So apparently, we're not human.

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

I was reading a book today (The Singular Self, Rom Harre) that tries to clarify the meaning of 'self'. Quite apart from my problems with his chain of reasoning, the author also says I'm not real, or else not human.

"Only those human beings who display a single, continuous Self 1 [singularity of point of view] as an aspect of whatever Self Three [the publicly presented self] they may from moment to moment be presenting are to be counted as psychologically normal, perhaps even as persons properly so called."

Excuse me? There's more than just me in this head, so I'm not a person? How did you figure that out?

He appears to regard systems that share memories as even less real that those who don't, on the grounds that to be an 'I' means to have a completely unique autobiography. Well, my autobiography IS unique. Because it's me that's telling it, and because I am not the same person as Ellen whatever he thinks on the matter.

Admittedly he's working from the usual psychiatric 'fragmented singleton with amnesia' model, but that still implies that people brought into being by trauma aren't people. I've shared a head with such people, I KNOW they can be people!

If this is how I'm likely to be regarded I'm never coming out at all.

Comments

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

That is how some crappy traditionalist psychologists view things. Good psychologists who have read up on modern theories, on the other hand, know that being functional and happy is more important than being just like everyone else, and give treatment accordingly.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Eh - in coming out multiple times for multiple reasons including
being multiple i have learned not to care what folks thing. I'm me
and if someone does not like that it is ok. I don't approve of bigots
or ignorance.

--- Miri of Mtribe

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

He doesn't know any better. Can't hold it against him if he's not really had chance to work with a normal group, you know?

'sides which if he's only talking about fragments as not being people, well it may not apply to you but he's kinda got a basic point going.

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

No, that wasn't what he was saying - he was saying that having more than one self in one body was either impossible, or made one inhuman. On the grounds, believe it or not, of English grammer implying consistent embodiment!

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just me, but unless there's other quotes somewhere, I think you might be reading pretty far into it? I mean I'm reading it and I don't even think he's talking about multiples. I mean, cut out the extended bits in the middle, yeah? "Only those human beings who display a single, continuous Self are to be counted as psychologically normal, perhaps even as persons properly so called." Sounds to me like he's saying human beings should be properly called 'persons' in regards to them being a Self.

Is it really just me that's seeing that?

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

It's a fair point, in that quote he isn't specifically talking about multiples.
But he also says this: "Multiplicity of the embodied person marks a sharp break with the human form of life."
And at that point he is talking specifically about multiples.

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

That's a better quote for it.

(He has a point I guess. I mean, it is pretty different.)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but humans do have multiplicity of selves, even those who are not multiple in the senses that people mean and discuss it here, so to imply they're not human is a bit much.

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

I think people are really seeing something I'm not. I'm not really seeing where he's saying multiple people aren't human. I see him saying it's unusual, and I see him saying that persons might be a better word for human beings, but that's kinda it. I can't really see that as any more 'bad' than, I dunno. Saying 'UK' instead of 'Great Britain', or 'spinal column' instead of 'backbone', you know?

Maybe you have to read the whole thing to get this 'not human' impression.

And yeah, I don't think he's dismissing what normal people do, 'cause he treats it as normal in the first quote. I guess again, you have to read the whole thing to get exactly what he means. Otherwise you're relying on an opinion, could be based on anything.

Whatever he's saying, I don't get why anybody cares. I mean if he's talking crap, he's talking crap, right? Lot of fringe groups have lived through bad or faulty publications and still come out alright in the world.

[jsystem.livejournal.com]

Ignorance does interesting things to people, I suppose. They jump to conclusions because they don't understand... and perhaps can't because of previous programming by society.

You're think they'd realize by now that you can't quite define everything. Science keeps proving that one over and over.

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't believe everything I read. Kes

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't believe him. I think he's talking rubbish. But I hate it that something like that can be written about us, and nobody bats an eyelid.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Philosopher and probably tenured. I looked him up. Reeks of academia. He's not working with clients, he's one of those ivory tower guys. The only people who might take him seriously are other philosophers and social psych theorists.

Nick

[ex-memepr0g.livejournal.com]

That is quite preposterous, and there was no reason for people to call that. What is the matter with being bicameral, or plural? I find that individuals like this stick to a certain type of hide-bound belief that is detrimental to creating understanding between different sorts of humans. *sigh*

- Richard & co.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

That got a comment from someone in here about ivory-tower academics, who have the luxury of pulling all kinds of theories out of their a** and never having to actually measure it against reality. They've got tenure, so that insulates them. :p