dumb questionz..!~

@lifelongthing, exactly!

*possible TW*

Moral philosophers talk a lot about when one should grant an entity "full moral status", i.e. treat them as a human being. Some of the things they come up with include:

-the ability to feel pain
-the ability to act autonomously
-the ability to have desires, needs and wants
-the possibilty of a future that contains individual projects, relationships and so on

these things come up a lot in debates about e.g. euthanasia or abortion. Now, regardless of where one stands on these things, I am pretty convinced that I have more of the above than a 15 week old fetus. yet, the fetus' right to life is being debated, while mine is simply denied.

Gabriel

*trigger*

these things come up a lot in debates about e.g. euthanasia or abortion. Now, regardless of where one stands on these things, I am pretty convinced that I have more of the above than a 15 week old fetus. yet, the fetus' right to life is being debated, while mine is simply denied.

Exactly. It's like - how do you expect to win an argument telling me I am not a human being? I'm not even talking personality vs identity here - just a simple matter of being a homo sapiens. I can breathe, answer you and use this brain in my head, so in the end, the fact that you can even have that argument with me means you've lost

Anyways.. Don't wanna take over the thread of anything, sorry rinZU

Terminology like 'person', 'self', 'personality' are very easy as long as there's only one per - well - body, to say it bluntly. But then there's more than one (whatever there is more than one thing of), and things get confusing.

Remember, this is still all language. (Following is my opinion/theory, not necessarily truth. Probably a bit philosophical/ranting. Will be a bit long.)
Words like those are old and ill-defined. They hold no value in themselves. They're just containers for some concept humans imagine.
All things physical are easy to define. It is easily possible to do that with, say, an apple. Just take something, and give it a word/name. Things that are not possible to touch (whether it's a personality, alter, ego-state, thought, whatever) are hard to define. Because it's not possible to say 'look, here, this thing in my hand is a thought/personality/whatever'. (Hope you get the idea).
A word only has the meaning people give to it. Just like money, when people stop believing it, it does not exist anymore.
We could just say, from now on, a person is a living human body with the abilities tribeofone posted. By that definition, alters are not a separate person, but indeed part of that person.
We could also say, a person is something that has feelings, an identity (f.e. name/gender/age/etc) and the abilities tribeofone posted. In that definition, alters *are* separate persons.

What I'm trying to say here, it all depends on what we think what those words mean, the words themselves don't contain any meaning. It's only humans (speaking a particular language) that attach a meaning to them.

So, what do we want a 'personality' to be, exactly? Anyone got a well-sounding definition?

lifelongthing wrote:I can breathe, answer you and use this brain in my head, so in the end, the fact that you can even have that argument with me means you've lost

lol. And very true, indeed.

I think that was both of ours point actually: that it's dependent on a definition.

I like your post

lol. And very true, indeed.

Thanks I think so

"the experts" have for example this to say about our right to life:

"it is most important to decline to engage in arguments over integration with the patient, because this course of action almost inevitably heightens nacissistic investment in the wish to avoid integration and introduces an adversarial tension into an already difficult treatment"

Kluft, clinical Perspectives on Multiple Personality Disorder, 1993, 109

In other words, lie to me about the fact that my right to life was never a "therapeutic goal" to start with, because I might happen to have an excessive "narcissistic investment" in my own existence? Seriously?

Sanity, indeed

G

wow. I don't know what else to say.

I think it is meant like, let the choice be up to the system. Many therapist prefer integration. I think it's meant like, don't force it, only if the patient wants it.

I wouldn't think so considering the author is stating how to avoid having a patient avoid integration?

Bad sentence but I'm getting fuzzy

I might be reading it wrong though

This is very interesting.

It'z my thought too that it comez down to definition. If a person = the body, we are partz of one person. But if a person iz a thinking, feeling, acting, desiring, etc entity than we are all separate personz. It'z why I waz annoyed by the terminology becauz I am my own person, same with everyone in here..there waz never one person that formed into a whole, we're a collective of different whole people mucking around in thiz one body..and that'z just the truth (to me). Especially since we never plan to integrate being told I am thiz fraction of a person iz annoying..there'z more to me than one emotion and a set of sh*tty childhood experiencez..I have depth, range, and uniqueness that'z mine alone..hehe. I grow and change in wayz different to any otherz in here. It'z a piss-off when doctorz say integration iz the only route. We work together just fine..it'z good for us thiz way..for some maybe not but for us it iz. Seemz like the partz of one person belief iz a convenient scope to look thru for therapy reasonz..but itz not really much different from what it waz before, just placing weight on different wordz. There'z some stimulating convo here guyz and girlz. It'z cool having some complex convo instead of the casual banter. Anywayz.

hehe..Kluft..oh man.. If thinking I exist separately and being my own person iz a narcissism thing then I am totally a narcissist. Tho if any doc sayz that to me I would probably tell them "Do u have ur own separateness from other people? Different thoughtz, wantz, needz, ideaz, memoriez, reactionz to thingz? u do? Oh u are a narcissist." They'd probably give me some bullsh*t back..and I'd say "well if u ignore the whole sharing a body thing that'z all applying to me too" and maybe thiz conversation would end in me saying. "Exactly." hehe.. [rinZU]

I think you think very similarly to us rinZU.

I quite enjoyed this conversation actually