Question

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Why is it that people will describe others in their system as parts, aspects or facets of themselves or of some greater overarching single self, but then go on to talk about how they don't like others in the group or are afraid of them or want to get rid of them?

Isn't that just basically saying you're fighting yourself, are afraid of yourself or want to get rid of yourself?

If you see yourself as being in a "parts/aspects of one" setup, every time you attribute any kind of trait or tendency-- good or bad-- to other members of the system, aren't you basically saying that you yourself possess that trait? I mean, it is entirely possible for a person to persecute themselves, but if you talk about conflicts with others in-house after saying your system works on that basis, why should I treat it or think of it any differently than a matter of self-persecution?

Comments

[rhymer-713.livejournal.com]

I agree. If we claimed we were all parts of one whole, which sort of makes us sick by the way, we'd just be fighting "myself" and that wouldn't be right in the bigger scheme of things? Good question. That really made us think... Here's another. If every one is "Just parts of you" then why can you not control what they think,s ay and do to fit with what you want? It'd make things easier for those groups.

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

People don't completely control their own thoughts, though. Ever get a song stuck in your head?

Rob

[rhymer-713.livejournal.com]

Geez Rob,
That's a very, very good point...Hmmm....Still thinking...Gringrin...That is so true. If we could control our thoughts then I wouldn't be sitting here with the Hamtarro theme running amuck through my head. LOL.
Lori of Rhymershouse

[mysticeden.livejournal.com]

Isn't that just basically saying you're fighting yourself, are afraid of yourself or want to get rid of yourself?

Thats exactly it. Fear of yourself and what you think, of what you are capable of and aspects of yourself. Also some other may have memories you would rather not face so of course you will hate them, you hate the memories and what they bring you.

[vinik.livejournal.com]

Seconded. That's why I personally used to refer to others in our system as 'parts', as well as persecute them. I was really insecure back then.

-Jen

[mysticeden.livejournal.com]

Same thing with me, thankfully things are much better now =D

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

We don't like the term 'parts' at all.

--- Constance

[menokh.livejournal.com]

I can't understand that either.
I mean if you're headmates are part of you, then they ARE you. Michael and I are part of each other, and while when we disassociate from each other we can get on each other's nerves, I'd never be able to dislike him.

*shrugs* Who know. The only thing I can think of is that even though they might be parts of someone, perhaps it's like what would happen if you somehow met yourself from a past life. Would you necessarily like yourself back then?

[drleanne.livejournal.com]

This is a damned good question.

i wish I had an answer ;)

But I agree totally with what you said.

[morgil-lomion.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[pthalo]

well said

[chipmunk-planet.livejournal.com]

It is, in abstract, but (IMO) this is one reason for the splitting: to keep a part of ourselves away from our core, who at one time couldn't handle what that part represented.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Yes to all of the questions....

...and all people whether singlet or multiple if they are sane
at all have some internal conflicts.

Some of US have internal conflicts and sometimes we disagree, but
we have learned not to persecute each other, EVER. If there is even
a hint of that, my wife/companion will stand up for the one who is
being persecuted. She tells me that head fights are BAD BAD BAD.

--- Constance

[shandra.livejournal.com]

I'm completely against the "get rid of people" model, so just totally agreeing with you there.

Why do people do it? I think a) 'cause some bad therapists encourage it and b) because the high drama of it "I must get rid of Pandora before she opens the box!" appeals to people at certain stages of - whatever.

However, to be fair, there are aspects to my own personality that I work to at least minimize, if not leave behind. I do tend to find that I have to embrace it first. I can be mean to people, for example, and I would rather not be, but first I have to appreciate how it's worked for me and how I am good at it and things before moving on. Still, I don't want that particular kneejerk response to people to remain at the front of my tool kit.

So I can kind of see that if you're willing to depersonalize people to that extent (I am not) you could start to try to squash that aspect. But I don't think it can work without appreciation first in /any/ case and so EVEN IF it were truly working that way, I think you would have to come to love those aspects first and give them voice and all that.

That probably made no sense.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

However, to be fair, there are aspects to my own personality that I work to at least minimize, if not leave behind. I do tend to find that I have to embrace it first. I can be mean to people, for example, and I would rather not be, but first I have to appreciate how it's worked for me and how I am good at it and things before moving on. Still, I don't want that particular kneejerk response to people to remain at the front of my tool kit.

Sure. Many of us are like that also, about various things. However, I think that saying "I want to get rid of Susie because she scares me" while at the same time saying "Susie is just an aspect of me, we have a single self with many aspects" is kind of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I've seen some seriously silly things said by people-- silly if you think of them in the context the person demanded be originally given, which is of everyone being parts of a whole. You know that if you hold to that, you're saying you are all these things you attributed to this other person, right? (Is what I want to say, but it seems to slide right off people.)

[shandra.livejournal.com]

Yeah, totally agreed that that is rather oxymoronic.

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the point of Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And people keep thinking that that is about multiplicity.

[jenilee-dreams.livejournal.com]

What if someone is part of a "system within a system" (mini-group) and is using the term aspects in order to make a distinction between those who are also in the mini-group and those who are outside of the mini-group? To separate between mini-group members/plural members and singlet-members within the entire group.

For example (using made up numbers) - I am part of a Multiple group of 20 separate individuals. I am also Plural myself with a mini-group of 5. As such, I might refer to the other 4 members as aspects of myself; even if they each have their own names and were very much individuals themselves. I might call them "my aspects" in order to let someone know they were in the mini-group and not one of the 19 others who were in the rest of the group.

I hope that makes sense. That was just an example of using the word "aspect" and not meaning it in a derogatory way or saying that they were all pieces of one person.

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

That's some confusing terminology, there. Wouldn't it be clearer and more accurate to just call everyone "people?" It's what they are, and no offense, but to people outside the system, the fact that someone's an individual and not, say, part of a median is more important than how he relates to the rest of the super-system.

- Johnny

[jenilee-dreams.livejournal.com]

It isn't confusing to us. "People" isn't enough of a description. Obviously, that is a very basic description and would be used when speaking with non-Multiples. But when speaking with those who are Multiple and who would more than likely understand more on how groups work, having detailed definitions helps with understanding the internal workings.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

...that's what we'd think too.

Of course, almost everyone in our system has put made their opinion known firmly on being referred to first and foremost as a person-- that personhood status is more important than origin, relationships to others in system, fictive nature or lack thereof, etc. "Why do you want your friends to know that you originally thought of me as someone you made up for a story? So they can roleplay with me? Try to land themselves starring roles as 'characters' in 'my story'? I'm stunningly uninterested." Etc.

[rhymer-713.livejournal.com]

We didn't get that either. And we agree with your line of thinking.