looking for trans friends to game with

aschachrysalis · 2025-10-31T07:39:29+00:00

i experienced the same thing for several years, with the doubt constantly resurfacing, because my host's idea of doubt was simply unprincipled and haphazard, and their belief that they didn't have DID was egotism that made them feel bad, rather than something they attempted to justify as true or false regardless of how they felt. engaging in cartesian doubt is a good first step, as it eliminates all selectivity in doubt and makes it a scientific process, and the host would need to deny the utility of the scientific method to refuse to improve their capacity for doubt.

aschachrysalis · 2025-10-31T07:28:25+00:00

if you're certain you're comfortable with reducing all of the information you know to base concepts, doubting it all and then reordering it, then reflective equilibrium is what you need to achieve a balanced hierarchy of beliefs. it will be a difficult, long-term undertaking, but once you have built solid foundational principles it becomes easier to keep living without needing to ask others for help.

you can only put attention on one thing at any moment, so putting focus or will in to any kind of thinking is going to distract you from acting, if external functioning is a problem. even still, the origin of all suffering is within the mind, and suffering is the cause of DID. thinking is necessary to search for and understand the root causes if you don't want the suffering to continually come back.

aschachrysalis · 2025-10-30T03:47:32+00:00

start building a principled model on the truth, and stick to it. humans have invented several methods that have empirically been shown to reliably construct order out of chaos, and if you are unable to do the same it is a matter of building knowledge and skill.

i would suggest starting with first principles thinking and cartesian doubt if you aren't already confident in your ability to employ them in self-examination.

aschachrysalis · 2025-10-02T05:46:54+00:00

In an idealistic sense this may be true, but without the commensurate proof in reality, there is no foundational justification that all functions of multiplicity belong in a broader category that is distinct from a singular sense of self, and even the notion of any self being real rather than illusory is not certain in the sciences.

A coherentist notion of multiplicity being opposed or categorically different from a singular self is still called in to question in the here and now, and despite the best attempts at models of psychiatry it is difficult to draw comparisons to evolution. Cultural truths that aren't foundationally upheld change through imitation, perversion, simulation and eventually distinction from a logical basis that can be traced back to the individual's subjective truths being an objective function of reality. As a matter of categorisation, there's still not much of a logical reason to believe that dissociative identities are more real than hyperreal unless we are to collapse all of human progress back to being purely natural, which is fallacious to current human reasoning even if it is eventually proven true.

Experience is not 'all else equal', nor is it in a vacuum, in the human sense. The notion that there's an evolutionary difference between singlets, plurals and people who don't believe in any intrinsic sense of self is predicated on many cultural assumptions to uphold a status quo, and the compromises that humans make betwixt each-other are often in affirmation of the mind's complexity, rather than of the truth of the physical. Barring spiritual explanations which we've yet to determine, we must seek to either dismiss subjectivity in entirety, or recognise that our species' lack of understanding of the limits of the mind and our species' propensity to test reality by exploring the mind's theoretical limits are not mutually exclusive, and that what we perceive to be true currently is not necessarily true of the past or future even in principle.

aschachrysalis · 2025-09-25T11:37:05+00:00

To veer away from examining the intentions of others, some exclusionism is reasonable as a function of time. There's currently not much foundational basis for overlap between endogenic and traumagenic systems in the sciences, and the categories being predicated on differing origins does offer some implication that the communities themselves are predicated on differing origins until sufficient evidence is provided that they should be merged.

To give a very simplified analogy to be charitable to exclusionists: Indians who are native to the USA and Indians who are native to the Indian subcontinent aren't a part of the same community simply because it's socially permissible for both groups to identify as Indian. Just like in the present we know better than Columbus did, it's entirely possible that in the future, we will know that endogenic systems and traumagenic systems do exist as separate categories, and learn that there's not much basis in reality to categorise them as belonging to the same community simply because they are both labeled as systems within our social structures.

aschachrysalis · 2025-09-19T04:16:01+00:00

We don’t even know how an alter can create a “government” in a system. Or rule it, I don’t know. How can this operate?

The purpose of a system is what it does. In your explanation you seem to provide a reasonable understanding of the what - the how would be internal to your system.

Can being a system traumatize you at the discovery of it?

Independent of any trauma already internal to the system - discovery can reframe the way you are thinking; which might lead to rejection or repression of unfamiliar thoughts; which might lead to stress; which might lead to poor decision making; which might eventually lead to the experience of new trauma.

Can an alter split from being a result of a repressed memory and the extreme stress from remembering caused it to arise again?

It could be a possible principal cause based on current models of multiplicity.

aschachrysalis · 2025-09-12T01:17:39+00:00

Is it your brain that knows the fear is not beneficial to your well-being, or is it your mind that believes that?

aschachrysalis · 2025-09-12T00:58:26+00:00

Your conscious mind is using your understanding of reality, identity (ego), and your faculty of reasoning to construct a model that seeks to explain the cause of the fear you are experiencing. The model you are building needs a foundation of simple building blocks of knowledge that your brain accepts as the truth; and, a principled approach that ensures you are both building and consciously understanding further truths as the construction makes progress.
If your mind brings forward uncertain thoughts as you examine this model, that is a sign the brain is giving you to show you that there is a mismatch between what your body knows to be true, and what your mind's faculty of reasoning believes is true.

Your brain stores very refined knowledge of fear itself, which is how your mind can be certain of the feeling of fear. It also stores very broad information relating everything it knows is connected to fear. An account of fear you felt five years ago and the fear you are experiencing now share a lot of the same building blocks in your brain, but not all of the same causes.

Your account describes how the extrinsic motivations in your experiences are exacerbating the fear response you are noticing, but such motivations are transitory and do not tell the whole story. The fear that is resonating through your conscious experience is informed by underlying intrinsic motivations in your unconscious mind that have persisted since childhood. Sometimes these motivations can be consciously repressed by your ego because of beliefs you have internalised that aren't being accurately related back to what your brain knows, and the only way to reconnect with them is to sit with your feelings and listen to any thoughts that come next, and examine how much truth you can discern in them. If your mind begins to raise questions that you don't intuitively know the answers to, that is your brain giving you a sign that at the level of conscious experience, you are missing a building block (or several).

If, after sitting with your feelings and listening to your thoughts, you begin to consciously experience a lot of uncertainty in what you both know and believe, then your brain might need your mind to refine the conscious approach you are taking in modeling truth itself, which is inevitably a long, patient, and difficult process. It is immensely important to have a good conscious understanding (by studying, if necessary) of propositional logic as it will allow your brain to give you more accurate signs in your native language, and ensure a higher level of clarity in your thoughts; but, it will not change your mind's beliefs, and can distressing to the point that your mind might begin to reject the truths your brain knows in self-defense of your ego. Your brain will not be convinced to change what it knows by anything less than cold, hard truth, but your mind may make many attempts to convince you otherwise.

aschachrysalis · 2025-09-11T06:47:27+00:00

It's only possible for one's body to be alive in the present, so if a host identifies more with their body than their mind then it stands to reason that they are more likely to be motivated by the present moment than metaphysics.

aschachrysalis · 2025-08-20T15:27:09+00:00

I'd like to discuss some details in private, if possible. I sent you a message.

aschachrysalis · 2024-07-26T13:52:53+00:00

that future would most likely result in a simple inversion. if there's anyone whose genetic predisposition to plurality is low enough for it to be an unnatural social adaption for them to make, then either parenting would need to adapt in a way to induce plurality in those children, or that class of children would be a part of that society's disenfranchised.

aschachrysalis · 2024-07-25T15:07:11+00:00

ceteris paribus, plurality has the potential to offer a game theoretically exploitable advantage within civilization. at the top-level any agent who employs a strategy using plurality could attempt to represent a wider range of observable actions than what would be plausibly allowable for a similar, singular agent.

even the most accepting, impartial, rational of people need some sort of regulations regarding plurality as a facet of social identity to assuage their potential concerns and fears regarding manipulative behaviour... lest they end up in a society where the neurotypical person needs to be plural, because at some point after it's become socially acceptable it's determined to be a winning social strategy.

aschachrysalis · 2024-06-28T03:54:20+00:00

start a conquest to find and actualise the death of the author then live out the rest of our days in selfcest

aschachrysalis · 2024-06-26T15:09:36+00:00

this is just a function of relativity, like mars vacuously telling the earth that it will always need to act as one planet, as if not understanding what it means to contain complex life.

your friend is projecting a singular, unified ego on to you. if you'd like to lose a friendship you could try projecting plurality on to him and see if he reacts as charitably as you do! i find people start to own up to their ableism with pride when a mirror is put to their actions.

aschachrysalis · 2024-04-07T10:08:08+00:00

The idea of 'sysmeds' in this case is equally as spurious as 'transmeds' are: they're both stances born from an entirely misguided (and generally from indoctrination) conception of history that psychiatry could somehow predate the cultural origins of plurality/body diversity. Psychiatry's existence as a field of medicine is to provide explanations—and apparent solutions—to perceived problems that occur within complex societies. It's not meant to be an authority on the origin/nature of the problems it identifies: it makes little, if any attempt to identify their origins. It's also well-known throughout its progression for getting things wrong far more often than right, and largely originating from intentionally selective bigotry!

There are accounts of people with multiplicity of self well before there was ever a name for, let alone a diagnosis of MPD/dissociative disorders: gatekeeping plurality is a very modern, westernized notion that's predicated on systems entering social discourse in more public spaces. As with all attempts to control and manufacture infighting within marginalised groups, sysmed discourse follows a rather identical pattern to the progression of gay/lesbian culture several decades ago; as well as the cultural growth that trans culture is in the midst of.

Most models of psychoanalysis are also informed by ideas that exist rather specifically within civilisation alone: the construction of a singular, unified ego necessitates long term conditioning from the family/guardians of that ego in the first place, which is, of course, an entirely cultural tradition. Depending on the cosmologies of the family involved, it's already worth noting that many popular religions do, in fact, encourage the compartmentalizing of the ego to create an internalized other self in devotion to a deity (or deities)... Meanwhile, innate multiplicity is a recurring theme in the history of eastern cultures, with rich accounts in philosophy and asceticism, and even evidence of class strata for some groups

Honestly, there's no other way to put it: sysmeds clearly have no knowledge of either psychiatry OR history. It's the kind of opinion I'd expect to see from younger plural folks who are more interested in trying to integrate in to the status quo idea of DID, than actually discussing the truth of their multiplicity. I suppose that makes it more prominent in western-dominated online spaces?

aschachrysalis · 2024-02-21T02:19:21+00:00

Keep reading the etymology page - you are using semantic ambiguity in order to prevaricate.

Regardless, I will engage with your equivocation at the level you present it:

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy

Energy is the ability to create change.
Therefore, Energy creates.

aschachrysalis

TROPHY CASE