hello, we are antiendoarchive. our mission is to archive informative posts on cdds as well as the harm that non-traumagenic systems and their supporters have caused. sometimes, we may archive unrelated posts that are still worth archiving. reblogs ≠ endorsement/support.
any other stances, such as shipcourse, will not be disclosed. they are not important to what we're trying to achieve.
please do not use tone indicators on us in asks, comments, etc. explain your tone instead, thank you!
tagging system
pt: tagging system
#cdd info - information on cdds.
#anti endo info - information on the harm endos have caused.
#submissions - post submissions.
#hatemail - hate anons that i felt like responding to.
#reblogs - other people's posts.
#not a resource - anything that does not fit into the above categories.
#not a submission - any anons that do not fit into the above categories.
submission / ask rules
pt: submission rules
› any posts submitted must be educational. any non-educational posts will be ignored or deleted.
› if you're requesting for your posts to be archived, please make sure that your educational posts can be found easily.
› we do not do anon lists, apologies.
› we have the right to ignore and delete any anons that we want. don't take it to heart.
› if, for any reason, you want us to take down a reblog, we will honor your request.
a bit about us
pt: a bit about us
we are an adult pw/did named mark for convenience. we are interested in personality typology and the mandela catalogue. we are also very aggression, paranoia, and withdrawl prone. as a result, we will be avoiding making friends on this blog.
Lowkey a self promo, but I found a (medical!) source that says “no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis.”
The holy grail of evidence against endogenic systems - that CDDs CANNOT be intentionally created and then sustained
[SOURCED]
And for the research of how it can’t be created? Here are those sources if you’d like to read and study them.
D. W. Brown, Frischholz, & Scheflin, 1999
Gleaves, 1996
Loewenstein, 2007
Image text below cut.
Some authors claim that DID is caused by clinicians who believe strongly in DID and who implicitly and/or explicitly influence patients to enact symptoms of DID. According to this “sociocognitive” model,
DID is a socially constructed condition that results from the therapist’s cueing (e.g., suggestive questioning regarding the existence of possible alternate personalities), media influences (e.g., film and television portrayals of DID), and broader sociocultural expectations regarding the presumed clinical features of DID. For example, some proponents of the sociocognitive model believe that the release of the book and film Sybil in the 1970s played a substantial role in shaping conceptions of DID in the minds of the general public and psychotherapists. (Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, p. 117)
Despite these arguments, there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis (D. W. Brown, Frischholz, & Scheflin, 1999; Gleaves, 1996; Loewenstein, 2007).
[Additional reading provided above.]
A number of lines of evidence support the trauma model for DID over the sociocognitive model. These include studies that demonstrate DID in children, adolescents, and adults with substantiated maltreatment with evidence that DID symptoms predated any interaction with clinicians (Hornstein & Putnam, 1992; Lewis, Yeager, Swica, Pincus, & Lewis, 1997), studies of psychophysiology and psychobiology as described above, and studies of the discriminant validity of the dissociative disorders using structured interview protocols, among many others. Furthermore, naturalistic studies have shown that DID patients report many symptoms that, based on research data characterizing DID, were previously unknown to the patients, the general culture, and even most clinicians (Dell, 2006b).
Links to studies about different presentations of DID, including different alter types, childhood and adolescent DID, and DID across different cultures.
General DID Presentations
Formation and Functions of Alter Personalities in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Theoretical and Clinical Elaboration
Lived experiences of men with dissociative identity disorder
The Phenomenology and Treatment of Extremely Complex MPD
Symptom patterns in dissociative identity disorder patients and the general population
Differences Between Men and Women With Multiple Personality Disorder (not open access)
The clinical phenomenology of males with MPD: A report of 21 cases
Analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with dissociative identity disorder
Possession experiences in dissociative identity disorder: a preliminary study (not open access)
Alter Types
Therapeutic Hazards of Treating Child Alters as Real Children in Dissociative Identity Disorder
Therapeutic Alliance with Abuser Alters in Dissociative Identity Disorder
Internal self helpers of persons with multiple personality disorder
Issues in consultation for treatments with distressed activated abuser/protector self-states in dissociative identity disorder (not open access)
Animal alters: case reports
Introjection and dissociative identity disorder: a case report
Introject and identity: Structural-interpersonal analysis and psychological assessment of multiple personality disorder (not open access)
Opposite-gender identity states in Dissociative Identity Disorder: psychodynamic insights into a subset of same-sex behavior and attractions (not open access)
Childhood & Adolescent DID
Outpatient Treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder and Allied forms of Dissociative Disorder not Otherwise Specified in Children and Adolescents
Dissociative Identity Disorder Among Adolescents: Prevalence in a University Psychiatric Outpatient Unit
The Scientific Status of Childhood Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Review of Published Research (not open access but you can find a PDF of it if you look it up on Google Scholar)
Child abuse and dissociative identity disorder/multiple personality disorder: the documentation of childhood maltreatment and the corroboration of symptoms
Held in mind, out of awareness. Perspectives on the continuum of dissociated experience, culminating in dissociative identity disorder in children (not open access)
Dissociative disorders in children: Behavioral profiles and problems (not open access)
Diagnostic evaluation of the child with dissociative identity disorder/multiple personality disorder
