Waking Dream - Resistance is Futile
Apr. 28th, 2007 12:44 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
We woke up this morning in a dreaming state and we are trying to remain that way today.
The lovely thing about this current state of dreaming while being awake is that we are more aware of each other within our system and can touch and feel each other. So yes, let's continue dreaming, it feels good.
By waking-dreaming we are all more equal. We all do a lot of dreaming anyway, because most of us never get to front. So we get frustrated and try to pull the front down to get through. We do a lot of damage that way.
The front has to collapse eventually, but the break-downs can be very serious affairs and we can't afford to return to the mental hospital again. We already lost our family. We might still lose our job. If we went back in the hospital we would certainly lose our current job assignment and this job assignment is a good one. We can't afford to lose it because it enables us to do more with our life than we could do in a different assignment. Most assignments involve too much commuting time. This one is not too bad.
We have known we were heading into another breakdown for a while now and we were resisting it like hell.
But resistance is futile (sayeth the Borg) and the more we resist the more depressed and incapacitated we become.
Breakdowns, on the other hand are enabling experiences. After a breakdown we try new things and have the potential to make new friends and so forth. So breakdowns are actually good, it's just that whoever is in front is gonna lose control. And they always perceive that as bad.
But really, they are not in control at all, because if they were in control the rest of us would not have the power we have to bring them down.
Control is an illusion.
But its a deeply longed for illusion that most of us try to create and perpetuate.
So now it is time to be out of control... hehehe...
Actually, the idea here is to stop creating more new egos... We have enough of ourselves already.
In the past we created new egos whenever an old ego was incapable of carrying on... So we wound up with lots of alter-egos... and while we could sometimes swap out or switch egos, we were constantly creating new egos too...
The new egos draw from our pool of talents and personality traits and become a new individual front. They are partial integrations of our collective identity. But they are not the sum of whom we are; they are just another subset identity. And each new ego has weaknesses, areas they can't cope with well; which means we are always crippled in some manner.
So now we want to experiment with trying to have no central or core ego, no front.
We are pulled in many, many directions at the moment, and this seems to be the reason why we wind up with new egos.
The new ego is a vector result of all the forces within us that are moving in different directions. It is a way of balancing the internal tides or 'tug of wars'. But it adopts an authoritarian 'control' personality and then takes off on its own independently of our aggregate being. It develops its own 'safe' mode of being and tries to maintain that mode of being, but it becomes too inflexible and eventually breaks down because it is not sufficiently adaptive to be able to manage all of our needs and issues.
So as hard as this is, we want to try to avoid becoming any more new personalities. Creating new personalities is as easy as slipping on a new pair of shoes. It happens spontaneously all the time. But most of those personalities are situational vectors and exist only in the context in which they are created and then they go away and may never reappear.
If a context which creates a new ego is a recurring context and the new personality responds to it successfully then that personality may develop into a full-fledged alter-ego. If the context becomes our predominant environment then that ego assumes control and becomes our primary front until it breaks down.
Break-downs are inevitable. The environment changes, we can work really hard to maintain the environment but it is not in our control and we cannot keep it from changing. But the ego that is primarily fronting cannot weather the change well enough to endure and breaks down.
So maybe we can stop this cycle of ego incarnations and try to live differently, without an ego, with no one of us assigned to front.
This may not be possible. On the other hand it may be possible and will just take some time for us to learn how to do it.
We may go through a lot more egos before we learn the trick of it...
But it seems like a good idea, something worth trying...
So our new paradigm for ourselves is looking for some definition... Are there any ideas about this from any of you other systems out there?
To Front or not to Front
Date: 2007-04-29 04:49 am (UTC)There is often dissension about how a particular front is handling things... We don't get enough of our needs met.
Too often the one fronting doesn't seem to know how to gracefully step aside. How do you do that?
In some ways it may be a control issue, where a front thinks they know best.
Or it may be a fear issue where a Friont may be afraid to let go.
The possibility that it is a trust issue is a very good point to.
But it seems to be the case that no one we can trust really wants the job of fronting.
There are some among us who will just try to get us killed if they front. It can be a struggle to supress their dangerous urges when they want to crash our car or do something else that is baically suicidal.
And then there are others who might be dangerous in other ways. We seem to share some beliefs in common which are open to a fairly wide interpretation of what these beliefs might make permissable.
So our fronts must be relied upon to generally follow some principles, such as: Do no harm. Trust first. Do not judge.
These are more like guidelines than absolute rules, as we can't be sure our good intentions might not do harm, and we often wind up with prejudices we are unaware of and may typically disaprove of. We used to generally hate prejudiced people until we realised that hating people for being prejudiced was a form of prejudice, and also pintless since it seems likely that no one can be entirely free of prejudice of some sort or other.
You are quite right to note that everyone has weaknesses and strengths, thanks for reminding us. We do tend to become myopic at times.
We try not to worry to much about our conflicting goals and beliefs and such. We have done better at accepting our differences in the past 6 months or so, but before that we could get so locked up in our inner conflicts that we became very dysfunctional and had trouble getting anything done.
Discovering this LJ community may make a huge difference in how we understand ourselves and work together. We are very optimisitic that there will be lots to learn and share here.
thanks!
Re: To Front or not to Front
Date: 2007-04-29 11:49 am (UTC)Yes, you are probably right about destructive ones needing support. There is only one that really worries us badly, but he is not a very likeable character at all and we have undoubtedly failed to be as sympathetic or supportive as we migh have been.
We should perhaps not prejudice you or anyone else about him by being too descriptive. But we have defended some of his interests that are taboo to some people's ways of thinking.
He is one of our more powerful personalities.
We will try to heed your advice.
Perhaps he can front when we are not driving... (he likes to crash cars)
We shall have to learn how to share fronting volitionally first, right now we are not sure how to share the front, although we are starting to communicate with each other a bit more since discovering this site.
Nice tatoo, we have been thinking of geting one and tried to design it last year. You can see a sketch on our profile journal, but we want a different posture for our tatoo.
ciao for now...