+- Mosaic Minds Community Forums (https://www.mosaicminds.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Main Street (https://www.mosaicminds.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+--- Forum: Therapy Lane (https://www.mosaicminds.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=30)
+--- Thread: Semantics (/showthread.php?tid=1565)
Pages:
1
2
Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-21-2014
Addressing this topic because it's important to us and we're struggling for some clarity here.
Trigger warning for not wanting to offend anybody.
We've always had a definite stance on various items of multiple-personality terminology since realizing in 1996 that we're a "we." But because some of us can be overly blunt (various system members point to Laura), we've gotten more than a little hesitant to address the terminology issue.
But we have to resolve this within ourselves. This "unfinished business" is impeding our overall sense of who we are as a system and as individuals within that system.
So, we're going to do our best to speak only for ourselves and state things in a way that doesn't invalidate the views or experience of anyone else. We expect that we will make several posts as we consider various portions of this issue. It's too big to tackle at once.
*Deep breath*
Okay, let's start with body ownership. Our body belongs to everyone in the system. However, everyone in the system is obligated to live by the principle of system responsibility, and to treat the body safely at all times. We do not SI, although we have some minor eating issues and trichotillomania issues.
With the above in mind, we regard the body as a container or vehicle, albeit a living one that requires care and the respect of all within. Some of us hate what the body looks like; many others don't care, because they can more easily separate their individual identities from the external "identity" that the world sees. We try to compromise on clothing, haircut, etc. in a way that's at least acceptable to all inside.
Alters: We've never liked the term and never use it. We saw a very helpful statement in another online forum that reflects our view. The gist of the idea revolved around not considering any system member the "true" person, and not regarding any system member as more real than the rest.
All of us, regardless of age, see ourselves as individuals and understand that we're not the same "person," if "person" is defined as a having a distinct sense of self and way of relating to the world (tipping our collective cap to the DSM-V criteria). The only possible exception would be baby amanda, who is about six to nine months old, and whose thought processes, if any, are unknown to us. Ditto with her capacity to feel emotions.
Parts: We're a little less uncomfortable with this term, although it's not a favorite. In being members of a collective, we are parts of the whole. The term "parts" carries no implication that any one of them is more important or valid or real than the rest, so we can live with it. We prefer "system members" or "inside family," although we recognize that the latter term might carry a negative connotation for other people. It works for us because we are our family of choice.
Well, that's about all we can deal with in one sitting. We really want to discuss terms like "host" and "split," but those will have to wait.
Various MDS
RE: Semantics - Twin Volition - 12-22-2014
The term host is somewhat bothersome, as it makes me seem like some kind of parasite, but other than that, I agree with these definitions - this is how we tend to feel about things. I just wish Arlen was capable of adhering to the rule about not hurting our body.
- Aria
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-25-2014
Thanks for your post.
Are you safe?
MDs
RE: Semantics - Twin Volition - 12-25-2014
Of course. What she's referring to was an incident that happened several weeks ago. Thankfully, it wasn't as serious compared to other times, and didn't result in another run-in with the city hospital. I've had a lot of success in breaking the habit so far; that was the first relapse in almost a year, and hopefully the last.
- Arlen
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-25-2014
Glad you're safe. Thanks for clarifying.
MDs
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-26-2014
We're still thinking about a lot of this stuff. We did come up with the verb "formed" as an alternative to the verb "split."
1. We think that "formed" is a lot more flexible in terms of how and when a particular insider comes into being. "Forming" allows for the possibility of "un-forming" and "re-forming" as need be, like with sand or clay. Whereas a split, at least to us, seems irreversible.
2. To us, "forming" is a lot more positive in that a specific self comes together or builds from within the whole, whereas "splitting," by definition, involves something breaking apart.
3. Most systems don't establish themselves with only one round of splits. Therefore, by definition, further splits will only come from existing system members, and then, also by definition, be subsystems of the members from whom they split. Sort of like nesting dolls. But since the concept of host doesn't work for us, the concept of nested subsystems, or splits from splits, doesn't sit well with us either. We all need to be on equal footing existentially, and the only metaphor that's comfortable for us is one of sand or clay, wherein initial forming and modifications of one's form can be drawn from anywhere else within the total mass.
Charity, Mary, Laura, Allegra, and others
RE: Semantics - The People - 12-26-2014
We call them front runners. Or Elders as KA calls them. We say 'came forward' as opposed to split. For us everyone was always there. In some form. An event caused them to come forward as an individual. There was no split as we are still all joined together. Splitting is when you split your pants or split a sheet of paper. No longer joined.
We try not to get too caught up in things like numbers or terminology. Just about surviving. What helps us to not SI anymore (a rare, small one) is that we will have to tell T and PDoc. A rule. We survive because we have rules and most of us have a lot of faith in rules. The last T says it is because there were never rules in the house that we followed. Don't think. don't feel, don't tell.
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-27-2014
Those views on splits and fronting are very similar to our own. We much prefer "fronter" to "host." Also, there's some ambiguity what "host" means. To some it means the legal identity; to others it means the "original" person or "core"; to others it means the person(s) who front most frequently. Or some combination of the above.
None of these definitions of "host" work for us, because we don't define ourselves or our system in terms of one member being the point of origin, being in charge, or being more real than all the others. "Fronting," on the other hand, means simply interacting with the outside, and it carries no implication that being out is the same as being in charge. Nor does it imply that the one(s) being out exist solely for that purpose, or are the only mentally "healthy" part of the collective self.
We like "came forward." It sits well with us almost as well as "formed" does.
MDs
RE: Semantics - Tangled Web - 12-27-2014
We don't really use the terminology like other people do. We use the word person a lot. I guess now that I think about it our T uses words like host and stuff like that........to us we are all pieces of one big puzzle-it doesn't mean that we are not total people. We do use the word system it seems to describe things well for us-as in everyone has a role, everyone has a purpose, a part in making things work kinda like a very well oiled complex engine.
We don't really like the word host and it doesn't get used a lot thankfully. For us using terminology that keeps things less personal for us is helpful. It keeps people back--away.........
We use the word split though--for us it gives us the something--don't know the word. But it is like when hydro hit a powerline box and you hear that very loud crack and boom like a split.......breaking apart. Or when you have a log in wood splitter and it is very hard wood and you here that crack that echos through the woods-split is that to us........there had to be a very powerful force to create something like that-it is almost like it gives us a purpose-validation of why we are created-and because we came from a powerful force it makes us feel more powerful. not sure if that makes sense.......
Any ways that is my spin on this.
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-27-2014
TW,
We agree with some of the things you said, but even on the points where we don't have the same perspective, we understand the rationale and why it works for you. Thanks for giving us the chance to get comfortable hearing differing points of view.
MDs
RE: Semantics - nats - 12-28-2014
the host concept does seem to work for some systems, tho never seemed to fit ours. hosting seems to require a permanent hierarchy, while fronters can take turns as needed. for us, people appeared - couldn't say if they split or formed or came forward. however, we definitely have 'nesting dolls' in the way described by MDs. there are very strong internal hierarchies and there is no real effort towards democracy, there just isn't one supreme 'host.' there are three powerful group leaders (leader is the wrong word, more like speakers for their groups). one has been missing since we last tried to date, one tries never to come out, and then there's 'me'. i deal with most of the normal daily functioning, but again i'm more of a speaker for others rather than an individual - i can't really think for myself and am more of a fragment. i share with a couple of other non-verbal fragments to maintain a functioning interface with the outside. i/we consider this role as one of the powerful within the system because life has become much more stable so i've become increasingly responsible for routine functioning.
RE: Semantics - MakersDozn - 12-29-2014
Interesting, nats. From what you describe of your system, it doesn't necessarily follow a textbook formula, but it works for you (plural). Thanks for sharing it here.
MDs
RE: Semantics - nats - 12-30-2014
i think ours is more fractured than most, but also believe we experienced less extreme abuse than many so maybe that's why.
RE: Semantics - orek - 01-08-2015
Interesting thread! I agree with much of it :
We use "insiders" and "upfronters" (who are basically insiders who have the job of fronting to the world), so everyone is on equal footing. There is much ruffling of feathers anytime a T inadvertently implies that upfronters are somehow "the" person that everyone inside "split" from. I don't mind the term "split" (and Tangled, LOVE your analogies--spot on), just so there isn't that power differential implied between upfronters and insiders. We don't know who or where the "original" person is, if she exists. Maybe somewhere in there. In a way it doesn't matter since, though everyone feels like separate persons, we are all part of one psyche and share the same "shell"--a term for the body our T is trying to get us to move away from so that we claim the body more. But it certainly feels like a shell, one that is used by whoever fronts. Insiders don't feel it's theirs, just the one they are stuck with when out. I get that.
RE: Semantics - orek - 01-08-2015
Hmmm, nats, I'm not sure "more fractured" goes with "less extreme." I'm not sure if there's a direct correlation either way, but more fracturing would not seem synonymous with less severity, IMO. But everyone is different, and it may have to do with age of onset and just circumstances and inner psyche's natural tendencies. Don't know. We also are very poly-fragmented, but we figure it's because of age of onset of abuse (infancy).
We also relate to the way you front to a degree. Our "upfronters" are grouped as 3 very similar insiders who blend to present a whole. There are others "on deck," I've realized, who step up and take over if/when the current blend of upfronters are overwhelmed or just too weary--though not too often or chaotically, thankfully. And insiders can blend temporarily with upfronters to help with certain tasks without being all the way out and pushing upfronters back (though they do that, too).
We also have hierarchies inside. Those seem innate and accepted. The main power struggles and resentments over credits and equality have been between upfronters and insiders. But that makes sense. Their very different jobs require more separation and denial. (Part of the upfronters' job has been, after all, to function as "normal" and be ignorant of the insiders and what they represent, i.e., what happened to us, right? A diametrically opposed process of evolution, in a way.)
Jeez, that felt long. This hereby endeth 2nd Opinions, Chapter 3, verse endless, for today's reading.
