Jump to content

A concept that may help polyfragmented systems heal


Ranger

Recommended Posts

(edited)

On #Redditulpas, the topic of polyfragmented systems came up after thinking about how fragments are counted as system members. I then considered an idea that could be both useful and healing for a polyfragmented system.

 

While we're not a polyfragmented system ourselves, we have in-system experience with integration/fusion, we have done something similar to IFS therapy doing personal trauma work, and our headmate Dream is a median collective of parts (who's currently working on better cohesion/integration). While I have no idea how helpful this will be in reality, I figured throwing the idea out there, if helpful, can be refined and built upon by polyfragmented systems. Thus, I'll keep this ""guide"" as a draft until there's evidence it could be helpful.

 

Edit: THIS 'GUIDE' IS NOT FOR COSYSTEMS/TULPA SYSTEMS!

 

There were some good questions asked about polyfragmented system fragments, please check out this post for more information.

 

Terminology note: for the rest of this guide, I'll not use the term integration given that it has two distinct meanings and I will use both meanings throughout this "guide". Instead, I'll use the word 'cohesion' to mean the connectivity between fragments/headmates and 'fusion' to mean the literal combining of headmates/fragments.

 


 

Overall

 

I want to call this concept "identity construction". The goal is to create an identity from a cluster of fragments.

 

In a way, it's similar to cocreation/tulpamancy, which is the process of creating another headmate. However, instead of building an identity from scratch, "identity construction" is creating a headmate given a set of puzzle pieces.

 

Disclaimers

 

First, it is up to the polyfragmented system if they even want to try this process. They may feel this doesn't apply to their system. Do not disrespect a fragment who requests to be seen as an individual.

 

Second, it is up to the polyfragmented system what identities/headmates they build. It is unethical to expect them to form identities/headmates to your liking instead of theirs.

 

Third, this is not a magical solution that will guarantee healing. First, this doesn't prevent splitting nor resolve any underlying trauma. In fact, trauma can make it really difficult to maintain an integrated state. The goal of this "guide" is to provide a possible tool for healing, not an ultimate solution.

 

The start

 

A headmate/identity is made up of parts- the "you" who goes to school, the "you" who hangs out with friends, the "you" when you're upset, the "you" who loves a hobby, etc. A polyfragmented system has these pieces. To start the formation an identity, it's simply a matter of saying "this group of fragments are the parts of this headmate". After that, the thinking is the brain behind the scenes will add cohesion between individual fragments and make it easier to fuse in the long-run.

 

How fragments are grouped together depends on the system. Maybe they want to be one person, or maybe they want to retain their plurality, but be a smaller system. This is important for the system to establish before moving forward.

 

Small Clusters

 

The next step is for them to develop some small clusters. It's probably less overwhelming to group 2-10 fragments together instead of 20-100 fragments together. A cluster group could be for example all of the fragments who have feelings for one particular friend or all of the fragments who are fictives of one very specific source. Things may need to be adjusted based on compatibility, and it's okay to go beyond the original cluster concept if it feels right to add other fragments to that cluster.

 

I recommend that they give the fragments time to be used to being thought of as a part of one cluster. It can be an adjustment to go from seen as an individual fragment to being thought of as part of an overarching identity.

 

Some of their fragments may already be in a small cluster. In this case, I see no reason to change what's already established. They should take advantage of this as they construct their identity or identities.

 

Trust building is very important for both cohesion and fusion because a lack of trust will prevent both of those things, regardless of the conscious desires to do them. Our system's second fusion was really messy because the headmates fusing didn't really know each other and ultimately didn't trust each other on an emotional level. Only after focusing on spending time with one another, significant progress towards fusion occured.

 

Within a cluster, I think fragments should not only spend time with one another, but also do activities together. When my headmates worked towards fusion, the fusing parts tended to naturally cluster together and do everything as a group. Of course, our in-system pre-fusion clusters were never greater than 3. I imagine this will play out differently for polyfragmented clusters.

