What I think is that people, and identity, can be far more complex than we ourselves credit for, and that sometimes the definition between 'self' and 'other' is a shady one at best. I consider myself a singlet, and I know there are parts of me that don't fit neatly into my identity, which I interact with as 'other.' My soulbonds, for one. They are not "people" in the sense that they are the aforementioned self-contained singular entities who have their own lives, but they are an important part of my psyche that aren't part of my core identity. Does that make sense?
My issue is, here, that because a multiple's identity gets questioned so often, they (quite understandably) balk whenever they're reduced to mere elements of one single identity. That's good, insofar as they're defending themselves against misconceptions, but the mind's a multi-faceted thing, and I really don't see what's wrong with being an element of a single identity. I don't think it necessarily reduces someone to a puppet or anything "lesser." And a lot of soulbonders seem to think that because only multiple-type presences are "real people," that their soulbonds have to be so, too, to be valid, just as they think that in order for their connection with fiction to be valid fiction has to be "real somewhere."
Blah. I'm not explaining this well. I'll try to make better sense later.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Part One
Date: 2005-08-10 09:35 pm (UTC)What I think is that people, and identity, can be far more complex than we ourselves credit for, and that sometimes the definition between 'self' and 'other' is a shady one at best. I consider myself a singlet, and I know there are parts of me that don't fit neatly into my identity, which I interact with as 'other.' My soulbonds, for one. They are not "people" in the sense that they are the aforementioned self-contained singular entities who have their own lives, but they are an important part of my psyche that aren't part of my core identity. Does that make sense?
My issue is, here, that because a multiple's identity gets questioned so often, they (quite understandably) balk whenever they're reduced to mere elements of one single identity. That's good, insofar as they're defending themselves against misconceptions, but the mind's a multi-faceted thing, and I really don't see what's wrong with being an element of a single identity. I don't think it necessarily reduces someone to a puppet or anything "lesser." And a lot of soulbonders seem to think that because only multiple-type presences are "real people," that their soulbonds have to be so, too, to be valid, just as they think that in order for their connection with fiction to be valid fiction has to be "real somewhere."
Blah. I'm not explaining this well. I'll try to make better sense later.