multiplicity_archives | A Discussion Question

The insistance on integration irritates me but the
portraial, though overly dramatic has some semblamce
to the experiences we have had and other 'tribes' we
know offline.

The insistance that one person in their system should
rule also irritates us. We are, as a tribe, radically
democratic. If there is a core in our system that person most likely would be offended by the idea that
one person should rule the system.

One therapist we know makes a distinction between
spirit guides and 'alters'. We do not. We try to
respect all sentient beings within our consciousness.

--- Constance and Marina of Mtribe

Your disagreements with this article matched along with ours oddly enough. Those were the only two things that bothered us. No one has to "ask permission" here to come up front either. But it did indeed sound like some of our experiences too.

Isn't the insistence on having One ~~Ring~~ Person To Rule Them All kind of cultural-centric, too? I mean, not all societies function with One Big Head Guy In Charge, or even if they do, who it is is constantly shifting, so you can have a system of checks and balances that way. There's no guarantee that someone placed in charge, even under a democratic government *whistles and refrains from political commentary* won't make bad decisions or abuse their power at some point.

We just... I don't know. We're very loose in our in-system 'government,' which isn't to say that everyone in here has always made perfectly good decisions, because they certainly haven't, but even for the people in here who I see as having a lot of "wisdom"... well, you know, no one's omniscient.

We're quite loose with our government in here too. And wow! The assumption that one individual will always be in charge is extremely extremely culturesentric.

I think that's one difficulty people have when trying to deal with multiples, is that every system is so very different! I operate as a dictatorship, really. Which is why I speak in the singular even when sometimes I mean all of us. I'm the core, and I'm the one in charge. My others are mine, and belong to me, and are part of me, and I run things. *grins* It's good to be Queen.

But of course that's not how most systems work. Which is fine! Everybody has to find what suits them, really. Which comes back to my original point, because not only is each person in a multiple system different, but on top of that each system works differently, so it becomes really complicated to try and figure out how to treat them.

*grin* We operate as a bit of a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of two. We're William and Mary of Orange. It's easy to understand why, but equally it's easy to see why others won't have the same system. Internal government must respond to the demands of external circumstances as well as internal ones.

::Nods:: Boggles the minds.

(deleted comment)

And it's not even the same kind of hearing voices. I've never had schizophrenia but from what I've heard those voices seem to come from outside the head whereas when we hear the others here it's inside. Though if they'd just said "hearing voices" that's one thing but they didn't, they said "auditory hallucinations".

That kind of struck us too but we thought maybe we'd misread the "voices coming from outside the head" in the few bits of schizophrenic literature we'd read. When we hear voices it comes from Inside the head as well.

I noticed the DSM3R section but I'm not well-versed on criteria of schizophrenia to know the difference. However, I'm in a researching mood so I might do some research that way too.

(deleted comment)

::Nods:: Thank you very very much for clarifying. I appreciate that.

Rayvin

Eheh, well, we have a take on the criteria for schizophrenia which is in our FAQ-- I won't get into it here, don't want to hijack the thread with people arguing about unrelated stuff. And we'd rather not talk publically about why our opinion is what it is.

::Nods:: We're about to crruise over to your FAQ then. ::Smiles:: Curiousity killed the collective...

thanks for the link. it was cool, if outdated. the author does a disservice by assuming only the two possible explanations of spirit attachment or past life stuff, i think. but within that discussion, it was relatively respectful.

::Nods:: It was the respect that floored us. Most articles you find on teh internet are "ZOMG! There must be sychopathic alters!" That's why we stuck it up here that and to just see what every one thought about it. Oh and you're welcome.

Maybe some people NEED, or WANT integration, while others don't. That's why I don't have a problem with the suggestion -- some people may need it, while the rest of us may be happy with who and what we are.

Thank you for saying that!

As much as it's very sad that most people assume integration is the only possible happy outcome for somebody who is multiple, I do find that in multiple communities the pendulum tends to swing the other way a bit, and condemn integration completely.

I think it's too easy for people to just assume that somewhere at the center of things, all people are really just like they are. That's why a lot of folks don't really believe in multiples, they are just one person, and surely these people who claim to be multiple are really just one person, showing different aspects, or being deluded, or whatever. I had another multiple try and tell me that my system didn't work the way it actually does, but rather it worked more like how his systme works, and it started to get a little frustrating!

I'm not anti-integration at all. My take is that should be a matter of personal choice for every system. What I do think is that integration may be a lot more difficult than it's portrayed as being in all the books, movies, etc-- the most believable description we've read is that you have to basically re-train your thought processes so that you respond as one rather than as many; as opposed to the idea that, say, all someone has to do is reveal a traumatic memory and they'll automatically be merged with someone else.

However, that doesn't stop me from thinking that it's a valid goal, if agreed to be the goal by the whole group.

The whole... deciding that another system is a faker/attention-seeker/delusional/etc thing (or, even if genuinely multiple, are very misguided and confused) if they work too differently from you is something I've seen, though, and I agree, gets really frustrating. I've actually noticed a tendency towards it in some of the older writings I did online about multiplicity, which is a bit embarassing. But... live and learn, I guess.

Agrees with you. Integration should most definitely be a choice made by the entire group and we will try our very best never to condemn any one for anything let alone the choices they make. And we've had that whole "youdon'tworklikemesoyou'renotright" thing done a few times too. Frustrating is definitely the word.

There's stuff other people have said like it being outdated and stuff, and acting like integration is great, and saying that past lives and spirits are the only answers for non-trauma. Something else I noticed;

Of the forty-five Insiders, one stood discordantly apart and made a strong case for spirit attachment.

They start talking about a guy who sounds like he makes a strong case for it all being just a big fragment thing like the books say it is. The woman's just looking for something and finding it because it's what she wants to see. Pretty much how most people work.

It was nice, in a kind of really patronising way.

Not so much patronizing as... what's the word? *dictionary* Parochial. She's known just one system, one who was less inclined to try and explain things than she was, so she got up this whole model with her own beliefs, which isn't so much wrong, or necessarily wrong, as not applicable to every system. From what I've read, here and elsewhere, some people do have a leader in the system and do well with it, some people really are "attatched" spirits, and some people really are past lives. For that matter, I don't need to resort to hearsay - my best friend is a dragon, another friend has past-life memories and talks about them like he's a median. And while there's not really any order-giving going on in my system, and a lot of arguing and debate, Rob has always been pretty dominant. But these aren't things that describe every system. I think this author would learn a lot if she visited a community like this.

Johnny

Plus some people get told that they are all the birth person's past lives and that they've now assembled to help cope with trauma! Aiyee!

We found that all rather peculiar. While very respectful, the author still started from and reinforced the idea of 'this cannot be right/healthy/normal!' You notice the only choices we between (essentially) possession and past lives, no mention of the possibility of simply being multiple. That's what I really want - some mention, somewhere, by a singlet, that multiples can be multiple just because they are, and with no other explanation needed.
-Seb.

People always want to know why, though. We humans spend so much time figuring out the why behind everything, including the behavior of singles.

I don't object to people asking why - I do so myself. My objection is to the idea that multiple emergent consciousnesses should require more explanation than the mere fact of consciousness at all. We are always examined as deviations from not merely the norm, which we are, but from the 'correct' way to be. People don't ask 'Why are there several people in this body?'. They ask 'How did this person come to have several personalities/spirits/muses/the delusion of same?'. That, I find insulting.

Apologies, that was me. -Seb.

Ah. Right. So you're not objecting to the search for understanding, but rather to the attitude taken by many of the searchers.

Myself I find figuring out the roots of people's splitting, or discovering other selves, or however it works for them to be fascinating. I am very self-aware, and know exactly why and how each of my others came into being, and I find it rewarding to discover the why and how of others too.

I find other systems truly (you've used the only good word) fascinating too. I find singlets fascinating. Hell, I find everything fascinating, and gave Ellen great trouble when she was deciding which subject to read.

Oh yes! I want to know everything about everything! I had a real time choosing a career path, because I wanted to do everything! Though I didn't have the aptitudes for everything, of course. I did eventually turn up a career path that I had both aptitudes for and interest in, and which suits my lifestyle too. Thank heavens.

We think we've reached a decision on a potential career, but things may change. Hmm, that reminds me, I must write that letter asking for summer placements. Now is probably an unhelpfully feverish moment to start, however.

Oooh... I do like that turn of phrase... "multiple emergent consciousnesses."

Thanks!

-Kat of Khaiitha

Amen! Thank you!! Thank you thank you!!!! So true... We just haven't found it yet. -- Accept from a singlet friend on her friends' page who informed us the other day that

ERRRR! Stupid LJ. she didn't care and that she was happy she had so many friends and it didn't matter how we got here that we were here was enough.

Spiritlink is maintained by the woman who wrote My Name is Legion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0966229916/astraeaswebmulti), which is a work of fiction based very loosely on the Sarah case (http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/sarah.html). She became involved with the case because of her work in trying to reform the criminal justice system. She knew Sarah personally, yet the book is the usual sensationalistic nonsense. When she was writing to us in 1999, She told us that at least part of this was demanded by her editor.

She initialized our email correspondence, saying that we were "on the same wavelength". At the time, she was an adherent of the Seth Speaks material by Jane Roberts, and signed her emails "In Love and Light". Her explanation of multiplicity was based on it. In some cases of extreme trauma and abuse one's Greater Self creates sub-selves to help cope, which then become persons in their own right. This only works for people who have developed a "psychic blueprint" of creative genius through past lives. This explanation was based on Seth's (or Jane Roberts') ideas of personality which he said were "akin to quantum physics" because the mind is "made of unlimited energy".

One thing we appreciated was her annoyance with people who get a fixated idea of what kind of people a multiple system is apt to include. She'd apparently run into a number of doctors and legal professionals who insisted that every group has an "abuser alter" and make judgments based on that.

Sychic blueprint? Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!!!!! ::Blows monstrous raspberry:: About the only thing we agree on are the "there doesn't have to be sychos in there" part. Half-blehk then.
Alissa

*agrees, pppppfffffbbttttttt.* Don't know if she still believes in Seth though.

We oughta done that in unison. I'm sorry but that's just hilarious!!!

A Discussion Question

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

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

no subject