multiplicity_archives | Mooooooore skeptism

Current Mood: confused

Entry tags:

Mooooooore skeptism

Please bear with me. My boy, Max, posted here a while ago, in regards to me, and he's trying to push me more into having conversations with others about my own doubts with multiplicity.

When I was young, I began studying other religions, and I really became interested in spirituallity. Along the way, I discovered two others living within. Really, this is just background information, so no know thinks I'm trying to troll or rag on the community. I've been aware of my own multiplicity for a number of years. I also see my multiplicity as a means to my own personal spirituallity. That is, I don't have a set religion, but I see the presence of and communication with my system as being a self-enlightening, holy experience.

I see this huge resurgance of multiples on the internet, and it makes me skeptical. NOT, because of the fact that their multiples. I wouldn't call someone out on being a "fake". But, the way some of these systems carry on, it makes me wonder how they can reasonably function.

I'm going to point the finger at soulbonding, because it seems to be the means of multiplicity that houses the greatest number of loonies. I can accept, per se, that another has entered your system, and is a bad influence, and perhaps is forcing your body and system down a bad path. I can not, however, accept that this entity causing harm is, say, Sephiroth from the Final Fantasy games. That, is insane. Final Fantasy is fiction. It may very well be an entity that projects images OF Sephiroth into your mind, but part of gaining some feasible aspect of functional control over yourselves, is seeing through the bullshit.

I have trouble with people who play INTO that bullshit, by extension. Not only do they seem to be the loudest group of loons, but they're also impossible to have a reasonable discussion with. Everything boils down to "it's different for everyone", which is great for upholding any kind of deluded fantasy that you might have, but really, isn't productive for conversation.

Especially...if you're attempting to learn something, or see if they have a reason to act the way that they do.

Are there any rational, sane soulbonds, here? If so, do they honestly believe that they're fictional characters? This seems to be the most levelheaded community about plurality on LJ that we can find, so I figure it would be the best place to start.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I quite agree with the second portion of your paragraph. I chalk the need for everything to be literally real - the tendency of soulbonders to cling to notions that their soulbond is real in a parallel dimension or that they are full-on multiples - to a general trend in our culture of believing one must be a self-contained singular entity for your existence to be justified, and believing that one can only interact with a facet of the mind as 'other' if they are a self-contained singular entity. From what I've seen the multiple community is full of this idea, which is rather sad; it's a very limited view of the psyche in general to think that the only valid reality (or at least the 'best' reality) for another presence is as something completely separate and autonomous...

I chalk the need for everything to be literally real - the tendency of soulbonders to cling to notions that their soulbond is real in a parallel dimension or that they are full-on multiples - to a general trend in our culture of believing one must be a self-contained singular entity for your existence to be justified, and believing that one can only interact with a facet of the mind as 'other' if they are a self-contained singular entity. From what I've seen the multiple community is full of this idea, which is rather sad;

The multiple community is full of the idea that we're self-contained singular entities, aka people, and that's sad?

Maybe I misread you here.

I wasn't exactly clear, sorry.

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.

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."

*nods* I think I understand better now. I think my personal problem with the concept of being viewed as elements of a single identity is that when people do so, they tend to single out one particular person as being the real or original identity from which all others are created or which they represent aspects of, and then unconsciously treat everyone else as being less real, valid, and important. Possibly, we've just heard, and seen too many friends who heard, people expressing the opinion that it's overly weird for 'alters' to want to be treated as separate people, or explaining matter-of-factly that they were going to go on viewing you as one person with a lot of aspects because it was too confusing to think of you as many people.

On the other hand, I don't want those experiences to lead me to deny that there really are people who see themselves as a single aspected identity, or that there are people who split and wish to be integrated, for that matter. The aspected-identity setup seems more like how some people have described the 'median' experience.

I should probably mention at some point that I don't think it's necessary to use gateways or other realities to explain people being in a system without having split off an original. If someone says they are, I'll take it at face value, but it's also possible to create someone from scratch without needing to detract from what already exists-- you're not necessarily cutting off a part of yourself to make a new person, just giving them some genetic material, so to speak. Though I'm also not sure if an original person, providing there is one, is necessarily less created-- in a sense, everyone, even single people, creates themselves.

Oh, I can completely understand that. I don't blame the multiple reaction to that at all; if being an element of a single identity is inaccurate, it's natural to want to distance yourself from that.

Though I'm also not sure if an original person, providing there is one, is necessarily less created-- in a sense, everyone, even single people, creates themselves.

I totally agree. All of this ties into this value judgment people tend to put on created things, as if they're somehow 'less real', which really annoys me.

I thought about medians after I'd posted that, and really that does go a ways toward explaining what I meant. Though honestly, I'm wary about using it because although it comes close, it doesn't quite hit the nail on the head, for me. The closest thing I've heard that describes my own experience is 'personification' as discussed by some Jungians.

I think my experience may be fairly close to what you describe, but I prefer to define myself as "median" since I have a nondualistic philosophy. I view personal and impersonal as a spectrum, and choose to identify more strongly with the impersonal, nondiscrete aspect of consciousness than with singular, discrete personhood. Our use of the metaphor "Party" -- an organization without firm boundaries, midway between a subject and a state -- exemplifies this.

Do you mind if I add you to my Friends List? I think we have some interests in common.

