(no subject)

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

"The style of resolution of inner conflicts is one of the strongest features of personality.

It is a common myth that each person is a unity, a kind of unitary organization with a will of its own. Quite the contrary, a person is an amalgamation of many subpersons, all with wills of their own. The "subpeople" are considerably less complex than the overall person, and consequently they have much less of a problem with internal discipline. If they are themselves split, probably their component parts are so simple that they are of a single mind-- and if not, you can continue down the line. This hierarchical organization of personality is something that does not much please our sense of dignity, but there is much evidence for it."

-from Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul, specifically in a section written by Douglas Hofstadter (physicist, and professor of Cognitive Science, Computer Science, History, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy, Comparative Literature, and Psychology)

(x-posted)

Comments

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

subpeople?

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

It is a rather silly term for us, isn't it? Then again, he could have just as well used "personality" or "persona", but I suppose what he's getting at are each separate will is a person, not just a personality or a persona, but he needed a simple term to designate it as different from the sum of all the people in an entire body. Perhaps instead of person and subperson, it could have been system and person, but considering the entire book has this one paragraph expounding on Hofstadter's theory, and the rest is on general about the various theories concerning the mind, I doubt he couldn't really go into it.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

It does make it sound as if he's saying there is one person who is the "totality" of everyone, as one. And while not as one, the others who are not this "totality" are lesser people.

[hexpiritus.livejournal.com]

Though he seems pretty resolute with his idea that no human being is unitary, I generally disagree. He can't possible assume everyone is multiple to some extent, just like one can't assume everyone is unitary. However, I find his description to be surprisingly close to how I describe my system, with its voluntary integrations and separations, kind of like a mental and psychological version of Voltron, heh.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Well, keep in mind this is supposed to apply to singlets.

Multiples, presumably, are people whose "subpeople" are much more complex and independent. This could be how natural multiplicity gets started.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yes, could be. That's true.

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

Multiples, presumably, are people whose "subpeople" are much more complex and independent. This could be how natural multiplicity gets started.

Is pretty much what we think. Walk-ins and such aside, human minds are fundamentally plural, and in some this is more pronounced than in others. We don't really believe there's any such thing as a "pure singleton". It's like with autistic traits; everyone has them, they're human.