Clinical phenomenology of child and adolescent dissociative disorders
Confirmation of childhood abuse in child and adolescent cases of multiple personality disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified
High psychiatric comorbidity in adolescents with dissociative disorders
Long-term outcome and prognosis of dissociative disorder with onset in childhood or adolescence
Treatment for childhood and adolescent dissociation: A systematic review
Adolescent inpatients' history of abuse and dissociative identity disorder (not open access)
DID Across Cultures
Gender and Racial Variability of Dissociative Identity Disorder Symptoms in an International Sample
Prevalence of dissociative identity disorder among psychiatric outpatients in different cultural groups
A Schema Therapy approach to complex dissociative disorder in a cross-cultural setting: a single case study
The Scope of Dissociative Disorders: An International Perspective
Structured interview data on 35 cases of dissociative identity disorder in Turkey (not open access)
Dissociative Identity Disorders in Korea: Two Recent Cases
Trauma and dissociation in a Chinese-American sample
Working with Chinese trauma survivors with dissociation: Lessons from two cases in Macao (not open access)
Current status of multiple personality disorder in India (not open access)
Multiple personality disorder - A case report from Northern India
Multiple personality disorder in the Netherlands: A clinical investigation of 71 patients
Dissociative disorders in black South Africans: A report on five cases
Dissociative disorders in Japan: A pilot study with the dissociative experience scale and a semi-structured interview
Multiple personality disorder in Puerto Rico: analysis of fifteen cases
Hey Solvan, we're wondering if you are fine with talking about soul-bonding and if you know anything more about it, because we're a tad confused on it. we recevied a few anons about it, and, truth be told, we never thought it was an endogenic thing, because it sounded more spiritual, which, if that was the case, would mean it didn't make someone a system.
Hello anon! I truly apologize for the really late response, I ended up having to read a couple of books relating to certain spiritual practices and such so that way we aren't both heading into a cave without a torch.
Alright, let's get into the world of soul-bonding. From start to finish—brief prehistory and then the modern stuff.
This post is a history stretching nearly 3,000 years without needing to claim that all of these are the same phenomenon or such. Only that they represent recurring ways humans have conceptualized inspiration, internal others, and relationships with seemingly autonomous beings. Yes, this post throws everything in your face at once.
WORD COUNT: 3,982 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 19 MINUTES (30 Minutes if you take the time to read the sources as well)
Antiquity — Muses, Daimons, and Divine Inspiration
Long before psychology or the internet, many cultures described inspiration and creativity as coming from entities separate from the self. Ancient Greeks did not generally regard artistic genius as something produced solely by the individual. Instead, poets, musicians, and philosophers often attributed their work to divine or semi-divine beings.
The Muses
Beginning with Homer and Hesiod (c. 8th–7th century BCE), poets invoked the nine Muses, daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne (Memory), as the sources of poetry, history, music, and knowledge. In the opening lines of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, Homer asks a Muse to "sing" through him, while Hesiod claimed in the Theogony that the Muses had personally appeared to him and bestowed poetic inspiration.
To the Greeks, creativity was not necessarily seen as originating entirely from the individual. Inspiration could be understood as something bestowed from outside oneself by autonomous intelligences.
Daimons
Another important concept was the daimōn (δαίμων), a supernatural or intermediary being that occupied a space between gods and humans. Unlike the later Christian concept of demons, daimons were not inherently evil. They could function as guides, protectors, messengers, or sources of inspiration.
One of the most famous examples comes from Socrates (469–399 BCE), who repeatedly described possessing a daimonion—an inner divine sign or voice that warned him against certain actions. In Plato's Apology, Socrates explained that this presence had accompanied him since childhood and would intervene by preventing him from making mistakes. Importantly, Socrates did not view this voice as pathological, but as a spiritual guide.
Divine Madness
Plato further elaborated on these ideas in the Phaedrus, describing several forms of mania (divine madness). Rather than treating all forms of altered states negatively, Plato argued that prophetic inspiration, poetic creativity, love, and religious ecstasy could all arise through forms of divinely inspired madness. Poets, according to Plato, created their greatest works not solely through technical skill, but because they were "possessed" by the Muses.
Echoes in Later Traditions
These ideas continued to influence later religious, philosophical, and artistic traditions. Roman writers adopted similar notions of the genius, a personal guiding spirit associated with creativity and character. Throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, artists and mystics continued to describe visions, inspirations, and communications with angels, saints, and spiritual entities.
While these ancient concepts should not be equated with modern plurality or soulbonding, they demonstrate that the notion of interacting with autonomous intelligences—whether understood spiritually, poetically, or psychologically—is far older than the internet and even older than modern psychiatry. Obviously, I'm mentioning and briefing on it because of you asking about spiritual practices.
The 1800s — Spiritualism, Automatic Writing, and Independent Intelligences
Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the Spiritualist movement transformed Western ideas about communication with unseen entities. Emerging in the United States in the 1840s and rapidly spreading throughout Europe and North America, Spiritualism taught that the dead could continue interacting with the living through mediums, trance states, visions, and automatic writing.