Seems to me you might like to read James Hillman. Here's a sample:

"The 'I' is legitimately written with a large letter, not because it is the capital person of the psyche, but because it too has a particular mythic part to play in the dramatics of the psyche—as the one personification whose necessary perspective is to take itself as literally real."

I posted a few more quotes here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/1101/45078.html). Other people have more quotes here (http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2004/06/polytheistic-psychology-part-1.html) and here (http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2004/06/polytheistic-psychology-part-2.html).

...I love how a philosophy built on viewing things as continuous rather than as opposites describes itself as 'non'-dual. It's so ironic. :p

Heehee. I've just been reading some James Hillman.

"Nondual" = a double negative? Or a triple negative, rather, since there are two opposites, negative to each other, plus the negation of that negation. Almost Hegelian, no?

Mind if I add you, too?

I never mind. You're welcome to, unless you can't stand math, mundanity, and occasional malediction.

"Possibly, we've just heard, and seen too many friends who heard, people expressing the opinion that it's overly weird for 'alters' to want to be treated as separate people, or explaining matter-of-factly that they were going to go on viewing you as one person with a lot of aspects because it was too confusing to think of you as many people."

Ohhh yes. My young friend-with-benefits said that very thing when I first told him about my 'brothers' - big mistake, because he thereby placed himself in Kír's category of "people who are not to be trusted with personal information". Kír's attitude was that he doesn't wish to associate with those who don't acknowledge him as a person; however, this is his house and he wasn't going to hide from my little boyfriend.

This means that when said "little boyfriend" would come to visit, there's times he'd encounter Teh Warrior... who would greet him courteously enough, him being a guest, but wouldn't converse with him, and wouldn't identify himself. LOL, Kír doesn't have to identify himself; he doesn't even have to move or speak for people who know him to know he's there, and people who don't know him to get uneasy because they sense the difference. (My kid says his aura's different, which Kír finds a little unnerving because he doesn't really *believe* in auras.)

Anyway, the "aspect hypothesis" broke down under the weight of evidence - my friend finally acknowledged that it was ridiculous to keep trying to pretend that we're all one person. He and Kír even have sort of a friendship now, or at least cordial acquaintanceship, formal and intellectual though it is.

LOL, and Crist-Erui? He loves it when our young friend comes to visit; snuggles him, plays with him... there again, 'weight-of-evidence'; Crist-Erui's quite a bit stronger than me, and also not ticklish. Hard to explain how one 'aspect' of a 48-year-old woman's mind wrestles like a 20-year-old guy, and keeps winning....

I agree with this entirely. I've always disliked terms like "fragments" and "soulpuppets" which imply that constructed identities are lesser or inferior. My thoughtforms are not inanimate objects, they are living extensions of my/ourself. Neither are they merely "pieces". They may not be "whole people" as the term is generally defined, but they are whole thoughtforms.

I, too, have noticed how people often post things like, "I'm not sure if it's real or only part of me," implying that real is equivalent to separate. By that logic, a person's arms and legs wouldn't be real, either.

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."

In my understanding of this, thoughtform places have their own kind of reality, just as do thoughtform people. This can exist on a collective level. A thoughtform world that has influenced the minds of many people, like Tolkien's Arda (of which Middle-Earth is a continent) develops into a collective gestalt. In occult terms, such collectively-created places exist on the "astral plane", and can be accessed through dreams, astral journeys, or remote viewing.

Now, I think that a person who creates an outsourced Soulbond can forge a link between the construct they are creating and the source-reality, so that the Soulbond is created with the "imprint" or "template" of the original character. It's like going to a public stem cell bank and making a clone. The character is both part of the individual creator and of the collective thought system. "Inside" and "outside" are just terms of convenience, in my opinion; I don't believe that there is a real division between them.

Individually-created thoughtform worlds also exist. One of my friends in college had a highly-detailed inner world with millions of inhabitants, and, although she described it as "fictional", she experienced it as a literal place. I (Marlana) have an imaginary country -- I prefer the term ideal country insofar as it is an abstract representation.

Individually-created thoughtform worlds also exist. One of my friends in college had a highly-detailed inner world with millions of inhabitants, and, although she described it as "fictional", she experienced it as a literal place. I (Marlana) have an imaginary country -- I prefer the term ideal country insofar as it is an abstract representation.

Those are the kind of experiences I call subjective-- regardless of whether or not it's real in a literal and verifiable sense, it's a reality to you. I'm generally of the school of thought that "what does it mean?" is a less important question to ask than "what does it mean to you?"

I like this, it's as near as to how I consider myself in relation to Baka - and by extent, everyone else in the House of §trange (or, if you will, my "system").

Err, just to clarify, because I think I left myself open to misreading -

I don't think multiples are aspects of one identity. At all. I just don't see anything wrong with aspects to one identity, is all, or for another presence in the mind to have them.

Well, we are separate, singular entities. That's what separates multiplicity from other forms of plurality. Although I do think you could make the argument that the community has influenced people who aren't multiple to try to make their experiences seem as close to multiplicity (ie. the self-contained, singular other) as possible.

Yeah, I pretty much understand that. My only point was that thinking that's the only way the people in your mind are "real" is harmful.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Mooooooore skeptism

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One

Re: Part One