How do others feel about "Multiplicity" as the Norm?

Hiyas Mates

As I mentioned in what looks like an very lengthy post from last night, I am feeling anxiety and fear about expressing the paradigm shift from a "Singular Mind" to what I am discovering as "Multiplicity of Minds" inherent in all human beings.

I'll try my best to keep this as short as possible unlike this morning's post.

The concept is this...

That All Human Beings are "Multiple" by very nature and the belief that Everyone is "Singular" is in fact false.

I am NOT stating that Everyone has DID however. Just that as Humans we are inherently "Multiple" NOT "Singular" as is portrayed commonly in our society.

I'm really starting to have some anxiety about this now for obvious reasons. Mainly that I will be seen as "Crazy" or "Insane" whatever that means lol

I realize that I may very well be biased on this topic, however the more I research this it's becoming very clear and obvious.

But I even am starting to fear a backlash for stating such a thing even in this room.

A couple of my fears is that some here may find it offensive. One such way is that for some they may feel that DID holds an exclusive "Multiplicity" compared to outsider "Singlets" which is a common term here. Another may be that those who have "Integrated" to become "Singular" may find it offensive as well.

Those are just some of my Fears and to be honest I don't have any reason in particular to have them besides not wanting to offend a community that I hold in such high esteem.

But more so I am very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

The Ramifications between "Singular" and "Multiple" on this scale are huge.

Your Thoughts?

Sincerely
Lumps

It's a double sided kinda thing
No humans are just one clear cut entity up and down, there's multiple dimensions.
But there is a distinction between just having "multiple dimensions" and being a multiple - since all this stuff is normally founded in trauma.
Multiplicity is not a everyday thing otherwise there would NOT be such a stigma around it.

Not everyone has a bunch of people sharing their body.

They can have different thoughts, different levels

But it is not multiple.

To do so kinda dismisses what did is, and there's enough bad stuff out there in terms of public understanding of did already

Hi Lumpy,

It's good to see you back!

Just generally, even if I happen to disagree with a concept that you bring up, and even if I happen to find the concept itself "offensive," I wouldn't be upset with you for introducing the topic or for believing in it. You gave a detailed review of a book and explained why you think it's valid, and why it's meaningful to you.

I would probably have to read the book myself to completely understand what they are saying, but without having done that, I think I lean more toward what KawaiiKitty said:

KawaiiKitty wrote:there is a distinction between just having "multiple dimensions" and being a multiple - since all this stuff is normally founded in trauma.

At this point, without having done the reading, my understanding is that having more than one identity (i.e. failing, because of trauma, to be able to go through the usual developmental stage of integrating into one continuously aware self, so that there are multiple entities with some types or degrees of dissociative barriers between them), is not the norm.

People without a history of prolonged childhood trauma, who don't have a major dissociative disorder, might have different "self-states" which, when they're in them, have behaviors and feelings that they don't have in other settings or situations, but that is very different than having dissociated parts.

So two different people, one DID and one not, could ask themselves the same question: "Why did I say/do/feel that at that time??" and the answers would be very different. Someone without DID, a "singleton," would have access to everything they said/did/felt and be able to examine it. They might realize, "Oh, right, whenever my mom says x to me, I feel y, and then I start doing z. I would like to change that pattern because I don't like to feel or do y and z." (Or alternately, "I love that I feel y and do z when I'm with my mom. It reminds me of being a child again and I really enjoy that.")

Someone with DID/OSDD, if they even remembered what they said/did/felt at a particular time to even ask the question, "Why did I say/do/feel that at that time?" might not have access to any understanding of it. Or might strongly feel, "That wasn't me. I don't have those feelings. When I think about the situation now, I feel completely differently and would have said the opposite. In fact, when I think about it now, I seems as if I'm watching it happen and not like I was really there."

Obviously, these are just random examples, but I just wanted to illustrate that to me, it seems like a qualitative difference in one's experience of oneself. Prolonged early trauma disrupts basic development and we end up with very separated aspects of ourselves that we experience much differently than a person who didn't have early trauma and proceeded to develop a more cohesive sense of self.

Thank You Kawaiikitty

I am curious how others may feel as well? I suspect that your feelings are likely the norm as well.

So this "part" of ourselves that people refer to as our "Gut" or "Viscera" was correct so far in having such fears.

There is not a firm solid answer to this question to my knowledge as of yet. Perhaps Technology such as Functional MRI's will reveal more as time marches on.

This is also a "Cultural Issue" as well.

What is "True" in one culture may be seen as "False" in another.

In this "Culture" here in this forum, we seem to generally adhere to the model of "Structural Dissociation" as our lens that we view the world since it seems to match our experiences the most. And within that Dr Onno Van Der Hart is considered one of the top contributors to this model.

http://the-growing-heart.com/structural-dissociation/
"Structural Dissociation
We all have multiple parts. According to Richard Schwartz, Janina Fisher, Onno Van Der Hart and others, people with trauma or complex past experience develop multiple parts configured in such a way which best help them to survive in their early environment.

The more complex the past experiences, the more elaborate and complex our inner system needs to be in response to this. Elaboration of parts of self for survival is called “structural dissociation”, and is seen as an adaptive response to adverse conditions."

However just because he is considered a world expert on "Dissociative Disorders" and especially DID, that doesn't make his beliefs a fact. I respect Freud's earliest work on Hysteria and yet after he recanted those Trauma and Dissociation Theories to replace them with his "Oedipus Theory" I give little credit to his work afterwards regardless of how famous he went on to become.

I find Dr Carl Jung's take on "Multiplicity" of interest though.

an excerpt from Richard Schwartz's new book "Many Minds, One Self" on pg 43 goes on to discuss Jung's work...

"This shift from interpretation to curiosity and trusting patient's reports was revolutionary and set the stage for all of Jung's subsequent discoveries. Jung also began to apply his curious approach to himself, which served him well since, for a number of years after the break with Freud, he suffered a creative illness that made him feel close to insanity. It also brought Jung to his deepest contact with multiplicity. He wrote that all his later work came from material that came from up out of the depths, like lava from a volcano, during those six years of illness. Jung was very private and even secretive about this period. He first wrote about it in his autobiography near the end of his life. The Red Book, the account of his process, was not published until 2009, decades after his death.

What was he wanting to conceal? When Jung turned his attention inside with curiosity, he met beings who were fully independent and who spoke to him. He had long dialogues with them, of which he noted "There are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have a life of their own" (Jung, 1961/1965, p. 207). Tellingly he also observed, "It took me a long time to admit to something in myself that was not myself" (Jung, Hall and Cummings, 1953, p. 45)

Philomon is one of the most famous of Jung's inner beings. Philomon looked like an old white haired man with the wings of a Kingfisher and the horns of a bull. He became an inner teacher and guide to Jung. He told Jung did not create his thoughts; they were more like animals in the wild or people in a room and existed independently (Jung et al.,2009)"

Now if one does their homework on Dr Carl Jung, this can be seen as DID. He did claim to have it as a child but outgrew it, it's said.

But he was a proponent of Multiplicity all the same.

Come to find out William James was as well. I consider him to be one of the greatest Philosophers of modern Times. But before he was the head of the Philosophy Department at Harvard University, as a Medical Graduate from Harvard Medical School, Harvard appointed him in charge of creating Harvard's Department of Psychology as well as in charge of writing Americas first Text Book on Psychology (and still highly respected Text book to this day on Psychology). He is without question the Father of American Psychology and studied along side Pierre Janet as well as Freud in Paris in the 1880's.

He is the brother of Henry James, the American Author. And his work "Varieties of Religious Experience" was paramount in the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous and as such is referred to in all "12 Step Programs" as suggested reading. His Book is the ONLY Book in in the "Big Book" of AA that is strongly urged to read many times.

I really want to stress that even within those who are proponents of "Multiplicity" there is little agreement as to how much and to what extent these "Sub Personalities", or "Ego States" are developed. Just as it is with "States of Consciousness" in general within the field of Psychology. Freud's version of "Super Ego", "Ego" and "Id" are not even agreed upon his followers. But at a base level one might concede that having even those 3 "States of Consciousness" is very well more than one Single Ego State.

One can spend ages listing sources within the field of Psychology to make the assertions that Humans by nature are inherently "Multiple", But what about other branches of Science or Medicine?

Neurology has quite a bit to say on this matter, but perhaps another time.

And most importantly as Human Beings are we simply just robots or machines?

In Music, Art, and Writing and Poetry, it's far more acceptable to have such views than it is within science.

But even more so is it an accepted fact through out History when it comes to Religion and Spirituality.

In some cultures, and yes even today around the world it's just a fact that we have more than one "Soul". https://www.britannica.com/topic/multiple-souls

I don't expect anyone to accept any of this, hook, line and sinker.

I myself am very doubtful and at times even very phobic of the notion.

Thank You again for taking your time to put your input into this controversial but very interesting topic.

Warmly
Lumps

Well, i dont really agree that there is an either-or condition, i think it is more gradual in many places.. normal people has different levels of connections between different lifeexperiences throughout the day, but it is always somewhat connected even if most parts of it is dormant.

But in DID you have several souls that is created separately around different lifeexperiences with walls (a lack of communication) that protects the others from those experiences.
With DID you can glide from having no awareness of the others at all and appear as a singleton to yourself , this is actually as far away from a singleton the brain can get...
But it can also be a lot of communication and chaos when all the parts are more or less connected to eachother, this is a lot closer to being a singleton. Total connection between everyone as a singleton has it , would also mean that everyone has total awareness of all trauma, so it also means total chaos.

But, the brain in itself can glide from no walls to sealed walls for everyone. and with traumatic experiences you need walls and without traumatic experiences you dont need them. and the brain finishes the main development of the network somewhere around the age 6-9. and that is the reason a grownup who get ptsd dont get a new soul to handle that moment , even if the trauma still lives its own life within its own walls.

However, even if you have did, experiences can be shuffled around between different parts, some internal helpers have learned to move memories by will, while there also is an automatic movement of stuff to the new host when there is a hostchange.
And some knowledge can be common for everyone, some systems share a common languageknowledge so when one learns a new langage the others get that knowledge too, while other systems dont do that. the same if the body goes blind, some systems share a common knowledge on how to navigate in the world as blind, while other systems dont.

And then we have the epilepsyprocedure where the connection between the brainhalves are cut, that will break the communication between the brainhalves and create DID with two separate souls in a singleton. So i guess all of our conciousness is communication and that what you get when you put walls around areas in the network, is different souls within that network.
And this is probably what they mean when they say the brain is holographic.
A holographic picture has one picture, but if you cut that picture then you have two pictures, and if you cut it further you get as many pictures as you have pieces, and then (with a hell of precision to get it exactly right ofcourse) you can in theory put the pieces together and get one picture out of everyone again.
Abot holograms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIyJiaVhzkI

Dear TheGangsAllHere

Thank you for my welcome back from I don't know where I was and yet was at home the whole time lol!

TheGangsAllHere wrote:Hi Lumpy,

It's good to see you back!

Just generally, even if I happen to disagree with a concept that you bring up, and even if I happen to find the concept itself "offensive," I wouldn't be upset with you for introducing the topic or for believing in it. You gave a detailed review of a book and explained why you think it's valid, and why it's meaningful to you.

I would probably have to read the book myself to completely understand what they are saying, but without having done that, I think I lean more toward what KawaiiKitty said:

KawaiiKitty wrote:there is a distinction between just having "multiple dimensions" and being a multiple - since all this stuff is normally founded in trauma.

At this point, without having done the reading, my understanding is that having more than one identity (i.e. failing, because of trauma, to be able to go through the usual developmental stage of integrating into one continuously aware self, so that there are multiple entities with some types or degrees of dissociative barriers between them), is not the norm.

People without a history of prolonged childhood trauma, who don't have a major dissociative disorder, might have different "self-states" which, when they're in them, have behaviors and feelings that they don't have in other settings or situations, but that is very different than having dissociated parts.

So two different people, one DID and one not, could ask themselves the same question: "Why did I say/do/feel that at that time??" and the answers would be very different. Someone without DID, a "singleton," would have access to everything they said/did/felt and be able to examine it. They might realize, "Oh, right, whenever my mom says x to me, I feel y, and then I start doing z. I would like to change that pattern because I don't like to feel or do y and z." (Or alternately, "I love that I feel y and do z when I'm with my mom. It reminds me of being a child again and I really enjoy that.")

Someone with DID/OSDD, if they even remembered what they said/did/felt at a particular time to even ask the question, "Why did I say/do/feel that at that time?" might not have access to any understanding of it. Or might strongly feel, "That wasn't me. I don't have those feelings. When I think about the situation now, I feel completely differently and would have said the opposite. In fact, when I think about it now, I seems as if I'm watching it happen and not like I was really there."

Obviously, these are just random examples, but I just wanted to illustrate that to me, it seems like a qualitative difference in one's experience of oneself. Prolonged early trauma disrupts basic development and we end up with very separated aspects of ourselves that we experience much differently than a person who didn't have early trauma and proceeded to develop a more cohesive sense of self.

Thank you for taking the time to make such thoughtful and meaningful comments.

Just as no two people with DID/OSDD are alike I also feel that our perspectives on exactly what "Multiplicity" even means both within DID or in "Healthy" Populations who never endured chronic trauma during key developmental stages.

I am quickly realizing that these terms are so vast and vague that they just about lose any value to have a meaningful discussion comparing DID with NON - DID Multiplicity?

I still feel the need to really impress that I was Never talking about DID.

Dissociative Identity Disorder is still very different than what all these Dr's etc are discussing. The Author of this book personally made a very clear distinction between what he is referring to and DID. He did this on stage in front of hundreds of Professionals in Boston last month. I was a bit embarrassed to say the least.

I fully agree with the point you are making about how it's experienced as a person with DID compared to someone who doesn't have a trauma history.

But according to "Structural Dissociation" even very simple PTSD that can happen to a healthy well adjusted adult has by very nature a "Split Personality". But again that is still trauma related and so will toss that in with the the others as well. What I am discussing here is NOT Trauma Related.

A personal example to hopefully demonstrate that I think I am following you is like when I am mostly blended with one alt (let's say "Cody" because he is the most dominant of my alts) and he is fronting. When "I" (the part of me I consider to be the host) am in the back ground as if 20 feet behind myself and am both watching Cody while simultaneously experiencing the event as both. But since Cody is fronting, he is experiencing it from his own personal perspective and the Host part is more of an outside observer. "I" have very little personal sensations and what "I" feel is not my own but rather Cody's. It's a very clearly a "Not Me" sensation". My memories as the host are usually very foggy and hazy compared to who ever is fronting.

Or sometime no memories of events at all. As I have very vague and lapses of time in the past few weeks. I know my old kitty friend "Lumpy" had to be put down on the 21's of june which I think started this lack of remembering the following weeks as it was also the 4 year anniversary of my best friend Tony which then a reminded me of my Fathers passing a few months before and so on with my Mother a year ago and so on.

Does that make any sense?

I don't think that is "Normal" outside of perhaps unusual altered states of consciousness or events.

Those within the Trauma Community are all starting to lean heavily towards Multiplicity due to their own awareness as well as experiences. However they express it as a smooth transition from one part to another. Dr Frank Putman in a 3 DVD interview with Dr Bessel Van der Kolk also was discussing how in his personal experiences he also has individual "Parts" and strongly felt that it was a normal part of how the human mind seems to function. But yet again he also made the very clear distinction between that and DID as being different form his long clinical work with DID as well.

Now here is a very interesting question that I feel begs the asking... Why in such a short amount of time are so many of the world's experts on Trauma and Dissociation, suddenly all coming to these very same conclusions? I mean why not a decade ago or 25 years ago? Why so many all within the past few years? And why so many all jumping on board with this?

Is it just the cool thing to do and everyone wants to be in this "Multiple" corner with us because it has been leaked out just how awesome we are here?

I think based upon my extensive research I am strongly leaning that way

No but seriously though, This is not just some obscure and trendy thing happening with just one or two aging Traumatologists, They know all too well the backlash from such positions, They have been fired, ridiculed, character assassinated, had their tenure yanked, and so on just by working with Trauma and simple PTSD. Perhaps the old ones that are ready to retire don't care anymore like Bessel Van der Kolk, Onno Van Der Hart, Frank Putman, and Gabor Mate'. Just to name a few. These are aged baby Boomers who were all dropping Acid in the 60's in college and saw first hand what happened to their peers and predecessors like Dr Timothy Leary who Bessel inherited his Office at Harvard soon after he was the first Harvard Professor to be fired who had Tenure there. They discuss these things openly now. Sure they are on their way out and likely don't care so much now.

But what about the younger ones whose careers are just now starting to take off? They also know that officially making statements publicly that they believe that Humans are "Multiple" by nature is a potential death nail in their careers. Freud quickly recanted his Suduction theory and it still almost ruined him right when he was getting started. Ever hear of his Mentor Dr Joseph Breuer? There is a reason why no one has.

Also keep in mind that due to new technology in the fields of Neurology are exploding and we are learning so very much. Neurology and functional MRI's as well as even newer imaging techniques are able to witness brain activity on the run as people are performing tasks or being triggered. This was impossible to do 10 years ago.

But I think there is one key element that time will sort out that is driving this new paradigm shift. And that is the use of Psychedelics such as MDMA. The two previous FDA drug trials are out and was fast tracked into the third and final study phase which is very hard and rare with the FDA. But the results are so overwhelming that the FDA deemed it critical for the treatment of trauma and has already proved to them that it's a Life Saving drug that needs to be available asap. I mean there is Nothing in the treatment of Trauma and Complex Trauma that even holds a candle to it's effectiveness.

It's from Psychedelic drug research that is making this paradigm shift. And in the past year alone almost all the heavy hitters have officially tried it out as that is part of the trials. And trust me we are all talking about people like Bessel and his peers who dropped acid plenty of the times in college in the 60's as so many college students did.

But under the very strict and intense controls of it as well as these very same researchers learned from the 60's that it had to be done very scientifically and legitimately so as to not make the mistakes that those before them did in the 50's and 60's which led to them being outlawed. And be nature once one is approved it opens the doors to others as well like Ayahuasca.

But that still isn't the whole story here either.

How these drugs are being used and why they are so effective for treating Trauma is that the patients under the influence go into their "Inner Worlds" and access their Parts to heal other parts and unlock what Richard Schwartz discovered by accident is what they call the "Self" with a capital "S".

It's the combination between Psychedelics and Unlocking the "Self" to do "Parts" work that is the ticket.

Now some of you may be saying "well getting High on Ecstacy or Psychedelics is creating these "Parts". They are not there before that."

Wrong!

How do you explain that even "healthy" people who clearly don't have DID access "parts" just as you and I do here? I am talking about people doing "parts" work who have never had any trauma of notice in childhood and not on any drugs like the MDMA research, and experiencing "Parts" in exactly the very same manner as anyone with DID does but just when they look inwardly with curiosity?
If you were able to hear them or watch IFS Video's of sessions you would swear that they had DID too! I mean some of this stuff makes ours look blah and mundane in comparison.

They say that the use of MDMA isn't necessary for the healing that it can be done without it using the same Parts work methods, but it might take ten years to do what MDMA can do in 8 hours!

Oh and remember when I mentioned that Dr Schwartz and the others up on stage made it clear that the "Multiplicity" that this parts work was being done with MDMA was Not the same as DID? They all were VERY Loud and Clear it was NOT For us! Simple to somewhat Complex PTSD, NOT DID!

They all said in their own way basically the same thing as to why it's off the table for DID. That due to our severe and chronic early childhood traumas, that accessing such large amounts of this creative internal force that they call the "Self" can have very serious backlash with our parts. Noot Gud! as Bessel would say! lol

In everyday living the average Joe or Joanne does switch from part to part. This is what they are discovering. But they are so seamless in transition one would never even be aware of it not to mention that the "parts" are coherent with one another consciously, which we would all call "Healthy Multiplicity" here. The also have internal "parts" and "Beings" that they consciously never have access to but are still there and can be accessed by use of hypnosis as has be very well documented in the past 150 years. And we are not talking about DID at all.

Dr Dan Siegel talks about "Integration" not as putting everything in a blender and setting it on puree. No That is not the definition of integration but rather homogenization. That is not what we want. Integration is separate parts that work well together like a well oiled machine. It's about Parts working well together to create a high functioning larger organism. I believe he was also the one who came up with the model of the "Window of Tolerance" if I am not mistaken. He understands us Very very well.

One thing that I find quite funny and Ironic is that I don't think I am the only one here who is at times very phobic of other parts. There is a very "Rational" part of me who is a staunch supporter of http://www.fmsfonline.org/?ginterest=MultiplePersonalityDisorder and thinks all this "Multiple" stuff is just a farce and doesn't believe any of it at all.

I suspect on a very basic level the thought of sharing a body with others and not being the only one there can be very unsettling at the very least. I still struggle with it as do almost all. I think that is a basic Human reaction and not exclusive to DID if we live in a culture or society that it's not the norm.

Altaphobia? No that is fear of skiing at Utah's Alta ski park. I had that condition once.

Partsophobia? Kinda reminds me of fear of some sort of Kosher dumpling thing? They can be scary especially if combined with those salty pickled fish.

It needs work if I can't find an existing one.

I am starting to be more curious as to why some are having this reaction to this topic?

Thanks Kawaiikitty and TheGangsAllHere for your valuable input.
I would welcome any and all thoughts and feelings as a response of this topic.

Especially if you also don't like it and if you could help me understand why.

Warmly
Lumps

I'm quoting myself because I responded in the other thread.

NyxX wrote:I think it's a question of degrees. A stubbed toe hurts but not like a broken one.

I think singletons are made up of many parts but they are like a completed jigsaw puzzle all those parts make a unified whole. They grow together they work together. Maybe they can strengthen parts and suppress others to create the different selves they have for different roles. But at the end of the day they have a single sense of identity and self.

For us we don't make a single picture. I have the same number of puzzles pieces but they come from a dozen or more puzzles and not all of them are even jigsaw puzzles. We don't make a unified whole we don't grow together we don't work very well together. Our sense of self and identity is so divergent that we are many not one.