. The thoughtform develops new ideas or traits I didn't plan for. Sometimes, other people have encountered my thoughtforms, either in dreams or otherwise, and perceived them as quite distinct entities. A few times, two or more people met the same characters and described the same details independently, which suggests to me that something more is going on here besides my conscious imagination.

I don't know if this would work for you, or if you would regard such entities as 'people'. I, myself, regard personality and impersonality as a continuum, and I don't regard personhood as superior to more impersonal states of being. They're all just different forms that consciousness can take.

From:

On Laura, people come into being the same way they do on earth. When a man and a woman love each other very, very much ...

From:

spookshow-girl.livejournal.com

*falls down laughing*

--Me

From:

*heehee*

From:

sharpsight.livejournal.com

To all: thank you very much for your input. *gratitude*

From:

chorus-of-chaos.livejournal.com

as far as I know most of my alters were created because I was confronted with something stressful or traumatic that I (or later on, others) didn't know how to cope with or didn't want to cope with....so someone was generated to deal with that particular stressor...for example, I and most alters have a mathmatical learning disorder (dyscalculia) which is rare and was not diagnosed when we were in school. I got good grades in everything but math and gym, and my parents were adamant about straight A's. My father was outright abusive (keeping me up LATE into the night insisting I chant the multiplcation table and had to get it right 3 times in a row before I could go to bed. This is IMPOSSIBLE for me, I often wound up NOT being allowed to go to bed and getting a beating in the bargain for "not trying") There is SOMEONE in my system though who can do math somewhat proficiently, at least, much more so than the rest of us. I think this alter was created to cope with the abuse and trauma of dealing with math classes and my dad's obsession with grades. (I still never got A's in math though, but at least I didn't FAIL the class.)

I think some alters fracture out of core personality as well, such as the littles. When I fractured various littles were created, breaking off as they developed thier own individual interests that others didn't really have (I.E....some like to draw, others don't, some like comics, others don't...etc)

other alters have come about in other ways, but I don't know about them...I'm pretty sure about the math alter though.

From: