Question:

Hello astri, Changing titles bc the other thread was started by Mischa’s Chaos and I have yet to respond to their post and I don’t feel comfy carrying on this conversation there. Hope you’re ok with that.

that’s fine, but the point of what I wrote was *not* to get into an involved conversation about int*gration with you. Cya below. Warning: Lots of mentions of int*gration below.

most of them snipped. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello e, [...] Excuse me for asking the obvious here, but if you’ve never permitted, allowed, had tears surrounding one’s abuse how do you know that it wouldn’t help you to have them, e? (Slight detour from my otherwise respectful position to not comment on your personal life – apologies if my Q is too… well, too whatever you feel like labeling it). [...] if you’ve never permitted, allowed or tried int*gr*tion, how do you know that it wouldn’t help you to do it? I think the analogy is perfectly parallel. [...] And you saw fit to ask me what you did thinking bc I asked her what I did, I didn’t understand her position. Ok. Fwiw, I do understand.

I understand that you think you understand her position.  I *know* I understand her position, because she’s *told* me I do.  from what I see of what you have written to her and the conversations you have been in with her, it appears to me that you don’t actually have an accurate understanding of her position.  at least, what you say doesn’t portray such an understanding. [...] Let me see if I can simplify my beliefs with the smallest amount of words possible… I believe it is possible for a singular persona to develop in one body. I also believe it is possible for multiple personas to develop in one body. Both are natural and normal courses of human development with one seemingly more common in occurence than the other. I believe it is possible for dissociation to play a role in fragmenting the experience of an otherwise whole persona (DI/DID). I don’t believe trauma is necessarily nor always the catalyst to multiplicity nor to DD’s. I believe human beings are capable of experiencing a wide range and depth of emotion. I support ppl leaving themself open to possibilities … to changes in their reality.

but e believes that it is not necessary to experience a wide range and depth of emotion in order to be a fully functional human being.  e believes that some human beings are *incapable* of experiencing the wide range of emotions that you are talking about.  what you are saying to e about emotions and the human experience would be comparable to someone saying to you that your theory about multiplicity vs dissociation is wrong and that you must be mistaken about your own experience, that you are deceiving yourself and you really are dissociative, and that you should consider leaving yourself open to possibilities…to changes in your reality (fwiw, I am *not*not*not* saying to you here that you are wrong about dissociation vs multiplicity; I’m not addressing that issue *at* *all* –I am drawing the analogy back to the point of what I was trying to say in my initial reply). [...] I think you misunderstood the intent of my response above. You asked me -how- would I know integration wouldn’t help if I hadn’t tried it and my longwinded answer was, I know it wouldn’t help bc integration is for a condition I do not have

[...] I think you misunderstood the intent of my initial response.  you asked e how she would know crying wouldn’t help if she hadn’t tried it, apparently assuming that it would be within her repertoire of behaviors if she were just open enough to it. [...] "alternate" is certainly one way to look at this. It wasn’t what I was necessarily thinking when I suggested to J/c to be open to the -possibility- that the reality J/c possesses now may not be the same one in the days and years to come. What I was thinking was along the lines of ‘who knows, ppl change and so can their reality, leave yourself open to that possibility."

I suggest you apply here an analogy regarding someone saying the same thing to you.  doesn’t apply to you, does it?  then why should it apply to e or J/c regarding a "condition" they have repeatedly stated doesn’t apply to them? [...] I just think the analogy was ‘off’ and difficult to agree with bc I don’t have the condition for which integration applies and e and J/c do with re: to being human and feelings.

not according to their analysis.  your insistence that it does apply to them is equivalent to someone insisting to you that you *do* have the condition for which integration applies. [...] *all* the arguments you use to talk about multiplicity vs dissociation Not an argument, just my pov and understanding.  :o)

the term "argument" used in the sense of a stated position or postulate, not in the sense of an interpersonal disagreement. [...] — astri

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: alt.support.dissociation Sent: June 15, 2001 8:54 PM Hello astri, <vast enormous snippage [...] I just think the analogy was ‘off’ and difficult to agree with bc I don’t have the condition for which integration applies and e and J/c do with re: to being human and feelings. not according to their analysis.  your insistence that it does apply to them is equivalent to someone insisting to you that you *do* have the condition for which integration applies. Like telling someone who is albino to try to produce more skin pigmentation, telling a non-bat rodent to fly since bats do. I saw something about a neurochemical cause of depersonalization. DID’s are thought to have an altered brain chemistry that goes back to "normal" at least according to one source on healing , not sure how they defined healing… I wonder if the FAQ speaks to questioning someone else’s reality.  Maybe if it doesn’t, it should. Instead of telling people how they feel or don’t or think or don’t or have a self or don’t, hear them out and try to understand. Surely people with DID understand how invalidating all that questioning is. How can any not understand, given the current mood in society?  Give the FM* Invalidating is invalidating. (not a good thing) Todoeoeoeoeoe — For info about this service, see http://anon.twwells.com/help/ or e-mail:

Response: