Multiplicity

1) Oh goodness. There's several homeworlds here. Most of them are made of several countries or clans, and each country governs differently. With the exception of C'cirian, but no one's sure wtf is going on there right now.

2) I think it got described once as...there being a Central 'hub', from which all the other worlds branched out from. If someone wants to front, either their go to the central area, or I (the body) move the center to one of the worlds. But that tends to make people mad, so I try not to do that.

3) The most control I've ever allowed someone to have is telling me what to eat. Someone was craving beef, so I got a hamburger >>.

From:

fadingtogrey.livejournal.com

1. I can't really answer this one.

2. There are no concrete visualizations of how we access the body.

3. This seems to be common with those of us who aren't used to fronting. They get "tired" more easily and don't generally stay out for long. In addition, sometimes they need a physical object they can hold onto as being solely "theirs", and this tends to help them stay up front longer.

From:

1) Homeworld? What homeworld? We have past life worlds, but they're just standard Earth type things.

2) We see it as... Sitting in the driving seat. People can be in the backseat, the passenger seat, or even back home.

3) eh. Clarify? Selene used to get really tired if she fronted for a while.

From:

adreamerforme.livejournal.com

1)Hmmmm.... we try to keep it to some kind of 'democracy' standard because it seems to work better when we all comunicate ---- expecialy since none of us like loosing time, and we prefer to switch smoothly so we can exchange information on what's going on (if anything at all).

2) We have a portal. I'm not quite sure it's at any certain spot, I think we just have some kind of 'porting' ability.

3) Yes, more times than I can count. If we're trying to switch slowly or if someone's fighting for control of the body (though fighting can result in very slow switches or extreme quick ones).

From:

You should disclaimer your posts. Not everyone reading this is going to know that you're talking about soulbonds. I mean, it's fine for you but it's completely different for someone to tell real people that they're not allowed to have any control.

From:

Soulbonds aren't real people? ;}

But you're right, I should. Sorry. I'll try to remember to do it in the future.

From:

Disclaimer: Yes.
SoulBonds are 'different' from real people? If that's not what you mean then maybe you should disclaimer too ;)

From:

No, yours aren't.

From:

So you think every single soulbond is just like you?

From:

Really? Care to enlighten me so I'm no longer deluding myself?

From:

No (I also think I'm not a Soulbond, that aside though)

I think that if she has to dislaimer, so should you :P

From:

hello-horror.livejournal.com

Hi, I'm new to the community but I'd like to try and answer

1)By homeworld do you mean where we all stay when we're not "out"? We have different places, and some have no specific home at all. No one governs.

2)Accessing the body feels like pushing through a wall of plasma and emerging into it.

3)All the time. Lizzie, the teenager, seems to be best at staying out for long periods, and she likes it the most. I can only stay out for brief periods and prefer to mostly do so when we're alone, though there are some of the host's friends I think I'd like to come out and talk to sometime. Maybe someday...

Silver of the Devil Dollhaus

From:

Well, I've noticed you frequently refer to whatever it is you've got as characters and headvoices rather than as people, which I generally interpret to mean fictional.

From:

I do in this community in order to maintain a distinction between them and multiples. But really, how I refer to them doesn't have much bearing on whether or not they're 'real'. It's more of whatever I think of first, and what I think will keep the clarity of the conversation.
Maybe it's not a good comparison, but I could refer to my pet snake Noodle as a cornsnake, babysnake, colubrid, Elaphe guttata, zigzag lavender, constrictor, or a herp. Doesn't change what he is. Just different words that I use depending on who I'm with at the moment.

Random sidenote, I used to refer to them as 'people' with a capital 'p', but ever since my p key broke I've been unable to do so, so I had to resort to something else.

I'm just finding it ironic that multiples are saying that headvoices aren't 'real people', that's all.

From:

kangetsuhime.livejournal.com

While we are aregueing mildly over the "you have soulbonds, that's different from real people" thing (which is most likely *not* intended to come across as it does), we do have to agree that from the way you speak, it's like your headvoices as you call them, are far less...

Well, they don't seem quite the same as I do, let's put it that way.

From:

Well, they aren't the same thing as multiple system members are. They're much more separate from me. So I guess, in one way of looking, they could seem 'less'. But they're still quite real to me.

From:

kangetsuhime.livejournal.com

If they're real, then why call them characters at all.

From:

Because that's just how I refer to them. Is it really that big of an issue in this community, how I refer to those who share body space with me?

From:

kangetsuhime.livejournal.com

Words have connotations and denotations, that's how language works. I'd personally be *insulted* if my host referred to me as a character. I am clearly *not* a character.

My point is that if you call them characters, people will assume that's *exactly* what you mean. If they are not just fictional story bits, then it's upon you and you alone to label them as what they are.

From:

Who allows what? My headvoices allow me to call them characters? Yes. They don't have an issue with it. Maybe it's because I write a lot, and they end up as characters in my stories. They don't really care what they're called. There are several who have been called worse things.

