curious questions...

[lightist.livejournal.com]

hi there...I'm new to the whole multiplicity thing. I kinda stumbled(?) across some info and then my education began. To tell the truth, it kinda fascinates me, not sure why, but somehow multiplicity makes sense. I figure we all have many aspects to ourselves, so if the boundaries become more real and our identities evolve, I guess this is just another stage in evolution.

As for the questions, is multiplicity a new(ish) phenomenon? and do you see yourself/selves as special, wayshowers as it were?

Comments

[emploding.livejournal.com]

multiplicity isnt new, nor is it a phenomenon.
nothing phenomenonal about being so traumatised as a child that you split off little peices of yourself as a way of coping.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

Not all multiples are the result of trauma. Other than that, I agree with you.

[bialmighty.livejournal.com]

Isn't this a bit of a knee jerk reaction?
Perhaps you should think a bit more before you post.

My system wasn't traumatised in the past, not all multiples are.

[bialmighty.livejournal.com]

I don't honestly think multiplicity is a new 'thing', perhaps it is only because of the media's attention that it seems to be this way.
The internet has also helped communication between multiples, providing a way of actually seeing how many people are plural, and an easy way of networking.

I haven't really thought much about multiplicity being tied to evolution, but perhaps it does make some kind of sense.
Still, not everyone is multiple, probably only a fraction of the world's population are (and I'm not just talking about the ones who have been diagnosed- my system hasn't been, but we are still multiple), the rest of people are, as I tend to say, singles (not ment in a derogatory way, don't want to start a flamewar).

I certainly wouldn't refer to myself (or anyone in our system) as a 'way shower', as we are all still learning about our multiple-ness, and about it in general.

Just my thoughts.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

The experiences of multiples vary so greatly that it's difficult to put it all down to aspects of a single person. That doesn't, for instance, explain gateway systems.

By the same token, I wouldn't assume multiplicity itself is the next stage in evolution. Descriptions of multiplicity date back to ancient times. Being multiple is seen in many indigenous cultures as completely normal, and an asset to the community.

I can't speak for everyone on multiplicity, naturally, but I can say that my group do not see ourselves as particularly special. We do maintain some web pages describing healthy, non-disordered multiplicity, to let people know that it doesn't have to be all doctors and climbing the walls and that. But there are other pages out there on this subject, too.

http://www.kitsune.cx/blackbirds/layman is a good place to start.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

Definitely not new. People have been exploring multiplicity since before they were exploring true civilization. Some of the oldest gods are shown to have more than one person inhabiting the same divine body, and we use what we know to explain what we see in our gods.

The whys and whats are a mystery, and they will probably continue to be for a lot longer than any of us are going to be alive. It's just another way of being. For us (our group), it's just the way we are.

It sometimes seems easier to describe what multiplicity and plurality aren't than what they are, and even that isn't likely to be true in every case.

We're just people. People are always different from each other, and they don't fit neatly into a nook labeled "normal."

[shandra.livejournal.com]

The idea of multiples being special (in anything other than the "unusual" sense of the word) is usually easily dissipated by getting to know a number of them. So welcome. :)

Multiplicity as defined as a pathology (trauma based/disordered) is relatively new. However in literature, mythology, and philosophy the idea of people with multiple personalities, or bodies containing more than one soul, or a soul having three parts (or more) goes right back.

interesting thread

[sexylittleone.livejournal.com]

This is going to sound perhaps rude but your post sunds as if you view us as side show freaks. I don't believe (perhaps naively) that was your intent.

the rest of the ppl have answered and I agree with them about your queestions.

please be alittle more considerate in your wording? I am sure you mean well but to some you may come off as less than nice. *S* And I think I got your meaning but I am posting only to give you headsup from another perspective on how your stuff comes across so far. Not trying to flame you dear.

El

Re: interesting thread

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

I think we might safely be past the idea of sideshow freaks when they say "multiplicity makes sense." *wink*

Re: interesting thread

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Actually, I thought the original post quite courteous. People need to feel free to ask questions about multiplicity, and if they're not precisely worded as we would prefer, that's due to lack of cultural orientation, not any lack of courtesy on the part of the questioner.

Cultural permission for multiplicity did not exist until very recently, and until the late 90s what cultural permission there was consisted solely of the trauma/splitting psychiatric model. The information simply isn't out there in sufficient quantity, nor is it reinforced by any sort of authority at this time. Thus, people seeking to understand our experience may not always word their questions to our liking because they simply don't know; if we tell them, most of the time (at least in ^our experience) they'll listen.