Spiritualists generally did not view these experiences as signs of illness. Rather, they believed that human consciousness could serve as a bridge between the physical and spiritual worlds.
Mediumship and Spirit Guides
Many mediums described maintaining ongoing relationships with particular spirits or "controls" who possessed their own names, personalities, opinions, and histories. Some spirit guides became longstanding companions, assisting mediums during séances and allegedly communicating messages from the dead.
Perhaps the most famous example was Leonora Piper (1857–1950), whose trance states and communications were extensively investigated by the newly founded Society for Psychical Research. During séances, Piper appeared to communicate through distinct personalities such as "Dr. Phinuit" and later "Imperator," each possessing recognizable traits and manners of speech.
Psychologists and psychical researchers debated whether these personalities represented genuine spirits, dissociated aspects of the mind, or some combination of the two.
Automatic Writing
Another common Spiritualist practice was automatic writing, in which a person allowed words to emerge seemingly without conscious control. Practitioners often attributed these writings to spirits, deceased loved ones, angels, or other intelligences.
One of the earliest and most influential examples came from Andrew Jackson Davis (1826–1910), sometimes called the "John the Baptist of Spiritualism." Davis claimed to receive teachings from spiritual entities and produced numerous writings through trance-like states.
Later, mediums such as Pearl Curran (1883–1937) became famous for channeling literary personalities. Beginning in 1913, Curran claimed that much of her writing originated from an entity named Patience Worth, who allegedly dictated poetry, novels, and conversations possessing their own distinctive voice and style.
Whether interpreted spiritually or psychologically, these cases demonstrated that people could experience seemingly autonomous personalities communicating through creative processes.
Theosophy and Thoughtforms
By the late nineteenth century, occult movements such as Theosophy expanded upon Spiritualist ideas. Founded by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1875, the Theosophical Society blended Spiritualism with Eastern religions and esoteric philosophy.
Theosophists proposed the existence of nonphysical entities and, later, developed concepts resembling "thoughtforms"—beings created or shaped by sustained thought and imagination.
In 1901, Annie Besant and Charles Webster Leadbeater published Thought-Forms, arguing that thoughts and emotions could generate forms possessing objective existence within subtler planes of reality. Then in 1924, Alexandra David-Néel—a European explorer—went to Lhasa, Tibet, and wrote books about her findings. This created a very romanticized and westernized lens of 'Tulpamancy'. Although very different from modern internet communities, these ideas would later influence twentieth-century occultism and eventually become historical predecessors to contemporary concepts such as tulpas and fictional entities.
The Birth of Multiple Personalities
The nineteenth century also witnessed growing medical interest in divided consciousness. French psychologist Pierre Janet investigated hysteria, dissociation, and subconscious personalities, while American philosopher William James explored the "hidden self" and secondary consciousness.
Meanwhile, famous cases such as Félida X, documented by Eugène Azam in 1876, described individuals exhibiting markedly different states of identity and memory. These cases fascinated physicians, psychologists, and Spiritualists alike, with some interpreting them medically and others spiritually.
By the end of the nineteenth century, discussions surrounding spirit communication, automatic writing, subconscious personalities, and multiple selves had become deeply intertwined. The boundaries between religion, psychology, and creativity remained fluid, laying much of the intellectual groundwork from which later ideas about internal companions, autonomous characters, and plurality would emerge.
1880s–1920s — Psychology, Dissociation, and the Subconscious Mind
By the late nineteenth century, the scientific study of consciousness was still in its infancy. Questions that had previously belonged to religion and Spiritualism—visions, trance states, automatic writing, and seemingly independent personalities—began attracting the attention of physicians and psychologists.
Rather than immediately dismissing these phenomena as insanity, many researchers attempted to understand them as natural expressions of the human mind.
Pierre Janet and Dissociation
French psychologist Pierre Janet (1859–1947) became one of the first researchers to systematically study what he termed dissociation. In L'Automatisme Psychologique (1889), Janet argued that certain mental processes could become separated from ordinary awareness, functioning independently outside conscious control.
Janet documented cases involving: automatic writing, distinct personality states, amnesia between states, internal conflicts between different aspects of the mind, and experiences resembling possession and/or spirit communication.
Unlike Spiritualists, Janet interpreted these phenomena psychologically rather than supernaturally. He proposed that traumatic experiences and weakened psychological integration could produce "subconscious fixed ideas" capable of operating autonomously.
His work would later become one of the foundations for modern theories of dissociation and Dissociative Identity Disorder.
William James and the Hidden Self
American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842–1910) was similarly fascinated by unusual states of consciousness.
In The Principles of Psychology (1890) and later The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), James proposed that human consciousness extended far beyond ordinary awareness. He described the existence of "secondary selves" and "subliminal consciousness," suggesting that thoughts and personalities could exist outside the immediate field of awareness.
James wrote:
"The consciousness of self involves a stream of thought."
He believed that what individuals considered their singular identity might actually consist of multiple layers or systems of consciousness interacting with one another.
Unlike some of his contemporaries, James remained open to both psychological and spiritual explanations, considering neither possibility entirely settled.
Frederic Myers and the Subliminal Self
Psychical researcher Frederic W. H. Myers (1843–1901), one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research, expanded upon these ideas.
In his posthumously published Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death (1903), Myers introduced the concept of the subliminal self. He argued that ordinary consciousness represented only a small portion of the mind and that dreams, automatic writing, mediumship, and secondary personalities might arise from deeper levels of consciousness.
His work attempted to bridge psychology and psychical research, and greatly influenced William James and early investigations into dissociation.
Cases of Multiple Personalities
During this period, physicians documented numerous cases involving distinct personality states.
Félida X
Perhaps the most famous early case was that of Félida X, described by French physician Eugène Azam beginning in 1876.
Félida alternated between two markedly different states of consciousness with differing memories, moods, and behaviors. Azam referred to this phenomenon as "double consciousness."
This case became enormously influential and inspired decades of debate regarding personality, memory, and identity.
Ansel Bourne
American preacher Ansel Bourne experienced a famous episode of dissociative fugue in 1887. After disappearing for several months, he was discovered living under a different name with no memory of his previous life.
William James later investigated the case personally, considering it evidence for divided consciousness.
Miss Beauchamp
Psychologist Morton Prince's The Dissociation of a Personality (1906) documented the case of "Miss Beauchamp," who exhibited several distinct personality states.
One personality, "Sally," became particularly famous because of her independent memories, preferences, and behaviors. Prince's work strongly influenced later understandings of multiple personalities.
At the same time, writers increasingly described their characters as possessing surprising degrees of autonomy.
Anthony Trollope famously wrote:
"A writer's characters must be with him as he lies down to sleep and as he wakes from his dreams."
Henry James described characters "insisting" upon certain developments, while Arthur Conan Doyle occasionally spoke of Sherlock Holmes almost as though he were a real companion whose personality constrained the stories that could be written about him.
These descriptions were not understood medically, but they illustrate that authors long recognized the experience of characters appearing to acquire lives of their own.
By the 1920s, ideas once associated primarily with spirits and supernatural entities had increasingly been reinterpreted in terms of dissociation, subconscious personalities, subliminal consciousness, automatic processes, and the fragmentation of identity.
1900–1935 — Fernando Pessoa and the Heteronyms
Among the most remarkable literary figures of the twentieth century was the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa (1888–1935), whose work blurred the line between authorship and personhood.
Unlike ordinary pseudonyms, Pessoa's "heteronyms" were fully realized literary personalities. Each possessed their own biographies, personalities, philosophies, political opinions, writing styles, birthdays, and even relationships with one another. Pessoa described them not as masks, but as distinct authors existing within a "drama in people."
Today, scholars regard heteronymy as one of Pessoa's greatest contributions to modern literature.
Childhood and the First Imaginary Companion
According to a famous letter written to literary critic Adolfo Casais Monteiro on January 13, 1935, Pessoa traced his tendency toward inventing personalities back to early childhood.
He wrote:
"This tendency to create around me another world, just like this one but with other people, has never left my imagination."
In the same letter, Pessoa recalled that around the age of six he had invented an imaginary French nobleman named Chevalier de Pas, to whom he wrote letters and through whom he conducted conversations.
This first companion appeared only a few years after the death of his younger brother Jorge, who died in infancy. Although some modern commentators have speculated about the significance of this timing, there is no scholarly consensus regarding any psychological interpretation, and most literary scholars understand these experiences primarily within the context of Pessoa's extraordinary imagination.
For many years Pessoa created numerous fictional personalities, but the most famous emerged in 1914.
According to his 1935 letter, on March 8, 1914, he experienced what he later called his "triumphal day."
Standing at a chest of drawers, he suddenly wrote more than thirty poems attributed to a previously unknown poet named Alberto Caeiro. Immediately afterward, he claimed, two additional writers appeared almost spontaneously:
Ricardo Reis, a physician and stoic classicist.
Álvaro de Campos, a naval engineer and emotional futurist.
Pessoa later remarked:
"And what followed was the appearance of someone within me, to whom I immediately gave the name Alberto Caeiro."
Whether this account represented literal memory, literary mythmaking, or a combination of both remains a subject of scholarly debate.
What distinguished Pessoa's heteronyms from ordinary pen names was the depth with which he developed them.
Each possessed:
- A date and place of birth
- Occupations and education
- Distinct handwriting
- Unique poetic styles
- Philosophical beliefs
- Political views
- Literary influences
- Opinions about one another
Pessoa even composed critiques and reviews written by one heteronym concerning the works of another.
Alberto Caeiro became the "master" admired by the others.
Ricardo Reis embraced classical restraint and stoicism.
Álvaro de Campos embodied modernity, emotional excess, and existential despair.
Bernardo Soares, the semi-heteronym responsible for The Book of Disquiet, resembled Pessoa himself so closely that Pessoa described him as "myself minus reason and emotion."
Thus, Pessoa's writings became less a collection of books and more a literary society composed of interacting personalities.
A good example would be "I Don't Know How Many Souls I Have":
I don’t know how many souls I have.
I’ve changed at every moment.
I always feel like a stranger.
I’ve never seen or found myself.
From being so much, I have only soul.
A man who has soul has no calm.
