The "Original Person"

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that quite a few people here subscribe to a paradigm in which it's easily defined who is the "original" or "host". This may work for their systems, in which it's clearly defined who is associating with the body, and who is not. It seems to me, however, that it's not nearly as universally true as some people present.

How does a person deal with a few of the systems present here, in which some may not have never had someone present who identifies with the physical appearance of the body? Does this mean that they cannot be the "original" or "body" person? Is this the case even when they aren't a multiple? Many singles do not believe their reflection is an accurate representation of who they are. Does this mean they lose all rights to their body? What kind of implications will that hold for transgendered people?

What about other systems, in which there are attributes of more than one system member present in the physical body? People who are completely unrelated to each other can look similar enough that people will confuse the two. I've personally experenced this, and I also know I'm not alone. People have gone to jail in cases of mistaken identity. It's really not all that uncommon for people to bear more than a passing resemblance to each other, so is it really that impossible for this to happen in a multiple system?

I've seen it mentioned that the person whose name is present on their identification is the original person. This has a few, IMO amusing, implications. With a little paperwork, a single person, or a multiple system, can change the name on all of their identification, including their Driver's License. It's actually not all that difficult, and many singles do so. If the name on the Driver's License is to be used as some sort of proof, couldn't anyone in the system just change the name on the relevant forms of ID so that it matches with their own personal name, and thus alter their status within the system? That could turn out to be a very bad day for the person who had originally identified as the host.

What if noone identifies with the name bestowed at birth? Plenty of singles are uncomfortable with their birth names. After all, they did not choose the name, it was chosen by their parents. If one must identify with their birth name in order to claim that they are the original inhabitant of the body, what does it mean when someone who is not multiple chooses to change their name, and no longer uses their birth name. Does this mean that they are no longer the "original" person? What if they never really identified with the name, or always hated it and avoided using it?

Conversely, what if more than one person in a system identifies with the birth name? First and last names are not universally unique. In some cases, it's not even a coincidence. In some families, it's custom to use a specific first name for all their children, such as the name of a grandmother, grandfather, or saint. They differentiate between the children using their middle names. I've encountered someone from such a family, and my sister has encountered a set of twins with the same first and last name. Given this, how impossible is it for two system members to identify with the same name, perhaps using nicknames, or chosen middle names in order to differentiate themselves in casual conversation? How is it invalid if there was a concious choice involved, as the case may be among some singles? In any case, no matter the reason: who is the original, when more than one person identifies with the name given to the body at birth?

When people assert that it is easy to identify who the body person might be, are they just taking the easy way out by denying the experiences of these corner cases? Do they for some reason believe that these issues which exist outside the context of multiplicity, somehow magically become rendered null and void once you are talking about a multiple system? Have they never encountered these issues before? If so, where are they living?

The reason I ask, is because here on Earth people don't always feel that their reflection, their driver's license, their name, or their gender at birth, are really reflective of who they are as a person, nor are they unique identifiers. There are jobs and undustries which rely on this fact. Yet somehow, some of these people have the gall to accuse others of living in a fantasy land.

--Me

Comments

[linnai.livejournal.com]

The closest we've got to an 'original' is Angel... and she was only the 'host' during the few years we had a sort of... crisis... where she was the only one present.

No one here has ever fully identified with the body or the body name. It's just something that hasn't clicked in with anyone properly. -shrugs- To us, it isn't important. But then... every system is different.

The whole conversation about 'fake multiples' really touched off a negative feeling with a lot of us. No one has the right to judge another, singlet, system or otherwise, really...

[changelyng14.livejournal.com]

here, we have no frontrunner/host/maincharacter. nor do we have any members that use the member name. we believe we have no original because we've figured out the beginning of everyone here. our theoretical 'presix' member (whoever was born) is not yet identified.

i think alot of 'faces' get presumed to be 'originals'. 'Sybil' of Sybil read to me more like a face then an original. i dont push it though. i think if a 'face' discovers they are just another voice in ye ole head, they are prone to taking it pretty hard, and risk being lost to the pool of functionals. (i know our latest face really took a head job, and ive watched anothers face break down badly) so i dont push it.

reflections are funky things. we have people that resemble it more then others, and some who arent on the same subject. i have no opinion.

i hate the thought that people who claim to be 'host' might consider it leverage to mistreat the rest of their head, almost as much as i hate the thought that a 'rest of' person might actually buy into it, and feel they dont have a right or a say.

the whole subject makes me grumpy.

:/
Candy

[elira-wiken.livejournal.com]

I'd say something, but alas being in here I am not sure what I can say and what I can't without offending anyone. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Offending people is going to happen, no matter where you are. *shrugs* I'm also asking these questions because I want to hear their answers. I already take these corner cases into account. I assess the situation, without pushing some pretty outmoded and culture-specific views on what people are allowed to think about themselves. I also don't force the issue if someone doesn't feel that they have an original body-person.

Here's a random example. I know a multiple, in a male body. The "original", is a woman, who prefers not to be called by her first name. She doesn't like her birth name, because it reminds her of her mother's intolerance, and the expectation that she'd continue in those footsteps.

Nonetheless, she's the person who was born in that body. She's the person who engaged in all the property damage associated with raising a child.

Again, the methods above are not at all foolproff when identifying who is the "original".

--Me

[elira-wiken.livejournal.com]

Well in my case. I am not like many here. I don't use 'we' or 'us'. Yes I am a multi person, but I identify as the original. I believe the 'others' are there as their own personalities, but they are there because as I child I couldn't handle the sexual abuse that I was enduring. That is how I feel about everything. So I am Tiffany and this is my body that they have to share and they are who they are within.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

What if noone identifies with the name bestowed at birth? Plenty of singles are uncomfortable with their birth names.

That's what's happened with us. We know, because other people have told us, that there was once a time when someone went by the birth name. Where that person went is anyone's guess. She's not here now. The group of us live with that name, but prefer nicknames that have nothing to do with it. Depending on whose friends we're around, we have different names, even the names of those who've gone or shifted into a different entity.

For example: most of my friends know me and me alone, except for one who met Kip, who was here before I began fronting at all and has since... gone, somehow. There's no longer anyone who answers to Kip, but for the sake of continuity we allow ourselves to "play" her. Does that make sense?

It's really not all that uncommon for people to bear more than a passing resemblance to each other, so is it really that impossible for this to happen in a multiple system?

Not at all. We find it useful, especially since people who front a lot around here tend to burn out after a few years, pull up roots, and either move inside or evolve into someone else. (I don't know how they do it. I believe it involves reincarnation, but not everyone shares that belief, and I respect that.) When one major-frontrunner burns out, we look for a new one. Lately, that's been me, but I know better than to stay out all the time. It's why I share with Cally more than my predecessor, Katrien, did, and why Katie-River (she's evolving a little, pardon her dust) and Kali share too. We keep as current as we can with each other's experiences and memories so we can shift in and out seamlessly. Nearly. Katie-River is more childlike, Kali's more adult, more gentle, Cally's more crass, and I'm more... ladylike? Feh.

Conversely, what if more than one person in a system identifies with the birth name? First and last names are not universally unique.

Hee, we've had that happen a couple of times. Always fun trying to remember who's who in those situations.

When people assert that it is easy to identify who the body person might be, are they just taking the easy way out by denying the experiences of these corner cases?

An interesting question, and one I'd love to see answered as well. I wish I could help you, but I'm by no means the original, and I never knew her. All I have are some of her memories, because we've always tried to keep ourselves on the same page, and that means everything gets shared that can be.

I've seen it mentioned that the person whose name is present on their identification is the original person. This has a few, IMO amusing, implications. With a little paperwork, a single person, or a multiple system, can change the name on all of their identification, including their Driver's License.

*covers mouth with hands* omg that IS funny. In a tragic kinda way. And in an "it is so not funny when it happens to you" kinda way. But. *snerk* The concept is pretty darn amusing, you're right.

The reason I ask, is because here on Earth people don't always feel that their reflection, their driver's license, their name, or their gender at birth, are really reflective of who they are as a person, nor are they unique identifiers. There are jobs and undustries which rely on this fact. Yet somehow, some of these people have the gall to accuse others of living in a fantasy land.

Speak louder because this needs to be heard. ♥

Cat, very sorry about her long-windedness.

[kiya]

We all belong here, and the 'host' has always been a synthesis.

Two thoughts....

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

According to what we've read, the surest way to make a brain/mind specialist giggle is to suggest the existence of an original personality intrinsically tied to the brain. In fact, personality itself is a very slippery concept to them, and some of them seem to regard it as a load of peanut butter. There is no one place in the brain where either memory or personality are stored. Personality is in and of itself a social construct.

We have a birth person. She is alive and well, but you will never see her. I am most assuredly not her.

[jaga-system-.livejournal.com]

I really appreciate your candor. I think this would make an excellent article all by itself. I'm very thankful that you shared your thoughts.

Julie :-)

Thank you

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

I might put it up somewhere.

On a completely unrelated note, I love the name Julie. Mostly because it's the name of one of my favorite movie characters.

--Me

Re: Thank you

[qilora.livejournal.com]

tangential to your completely unrelated note ;-) "our" name is Julie. (which isn't our birth name, amusingly enough)

and i had also wanted to say that we really appreciate your taking the time to post this entry here...
it made a lot of sense to us...

thanks.

Ulla & Co.

Re: Thank you

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

You're most welcome. I was just saying what I felt needed saying.

--Me

Re: Thank you

[jaga-system-.livejournal.com]

Hi Julie :-)and Ulla & Co. :-)

~Julie

Re: Thank you

[jaga-system-.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you're going to consider putting the article up somewhere.


Glad ya like my name... ;-) BTW, if you don't mind sharing, which movie is it?

Julie

[jadedmosaic.livejournal.com]

We tend to go with the person whos name is on the employee check as the original although we each all get seperate mail too , Shelby
( Makes for lots of magazine subscibtions)

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Not all systems have someone who identifies with the name that would be on the check. Just as not all singles really identify with their name. Often in those cases, it's easier to make the decision to change the name and fix that issue, but it is sometimes an issue. It can continue to be an issue with the system. Really, that method, is an extension of the method I mentioned above, about ID. It's just a different form of ID. It doesn't mean that no system can use that method. It just doesn't always work for some systems.

Tangentally, IMO, whatever the name might be on the check, it belongs to whoever was working the shifts in question. ;)

--Me

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

More than one person in here has presented identifying with the birth name. Some frontrunners identified with it because they felt they had no other choice, although when questioned, they admitted that they would have preferred to be called something else. Currently, if you asked for the person going by the birth name, you'd probably get a six-year-old, who isn't the 'original child' either.

But this raises an interesting point. Asking to be called by different names, in childhood, was one of the reasons that adults around us worried we 'couldn't tell the difference between fantasy and reality'-- that we somehow didn't understand who we 'really were.' Apparently, to them, knowing who we 'really were' equated to identifying with the birth name.

A few times, we tried asking the other children at school to call us by our preferred names, but those names just ended up being made fun of and dishonoured, so we decided it was safer to let the birth name take the slander. So there were several reasons why a number of frontrunners forced themselves to identify with it, to the point where they never had any idea of what name they, personally, would have preferred to use.

Frankly, I think that there's a bit too much emphasis placed on the name given to you by your parents at birth in this society-- there are some societies where your childhood name is completely different from the one you use as an adult, and some where you get to choose your own adult name. Plus, there's the issue of being expected to 'carry on the family name,' if you're male, and some parents invest a lot of 'family pride' in naming their offspring-- if you're a Jr. or a III or IV, or named after a parent or ancestor, first, middle or last, you'll probably meet with a huge amount of family resistance if you try to change your name. For some reason, some families take it quite personally if a child turns out not to like the name they were given at birth-- it's like they're upset that you turned out to be your own person with your own thoughts and ideas, rather than letting them make you into what they wanted.

Naming ourselves was incredibly empowering for many of us, in the original sense of that word (only you can know who you really are). It was our statement that we were people, that we existed; and names have power in many societies. To know someone's name is to have power over them, which is why some of us have more than one, or keep our real names secret and use pseudonyms in public.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

We've also heard the idea of a person's name having power, and for this reason, we are the opposite in the idea of keeping our names private. Of course, this isn't true for all of us. Some of us do keep their true names private. But most of us feel that declaring and claiming a name and showing it to others shows that you are not afraid of who you are and that it gives you an advantage over another who may be afraid to do so. The same as holding your head up high or looking another in the eye and not flinching. It's also a culture viewpoint with us.

Many of us trade names in thought, like a thought-handshake. It is how we greet each other or identify each other. It is also true for some of us to not have a name that is pronounceable verbally and can only be spoken via thought. The majority of us who have images here or icons with a name on it, have chosen to use either their true names, or a name that represents who or how they wish to appear as to others. But we agree that a name is something personal as well, but not something to be viewed on with shame.

Quick Response

[idianshire.livejournal.com]

In our other world culture and in the culture we were taught by our aunt, people shoudl have two names, your "true" name which shoudl be kept private and the public name most people know you by.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

What an excellent post. I suppose we come into the category of systems where the "original" is either missing or unknown, though I have a suspicion that one of our littles might be the original. No-one in our system identifies with the body, or uses the body-name as their own (though for practical purposes and interaction with the outside world, we'll all use it when fronting). I have been the main fronter over the past 20-odd years, but that hasn't always been the case, and it's not been the case again in the last 2 years or so, as another system member has become the main fronter.

