ext_172473 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
dacnomaniac.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
multiplicity_archives2006-11-23 09:56 pm
dacnomaniac.livejournal.com) wrote in multiplicity_archives2006-11-23 09:56 pm
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
"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
no subject
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
no subject
no subject
-Nancy
no subject
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)
no subject
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.
no subject
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
no subject
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.