#gateway systems

[lighthouseharbor]

Would anyone be interested in making or joining a Discord Server for Metaphysical, Spiritual, Cosmological and Soulbonding Plurals?

[plural-affirmations]

Here's to gateway systems!

Gateway is defined as "one in which the inner world is perceived as a real place somewhere, or a (usually) large system with members predominantly [...] coming or going as they please". [via Pluralpedia]

Shoutout to gateway systems who:

Are primarily or exclusively made up of walk-ins

Have walk-ins that frequently pop in and out of their system

See their headspace as somewhere you can physically access by some means

Only have one or a handful of walk-ins, while being another type of system/origin, or identify as "a system with a gateway" instead of being a "gateway system" (subtle difference!)

Have walk-ins that have never left once they arrived

Dreamway systems that mostly access their innerworld through dreams

And anyone else who falls under the umbrella!

You're so integral to the overarching plural culture! Gateway systems are one of the oldest types of non-traumagenic identifiers-- going back to 2003! That's almost as old as I am!

Never forget your worth!

🖤💜💙💚💛

[siphonyx]

The Case of Jane Roberts and Seth, and its Relevance to Endogenic Forms of Plurality

Hello everyone! Last night we finally managed to finish reading New Age ‘Channeling' And Theories Of Dissociation: Applying A ‘Structural Dissociation Of The Personality' Model To The Case Of Jane Roberts. It's an older thesis, but it’s a really cool read. For those who aren’t aware, Jane Roberts was a medium who often channeled an entity called Seth, who would go on to write several books about the nature of consciousness and the universe. He appeared to her one day quite out of the blue when she was in her thirties, and ever since that day she channeled him and he was able to write about his beliefs. The two of them were the catalyst for a lot of New Age and paranormal beliefs, and she often gave classes on ESP and channeling.

As I was reading, I noticed that there was a lot that may be relevant to the plural community here, particularly the endogenic and tulpamancy community. The whole thesis is a good read, but there are some parts that stuck out to me. 

The first is this:

"Seligman and Kirmayer argue that around the world, dissociative experiences take place in three main contexts. One of these is "(1) in response to acute stress or trauma," but the other two are not trauma-related at all. These are: "(2) in socially sanctioned rituals and healing practices that are associated with religious meaning systems, or in artistic performances: and (3) as spontaneous fluctuations in ordinary conscious experience that often go unrecognized or unmarked unless they resonate with local systems of meaning." They point out: "It is often assumed that dissociation across these different settings involves the same underlying psychophysiological mechanisms. However, this remains uncertain given the state of current knowledge about both the mechanisms and functions of dissociation."" (page 29-30)

Interestingly enough, these are also the three main ways of being plural seen in the community. 1 would be traumagenic, 2 could be soulbonds, gateways or tulpamancers (I know none of those are religious per say, but they are socially sanctioned groups that often have “ritualistic” elements or in the case of gateways and soulbonds, spiritual meanings), and 3 could  be the endogenic or quoigenic systems who don't fit into any other category. Obviously this is a major oversimplification and may not apply to all systems, but you do tend to see these three categories in the community more often than not.

They also go on to argue that the theory of structural dissociation is very focused on a Euro-American way of healing, namely the "speaking about and owning your traumas" way of healing, which is not always applicable in other cultures and contexts and may not always be desirable or necessary. They also seem more focused on a complex view of dissociation involving culture, context, and origin all influencing each other instead of the simplistic origin=pathology view often seen in research.

Additionally, it would seem as if the creators of the theory of structural dissociation never intended their theory to be taken as a set-in-stone proposition, especially for other forms of dissociation. They actually acknowledge that: "Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of the personality.{...}However, dissociation in mediums is in several regards different from dissociation in DID.{...]The possible involvement of consciousness and self-consciousness in [...} dissociative parts in mediumship needs to be examined in more detail before a conclusive general definition of dissociation can be formulated." (page 36)

In other words, they know it is possible to be plural/have multiple identities in other contexts without it being DID. They acknowledge this. The creator of the theory of structural dissociation never intended for it to be used in other contexts, and it does not explain how dissociation works in general.

When applying it to the case of Jane Roberts, the theory of structural dissociation also fails to explain a large portion of her experiences with Seth and why they are non-pathological/relatively benign in comparison to the pathological manifestations often seen in DID. Likewise, it also fails to explain why channeling is often non-pathological and positive. (Note that the theory of structural dissociation itself treats DID as necessarily maladaptive; this is not what we’re personally saying but what the thesis states.) The author of the thesis believes that if one is to apply it to other forms of dissociation you need to be extremely sensitive to the fact that it’s not made to explain those types, and may not adequately explain much of how those types work.

It’s a very long thesis, so you might wanna reserve a few hours to read and digest the material. Hopefully this is as interesting to you all as it was to us!

[endogenichaven]

wait, how do involuntary endogenic systems work? (we're voluntary endogenic) isn't that just being traumagenic with extra steps

They're similar to voluntary endogenic systems, except with the caveat being that they weren't purposefully created or purposefully sought after. Some ways in which this can happen include:

A person decides to flesh out a character of theirs for a creative project, and finds that they're really starting to take on a life of their own, or becoming more and more defined without their help. They drop them and try to focus on something else, but the character still continues to become more and more sentient with time. Eventually they're sharing control and talking through the body, and living their own life. (Some who experience this may consider themselves tulpamancers later on.)

A person connects with some fictional characters or non-human entities through spiritual means. Maybe one day a being just walks into their headspace and starts up a conversation, or maybe the person has (or has always had) spiritual "mentors" that seem to advise them or guide them in life. Maybe they're human or animal, maybe they resemble mythological or fictional characters heavily. Eventually this progresses to full-fledged mental communication, and then alternating control of the body. (In the plural community this is sometimes referred to as "soulbonding", with others of a similar nature identifying themselves as "gateway systems".)

A person has always shared their mind with other entities or people, and has never truly been alone. They may attribute this to spiritual reasons (such as reincarnation or soul dualism) or psychological reasons (maybe they were born with a brain that was predisposed to plurality or maybe another condition of theirs influenced it in some manner). These individuals often mentally communicate with the person, and sometimes even take control of their body or exert passive influence. (Some individuals in this category might consider themselves "born-plural" or even "neurogenic", if not just endogenic.)

Although the first two may seem purposeful, it's usually seen as involuntary and non-purposeful in the community due to the lack of intention on the person's part. They didn't set out to make themselves plural, and in some cases may not have done much to really feed the process along in the same way someone who is purposefully trying to make themselves plural might. Most involuntary endogenic systems lack the traits that traumagenic systems have, differentiating the two. An involuntary endogenic system would be unlikely to have dissociative amnesia, avoidance or leakage of traumatic memories (if they have trauma), distressing dissociation, and the rest of the symptoms that accompany most traumagenic systems. Even if their plurality wasn't initially sought after or purposefully created, a person (or system) in this situation might actually welcome these headmates and encourage switching, further communication and even the creation or discovery of new headmates, and this may not cause many internal issues, if it causes issues at all. This starkly contrasts with what we've heard from many traumagenic systems and what happens when they indulge too much too soon. Hopefully this helps anon!

[plurals-helping-plurals]

Hey there! What exactly are walk-ins, and what is a gateway system?

📡: Resident Gateway system here, Hello. It's different for everyone, but essentially: (from pluralpedia)

"A gateway system is one in which the inner world is perceived as a real place somewhere, or a (usually) large system with members predominantly from, often coming or going as they please."

For us it's a bit more complicated, but from our knowledge of other Gateway Systems (friends +etc), the above description holds true as an umbrella term.

Walk-ins:

A walk-in refers to a headmate who comes from elsewhere in the inner world.

Mostly accurate for us, though we have a hard time discerning between “inner world” and alternative/external plains of existence. 

Gatekeeper:

In the context of a gateway system, a gatekeeper is one with the role of allowing or denying access to walk-ins.

Got a couple of those ourselves 👍

- Mod Extinction

[non-trauma-headspace]

Trauma survivors who have systems that were not caused by their trauma are still valid.

-Mod Squidle

[sysstims-blog]

Ok! So far we’re almost completely set up! Lemme explain, we’re a blog dedicated to having a safe space for all types of systems for any reason they would need to stim, since I’ve seen a lotta exclusion stim blogs for systems :T we’ll have stims goin’ as soon as we can!

[siphonyx]

Test

We’re probably not going to use this blog much, but in the meantime we might as well detail that we’re an endogenic gateway system, plural, with as much right to be here as any of you do. We’ll post shit and reply to people, but not much else as of right now.