The key question I suppose, is, does it even matter? Psychiagtrists place such a huge emphasis on who is the "original", and restoring that particular person in favour of anyone else who's regarded as an interloper, but I don't think that's necessarily the best thing.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

your icon winked at me! lol

kasia

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

*lol* It does that to everybody!

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

You might want to get that checked. ;)

--Me

[padawanagain.livejournal.com]

Jens love that icon.

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

The key question I suppose, is, does it even matter? Psychiagtrists place such a huge emphasis on who is the "original", and restoring that particular person in favour of anyone else who's regarded as an interloper, but I don't think that's necessarily the best thing.

I know what you mean. In my personal experience, it has a habit of being used more often as a means of subjugation, than an attempt understanding the situation. Personally, even if in systems where people think they know who it might be, I don't exactly encourage letting other people know, unless you really trust them, as it may expose the non-"originals" to mistreatment and disrespect. It is your business, really. It's a confidence you can give to someone, but it's hardly required.

--Me

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

Those of us who are here the most don't go by the name that is on the birth certificate. The one of us who was here nearly all the time for 10 years used a variation of the certificate name. We also have 3 others with different variations of the certificate name. In all honesty, before the age of 19, we aren't sure who the main fronter was. It's something we haven't figured out. If there is an original person in our group, we're not sure if we'd ever discover who it was, for there were several of us who recall being present at different times. Perhaps we didn't have a single one here and we were all taking turns. {No big deal} There are several of us who we know were around all through the body's history, but narrowing it down to a one single person. That seems impossible for us because this person may not even exist in our group any more. And does it even matter?


Pepper

[nematoddity.livejournal.com]

Or you can take my situation, for instance--I'm pretty sure I was just a social mask created so the shy ones didn't have to front, but everyone, according to my partner, answered to "my" name, which makes things all sorts of hellishly confusing when this "I" wants to track it all back now and figure out who was which. :)

I don't even know if the "original person" is awake/aware/present anymore or even ever interacted with my partner. It's a mystery.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

None of us identify with the body name, and none of us particularly with the body. But, we do have an original. So originality isn't tied to name or body at all. Makes for brain explodey.

and yet not, because it's so much more simple to just say "she was born here" than to try and figure out who identifies most with the name or the body.

*nods*

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Case in point.

--Me

[nynomi.livejournal.com]

No one here feels like this is her or his face. There is someone who identifies with *a version* of the body - and has the body name - she is a child and identifies with the body at about age 5. Not sure what's up with that! I know who's the original, it's myrrh. She was too wide open psychicly to deal with this world and began bringing us out to take her place.

But I agree with you that there is an enormous diversity. Far be it from me to tell anyone what they are. -Nerys

On birth persons.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We have one, and he goes by Billy now. He died, returned as a fully mature ghost, and has no more claim to our body then we do. He will only front if he really, really wants to. We fell whole with him back, and ironically enough, he, who once was ao all-fired to integrate us, has utterly rejected that idea, after shafting us in the first place. (How? By dumping his messy lil life on us.) So, we now rule. Sorry if I sound a little newbish.
Knifer^The Collective.

[revive-me-again.livejournal.com]

umm in our system, the "host" or whatever is Jessie. It's just been completely agreed upon by all of us that she was here first. She may not have been, but she is the only one that goes by the birth name and has ever wanted to. Plus when we first were around she denied us, prefering to call us "the voices in her head" than to admit we existed. Jessie's pretty much the original, domininant personality... and I think what makes her so is that, time-line wise, she came first.

That's all I've got to say.

May

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I never said that people cannot know who was the original. I said that the methods are not universally effective. I posted an example of a system in which these methods wouldn't work above (http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/381545.html?thread=5231465#t5231465).

Our experiences were not similar to your own, and they don't have to be, any more than your's need to match with mine. Our experiences are ours, and yours are yours.

--Me

[revive-me-again.livejournal.com]

I totally agree... I don't think every system has to name an "original" personality... I don't even think every system CAN. May's blunt but I think all she was trying to say that the reason that people assume what they do is because everyone just thinks that whatever personality was there BEFORE the split is still there, is still dominant, and is the original. Maybe? I don't know.

Jamie

[crystalhellion.livejournal.com]

Up until last week, our original was a seperate entity, but that's no longer the case... she's one of the 5 that merged to make me. Honestly, I can't say whether she's still here, since she's part of me, or not here anymore...