Talk:Walk-in

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Those people usually stress that it is important to make a distinction between people who suffer DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) and themselves. Again, unlike classical, Sybil-like blackout DID, the host person is conscious of and able to communicate and cooperate with the others. They often prefer terms such as people or selves to "personality", which they consider misleading since it implies that each is not a separate being." Where did this come from? Which people stress that it's important to make a distinction? My distinctions are 1) I have not officially diagnosed. 2) I don't have the classical blackout (but that doesn't mean I don't have DID, and it doesn't mean it never happens. One inherant quality of blackouts is that you don't know!) 3) we get along 4) we're not looking to integrate. If someone has a resource for this distinction, let me know. Otherwise, I'd like to edit the page. Crisses 02:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, fellows, in that case, why don't you edit it? This is Wikipedia, after all -- you can feel free.

My sources for that information, among other things, included the Missing Manual. Also LJ-multiplicity and the writings of Amorpha, and even Positively Plural. You're certainly right that I should have named my sources. --Bluejay Young 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle it is to narrow the phrasing down. To say 'usually stress' it's an implication that the belief is held by the majority. To say "Some people stress..." lightens the phrasing somewhat, and makes it less of a generalization while still representing a belief that diverges from the other topics expressed. I can make edits to reflect that change. Another thing I'm wondering is if this is a misinterpretation of something I contributed to the Missing Manual :) because then I could go nudge what I wrote. The Crisses 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. I wrote most of this article as it currently stands and I usually don't source the Missing Manual but rather personal email correspondence and people's websites. I really should cite some sources on these things. The things I said about groups handling things okay and cooperating are very much like what appears on the Missing Manual under "getting along inside". But I'd have to go back and read it to get an exact quote -- maybe I should do that? Or at least cite "getting along inside" in a link. --Bluejay Young 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note here for future reference: Graphictruth.com has a "wetware" area that currently covers autistic spectrum issues and mulitiplicity. Is "wetware" a standard term used within wikipedia? firewheel

This note should probably have gone in my user talk section unless you're going to talk about walk-ins in your wetware section: However! here you go -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware :) It's got its own article, so all you'd have to do if you wanted to use the term is enclose it in the double brackets; wetware -- that's it! Good to see ya! Bluejay Young 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] walk ins

When you state that a soul may choose to be a walk in rather than choose the more tedious process of birth, what would be the difference in the processes? Why would birth be more tedious? Also, once a walk in enters the body, can it change it's mind? For example if it realizes it will be unable to accomplish it's plan in the particular body it chose, can it leave again? If so, then what would happen to the body? Would it probably have to choose death or could another soul or possibly the original soul decide to enter this particular body? Lauri Woods

Yo Lauri, I can only speculate at this point but will have to look up what people believe on this issue. As far as birth being more tedious, I've seen that in a couple of places and apparently this is a view held by the kind of people within the New Age religion who are squicked by the idea of anything as physical and earthy as sex, pregnancy, and the birth process. This anti-sex attitude is not held by all New Agers of course. I think they also believe incarnating through the pregnancy-birth process may prevent them (as in the Veil of Maya) from accessing information from the "higher plane" which they would need in order to do their job. In the cases where I've read of a walk-in soul leaving, the original soul is sometimes reported as coming back all right, having felt like it was "on vacation" sort of; other times you hear about a succession of other souls coming in and managing the body's life until its appointed time of death. I can honestly say I've never read about a walk-in soul having to leave the body to death, without another soul to take up where she left off, either because she couldn't complete her plan or for any other reason. Your best source is probably the books by Ruth Montgomery. Thanks for the questions! I will see if there is some way I can work them in. --Bluejay Young 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This will have to be taken at word value but basically any discarnate entity wishing to perform in a "walk in" onto this level due to universal laws is basically in that vessle for the timespan of its experience within our currently running dimensional frequency. On top of this for most beings the reasons for the return must be learned within the framework of the reality entered (usually by synchronicities). As an advantage to walk-ins they are usually gifted with heightened spiritual awareness. This is something that is known to the entity at the immediate time of the walk-in but is usually lost as a thoughtform, moreso dependant on the specific deimensional frequency the dicarnate entity is wishing to move in from. The higher the dimensional level the more "amnesic" barriers are placed on the entities infinite being. This is basically because dropping dimensional levels is not a recommended past time for light beings and if full knowledge of the previous existence was known it would be akin to jumping out of a cold bath into a vat of burning oil. My two cents on things from a being who "dropped in" for a while. Peace

[edit] Copyright Problem

The page linked ([1]) from the copyright infirngement notice explicitely credits this Wikipedia.–Jerome K. 14:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's happened here. I wrote most of the original article, and I can assure you I wrote it out of my own head. This can be proved by the page history. The other users who have worked on this can vouch for their own authenticity. It appears that (like a lot of websites, apparently) Crystalinks has instead copied from wikipedia, not the other way around. But at the bottom, they do reference Wikipedia as the source, through a link, like Jerome says. If there is any problem, please contact me through my talk page and let's resolve this. --Bluejay Young 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this. The cited page is a copy from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Sources do need still need to be cited for some of the claims made in text, with bibliographic references added if possible. It would improve this a great deal if it were possible to track down whoever it was that coined the term "walk-in" for this phenomenon, since IIRC Ruth Montgomery does not describe it in those terms exactly. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Montgomery calls it walk-ins in Strangers Among Us. --Bluejay Young 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)