Merges vs. Lock-Merges

[BearBaeBeau]

This is not about Bear System, so this is not a lounge topic. This discusses a rarely used device in plural systems to manage large numbers of headmates.

 

---

 

We've previously discussed SheShe as our lock-merge and how she's not like typical merges. It's been over a year since her formation and we have had time to experience that and understand it better.

 

Previously we assumed SheShe was like a hub and her constituents were aspects of her that she could express, split off, or represent at her will. It's subtlety but profoundly different from that.

 

Joy is a part of SheShe now, and has been for over a year of course, but what has become very clear recently is that anything Joy says or does is also taken as if Joy is the lock-merge and SheShe is one of *her* independent constituents. In other words, they're all interchangeable. SheShe is just a part, not the hub of a five constituent merge. Furthermore, whoever is being expressed is also co-conscious with everyone else. So they're experiencing life as a collective of individuals that dispite being uniquely different from one another, maintain their uniqueness even if one in particular is expressed for long periods; No bleeding, bleaching, or blending is happening at all as far as we can tell.

 

In contrast to Risha, who we've been spending time with; where neither Misha nor Ren identify with what Risha says and does, is treated like she's just someone they know and observe what she does as a separate individual.

 

SheShe, Ren, Joy, Darlene and Gwen combine to indentify as one person and experience it as themselves playing the part of whoever's expressed.

 

I found this a remarkable and significant. It means, systemmates can be combined using Lock-Merge without a hub. They can be assembled and can co-exist and co-experience as themselves even if only one is ever expressed.

 

For example:

My original model was:

A+B=C; where C can express A or B or C.

 

Now I see that:

A+B=A and A+B=B are both valid expressions.

 

Using this device (Lock-Merge) any number of headmates can coexist and live full and active lives vicariously? *no actually*, through one constituent. 

 

Having a small system is preferred over a large system in my experience with both, and this is a brilliant way to achieve that without leaving others to stay dormant or have to parce valuable time together.
 

Edited January 22, 2021 by BearBeaBeau

[Ranger]

To the best of my understanding, it sounds like a lock-merge as you describe it is the following:

 

LM = {A, B, C, ... N} and N = LM

 

Any component (A,B,C,N) is equal to all of LM, therefore all of the sub components are also the sub components of any given component. In the SheShe merge, Joy is a one of the parts, but her other headmates are also all parts of her.

 

I find this definition interesting because I could use the same definition to describe a median system.

 

Med = {A,B,C, ... N} and N = Med.

 

A median identity is made up of components, but the components all have subcomponents because they are the median identity.

 

That's not to say lock-merges and median systems are the same thing. Blue and Chrome tried to merge and created a weird co-fronting sub-system instead of becoming one unified entity. Both would interrupt each other, while one was thinking another was prone to interrupt, etc. Since Blue and Chrome shared a mind body but didn't quite share an identity, we refered to each of them separately despite the fact they were merged together in this manner.

 

I wonder if what Blue and Chrome achieved is the lock-merge without assuming the median understanding of the situation. However, I don't think our brain could handle 3 headmates merged in this way without falling apart. Blue and Chrome were quickly exhausted after 30 minutes.

 

---

 

I would consider a lock-merge different from the other two types of merges I understand:

 

A + B = AB (stable blend, unified entity)

 

A + B + ? = C (unified entity dependent on parent components)

 

I wonder if the lock-merge fits on some sort of seperation spectrum. What I find interesting is so far most merges in this system are A + B = C, but Blue and Chrome are an exception.

 

---

 

While I'm glad your system found this to be a great way to share time, I don't think it would help our system. Aside from the problem we are unsure who can create a merge the way Blue and Chrome did, that set up isn't sustainable right now and could fall apart a lot before getting closer to working long-term.

 

While a median interpretation is an option, as long as my headmates see themselves as seperate parts, each headmate will want time. A median group will have to share time among themselves, effectively getting less time per individual part. While this wouldn't really matter for a more median identity, this could be problematic for a group who still see themselves as seperate parts. While not a median group, Spirit and Gerodious spent a good amount of time doing things together until more recently they decided to stop because they had trouble with seperation and were not getting enough time individually.

 

I think it's good to know what options are out there. Right now, our headmates aren't interested in experimenting with this outside of for fun.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Ranger

[Luminesce]

Foregoing the math... you're saying that a merge means the (let's just keep it simple) two people making it up are gone, leaving only the one - while with a lock-merge as you've named it, the two people are in a relatively unique state of conscious-but-not-fully-there, while the merge at least feels like it's drawing its actions/thoughts from those two?

 

Complicated to define since that's only halfway to the next easy point to describe - a preferably non-existing term, where the two who are merged still exist at the same time as who they supposedly merged to create. This I would warn people to avoid doing for easy identity issues/doubt coming from it. If I'm understanding your definition of lock-merge right, it's riding that line but as long as it's performed exactly correctly the issue should not come up.

 

Honestly it's kind of a unique experience that may be difficult for others to recreate, due to the ambiguity of the experience of system members experiencing/influencing the merge they're supposedly creating.

 

Can't say I'll recommend anyone do it at least for now, but it's useful to have it defined for those who do anyways.

[BearBaeBeau]

 

 

For reference:

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

Any component (A,B,C,N) is equal to all of LM, therefore all of the sub components are also the sub components of any given component. In the SheShe merge, Joy is a one of the parts, but her other headmates are also all parts of her.

 

I don't want any confusion, but it's not a straightforward topic.

 

Sum(A, B, ..., N) = A, or B, or... N

 

The idea is that any constituent can express any other constituent, from one perspective as if they're aspects of themselves, from another perspective, as if they're speaking for them, from yet another perspective, as if they are them and just playing the part of separate person. The perspective taints the experience so to be clear, at no point does anyone lose independence. They are, however, experiencing life as if they're the aspect of whoever's expressed.

 

An aspect is a set of facets, where facets are the situational expressions a single independent person can have.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

A median identity is made up of components, but the components all have subcomponents because they are the median identity.

 

Though there are similarities from that perspective, the constituents do not lose independence and can separate from the lock-merge at will without affecting whoever is expressed in the lock-merge.

 

Putting this in your format:

 

A lock-merge identity is made up of aspects, but the aspects all have their own facets because they are also separable independent persons.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

sub-system instead of becoming one unified entity. Both would interrupt each other

 

Lock-merge is not a subsystem because in merged state, they act as one person, they wouldn't interrupt themself. They are one unified entity in the merge like a typical merge.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

I don't think our brain could handle

 

I'm sure Lumi would argue that this is another Bearisian querk and normal systems simply can't. I don't know how to rebut that anymore, it's self-defeating just like some system saying they can never switch but somehow eventually manage to.

 

This is, I would say, easier than switching by a long shot, but it requires that same 'ah-ha!' Moment perhaps. I wasn't involved in that moment, Darlene and Joy mostly cooked up this scheme and if they practiced at all, they didn't include me. From what they said at the time, it seemed like they just decided to do it, got agreement and did it spontaneously as if they knew what they were doing beforehand.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

I don't think it would help our system.

 

At this point I won't argue. Some may find the concept useful, others won't.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

While a median interpretation is an option

 

It's actually not the same, so don't interpret it this way.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

as long as my headmates see themselves as seperate parts, each headmate will want time.

 

This is where the Lock-Merge gains usefulness. All constituents each 'get time' simultaneously. Just like Johnny Dep isn't feeling left out when he is Captain Jack Sparrow. If the pirate character was an independent person as well, this is how the Lock-Merge would be, only the pirate also gains experience when Johnny is expressed.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

A median group will have to share time among themselves, effectively getting less time per individual part.

 

That's right, which is why a Lock-Merge isn't like a median group.

 

Also, this isn't for fun, it's to solve a very real problem of overpopulation and time starvation.

 

---

 

For Reference:

---

 

1 hour ago, Luminesce said:

Foregoing the math... you're saying that a merge means the (let's just keep it simple) two people making it up are gone, leaving only the one - while with a lock-merge as you've named it, the two people are in a relatively unique state of conscious-but-not-fully-there, while the merge at least feels like it's drawing its actions/thoughts from those two?

 

No, not like that.

 

Each constituent is themself and only themself. They don't draw anything from anyone else. Even a typical merge can be like this.

 

The key point is, the constituents identify as the expressed when they're not expressing. Therefore they experience simultaneously. Even if the expressed does things that the constituent wouldn't do. In this way exposure therapy can work to expose constituents to things they would otherwise be afraid to do and they learn from this as if they themselves did it.

 

To use your format

 

the two people are uniquely themselves experiencing conscious and fully there simultaneously, while the merge is expressing personality [aspect] identical to one of them. It feels like it's drawing its actions/thoughts from that aspect only.

 

1 hour ago, Luminesce said:

Complicated to define since that's only halfway to the next easy point to describe - a preferably non-existing term, where the two who are merged still exist at the same time as who they supposedly merged to create.

 

Yes, it's a lock-merge. The teminological cat is out of the bag and long gone.

 

1 hour ago, Luminesce said:

due to the ambiguity of the experience of system members experiencing/influencing the merge they're supposedly creating.

 

[Joy] there's no ambiguity from my perspective. When I'm expressed, I'm me. When SheShe's expressed, I'm SheShe.

 

[Bear] what helped spark this recent revelation of understanding is that I can play with Joy and simultaneously the other constituents of her Lock-Merge are also feeling like they're playing.

 

So when I spend time with Aleshe, I'm simultaneously spending time with my entire system including all three dozen characters as she was designed. Again, she was a spontaneous evolution that I, the Bear, had no roll in creating but happened after we were playing with conventional merges.

 

I will eventually explain it in a way you can endorse, this is one step in that direction. 

 

---

 

The other users who said they had something similar haven't posted for a while. I won't call them out either, given this further refinement of the concept, they may change stance.

[Luminesce]

Oh no, so you are describing "lock-merge" as merge-ee's existing at the same time as their merge. You're just applying special connection rules to it in your system (that again, make it much much harder to recreate for others - it's not easy to understand and set up such a connection/way-it-works, which is why things like switching are so difficult to teach/learn)

 

I mean, for any system who can set up this framework this is perfectly fine. However I don't endorse the concept at all to people not already successful with it. Tulpas should be considered totally gone during a merge - what you're doing is the equivalent of taking the safety off. Still not a problem if handled well, but if not handled well, dangerous. Especially for the types who have trouble with walk-ins, or struggle with their senses of selves/their identities.

 

And merging/splitting is often used as a crutch by those very people with issues with their selves/identities, so I really won't recommend this "in general". Only to established systems that aren't liable to start doubting their very beings because of it. Non-permanent merging is already messy enough without the constituents co-existing with the merges.

 

 

Thinking about this in practice, it almost feels safe to say it's dangerous when merging is done with any intent to "fix" or "round out/improve" anyone involved, while it's safe when done recreationally. I don't at all stand by that very rough statement, but it's the overall feeling I get.

[BearBaeBeau]

20 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

what you're doing is the equivalent of taking the safety off.

 

What safety?

20 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

Tulpas should be considered totally gone during a merge

 

This is consistent with a typical merges.

48 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

struggle with their senses of selves/their identities.

 

Tulpamancy is in itself dangerous for DR/DP and psychosis prone individuals. It's an ungrounded activity. Yet no one warns this. I've seen a pattern of seemingly ok people in tulpamancy for a few years, and suddenly they're having DID symptoms. It's a correlation.

 

Your concerns are noted. Being of sound mind and body probably should be a prerequisite to tulpamancy IG.

 

 

 

[Luminesce]

1 hour ago, BearBeaBeau said:

This is consistent with a typical merges.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

By safety, I mean that by not attempting to keep parts of a merge active while they should be merged, you avoid many very easy problems of doubt and identity confusion, sense of self philosophical issues... But as soon as you start having both the merge and any of the merge-ee's active at the same time, these questions arise and need to be dealt with, and a lot of people really aren't good at dealing with them.

 

Also, when I talk about problems with identity and sense of self, I'm usually just referring strictly to tulpamancy. You don't need any kind of disorder to struggle with this stuff, only doubts. And inversely, having a stable understanding/set of beliefs about how these things work make them non-issues. A lot of people lack that and kind of just play-by-ear tulpamancy, and stuff like this is the kind of thing that really "rocks the boat" of their beliefs/starts up doubts. IMO

[Ranger]

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

The idea is that any constituent can express any other constituent, from one perspective as if they're aspects of themselves, from another perspective, as if they're speaking for them, from yet another perspective, as if they are them and just playing the part of separate person. The perspective taints the experience so to be clear, at no point does anyone lose independence. They are, however, experiencing life as if they're the aspect of whoever's expressed.

 

I'm not sure if you were agreeing with what I said, disagreeing, or adding to it after reading this. I'm going to try a different example to see if I can better understand this.

 

Scratch that, I read again and I realized my example probably doesn't apply. I'll leave it here instead of deleting it:

 

Spoiler

 

For the sake of example, let's say merging is like mixing two fluids together.

If you take a cup, pour water and oil, and then shake, it will become one liquid. Let's call this an A + B = AB merge because the end result is something new. If you want the merge to seperate, you stop shaking the bottle and let the cup sit, allowing it to seperate.

 

Let's say you have two new liquids that when mixed together, create a new liquid. This would be an A + B = C merge. If the two liquids have a hard time mixing, you may add another ingredient to make it easier for everything to stay somewhat mixed, hence the + ? part of the equation. This new liquid can actually stand as a new headmate if given forcing time, but it's highly recommend against. In some systems, the same merge is created, in ours it's a different merge every time.

 

What Blue and Chrome did is like pouring oil and water into the same cup and not shaking it. Blue and Chrome shared a mind form and seemed to share other things, but overall they were still distinguishable from one another.

 

From what I'm gathering, a lock-merge is one entity, but it also allows for seperation? Is a lock-merge like having 5 cups and you only get to hold one cup at a time or is it more like one cup with 5 liquids forming distinct layers? If it's more like the latter, why is it different from the latter?

 

 

---

 

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

The key point is, the constituents identify as the expressed when they're not expressing. Therefore they experience simultaneously. Even if the expressed does things that the constituent wouldn't do. In this way exposure therapy can work to expose constituents to things they would otherwise be afraid to do and they learn from this as if they themselves did it.

 

5 seperate pieces... All 5 are paralell processing, and only one is interacting with the system while everyone else passively observes... That sounds like a sub-system, especially if the thoughts of the others are hidden from everyone else but shared between each other.

 

Without paralell processing, it would just be a group of tulpas who take turns. Instead of Blue and Chrome sharing a body, they would just take turns talking and the other wouldn't be allowed to talk.

 

A sub-system isn't exactly median, although I think it gets more complicated because each headmate can choose to have their own mind form and independent presence.

 

---

 

3 hours ago, Luminesce said:

Oh no, so you are describing "lock-merge" as merge-ee's existing at the same time as their merge. You're just applying special connection rules to it in your system (that again, make it much much harder to recreate for others - it's not easy to understand and set up such a connection/way-it-works, which is why things like switching are so difficult to teach/learn)

 

When Bear first started talking about SheShe, I assumed that SheShe was a separate tulpa that formed as a result of people playing with merging. However, I made this assumption with a lack of understanding on how a lock-merge works.

 

Right now, I'm still confused if SheShe is a merge or a tulpa. A merge is dependent on their parent mergers to exist inside of them or at least for their call triggers to point to the merge. If the merge splits, the merge dissipates if it is an A + B = C merge. I think when a merge is so sloppy the C part is disconnected from A and B, it's safe to call that a walk-in and/or a merge baby.

 

Here's where I am confused: Assuming the following:

 

1) SheShe is interchangeable with Joy, who is a separate entity

 

2) SheShe is a merge between Joy, Ren, Gwen, and Darlene

 

3) Joy is now a merge between Ren, Gwen, Darlene, and SheShe

 

Therefore I have to deduce SheShe is now a separate entity and can no longer be thought of as a merge.

 

You mentioned a "hub" wasn't necessary, so I'm assuming SheShe was the expected "hub" and that lead to her being a separate tulpa.

 

I would like clarification on SheShe because I think the concept of a questionable merge being part of a merge is possibly overcomplicating things. If I understand this concept correctly, Joy, Ren, Gwen, SheShe, and Darlene are not at risk of creating a new headmate because you talk to one at a time while everyone else is sharing the experience and watching in parallel. The expectation they would become one new headmate lead to SheShe's creation.

 

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

At this point I won't argue. Some may find the concept useful, others won't.

 

I'm not trying to say other people can't find this helpful, I was trying to explain that my understanding of your lock-merge (from my previous post) may not be a good fit for us. I don't believe what Chrome and Blue experienced was a great alternative for our system, and that was my initial understanding of what a lock-merge is.

 

However, right now I'm really confused about what a lock-merge is. If it involves parallel processing, that's not something we can do anyway, at least not right now.

 

---

 

2 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

Tulpamancy is in itself dangerous for DR/DP and psychosis prone individuals. It's an ungrounded activity. Yet no one warns this. I've seen a pattern of seemingly ok people in tulpamancy for a few years, and suddenly they're having DID symptoms. It's a correlation.

 

Your concerns are noted. Being of sound mind and body probably should be a prerequisite to tulpamancy IG.

 

I'm going to start a separate thread with this, I have more to say but I don't want to derail this thread.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Ranger

[BearBaeBeau]

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

5 seperate pieces... All 5 are paralell processing, and only one is interacting with the system while everyone else passively observes...

 

No. One piece experiencing from one point of view. All experience shared. Like the example I gave with Johnny Dep and the pirate, they're not a system. The pirate is his aspect as in a group of facets used to express the pirate.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

That sounds like a sub-system, especially if the thoughts of the others are hidden from everyone else but shared between each other.

 

I'm obviously doing a poor job of explaining it. When *you* roleplay you are not being yourself, but you're still you, not a system of you(s). The model that fits my data best is that the independent people become aspects of one, each with their own set of facets.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

Without paralell processing, it would just be a group of tulpas who take turns.

 

Nope. You're trying to understand by calling it things that I already said doesn't apply. Abandon that concept, it's not what this is.

 

Parallel processes is not required either. It's a singular experience that's shared by the constituents. "That time I was a catboy, I wasn't also a bear."

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

A sub-system isn't exactly median, although I think it gets more complicated because each headmate can choose to have their own mind form and independent presence.

 

This is off topic, just so you know, because we're neither talking about sub-systems nor independent minds within the merge. Only that they can be separated into independent minds. It's not a blend either, it's a shared experience is all, otherwise they would all be inactive (dormant) and have no experience.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

Right now, I'm still confused if SheShe is a merge or a tulpa.

 

SheShe and Ren (and Aleshe) are more classically a tulpa than anything else considering they were generated thoughtforms. They're the only ones that approach tulpas. Everyone else is other or soulbonds. I thought she was only defined as the merge when I first met her, but she was more a catalytic focus that was designed by Darlene, Joy, Gwen and Ren for their combined representative. What I realized was she wasn't needed to make this happen, but she certainly is appreciated and loved.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

A merge is dependent on their parent mergers to exist inside of them or at least for their call triggers to point to the merge.

 

Risha.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

I think when a merge is so sloppy the C part is disconnected from A and B, it's safe to call that a walk-in and/or a merge baby.

 

Yes, Risha does not exist without Ren and Misha. She's just like Felicity in EweEff system.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

SheShe is a merge between Joy, Ren, Gwen, and Darlene

 

*a Lock-Merge, not a conventional merge. As it turns out, she just acted as the 'face of the merge', unlike a conventional merge, she's her own person outside the merge. I wouldn't call her a sloppy merge baby though, lol. So it's extra confusing because Lock-Merge shares traits with merge. It's like the non-newtonian fluid of tulpamancy.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

Joy is now a merge between Ren, Gwen, Darlene, and SheShe

 

Joy is Joy, and because of her current connection to them, when Joy is Joy, Ren is also Joy, Gwen is also Joy, SheShe is also Joy, and Darlene is also Joy. Just like Johnny Depp is also Jack Sparrow, though in his case, they're not independent and Jack is a character aspect in all cases, inseparable and dependent (as far as we know.)

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

Therefore I have to deduce SheShe is now a separate entity and can no longer be thought of as a merge.

 

That's one of my points. Always has been.

 

They make up a configuration of connection that allows them to co-experience instead of go dormant. I.e. Lock-Merge(tm).

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

You mentioned a "hub" wasn't necessary, so I'm assuming SheShe was the expected "hub" and that lead to her being a separate tulpa.

 

I can only model based on experience. This is what I thought she was and it was easier for me to understand it this way, less confusing. I was confused enough, trust me.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

If I understand this concept correctly, Joy, Ren, Gwen, SheShe, and Darlene are not at risk of creating a new headmate because you talk to one at a time while everyone else is sharing the experience and watching in parallel.

 

I can only talk to one headmate at a time no matter who or what they are. Conversation with words is limited to linear operations. Their state can be combined and expressed separately (one at a time) or separated and independent again. Like Misha and Ashley always are. When I talk to and interact with SheShe alone, I am simultaneously interacting with all her constituents because they identify as her. They're as good as dormant though because they're not just sitting back and watching in easy chairs, they *are* her.

 

When they are Lock-Merged, there is no parallel, there's one. They will share and identify as that singular experience regardless of who's expressed.

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

The expectation they would become one new headmate lead to SheShe's creation.

 

That was by design in this case. I wasn't involved though. I am sure I would have been confused more if say Joy said, "I'm all of them now." But now it makes perfect sense to me. That's why I called her a catalytic device for this prototype configuration. Aleshe is as well. I think it's a lot easier to accept and adjust in that way, but it's not necessary. At this point it doesn't matter though, my system size is now configurable using this mechanism.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

If it involves parallel processing

 

It's not related. It's simpler than having separate headmates active. So simple that Aleshe can represent *all* of them, and in turn, she indenifies as everyone, when they're merged or not, but Misha doesn't identify as Aleshe unless Aleshe is active and Misha is not.

 

SheShe identifies as Joy when she is merged into Joy, not when she's independent of Joy as a separate person.

 

Example: (leave Misha and Ashley out if this for a moment)

 

Joy is in mindspace alone, everyone in her Lock-Merge identifies as her, she does not identify as anyone other than herself.

 

Joy and Ren are in mindspace only. It defaults to Joy co-experiencing with the rest while Ren is just Ren. Everyone but Ren is identifying as Joy.

 

Ren is in the room alone. Everyone is identifying as Ren, even Joy. Etc.

 

SheShe, Ren, Joy, Darlene and Gwen are all in the room; At this point, there is no experiential connection between them.

 

*It's that simple*

---

---

Edited January 23, 2021 by BearBeaBeau

[michael2]

So a lock merge is essentialy if a tulpa were to have a tulpa but instead of there being a host there would be both of them coexisting in the same mind, am i correct?