![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sethrenn.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesLooking 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?
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-10 12:36 pm (UTC)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.