It's not always easy to find words to formulate one's questions; I have the same difficulty asking singlets and medians about their experiences, because the ideas seem so foreign to me.

Be patient with those who come bearing questions; they may in the future assist us to explain and define ourselves to the singlet-oriented world.

[tequilaghost.livejournal.com]

I actually don't think multiplicity's a new thing. I mean, I don't know for sure, but I imagine it's been going on for quite some time. What I do think is new is this whole thing of people being able to come together via the internet and actually learn about it and talk to others in the same situation and realise they're not alone and figure themselves out, without the hugely scary/risky thing of suddenly announcing to your family and friends "Hey everyone, actually I have other people living in my head," and running the risk of being labelled as crazy, and all the bad stuff that goes along with that. So while it's not a new thing in itself, the whole concept of being able to find and talk to other multiple systems is a new thing and that's having an effect meaning more people are accepting it, being open about it, and new people are coming across the information and being able to say to themselves "hey, that sounds like me", etc. I think the internet, and the whole thing of communication in general getting more advanced and easier, has had that effect for a lot of groups. So no, I don't think it's a new stage of human evolution or anything, but maybe the fact that more people are coming to understand themselves this way is part of a general phase of social change?

Ah, I don't know, I'm just rambling now. It's cool that you think it "makes sense"... though I don't generally think of myself as an "aspect" of anything.

As for seeing myself as special... nah. Maybe a bit unusual, but not "wayshowers". I wouldn't want to be responsible for anything like that. *laughs*

-Jasmine (of lasenzafine)

[lightist.livejournal.com]

hiya Jasmine...you sure you don't wanna be made responsible? for in this moment I'm most definitely being shown the way, and trust me, its all good :)

[lightist.livejournal.com]

oh dear!...well talk about putting your foot in it :) Firstly, apologies if the wording of my post was a bit 'crass', but hey, you live and you learn! That said, did enjoy the learning experience though...so thankyou all for the info.

Okay, 'to me', concepts that the world can't fully explain usually point to something more(?). Something 'normal' reality can't grasp, probably cus it doesn't fit in a box all neat and tidy. That's why I used the term special. It wasn't meant in a lab rat kinda way, more in a forward thinking kinda scenario. If I was to consider anyone a freak, then I am one also, as such...pleased to meet ya :)

As for me, not sure what to call it...multiplicity, soulbonding, otherkin...or...just me! No doubt, I'm in contact with presence/people/guidance/??? inside...waking world, dreamworld, inner-world...whatever it is, I encounter it in all things. 'I' see it as special, I didn't say it was easy, didn't say it was comfortable....but yeah, its special(to me)! Voices, messages, memories of something more. I know science can't explain, and in truth, I don't need it to. Figure we know by experience, thus, it all feels real, all feels truth.

A group of people/souls brought together to share a single body, smacks of the bigger picture(to me). Think there's a message there for all people, group dynamics perhaps(?). My words are failing me, but my intuition I trust....mmmm....well, that's me. Again, will apologise in advance to those whom I may upset ;)

[shandra.livejournal.com]

Well I don't dispute your right to your opinion. :)

But I have to say that while I think spiritual or broadening experiences definitely /can/ be drawn by people in multiple systems - tolerance, respect, the value of each individual - it is more a case of the people in those systems making the decision to learn those things. Which any singletype person could also learn, in different ways.

Some multiple systems choose different means, either as a group, or individually. Some focus on integration, or take drugs to control switching; others lock up system members or create extremely authoritarian structures where the powerful force the weak into line. Many choose fracture and denial, preferring to please those around them than explore their own reality.

And of course many don't and those tend to be the ones you see around here, or setting up webpages. :)

One of the things we in our system have learned is that having a "person for every occasion" (that's tongue in cheek, but meaning that you can develop ways to keep people in the same situations they usually handle) can mean -less- opportunity for growth if it becomes a way of avoiding shit. For example, I never apologized for anything until I was in my late twenties; at first this was because we were not selves-aware and it just never happened - later I would kind of get someone else to do it because they did it so well.

In this case my multiplicity was being used, by me, as a way of -not- growing and not taking a risk and learning a little bit about compassion and dealing with failure (whatever I needed to apologize for). It can be very hard to get a bigger picture when you are embroiled in culture shock (from otherworld to outer world) and conflict (between each other or with societal pressures to conform) and lack of time or fractures in cause and effect as -some- multiples are.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that while I definitely think multiplicity can be a positive, it is not /inherently/ positive or negative.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I think multiplicity is fascinating in the same way that multiple births are fascinating to people. Both topics are very attractive to a society that spends a lot of time trying not to be alone. There are the ideas of loneliness verses constant companionship. The topics also play into the whole idea of identity and what makes us the person that we are. Then you have the sensationalizing that goes on with a lot of the books and things you'll find on multiplicity. So it's not really unusual that you'd be captivated by the subject.

A few words of advice since you are new, first of all you're going to find a lot of different information most of it will contradict information you found somewhere else. Just try to keep an open mind about things and understand that not everyone you come across is going to fit the definitions and explanations you've read about.

I'm going to assume that your comment about aspects means that you see multiplicity as an extension of the fact that people act differently and have different personas in different situations. This is an easy way for some people to grasp multiplicity but it can lead to misconceptions. Each person in a multiple system is a full complete person. This means that each of them has all of the different personas for each specific situation that a single person would have. It's not a matter of my work persona developing an identity of it's own and becoming the system member that works.

Lastly, being multiple is different but no better than being single. I kind of have to wonder why you want it to be the next stage of evolution or something special like that. Is it just because it seems more interesting that way? Either way, whenever you come across a multiple or a site stating that multiplicity is special, enlightened, the next step of evolution, or otherwise implies that multiples are better than singles you should proceed with caution. The same goes for claims that all multiples have higher intelligence, more creativity, psychic powers, or anything like that. You have to wonder why it's so important for them to believe that. Really, we're just like you. There's just more of us in one body.

- A

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

To illustrate your point that every system's different, I know a lady who has several "others," but none of them are full personalities. The terminology I use is to say that such people are plural instead of multiple. I know a few multiples who started out plural and some who have members who aren't "full people."

As you say, it all comes down to identity, or perhaps, a sense of identity. Some things just don't work for some people when they include the conept of a single "I."

WARNING! May cause triggers in some people.

[leathersammie.livejournal.com]

Please educate yourself further. You have not informed yourself entirely regarding this condition.


The condition of dissociative identity disorder is not some new form of evolution. It is a coping mechanism the human brain devises to help some persons survive situations which might otherwise mentally or emotionally devastate them.

Some notes from Healthy Place (http://healthyplace.com)


A short history of Dissociative Identity Disorder

It was not until the publication of Sybil in 1973 that childhood physical and sexual abuse became widely recognized as precipitants of multiple personality. Since 1973 numerous investigators have confirmed the high incidence of physical and sexual abuse in multiple personality. In 100 cases Putnam found an 83% incidence of sexual abuse, 75% incidence of physical abuse, 61% incidence of extreme neglect or abandonment. and an overall 97% incidence of any type of trauma. In Bliss' series of 70 patients, of whom only 32 met the DSM-111 criteria for multiple personality, there was a 40% incidence of physical abuse and a 60% incidence of sexual abuse in the female patients. Coons reports a 75% incidence of sexual abuse. a 55% incidence of physical abuse, and an overall 85% incidence of either type of abuse in a series of 20 patients. The types of child abuse experienced by victims of multiple personality are quite varied. Sexual abuses include incest, rape, sexual molestation. sodomy. cutting of the sexual organs, and inserting objects into the sexual organs. Physical abuses include cutting, bruising. beating, hanging. tying up, and being locked in closets and cellars. Neglect and verbal abuse are also common.


Some Causes of Dissociative Identity Disorder

Trauma has long been recognized as an essential criterion for the production of dissociative disorders including multiple personality . The various types of trauma include childhood physical and sexual abuse. rape, combat, natural disasters, accidents, concentration camp experiences, loss of loved ones, financial catastrophes. and severe marital discord . As early as 1896, Freud recognized that early childhood seduction experiences were responsible for 18 female cases of hysteria, a condition closely associated with dissociative disorders . In the famous case of Dora. the patient's complaint of a sexually seductive adult was corroborated by other family members. In another famous case of hysteria, Anna O, who suffered from dual personality, the initial trauma was the death of Anna O's father.


It was not until the publication of Sybil in 1973 that childhood physical and sexual abuse became widely recognized as precipitants of multiple personality. Since 1973 numerous investigators have confirmed the high incidence of physical and sexual abuse in multiple personality. In 100 cases Putnam found an 83% incidence of sexual abuse, 75% incidence of physical abuse, 61% incidence of extreme neglect or abandonment. and an overall 97% incidence of any type of trauma. In Bliss' series of 70 patients, of whom only 32 met the DSM-111 criteria for multiple personality, there was a 40% incidence of physical abuse and a 60% incidence of sexual abuse in the female patients. Coons reports a 75% incidence of sexual abuse. a 55% incidence of physical abuse, and an overall 85% incidence of either type of abuse in a series of 20 patients. The types of child abuse experienced by victims of multiple personality are quite varied. Sexual abuses include incest, rape, sexual molestation. sodomy. cutting of the sexual organs, and inserting objects into the sexual organs. Physical abuses include cutting, bruising. beating, hanging. tying up, and being locked in closets and cellars. Neglect and verbal abuse are also common.


The abuse in multiple personality is usually severe, prolonged. and perpetrated by family members who are bound to the child in a love-hate relationship. For example, in one study of 20 patients. abuse occurred over periods ranging from 1 to 16 years. In only one instance was the abuser not a family member. The abuses included incest. sexual molestation, beating, neglect, burning and verbal abuse.

Re: WARNING! May cause triggers in some people.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

It sounds like you're the one that needs to educate yourself further.

http://www.tanuki.cx/pavilion/
http://www.kitsune.cx/blackbirds/layman/
http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/

[cheshire-house.livejournal.com]

There's nothing new about multiplicity. (I'll be the umpteenth person to say that here.) ;) This kind of thing used to be prized and revered...still is in a few cultures...particularly ones with shamans.


Do I see myself as special? Hmm...yes and no. I'm keenly aware of the fact that i'm experiencing things few if any of the people around me even concieve of going through...this can be good and bad.

As far as bearing a torch goes: if they choose to follow me, that's their decision. I'm not a guide. Sure, i'll explain things the way i see them when asked, but i'm not playing the role of teacher to anyone. If they pick up something i do and can find a way to apply it, good. They're learning themselves. ;)

~Cheshire House
(that was a lot longer than i intended it to be.)

[cheshire-house.livejournal.com]

On second thought (my first)...
Yes. I do see myself as special. Love every minute of it...even when it isn't fun. Wouldn't change it for the world.

~Cheshire House
(same pen, different hand.)

[moonfroggy.livejournal.com]

the things that cause multiplicity are very debatable, i don't know if i agree with all of them, but i think that
i think as long as there have been people there have probaly been some forms of plurality going on, though i think some of how a person might split would depend on culteral and languag beleifs, i have heard of culters where there is no word for i, where all words refer to the whole community in a culter like that i am sure if a person where to split it would be different
i think that humans may not be the only creaturs that do become multiple, animals might to, who knows maybe plants and rocks do and we just don't know, besides that if a dragon can live inside a human body why can't a human live inside a geranium body?
i beleive that many plural people, are plural because of sever extreme truama, for me as long as there has been truama there have been multiples, and i suppose as long as tehre has been life there has been one for of truama or another
i don't see myself as special, i don't think any of the ones i share my internal reality with think of themselfs as special, well not special because of the plural thing, though nene is pretty proud that she can do some very basic computer programing (she is 4 and likes telling people what we are doing programing then telling them she is 4)

anyhow i don't think being plural has anything to do with the human species in an evelutionary sence, in the sence that one body can evolve to survive a truama, (though yes some multiples where not truamatised)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

FWIW I didn't find your question rude at all. I think people, if they're exposed to a certain attitude too often, get a little trigger-happy and start assuming it where it's not necessarily there, or assuming it without asking for clarification.

I don't think there is anything emotionally or intellectually wrong about being fascinated by a lifestyle which is different from your own, as long as you don't objectify people or refuse to listen to what they really have to say about themselves-- preferring instead to hold idealized images of them.

I don't quite see our multiplicity as an evolution of different aspects of self, though I'm willing to acknowledge that for some people it may start out that way. There are as many origins for multiplicity as there are multiples. The one thing I am opposed to is any attempt to cast plurals as being 'more evolved' or 'better' or 'more capable' than singlets. You're talking about several people inhabiting just one body, which entails both advantages and disadvantages to balance each other out. We're pretty opposed to seeing ourselves as special in any way-- not because we find ourselves inclined to do that, but just the opposite. Being seen as special is somewhat nauseating for us in many ways.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

I see that someone has thoughtfully provided a summary of the Wilburian / Allisonian paradigm. For a good many years, this was believed to be the sole explanation for multiplicity. It is true for a very few, but should not be construed as applying to all multiples. In fact, both Wilbur and Allison have been largely discredited by modern psychiatry, partly for political reasons. The current psychiatric model for multiplicity is found at http://www.issd.org.

Again, the Layman's Guide (http://www.kitsune.cx/blackbirds/layman) is your best bet for learning about healthy multiplicity, and we have a fairly good FAQ which I think covers many things outside of the Wilburian mindset:
http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/faq.shtml

[lightist.livejournal.com]

thanks for the info by the way, checked out http://www.kitsune.cx/blackbirds/layman when you mentioned it in the first post. Did fill in a few gaps. As said...thanks, your energy's appreciated!

[lightist.livejournal.com]

I gotta admit I now feel like I'm treading on eggshells when it comes to getting my words out. It seems I'm having to explain/justify nearly everything I've said. I get the impression that some have realised that my intent is true, but the wording could have been better. To those who understood this, thanks for the pointers and kindly advice, believe me...I'm listening.

From a personal viewpoint, first thing we all have in common is our humanity, we are all alive, we are all functioning, the body is eating, sleeping and using the toilet(I think you get the picture!). Trust me, before I see our differences, I see what we have in common first! I agree with evolution as far as social change is concerned, a group of people that cause others to open their eyes/minds to new info/concepts is what I meant by wayshowers. In this moment I'm being shown something new, thus I used the term wayshowers. 'Special' would probably mean more a love of selves, a love of being what we are. Not special as in multiples being more creative, psychic or intelligent than me. I don't bow to others, nor am I easily led. I'm a teacher and a student, just as you no doubt.

From what I'm understanding, multiplicity isn't yet openly accepted socially. Yet it exists, and I see people are getting on and living their lives. I'm a believer in a mass consciousness system, the more we share, the more we know, the more we know, the more we grow. As said, I'm learning.

I will say one thing though, since posting my 'naive' post:), I have felt a certain kind of alienation from some, kinda like "your not in our gang, you don't understand...so piss off!"...as said, humanity first, the specifics can come later. I have more questions but don't feel fully at ease to share openly, as such, I'll contact some of you more privately to see if you wanna chat.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

People misunderstood your intent because they were judging you by their past experiences with people that were fascinated by multiples. Because it seems like a lot of people when they become interested in multiplicity just want to find a real life Sybil that they can point or laugh or gasp at. So they jumped to conclusions and thought you were like that.

The same thing applies to any feeling that you're an outsider. Every single multiple has had singles that are incapable of truly understanding our experience telling us how we're supposed to be. The psychological trauma model was developed by singles. All of the psychological books and standards and treatments were developed by singles. Most of the novels and movies involving multiples were written by singles. Then you have all of the singles that are armchair psychologists that you run into on the web or in person spouting unfounded gibberish and convincing people they're some kind of authority on multiples. Most of those singles didn't take into account what the multiples actually experienced.

So again, it's a matter of judging you based on previous experiences or jumping to conclusions. People can't tell from a couple of posts whether you're going to be one of the ones that listen instead of jumping at a bunch of personal theories that don't reflect our existence. Others have had a lot of experience with singles not understanding anything at all. People tend to become over sensitive to that sort of thing over time.

And before you misunderstand me, no I don’t believe that a single can ever truly understand what it’s like to be multiple. Only another multiple can do that. But then, multiples can never truly understand what it’s like to be a single. It’s nothing they’ll ever be able to experience.

interesting thread

[sexylittleone.livejournal.com]

you may if you wish reach Me at heatheri(at)telusplanet.net.

your choice and again I am sorry if my original post sounded harsh i have had a rough few days here inside.

El

PS My sister, Adriana would talk to you as well if you wish...but that is up to you.

[thesaturnsystem.livejournal.com]

We're available too, if you have more questions or just want to chat ^_^ AIM: SaturniaOfHell email: puchiko22[at]yahoo[dot]com.

[asrai-d.livejournal.com]

I have always been absolutely fascinated with multiplicity since i first read about it in a mary higgins clark book. i can't remember the name.

surprisingly ... it turned out i was. strange eh?