Described as "figments" or "not real" :/

Zor wrote:My fear is that when she retires in a year or so, it could harder for us (myself and the others) b/c she will be around more and if she's not moved to a better place of acceptance then we'll have more opportunity for her to see the time the others are around and for that to be stress and irritation to her and therefore problems for us (she and I/us). IDK... it's going to be a hard road forward.

But when she retires, she won't have the stress of her job and as much of a need to recover/relax at home. Perhaps the energy that she puts into problem-solving and interacting with others at work will be more available for the home front and for learning how to get along with all of you better.

TheGangsAllHere wrote:

Zor wrote:My fear is that when she retires in a year or so, it could harder for us (myself and the others) b/c she will be around more and if she's not moved to a better place of acceptance then we'll have more opportunity for her to see the time the others are around and for that to be stress and irritation to her and therefore problems for us (she and I/us). IDK... it's going to be a hard road forward.

But when she retires, she won't have the stress of her job and as much of a need to recover/relax at home. Perhaps the energy that she puts into problem-solving and interacting with others at work will be more available for the home front and for learning how to get along with all of you better.

That is a hope. But for that to be possible she'll have to be willing to let go of the hostility towards the others. Otherwise, it'll just get cold and uncomfortable.

I'm talking about what was talked about few pages ago. I think the problem with that description is the sentence "The DID patient is a single person who experiences himself or herself as having separate alternate identities that have relative psychological autonomy from one another..." To me it sounds like it would be saying DID is EXPERIENCE of multiplicity in one persons mind, not that it is legitimate parts of one personality, because of identity that didn't grow to be one, but several. It's not just an EXPERIENCE of someone's of not being one. It's the fact that the patients personality is in pieces, not one persons experience of having parts.

Being several is legitimate, not an experience. Still the quidelines for treatment should be co-operation, because that is needed for safety and well being of the parts anyway. They still are sharing the body and they still are parts of one personality.

I am talking about my system and my parts and my boys. I don't say it the way I would own them, I say it the same way I say my neighbors, and I know they all call me their neighbor, no one owns anyone just because of the word "my".

Sometimes I can say our system, but I don't think about it too much. All others are allowed to call our system as their system as well, using the word "my", or me as their something. It's a fact the system is mine. It's just not only mine.

I can be sensitive with using right words if it's someone with no, or just a little bit of knowledge about DID, just that there won't be any misunderstandings when they try to learn about it. But you know, I call also my working place mine, and it's owned by someone else 100%.

I agree the words like "my" or "mine" can also be used wrongly, if they really mean it that way.

Floralie wrote:I'm talking about what was talked about few pages ago. I think the problem with that description is the sentence "The DID patient is a single person who experiences himself or herself as having separate alternate identities that have relative psychological autonomy from one another..."

A couple of sentences before that in the guidelines is this sentence:

page 120 wrote:dissociation is part of a normal, evolution-selected, species-specific response

If that selected cutout is interpreted in the right way.. then DID is normal and singletons needs help to become multiples.. you can do a lot of weird stuff with selected cutouts..

TeddyBear the helper wrote:If that selected cutout is interpreted in the right way.. then DID is normal and singletons needs help to become multiples.. you can do a lot of weird stuff with selected cutouts..

Well doing that WOULD help them understand us better... LOL

But I agree about clipping things just so... being well versed and studying in theological topics, it's very common to see doctrine built on PARTS of verses or statements in scripture- removing context and dismissing intended overall meaning to make a positional statement often out of line with the whole of the work the citation is from.
IMHO, It's a dangerous practice in ANY setting to make such limited and selective citations.

TheGangsAllHere wrote:I'm reminded of an analogy that MakersDozn made--I think it was that if you have 47 marbles in a jar, then what you have is ONE JAR full of separate marbles. You don't have one gigantic marble. I suppose someone's goal could be to have one large marble someday, that's made up of all the smaller ones fused together, inside the jar.

And maybe you could argue that the jar is exactly the right size and shape to hold one gigantic marble--maybe even that that's what it was meant to hold, way back at the very beginning. Maybe you could argue that there "really" is only one marble that experiences itself as many different marbles; but I would argue that we can't actually see what's inside the jar (brain)--maybe the neurons are functionally acting like separate consciousnesses--maybe other than the fact that they are all in the same physical location, they are essentially SEPARATE individuals.

Glad that you found the analogy helpful!

Allegra and others

-- Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:22 pm --

Zor wrote:

TheGangsAllHere wrote:So, as with the parts of me that can have contradictory beliefs that are BOTH true, you and I are both correct!

That is such a Jewish kind of answer... "Is it this, or that?" "YES!" I love it!

-Kaleb

Totally!

MDs

Zor wrote:That is a hope. But for that to be possible she'll have to be willing to let go of the hostility towards the others. Otherwise, it'll just get cold and uncomfortable.

There will be a new stress to be together so much after her pension too. Do you think it is possible to create a "mancave" so you can get more freedom for the others there, and atleast initially limit the time together with the wife? she will also need to find a hobby herself.

TeddyBear the helper wrote:There will be a new stress to be together so much after her pension too. Do you think it is possible to create a "mancave" so you can get more freedom for the others there, and atleast initially limit the time together with the wife? she will also need to find a hobby herself.

The computer room/den is sort of that already. I tend to retreat there a little more than she likes already.