Question:
Is the author saying that even ‘normal people’ (singulars) can be found to be distinctly separate from many of their own moods such as anger; periodically experiencing Anger, for example, (as a part/person/mood) as coming forth to express against their will? Another question would be: Has this expression (of Anger for example) become found to have been manifested against their will when they look back and try to own it as their ‘own’ unfortunate behavior? "I’m sorry, I was Angry. I didn’t mean that." Then ‘who’ did? hehehe St Basil once said Anger is a kind of temporary insanity. A mood? A part? A person within a person who is just as angry as the last time Anger came out? Maybe St Basil knew that his own anger was so out of character to himself that he described it as a type of insanity to justify his *own* distinctly-not-him behavior which overtook/influenced/acted against his will. Everyone blows up at some point leaving a trail of hurtful words and other extreme behaviors and voiced opinions which they soon regret. This ‘regret’ for us, specifically when we look back on a part’s activities and realize what (s)he has said/done, is much the same as any person’s tendency to ‘look back’ at the way they insulted a good friend, coworker or family member might be. "I’m sorry, I was angry." could easily been said "I’m sorry, it was Anger." <g If the author’s assumption is that everyone has parts residing in what we’ve learned to identify as just moods, then I was right; my T has parts too (LOL) and like I told her, if she’d just let her guard down and allow another T to guide her into her own world of compartmentalized ‘moods’, she too will discover that she has personalities (moods) who influence her behavior in rl. I think a perfect example of this is how T’s have been trained to shut off their own emotions (moods!) and personal issues while in session. Countertransferrence is a no-no so do they not dissociate to a certain extent their own moods/feelings/opinions/triggers when dealing with their clients? Maybe our T (for example) is an even more skilled and developed multiple than we are in the sense that she *can* survey and supervise her parts/moods/feelings when she’s being ‘professional’ thus not allowing these parts/moods/feelings to interfere with the work before her. The lesser skilled multiple finds herself at work and less capable (even *not* capable) at times from separating these parts/moods from interfering with her work and interactions. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. 
Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – was sent this recently so i asked stanly if i could repost it here at asd he gave me permission to do so so here it is …food thought 
iain (a bear of little brain) Tuesday 27, November, 2001 Newsletter No 29 MOODS ARE PEOPLE TOO ! From what has become known as ‘multiple personality syndrome’ it is very interesting to speculate and wonder if what we call our ordinary moods are not personalities too; that perhaps what we call the changing moods of daily life are really ‘multiples’ who have been neglected, each mood a person who has been de-personalised as it were, and just given a generic label: a mood. Maybe we just don’t credit each passing mood with a name and being of its own. They are thus less clearly recognisable and, as such, we fail to recognise the distinctiveness of each mood; how it has a life of its own – its own memory, its own view of the world, its own interpretation of the past and future; how each time a certain mood returns it is exactly the same as the last time it visited us – like a well known friend whose character is always the same. Why would it change, it’s exactly the same person as before! Depersonalisation is the name of the game in modern psychology. This may sound a strange thing to say when we think of all the therapeutic methodologies and popular books on psychology that stress the development of the person. The sanctity of the human person is something we all know about. But we make the enormous assumption that there is only one real person to each visible human body. You never hear it said that the goal of therapy is to develop one’s personalities – all of them ! It is the exceptional that is interesting in any kind of research. In the sciences it is the exception to the agreed upon laws of nature that lead to a new and more comprehensive theory. This is no less true in the world of the psyche – it is the odd-ball that is interesting, psychologically. We call the ‘multiple personality’ a ‘dissociative disorder’. But if we step outside the label however, the condition demands we ask: what is the true nature of ‘multiple’ from the viewpoint of the human soul. Simply to regard any one of the multiples as the real one and the rest as ‘alters’ or ’sub-personalities’ simply pulls this unusual phenomena into the old conceptual framework. Trouble is it doesn’t fit. To make it fit we have to add attributes to the phenomena that aren’t really observable. For example, there is often nothing about any of the personalities which distinguishes them as being more real than any of the others. To assume that one of them is, simply because it claims to be, is to ignore the claims of the others. More than that, one of them may get dubbed ‘the real person’ because of the countertransference of the therapist whose educated theory demands that there be one real person. Phenomena that doesn’t fit our assumptions make us nervous. There are exceptional people whose ability to call up ‘other persons within’ is regarded as a gift. I am thinking of the acting profession for example. The actor isn’t just someone who can modify his behaviour at will. The good actor gets inside the character, in fact, becomes the character. This has nothing to do with an act of conscious will, it is a distinct movement of the psyche from one person to another. And it has been known for an actor to get stuck in one of his parts, so that he begins to walk around in daily life with the distinct feeing of being Hamlet, for example. Then there is the novelist who finds herself captured by her characters so that they start to write the story. But perhaps the best example of a multiple-personality-type as a stunning capability is the ‘impersonator’. Just think of Peter Sellers. Now there was a man who could transform himself in the most remarkable way. Each new person he became had an incredible self-consistency. Whatever that character did or said was completely in-character; every nuance of accent, style and unconscious gesture was perfectly consistent. Each character was a complete person; and with Peter Sellers there were literally dozens and dozens of them. He once remarked of himself that he didn’t know who he really was. He must have felt he was inadequate; an inadequacy based, perhaps, on the requirement in our society that one be a single responsible and consistent entity. Theory has it that the true ‘multiple’ is pathological because the dissociation between the ‘persons’ renders them relatively incapable of being aware that the others exist or of remembering what they have said or done. There is no consistent sense of ’self’. So that when he is ‘Joe’ he can’t remember what he has done as ‘Fred’. There can be whole stretches of time that get lost, because Fred’s memory is not Joe’s memory. Most inconvenient of course. It is fairly well established that aetiology of multiple personality is to be found in certain traumatic conditions in childhood. The infant psyche splits in order to be someone else who doesn’t have the pain. It therefore doesn’t want to connect with the one who carries it. Such splitting is an act of repression and a way of saving one’s life. Granted that such conditions are ‘negative’, that is, inimical to life, but it must be remembered that the child’s solution to it is a creative act. The child is using an ability that the soul already has – that we each have. It is true that the wonderful childhood solution to the problem of pain eventually becomes a problem itself – but don’t let’s get stuck on that. In one way, the ‘multiple’ has an enormous advantage. They have fully realised an essential ability of which most of us are only dimly aware. We have only a watered down version we call ‘our moods’. All these consideration raise very important questions – profound questions of identity: everything we mean when we ask, ‘who am I ?’ he real solution to the ‘multiple’ who is having difficulty is not to come at it from the idea of unifying the personality, or of finding the ‘real person’ or of ‘personality integration’ – but rather of developing each of the personalities to their fullest extent, treating each one with respect as a complete person in themselves, realising fully the depth of their differences. On the way they will face and live through those traumas of childhood – you don’t have to search for them. And the various persons will get to know each other better, without trying to integrate them. Eventually they all become a very rich family. For the rest of us unfortunately normal people, perhaps we should give a little more credit to our ordinary moods. At any rate, whenever we think of human rights perhaps we should at least remember that moods are people too. Stanley November
… read more »
Response:
Dear Dayzie, As usual, I find your thoughts to be cogent. I esp. like the question of whether a person can look back on the manifestation of anger as having been against his/her will. People do say things like, "I’m sorry. I was just angry at the time." I think maybe when "normal" people say that, it could possibly be taken to mean that they recognize that they were triggered and made the other person the brunt of their own issues. In the regard, St. Basil’s point of view makes absolute sense – one is so blinded by one’s own triggered feelings that they lash out rather than deal w/the feelings directly within themselves. It’s so uncomfortable to confront feelings such as pain, fear, sadness, that it comes out as anger. For a long time, I have had the strong sense that in many if not most or even all cases, anger lies atop something deeper. It can be complicated – because it can overlie something that is very close to anger, such as a sense of injustice, for example. But then, see, the sense of injustice is therefore connected to other emotions such as pain, sadness, etc. – and if one focuses on the anger, one misses the other feelings, which perhaps make one feel more vulnerable. Just my own thoughts offered here – throw away what doesn’t make sense to you. Oh, and for whatever it’s worth – I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) – same as w/the question of "mind," as in, what does that mean? Best to you – Beauty. — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is the author saying that even ‘normal people’ (singulars) can be found to be distinctly separate from many of their own moods such as anger; periodically experiencing Anger, for example, (as a part/person/mood) as coming forth to express against their will? Another question would be: Has this expression (of Anger for example) become found to have been manifested against their will when they look back and try to own it as their ‘own’ unfortunate behavior? "I’m sorry, I was Angry. I didn’t mean that." Then ‘who’ did? hehehe St Basil once said Anger is a kind of temporary insanity. A mood? A part? A person within a person who is just as angry as the last time Anger came out? Maybe St Basil knew that his own anger was so out of character to himself that he described it as a type of insanity to justify his *own* distinctly-not-him behavior which overtook/influenced/acted against his will. Everyone blows up at some point leaving a trail of hurtful words and other extreme behaviors and voiced opinions which they soon regret. This ‘regret’ for us, specifically when we look back on a part’s activities and realize what (s)he has said/done, is much the same as any person’s tendency to ‘look back’ at the way they insulted a good friend, coworker or family member might be. "I’m sorry, I was angry." could easily been said "I’m sorry, it was Anger." <g If the author’s assumption is that everyone has parts residing in what we’ve learned to identify as just moods, then I was right; my T has parts too (LOL) and like I told her, if she’d just let her guard down and allow another T to guide her into her own world of compartmentalized ‘moods’, she too will discover that she has personalities (moods) who influence her behavior in rl. I think a perfect example of this is how T’s have been trained to shut off their own emotions (moods!) and personal issues while in session. Countertransferrence is a no-no so do they not dissociate to a certain extent their own moods/feelings/opinions/triggers when dealing with their clients? Maybe our T (for example) is an even more skilled and developed multiple than we are in the sense that she *can* survey and supervise her parts/moods/feelings when she’s being ‘professional’ thus not allowing these parts/moods/feelings to interfere with the work before her. The lesser skilled multiple finds herself at work and less capable (even *not* capable) at times from separating these parts/moods from interfering with her work and interactions. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – was sent this recently so i asked stanly if i could repost it here at asd he gave me permission to do so so here it is …food thought iain (a bear of little brain) Tuesday 27, November, 2001 Newsletter No 29 MOODS ARE PEOPLE TOO ! From what has become known as ‘multiple personality syndrome’ it is very interesting to speculate and wonder if what we call our ordinary moods are not personalities too; that perhaps what we call the changing moods of daily life are really ‘multiples’ who have been neglected, each mood a person who has been de-personalised as it were, and just given a generic label: a mood. Maybe we just don’t credit each passing mood with a name and being of its own. They are thus less clearly recognisable and, as such, we fail to recognise the distinctiveness of each mood; how it has a life of its own – its own memory, its own view of the world, its own interpretation of the past and future; how each time a certain mood returns it is exactly the same as the last time it visited us – like a well known friend whose character is always the same. Why would it change, it’s exactly the same person as before! Depersonalisation is the name of the game in modern psychology. This may sound a strange thing to say when we think of all the therapeutic methodologies and popular books on psychology that stress the development of the person. The sanctity of the human person is something we all know about. But we make the enormous assumption that there is only one real person to each visible human body. You never hear it said that the goal of therapy is to develop one’s personalities – all of them ! It is the exceptional that is interesting in any kind of research. In the sciences it is the exception to the agreed upon laws of nature that lead to a new and more comprehensive theory. This is no less true in the world of the psyche – it is the odd-ball that is interesting, psychologically. We call the ‘multiple personality’ a ‘dissociative disorder’. But if we step outside the label however, the condition demands we ask: what is the true nature of ‘multiple’ from the viewpoint of the human soul. Simply to regard any one of the multiples as the real one and the rest as ‘alters’ or ’sub-personalities’ simply pulls this unusual phenomena into the old conceptual framework. Trouble is it doesn’t fit. To make it fit we have to add attributes to the phenomena that aren’t really observable. For example, there is often nothing about any of the personalities which distinguishes them as being more real than any of the others. To assume that one of them is, simply because it claims to be, is to ignore the claims of the others. More than that, one of them may get dubbed ‘the real person’ because of the countertransference of the therapist whose educated theory demands that there be one real person. Phenomena that doesn’t fit our assumptions make us nervous. There are exceptional people whose ability to call up ‘other persons within’ is regarded as a gift. I am thinking of the acting profession for example. The actor isn’t just someone who can modify his behaviour at will. The good actor gets inside the character, in fact, becomes the character. This has nothing to do with an act of conscious will, it is a distinct movement of the psyche from one person to another. And it has been known for an actor to get stuck in one of his parts, so that he begins to walk around in daily life with the distinct feeing of being Hamlet, for example. Then there is the novelist who finds herself captured by her characters so that they start to write the story. But perhaps the best example of a multiple-personality-type as a stunning capability is the ‘impersonator’. Just think of Peter Sellers. Now there was a man who could transform himself in the most remarkable way. Each new person he became had an incredible self-consistency. Whatever that character did or said was completely in-character; every nuance of accent, style and unconscious gesture was perfectly consistent. Each character was a complete person; and with Peter Sellers there were literally dozens and dozens of them. He once remarked of himself that he didn’t know who he really was. He must have felt he was inadequate; an inadequacy based, perhaps, on the requirement in our society that one be a single responsible and consistent entity. Theory has it that the true ‘multiple’ is pathological because the dissociation between the ‘persons’ renders them relatively incapable of being aware that the others exist or of remembering what they have said or done. There is no consistent sense of ’self’. So that when he is ‘Joe’ he can’t remember what he has done as ‘Fred’. There can be whole stretches of time that get lost,
… read more »
Response:
We’ve had a day to think over some of these things. And it is mostly _my_ opinion only. Scherri has some different views. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm….
I don’t know whether everyone else has multiple parts, but I have noticed discrepancies in what a lot of supposedly singular ppl do and say, from one time to another. Maybe there are different parts of the subc*nsc*ous which have an effect on the supposedly singular person. But are the moods ppl… Is there also (apart from the other factors Dayzie mentioned) an independent sense of identity for each mood? While there are a number of things which may act as a tr*gg*r on all of us, I’ve found that each of our moods and reactions may be different even though the st*mulus is the same. Often I find Scherri or Clarity telling me to calm down. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie
they seemed much more organised than anything I’ve written.
…. — http://homepagesDOTparadise.net.nz/morganas/ AntiSpam: Replace DOT with . Remove all other capitals "…And if only I could remember these dreams.. I know they’re trying to tell me … something."
Response:
Thank you Beauty for your thoughts re: moods are people too. Everything you said made sense and I guess I needed your insight to help get my runaway train back on track. HAHA! Food for thought and giggles… I think maybe when "normal" people say that, it could possibly be taken to mean that they recognize that they were triggered and made the other person the brunt of their own issues.
I get it! ‘Triggers’ are people too! hahahaha! Sorry, being silly. But yes, I appreciate what you went on to say…. For a long time, I have had the strong sense that in many if not most or even all cases, anger lies atop something deeper. It can be complicated – because it can overlie something that is very close to anger
*I* am not in touch with my anger. Not by a long shot. However, in observing my parts who seem easily triggered into anger, yes, it’s obvious that it’s almost a decoy or a protective response to otherwise overwhelming and complex ‘feelings’ underneath. In fact, I was truely delighted to discover recently in thp’y that one of my dayzies’ blinding anger was just that… a response to a scenerio which I never, ever before recognized as a very gr*ve trigger for many little ones. (I hesitate to get too specific but this ‘response’ has been going on for many, many, many years while I sat dumbfounded at [what I thought was 'my'] behavior.) It wasn’t until I said "Heh! What on earth are you doing this for?!" that she finally asked me to look at a group of little ones. Whala! She explained exactly why and how her anger was used to protect them. (A massive revelation to me for once.) Scenerio presents itself, she steps in and (sometimes literally) obliterates the the threat while using anger, and the little ones can breath again once she gets the coast clear. Simply amazing Beauty. Simply nearly miraculous this protective reaction of hers turned out to be. (Not so fun for ‘me’ and those involved though!) [snip] if one focuses on the anger, one misses the other feelings, which perhaps make one feel more vulnerable.
Yikes…. interesting thought on that!…. to continue using the same example above; if one part is triggered by utter fear and potential fl*shb*cks etc, ‘another’ part responds in anger as a protective alert, and what the hubby or family may ‘witness’ is anger, but underneath the anger (one alter) *is* protecting the fear (of other alters), literally in this case, so I agree that your theory is the case in many anger-outburst situations. It’s also fascinating to see this in a m*lt*ple situation because it shows the break down of what you described. It happens to everyone (anger protecting deeper more vulnerable feelings) and so… now I’m thinking…. what does the ‘absense’ of anger mean? (moi) LOL. I loved the following line…. I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers)
HA! I love when you write like this. 
) (But intelligent ppl’s is another thing we thrive on for safety. Or something like that. I can feel a shift inside and if I start going belly-up with you too, don’t mind me. I’m just losing strength but it’s not a bad thing, it’s good. Though I’m not sure T would agree, hahaha! Okay, I better shush!). Thank you for provocative input once again. Dayzie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Dayzie, As usual, I find your thoughts to be cogent. I esp. like the question of whether a person can look back on the manifestation of anger as having been against his/her will. People do say things like, "I’m sorry. I was just angry at the time." I think maybe when "normal" people say that, it could possibly be taken to mean that they recognize that they were triggered and made the other person the brunt of their own issues. In the regard, St. Basil’s point of view makes absolute sense – one is so blinded by one’s own triggered feelings that they lash out rather than deal w/the feelings directly within themselves. It’s so uncomfortable to confront feelings such as pain, fear, sadness, that it comes out as anger. For a long time, I have had the strong sense that in many if not most or even all cases, anger lies atop something deeper. It can be complicated – because it can overlie something that is very close to anger, such as a sense of injustice, for example. But then, see, the sense of injustice is therefore connected to other emotions such as pain, sadness, etc. – and if one focuses on the anger, one misses the other feelings, which perhaps make one feel more vulnerable. Just my own thoughts offered here – throw away what doesn’t make sense to you. Oh, and for whatever it’s worth – I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) – same as w/the question of "mind," as in, what does that mean? Best to you – Beauty. — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. Is the author saying that even ‘normal people’ (singulars) can be found to be distinctly separate from many of their own moods such as anger; periodically experiencing Anger, for example, (as a part/person/mood) as coming forth to express against their will? Another question would be: Has this expression (of Anger for example) become found to have been manifested against their will when they look back and try to own it as their ‘own’ unfortunate behavior? "I’m sorry, I was Angry. I didn’t mean that." Then ‘who’ did? hehehe St Basil once said Anger is a kind of temporary insanity. A mood? A part? A person within a person who is just as angry as the last time Anger came out? Maybe St Basil knew that his own anger was so out of character to himself that he described it as a type of insanity to justify his *own* distinctly-not-him behavior which overtook/influenced/acted against his will. Everyone blows up at some point leaving a trail of hurtful words and other extreme behaviors and voiced opinions which they soon regret. This ‘regret’ for us, specifically when we look back on a part’s activities and realize what (s)he has said/done, is much the same as any person’s tendency to ‘look back’ at the way they insulted a good friend, coworker or family member might be. "I’m sorry, I was angry." could easily been said "I’m sorry, it was Anger." <g If the author’s assumption is that everyone has parts residing in what we’ve learned to identify as just moods, then I was right; my T has parts too (LOL) and like I told her, if she’d just let her guard down and allow another T to guide her into her own world of compartmentalized ‘moods’, she too will discover that she has personalities (moods) who influence her behavior in rl. I think a perfect example of this is how T’s have been trained to shut off their own emotions (moods!) and personal issues while in session. Countertransferrence is a no-no so do they not dissociate to a certain extent their own moods/feelings/opinions/triggers when dealing with their clients? Maybe our T (for example) is an even more skilled and developed multiple than we are in the sense that she *can* survey and supervise her parts/moods/feelings when she’s being ‘professional’ thus not allowing these parts/moods/feelings to interfere with the work before her. The lesser skilled multiple finds herself at work and less capable (even *not* capable) at times from separating these parts/moods from interfering with her work and interactions. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie was sent this recently so i asked stanly if i could repost it here at asd he gave me permission to do so so here it is …food thought iain (a bear of little brain) Tuesday 27, November, 2001 Newsletter No 29 MOODS ARE PEOPLE TOO ! From what has become known as ‘multiple personality syndrome’ it is very interesting to speculate and wonder if what we call our ordinary moods are not personalities too; that perhaps what we call the changing moods of daily life are really ‘multiples’ who have been neglected, each mood a person who has been de-personalised as it were, and just given a generic label: a mood. Maybe we just don’t credit each passing mood with a name and being of its own. They are thus less clearly recognisable and, as such, we fail to recognise the distinctiveness of each mood; how it has a life of its own – its own memory, its own view of the world, its own interpretation of the past and future; how each time a certain mood returns it is exactly the same as the last time it visited us – like a well known friend whose character is always the same. Why would it change, it’s exactly the same person
… read more »
Response:
We’ve had a day to think over some of these things. And it is mostly _my_ opinion only. Scherri has some different views.
im not sure what i think, most of my thoughts on this are tentitive and exploritory in that im thinking things and then thinking, do i agree with that thought i just thought of? sometimes i do sometimes i dont an when i dont know which is who an what is why i just go off and find a smackeral of hunney to consolemy self with <giggle Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. I don’t know whether everyone else has multiple parts, but I have noticed discrepancies in what a lot of supposedly singular ppl do and say, from one time to another. Maybe there are different parts of the subc*nsc*ous which have an effect on the supposedly singular person.
yes i knotice discrepencys in myself at time its almost as if my experiences have hardwired behaiviour, thoughts, feelings and an overall tone (mood) to situations. these "me’s" are at odds to who i think i am, for a suposidly singular identity disorderd person i seem to exibit patterns reminisent of normal (mp) ppl’s. its like im a chamelian triing to blend in to a current situation yet at other times i know im being someone id rather not be. But are the moods ppl… Is there also (apart from the other factors Dayzie mentioned) an independent sense of identity for each mood?
im leaning towards the "i dont think so" camp. in that, if im being a real bitch, im still me dont look jill, its a pun <grin While there are a number of things which may act as a tr*gg*r on all of us, I’ve found that each of our moods and reactions may be different even though the st*mulus is the same. Often I find Scherri or Clarity telling me to calm down. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie they seemed much more organised than anything I’ve written.
i think everyone in this thread is putting forth good thoughts on this idea iain (a bear of little brain) — behind every good fish is a bike with a flat tyre – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ….
Response:
Hello Dayzie – [massive snip here, plus snip at end, of original article] — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I loved the following line…. I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) HA! I love when you write like this. ) (But intelligent ppl’s is another thing we thrive on for safety. Or something like that. I can feel a shift inside and if I start going belly-up with you too, don’t mind me. I’m just losing strength but it’s not a bad thing, it’s good. Though I’m not sure T would agree, hahaha! Okay, I better shush!). Thank you for provocative input once again.
Oh, Dayzie – haven’t we made it clear that we often greatly appreciate the way you center in on thoughts and issues? And – as for intelligence – ain’t there all varieties? That’s what I keep trying to tell my son – there are all kinds of "smart," and all kinds of brilliance. It’s just that our society seems limited in recognizing things. Also – just a plea: I am not trying to be a freak or a show-off, I’m just being how I am. Not that I felt accused by you, but I have felt accused often in my life. I can’t help how I was built and what my interests turned out to be (words, ideas . . . and other things, too, but the words and ideas thing seems to get some people going sometimes). Anyhow, I’d be interested to know about the losing strength thing if it ever becomes possible to say anything more. Very best – Beauty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dayzie Dear Dayzie, As usual, I find your thoughts to be cogent. I esp. like the question of whether a person can look back on the manifestation of anger as having been against his/her will. People do say things like, "I’m sorry. I was just angry at the time." I think maybe when "normal" people say that, it could possibly be taken to mean that they recognize that they were triggered and made the other person the brunt of their own issues. In the regard, St. Basil’s point of view makes absolute sense – one is so blinded by one’s own triggered feelings that they lash out rather than deal w/the feelings directly within themselves. It’s so uncomfortable to confront feelings such as pain, fear, sadness, that it comes out as anger. For a long time, I have had the strong sense that in many if not most or even all cases, anger lies atop something deeper. It can be complicated – because it can overlie something that is very close to anger, such as a sense of injustice, for example. But then, see, the sense of injustice is therefore connected to other emotions such as pain, sadness, etc. – and if one focuses on the anger, one misses the other feelings, which perhaps make one feel more vulnerable. Just my own thoughts offered here – throw away what doesn’t make sense to you. Oh, and for whatever it’s worth – I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) – same as w/the question of "mind," as in, what does that mean? Best to you – Beauty. — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. Is the author saying that even ‘normal people’ (singulars) can be found to be distinctly separate from many of their own moods such as anger; periodically experiencing Anger, for example, (as a part/person/mood) as coming forth to express against their will? Another question would be: Has this expression (of Anger for example) become found to have been manifested against their will when they look back and try to own it as their ‘own’ unfortunate behavior? "I’m sorry, I was Angry. I didn’t mean that." Then ‘who’ did? hehehe St Basil once said Anger is a kind of temporary insanity. A mood? A part? A person within a person who is just as angry as the last time Anger came out? Maybe St Basil knew that his own anger was so out of character to himself that he described it as a type of insanity to justify his *own* distinctly-not-him behavior which overtook/influenced/acted against his will. Everyone blows up at some point leaving a trail of hurtful words and other extreme behaviors and voiced opinions which they soon regret. This ‘regret’ for us, specifically when we look back on a part’s activities and realize what (s)he has said/done, is much the same as any person’s tendency to ‘look back’ at the way they insulted a good friend, coworker or family member might be. "I’m sorry, I was angry." could easily been said "I’m sorry, it was Anger." <g If the author’s assumption is that everyone has parts residing in what we’ve learned to identify as just moods, then I was right; my T has parts too (LOL) and like I told her, if she’d just let her guard down and allow another T to guide her into her own world of compartmentalized ‘moods’, she too will discover that she has personalities (moods) who influence her behavior in rl. I think a perfect example of this is how T’s have been trained to shut off their own emotions (moods!) and personal issues while in session. Countertransferrence is a no-no so do they not dissociate to a certain extent their own moods/feelings/opinions/triggers when dealing with their clients? Maybe our T (for example) is an even more skilled and developed multiple than we are in the sense that she *can* survey and supervise her parts/moods/feelings when she’s being ‘professional’ thus not allowing these parts/moods/feelings to interfere with the work before her. The lesser skilled multiple finds herself at work and less capable (even *not* capable) at times from separating these parts/moods from interfering with her work and interactions. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie was sent this recently so i asked stanly if i could repost it here at asd he gave me permission to do so so here it is …food thought iain (a bear of little brain) Tuesday 27, November, 2001 Newsletter No 29 MOODS ARE PEOPLE TOO ! From what has become known as ‘multiple personality syndrome’ it is very interesting to speculate and wonder if what we call our ordinary moods are not personalities too; that perhaps what we call the changing moods of daily life are really ‘multiples’ who have been neglected, each mood a person who has been de-personalised as it were, and just given a generic label: a mood. Maybe we just don’t credit each passing mood with a name and being of its own. They are thus less clearly recognisable and, as such, we fail to recognise the distinctiveness of each mood; how it has a life of its own – its own memory, its own view of the world, its own interpretation of the past and future; how each time a certain mood returns it is exactly the same as the last time it visited us – like a well known friend whose character is always the same. Why would it change, it’s exactly the same person as before! Depersonalisation is the name of the game in modern psychology. This may sound a strange thing to say when we think of all the therapeutic methodologies and popular books on psychology that stress the development of the person. The sanctity of the human person is something we all know about. But we make the enormous assumption that there is only one real person to each visible human body. You never hear it said that the goal of therapy is to develop one’s personalities – all of them ! It is the exceptional that is interesting in any kind of research. In the sciences it is the exception to the agreed upon laws of nature that lead to a new and more comprehensive theory. This is no less true in the world of the psyche – it is the odd-ball that is interesting, psychologically. We call the ‘multiple personality’ a ‘dissociative disorder’. But if we step outside the label however, the condition demands we ask: what is the true nature of ‘multiple’ from the viewpoint of the human soul. Simply to regard any one of the multiples as the real one and the rest as ‘alters’ or ’sub-personalities’ simply pulls this unusual phenomena into the old conceptual framework. Trouble is it
… read more »
Response:
Dayzie wrote…
. HA! I love when you write like this. ) (But intelligent ppl’s is another thing we thrive on for safety. Or something like that. I can feel a shift inside and if I start going belly-up with you too, don’t mind me. I’m just losing strength but it’s not a bad thing, it’s good. Beauty wrote… Also – just a plea: I am not trying to be a freak or a show-off, I’m just being how I am. Not that I felt accused by you, but I have felt accused often in my life.
ruhroh! Remembering now, a long time ago when we were very new here I think you said about you being expected to be intelligent. We’s *so* very sorry we complimented that. Very very sorry. Hard to keep everyone’s soft spots rememberd. 
And we have our own soft spot w/liking so much, ppl who are uh, you know. We’re sorry beauty. Please forgive if we forget these things (others’ soft spots) again for anyone here in asd. Would never intentionally do that. (referenced from top quote)… Anyhow, I’d be interested to know about the losing strength thing if it ever becomes possible to say anything more.
Ok, ‘losing strength’ meant *I* was trying to stay with the post but because we (this isn’t going to be easy for me, k?) started switching to one who very much looks up to you (we’ve mentioned that to you before?) There are others here too whom we admire for their uh, hmmm… how can I say it…. ability to [trying not to repeat my offense] to… aw heck, it’s a type of transferrence issue I *think*, ok? It is in no way negative, in fact the very opposite, like I said, ‘look up to you’ but isn’t that ok to do with any acquaintance? There are ppl who challenge us etc. and we admire others’ qualities and that is like what happens with you for us. So, the on/e(s?) who are intrigued with your qualities and ways with words was forcing her way forward as we read your post and I didn’t want to switch because that would mean she would start to go belly-up and rush to your feet rather than allow me to continue on with our dialogue about ‘moods are ppl too’. <eyeballing that pile of sand to stick my head in, Dayzie I’m sorry beauty. never wanna do nithing to bother you ever ok? this happens with some ppl we know and it can get embarassing and awkward for us. wish we were just normal (exclamation point). Wish we could not have to have so many conflicting thoughts and feelings though in RL we glide through so undetected. Maybe someone in this ng knows what I’m saying and has some advise. I’m very open to any. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello Dayzie – [massive snip here, plus snip at end, of original article] — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. I loved the following line…. I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) HA! I love when you write like this. ) (But intelligent ppl’s is another thing we thrive on for safety. Or something like that. I can feel a shift inside and if I start going belly-up with you too, don’t mind me. I’m just losing strength but it’s not a bad thing, it’s good. Though I’m not sure T would agree, hahaha! Okay, I better shush!). Thank you for provocative input once again. Oh, Dayzie – haven’t we made it clear that we often greatly appreciate the way you center in on thoughts and issues? And – as for intelligence – ain’t there all varieties? That’s what I keep trying to tell my son – there are all kinds of "smart," and all kinds of brilliance. It’s just that our society seems limited in recognizing things. Also – just a plea: I am not trying to be a freak or a show-off, I’m just being how I am. Not that I felt accused by you, but I have felt accused often in my life. I can’t help how I was built and what my interests turned out to be (words, ideas . . . and other things, too, but the words and ideas thing seems to get some people going sometimes). Anyhow, I’d be interested to know about the losing strength thing if it ever becomes possible to say anything more. Very best – Beauty. Dayzie Dear Dayzie, As usual, I find your thoughts to be cogent. I esp. like the question of whether a person can look back on the manifestation of anger as having been against his/her will. People do say things like, "I’m sorry. I was just angry at the time." I think maybe when "normal" people say that, it could possibly be taken to mean that they recognize that they were triggered and made the other person the brunt of their own issues. In the regard, St. Basil’s point of view makes absolute sense – one is so blinded by one’s own triggered feelings that they lash out rather than deal w/the feelings directly within themselves. It’s so uncomfortable to confront feelings such as pain, fear, sadness, that it comes out as anger. For a long time, I have had the strong sense that in many if not most or even all cases, anger lies atop something deeper. It can be complicated – because it can overlie something that is very close to anger, such as a sense of injustice, for example. But then, see, the sense of injustice is therefore connected to other emotions such as pain, sadness, etc. – and if one focuses on the anger, one misses the other feelings, which perhaps make one feel more vulnerable. Just my own thoughts offered here – throw away what doesn’t make sense to you. Oh, and for whatever it’s worth – I don’t think that moods are people, too. I think, actually, that the whole language of identity is much more complicated and metaphorical than is practical to deal with most of the time (which is why we have philosophers) – same as w/the question of "mind," as in, what does that mean? Best to you – Beauty. — To email me, remove "nospam" from my address. Is the author saying that even ‘normal people’ (singulars) can be found to be distinctly separate from many of their own moods such as anger; periodically experiencing Anger, for example, (as a part/person/mood) as coming forth to express against their will? Another question would be: Has this expression (of Anger for example) become found to have been manifested against their will when they look back and try to own it as their ‘own’ unfortunate behavior? "I’m sorry, I was Angry. I didn’t mean that." Then ‘who’ did? hehehe St Basil once said Anger is a kind of temporary insanity. A mood? A part? A person within a person who is just as angry as the last time Anger came out? Maybe St Basil knew that his own anger was so out of character to himself that he described it as a type of insanity to justify his *own* distinctly-not-him behavior which overtook/influenced/acted against his will. Everyone blows up at some point leaving a trail of hurtful words and other extreme behaviors and voiced opinions which they soon regret. This ‘regret’ for us, specifically when we look back on a part’s activities and realize what (s)he has said/done, is much the same as any person’s tendency to ‘look back’ at the way they insulted a good friend, coworker or family member might be. "I’m sorry, I was angry." could easily been said "I’m sorry, it was Anger." <g If the author’s assumption is that everyone has parts residing in what we’ve learned to identify as just moods, then I was right; my T has parts too (LOL) and like I told her, if she’d just let her guard down and allow another T to guide her into her own world of compartmentalized ‘moods’, she too will discover that she has personalities (moods) who influence her behavior in rl. I think a perfect example of this is how T’s have been trained to shut off their own emotions (moods!) and personal issues while in session. Countertransferrence is a no-no so do they not dissociate to a certain extent their own moods/feelings/opinions/triggers when dealing with their clients? Maybe our T (for example) is an even more skilled and developed multiple than we are in the sense that she *can* survey and supervise her parts/moods/feelings when she’s being ‘professional’ thus not allowing these parts/moods/feelings to interfere with the work before her. The lesser skilled multiple finds herself at work and less capable (even *not* capable) at times from separating these parts/moods from interfering with her work and interactions. Just thinking outloud here. I could be way off track but there’s a sensing here that I’ve come to suspect concerning everyone having parts. T told me that the difference is that she doesn’t have the accompanying memory sectors, amnesia and other classic signs of multipl*city. Hmmm…. Just some unorganized thoughts, Dayzie
