Tossing out food for thought: What's a soulbond?

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Looking at the two threads started earlier today, it's occurred to me that there may be a problem with people using different definitions of the same word. Understand that I'm not trying to fan the flames or incite argument here; I'm bringing this up because it's a personal curiosity of mine, and because I think that misunderstanding is often the result of people making assumptions about others' experiences and assuming that others define certain words/concepts in the same way as them. (I'll answer this myself, eventually-- I just want to see first what others have to say about it.)

1) What do you consider a soulbond to be? Do you base this definition on your personal experiences, on what you've heard from others, or a combination thereof?

2) Do you believe the word 'soulbond' is useful and/or accurate, or that it's necessary to make a distinction between soulbonds and anyone else in the system? Do you think it's important or helpful to assign different terms to people who were created or arrived via different ways, or do you think it's unneccessarily divisive and creates the appearance of difference when little difference exists?

Comments

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

This is from our FAQ

How do multiple systems with soulbonds make the distinction between those in the multiple system and soulbonds?

That's been a topic of conversation for us for awhile. Our group includes Soulbonds as a part of our system. I don't see them different and I don't really call them Soulbonds in such a way as to label them as being different from the others in our group. One likes the term, actually. Another knows that he's who he says he is and has no idea that there are television shows about him. And the others are somewhere in the middle of this. Not that it really matters, because it doesn't, but sometimes we have a habit of wanting to make some order out of things. Categorizing seems to be a very human thing to do.

Those we may list as Soulbonds actually live with us in our realm on a near permanent basis. Which is why we sometimes hesitate using the term Soulbond. We basically would (personally) define a Soulbond as one who has some connection to a form of media; book, movie, game, etc. We've seen the terms in-sourced and out-sourced; meaning "manifested from an original creation" and "manifested from something created by another". We have both of these as well.

For instance, the majority of the Soulbonds in our group have a history within a certain universe, like Star Wars. Or one may be a race from a show like a Vulcan from Star Trek. Any tidbit that exists in some published media. That's our definition. Though we also have those like Laura who looks like actors from shows. And some who resemble deceased actors. Would they be Soulbonds? Or are they perhaps a Spirit of the person?

Basically, we've come to the conclusion that in the scheme of things it doesn't really matter. But there are alot of fine lines that blur into each other. As long as everyone feels accepted and cared for, we don't care who/what we all are.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

I have also seen the word "mediakin" used as well. Probably a play off "otherkin".

I feel that soulbonds existed originally in other places and that there are many parallel and other types of dimensions out there. I say this from personally knowing others who've come from these places. Those that I know aren't just people who have taken on a characteristic or identify with a certain character. These are actually either who they say they are, or are from where they say they are from. Almost literally as if they stepped out of that world to be here.

Jenilee

[linnai.livejournal.com]

For me, soulbonds are my Muses. I suppose that they're very similar to any system member because they're a REAL that doesn't qualify for everyone else, just me(us).

I know and believe that not all soulbonds are muses and not all muses are soulbonds. I believe that a soulbond can be a part of a full system and also that they don't have to be.

Most of my bonds are people whose stories I know, who share
things with me and whom I depend on for creativity, entertainment, companionship...

I think that the term soulbond is accurate and useful in my system. Not all of the members here have special bonds with my Muses and while my muses talk to some members, they do not speak or appear real to other members... so soulbond distinguishes them from the members of the system but I feel it also makes them a part of it.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

*shrug* We don't know. We've seen it used to mean inside people who have a history relating to stories, shows, movies, things like that.

We try to respect that other people have different realities than we do. Rather like learning that there are multiple groups that don't have a background of trauma - this was not our experience, but that in no way invalidates someone else's experience. (One of us says they knew it was possible, to the rest of us this was a new thing.)

[kangetsuhime.livejournal.com]

(forgive the shifting account usage, we are lazy)


1) I consider a SoulBond to be a connection with a character to the point it would warrent the word 'muse'. From there on up to full multiplicity, I call that bonding. Below that, eg, feeling an empathy for a particular character, I do not call that SoulBonding, though many do.


2) Useful, yes, very. Accurate? Not exactly. Often Souls aren't involved and often thre's not much of a 'Bond'. SoulBond makes it sound like the whole twu luv thing. I think the distinction between 'fictionkin' and non fictionkin is a useful one. Fictives have a lot of different issues to contend with. It allows people to recognise each other and discuss these issues. We don't see it as at all divisive. Our origins do not make us better or worse than any other.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

I understand two distinct meanings for 'soulbond':

a: A connection to a fictitious character invented by someone else, which more or less entails believing the character to be present in one's head as a separate personality

b: A way of describing a close relationship between two real people with separate bodies who believe they have a mental or psychic connection

Sorry if the terms are clumsy, but it was the best way I could think of to describe things clearly. I don't want to get into the relativity of 'fictitiousness'. :)

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

First, some of our thoughts on this and related subjects.

It's possible to have a character with a certain degree of free will living "in one's head" (or can seem to you to be sitting in the chair opposite your own, or however you experience their presence), but with less free will than an actual person. A character can be destroyed if its author forces it to behave in ways which go against its nature; it just doesn't seem real anymore to the reader of the book, they say "I can't suspend my disbelief". The same thing can happen with plots. However, when the author allows the story to stay true to the characters' natures, it may come to "be real" and/or "fit" in ways that surprise the author him/herself.

Usually when people "create" a character, they "incarnate" it into a book. This way more people than just the author can perceive the creation and respond to it. (Many people have experienced that the character, or the story, or whatever the creative idea is, seems itself to strive towards incarnation; like some people (I forget who) say a woman gives birth to her baby, but the baby also gives birth to the mother, into motherhood.) This is even more true when the character is written into a play; we can actually see the character through the actor, and there is no better test for the "realness" of a character or a story than acting it out.

We think having someone growing and developing in your mind (or perhaps "next to" it) is just another form this incarnation can take. In the case where it's a character you didn't create yourself, it's also a response to something incarnated by someone else (writing fanfiction is another example of something that is both incarnation and response to incarnation, while saying "wow! that story really changed my life!" is only a response to incarnation).

(We get this stuff from Dorothy Sayers' book The Mind of the Maker (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060670770/), which is online here (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/dlsayers/mindofmaker/mind.c.htm).)

Now to the questions.

1) I think the people in here we call soulbonds are called that way because they a) have fictional origins or are based on a character from fiction (our own, written or unwritten, or someone else's), and b) don't have the degree of autonomy usually associated with people who front. I don't know if we would stop calling them soulbonds if they gained that autonomy; maybe we'd say they started out as a soulbond (and you'd have to, sometimes, if someone asked you how come this or that person was in your system). If we had a connection with any people from, or based on, real-life history, perhaps we'd call them soulbonds too; if we felt it was a connection to the real person and not a "copy" of them perhaps we'd say we were kything (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809130114/) with them. Which I think indicates, together with the non-fronting thing, that we do see a difference somewhere, but right now I can't see between what and what exactly, I'm just sort of relaying this.

2) It's useful if it's supposed to indicate the difference between multiplicity and non-multiplicity I think; but that's not the only thing it's used for. Some systems have actual people they call soulbonds, and then it's maybe useful to indicate a difference between fictional origin and not, but some people will not find that difference important at all if they're just system members like anyone else in there. Also one person may experience something as "imaginative" that another would experience as "real", partly based on their belief system (if you don't believe in alternate worlds or dimensions, you're not going to believe anyone came from them, although you might still use that vocabulary in a metaphorical way). So it's kind of dizzying already the way it's used now. I'm not getting a lot of response here about what kinds of distinctions are useful. Probably some are useful in some contexts, others in other contexts. It's very annoying that "soulbond" is used for several kinds of distinctions.

M

[withfangs.livejournal.com]

Allow me to explain, and I shall use my girl's journal, to avoid confusion as to our connection.

I am a twin of my girl. We use the term to realise the fact that we had been born together, in such this state. I merely happened to fall into a latent slumber between the ages of eight and ten. During the time that I had fallen to hiding, I not only forgot about my own voice, but was inadvertantly causing emotional disruption within my own system.

It is not pleasing to think about. In order to regain a more feasible manner of communication, my Rinna provided me with a voice and identity, which I comfortably fell into and began voicing my emotions once more. For a brief time, it made the entirety of my system even more disruptive, because, as my girl says, I was "making up for lost time", and speaking without control or restraint.

I have, in stepping away from the fictional persona, managed to find both control, and restraint, and I have also come to realise that I am nothing close to the character to whom I have become bonded. It is my own belief as to what soulbonding is, a soul with no voice finding one through another identity that has been pre-created.

In this sense, while I believed that I was fictional, I was embraced by my system as a voiced soul, moreso than when I did not have a manner to speak. I also felt that my uncontrollable behaviour both did my girls a disservice, and caused a deal of trouble when I decided to shed the identity all together.

[poacu.livejournal.com]

The word 'system' often throws me as well.

Some use it in reference to everyone in the body, others in reference just to front-group (with the other 'groups' being different 'systems'), others referring to one 'town' of people, or 'country', and so forth.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I don't favor the word - it's too biomechanical, as in "digestive system"; using it for family members who share a single body sounds as pompously clinical to me as it would to use it for family members who don't share a body.

[poacu.livejournal.com]

I can see that view, as well.