multiplicity_archives | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

So, this is a question I posed to two members of the community...

"This is very complex shit. Sigh. I still feel like a singlet, except I know I'm not one and I also feel each distinct aspect very individually. Does that make sense? Is that how you experience it? Regardless of who's fronting I always feel like 'me', just a different sort of 'me', and yet as noted, I can also talk to the other 'me's as though they were seperate, and they interact without 'my' urging, 'I' don't control them, and... well, fuck, they're not the same as 'Me'. But I'm still ultimately one being. I think. Is this a normal manifestation of plurality or am I just extremely confused?"

I'm no longer so sure of any of that, but it's the basis for the rest of this post. And I'd still like to hear what other people think about that.

This started as a reply to a comment, but it got too long, and, honestly, I wonder what other people's input is too. I'm so sorry for cluttering the community but I'm not sure where else to go for input here. (Also, because it was mentioned -- I'm not after backpatting, albeit I don't want to have my balls ripped off and danced upon either. I want input and information from people who know this stuff better than I do, that's all. Say what you're thinking even if you think I won't like it or I'll disagree with it. *Every* piece of non-fluffy information will be used in my self-exploration. I'll probably be at this very intently until I feel like I've worked it all out and since you're the best-only resource we have, we'll probably make total asses of ourself until I'm satisfied.

Oh dear. Our pronouns are slipping. That's another thing I'll need to try to standardise, as at the moment I honestly have no idea which feels more appropriate. Really, 'I' when referring to myself, 'I' when referring to Myself as a whole (the head-pack) and 'we' when referring to us as a group of individuals seems best, but too confusing for others. I dunno...

If I'm making a mess and being overly noisy please, *please* tell us. I, Delve, would *much* prefer to know what I'm doing wrong so as to put a stop to it than continue blithely along pissing people off. 'Cet doesn't really care in the persistent drive towards information, but that's what I'm here for, to keep us all under control and out of trouble as best as possible.

Anyhow...

That's actually the exact part that I'm stuck on. (Albeit the question at this point isn't one of plurality but rather whether what I think of as 'me' is a plurality or just a heavily-compartmentalised singularity, as, having done some more research, I've discovered that many of the things that I've always thought of as 'my characters' have evolved far beyond that point and, if I were introducing myself in the context of having *them* in my head there'd be no question at all. They are individual, wholly seperate little sentiences who 'live' in my head. Simple as that. It's Me that's got me all confused.) As I mentioned, I usually have a sense of myself as 'I' -- but I also, simultaneously, experience myself as 'we'. I've been using a puzzle analogy, I think... it's like a pack-mind or a hive-mind, and it used to be that we were so close that it never occured to me that there were places where one genuinely ended and another began. But it's becoming more and more clear that there are concrete, significant, immutable divides, especially between, say, Delve and White Light, or the Watcher and Blood-in-the-Fog. And when I go inside myself, I have the experience of being myself, but *also* of specifically 'being' 'Cet in a conversation with the others, who are also me but at the same time not.

I'm having a really hard time finding words to explain this, so I'm not at all surprised you're getting a strong impression of singularity. It's entirely possible that I'm literally having conversations with myself, too, and I'm putting up walls where none exist. Given the shock and turmoil that happened earlier, and given that I was *not* in control when Fog made his move, I'm inclined to doubt that, but... I've also had some seemingly unrelated psychotic disturbances lately which could be the source of this.

Basically what I'm looking for right now is information and input, not reassurance. I very much appreciate the honest input. Though the conclusion I'm coming to is that I'm getting a false impression of unity from misunderstanding phenomena you guys experience regularly which are different from my expectation of what plurality would be like. The Glossary section of that one website whose name I forget is extremely helpful. We all think of ourselves as 'I', which is also part of the confusion, I think. But anyhow, the Glossary was *very* useful. I have learnt about 'co-fronting', for example, and I honestly think that's where a lot of my perception of oneness is coming from... I had the paradigm in my head that one personality fronted all the time and the others were totally, utterly seperate people who were 'dormant' when not in control of the body, and that I should therefore have lapses of time when someone other than whoever 'I' am was dominant.

From reading the stories of other community members, and the Glossary, though, I'm learning that that is not, actually, the usual case, and that it's quite normal for the other identities to be awake and 'active' even when not in control of the body, and for more than one identity to cluster 'up front', even if only one is actually at the wheel, so to speak. Is this a correct interpretation of the information?

If so, I think that's what's confusing me for the most part. My head-pack (that's what it feels like, now that I've smoothed out some of the confusion; an *exceedingly* close pack) is continuously active and there's rarely fewer than three identities actively 'fronting', though as I noted only one ever has the wheel, but the others are all generally at least paying attention to what's going on, if not actively commenting and participating. Combine that with all of us thinking of ourselves as an 'I' that's part of a 'we', and you get the confusing sensation of united plurality.

That's my current running theory, anyhow. My in lower-case meaning 'Cet, with input from Delve and the Watcher. Knife-Smile thinks this is all humanistic prattle about something simple, innate, and obvious; White Light thinks of us all as spirits sharing a body and again is nonplussed by the fuss; Blood-in-the-Fog is just jealous because heit doesn't get to 'front'; Drrkhn is essentially of Knife-Smile's opinion but with an extra note of condescion as though this should all go without saying, as *he* knows he is himself but also Us and therefore we should all be cognizant of it the same way; and the Watcher is doing what it always does: absorbing everything with minimal, extremely logical, contributions.

'Cet thinks that itself shows we're plural. Delve thinks it could be me deceiving myself, or talking to characters with those names instead of the actual personality aspects (I do have some self-named characters, as I occasionally enjoy reasonable self-insert RP, but the characters usually end up *very* different from their originating aspect.)

I don't know. I-'Cet feels pretty confident about these conclusions, but there's still a heavy sense of uncertainty from Delve. I'm wondering if my GAD (anxiety disorder) is making me less certain about it than I otherwise would be... Any non-back-patting thoughts? :p

(I'm thinking of posting this, and that other excerpt, plus some commentary about [and possibly from] those characters of mine self-actualised enough to consider part of the 'system', although my 'head-pack' and the others seem like two totally different groups to me... maybe that's just because I haven't spent much time with them in a while.)

... Do you guys roleplay? I feel like I could get a handle on this experience more easily if I spent some time in each aspect's shoes, or even with some of the seed-pack (the characters; I call them that because most of them grew from an idea-seed with little or no help from me.) Or at least help myself get more accustomed to the idea. I haven't been able to RP in *ages*. (And by you guys, I mean the whole community, not just your system. :p) I'd make a post inviting people to do it but I don't know if it's appropriate.

Incidentally, I'm curious... who are you? Do you feel 100% seperate and distinct as an entity from the other people in your system, like people who used to be strangers now roommates or friends sharing living space? Because for me as I said it's like a very well-bonded pack, with threads of blood connecting most of the members (Drrkhn begat 'Cet with Delve and the original Predator aspect; Knife-Smile and White Light generated Blood-in-the-Fog; Delve is White Light's brother in coyoteness) with the others, according to the pack-paradigm metaphor, having been adopted to freshen the blood and strengthen the group. I guess. That's the best metaphor I can think of for the bonding I feel within us, the so-close-we're-one-but-still-seperate.

In fact it's a lot like what my real-world pack would be like if we shared a body as well as spirit. My real-world pack feels like one spirit in six bodies. This is mostly like one spirit in one body (with the obvious exception of Fog,) but still with several distinct minds. Does that make sense?

Again, if we start cluttering the place up, or just get obnoxious in general, please say as much so we can mend our ways accordingly. Any and all input is appreciated and will be considered. Thanks in advance. :)

--'Cet and Delve

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

We're not fully separate. There's connections within connections, ways in which we're connected more to one and less to another. And there's also someone here who was born of what the hostlady thought was just a character idea, an aspect, an embodiment, and then the character achieved a life of her own, so to speak.

(Incidentally, someone in here identifies with the symbology of the coyote, though he himself is human.)

Sorry, there was more, but we're getting tired. Possibly one of us will add to this tomorrow.

Oh, yes. Pronoun confusion is epidemic around here...

And yeah, Rob and I are both roleplayers. (Oh, how I wish we could GM for each other, but it doesn't work. We can read each other's minds and spoil the plot.) And there's definitely a tendency for our characters to resemble the other brother. I'm not really sure why that is, unless it's mutual admiration... *looks at Rob* *snicker* *pause* *guffaw* Okay, well, maybe not.

Anyway. Rob's my brother. I definitely feel like a different person, but we're not completely separate. We get blendy when we're not paying attention, and emotions can leak back and forth.

As for how to tell if you're really multiple... well, it really comes down to what you feel, but more usefully, I'd guess anything that can get mad about not being treated as a separate person is probably a separate person.

Johnny

(Oh, how I wish we could GM for each other, but it doesn't work. We can read each other's minds and spoil the plot.)

We've wanted to do this before, and decided not to for the same reasons. We might go ahead with it, anyway--when we're not so into WoW.

Incidentally, I'm curious... who are you? Do you feel 100% seperate and distinct as an entity from the other people in your system, like people who used to be strangers now roommates or friends sharing living space?

No. Or, not entirely. A good bunch of us identify as the R-group, people who identify with the body in some way/identify with the "original" group. It's a long story with lots of different variations depending on whoever y'ask. Then there are people like me who identify as external-people, spirits or created or somehow brought in here. A completely different branch.

Going on with the roomies metaphor, you could say that we're a bunch of people living in a flat, some of whom are related to one another and some of whom are strangers-who-became-friends.

And yes, some of us roleplay. Generally short-paragraph MU* style. You can get in touch if you'd like to do something or another.

You're making me wordy. Weird. Oh well.

-Aiae/Lina.

It's not pissing us off.. that takes a lot

Yeah, we have done roleplaying, it was the easiest way for people to relax and be themselves without letting the host at the time know what was really going on, but we were here before the characters. It might be a good idea.. or if you're a writer.. let people write their histories/ stories about themselves. or draw or whatever.. that's helped us learn about each other..

Literally, my name's Micah.. and yes I'm very seperate.. from most of the rest of the house.. we are all individual souls.. and yeah.. some of us have been strangers, or at least adversaries.. Now, we try to work together for the good of the entire house.. it's one reason we call our group a household.. a gathering of people not neccessarily related by blood working together with a common purpose.

*nods* Good description of pack bonds.. we understand about pack bonds, three of us are members of pack outside.. which makes things rather interesting since only one of the members from in here is actually therian.

-Micah

We all think of ourselves as 'I', which is also part of the confusion

From

runsfrmfangirls's comment I realise this could be taken the way I interpretted it, and another way. It's fine and normal for people *within* a multiple system to view themselves as 'I'. I'm a person, I get to use all the first person singular pronouns I like, and anybody who says otherwise can bite me. When referring to 'the group', the system, though, it's more common to use 'we' unless attempting to pass as a singlet.

Is this a correct interpretation of the information?

Yup. Some people don't have 'inner worlds' or 'other worlds' or 'soulscapes'. We for example, didn't until very recently, and those not fronting (myself included) tended to just... kind of sleep, if we weren't actively hovering over the fronter's shoulder. It's also fairly common for people to be 'at front' (watching, observing, giving input) at the same time, or even co-fronting (sharing the actual bodily activity, which can take many forms).

'Cet thinks that itself shows we're plural. Delve thinks it could be me deceiving myself

Delve is entirely correct, and 'Cet is incorrect. It may indicate that you may be in some way plural, but it doesn't display anything more than a quirk singlets can have. It's up to how you interpret it. It can be a sign of faking or being plural depending where you come at it from.

We did once upon a time create a 'faked' aspect/plural situation for ourselves. There difference, looking back, is striking.

Anxiety disorders *don't* help. But a degree of anxiety is to be expected. We've been a we for three years and still get moments of panic/worry over it.

Do you guys roleplay?

I did, at one time, and Michael has done some, but only as ourselves (the community was one that used pre-existing characters from mostly pre-existing canons) as that was the only thing that would have been useful to us. For a little while Lu typed while I dictated, but that's as involved as she generally got in the RP. I personally wouldn't like her RPing 'as' me because apart from anything else, I don't like the idea of her being very good at *being* me. I don't particularly want it to become easier for her to 'fake' me. She's already so adept she sometimes takes a minute to realise the difference.

who are you?

Selene(-yfoo, depending who you ask...), I'm a SoulBond (or 'character, whatever) of the outsourced variety (my canon in video stores near you \o/), and a walk-in (ie, I was at one time an external being).

