Questions

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

I've been doing some research on what exactly people believe multiplicity is and isn't. I've read every website I can find and much of the literature, and still the questions remain unanswered (or answered in too many widely variant ways).

On the internet/web, people keep expanding or revising the term "multiplicity" to make it mean seemingly very disparate things. In the medical community, only if you correspond to the DSM IV classification of DID or DDNOS can you possibly be considered multiple, IF the doctor in question believes in multiplicity, something which is becoming more and more uncommon.

What is authentic multiplicity? How do you discern it from wishful thinking, delusion, fakery, etc? Is there a definition of multiplicity that means something, or is it just a nonsense word, all sound and fury?

How does "soulbonding" (in the new sense) compare to more traditional multiplicity in actual living? Is "soulbonding" actual multiplicity, a form of fantasy/wish fulfillment, or something else entirely?

How much do "survivorwhine" (to use Amorpha's term) and "non-disordered" multiples really have in common? Is it even the same kettle of fish?

Why the enmity between the "natural" and "trauma-based" multiple? Why the enmity between disordered and non-disordered multiples?

Is natural multiplicity the same as multiplicity caused by trauma at the base level? Are we actually witnessing two distinctly different phenomena which are only similar in appearance?

Categories and labels exist to help us classify and give meaning to the phenomena we observe. What does the label "multiple" or "plural" actually mean?

Comments

[wylddelirium.livejournal.com]

I can understand and appreciate what you're trying to accomplish here, but I gave up on this sort of pigeonholing a while ago.

Everyone claims titles as they seem appropriate to them and their experience. I have no clue if this is fakery or wish fulfillment, and frankly I don't give a crap. Defining as mutliple enriches my life, makes me happy, and makes the world a more magickal place to exist within.

Do I have a medical diagnosis? Sure. Do I think persons/systems who don't are somehow less? No. To me, my experience is my own, and theirs is unique to them, and I am not going to judge anyone else on their life enrichment.

To answer your question, "authentic multiplicity" is whatever the person purports it to be, at the time.

Sorry for the dose of subjective reality, but that's the only way it works for me.

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

No need to be sorry for a dose of subjective reality. That's where everyone else over here lives.

I'm not on a kick to make anyone live anywhere in particular, I'm just trying to make sense, in my skeptical and objective-reality wanting mind, of what I have seen, and I am asking for help.

Everyone claims titles as they seem appropriate to them and their experience.

That is true, but because I claim the title of PhD, or Emperor for that matter, doesn't make me one.

Don't be so sure...

[wylddelirium.livejournal.com]

I mean, Joshua Norton proclaimed himself Emperor, and even issued his own currency that was accepted by merchants in the area at the time.

And plenty of people have claimed a MD because it seemed appropriate, but didn't have the experience/learning to back it up. Karma catches up with those of superb britches.

I guess the best answer I can give you is that there seems to be some reticence between those who believe multiplicity is an "illness", or "disorder", because many of us live fully functional lives by adapting to rather than curing the situation. Those who treat it as a "disorder" somehow sully that by "succumbing" to the idealism that it's a disease to be cured, rather than a spiritual evolution/natural process for some.

On the other hand, many of the "diagnosed vs. natural" arguements also stem from the wisher/fakers out there. To me, the idea of wanting to take on something that, oh, 99% of the rest of the world sees as a form of insanity - as a plea for attention - makes no sense to me at all. Yet they do it, in order to feel unique and different. But it doesn't change the definition of the words used, even if fakers use them.

If fake anorexics eat when no one's looking, but still starve themselves when everyone's around, they're still suffering from something.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"because I claim the title of PhD, or Emperor for that matter, doesn't make me one."

That's because those are titles specifically awarded by others. But suppose you call yourself a lover, a scholar, a poet, a homosexual, a pacifist - any of the thousand things a person can be without having been officially called so by some outside authority - who's got the right to dispute it?

Interestingly enough, there was one man who named himself Emperor and made it stick. That man was Emperor Norton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton):

"it is claimed that the acknowledgement of his status and title by the citizens of the San Francisco area made valid his claims. This can be seen as a form of traditional or charismatic authority: Norton created the position and its power simply by acting as though they existed. Whether or not he had any legal or legitimate authority is irrelevant to the fact that things were done at his behest, because people wanted to do what he wanted them to do.

