Sam Ruck put out a good post the other day: “A Husband’s Definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder”. For anyone who wants to gain some insight into someone with DID, his blog is an excellent resource. And Sam’s blog has made me (and us) so very aware of the differences in “D.I.D.”.
For one thing, we have attacked ourself/selves. Sam’s wife didn’t. On the other hand – we’ve seen other blogs where people have.
Sam’s wife has a ‘Defender’. So does Bongo – Bongo herself. So do we – several, actually. (We are a redundant being . . . another advantage of being DID: we had to be. In order to survive. In order to stay “sane” …. by going insane …. as a little child we did, I reckon, somewhat . . . we had to…)
But Sam’s past two post have been dead ringers – hits on the bell right on the head. One was “The Ugly Side of D.I.D.” – and then this other, “A Husband’s Definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder”.
These two hit the bell for “me” because to tell the truth, I have to “promote” the ‘good sides’ of DID in order to survive . . . somewhat. Otherwise everything would be bad . . . everything about it. But he is right, Sam I Am Is. There are disadvantages – and we got hit young. Very young in most cases – as a little child.
So here you’ve got these little children (and they’re ‘inside’) – but they were ‘crippled’ at the start; too handicapped to run – so they just stumbled along as best they could – in ‘some’ cases, dividing ourselves, our various ‘chores’ – learning to ‘shut down’ our feelings in a crisis (meaning a beating or something) — shove those feelings aside; separate ‘ourselves’ from them . . .
Sometimes I think: “I’m not DID. No way. It’s just voices in my head; it’s nothing; it’s normal for everyone.”
and I hear a voice which says “Yeah, I agree”
and another one chimes in “So do I”
and yet another one echoes, “I’m not DID either”
and “no I am”
and another “Not I!”
and so on . . .
and then I realize:
we are DID; me and me inside . . . sad sorta sense . . . like containing human souls; being responsible for them – some of them torn and hurting; some of them sad; scarred souls forever scarred …. but not so . . .
because I can love them and ‘we’ do . . .
It’s really hard to describe.
Me and DID and the ‘universes’ inside.
But here’s the thing: while there’s this ecstatic wonder and whatnot in our head (that’s “Mikie’s” thing along with some others) – there’s the disadvantages as well.
When it was a “disorder” we were attacking ourselves and stuff. Whatnot. Putting scars onto our arms. Fighting to avoid driving into bridge abuttments. Driving off a cliff sometimes (there was an excellent one! We know right there where it is . . . driving off at 75 miles an hour, you would crash into the ‘other wall’ (it was a ravine) – and fall (hopefully burning) onto the railroad tracks . . . this off interstate; we had planned it quite well . . . had to do it when a train was coming of course – timing was everything – didn’t want to blow it all to hell and do it too early or too late for the train to run into the burning wreck . . .)
and so you see (by the above) the madness of the mind in ‘those’ days – yes ‘It’ still survives to the nth degree (meaning we don’t know which).
Have you ever forgotten how to drive? In the middle of driving??? Neither have “we” -but we’ve come close a few times.
Or imagine cooking a meal or a dinner – and then leaving it on the stove. Because you forgot you did it. Or that meal isn’t “yours”. Stuff like that.
Have you ever hidden anything from yourself? We have – and quite deliberately so sometimes! (It’s a “trick” and we learned how to do it over during our PR Adventure and all.) We would have destroyed all our evidence if we hadn’t “tricked” ourselves by having “one” hide something from another – and everyone “else” pretending nothing is going on (having their backs ‘turned’ for a moment, so to speak).
“We”. That says enough in and of itself. “WE”. “OUR.” “YOURS” (as in not ours).
We never figured anything weird was with that: we just used “we” sometimes in conversation – a LOT during thought processes – anything. “We” sometimes (and often still do) express “we” as we as in “we” are going – meaning me and someone else – when I mean “we” as in “ME” and “us” and “ours”.
Gets kinda confusing, doesn’t it? Trust me: it’s all in the semantics. Truth is; the English language doesn’t allow for a plural person very much – not very much at all. And neither does their society in some ways. It’s “forbidden”, “taboo”, and all because we’re different.
Read those blogs – especially that first one . . .
and you might find:
we aren’t so different at all.