Do you feel 100% seperate and distinct as an entity from the other people in your system, like people who used to be strangers now roommates or friends sharing living space?

More like people who used to be near enemies who are now sharing a living space, but yes. Over time myself and the other main frontrunner have developed a link, we 'blend' a lot, and I have started thinking of her memories as (an additional set of) my own, but I'm still very much my own person, as are the other people here. I regard Lu as a dear friend and a sister, a part of me, but this is something that grew over time, and we are still seperate people.

Pack makes sense. Lu is of the therianthropy/otherkin paradigm and has had 'soulsiblings' in her time. I don't feel my family (both blood and otherwise) are of the same spirit of me, but they are still my family, and part of me.

When babies are born, some are born single. Some are twins, or triplets, or more. Some are conjoined twins. Some people have more than one set of DNA in their body, yet live as a single person, in one body. Some people are born with a fragment of another person growing in them, that sometimes has to be removed surgically. Among the twins (or triplets or more), some are "identical" (yet separate), and some are completely different from each other. All of this applies to the physical bodies.

If there can be this much variation in how bodies are formed and how interconnected they are, then why shouldn't the formation of minds have just as much variety?

-Nancy

I've been saying this for years but never this clearly or plainly. Yay! Can I quote you?

Sure, go right ahead.

-Nancy

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)

I can tell you why, or at least what jumps out to me -- physical consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, just like various aspects of our computers are emergent phenomena. Physical consciousness has a kind of biologic foundation, but nowt beyond that. Biology only provides the possibility for consciousness and, through alteration of that foundation, can in various ways alter the functioning of the levels of biology from which consciousness emerges, thereby affecting consciousnes. Otherwise, they're two entirely seperate things.

Our collective understanding of The Way Things Work is that we are essentially noncorporeal -- that is, our essential compnents as beings are nonphysical and not dependent on the body for existence (most people would call that a 'spirit' or 'soul'; we do for simplicity's sake.) The thing is, a nonphysical being cannot experience, much less interact with, the physical world in any really meaningful way. Hence physical incarnation. But physical consciousness emerges from the complex animal brain (even relatively simple animal brains, though not nearly the same way as humans and other 'higher' mammals, hence why humans tend to think of them as 'lower' or 'inferior' because they haven't overcome the egocentrism that causes them to assume that their form of consciousness/self-awareness is the only form, and therefore anything that does not share the human brain paradigm cannot possibly be conscious or self-aware) on its own, for reasons unknown (emergent phenomena aren't very well understood yet; we've made a big leap just to be able to identify them. Consciousness is generally considered the ultimate emergent phenomenon but there are plenty of others.) So what happens, at least as we understand it, is that an incarnate being ends up with three distinct portions of selfness -- the body, with its tools for perceiving and interacting with the world; the mind, which is the emergent phenomenon of the brain as it processes, analyses, sorts, and stores all that incoming information; and the spirit, which is filtered through the capacity of the mind and brain to control the body. The interaction between spirit and mind is where all these different permutations of consciousness occur.

At least, that's the idea. I have no idea how much truth is in that; it's just what I've assembled in the 22 years of this life with as much input as I can get from Drrkhn's memories and other bits of past-life errata, visionquesting and talking to spirits, et cetera.

I didn't mean to imply that having more than one mind is in any way a problem. Twins don't think of themselves as being messed up because there's more than one of them. I only meant to point out that there is great variety in the way things are formed, more than most people really immagine that there could be. Human beings are not as "standardized" as people think, there are more variations than most people would expect.

Just as most people expect that one single baby at a time will be born, most people expect just one mind... there's no reason why either of those things should be true. And once a person realizes that there can be more than one body, there can also be more than one mind. Perhaps totally separate... perhaps interconnected. Connected to a greater or lesser extent...

I don't expect that minds are formed the same way as bodies, just that there can be just as much variety in minds as in bodies. Maby even more variety in minds.

Personally, I think that some connection and perhaps bleedover is a good thing... it helps with communication. It's harder when we have less connection than the times when we connect more.

-Nancy

I didn't mean to imply that having more than one mind is in any way a problem.

I figure you didn't mean to, but you did mention biological fuck ups in your example :P Sorry, this is I think just one of the small/niggling reasons the comparison seems odd.

There are biological mechanisms that create more than one body (such as the release of two eggs, or divisions, etc). Similarly, there are mechanisms that create more than one 'mind', but I'm not sure that's really what you're meaning to reference. Since... more or less, here I'm thinking of 'trauma' and other psychological ways of a mind forming/reforming.

I just... I see your point, I really do. I just think your way of putting it across here was... well, wrong :P Just is off to me. It's reasonabley valid to say bodies can be varied, so can minds. It was the comparison to the *formation* of them etc that I think was off to me.

(I have a tendancy to take things at a fairly literal face value, so it stands out to me very heavily when a comparison just isn't working well)

Don't worry, it really is just the analogy thingummy I'm picking at, not you or your point.

We roleplay, in the context of gaming. We used to do D&D (Ikeru and I) and lately we've been doing WoW roleplay (almost everyone). That doesn't seem to be the kind of roleplay you're talking about, though. If you think roleplaying the other members of your head-pack might help, then I'd say go for it.

As to being 100% separate... It tends to fluctuate for us, but we feel more separate than not. There are times--especially at work--when we can't be sure who's fronting (but being in retail, it's all a facade anyway), and we switch and blend sometimes at home, but around friends who know us, we're pretty separate.

I'm going to assume you've read up on the idea of being median. Do you think that label might be useful for you, if only for now?

This is the essay we wrote about living as a hydra, our personal metaphor for median/midcontinuum/singtuple/what have you.

We think of ourselves as a group of singlets within a group. Though we also have other smaller groups within our group. But, for the most part, feeling as though one of us is a singlet is very common in our group.

Some of us feel very separate from the others, in the sense that we aren't joined. Yet at the same time we are all very connected.

One way we like to see our group is taking an example from Star Trek. The Betazoids are a race of telepaths who are within each others minds all the time with no barriers or secrets from one another. Yet they are also individuals who live their own lives and have their own experiences. Our group is like this in alot of ways. To an individual not used to having the thoughts of others brushing up against their own, this may seem very invasive or a lack of privacy, but we don't feel this way at all. It doesn't mean we aren't individuals, it only means we are connected to each other.

Amalah, Pepper

We tend to operate as a grouping of smaller packs within a larger pack. I have connections with everyone here, but some are weaker than others. At one time it bothered me, because it felt like I was being unfair or favoring some people over others, but over time I've realized that this is just the way things work for us.

I have my small group of people that I am extremely close to, and able to work easily with, and while I'm fully separate from them there is always a strong baseline connection to them. Then there are others that I am bonded to by a lesser degree. They have their group, I have my group, but the two overlap enough that I still call them family. Sort of like a Venn diagram with too many circles.

I hope that's not too confusing. It's hard for me to tell if I'm making sense, because when you try to explain emotional and/or spiritual ties in words it can be difficult.

We are all seperate people but..about sometimes feeling you are not.. this is NOrmal. many go threw it. i use to think i must not be different than suzzy because she could be up all night painting yet i knew if the outside kid was sick or had got up in the middle of the night. i knew of phone calls. yet i also knew i was in the inside house sleeping or doing stuff there. so i wondered how it could be. finally i talked it over with the others. and found out that since i am acting host at the time.(for last 5 years) that are ISH makes sure to input to me the important things that go on when others are fronting. it is a safty . ISH is interal self helper) As it was explained to me i might feel i knew all that went on but i did not . i only knew the important things needed to regain front and proceed with the body's day to day life.
As for as "We and I'.. for me.. i also have one that is "the body"
If i am talking about us as a whole a family i say we. like when we were young we liked to make mud pies..Meaning many of us inside liked to do this. If i am talking about something only i liked or disliked i will use i. and if i am talking about the body itself. i say the body. example. the body is in a wheelchair. None of us are.. only the body we use to be out here in this world is. i also use the names of our family.. like if i said.. NaCole is really great with make up and hair . i say her name because it is not us or the body but her.
not sure if that made sense but hopes helps some.
Let me end in saying i don't think is Many mulit.. who have not wondered if they were imgining being multiple, or wondered if they were role playing or pretending.
i still wonder at times. then one of our littles will do some cute thing upstairs and i have to say nope angel this is really how things are.. smiles.
good luck.
Angel of Reberto's community

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

it happens to us all.