It remains the case that Norton had no empire, subjects, authority nor political power; any person who humored Norton by choosing to follow his edicts, accept his "currency", or acknowledge his chosen title as "Emperor" did so only by volition and not because it was legitimate or legal. Supporters of Norton accede this as true and dismiss it as irrelevant."

There have also been any number of people who've claimed Ph.Ds that were never awarded to them by any institution, gotten work on the strength of their claim, and (in many cases) done that work as creditably as someone who had a 'real' Ph.D could have done. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that claiming the title did make them one for all practical purposes.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

I find what you're saying to be rather odd. The experience (which some people would call multiplicity) is what enriches our life; actually defining it as such doesn't accomplish much beyond easing communication with the very small segment of the population that is familiar with that definition. Or possibly obstructing it, if our definitions disagree, which is all too common. In practice, I don't really care what other people call our experience so long as it's not something like "insane and needs help" or "deliberately lying".

To answer your question, "authentic multiplicity" is whatever the person purports it to be, at the time.

If a word can mean anything at all, why even bother to have a word? There doesn't seem to be much point. I understand your motive, to attack the mechanism:

(a) Experiences need shared labels to be valid.
(b) The label 'multiplicity', with its associated definition, is the shared sign of validity for this sort of experience.
(c) Therefore, my experience is valid if it fits the definition of multiplicity, and is not valid otherwise.

I just have to question your methods. Jamming this at (b) by asserting that the label 'multiplicity' has no definition and applies to everyone who wants it to apply to them just leads to all kinds of semantic confusion. I think it is much better to attack (a) instead.

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

*Halleluiah* I was soooo hoping *someone* would say something like this. Yes yes yes yes yes! Own your own head!

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

Since most everyone's experiences or environment is different, it's natural to assume that one's "definition" of multiplicity or plurality would and can also be different.

Though I'd personally assume the main "requirement" would be "more than one individual who has access to a single, physical body". Everything else is really unimportant, in the scheme of things.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

SoulBonding *can* be part of multiplicity, but just as 'multiplicity' covers a number of experiences, so does SoulBonding. They overlap in place, I have a Bond in my system, but many Bonders are not multiple.


IMO trauma caused and natural multiples are created differently. I have trouble accepting it properly myself, but I keep telling myself that they can come to be essentially the same. Working on that one.

Trauma based multiplicity is dissociation, it's the splitting off, 'fragmenting' of oneself to protect the mind. If one can get past all that and become independant people, fine. My trouble is that I still see that they started as bits, they are still bits, even if they are very complex and real bits.

What they have in common is 'voices in the head'. Having to live with other people, using the term loosely, in ones body, or otherwise using it. Beyond that there are many things that are different, which is why DID peeps have their own communities specifically for DID related questions.


Why the aggression, ah well. DID is a pain in the ass. Thanks to doctors and their stubborn thick skulls on the subject of DID, you're likely to be told you're making it up, or otherwise not be taken seriously, if you don't have classic DID.

Bear in mind, this would be an ass even for non-disordered trauma based systems.

For a natural multiple who just wants to chat and discuss living as a multiple, hearing constant questions about DId gets annoying.

Personally, I don't care, as long as they don't whine or pity party or whatever. A nice person is a nice person.


There is no real way to discern multiplicity from faking or delusions, to the best of my knowledge. Faith, ladies and gentlemen. That's all we really got.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Multiplicity: more than one mind in a single body. A nice simple definition, which can cover any number of individual variations.

"In the medical community, only if you correspond to the DSM IV classification of DID or DDNOS can you possibly be considered multiple, IF the doctor in question believes in multiplicity, something which is becoming more and more uncommon."

Leaving aside the question of whether psychiatry should be considered a legitimate branch of medicine, this notion presupposes that only those who are diagnosed as multiple ARE multiple. Is there any physical condition which is not considered to exist unless and until it's been officially diagnosed? Obviously not. And what possible advantage is there for multiples in going in to get diagnosed, particularly if their lives are running reasonably smoothly? Even if their lives are a mess, walking in and telling some shrink that there are several people sharing their body is NOT likely to cause good things to happen to them - ha, quite the contrary!

"What is authentic multiplicity? How do you discern it from wishful thinking, delusion, fakery, etc?"

Well... how do you distinguish "authentic homosexuality" from wishful thinking, delusion, fakery, etc.? What about people who go around just pretending to be gay for the sake of attention, pity, or so they can have fun on all those cool gay Internet sites?

Sorry to be sarcastic, but really, it's much the same thing. It's true, there are some people who do fake multiplicity (just as there really are some straight people who get online and fake being gay people of the opposite sex) - unless you know someone personally, you really have no way of knowing if anything they claim online is true or not. In person, I should think that 'faking multiplicity' would be damned hard to sustain over time - most people just aren't that good actors.

Online... well, I go by plausibility. Just as with men who pretend to be lesbians, or people who pretend to have terminal diseases, the stereotypical elements tend to stand out - one can sometimes even name the book that's being copied; usually Sibyl or When Rabbit Howls. I have a personal distaste for "Lilspeak", which is not the normal grammar and spelling of a young child, but rather a stereotypical constructed jargon, no more natural than l33t - I'm aware that some people use it because they've been hanging out in communities where it's required, but my own opinion is that it makes people sound like fakes even if they're not. If a person is able to learn a stylized jargon like that, I don't see why they're unable to learn the conventions of standard English.

Too long; continued next post

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

(Continued)

I don't really have any opinion of Soulbonding, since it's not something we do. I will say that my own (original) fictional characters are very dear to me, and sometimes do things in the story that I hadn't planned or anticipated, but they're still just fictional characters that I made up - not persons in their own right. Other peoples' mileage may vary.

"Why the enmity between the "natural" and "trauma-based" multiple? Why the enmity between disordered and non-disordered multiples?"

I haven't seen it as 'enmity'. I can say I've gotten right well fed-up with insinuations that if one says one's multiplicity isn't trauma-based, one must be either faking or 'repressing memories' - also with the notion that a person whose multiplicity isn't trauma-based has never suffered any trauma and therefore can't possibly understand what it's like. From what I have seen written, it seems that the main complaint disordered multiples have about non-disordered multiples is that they think claiming to be non-disordered equals claiming to be 'better'. My thought about this is that if they believe they're disordered and yet don't want 'to get better', there's something wrong, but that's not a line of thought likely to win me much popularity.

"Is natural multiplicity the same as multiplicity caused by trauma at the base level? Are we actually witnessing two distinctly different phenomena which are only similar in appearance?"

There isn't actually any evidence that multiplicity IS "caused by trauma at the base level". It could be that "trauma-based multiples" would have turned out just as multiple if they hadn't been traumatized. The shrinks used to claim - VERY authoritatively - that both homosexuality and autism were caused by bad experiences in early childhood, but you don't see them making those claims any more.

Multiplicity could be a dozen or more distinctly different phenomena which are only similar in appearance. There isn't any evidence for any of the various 'models' of how and why it happens, however, so it's all just speculation beyond the data.

"Categories and labels exist to help us classify and give meaning to the phenomena we observe."

True as far as it goes, but all too often, categories and labels are used to make it easier to not observe, to just 'go by the label' and ignore the differences between the labeled products.

"What does the label "multiple" or "plural" actually mean?"

More than one mind per body. That's all. That's enough.

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

firstly, let me point you to our FAQ (http://rickmacleod.bravehost.com/pack1.html), one because it's shiny, and two, because our story will explain us.

two, I do want to answer you questions, but I'd like to do so in our second FAQ...we're compiling lists of questions to include, do you mind if we use these?

Faith
Pack Collective

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

Sure, go right ahead and use them for your FAQ if you wish. Thank you for asking.

[changelyng14.livejournal.com]

What is authentic multiplicity? How do you discern it from wishful thinking, delusion, fakery, etc? Is there a definition of multiplicity that means something, or is it just a nonsense word, all sound and fury?

The definition I'm going with that seems to do ok so far is "more then one consciousness'es in one body". It's our opinion that a seperate memory is key. Seperate self-identities, personalities, attitudes, perspectives are good and important, but can be worked around. As for authentic, take said multiple, if they are multiple, then they are authentic, if they are faking, then they are fakers. Personally, I could care less.

How does "soulbonding" (in the new sense) compare to more traditional multiplicity in actual living? Is "soulbonding" actual multiplicity, a form of fantasy/wish fulfillment, or something else entirely?

If you use livejournal's 'soulbonding' communities definition, then it sounds to me like the same species (dissassociators) but not the same animal. It sounds like very strongly build, intimate, imaginary people. but not a foreign presence in your mind with its own agenda/goals/will/etc. I think you can have a multiple that soulbonds, and soulbonds that arent multiple. but if the soulbonders wanna be called multiples too, then I say let em.