A man who sees is just what he sees.
A man who feels is not who he is.
Attentive to what I am and see,
I become them and stop being I.
Each of my dreams and each desire
Belongs to whoever had it, not me.
I am my own landscape,
I watch myself journey -
Various, mobile, and alone.
Here where I am I can’t feel myself.
That’s why I read, as a stranger,
My being as if it were pages.
Not knowing what will come
And forgetting what has passed,
I note in the margin of my reading
What I thought I felt.
Rereading, I wonder: “Was that me?”
God knows, because he wrote it.
Pessoa's preoccupation with identity appears throughout his poetry.
Elsewhere he wrote:
"I feel multiple."
And in The Book of Disquiet, he repeatedly described experiences of estrangement from himself and uncertainty regarding identity.
These themes have caused modern readers—including some within plural communities—to see parallels with their own experiences. However, scholars generally interpret these writings as expressions of modernist concerns regarding selfhood, alienation, and imagination rather than evidence of psychiatric multiplicity.
During Pessoa's lifetime, psychology itself was undergoing dramatic transformations.
Pierre Janet, William James, Frederic Myers, and Morton Prince were all exploring concepts such as dissociation.
Pessoa was also deeply interested in Spiritualism, occultism, astrology, and esoteric philosophy. His private papers reveal extensive engagement with mystical traditions and psychical research.
Consequently, his heteronyms emerged within an intellectual climate where questions concerning divided consciousness and autonomous personalities were being actively debated.
When Pessoa died in 1935, he left behind a trunk containing over 25,000 unpublished pages.
Many of these texts were attributed not to Fernando Pessoa himself, but to dozens of heteronyms.
Today, scholars estimate that Pessoa created over seventy personalities throughout his life.
His work remains one of the most elaborate explorations of multiplicity, identity, and fictional personhood in literary history.
Although no direct line connects Pessoa to modern soulbonding communities, his heteronyms represent one of the clearest examples of internally autonomous creative personalities prior to the internet.
1980 — Multiple Personality Disorder Enters the DSM
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) was formally recognized in the DSM-III in 1980, bringing the concept of multiple identities into mainstream psychiatry and popular culture.
Although MPD and later DID communities developed independently from soulbonding, discussions surrounding multiplicity increasingly entered public awareness.
1996–1998 — Amanda Flowers and Just For Writers
The term SoulBonding was coined by Amanda Flowers on a private mailing list known as Just For Writers (JFW). Although the exact date is uncertain, surviving recollections place it sometime between 1996 and 1998.
JFW was an invite-only mailing list consisting largely of science-fiction, fantasy, and video game fanfiction writers. According to later accounts from community members, many participants experienced their characters as possessing a surprising degree of autonomy.
The name itself was reportedly inspired by the Super Nintendo RPG Soul Blazer, with Amanda choosing the unusual capitalization simply because she thought it looked appealing. The word had no original connection to soulmates or metaphysical theories.
SoulBonding was primarily understood as something experienced by writers—an unusually deep intimacy with characters that made them feel alive, present, or capable of influencing the creative process.
Unfortunately, the JFW website has gone dark and there appear to be no internet archives surrounding it. Consequently, much of this earliest history survives only through oral histories and later recollections. Because the mailing list was private, the oldest surviving records come from personal webpages and blogs rather than JFW itself.
By 1999, the term "SoulBonding" and its associated slang were already sufficiently established that community members could casually reference them without explanation. Later historians of the community found articles from 1999 discussing questions such as:
"Do you believe in SoulBonding at first sight?"
suggesting that a recognizable subculture had already formed.By this point, the phenomenon was no longer confined to a handful of friends.
Although Amanda Flowers coined the term, it was Lyn who effectively became the public archivist and popularizer of the concept.
Many newer soulbonders learned about SoulBonding through Lyn's websites rather than through JFW itself. In this sense, much of the community's early history was transmitted orally from Amanda and other JFW members to Lyn, and from Lyn to the wider internet.
One of the earliest surviving references dates to December 29, 1999, while Lyn's public soulbonder lists and websites became increasingly influential throughout 2000 and 2001.
In 2001, Lyn wrote:
"Soulbonding, a term coined by Amanda Flowers (an old friend of mine), essentially means 'having voices in your head'...but makes you sound less insane."
She described the experience as being particularly common among writers, roleplayers, readers, and gamers.
According to Lyn, people could become so emotionally close to fictional characters that they felt the characters' presence within their minds.
This statement marks an important transitional stage. SoulBonding was no longer merely about characters "coming alive" during writing. It had begun encompassing experiences involving internally perceived personalities and voices.
As more websites appeared, SoulBonding spread beyond JFW and Lyn's pages.
Notable contributors did include:
Child of Mana's website, archived by June 2001.
The Eclective, whose members contributed terminology and alternative interpretations.
Celes of the Eclective, who coined the term soulscape, which gradually replaced earlier terms such as "mindscape" or "headworld."
Definitions varied considerably. Some soulbonders interpreted their experiences psychologically, while others adopted spiritual explanations. Even in these early years, there was no single orthodox understanding.
By 2002, increasing public attention had brought conflict.
Lyn responded by publishing essays titled What It Is and What It Isn't. There, she emphasized that SoulBonding was:
About empathy and intimacy with characters.
Primarily a creative phenomenon.
Flexible and open to interpretation.
However, she strongly rejected equating SoulBonding with Multiple Personality Disorder.
She wrote:
"This is NOT MPD. If your SBs routinely take control of your body during offline situations, then you need help. You have a problem."
Lyn feared that some people were transforming what she considered a fun and creative concept into something pathological.
Ironically, this explicit rejection of MPD reveals that comparisons between SoulBonding and multiplicity were already occurring.
In 2002, the first LiveJournal communities dedicated to SoulBonding appeared.
Initially, soulbonders and multiplicity communities occupied separate spaces. However, by late 2003, users increasingly participated in both communities.
This overlap created new questions:
If characters could speak internally, where was the line between SoulBonding and multiplicity?
If a multiple system wrote stories about their alters, how was that different from SoulBonding?
If soulbonds interacted with daily life, were they still soulbonds?
The distinction that Lyn had tried to maintain became increasingly difficult to enforce before she ended up just dropping it entirely by 2013.
Consequently, definitions of SoulBonding became increasingly diverse.
Some viewed soulbonds as creative muses, independent personalities, spiritual entities, parallel-universe counterparts or fictional characters who had somehow "crossed over." No single explanation dominated.
At roughly the same time, multiplicity communities on LiveJournal and independent websites such as Astraea's Web and Dark Personalities were growing.
Initially, the relationship between soulbonders and multiples was uneasy.
Many soulbonders rejected comparisons with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), following Lyn's earlier position that SoulBonding was primarily a creative phenomenon.
Likewise, many multiples viewed soulbonders skeptically, questioning how characters originating from fiction could be considered autonomous entities.
Riesz of the Eclective summarized this criticism:
"How can they be real people when they're just characters from some cartoon?"
Yet the similarities between the communities proved difficult to ignore.
Both groups described internal conversations, autonomous personalities, headspaces or inner worlds, co-consciousness and emotional attachment to internal entities.
As members began participating in both communities, ideas gradually flowed between them.
By late 2003, evidence suggests increasing overlap between soulbonding and multiplicity circles. Members of one community frequently encountered the language and experiences of the other.
Questions emerged:
What happens when a soulbond fronts?
What distinguishes a headmate from a soulbond?
If a multiple writes stories about their alters, how is that different from a soulbonder interacting with characters?
If fictional characters can become internal people, are fictives fundamentally different from soulbonds?
Questions that had once seemed theoretical became increasingly personal.
Throughout these years, many essays and resources were written by members of the community. Among the most influential were:
Laura Gilkey's essays and The Trinity.
Riesz's Theories of Soulbonding.
Soulbonding and Multiplicity: What's the Deal?
Co-consciousness and Two-Dimensionality.
Souls and Bonds and Ourselves
More Soulbonding articles from Pavilion Hall
Various tutorials on talking, fronting, and communication.
These writings demonstrate that subjects now commonly associated with plurality—such as co-consciousness, internal communication, and fronting—were already being discussed within soulbonding circles.
Public Mockery
As awareness spread, ridicule followed.
Several infamous examples emerged during the mid-2000s:
Some notable examples included:
FF7 House
A group centered around individuals identifying strongly with Final Fantasy VII characters. Over time, the situation deteriorated into financial exploitation, psychological manipulation, and unhealthy living conditions, becoming widely circulated as a cautionary tale.
Fandom Wank
A community dedicated to documenting and mocking fandom drama.
"Snapes on an Astral Plane"
An infamous article discussing "Snapewives"—individuals who believed they possessed spiritual relationships with Severus Snape.
Encyclopedia Dramatica
Soulbonding articles appeared on Encyclopedia Dramatica, turning soulbonders into frequent internet punchlines.
Ironically, these mockery communities introduced many people to soulbonding and plurality.
Even more complicated was the fact that critics were not always outsiders. Soulbonders, otherkin, and multiples themselves sometimes participated in ridicule communities, using them to police boundaries and distance themselves from groups they considered "too extreme."
By 2008, SoulBonding no longer meant what it had in 1996.
What had begun among writers discussing creative intimacy had evolved into a broad collection of ideas involving fictional people, internal companions, spirituality, parallel worlds, co-consciousness, headspaces, fronting, and/or elationships between internal entities.
Increasingly, many soulbonders found themselves participating in plural, fictionkin, and other alterhuman spaces. Meanwhile, others rejected these developments and maintained older writer-centered definitions.
By 2013, Lyn herself remarked that the modern meaning had drifted so far from her original understanding that it "honestly has no reference point back to what I originally wrote."
Finally, in 2014, it was later considered in the concept of plurality under the coining of 'Alterhumanity'.
Sources:
Homer, Iliad and Odyssey (c. 8th century BCE)
Hesiod, Theogony (c. 700 BCE)
Plato, Apology (particularly Socrates' discussion of his daimonion)
Plato, Phaedrus (on divine madness and poetic inspiration).
Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (1985).
E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951).
Ruth Padel, In and Out of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self (1992).
Michael A. Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (2008).
Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (1989).
Janet Oppenheim, The Other World: Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850–1914 (1985).
Alan Gauld, A History of Hypnotism (1992).
Alex Owen, The Darkened Room: Women, Power, and Spiritualism in Late Victorian England (1989).
Andrew Jackson Davis, The Principles of Nature (1847).
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).
William James, Human Immortality (1898).
Pierre Janet, L'Automatisme Psychologique (1889).
Eugène Azam, Hypnotisme, Double Conscience et Altérations de la Personnalité (1887).
Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater, Thought-Forms (1901).
Emily Kelly et al., Irreducible Mind (2007).
Deborah Blum, Ghost Hunters (2006).
Pierre Janet, L'Automatisme Psychologique (1889).
William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890).
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).
Frederic W. H. Myers, Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death (1903).
Morton Prince, The Dissociation of a Personality (1906).
Eugène Azam, Hypnotisme, Double Conscience et Altérations de la Personnalité (1887)
Henri F. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious (1970).
Sonu Shamdasani, Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology (2003).
Alan Gauld, A History of Hypnotism (1992).
Adam Crabtree, From Mesmer to Freud (1993).
Ruth Leys, Trauma: A Genealogy (2000).
Fernando Pessoa, Letter to Adolfo Casais Monteiro (13 January 1935).
Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet.
Fernando Pessoa, Poems of Alberto Caeiro.
Fernando Pessoa, Poems of Álvaro de Campos.
Fernando Pessoa, Poems of Ricardo Reis.
Richard Zenith, Pessoa: A Biography (2021).
Richard Zenith, The Book of Disquiet (Penguin Classics edition).
George Steiner, essays on Pessoa and heteronymy.
Octavio Paz, Children of the Mire.
Jerónimo Pizarro, Pessoa Exists?
Kenneth David Jackson, Pessoa's Voluptuous Skepticism.
Casa Fernando Pessoa archives.
Articles
Isabel Etxeberria Ramírez, "One Writer, Four Voices and a Translator" (2015).
Flávio Rodrigo Penteado, "Fernando Pessoa and the Genesis of the Heteronyms" (2012).
Some things I think should be talked about more in CDD spaces because I’m tired of pro and anti endos saying “cdd spaces are too alter centric” and then doing absolutely nothing about it:
- Co morbid conditions, including vulnerability to addiction (be normal abt addicts or die by my blade)
- Anhedonia , apathy , or just the general difficulty processing emotion that comes with chronic dissociation
- How damn isolating the condition can be
- How systemhood can intersect and affect/be affected by other identities (the unique experiences of poc systems, physically disabled systems, neurodivergent systems, queer systems, etc)
- Suicidal ideation
- Time loss
- Identity disturbance and issues with identity beyond the existence of alters
- Phobias developed by trauma
- Amnesia and the ways it can manifest
- CDD representation in media, either coded or explicit, and ways you relate to them
- P-DID and OSDD systems and their specific experiences
- How to advocate for yourself as a pwcdd in medical / professional spaces
Although, I can understand why a lot of this stuff isn’t talked about to an extent. It can be deeply personal and dangerous, especially if you participate in syscourse where pro/anti endos or endos themselves may use that information to hurt you for your opinions.
( CDD systems of any stance may interact as long as your intent is not to convince me of non cdd plurality. Non CDD systems please leave, your opinion is not wanted here. Nobody cares what you have to say on this topic. )
And when we do talk about alters, lets also make sure to bring up:
- Abuser introjects
- Fusion and integration (without cenorship of it or acting like it’s triggering)
- Alters with very different beliefs from the rest of the system (I refer to them as Ego-Dystonic Parts)
- Alters reenacting abuse internally
- Communication tips, both internal and external
- Self advocacy between parts
All of these, including the things I listed above are normal symptoms of the disorder. Do not be ashamed for experiencing these.
( DNI applies as above. A non-cdd plurals opinion on alters is not relevant to me. You don’t share our experiences, you do not deserve a say in CDD spaces. )
does anyone even know why miku and solivan deactivated, they were big inspos for me :(
I'm pretty sure due to harassment and according to some Miku deactivated to avoid accountability for a tone deaf statement about them not caring about shotacons.
Thank you SO much for trying to find solivan and anti-willow-mikus educational posts. We use them for our orientation guide and it's been so frustrating to have to put new links 😭 i've been debating putting all the posts, word for word into something more permanent for myself because it's been such a nightmare. God speed soldier 🙏
No problem really! This ask kind of gave me the motivation to keep moving forward with this blog because I've been extremely demotivated to even keep it up due to false harassment allegations. I may purge a majority of the posts on this blog to find ones that actually include sources due to that being a prevelent complaint from my system, anon askers, and my friends. I apologize for that plus missing any "discourse dni" messages on posts or blogs. It's an oversight on my end.
I've realized I kind of rambled on in this. So sorry.
Recently, the owner of the bot has gone on a massive ban spree of innocent servers and users who were using the bot for verification purposes. If your verification form mentioned anything regarding shipping in general, endogenic systems, and other topics that could be considered "controversial," then there's a chance you could be banned.
When the owner was confronted about it, they were unprofessional and rude, and went as far as to ban people who have done nothing wrong in the sever. Myself, as well as many other contributors have created our own doc on the situation which you can find on this post.
Since I am the document creator, I deciced to create a Tumblr blog to answer people's questions as well as extend the reach of the document. Please share to as many communities as you can!
8au’s Unprofessional Behavior Do not send anyone mentioned in this doc any harassment or hate. This document was made to raise awareness ab
I hope you are not in support of sysplex, because as much as they try to claim to be anti endo, they are not.
It is not possible to form a system with any disorder other than a CDD. All research we have shows this. It's literally just "bpdgenic" again but coated in "anti endo" paint. Similar to what polyminds tried and failed to do.
I'm not. I've researched CDDs for 6 years now so I knew that alters cannot form without the presence of a CDD.
I don't know a lot about polyminds, but from the Carrd I was sent it is just a regular human experience rebranded into something that's "not normal."
i’m not too familiar with the modern/current definition of sysplex but here’s what i believe is the initial coining:
“Sysplex is a term created not to separate CDD systems from systems formed from other disorders, or as an endogenic term. SYSPLEX IS STRICTLY ANTI-ENDO. It was created to bring awareness to PTSD and other traumagenic people who’s existence has been ignored and shunned in the community for far too long.
Sysplex: A person who has dissociative parts formed from a traumatic disorder other than a dissociative disorder. The term is a combination of the words “system” and “complex”. While uncommon, it is entirely possible for a person to develop dissociative states for reasons other than a dissociative disorder.”
There was this on Tiktok comment that I vaguely remember that started off with "Anyways the ICD-11 backs up the existence of endos" and I want to find it so that I can debunk it here.
Is there a reason that none of these posts that are being archived because they're good anti endo sources and stuff include any actual sources? Like... Even one medical paper or anything
A lot of the ones that are archived already have medical evidence behind them, but I wish they did include the sources. ( I know a few of them for a fact.) If people want, I can look for the sources that the original posters used and reblog them with them linked. I understand if the lack of sources make people cautious.
This is not a post to fakeclaim. It's moreso to educate and hopefully help people. Endogenic systems are heavily debated in the system community, and it's because they scientifically can't exist.
What is an endogenic system?
An endogenic system is a system who claims to have formed without trauma. It's often used as an umbrella term for all the other origins of systems without trauma. Scientifically, they don't exist. If a person doesn't go through trauma, there is literally no reason for the dissociative barriers to raise and for their identity not to integrate. There has been no scientific exploration of endogenic systems because like I said, they scientifically can't exist.
Does this mean all endogenic systems are faking?
Absolutely not. Just because they claim to be endogenic doesn't mean they're faking. In many cases, it's actually the opposite. They claim to be endogenic because they don't remember their trauma, which is very common in systems. I know for a long time, we had a lot of triggers that we knew triggered us but couldn't find a source of trauma as to why. No one knew about it until we had flashbacks of before any alters could know. This is likely because our brain wanted to protect all of us from the memories because it was before any of us could handle it. None of us knew of the pieces of trauma until we had flashbacks, and even then our brain wasn't sure if it actually happened. So it's very possible for an endogenic system to have trauma that caused their system and them claim to be endogenic because they don't remember it.
Why are they harmful to the system community?
They often spread misinformation. For starters, they mispread information about system origins, as we've explained earlier. A lot of the subcategories of endogenics claim their system formed from other mental illnesses, such as "BPDgenic" and "schizophrenicgenic." Obviously there are other instances, but this is one of the main ones. They also take away from the reality of systems facing trauma. If enough claim to not have trauma, singlets will start to believe that without doing any research. Singlets are ignorant enough as it is, we don't need them getting mad at systems and fakeclaiming us for having trauma because of the misinformation spread by endogenics.
Why are they harmful to the endogenic system itself?
This part isn't talked about as much, but any system who identifies as endogenic is putting themselves at risk just by believing they don't have trauma. If they don't believe in their trauma, it can cause severe distress when they do finally get a flashback and get to the traumatic parts of being a system. Formed alters may fully split into new ones. Their entire reality could drastically change negatively. So if you claim to be an endogenic system, I suggest you reconsider it. You may not remember trauma, but there has to be for you to be a system. There is no reason or scientific evidence to support you being a system without trauma. So for your benefit, if not other systems, at least be aware that there is trauma somewhere in your childhood.
"But I don't have OSDDID. I'm a plural singlet/my system isn't disordered."
Then don't use our terms. Don't come into our spaces. Don't speak on our issues. Don't talk about our experiences. Don't give advice to singlets about what we experience. Just /don't./ I'm not sure what you're saying is possible either, but if you aren't an OSDDID system, you absolutely should NOT have any power in our communities or talk to singlets about us, spreading misinformation. You arent us. You don't live our experiences. We do. Let /us/ talk to them.
just curious, why dont you want tone indicators used on you?
tone tags have never helped us. we read them as passive aggressive instead of the tone they are supposed to be taken in. instead, we prefer it if people explain their tone to us; it's easier for us to understand.
for example, saying "i'm not upset" or "i'm not mad" has helped way better than "/nm."