 

The system may find their fragments within a cluster start to influence each other and/or blend with one another. I think that's a good thing, as that happens within my median headmate’s collective. We believe it's a positive sign indicating better cohesion.

 

If clusters are not sticking together very well, I don't think the polyfragmented system needs to panic. Even establishing small clusters in the first place is a solid first step, and I doubt that this process will be independent of the system's mental wellbeing. I hope they understand it's okay to take a break and take care of themselves, as that's what's most important in the end.

 

Once the system is ready, the next step is to fuse the fragments of a cluster into one larger fragment, if desired.

 

If the system decides to work on multiple small clusters at once or one-by-one should depend on what they think feels right. It's also possible they may want to keep any given cluster unfused for whatever reason. It could be there's trauma preventing cohesion and fusion, it could be it just feels wrong to fuse the cluster, or some other reason.

 

It's up to the system if and when they want to move onto the next step of construcing their identity or identities.

 

Constructing an identity 

 

I think fused small clusters are building blocks to more refined identities. From here, it's a matter of putting the building blocks together.

 

I think it would help to basically do what some cocreators/tulpamancers do and create a character with a backstory. Only for a polyfragmented system, the "character" is the identity/headmate they want and the "backstory' is a collection of their memories and experiences.

 

I assume a good start is just listing important life events for the identity- what are the important experiences they should have? What meaningful memories are theirs? I think it doesn't have to be perfect and very detailed, this is only a starting point afterall. I think it would be good to plan the fragments who have these experiences to group and form another cluster.

 

During this process, they may find core beliefs that are inspired by these important events. I think it would be wise to find the fragments and have them form a  cluster.

 

From there, I'm not sure if the system would prefer to continue refining their identity's list of experiences and beliefs and create more clusters based on that list or if they would rather try and fuse more fragments before doing so. This is the part of the "guide" I'm speculating the most. There may be steps that need to be defined that are missing, but I feel that this beyond my scope of knowledge.

 

A note on symbolism 

 

I don't know how much symbolism applies to a polyfragmented system, but I figured it's worth bringing up since it's so common in our system regarding parts. I also wonder if it would be really easy for a fragment to attach themself to symbolism since that could help them distinguish themself from other fragments.

 

For Dream, he believes he represents the unconscious mind, so his parts are related to our assumptions on how the mind works- a clone who operates "trains of thought", a clone who stores long-term memories in a "library", etc. Despite the different "roles" his parts play, they are all operating as one symbolic representation of the unconscious mind. For example, TV, or "Trust Vision", assesses how trusting two headmates/clones are with one another with a monitor or a "tv" screen on his chest to illustrate our relationships. This is just fancy symbolism that represents Dream's way of paying attention to his and our conscious and unconscious feelings towards one another and drawing conclusions on how much we trust each other based on those feelings.

 

While I did trauma work on myself, I have "therapy clones" that represent my feelings and beliefs through symbolism. While I don't think it's as mystifying as Dream's set-up, I find it's important to ask what the symbolism means and why it's important. However, I do have the advantage of asking what I feel is important.

 

Instead, I think a polyfragmented system has to ask how their constructed identity would understand a given fragment's symbolism and why, assuming that fragment's symbolism is relevant in the first place.

 

Final thoughts

 

My hope is by this point, the polyfragmented system has a developed sense of intuition for who they want to be. I'm hoping they would know who needs to fuse with who and how to tie up loose ends.

 

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this concept and if any polyfragmented systems have already done something similar or look forward to giving this concept a try. I'm not sure how many resources polyfragmented systems have access to, especially if this a new concept or an old concept that's hard to find or locked behind therapy access. I hope this concept could possibly turn into a useful tool, or if not, be expanded upon to become one.

 

Edit: So far, a few polyfragmented systems recognized a few of the ideas I suggested as something they already do on their own. One system I met thought it could be useful for them and wants to give it a try.

 

One polyfragmented system wasn't so sure about the creating an identity part. They explained that it's not a choice who integrates with who, it's about what works or doesn't work.

 

That system also pointed out some fragments are amnesia barriers in of themselves and doing trauma work will cause them to disappear.

 

I do feel like there's a bunch of stuff I don't know, so if there's anything in this 'guide' that feels wrong, go with your intuition. That's more important than what I have to say.

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ranger said:

Do not disrespect a fragment who requests to be seen as an individual.

 

I  have a question about this because we've had similar thoughtforms that appear to be candidates but respecting their wishes would be problematic. Would this include random walk-ins or intrusive thoughtforms/fragments who request inclusion? If not, why not. If so, isn't this dangerous to entertain negative entities that might be causing harm to other headmates and if they do, when is it ok to disregard their request? I'm not talking about fragments that have a history with the system. 

 

Now for headmates that have a history that are fragments or deemed fragments, if they are unreasonable or abusive, what would you suggest for them with respect to your statement above.

 

I have another question in general, how would you confirm someone is a fragment? Couldn't it be that an independent personality simply has a limited number of aspects or facets? A new headmate would fall in this category, so I'm having trouble seeing the difference. Or would you say this procedure is equally useful for full headmates or characters like Aleshe and I are about to do [fusion].

 

1 hour ago, Ranger said:

It is unethical to expect them to form identities/headmates to your liking instead of theirs.

 

Another point of concern here is for identities or headmates who, for whatever reason, choose to be destructive, negative or abusive. We had one ourselves and our conclusion was integration. (Then there was me and you know what we did about that [personality forcing].) The integration was successful and the individuality of that fragment (that we called an aspect) wasn't to destroy it but to integrate it with our host. It was originally a character that got out of hand. If we didn't integrate him and instead let him decide for himself, I am not sure what he would have said, he had moments of lucidity, but he had compulsions that led him down dark paths. At the first hint of independence we knew we had to deal with this aspect, so we chose to always and firmly treat him as an aspect and reintegrate him as this was deemed respectful to the thoughts and memories. He was originally just an aspect, and that was the intent, a mask even, but not a headmate. From that point forward we have stopped allowing bear to interact with other then his own complete personality online.

 

1 hour ago, Ranger said:

Only after focusing on spending time with one another, significant progress towards fusion occurred.

 

In our case it would mean necessitating my host and this abusive aspect to spend time together and build trust, further reinforcing the aspect's notions of independence. We believe that would have had a negative impact on the efficacy of the integration. We had zero desire or intention to even entertain the notion of another headmate, especially not a negative one. There was no room for negotiation and that was the consensus of everyone currently in the system.

 

So I ask you, wouldn't this risk strengthening them as individuals? Is the intention of this exercise to limit system growth or if they developed further from this exercise would that be just as valid? Even unwanted ones? Say there are 20 fragments, or what we may consider aspects/masks/alts/personas/characters, and they are exclusive in that they have nothing to do with each other, they're situational groups of facets, or perhaps even single facets in some cases and have somehow been rejected or budded off from the main personality of origin or appeared on their own as in a walk-in fragment. They don't know each other, they don't consider themselves individuals or even if they do, do we want them to find themselves and all interact to the point of trust before attempting this process? That sounds unnecessarily complicated, intuitively counterproductive and time consuming, at best a distraction from other bonified headmates, and if they all state a desire to be independent, then is that a valid goal of this exercise? 

 

Thank you for writing this and we hope it can be a valid guide to fusion in the future even if that's a stretch for its stated intent, we'd like to see it as a guide to fusion in general since that's exactly what we're planning to do shortly as mentioned.

 

Lastly, do you know of other guides that tackle this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

I use cobud for tulpa, cocreation for tulpamancy, and cosystems as an abbreviation for "cobud systems"

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

I have a question about this because we've had similar thoughtforms that appear to be candidates but respecting their wishes would be problematic. Would this include random walk-ins or intrusive thoughtforms/fragments who request inclusion? If not, why not.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Another point of concern here is for identities or headmates who, for whatever reason, choose to be destructive, negative or abusive.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

I have another question in general, how would you confirm someone is a fragment?

 

I regret not clarifying further what a polyfragmented system is.

 

To the best of my understanding, a polyfragmented system is a traumagenic system where there is no centralized identity and there are several alters that contain "fragments" of a larger identity or group of identities. Polyfragmented systems tend to have headmate populations in the hundreds or even thousands. Polyfragmented systems are more prone to splitting when confronted with a stressor and introjecting lots of fictive and or factive alters.

 

This is not to be confused for an endogenic system with a trauma history or gateway systems who are endogenic in nature. This guide concept does not apply to cosystems or other endogenic systems. I only posted this here on .info because this is a forum I'm familiar with and I wanted to put this guide concept somewhere public that wasn't Reddit.

 

The context for rejecting "walk-ins" is different for endogenic and traumagenic systems. For cosystems, it's typically a good thing to embrace this concept. It can be empowering for a system to realize they can exercise control over their population size. However, it's worth noting it's not helpful to pressure another system who has the desire to keep their "walk-in" headmates. For cosystems, population size is a matter of what the system wants, which is not necessarily the case for traumagenic systems. From what I have heard and seen, trying to deny or reject introjects or splits usually if not always makes things worse for traumagenic systems, including polyfragmented systems. I assume a polyfragmented system rejecting an introject or split is basically saying, "I am going to ignore or deny this trauma or this facet of myself/us" wheras rejecting a "walk-in" in a cosystem is basically saying, "I don't wish to satisfy this desire for another headmate" or "This is just a concept I don't like and feel no need to entertain". While I imagine there being a gray area where introjects function more like endogenic walk-ins, I have heard and observed it's best to not worry about it too much and figure it out later.

 

Some alters can be abusive and lash out simply because they're trauma keepers. It's not unusual to hear about "persecutors" or general "problem alters" who cause some drama in-system. Additionally, I have found through doing trauma work it is not uncommon for my "therapy clones" to be hostile: verbally abusive, trying to harm me, manipulate, etc. Only until after I earn my wounded part's trust does the "therapy clone" settle down and open up to allowing me to perform EMDR on them. Given that, I imagine some alters are similar, only much more tame than most of my hostile "therapy clones". But I can't say for sure, all of the alters I have met were generally nice and didn't curse me out despite being obviously badly hurt.

 


 

Anyways, onto the other stuff:

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Would this include random walk-ins or intrusive thoughtforms/fragments who request inclusion? If not, why not.

 

For cosystems or endo systems, generally I think it makes sense to reject things that seem like intrusive thoughts. My rule of thumb is if engaging with the thoughtform is always stressful, it's most likely an intrusive thought. I'd imagine most endo systems who have been around the block for half a year or so would either be figuring out or have figured out how to identify and manage their intrusive thoughts. If cosystem advice just isn't working for a younger system and/or there are red flags their intrusive thoughts are beyond the scope of cocreation, yeah... probably more complicated and needs some therapy.

 

With this guide, I'm writing this for polyfragmented systems who have already figured out that's what they are. I don't have the expertiese or the education to suggest, let alone diagnose, a polyfragmented system. I would rely on your gut intuition or a trusted medical professional if you're really not sure.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Now for headmates that have a history that are fragments or deemed fragments, if they are unreasonable or abusive, what would you suggest for them with respect to your statement above.

 

Going off my therapy experiences, I think it’s best to contain, build trust, and then apply trauma work tools.

 

First, an unruly trauma part needs to be contained in some way. For me, "tubing" them by creating a see-through cylinder around them or if that doesn’t work, putting a see-through wall between me and them works. If they curse, threaten me, or whatever else, I just walk away. 99.99% of the time, they will pleed for me to return. (I only had one that this didn't work for. I can't expect every part to cooperate). After I return they'll be unruly again, and then you rinse and repeat until they trust you enough to stop and open up.

 

The second phase is continuing to build trust with them. I spend time with them, just being there to chat or giving them blankets and pillows. While I may want to give my trauma part a big hug, the part won't be okay with it until I have earned enough of their trust. This can suck sometimes, especially when they want a hug but are too afraid to be hugged. Generally physical touch ramps up: personal bubble, maybe I'll sit next to you, resting back against you, I'll hug you but don't hug me back, okay you can touch me, please hug me! This phase takes awhile, and it's best to rest if needed (I tend to fall asleep during this phase lol)

 

The third phase is applying the therapy/trauma work tool. We're super lucky we can use EMDR and it works great. However, I know there are other trauma work tools out there too.

 

Aaaand then there's another "therapy clone" so you got to do it all again! :D

 

Keep in mind this is just a general overview of the process and it doesn't apply to every case. There are cases where I have to go off script or find a work around (I feel like I hate my part and my part is afraid of me, I may not be ready to work with a part, I can't look my part in the eyes, etc.). It helps to have allys, whether it's the ally thoughtforms I created or just Dream who typically likes to hang out and help. (Usually my headmates stay out of it, Dream uses the "I'm connected to you" card so he gets a pass)

 

Ultimately, this is what works for me and it may not apply to other people. This isn't a hard rule or anything. (Damn I basically wrote another guide- guide inception...)

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

If we didn't integrate him and instead let him decide for himself, I am not sure what he would have said, he had moments of lucidity, but he had compulsions that led him down dark paths.

 

I agree you should integrate parts and fragments in general, but it may not be the best thing to do for a system. First, it's worth noting that there is an identity that can be the "owner" of the fragment or shard. For a polyfragmented system, splits may have known sources but introjects and other parts, probably not. Treating an alter as an individual or not in-system is always a system decision, but out of system you should respect an alter who identifies as an individual. If an alter isn't ready to cooperate and integrate, they don't know how, they can't given the trauma situation, or they simply don't want to, then they should be treated as an individual.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

So I ask you, wouldn't this risk strengthening them as individuals?

 

For us, no.

 

We see it as self-love. By building trust with our trauma parts, we are strengthening our internal cohesion and making it easier to understand how we feel. If we have inner resentment or anger towards ourselves that we don't understand thanks to emotional amnesia barriers, it's harder to identify the problem unless we can teach ourselves the self-resentment isn't necessary.

 

Then again, if this doesn't work for you all, then it just doesn't. 🤷‍♀️

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Is the intention of this exercise to limit system growth or if they developed further from this exercise would that be just as valid?

 

For preventing system growth, no. System growth in a polyfragmented system is caused by trauma or other reasons. The idea behind this concept is to suggest an idea on how to reintegrate, if not some hope on it being a long-term possibility.

 

It's worth noting my headmates wished to identify as individuals until they decided they wanted to integrate. While I imagine some polyfragmented alters wanting integration early on, this too can be a barrier to integration.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:51 AM, Autumn Ren said:

Thank you for writing this and we hope it can be a valid guide to fusion in the future even if that's a stretch for its stated intent

 

While there is a lot of overlap between integration for cosystems and integration for polyfragmented systems, this guide isn't written for cosystems. We thought about sitting down and writing an integration guide, but by the time we felt experienced enough to do so, there was the GAT barrier we were waiting on and after that our mental health worsened. Now that I feel okay enough to write guides and the fact an integration guide would make sharing our advice easier, we can get around to writing it... eventually lol. I think asking other cosystems how they integrated would be another insight that this concept guide doesn't touch on that would be useful to add to a dedicated guide.

 


 

Okay NOW I'll add the edit to my "guide" that I want to add lol

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ranger said:

Polyfragmented systems tend to have headmate populations in the hundreds or even thousands.

 

How can you have them all interact and trust each other then? As I asked before, doesn't that seem like an impossibly complicated task?

 

1 hour ago, Ranger said:

This guide concept does not apply to cosystems

 

Oh, so what you're calling 'cosystems' I believe is tulpa systems (endo systems?), or intentionally created systems. The term is also confusing and sounds like something else. Then most of my comments were confused because 'polyfragmented' systems seem like an extremely niche traumagenic system and likely not applicable here.

 

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

but out of system you should respect an alter who identifies as an individual.

 

Okay that makes a lot more sense.

 

Please disregard most of my other comments and questions, because I didn't realize this wasn't related to the themes of this site or for tulpa systems. We have very little context or experience to understand traumagenic systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

How can you have them all interact and trust each other then? As I asked before, doesn't that seem like an impossibly complicated task?

 

Polyfragmented systems still have internal communication, not necessarily impossible but it will probably take forever. Given the amount of trauma we have, it will most likely take years of work. I imagine polyfragmented systems are in a similar boat, if not have much more work on their plate. Hopefully though, at least a few years in, they'll get enough relief that things will be much easier than they were.

 

I'm not an expert either, but I suspect polyfragmented systems don't have many better options just because they're so disconnected to begin with. We are actually considering adding more over-arching internal cohesion ourselves, we're struggling with bad breakdowns and such...

 

3 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

Oh, so what you're calling 'cosystems' I believe is tulpa systems (endo systems?), or intentionally created systems. The term is also confusing and sounds like something else.

 

5 hours ago, Ranger said:

I use cobud for tulpa, cocreation for tulpamancy, and cosystems as an abbreviation for "cobud systems"

 

3 hours ago, Autumn Ren said:

Okay that makes a lot more sense.

 

Please disregard most of my other comments and questions, because I didn't realize this wasn't related to the themes of this site or for tulpa systems. We have very little context or experience to understand traumagenic systems.

 

You had some good questions, and I'm sure others are thinking them too. It is confusing this is posted on .info, so it was worth the time investment to clarify and give more context.

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it's ok to me to reply to this with my thoughts. I find this very interesting to read as someone who basically has done work like this with my fragments. Although I think the helpfulness of this is lost on this forum, unfortunately.

 

This is effectively what I've done with my fragments, although I've never quite thought of it this way in this mindset. It kind of just happened as I worked with my fragments. In my experience, a lot of fragments are often holding something specific, like an emotion or memory or personality trait. I've found it easiest for fragments who hold similar memories (like parts of one event) and or emotions to become a cluster or one identity. What we do is "attach" multiple fragments who are very similar to one person who is a more elaborated part / member, and those fragments become part of their identity. For example, right now someone in my system, A, has two "identities". One is him as A, and one is him as a fragment who has a very similar function / role to A, but it's still A, just like a step to the side, slightly different. It's led to him taking on one main name and one "also known as" name. We've had issues keeping their identities stable, though, and we've yet to find a solution. Sometimes, it doesn't quite go as planned and a group of fragments won't "stick" to the person / part. We had a cluster of fragments end up becoming a new member too, and it's taken over a year for their identity to stabilize, and part of that required trauma work (I dislike calling it that). There's definitely an acceptance component, though.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 7:13 AM, Ranger said:

The system may find their fragments within a cluster start to influence each other and/or blend with one another. I think that's a good thing, as that happens within my median headmate’s collective. We believe it's a positive sign indicating better cohesion.

 

I've seen a lot of this with my work with my fragments! Once they're starting to become a more stable, prominent member / elaborated part, there's a noticeable overlap in them and they all start to have a similar "feeling". Generally, around then is when they take on an identity and we start to notice them as more of a person in our system.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 7:13 AM, Ranger said:

One polyfragmented system wasn't so sure about the creating an identity part. They explained that it's not a choice who integrates with who, it's about what works or doesn't work.

 

I agree with this. For me, it wasn't intentional or a choice for most of our merges / integrations / whatever the proper term is, and it kind of just happened as I worked with my system and my fragments. I did try to force merges / etc a couple times, but it never worked. I've learned that you kind of just go with the flow, and you just have to accept that you don't have full control over it. I'm still working on the acceptance part.

 

I don't really know what else I wanted to say because my thoughts are a bit muddled right now, but I appreciate this post a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
15 hours ago, Adagio said:

I hope it's ok to me to reply to this with my thoughts. I find this very interesting to read as someone who basically has done work like this with my fragments.

 

Absolutely! Thank you so much for reading, sharing your experiences, and giving me feedback! ^^

 

15 hours ago, Adagio said:

Although I think the helpfulness of this is lost on this forum, unfortunately.

 

I wasn't sure where else to post this. I'm familiar with this forum, and I figured if it is valuable, people will spread it around.

 

If there is a better place, I do wonder if it would be better for a polyfragmented system to write their own version of a guide? I don’t feel comfortable standing as a reliable source on the subject since everything I know about polyfragmented systems is second hand.

 

15 hours ago, Adagio said:

merges / integrations / whatever the proper term is

 

I only used "cohesion" and "fusion" to avoid confusion, I found that using "integration" made things confusing and I naturally added at least "cohesion" for clarification. I personally don't belive there is a "correct" or "incorrect" term though!

 

15 hours ago, Adagio said:

I agree with this. For me, it wasn't intentional or a choice for most of our merges / integrations / whatever the proper term is, and it kind of just happened as I worked with my system and my fragments. I did try to force merges / etc a couple times, but it never worked. I've learned that you kind of just go with the flow, and you just have to accept that you don't have full control over it. I'm still working on the acceptance part.

 

I'm curious, would it be helpful if I clarified that the "backstory" is something that already existed instead of something you all create? Or do you think the "backstory" approach doesn't make much sense?

 

15 hours ago, Adagio said:

I don't really know what else I wanted to say because my thoughts are a bit muddled right now, but I appreciate this post a lot!

 

Thank you! ^^

 

Please don't feel you have to reply either. If you do want to reply, it's okay if it takes weeks, months, or even years. I know you all have a lot of hard work on your hands and I'm honored you dropped by!

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2024 at 2:03 AM, Ranger said:

I'm curious, would it be helpful if I clarified that the "backstory" is something that already existed instead of something you all create? Or do you think the "backstory" approach doesn't make much sense?

 

I'd say it could work either way, depending on the system. I think it's easier to see someone as more "real" and as a person if you can already feel their presence. From my experience, it's hard to create a presence that's equal to other members in a system. This could apply to other people too, but I'm a huge daydreamer with a complex paracosm, and trying to make backstories for people, even if it's off of my own life, kind of feels similar to my paracosm.

 

Also, I find that memories and emotions tend to be "assigned" based on role, and most of us think that if we weren't there when whatever event occurred, it wasn't us. Not sure if this is true for others, though. However, perhaps a collection of experiences and memories they could all share in common? I have amnesia so for me, I'd find it difficult to be able to say that's my memory if I wasn't there for it. I don't know where I was going with this because I got distracted and forgot what I was writing about, whoops.

 

On 2/15/2024 at 2:03 AM, Ranger said:

 

If there is a better place, I do wonder if it would be better for a polyfragmented system to write their own version of a guide? I don’t feel comfortable standing as a reliable source on the subject since everything I know about polyfragmented systems is second hand.

 

I think you did pretty well!

 

The term polyfragmented has become a bit of a grey area. Different systems have different ideas of the definition. Many who I know who identify as polyfragmented don't have a lot of fragments, they just have a lot of people. Some use it to refer to a member count of over 100. Point being, it'd depend on the view of who you asked.

 

I also would be wary of the system community because there's a lot of misinformation that goes around. That's part of why I like this little corner of the Internet.

 

On 2/15/2024 at 2:03 AM, Ranger said:

I only used "cohesion" and "fusion" to avoid confusion, I found that using "integration" made things confusing and I naturally added at least "cohesion" for clarification. I personally don't belive there is a "correct" or "incorrect" term though!

 

I quite like the term cohesion!

 

On 2/15/2024 at 2:03 AM, Ranger said:

Please don't feel you have to reply either. If you do want to reply, it's okay if it takes weeks, months, or even years. I know you all have a lot of hard work on your hands and I'm honored you dropped by!

 

This thread caught my interest, so I'll be around to check!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...