@timelady365.32923
Ah, yes! Now that you point those hrases out, it seems to me that itâs more the emotion behind her words that are the weapons, moreso than the words themselves.
But that kinda makes sense too.
Because when a person says something to another person, wth the intent to hurt that person, it is the intent that does the hurting, rather than the words themselves.
Words are dead, until we breathe life into them with the emotion, intention, will, etc, that we put behind them as we speak them out loud.
I know and I love herâŚto a point I agree with her thoughts about not caring to be normal and not forcing control on the otherâŚthe last one though I agree sometimes if I am fighting for control because they are wasting my time then I take chargeâŚ
@timelady I can try to speak to what I mean when I said she is one and many at the same time. First, I was using the narrative of Jane as presented in the show as a metaphor for what it is to be any human in any given moment. This kind of extrapolation is something I enjoy doing, seeing what a narrative can teach me about my own life and the way that others see life through metaphor and allegory. While Jane is a representation of DID, her DID also serves as a metaphor for human experience. My many vs one equivalency is an attempt to draw attention to abstract nature of our conceptions of many versus one when it comes to how we perceive ourselves. Janeâs construction of her identities is that one arises and the others are in the underground. You could draw a comparison to the notion that the way you view yourself now, in the present, is the arisen personality. But who you have been and who you have been perceived to be in terms of identity are the underground of your life. My point is that the underground for all of us has a direct cause effect link to the arisen, and as a result is an expression of them as well. If Jane is a dominant personality, she is only who she is or isnât in relationship to the restâs experience. Just as our identity is constantly influenced by how we perceive ourselves, how we used to see our selves, how we wish we are, and how other people see us in all of these different dimensions. A lot of who we believe we are and who we are is out of our control. So, my point is that accepting that lack of control and remaining present, trying to see the world and yourself as they really are in the present is a healthy method by which to handle the issues being asked about in this thread. I donât know if that answers your question, but these are some more of my thoughts about it.
2 Likes
@KittyKrawler I think that if there are aspects of our selves that are too strong, we would have to define what that means. For Jane they are seemingly uncontrollable. Jane has said that she doesnât interfere. They do what they want to do.
But were Jane in a clinical environment, that probably wouldnât fly for too long. She would have to confront her trauma and process the painful memories. She would have to identify her triggers and learn to cope with them.
At present, Jane is functional, but she is not dealing with her trauma. We can be this way, too.
Our lives are dominated by functional demands and we piece together a way of living, often unexamined.
The way to improve that is to examine the things that constructed the identity or identities we have. If something is too dominant or significantly unhealthy, we can develop self awareness to the point that we understand what may have formed it. We can know it, but more importantly, we can observe it for what it is. If it is just a narrative it can dissolve on sight. If we want a new narrative, we can construct it.
I prefer to seek reality, so I am always looking for who I really am. Of course, I donât think there is actually an I to see. All notions of I are constructs, but that might be getting afield. Weâre in some loosey goosey territory, so if you want to dive deeper yet still on something continue to push me and we can see where we go. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement.
1 Like
Hear, hear @Bozea!
I am all about the continued path of self-exploration and development.
The idea âoutsideâ of everything youâre discussing however is, âWhoâs to say that what Jane has become is not âokayâ?â
Iâll answer: Society.
It isnât to say that I donât agree with society on this one, especially in regards to the fact that being able to effectively get on in life and the society that we do indeed live in, it would be in oneâs best interests to maintain a state of being that is in keeping with what is considered ânormalâ or âacceptableâ .
Otherwise, how can you effectively communicate and attain your needs and desires in any societal environment?
How can you attain the basic desires that come along with being human without being understood by those around you?
But that too is an entirely different animal from the one you have presented.
â
Though, something did strike me as interesting in what you did present in your post: âAll notions of I are constructsâŚâ
And while you didnât elaborate on this thought, I assume the rest of that idea is something like, " âŚmade up of our experiences and perspectives of them".
If this is where you were going with that idea, the two initial instances of abuse that caused the onset of DID in Kay Challis would be the âexperiencesâ that you are saying she must reconcile or come to terms with in order to healthily move forward and more effectively get on in society or rise to the occasion with said âfunctional demandsâ.
But letâs say she confronts her past, accepts it, and âmoves forwardâ.
Should the Crazy Jane âmoving forwardâ be a lot less crazy? Would she be crazy to choose to maintain her identityâs fractured state, even after understanding why it all happened? Would she be even be able to maintain the fractured state after understanding how and why it came to be?
3 Likes
@timelady Who wants to be normal? I sure donât. The funny thing is there is no normal. Dig deep enough into anyone and they are stunningly unique. Sure we can put people into different categories, we can learn to operate according to social norms, and on a certain level we actually are all the same, but part of the fun of being in the unique situation of being human is pushing the very boundaries of what that even means. Abnormality is the first step to making itself normal. Letâs be pioneers!
2 Likes
@Bozea
When it comes to people, ânormalâ seems to be a construct that exists only when applied with intent.
2 Likes
@KittyKrawler I need to think on this, but I just want to commend you on being very excellent at asking amazing questions.
1 Like
@LadyWonder that is something that belongs on a t-shirt. Very well said!
1 Like
I was reading your post earlier where you broke down how you view Janeâs DID as a physical representation of mankindâs whole identity situation.
Good stuff.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that.
1 Like
I love all of yâall right now⌠I feel less crazyâŚ
2 Likes
Is âcrazyâ even a thing?
Define normalâŚ
We are who we are. Crazy and normal are just words and labels.
What matters is our quality of life.
Living a life in which we are happy and/or striving for happy.
2 Likes
That belongs in a T-SHIRT as well. 
2 Likes
@LW
Iâd buy that shirt!
âWhat matters is our quality of life.â
Love this. 
1 Like
âWe are who we are Crazy and Normal are just words and labels.â
3 Likes
After reading her entry in this Apps Encyclopedia⌠I like the way it explains herâŚwhat if it is called dominant because either a dominant has the most energy to keep control longer or the others just let them take otherâŚeither way it brought up the idea in words I never thoughtâŚthe original self could just choose not to come out at all because of the trauma.
2 Likes
@timelady How interesting! I think Iâm gonna go check out her entry as well!
1 Like
Robotmanâs mechanical form doesnât threaten Jane because he lacks the sexual physicality of whoever traumatized Jane (SPOILER: her father sexually abused her in the comics). As a robotic âeunuchâ, Cliff wonât trigger the alters.
All the Doom Patrol struggle with their identity in some fashion. Ritaâs identity crisis lies enmeshed with her âstarâ image. She attempts a brittle, tightly-wound control overself, denying and avoiding stress. When any harsh truths or emotions pierce the mask of her self-image, Rita literally falls apart.
Larry lives in a perpetual conflict with his true self. As a product of the toxic masculinity of his time, Larry lived two lives, hiding his queerness from the world. The wreck symbolizes the destruction of his compartmentalized life, and the closet. The hideous burns symbolize the Hetero veneer melted away, leaving what Mid-20th Century Larry would see as the âuglinessâ of his true, queer self. The âNegative Spiritâ is his âOthernessâ given physical expression, demonstrating his fight to keep his queerness locked within.
Jane, on the other hand, lives in a âdefaultâ state of âfallen to piecesâ. She claims that sheâs not fighting at all against her fragmented selves, but claims to honor âtheirâ rights to autonomy and existence. Unlike Rita or Larry, Jane constantly eschews suburban âfaux gentilityâ. She literally cuts a bitch with her words, never censors her seething contempt for banal ânicenessâ. Seemingly, Jane presents mental illness and her fractured identity as âauthenticity â.
IS Jane truly the most âauthenticâ of the Doom Patrol, or merely offering a subcultured posturing, as fake in her messy way as Rita or Larry?
1 Like