How much do "survivorwhine" (to use Amorpha's term) and "non-disordered" multiples really have in common? Is it even the same kettle of fish?

never heard of survivorwhine b4.

Why the enmity between the "natural" and "trauma-based" multiple? Why the enmity between disordered and non-disordered multiples?

probably stupidity. it's apparently been written in stone forever that all multipleness is a result of extreme abuse. its also written into the definition that multiples are denied memories of their abuse. So people claiming to be non-trauma based causes an arguement next door that they're all either lying, in denial, or not-worthy (ie, they didn't EARN their multipleness via torture like WE did) or something.

Is natural multiplicity the same as multiplicity caused by trauma at the base level? Are we actually witnessing two distinctly different phenomena which are only similar in appearance?

no clue. my personal theory is that multiplicity is CAUSED by breaking a threshold. the stronger the natural ability to dissassociate, the easier it is to break the threshhold. Abuse can give one the MOTIVATION to break it, but a natural can break it w/o abuse. ntm a natural is less likely to have the psychotic issues a split has, and doesn't wow the psychological community with their anti-social antics so much.

Categories and labels exist to help us classify and give meaning to the phenomena we observe. What does the label "multiple" or "plural" actually mean?

more then one.

good luck.
-Lovecry

[mysticeden.livejournal.com]

ok i'm not gong to answe all of this because ..well it would take to long. What I will say is trauma based mutiples and natural mutiples, as you call them, have problems because the trauma based mutiples think that the natural ones existance takes away from thiers. Multiplicity is proof of thier trauma and pain and past. Sometimes it's the only thing to get someone to accept themselves and what they've been through. When someone else with a perfectly normal life comes along with the same problem... well whats the trauma based multiple to think? It takes away from thier pain and reality and something that is "thiers". This is the problem I've seen....

Also a lot of people have different opinions of mutiplicty so I think it's better to just form your own ideas on the topic. About psychologist not beliveing about mutiplicity I think it has gotten better. I am a mutiple working to be a psychologist and so is my room mate. Other multiples are going into the health fields as well. Also I have met psychologist around here that belive in it. Don't get me wrong it's still pretty bad for the most part but I have hope that the future will make the problems less and less of a concern.

[ex-khailitha846.livejournal.com]

"Why the enmity between the "natural" and "trauma-based" multiple? "

(I'm going to use the term "trauma-associated" multiple because I'm not so sure anymore whether trauma alone can create multiplicity.)

For many trauma-associated multiples, their multiplicity is like a badge showing how badly they've been wounded. The American psychiatric community takes the stand that all multiplicity is DID, and DID is a direct result of rather extreme trauma. People who are deeply wounded in spirit, suffering from PTSD and flashbacks, and struggling to survive have no external, tangible way to show their pain to those around them. The label of DID validates them... allows them to say, "Look how deeply I am hurt... only people who have been really hurt develop DID and I've got it so you have to take me seriously."

Depending on the situation, this can be a useful stepping stone to healing. It can also be an immovable obstacle because the attachment to one's "war wounds" can consume all of life's focus. The fact is that there are people in the world who have been damaged just as deeply and did not develop DID, but struggle on as single people dealing with all the same issues. I suscribe to the theory that as soon as someone gains awareness of an injury, it becomes their responsibility to take care of it. Taking care of it can be a long and arduous process, though, and it's really hard for me judge someone else's progress on their road.

I'm thinking that alot of folks out there who believe that their DID diagnosis gives their pain credibility feel threatened by people who say that multiplicity can occur without being a direct result of childhood abuse.

On the other side are natural multiples who face immense propaganda denying them their right to a peaceful and out-of-the-closet existence. Almost all the mainstream media depicts multiplicity as this horror-laden, possibly dangerous, severe, and bizarre condition. Walking up to a psychiatrist and telling them that there is more than one person in your body can have extreme effects, to the point of negating one's basic human rights. It seems rational some natural multiples would view the DID types to be a hindrance to making any headway to altering this stereotype, at best, and in league with the enemy, at worst. I suppose that having a DID multiple tell you that you're faking could engender some enmity as well.

"Why the enmity between disordered and non-disordered multiples?"

I'm wondering if the assumption here is that trauma-associated multiples are disordered and naturals are not? To us, a disordered multiple is like a dysfunctional family and can occur in either situation. It could be that trauma-multiples might have to work a bit harder to become "non-disordered. But I've seen 'em out there."

My experience of the whole multiplicity debate is rather sheltered, but I've got to admit that I haven't witnessed, firsthand, the enmity of which you speak between the categories you have chosen. I've seen some pretty lively words fly about soulbonding or lilspeak, but mostly I've seen (mostly) intelligent people sharing information and being relatively supportive of each other, regardless of the particulars of anyone's situation.

-Kat

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post. I'm very much inclined to ask you if you'd like to expand on it and allow us to host it as an article.

"My experience of the whole multiplicity debate is rather sheltered, but I've got to admit that I haven't witnessed, firsthand, the enmity of which you speak between the categories you have chosen."

Some of our correspondence would tend to bear out his description. We used to (and sometimes still do) receive email tirades which invariably would lead off with an assumption that, with our statement that multiplicity can have causes other than childhood trauma, we were denying the writer's personal experience. Many of these emails were lengthy, with detailed (usually fairly believable) accounts of childhood horrors. Just as you said, the writers believed their multiplicity served as proof that these things had actually occurred.

Many were just as fully invested in the concept that to be multiple is, perforce, to lack control and responsibility. So the idea of simply living multiple (whether trauma-based or natural) was a threat to their carefully cultivated therapy-driven lifestyle.

Furthermore, since not all who suffered in childhood become multiple, one of the psychiatric theories which became accepted as Revealed TRVTH by many is that only highly intelligent, creative children can be multiple: "it takes a special kind of mind". Everyone likes to be told they're special. By detaching multiplicity from its abuse origins, we appeared to be denying their specialness.

We were even, in some cases, denying that child abuse constituted a type of modern shamanistic initiation rite which expanded the consciousness of certain highly intelligent, Gifted children and gave them mental powers beyond human comprehension. Those of you who have read my posts and articles will likely be able to discern what I think of this idea. People who embrace it might see me as again denying their specialness; I merely intend to question its origins and warn that such a view dishonours the Gift while serving to condone and possibly even encourage abuse.

These are a handful of the reasons for what colligocarus referred to as enmity towards advocates of natural and healthy multiplicity.

Seen this?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/302700.html

Re: Seen this?

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

Weird. I've never questioned the validity of subjective experiences. Most of us haven't. Maybe J. has (the guy that started this thread). Sometimes strange things happen in a system. I don't see why people need equally strange explanations for them. Usually you can find a simple explanation. Sometimes you don't need an explanation at all. These things can be important, valid experiences, even to the point of being a life-changing, fundamental aspect of who you are as a person. Whether or not they are "real world" or equal to consensual reality experiences seems to me to be immaterial. For the record, we as a group don't consider our "internal world" to be a place in the "real" world (like a planet in another galaxy or an alternate dimension), but we don't think that makes it any less valid, or real. Man, I need a new vocabulary if I'm gonna keep talking about this.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Proving multiplicity is 'real,' IMO, runs into the same irreducible problems as proving anything else that is rooted in subjective experience and not in the physical. Similar questions have been asked of transgendered people, and how they "really" know they're the wrong sex for their physical body. There have been various attempts to point to studies supposedly proving that "the brains of transsexuals are like those of the opposite sex," but the problem is that many of these studies have very small sample sizes and a lot of ambiguity in the results, and tend to involve characteristics where there's really a large degree of male/female overlap.

Beyond this, even if one were to accept this as an explanation for opposite-sex transgenderism, this still leaves us with the question of why there are transgendered people who say they are androgynous, both male and female, or otherwise alternately-gendered. How would we prove the validity of such people's gender identities? How could we decide whether they were honest or just deluding themselves? What about people who say that their gender identities have fluctuated over time-- at any given time, how do we determine whether the person's identity of the moment is genuine?

I am not and have never really been convinced that it is possible to find a 'proof' which would satisfy everyone. Rather, I tend to look at people's behaviour over time as the proof of truth. As elenbarathi has pointed out, a single person who is play-acting won't be able to maintain that act over a long period of time. Perhaps I can't prove for sure when someone is, but I can be fairly sure when someone isn't.

Multiplicity, like transgenderism, or having another world 'inside' or 'elsewhere,' is a subjective mental experience. I think that the reason people often attempt to seek proof in things like their physical reactions is because they're looking for something tangible that can be witnessed by people outside the body. We can choose to talk all we wish about what goes on inside our heads, how we see people's different behaviour and reactions distinctly, about the feeling of 'not-me,' about finding things written by others, but if we have nothing other than our own testimony to offer, all of that can still be dismissed on a pretext by someone who decides to believe we're lying or insincere. It's no wonder that some people go off trying to do things like take hundreds of photographs of themselves to prove they look different when fronting in the body, or prove that one of them can stay sober while another is drunk, or so on.

One could also turn this question around, and ask those who question multiplicity to prove the existence of the indivisible Cartesian self, and that the default human state is having just one. Almost all theories of multiplicity assume it to be true as a basic starting point, and it'd be nice to see some which didn't rely on it.

defining multiplicity cont'd

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

...Complicating this is the fact that anything involving the politics of identity (plurality, gender identity, sexual attraction) is more likely than not to flux a little over time. It's true that categorisation, to a degree, is a necessary evil, but modern society makes it into an obsession. We define ourselves by the labels others tack onto us. To continue the earlier discussion of sexual orientation, the idea of "the homosexual" or "the lesbian" as a discrete category of person is a relatively recent one in Western society. It wasn't that people didn't have romantic and/or sexual relationships with others of their own sex, prior to the invention of these terms, or that there did not exist concepts of persons who engaged exclusively in such relationships; it was that there wasn't a universal word lumping together all people who did so and defining them as a different type of person from the 'heterosexual.' In ancient Greece, what we now call 'bisexuality' was an accepted norm for men, for a long time-- you had a wife, and you had a male lover; similarly, even a century ago in Western cultures, it was acceptable for women, even married women, to form romantic friendships with one another. Sexual attraction is a slippery, blurry thing that can fluctuate over the course of a lifetime; one might not even consider same-sex attraction until a specific person comes along; yet we insist on confining it into two immutable categories of "gay" and "straight," and regard those who move between them as indecisive or confused.

And it's likewise with identity-- I am somewhat dubious of many prominent claims of integration, and particularly of claims that there's a certain 'formula' for it which can potentially work for all multiples. However, I don't disbelieve everyone who says they have integrated; some have reported that for them it happened naturally, without any therapy or exterior prompting. I do not believe it is improbable for someone to shift naturally from plural to single or vice versa over the course of a lifetime, although it may confound many people's desire for fixed, defined categories.

I'm not sure if there is a meaningful and consistent definition of multiplicity any more than there is a meaningful and consistent definition of "the self" or "the personality." IMO, any phenomenon needs to be reduced and oversimplified in order for humans to be able to discuss it using language.

Stripping it down to the absolute bare basics, I would say that a sufficiently broad definition of multiplicity would assume the following:

--that there is in a very general sense such a thing as self or personality, a core pattern of thinking and responding which remains reasonably consistent throughout situations which require different presentation and behaviour;
--that some find a model proposing one self per body to be most consistent with their own lives, tendencies and histories, and find it most efficient to interact with the world in this manner;
--that some, regardless of how or why, find a model of several selves per body to be most consistent with their own lives, tendencies and histories, and find it most efficient to interact with the world in this manner.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

To us, multiplicity is than one person in a body. But what's a person? ;)

We see plurality as coming in two main flavors, groups where only one person has executive control, and groups where more than one can front. We're of the latter kind, and much more interested in experiences from the same.

We can't help much on soulbonding questions - no experience with that here.

Survivorwhine and non-disordered? That's a blur of two different ideas. Trauma is a matter of dealing with ptsd and such, order/disorder is about a group's present day operating system.

We see survivorwhine as a result of paradigm. Being a victim is a powerless stance. It is a choice. We are what we call trauma-born. Choosing to live responsibly and focusing on our life now instead of on what was done to us gives us power. How we live now is our choice.

The enmity seems pointless to us. Why should I try to prove my experience by invalidating yours? Past wounds cause present day attacks.

Different phenomena? Entirely possible. Since we each only have our own experiences to use in judging a subjective state, we may never know. ;)

[pengke.livejournal.com]

We think there are four types of DID:

1. Multiples who function fine as a group but got the diagnosis because they were open about their multiplicity to their therapist.

2. People who are really multiple but have the symptoms of DID due to problems with cooperation and communication within their system.

3. People who are not actually multiple but have symptoms that mimic multiplicity. This may be people who refuse to accept aspects of their personality or emotions as belonging to them. This may be people who block out having done any behaviors that they deem bad. Basically, these are the people who fit the party line about DID patients not really being more than one person but thinking or acting as though they were in a maladaptive way.

4. People who have been misdiagnosed. These would be the people who are faking it and fooled their therapist. These would also be the people who modeled their behavior based on their therapists' insistance/misguiding therapy attempts.

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

Interesting. We have met people that fall into each of those categories. You seem to seperate multiplicity and DID, which is a good thing. What categories do you believe fall under the "Multiplicity" umbrella?

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons for the apparent enmity between 'natural' and 'trauma-based' multiples was an essay written back in 1998 (I think...?) by Sharon of the Anachronic Army. In it, she made a distinction between 'survivor' multiples and 'empowered' multiples, implying that the categories were mutually exclusive and one could either be a survivor multiple who had experienced trauma and become multiple as a result of it, or an empowered natural multiple.

The original idea of empowerment had nothing to do with one's trauma or lack thereof, but with how a system handled its difficulties and responsibilities:
http://www.bentspoons.com/Shaytar/soapbox/disgruntled.shtml

However, Sharon's essay was widely circulated and her definition of 'empowered' became a sore point with a lot of multiples who *had* experienced abuse/trauma and were functioning well in daily life anyway. By classifying 'empowered' multiples as separate from 'survivors,' many people got the impression that if you were an abuse survivor, you couldn't be empowered, no matter how well you functioned in the world at large and how much you had done to work through abuse-related issues. From what I've seen, the rift caused by this was never quite fully repaired.

Apart from that, I would agree with what others have said about some people feeling that multiplicity is proof they were abused, and they see claiming multiplicity without a background of abuse as trivialising their pain or denying that abuse exists. (There's something of a fundamental error which often goes on here, with the assumption "not created by trauma = has no experience of trauma." Many multiples report that they were multiple before any abuse took place, and some were abused more because they were multiple-- being punished/sent to mental wards/drugged for 'inconsistent behaviour,' 'lying,' 'inability to tell fantasy from reality,' etc.)

For the 'empowered' camp, I think much of the dislike comes from the learned helplessness you still see in a lot of MPD/DID patients, and the pawning off of responsibility onto 'alters,' in addition to the extremist antics of the recovery movement which basically wiped out the credibility of multiplicity with a lot of mainstream doctors. IMO, some of the outrage comes from the fact that many now-empowered multiples (empowered in the original sense; see link above) started out buying into the idea that they had a disorder, were broken pieces of an original, were doomed to be perpetually in chaos until they integrated, etc., when those interpretations were not necessarily consistent with their own experience. Once they learned it didn't have to be like that, they felt that they had been deceived and ripped off, especially if they had already been in traditional MPD/DID therapy, or in communities where MPD was the only accepted model.

We had a bit of this experience ourselves, which underlay a lot of our hostility towards survivorwhiners/victimwhiners back when we first started working on the webpage. (Unfortunately I can't take credit for inventing those terms-- it might have been the Blackbirds or the Army.) We went through some intense spite towards 'losers who believe whatever their therapist tells them,' etc. For a while we were half convinced that there weren't really any multiples who fit the Sybil-type pattern and that integration was BS, and that people only believed these things were true because they'd been talked into it by 'experts.' Since then, we've changed our stance on that, having heard more from people who had really experienced splitting or creation of others due to trauma in childhood (or in adulthood). I can't prove they're right about it, of course, but I want to give them credit for having some self-insight. I know I don't take very kindly to being treated as a pathetic loser in denial of 'whatever awful thing caused you to split' etc, and I don't want to jump to assume I have a better knowledge/understanding of anyone else's experience than they do.

[colligocarus.livejournal.com]

Wow. Everything you ever wanted to know about community enmity. I totally get not wanting to be lumped into the Sybil category. We don't like that ourselves. I can also understand not appreciating being told you're in denial of "something horrible" if you're not.

Some of us experienced abuse. Some of us didn't. None of us have any desire to be pitied or to abdicate our responsibility as people. We mostly know and understand our origins, and we're ok with that. We don't feel the need to run about crying about it.

Curiosity question :

If you discovered that you had been in denial of abuse (or whatever 'orrible thing) all this time, how would you handle it?

And to the joker that emailed me about five minutes ago about the content of this thread:

If you can't deal with your triggers, then stay off the fucking internet.