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

[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.