DID Detectives: Curse vs. Cure

DID Detectives: Curse vs. Cure(s)

Being DID, I have a vested interest in learning what I can about dissociative identity diagnosis in general, and ‘myself’ in particular.

What I’ve learned thus far is that every DID ‘victim’ is different, therefore unique – and in asking “why?” the answers become very obvious: everyone is different, we’ve all had a different set of experiences, we come from different genetic backgrounds, and the Ten Percent rule throws in a certain degree of variability in the system. Therefore it makes sense that just like anyone else, DID persons are going to be unique – not just from those around them, but those in DID circles as well.

Therefore it follows that there can be no ‘standard’ treatment following someone’s DID diagnosis, which also makes sense given the above – and the below. Some people are “more” DID than others. While I don’t consider myself a ‘high level function’ DID – I obviously am (something that has become somewhat more apparent to me – I’m still investigating this phenomena). For instance, in some DID systems the ‘parts’ don’t communicate with each other; in some they do. In some they don’t get along; in others they function and ‘hand off’ tasks, functions, influences, et cetra (in terms of what is going on in the world today and around them) – readily and easily. And in some (like mine), it’s a mixture of a little bit of both and all, depending upon the pressures I’ve been under and the environment I am in.

So – facing these differences, what are we to do? Therapists and counselors have only a little bit of training giving them general guidelines – and society says “this is wrong: there is only one being; multiples can’t be true” – and thus the medical system follows the general rule of “eliminate what is wrong” – and therefore ‘we’ run into problems.

After all: who really wants to be “eliminated”? It can be done through drugs – the medical profession has made a fortune off of prescribing them – and given their side effects, the results have been questionable. No doubt: in some cases they work, but they shouldn’t be meant as a long term solution. Plus, as “I” and others have found – if you ‘eliminate’ a part of the system, you eliminate a part of that person’s “self”. A quality in them will be gone – whether that be an emotion or a physical skill, or (again, as in my case) – a little bit of both.

I recall reading what the psychologists described as a “cured” DID being. They described the persons as being “emotionally flat”, rather like a two-dimensional being. Being emotionally on ‘neutral’ all the time – neither loving nor hating, raging or in joy – just ‘stuck’ right there in the middle . . . of nothing. Their “cure” kinda reminds me of being in a totally “dissociative” state – sorta dead within staring at the world moving past outside my eyes – being more of a robot than a living human being – barely ‘there’, just going through the motions . . . and they call that thing a ‘cure’. (And I say this quite bitterly, because that is basically ‘the treatment’ for many DID beings . . . wonderful creatures that they are, shut up and shut down and merely a fraction of a shadow of themselves . . . them ‘self’.)

If this is the kind of loss I must experience in order to be cured . . . I’d rather remain crazy, then.

Then there are those others (psychologists and friends) who try to help the DID system by encouraging the system ‘parts’ to get along; share the human hosting mechanism (the main ‘host’ or adult being), helping the host to understand he or she must not only ‘maintain’ said system – but help it get along by functioning as a mediator between ‘living’ parts – helping to arrange the function by consciously becoming aware of “them” and what they are and what they are doing there and how they contribute to the overall sense of well-being, happiness and joy – what their pains are; ancient griefs and things – help them get over and through their mourning . . . there’s a lot of things that must be done.

No wonder psychiatrists so often prescribe the drugs. It’s much easier than doing the work that must be done.

I’m leaning more in favor of ‘giving into’ my DID system (once again – this is a debate I’ve had with ‘We’ off and on for a long, long time) – simply because I am and feel more ALIVE with ‘everyone’ moving around – there is more emotional, spontaneity, depth of feelings – no more ‘dead’ inside or ‘dead spots’ (where we don’t feel any emotion at all towards a particular event) – more liking and take towards artwork, more playing with my ‘friends’ (my grandchildren, actually – the adult ‘half’ speaking here – but to my ‘little one’ they are my friends) . . .

I found myself last night with the little ones – remembering little hand tricks and things. Do you know the one of ‘waggling your fingers’? The middle ones, I mean – folding them over, inverting and rolling over your hands, then waggling your fingers? Grossed the littlest grandson out when he first saw me do it – and then he just had to know HOW – especially when ALL the adults in the room began doing it, demonstrating that they knew how . . . passing on “little skills” to my ‘young friend’ – something I had not done in awhile. Heck, I didn’t even remember I knew how to do the ‘trick’ until my little one remembered – and ‘he’ had to come forward a bit to show ME how to do the thing.

But if I was ‘cured’ I would not remember doing that. I would not have known how. I would have just stared at him with a vacant eyed adult stare, wishing he would go on. Or perhaps loving him and hugging him – but just as a ‘thing’; something that needed to be done. My ‘love’ wouldn’t be near so vibrant and alive for him (or anyone – everyone) without ‘that thing’, that ‘bit’ of DID being within me – the little child.

The thing is – a DID system (or being) can only do so much – especially given the social stigma they will face if they “go there” (meaning ’embracing the system’ and opening themselves up – or giving in to – the ‘madness’ that society says this sort of thing is). What if I came up to you and said: “We are here!” (Which is the truth – and, by the way, something I do and have done . . . usually can be confused into ‘we’ as in ‘we – me and you’ . . . we hide by not stating clear . . .)

Which just goes to show you how much we DID people fear being ‘found out’ – persecuted by the society we live in (and the professionals as well) – so in order to remain ‘normal’ we keep our mouth shut about the thing.

And yet I can’t help but think: in the ‘old days’ people with multiple ‘people’ or personalities inside were regarded as ‘touched by the hand of God’ or made someone special . . .

or burned at the stake as witches, tortured until they were almost dead (and then burned at the stake or on some woodpile for good measure) . . .

and even now if someone comes up to you and says “I talk to God” or “I have angels living inside” – you are going to be looking at them kinda funny – I know I do. And I’m one of those folks! I swear: you just can’t win with this system . . .

But I’m much more likely to hear them out nowadays; listen to them. Another wonderful thing about keeping the “DID system” alive and well and functioning (without anyone being ‘put down’, ‘locked out’, or in other ways not participating within the ‘self’) – is that we have cued in a lot on a person’s speech and mannerisms – looking for subtle hints of this thing – and if nothing else, it helps us realize we are not all that abnormal from anyone else: we’ve just got ‘parts’ that are a bit better defined is all – and the ability to ‘shut them down’ and ‘turn them off’ if need be.

And that is something else in the DID system I’ve noticed: not just in ‘mine’ but everyone else’s. You remember me saying something about them all being different. And then I read somewhere how some DID’ers will switch to their ‘inner ones’ – the “littles” – when placed under too much stress, and it occurred to me that is almost exactly opposite of what WE will do: we protect our ‘innocents’ by ‘putting them away’ – erecting the guards and shields in my mind, Matt coming forward; the Soldier arousing; scientists and sharp mental functions coming to the fore – and the rest all fading to the background. We can grow hard sometimes – sometimes in an instant – going from laughing and joking and smiling – to hard hard Marine, with Killer instinct just behind the shoulder . . .

But we don’t like doing that. It kinda sucks because so many of ‘ourselves’ get ‘left behind’ – shoved in their foxholes somewhere; heads down and ducking – protecting the ‘littles’ and more sensitive parts inside.

You have to do that sometimes. Especially when you’ve been abused. Especially while you are being abused. Which brings me to a quality of my system here: Why we were developed and who we ‘are’ in ‘this kinds of stuff’ – meaning a nasty situation. Because it appears that was we were ‘developed’ for.

And that’s the key thing to take out of this, if you take nothing else: everyone is different, including those with DID. It is no more of a descriptive label than that of “human being” – it encompasses a variety of things: states, being, emotion and behavior – all within a single ‘system’ or being . . . just like anyone else.

And therefore I can see no clear ‘need’ to shut this thing ‘down’ – indeed, even if I could. It would do more ‘harm’ to the system – or myself – by ‘losing’ or burying some parts. For some people this may be key, but for others it’s the wrong way to go. It’s something to bear in mind when dealing with a DID system – whether that be someone else’s, or even yours. Whether to ’embrace’ the system as a whole – or to try to ‘shake off’ and ‘destroy’ those beings inside . . .

Of the two I think I’m going to forge ahead with the former – while knowing I’ll probably give in at times towards the latter – and realizing from harsh experience which is the best of the two – for ME.

Next (maybe – maybe a few posts later on): DID Detectives: The Evolution of Being, where I (and we!) examine ‘how’ (sorta) and ‘why’ (maybe) ‘our’ (some, anyway) ‘internal beings’ arrived, were derived at (and for and from) – and what ‘they’ are for . . .