Using this theory, I think you'd be (probably accidentally) implying that anybody who is not a 100% seperate full-on multiple (or complete singlet) is suffering from a... big fuck up? >.>
The analogy feels *really* off to me, and it's annoying me that I can't pinpoint why. The initial thing that jumps out is how the formation of carbon based bodies is very different to the maturing of a human conciousness, so to me comparing them is like apples and oranges.
It just... doesn't sit right. And it's going to annoy me until I can properly verbalise why. I firmly feel that saying "biology works X way therefore psychology could too" is... not really logical. They're very seperate sciences.
(I have nothing against the belief about souls walking-in or being born in a body, but in talking about 'the formation of minds', you're talking psychology from where I'm standing)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 01:40 am (UTC)The analogy feels *really* off to me, and it's annoying me that I can't pinpoint why. The initial thing that jumps out is how the formation of carbon based bodies is very different to the maturing of a human conciousness, so to me comparing them is like apples and oranges.
It just... doesn't sit right. And it's going to annoy me until I can properly verbalise why. I firmly feel that saying "biology works X way therefore psychology could too" is... not really logical. They're very seperate sciences.
(I have nothing against the belief about souls walking-in or being born in a body, but in talking about 'the formation of minds', you're talking psychology from where I'm standing)