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

[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.