… read more »
Response:
was sent this recently so i asked stanly if i could repost it here at asd he gave me permission to do so so here it is …food thought iain (a bear of little brain) Tuesday 27, November, 2001 Newsletter No 29 MOODS ARE PEOPLE TOO ! From what has become known as ‘multiple personality syndrome’ it is very interesting to speculate and wonder if what we call our ordinary moods are not personalities too; that perhaps what we call the changing moods of daily life are really ‘multiples’ who have been neglected, each mood a person who has been de-personalised as it were, and just given a generic label: a mood. Maybe we just don’t credit each passing mood with a name and being of its own. They are thus less clearly recognisable and, as such, we fail to recognise the distinctiveness of each mood; how it has a life of its own – its own memory, its own view of the world, its own interpretation of the past and future; how each time a certain mood returns it is exactly the same as the last time it visited us – like a well known friend whose character is always the same. Why would it change, it’s exactly the same person as before! Depersonalisation is the name of the game in modern psychology. This may sound a strange thing to say when we think of all the therapeutic methodologies and popular books on psychology that stress the development of the person. The sanctity of the human person is something we all know about. But we make the enormous assumption that there is only one real person to each visible human body. You never hear it said that the goal of therapy is to develop one’s personalities – all of them ! It is the exceptional that is interesting in any kind of research. In the sciences it is the exception to the agreed upon laws of nature that lead to a new and more comprehensive theory. This is no less true in the world of the psyche – it is the odd-ball that is interesting, psychologically. We call the ‘multiple personality’ a ‘dissociative disorder’. But if we step outside the label however, the condition demands we ask: what is the true nature of ‘multiple’ from the viewpoint of the human soul. Simply to regard any one of the multiples as the real one and the rest as ‘alters’ or ’sub-personalities’ simply pulls this unusual phenomena into the old conceptual framework. Trouble is it doesn’t fit. To make it fit we have to add attributes to the phenomena that aren’t really observable. For example, there is often nothing about any of the personalities which distinguishes them as being more real than any of the others. To assume that one of them is, simply because it claims to be, is to ignore the claims of the others. More than that, one of them may get dubbed ‘the real person’ because of the countertransference of the therapist whose educated theory demands that there be one real person. Phenomena that doesn’t fit our assumptions make us nervous. There are exceptional people whose ability to call up ‘other persons within’ is regarded as a gift. I am thinking of the acting profession for example. The actor isn’t just someone who can modify his behaviour at will. The good actor gets inside the character, in fact, becomes the character. This has nothing to do with an act of conscious will, it is a distinct movement of the psyche from one person to another. And it has been known for an actor to get stuck in one of his parts, so that he begins to walk around in daily life with the distinct feeing of being Hamlet, for example. Then there is the novelist who finds herself captured by her characters so that they start to write the story. But perhaps the best example of a multiple-personality-type as a stunning capability is the ‘impersonator’. Just think of Peter Sellers. Now there was a man who could transform himself in the most remarkable way. Each new person he became had an incredible self-consistency. Whatever that character did or said was completely in-character; every nuance of accent, style and unconscious gesture was perfectly consistent. Each character was a complete person; and with Peter Sellers there were literally dozens and dozens of them. He once remarked of himself that he didn’t know who he really was. He must have felt he was inadequate; an inadequacy based, perhaps, on the requirement in our society that one be a single responsible and consistent entity. Theory has it that the true ‘multiple’ is pathological because the dissociation between the ‘persons’ renders them relatively incapable of being aware that the others exist or of remembering what they have said or done. There is no consistent sense of ’self’. So that when he is ‘Joe’ he can’t remember what he has done as ‘Fred’. There can be whole stretches of time that get lost, because Fred’s memory is not Joe’s memory. Most inconvenient of course. It is fairly well established that aetiology of multiple personality is to be found in certain traumatic conditions in childhood. The infant psyche splits in order to be someone else who doesn’t have the pain. It therefore doesn’t want to connect with the one who carries it. Such splitting is an act of repression and a way of saving one’s life. Granted that such conditions are ‘negative’, that is, inimical to life, but it must be remembered that the child’s solution to it is a creative act. The child is using an ability that the soul already has – that we each have. It is true that the wonderful childhood solution to the problem of pain eventually becomes a problem itself – but don’t let’s get stuck on that. In one way, the ‘multiple’ has an enormous advantage. They have fully realised an essential ability of which most of us are only dimly aware. We have only a watered down version we call ‘our moods’. All these consideration raise very important questions – profound questions of identity: everything we mean when we ask, ‘who am I ?’ he real solution to the ‘multiple’ who is having difficulty is not to come at it from the idea of unifying the personality, or of finding the ‘real person’ or of ‘personality integration’ – but rather of developing each of the personalities to their fullest extent, treating each one with respect as a complete person in themselves, realising fully the depth of their differences. On the way they will face and live through those traumas of childhood – you don’t have to search for them. And the various persons will get to know each other better, without trying to integrate them. Eventually they all become a very rich family. For the rest of us unfortunately normal people, perhaps we should give a little more credit to our ordinary moods. At any rate, whenever we think of human rights perhaps we should at least remember that moods are people too. Stanley November 01 The Association for Analytical Psychology Incorporated CH/644399 Coordinator, Matthew Olsen 1a Woodbridge Rd.CHRISTCHURCH Phone : (03) 332 9171 Email Stanley at Archetypal Psychology Site Brian’s Archetypal Psychology Site The C.G.Jung Page The Jung Lexicon
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.