From:

Yes, soulbonding, not multiplicity. I am not a multiple, I'm here because it interests me and it's a rather active community with a variety of people and experiences.

I suppose in the end this just comes down to personal preference as to what people prefer to be called.

From:

As real as they can be without physical bodies. I believe they have souls/spirits different from mine. So...yes. I do consider them to be real, although not on the plane of existance we are on.

From:

I'm just finding it ironic that multiples are saying that headvoices aren't 'real people', that's all.

Only because you're not multiple. I am not a voice in someone's head. I'm a person. If you met any single one of us, you might find some of us odd but you wouldn't point at any of us and say, "You are a headvoice." There is nothing to distinguish any individual multiple from a single person.

The same can not be said about your soulbonds. You can not tell me that you consider your soulbonds real in the exact same way that you are a real person because all of your actions distinctly tell us otherwise.

We're not saying that you're sitting there making things up to amuse yourself. They can be your friends, important features in your life. They can even be real to you. That still doesn't make your soulbonds real. Not like you're real. Not like I'm real.

From:

I don't think I ever claimed they were real like /I/ am real. That's ludicrous. They're real in the sense that headvoices/soulbonds are real. It's not the same real that the bodies or multiples are.

I think that might be getting into the discussion as to what constitutes real, and if there are multiple realities. Which isn't the point here, I don't believe.

I'm wondering, is the issue here with me personally, or with soulbonders/headvoices in general? Am I not saying things the best way I could, or am I not welcome here (which, by my understanding of the rules, anyone is welcome)? I'm really confused as to why there's this sudden dislike of me. Did I do something to offend you?

From:

I'm inclined to agree here. I know there are multiples who use terms like 'characters' or 'states' or 'parts of me' when they first start to consider the question of who else is in their head with them, because they find it disturbing or scary to think of them as independent people. We did a bit of that ourselves. On the other hand, if someone is a separate person and not a character or a part of you or whatever, you'll realise it after a while, and if you continue to refer to them as anything else, it just seems like another form of denial to me.

Ruka is a good case in point-- we were viewing him as something we made up, for a few months, but he himself eventually reached a point where he started insisting that the rest of us refer to him as a person. He wouldn't let us call him anything else. Seems a bit odd to me that someone wouldn't get irked, actually.

From:

We neither like nor dislike you. I simply pointed out that you should note when you are commenting in threads like this that you're offering your experiences as just a soulbonder. I say just because ~~otherwise Luwana will whine~~ there are soulbonds that are just as real as the soulbonder or the non-soulbond members of the group.

When you respond to me with "Soulbonds aren't real people?" and then your other responses, you were in effect claiming that they were real like you are real. Now, I understand that you were partially interpreting the statement that your soulbonds are not real people as a statement that we think they're fake/pretend/role playing/what have you but you also have to look at things from the multiple perspective. When you respond to these threads without disclaimers, you are implying that your soulbonds are the same as members of a multiple system. You were also implying the same thing when you said your soulbonds are real people.

I'm going to use a metaphor here which doesn't always go over well in this community but try to follow. There are a lot of people who really love their pets to the point of considering the pets as their children. One of these people joins a parenting community and posts about their dog without letting everyone, especially new readers, know. Then when someone points out that raising a dog is not the same as raising a child, he responds, "But my Lassie is a person, too."

So do you see where the problem arose now? I used one definition of real but you countered with a different one only that change didn't translate into the discussion.

That's also where the problem with your terminology arose. If I tried to control the other people who lived in this body with me, they'd get pissed and wouldn't let me force that control on them, plus I'd probably get grounded or something. If I called them my muses, they'd point out that they do their own writing. If I called them characters, they'd probably write me into a story and do horrible things to me. For you thought, there's no problem. Your soulbonds' form of reality has inherent limitations that you and the rest of us don't have. Trying to emulate the shared control of the body and our life that we have would be very impractical if not impossible for you. You and I might find being called a character limiting or derogatory but for your soulbonds it's an appropriate term. Basically, the expectations are different.

From:

It occurs to me, I think this was actually the first comment or post I've made on the community where I /didn't/ say I was talking about soulbonds.

I'll try to make that clear from now on, so hopefully things like this won't happen again.

From:

Well, I've known multiples who don't mind using the word alter, or don't mind being referred to as alters themselves. However, whether one minds it or not, my personal preference is against the use of that particular word. At least not for systems where the people involved see each other as independent people and not as splits or pieces of an original host. One can say "the words don't matter," but words can predispose outsiders to see things in a certain light. My problem with the word 'alter' is that it suggests that others are merely 'alternate' to a real person. Same goes for use of terms like splits, pieces, parts, etc-- if you see them as independent people, continuing to use terms that predispose people to see them as less than real and less than whole is counterproductive.

From:

*whines at you anyway for good measure* XD

Nah, for once I agree with you even if at some points you come across as aggressive ;)

From:

I really don't get it.

On one hand you say they are *absolutely real* on some plane of existance.

And then you say they're not real like 'multiples' are real?

A real person is a real person, no matter if they live in another plane, in a body, in a shared body, or what. What exactly *are* you saying the difference is?

Also, SoulBonds sometimes ARE real like bodies or 'multiples' are. SoulBonding covers so much that it varies from "as real as me" to "not real at all", so it's not a particularly good term to use to say "real like SBs" :P

I'm with Selene though when she mentions that when you talk you talk as if these are less than people, things you can exert a control over without any hint of guilt. You certainly *act* like they're just puppets. Muses *at best*.

From:

I believe in several planes of existance. In my view, multiples, soulbonds, muses, etc, are indeed real, but on different planes. So how they're able to show themselves in our plane differs.
Hence, real, but in different senses.

And yeah, soulbonding is a large term. I should stop generalizing :}.

To me, muses actually have control over the body, not the other way around. Guess that's the trouble you run into with things like this...multiple definitions.
I let them do whatever they want within me, within their own worlds. However, when they come to /me/, the 'cental area', the one that interacts with the outside world, yes, I do control what I allow the outside world to see. Doesn't mean that the guys don't rant and rave within. They have their worlds and I have mine. I play by their rules when I'm in their worlds, so they play by mine when they come here.

From:

In my view, multiples, soulbonds, muses, etc, are indeed real, but on different planes.

So do you not consider multiples real the same way that you are real? Or do you only consider one member out of the group to be your equal?

Or do you mean something else entirely?

From:

No, I don't consider multiples to be real the way I'm real. I don't mean any offense by that, that's just how I see it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second question.

From:

How would I be different than you?

It is not uncommon for people to decide that the person they meet first, the person who uses the body the most, or "original" person to be the real person with everyone else classified as something else, headvoices in effect.

From:

I will admit that I'm not familiar with how multiplicity works, since I'm not one myself. But it seems to me that those who are able to inhabit an original body have spirits/essences that are different, in a way that allows them to inhabit a body that's not 'theirs', that allows them to move around and front or not front, and yet still exist. In my mind, that requires something different than a normal human spirit, which as I see it can't do things like that.

From:

No, 'headvoices' doesn't mean that everything that doesn't exist on our plane is a 'voice. That's just one type :}~. The vast majority of mine happen to be 'voices, though.

Are you asking if my inner worlds are the same as yours?
From the short descripiton you've given, no. But I doubt anyone has the same inner worlds. Mine are more or less concrete, although they have been known to shift over time.

From:

You've been on this group for several months and had the opportunity to ask questions-- I'm kind of surprised you would say that you don't know how multiplicity works. Isn't that what you said you came here to learn?

Anyway, you seem to be assuming here that there always has to be an original, and that only one person can identify with the body at a time and others are always walk-ins. Not all multiples experience it this way-- there isn't always an original person; and even in cases where there is one, others don't necessarily experience themselves as, or believe in, walk-ins.

From:

hmm...what I meant is that I don't have first-hand experience with multiplicity. So I know how it works through reading posts, but I've never experienced it, so I'll never know for myself.

Yes, I am kinda thinking that there's always an original to the body. Although in the case of those who aren't walk-ins or whatever, that there are several 'originals'...I'm not sure what to think on that yet. I find it weird, because like I said, I haven't experienced it. I can't quite wrap my head around it. :} (although that could also be that it's 2:30 in the morning)

From:

My 'multiples' say "screw you"

What on *earth* is the difference between mutliples and you?

From:

Word... And I *am* one. "Stop being on my side, you make my side look stupid" is possibley the most applicable quote here.

From:

Several 'examples' from our system:

Me. I am not a normal human spirit. I'm not even entirely sure there is such a thing, but there could be 'noobs' out there, or people who simply *are* human. Is this body mine? No. It's a vessel. A shell. It's usable by me, Selene, Chloe, and for sheer manners they allow me to make a lot of the bodylife judgement calls because I have lived in it for a long time. I do not have exclusive rights, they could cause a shit storm and change things if they wanted to. Whether I am bound to this body I'm not sure. I can leave it through astral projection and such at the very least.

Selene. A walk in, yes. But one who had her own 'normal human spirit' life before she came here. She was no different than you, there is no reason why she should be regarded as different now. She takes control, she has likes, dislikes, has relationships using this body, uses our money to buy things for herself, and so on.

(Chloe is the same, a 'past life walk in', only she's more quiet and rarely fronts)

I have NO idea why these people would qualify as different from you. As sethrenn said, you have been here for a long time, reading and even commenting, you've been able to read and learn, and post any questions. It really doesn't take very long to realise that multiples consider their system members to be equal in reality, and I've seen many comments and posts over my time here saying why. I don't get why you could not have seen this. Nor how you could not at least have realised that being told we're not as real is highly offensive, whether we're soulbonds, system members or both.

It does not need you to be able to comprehend these things, for you to be able to logically note that this is how most people consider multiplicity to be.

you are entiteled to your beliefs, but ignorance is not a valid reason at this point.

(that got a bit mushed towards the end, apologies. Lu is not a soulbond)

From: