When Rabbit Howls
discussion
Do you know what it is meant by When Rabbit howls...?.
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Storm's
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 10:57AM)
(new)
-
added it
Apr 06, 2007 05:55PM

reply
|
flag


The title is meant to portray the severity of the trauma she experienced.







Bluejay



That is because we are individuals in our own right. As you read in Truddi&'s account, it is a matter of the mind "giving birth" to other minds, not just "splitting".
Andy

Astraea wrote: "Sheila wrote: "I realize that there is A PERSON, who suffered so much trauma - "split" to deal with the horror. BUT... each personality is sooo defined and has their own character, beliefs, feelin..."
Yes, but research D.I.D. - and really understand... whether it is called splitting, broken or "birth" of another personality... sometimes these victims ARE NO LONGER INDIVIDUALS; even within their own world/mind.

Quite true. They become essences, influencing and informing other people in the system, as the second Olivia did with the Troops. She was dead, only her essence lived on.
Sometimes there isn't even an essence. People die, completely and utterly. And this can happen to any of us within the group. Has happened here. And we have also had people return from the dead, sometimes after many decades.
Multiplicity is all about this kind of reality. We cannot prove empirically that what we experience is real, actual; yet it is real nonetheless. The Troops talk about this in the section where they criticise Stanley for his notion that Mean Joe only exists in the woman's mind:
"I know you're comfortable telling the woman that she lives in two separate worlds, ours and reality, the latter of which I assume is your reality, too. But have you ever wondered how real your world actually is? As you sit there, you perceive things in a certain way and assume all of it is real. That's only natural; it's your frame of reference. But how can you be sure that somewhere another world doesn't truly exist wherein your reality, as you perceive it, is just as ridiculous, or at least as strange, as you perceive ours to be?"
I'm enjoying this conversation very much; would you care to take it to email?
Andy

Bluejay"
Our book "Which One Am I?" is about my husband Darrell's life with DID and we do quote "When Rabbit Howls." Of the DID memoirs I read researching our own story and the history of DID in society as Darrell was growing up, "Rabbit" is probably the best representatiion of what it is like to experience DID.
The problem with "Rabbit," and the problem in the psychiatric community as a whole these days, is a confusion in terms. You note that patients are refusing "integration." When the term is used in "Rabbit" and when it is commonly used by psychiatrists today, it is used incorrectly. The Troops think integration is the destruction of those people inside in order to create on new persona as Dr. Wilbur tried to do with The New Sybil. That now-discredited technique is more properly called "fusion." Integration is more the establishment of an internal hierarchy where the main personality -- the "first born" in DID perlance -- is recognized as being in control of the body and of those who live inside.
This doesn't always work. Truddi Chase, for one, had no "first born" as that personality had been kept asleep by the others since childhood because her protectors didn't feel she was capable of handling the world. I know at least one other DID patient like that, an artist in England.
Do the personalities ever fuse? No and most people with DID wouldn't want them to. As the Troops ask their doctor during one passage of "Rabbit" that we quote: "Who among us would you kill?"

"Integration is more the establishment of an internal hierarchy where the main personality -- the "first born" in DID perlance -- is recognized as being in control of the body and of those who live inside."
We and most of the groups we know refer to that as cooperation. Electing the firstborn as the one in control is one of many possible operating systems. It's probably excellent for groups in chaos. As you point out, it wouldn't necessarily have to be the firstborn. In our case, any number of people can run things, drawing on a common memory/skill pool. We know several other groups that use this form of government.

Because our book by necessity focused on Darrell's experience, we didn't explore how others organize. We did suspect some process like the one you describe actually existed but it just wasn't the case here.
It was hard enough to get Darrell and those inside him to tell about his journey that we didn't explore every avenue we might have. Perhaps there is another book on the subject in the back of my brain.
Thank you for the comments. It's really good to talk to you.

Quite true. They become essences, influencing and informing other people in the system, as the second Olivia d..."
Andy asked to "take it to email?" (albeit a while ago) but yes I would and the following is my facebook email, where I am most likely to be in contact.
100002521911805@facebook.com
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic