Below is my reply to Kathy’s all-positive post, where I explained – to my alters I guess first of all – how it is a mistake to not allow the positiveness to be shared by all the alters, not only me – the all-positive alter.

It is a mistake to confine the negativeness only to the rest of our alters and see them as all-negative.

Re: “But on this one day, I decided to focus on the positive, and only the positive. Actually, I made this post because I had a sense that too many of the posts prior to that time were heavy-laden, sad, depressing, frustrating.”

I can appreciate the good intentions you started with when deciding to publish the “all positive post”. Having said that, however, I still don’t buy the final product that came out from the factory, despite my appreciating the good intentions that “engineering department” had when making a blue-print. Let me clarify what I mean.

I mean it’s a mistake to try and compensate for previous posts’ presumably all-negative spin by creating one post that would be all-positive. Why it is a mistake to do so?

Well, because it is similarly to creating another – like me :) – all-positive alter in order to compensate for the rest of person’s alters’ worthlessness (imposed upon the person by the abusers in the process of victimization).

The same way my perceived high worth should be integrated (like in the osmosis, distributed among the rest of alters, as well) into the whole person, the positiveness of your all-positive post should be shared by the rest of your posts, and vice versa – their negativeness should be shared with this one post. Otherwise your blog that offers healing from the dissociation ironically suffers from dissociation itself, as well.


– – –
Update No.1  – Kathy’s reply to the above reply of mine:

Kathy Broady said,

March 11, 2009 at 9:49 am

hi Sam,

I think of it as a matter of balance.

Not compensating, that puts a “negative slant” onto my positive point! :D


Because there ARE some things that can be considered positive about multiplicity. Yes, there are negative results about multiplicity, and those things are well-expanded upon in this blog. (And/or will continue to be so, because I won’t refer to this blog as a finished product — I’ve got on-going plans to continue on with the blogging! I really don’t think I’m done with this yet, lol…)

The truth is that there are both positives and negatives to being multiple.

Both exist.

I have no doubt that many multiples could easily easily tell me the down-side of being multiple.

But how many multiples can tell me the positives they feel about it??

As we can see in the comments on these topics, it’s clearly a very hard thing for DID survivors to sort through, or to grasp, or to experience, or to recognize, or to accept … ??? I think a lot of that difficulty is because a lot of folks tangle the negative effects of being severely abused in as one and the same as multiplicity.

My challenge to everyone is to remember to separate out the effects of the trauma and to distinguish those very very clearly from the multiplicity. As a sweeping kind of statement, I can say that I don’t think there are too many positive effects caused by such severe trauma….

Multiplicity is not one and the same as the trauma.

And I promise you, I’ve talked with a whole variety of multiples who have come to enjoy and cherish their multiplicity while they still very much were not happy about the trauma, they can see that the being multiple in itself (with cohesion, communication, and team work in place!) doesn’t have to be so negative.


And acceptance even.

And feeling some self-appreciation.

And maybe even some self-worth.


Wouldn’t that be a good thing.



– – –
Update No.2 – my reply to the above reply:

March 11, 2009 at 10:14 am


Thank you for talking to me even (or especially) when it seems the two of us can only agree to disagree. It really does give a balance – so you see I like your term – to disagreening that we are able to at least agree on disagreement :)

We seem to disagree on what level the balance should be achieved, you say it can be on the “collective” level i.e. across all your posts, and I think it should be achieved at the “individual” level, i.e. within each post.

Maybe because it reminds me of my goal to first try and achieve the balance *within* each of my alters “individually” before trying to spill the balance across all of me as a whole person (across all alters “collectively”).

I think it would make the integration much more smooth that way, because each of them would already have a balance within… What do you think?


– – –