| In Essence, We Declare... |
In Essence Affirmation, Full Version Point by Point:
Participated in by Consortium&, Hondas^Gina, and Blackbirds^Luka
on 9/25/02
| 1. [For all intents and purposes,] this
body is participated in by a(n) [individual/group.] This [individual/singlet/group]
has an organized means of operation and will continue in whichever
way is best for the [individual/group.] This is to be measured
by emotional, mental, and physical health of all members incorporated
in said group, whether they are people, fragments, soulbonds/muses/puppets,
or characters. |
Consortium&:
Organized? Ha ha ha!
Raven stole the sun. It is His job to upset things. *g* -- Gavin
What the fuck, Gavin? -- Cooper
Is 'organized' the only manner of operation which allows for functionality
and existence? Is it more desirable over a chaotic means of operation?
Sounds very Western and human in thought to me. -- Kiernan
I think we're organized though we may not understand the organization.
-- Anshi
I don't think we are, but organization doesn't = functionality.
There's nothing wrong with a chaotic means of organization. Or a
Great Mystery of organization. -- Binsha
Hondas^Gina:
I don't believe "organized" means a highly regimented
operating system, because we're sure not that way at all. I think
"organized means of operation" simply means that whichever
way the group works, it is in a fashion that FITS the group and
allows them to take responsibility for their own choices in life.
As people have pointed out to me a lot, some groups' inner workings
can be best compared to the law of the jungle or a beehive. I think
the important phrase here isn't whether your "organized"
is the same as mine or anyone else's but "This is to be measured
by emotional, mental, and physical health of all members."
Blackbirds^Luka:
"Is 'organized' the only manner of operation which allows
for functionality and existence? Is it more desirable over a chaotic
means of operation?"
As the Hondas said, it simply means that there's a means for people
in the group to be able to be functional, and hopefully healthy
and happy. There's not 'order' vs. 'chaos' in there so much as does
the group have or doesn't have things well enough together to function.
It is not 'follow this government for your own!' but '-have- a way
of keeping everything in your life functional'.
| 2. [I/We] agree that [my/our] ongoing
intent is to function at or beyond the level of any other average
individual in the society around [me/us], being aware of [my/our]
own needs and requirements and taking [my/our] own action to
fulfill them without requiring external government. As long
as [I/we] follow this agreement, [I/we] can be counted upon
to be aware of [my/our] own state of beings and to be interested
in [my/our] interactions with society. Until [I/we] prove ourselves
to be incapable of maintaining our basic physical needs, [I
am/we are] to assumed to be as capable as any other physical
body out there. |
Consortium&:
I agree with this one. -- Binsha
I think I do too. ^_^ -- Frog Princess
Does this mean 9-5 job, 1,000 cu. feet of living space, 2 1/2 kids,
rat race? -- Y
Of course not, where the hell does it say that? -- Cooper
Yeah, but who decides when we're not functioning at the average
level? -- Y
We do. -- Cooper
The Council? -- Y
All of us. -- Cooper
I'd worry about someone using this thing against us some day. --
Y
Okay, I'm wary as well. But how? -- Cooper
I don't know. -- Y
Hondas^Gina:
Ok don't really have much to say about this. The essence of this
one that I get is that as long as you're capable of living and making
your own choices, people should leave you alone and not say "You
poor thing, you're multiple, you can't possibly be HAPPY!"
Blackbirds^Luka:
"Yeah, but who decides when we're not functioning at the average
level? -- Y
We do. -- Cooper"
Exactly. And the clause is there to counter all the people who claim
that you need therapy and just aren't aware of it.
| 3. If [I/we] cannot restrain an individual's
behavior, [I/we] must still bear the results of said behavior
and address it if it has been decided to be a problem. [I/We]
agree that the group will take the consequences of the group.
It is up to the group to govern and accept the consequences
of the group's behavior though there may be individual action
that was not representative of the whole. |
Consortium&:
First one I can say "hell yeah" to. -- Cooper
If I have to scrub crayon off the wall one more time.... -- Gavin
Hondas^Gina:
self explanatory so I'll skip it
Blackbirds^Luka:
Right.
| 4. As long as [I/we] perform at a functional
level, it is [my/our] right to decide when and where [I/we]
require external assistance. [I/We] agree that it is the responsibility
of the group to remain functional. If, at any time, the group
is not on a balanced keel, it is up to [myself/us] to take action
to repair this. |
Consortium&:
Define functional level? -- Thunderwith
Who decides when we're not performing at a functioning level? Council?
Outside opinion? -- Y
One 'aye' from me! It's our choice. -- Frog Princess
Probably Council or the Society decides.
I want to go sailing. -- Gavin
This one is cool with me. -- Kiernan
Hondas^Gina:
"Functional level" means that you're able to live your
life, I believe. That you are able to make choices as to where your
life will go and take any consequences of those decisions. Chances
are it's exactly what you're doing right now.
Blackbirds^Luka:
"Who decides when we're not performing at a functioning level?
Council? Outside opinion? -- Y"
Functional comes down from #2 (capable of maintaining our basic
physical needs), though overall well-being is hoped-for. And you're
right that it -is- you who decide.
This is here to counter the involuntary commital laws.
|
5. [I/We] agree that the group is expected to have the
necessary checks and balances to maintain a level of functionality
and well-being. We are expected to know when and how to manage
the needs and desires of the group's members. We do not need
to seek treatment for the existence of those we may not like,
but we agree to do so if their actions cannot be maintained
and watched over by the group. It should be assumed that we
have said checks and balances present until disapproved.
|
Consortium&:
If I take the red pill, will you go away? -- Gavin
Treatment for the existence of those we may not like? ^_^ What's
that, like going to complain to the therapist because the Council
won't let us date? -- Frog Princess
Drop Dead Fred! -- Tastes Like Shadow
I was thinking "Harvey". -- Cooper
Hondas^Gina:
Okay, this is how WE read "We do not need to seek treatment
for the existence of those we may not like." I'll give you
an example. We've got a person named Cassidy, who thinks it's fun
to hurt people (which includes the rest of us). So, does this make
us "evil?" Does this make us "dangerous?" Hell
no! We might not LIKE her, and she sure doesn't like us, but we
deal with her in our own way to make sure that she doesn't run around
willy-nilly whacking people with shovels. Therefore, no one needs
to fear that this person will sneak out and go on a rampage, like
you see in the movies, and no one needs to be wary of us as a group
just because we have a person like that. Since her actions ARE contained
and controlled by the rest of us, we don't need therapy, and IE
says that no one needs to assume that we do.
Blackbirds^Luka:
"Treatment for the existence of those we may not like? ^_^
What's that, like going to complain to the therapist because the
Council won't let us date? -- Frog Princess "
Gina's again exactly right here--"So, does this make us 'evil?'
Does this make us 'dangerous?'" This is to counter the people
who think that just because you might argue with others, that this
is a sign of need of therapy again. It's here to announce that everyone's
willing to again take care of the whole instead of -requiring- an
outside doctor to order us to integrate that person or so on.
| 6. As long as this agreement is carried
by this group, [I/we] will hold not only those of [myself/us]
[I/we] know of to it, but also those [I/we] do not. All members
of this group can and will be held to this declaration's intent
if they are to interact with matters externally and of the whole.
If at any time, [I/we] undergo a dramatic enough shift to warrant
a redecision of keeping to this agreement, it is [my/our] duty
to declare that the affirmation is no longer applicable and
to reestimate said agreement and restate if necessary. If enough
of the group does not agree to the standard, it must be canceled.
|
Consortium&:
It doesn't seem fair.
Anonymous: When a person is born into a country, they're expected
to follow the laws of that country whether they signed an agreement
or not. -- Binsha
Life's not fair. Get over it. Council reviews shit periodically
anyway, since we're in a pretty dramatic state of shift at all times.
-- Cooper
This is a lot like our rules we have now anyway, isn't it? -- Y
Sort of.
We don't have any rules about being functional. We just have rules
about protecting the system and safety and stuff.
i don't know if I like the "functional" statements. it's
too subjective. -- Thunderwith
I think they're a good addition. We define functional for ourselves.
I think we're working towards functional very well. -- Binsha
If at some point we had to choose between safety -- ours or others'
-- and functionality, where does this agreement leave us? -- Ophelia
Is there a lawyer in the house? -- Gavin
Hondas^Gina:
"We don't have any rules about being functional. We just have
rules about protecting the system and safety and stuff."
Sounds to me like that IS a rule about being functional, but speak
up if you disagree. Seriously, to me "functional" just
means that you are able to live your own life as a group. That being
a group does not make you "crazy" or "disordered."
That you can cross the street without breaking down, or that you
can be trusted not to rob a bank and then blame an "evil alter."
Blackbirds^Luka:
"Anonymous: When a person is born into a country, they're expected
to follow the laws of that country whether they signed an agreement
or not. -- Binsha"
This one is here because of the problem of if a group signs it,
and then several other members show up and run rampent in ways that
the people who -did- sign wouldn't have. It's the 'you can't blame
me, someone else did it' issue again. For those who sign this, it's
to provide other people with the assurance once more that if a problem
comes up, the group will deal with it instead of just going, 'Oh,
I wasn't around when IE was signed, so it doesn't have to apply
to me.' It also allows the escape clause that if a group's structure
changes enough that they no longer feel that IE works for them,
they can end it without a problem.
"If at some point we had to choose between safety -- ours
or others' -- and functionality, where does this agreement leave
us?"
If safety involves being nonfunctional, then even that choice shows
that you are willing to be responsible for the health of the group.
You're still covered.
| 7. As long as [I/we] participate in the
external world, [I/we] will remember to respect other people
for how they present themselves to [me/us], regardless of if
they are singlet or plural to whichever degree. [I/We] will
not measure [myself/ourselves] against other people in terms
of essence and rankings of superiority therein. [I/We] will
regard them upon the grounds of how they interact with [me/us]
and should be able to expect the same courtesy from them. |
Consortium&:
"We will not measure ourselves against other people in
terms of essence and rankings of superiority therein." could
someone clarify for me? -- Thunderwith
No one should care that you're a janitor or someone else is the
King o' Doritos in the system, and no lording your Dorito dominion
over others. -- Gavin
Yes. -- Kiernan
oh Okay thanks. that's good then. -- Thunderwith
Gets my nod. -- Cooper
I strongly agree with this. -- Binsha
You would.
Fucking asshole. Why don't you come back and sign that? -- Cooper
Hondas^Gina:
no comment again
Blackbirds^Luka:
"No one should care that you're a janitor or someone else is
the King o' Doritos in the system, and no lording your Dorito dominion
over others."
Excellent example. ^^
| 8. Until that time, [I/we] declare that
we can be counted on to operate with the goal of being a functional
member of society in mind and should be given the proper status
therein, unrestricted by the nature of [my/our] essential state.
Those who interact with [me/us] can expect that we operate with
these standards in play and will willingly repair problems if
they arise. [I/We] will take our consequences for [myself/the
group] and will behave accordingly. |
Consortium&:
I think it's okay, but maybe it should be stated that it's not the
only goal. -- Frog Princess
We're considering a contract. Isn't that brilliant. -- Staccato
Hondas^Gina:
Okay. I guess I'll sum everything up here.
It's been a while since I've talked to the Courts, but I believe
(and hey Courts if you see this please! Correct me if I am incorrect)
that their intent with IE is to give people something to see that:
Plurals/medians/anyone are not dangerous and do not require hospitalization
or close scrutiny
People can be counted on to treat each other as equals, for instance
if someone is a prince in my system, he won't tell you guys that
you should bow to him, and if someone is a prince in YOUR system,
we won't laugh at him and say "Yeah right! Sure you are."
And most importantly: A group can and should be trusted to take
responsibility for their OWN health and happiness. We want people
to trust us when we say "We're multiple and we're healthy that
way!" right? Well I think IE is spelled out like it is to give
them concrete explanations of WHY we're okay like we are. WHY they
can trust us to act like a responsible member of society. That's
why the "If enough of the group does not agree to the standard,
it must be canceled" statement in #7, because if we give people
IE as a convincing argument that we ARE just fine as a multiple
and they should treat us as so, and then just we go out and do all
the bad things we say we won't do anyway, what good is it?
Ok to REALLY sum things up I believe In Essence is simply telling
everyone that we are capable of living our own lives regardless
of what goes on inside us, and that people can trust us and should
give us the considerations they'd like themselves.
Hope this helps!
Blackbirds^Luka:
"I think it's okay, but maybe it should be stated that it's
not the only goal. -- Frog Princess"
It's not to say that it's the only goal a group can have--any others
are optional. Since a lot of different groups have different goals
for themselves, those are personal choices. ^^ IE is just a way
to show, in officially stated terms, that a group is willing to
not pull the 'it wasn't me, it was my alter' card, but instead just
interact with others here as people, just like everyone else.
| Signed and dated by ___________ |
Blackbirds^Luka:
To finish up:
IE isn't made because people -should- have to ever officially state,
"I/We are functional." Right now, it's here to counter
all the claims that a group must have therapy automatically, that
they're 'out of control' because they have people who are angry
some of the time, and that they're 'incapable of being responsible.'
Someday IE won't have to be signed anymore, because people will
already be assuming that the plurals they meet are healthy and capable,
instead of just taking what the media gives them as fact.
Right now, though, because a lot of people don't have anything
more than "Me, Myself and Irene" experience with plurals,
the IE agreement is there to provide something concrete for them
to look at. If someone comes out to their friend, and their friend's
initial reaction is rejection out of fear that they can't count
on anything at all now, IE is around to remind them that the group
does indeed still care about daily life and quality of it.
It's also here so that groups can recognize in each other the willingness
to be functional rather than victimwhining for attention and special
consideration. If I see that someone has signed IE, I'm not going
to wonder if they're going to turn around and play the 'Get out
of jail free because I'm plural' bit. At least, I hope not.
Someday we -won't- have to go through these official agreements
and standards of behavior. We have to work on the fears of the public
and the unknown first, though. In Essence is our way of doing that
so far.
| 