Autumn Asphodel

Syrup,

Though I appreciate where you’re coming from, the question of whether spiritual possession is real or not (and in what way is it real) has, for me, never been as black and white as this. I don’t know what counts as the “most rational explanation.” I’m sure a scientific minded person would agree with you. I’m sure a deeply religious person would disagree. Typically, I find that when pressed to explain what counts as a “rational” explanation, most people reveal something along the lines of: it makes the most sense to me, or: it leaves the least number of questions lingering. ← But even there, it’s a whole can of worms to decide why more questions would arise from one explanation rather than another, and how do you enumerate the number of questions that arise, and are there really more questions that arise or simply the questions that arise draw more attention or seem more important to answer. I think the last thing “rationality” means in this case is: when the rules of formal logic are applied, this is the conclusion we arrive at.

But in any case, I know I’m drawn to spiritual explanations for things a lot more than the average person. This is partly because spirituality fascinates me, but also because of my anti-epistemicism–that is, my heightened skepticism over so-called knowledge–and this is not just a consequence of how limited I think human beings are in their ability to know things, but of how politically motivated people are in disseminating information. People lie. They deceive. Even in expounding scientific reports and teaching children in our schools. The process by which religious institutions indoctrinate children so that they become believers is the same process by which scientific institutions indoctrinate children so that they become believers. Formally speaking, unless I was actually there to see it myself, I don’t say that I know this or that scientific fact, I say I’m told this or that scientific fact, or that I read this or that scientific fact. So setting the epistemic bar so high, and not knowing the true nature of the universe and spiritual reality, I’m inclined to place different interpretations of things (like cases of DID) on relatively equal footing.

I have no idea how DID works. Again, it’s probably not as black and white as this. I know Autumn calls herself an atypical case of DID primarily because she doesn’t deny the existence of her alters, and when push comes to shove, admits they are all her (and I think this is probably in large part a result of therapy). From what I can tell, DID is acting, but it’s acting on an unconscious level using defense mechanisms that can result in loss of memory and “black outs,” leaving the subject on a conscious level to not know what the hell’s going on. But as such, this means that the host can call upon the alters at will if she believes she can–that is, if this is all play acting, then all she has to do is play act that she can call upon them at will.

James,

Interesting concept, James, but I don’t know if this is the concept of a demon, just a concept. The layman’s concept, and that of deeply religious people following traditional Western theology, is that of a literal incorporeal spirit who invades a person’s body and takes control of it, essentially overriding the host’s control. This may be a misconception of the original concept, but if it is, the original concept is lost to history and this is what the modern concept has come to mean.

You’re right about computers (although they don’t always work this way), but I’m not sure this is how it works in the brain (have you studied this?). But on an abstract level, I agree that it works this way. Each personality has its own set of memories that it keep separate from the others. If personality A sensed, during a pre-conscious stage, that memories from personality B are coming to consciousness, then she will block those memories out. Since DID is just play acting on an unconscious level, she would have to know, on an unconscious level, that those memories are associated with personality B, and therefore would know to block them out (as opposed to letting them in an wondering where the hell they came from). ← If this is the case, I would surmise that the organizational structure of the memories is driven more by associations (i.e. which personality it is associated with) rather than where in the brain they are stored. Metaphorically, you might think of the personalities as colors. Personality A might be red. Personality B might be blue. If the subject is currently acting out the red persona, and she senses a blue memory coming in, it’s the blue that signals to here to repress it. In the brain, you can imagine the red and blue memories being scattered all about, or strewn amongst each other (such that if you were to look at it from a distance, you’d see a blotch of purple in the brain). So it’s more a property of the memory, its associations, rather than where it is in the brain.

I agree with this. Memory associations are not just records of things that happened, of experiences from the past, but emotions and attitudes and such as well. The latter come from things that happened and experiences from the past, which almost always come with some kind of emotional tinge, leading to attitude formations, but the actual event or experience need not always be stored in memory, or come to consciousness from some kind of trigger, whereas the attitudes and emotions associated with the memory more often do come to consciousness. It’s the latter which really define, or at least heavily taint, the personality who, in the past, experienced those events.

Mm-hm.

Well, if we go with the play acting theory of DID, this is a good analogy.

These medications which result in DID, were they around in mideival Europe when demon possession was thought to be commonplace?

But not dissociation… or is there dissociation with these disorders? If not, in what way does the mechanism for storing memories change with cases of autism and AD(H)D? Being distracted or failing to pay attention, in the case of AD(H)D, would result in certain inputs not being remembered at all (for example, what the teacher is saying to the class). Or are you saying it is always remembered, just that if the subject is not paying attention, they will be remembered in a different spot in memory (dissociated) and the subject will find it hard to recall those memories since being distracted or not paying attention results in no associations being formed to those memories?

You know this from personal experience or you just done a lot of heavy studying?

That sounds like saying: if a dark “evil” personality comes off as a possessing demon, then exorcism can be achieved by nurturing a more light, benevolent, confident personality in one’s self. One simply has to concentrate on acting out that personality and sticking with it. ← Is that what you mean?

In Autumn’s case, those would be the protectors I suppose.

Yes, I agree with that. It’s much easier to crack an egg than to mend one.

On the note about medication causing disorders, what would you say about my own case? I have ADD (or something close to that). In grade 3, I was put on ritalin. It seemed to work in terms of helping me focus in school and improve my grades, and not only while I was on it, but after they took me off (it was like I learned how to focus, at least in school). Now, it was obvious to everyone that I had something like ADD before they put me on medication (so obviously, the medication didn’t cause it) and after putting me on medication, the problem, at least insofar as my ability to focus in school and get good grades, went away, and seemed to stay away even after the medication was lifted. ← What do you say about that?

I am very sceptical of explanations for anything that are non scientific as there is no way of determining how true they might be
Ever since the Enlightenment science has been the only consistently reliable methodology for explaining observable phenomena
I am atheist so I do not consider non scientific explanations valid. I accept that science can not answer everything but that does
not mean other methodologies can. I think everything has a physical explanation for it even if some explanations are not known

My apologies gib, I forgot how terribly superficial you are. When I say “medical”, I am referring to the biochemistry of the physiology, not medicinal pharmaceuticals, ie toxins, radicals, viruses, fungi, bacteria, and even sonological and radiological influences on the physiometrics.

Thanks for that, James

Ah, so by medical, you meant the body’s own natural biochemistry. My apologies. I can see how my superficial understand blinded me to your obvious definition that only a deep thinker would apprehend.

I said nothing about “natural”.

Oh, well aren’t you a fountain of clarity. Come back to me when you’re ready to stop talking in riddles.

Ask another question when you are willing to paying attention to the details of what is written (not PRESUME).

Okay James, I will not presume. I must ask what you mean by the things you say. Let’s try it:

What do you mean by “ask”?

What do you mean by “another”?

What do you mean by “question”?

… etc, etc, etc.

^ No presumptions here. I’m done with that. I mean, I certainly can’t take your meaning at face value (like I can with everyone else for some reason); you obviously have very deep and profound meanings to the things you say. When you say “apple,” you might actually mean “orange”–so I’d better not presume to know what you mean. I must pause to ask before I come to you with a response.

This is starting to feel like a conversation with Magnus.

:laughing:

I saw how you enjoyed that one.
=D>

Meet Jessie:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRDqs2t2Y8[/youtube]

^ Here we have another interesting case of DID. Once again, by amazing coincidence, we have 5 personalities. This girl has four boys dwelling within her: Ed, Jamie, Jake, and Ollie.

Ollie, for some reason, did not make an appearance in the above video. I’ve not watched any of Jessie’s other videos, so I’m probably jumping to conclusions, but I’ll bet Ollie is the traumatized one who did not want to make an appearance in the video.

Things I find fascinating about the case of Jessie:

  • All boys. Why does Jessie consistently choose boys? Is it her choice? It’s also fascinating that only one of them (Ollie notwithstanding) appears to be gay (Ed), which means that not only is the gender consistently opposite of Jessie’s natural/original gender, but the sexual orientation is often opposite as well (though I’m really only speculating here since Jake and Jamie, even though they act straight, might in fact also be gay–which is really weird to say because you have a male oriented sexual preference dwelling inside a female body, yet this isn’t considered a straight female, but a gay male living inside a female body :confused: ). I’m also curious to know how Jessie’s husband feels about these boys and visa-versa. When Jessie’s husband makes love to Jessie, do the boys (at least the straight ones if they are straight) black out? And even if they do, they have to know that they are technically married to a man and that he occasionally makes love to them, or at least their bodies… awkward. This also makes me wonder: assuming at least Jake and Jamie are straight boys, do they miss the opportunity to make love to a woman? To have a girlfriend?

  • All different ages. We’re not told in this video how old Jessie is, but Jake is 24, Ed is 26, and Jamie is 28 (all 2 years apart). Is this indicative of how long they’ve been a part of the host? Depending on how old Jessie is, that means they entered into her life at an extremely young age.

  • Fully articulated American accent. I’m speaking of Jake here. Jake apparently is American! Or Canadian maybe (any other country speak with our accents?). Now, learning to speak with a different accent isn’t that hard. It most likely was an acquired skill that evolved over time. What would really surprise me is if Jessie acquired Jake at a very young and started speaking in a perfect American accent right from the get-go. ← This would really give the impression of being possession by a foreign spirit.

Now again, the question of spiritual possession comes up: in this case, the three alters being presented here seem rather innocuous–relatively good, or normal, spirits–and not only that but very human–that is, if we are to go with the interpretation of “spiritual possession,” I’d place my bets on human souls who have departed this life and have been given the opportunity to “possess” another person’s body for a while (as opposed to a non-human entity like an angel or a demon). There’s also the possibility of psychic connection which I’ve entertained: other human beings concurrently living somewhere else on this Earth forming a psychic connection to the host and speaking through here. Now, this is all notwithstanding Ollie, the fifth personality, whom we didn’t get to see. It’s quite possible that Ollie is the “demonic” personality (which would explain the lack of appearance, especially given Jessie’s desire to not portray DID in a bad light). And on this note, there is a readily available psychological explanation for why cases of DID so often feature a “demon” personality, thereby confounding it with cases of actual demonic possession. It’s because cases of DID are usually born from trauma, and the initial split is often one whereby one personality takes on the trauma and all the horrible memories while the other gets to live relatively trauma free with their own set of memories which aren’t nearly as horrible. The traumatized personality is “shut off” (i.e. repressed into the unconscious) so that the host or the person as a whole can go on living life without having to suffer or relive the trauma. This, however, means that the traumatized altered is, when expressed, going to come off as a possessing demon or at least haunted by demons–it is going to seem very dark, disturbed, very bitter and angry, spiteful, maybe full of hate, and quite possibly “evil”–and if not these, then certainly being the victim of these, thereby giving the impression of something very “demonic” in its midst.

One last thing to note about Jessie: in the intro to her video, she speaks as the host–the normal (original) person she thinks of herself as–and she decorates the video with a lot of innocent seeming, pleasant, happy themes–like something out of a medieval princess fairy tale:

I’m talking about the music and the superimposed banners and such. She sounds British from the accent, so this may be common among Brits given their long history, but it also seems to serve her purpose of trying to distance the reputation of DID away from the crazed, inner-psychopath, demonically possessed (gee, I’m helping a lot here, ain’t I :laughing:), stereotypical image, and closer to something you might find in a kids fairy tale book. ← I would expect this to come quite naturally to cases of DID.

UPDATE:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5Pi_-LboY[/youtube]

I just watched this video and have gotten a few questions answered.

  1. Jessie’s husband is bisexual… 'nough said.

  2. Ollie is not the demon–the reason why Ollie didn’t make an appearance in the first video is because Ed and Jamie didn’t want to subject their son to that kind of public exposure–that’s right, Ollie is Ed’s and Jamie’s SON!!!–don’t ask how it happened–the whole birds and bees theory flies right out the window with this one (maybe they weren’t wearing contraceptives that night)–but apparently, they had a kid together and named him “Ollie”.

  3. Jamie is gay… or at least bisexual.

A few more interesting tid bits:

  1. Jamie is a doctor.

  2. Jake is a rock star.

^ This reeeally is play acting, isn’t it?

But then again…

  1. Jamie really does need prescription spectacles, because his eye sight gets blurry, unlike any of the other alters.

So if Ollie isn’t the demon, then who is? Does there need to be a demon? I suppose not, but if cases of DID are really born out of childhood trauma, then there would have to be (I would think) at least a few personalities which are most strongly tied to the traumatic experience–and in that sense, closest to the “demon.” After watching the above video, I would have to nominate Ed–he seems the most troubled and aggressive, and the one whom it has been most difficult for Jessie to get along with.

^ All this coming from the point of view of a drug crazed, demon possessed, divorced 40 year old ADD kid–no biases here!!! Total, total, total impartial objectivity! ← Right here!

.
Since you seem to be fascinated by the new age gender bender trope industry:

^ Good work, James. Did you write that?

No. That’s industry standard.

I think that a demon in this case or a second or third or fifth personality is a set of terms to value oneself in.

Its just a standard of self-valuing that can cohabitate in the same body as 4 others. Pretty simple nothing to worry about any more than “normal” humans - who might in many cases even be more happy if they had several personalities too.

I find it healthy to wear masks from time to time, it offers pathways into experience, which is the real identity.

If you don’t find me convincing, listen to my alter-ego:

" As humans, most of our time we spend in avoiding experiences. In our seeking-out of what we aim to experience, we are shifting and sneaking along the invisible walls facing us from every direction but the one we seek to disclose - the walled off area of “the real” is however constantly accessible, these walls can be broken down with the force of intent. The lack of this intent is precisely what makes us effective as prolonged identities, which leads finally in complex beings to what we can begin to call experience.

The identity of experience is experience accepted into the being as its being. The same mechanisms that cause experience, also perform a lot of activity going on that is not ‘owned’ by the organism. Freud goes into this as a repressed - suggesting that the identity of this experience is already ‘the name of the subject’, but actively kept away from its consciousness. I would propose that we address this differently - as ‘untranslated affect’, affect not yet interpreted in terms of the particular self-valuing.

Psychoanalysis is not the art of retrieving experiences to consciousness, but to identify physical affect as experience. This is always done after the fact, also when there is no ‘repression’, or what I would call simply an insufficient power to identify in terms of self - the delicate dove-like beauty of the self to itself facing very dangerous and compromising affect, “raw” affect, which can not be specified, categorized in ‘true terms’ as Spinoza has it - pleasure or joy (laetitia), pain or sorrow (tristitia)and desire (cupiditas) or appetite. "

Since the belief in Ego is as hollow as belief in One God, it is only natural that people fall away from the illusion into a poly-egotism, to later on realize the plurality of being-as-such, and create new Pantheons of Pleasure.

Or pain and then they are condemned to suffer another illusion and find a way to return but then whoever opens that door must go down before another turn of the great wheel.

It would be interesting to see just how much an artifact of modern day civilization this one ego really is… how prevalent does DID become the further back in history, and into pre-history, we go. Would a single ego have been the exception rather than the rule in pre-historic times? If so, that would explain a great deal of the spiritual/religious orientation of early man–the belief in spiritual possession.

Well you can see it in politics. People have been possessed by Hillary Clinton, who in turn is evidently possessed -
there is no entity, no reality, no accountability - one facet kills, the other moralizes - both in her and her supporters.

I am not being annoying. I mean this 100%. Modern Liberal Ideology is a haunted house. Hollywood is a world of demonic possessions. Actors, in general, are schizoid and lack that singular moral accountability, as we have all been able to see recently.

I think that Trump is someone who is not possessed by spirits - and an exception in politics -
beautifully, this means he gets surrounded by spirits - like Kek, et all.

I mean this dead-seriously, Gib. I am sure our civilization has come to an end, Trump is a transition figure to prevent complete dissolution of life in the process.

Facebook makes schizoid, Snapchat guarantees complete insanity, complete detachment of ego forms from the classical notions of Apollonian unity.

(Apollo is the symbol designating one-ness of ego. Dionysos, his brother, signifies the reality underneath it - when its healthy. When its not, you get this.)

Jacob, stop tempting me to respect you.