Are daemons created or found?
Daemonism is, as I've described previously, near-infinitely diverse -- and this diversity is a big part of what makes it what it is. So for these kinds of questions, there's never going to be a single, universal answer.
Some daemons are found. Some daemons are created.
But I do think this is an interesting topic to dig into!
The reason for that is because, in my own experience in the community, it seems a lot more common that daemons are -- wholly or in part -- found, not created. And this holds true even for folks who don't have other headmates or any (other) plural experiences. There's often a feeling that the daemon existed before their 'mian consciously met them, in some way or another.
And I get the impression this can go against expectations? Which, if so, makes sense! If you're starting out as 100% singlet -- 100% alone in that mind of yours -- it'd be a fair assumption to think that, for anything else to exist in there, you'd have to make it first.
But that often seems not to be the case. There are a lot of folks who go looking for a daemon, and find, wow, there's already one here! Just like that! Or maybe they try to create a daemon and then find that daemon rewrites all their plans, because the daemon knows exactly who they're gonna be and what space they're gonna fill.
I think the truth of it is that having a daemon is actually pretty natural for these human brains of ours. Daemons often fall into certain dialetical archetypes: representing a part of a person's own mind which exists to disagree, question, or seek alternate answers.
Every person has something like this, I think, though the role it takes depends on what is specifically dialectical for you.
So a person who is impulsive might find that their daemon naturally falls into the role of a voice of reason. A person who's always trying to be perfectly sensible might find they end up with a daemon who's a devil's advocate. A person who's very self-focused might end up with a daemon representing their conscience. And so on.
You notice how these archetypes aren't unique to daemonism? These sorts of dialectical concepts are recognised in plenty of different contexts, in fiction, philosophy, psychology, all sorts of stuff.
Not all daemons fit neatly into an established archetype, and certainly many daemons grow and complexify over time even if they don't start out that way. Daemons are people too, after all. But I still see a bit of a pattern here.
And I expect this pattern is part of why the relationship between a daemian and their daemon/s tends to be quite different than exists between headmates (generally speaking, of course)!
A daemian and daemon can sometimes exist in a kind of back-and-forth with each other. A conversation which can still happen even if the mind doesn't always stop to differentiate or recognise both participants! So, even if such a dae and mian seem very different -- even if they disagree -- they still represent a vital part of the shared mind's functioning.
You'll notice I use a lot of oftens and mays and tend tos when I write things like this. That's because everything I describe here is just patterns I've observed -- not rules, and certainly not universal! None of this is what makes a daemon a daemon. A daemon is a daemon if that's what they want to call themself, end of story!
It just happens, I think, that mental presences who identify with the idea of being a daemon might do so because of common threads they seem to share with other daes. And these threads which can be shared regardless of origin, level of autonomy, plurality or singlethood, or any other trait. And this is just one potential thread that I see, certainly not the only one!
Me and Aka are about as weird a dae/mian duo as you'll find (Aka being the original body-owner, me being basically a walk-in) -- but the dialetical aspect holds true for us too, and I think it's part of why we still identify with the concept of being dae and mian. We exist in a chaotic back-and-forth chatter. We fit pretty neatly into each others' thought processes, as the disagreeing part, or the "yes, and", or the "okay, but what if?" Maybe we're not literally part of each other, in terms of our identities or sense of self, but neither of us really functions very well without the other!
Yet, with all that said: not every person can just go and find a daemon. Some people do have to create them, partially or fully. And that's no lesser an experience, not at all! It's not even all that different an experience -- it's only the beginning that changes.
And there isn't necessarily a hard line between the two ideas, either. Say someone created a template for a daemon, and over time, the daemon establishes themself and comes into their own -- yet continues to exist roughly in line with the template. Does that mean the daemon didn't exist before? What motivated their 'mian to create that specific template? What made it so that this is what felt right for their daemon to be? Maybe the template was simply a means to get in touch with a part of them they somehow knew was there, and just couldn't hear yet. Food for thought, y'know?
