(Untitled)

[gileonnen]

This is a Curious Post.

During the past few months or so, my circles on the internet have come increasingly into contact with the notion of ' plurality' of personae in one body. I've been working to understand what the concept means and why other people feel that it describes them, so this post isn't an 'explain to me what plurals are, I don't know

Comments

[tybarbary]

It's not something that I personally identify with, but I have known a few people who do. Much like many other forms of identity (otherkin, bisexual), there are people who seem to use it to gain attention or excuse unacceptable or unhealthy behaviors, and others who are perfectly reasonable people who just happen to have this facet as a part of their self and paradigm. In fact, a person whom I greatly respect just revealed that he's part of a multiple system.

That's... about all I've got on the matter. It can be a valid thing, it's not my thing, but I respect it when a person embodies it.

(If this comment is completely useless, please delete it. ^^;)

[gileonnen]

Not useless at all! This is more or less the position I'm adopting, right now--but maybe I can prod you a little on your response? Because, for instance, while I don't identify as a plural system with multiple other persons sharing headspace with me, I do identify as multiply gendered, and although I have some control over how that gender presents, I feel myself phasing between states that I identify as 'masculine' or 'feminine' or 'neuter' or whatnot (and there's quite a lot of 'whatnot'). What kinds of distinctions, both on the level of feeling and on the level of pure intellectual classification, would you make between my experiences of my gender and a plural system's experiences of personhood?

[tybarbary]

I think facets of a trait one has - such as gender or even species - is a much less drastic "shift" than having multiple personalities or people in one's body. I am still the same person, whether I am presenting/feeling masculine or feminine or just plain funky, but as I have witnessed/understand it with multiple systems, the people within the same body are not the same "I". They may or may not know what the other one(s) is/are doing when the other is fronting or being the active personality. It may be the same mechanism of "shift" between facets of a trait and personalities in a body, but I consider multiples to be on a much larger scale than gender-switching.

Does that make sense?

[gileonnen]

*nods* It does! Thank you for providing such a thoroughgoing distinction!

[dejablue7]

Because, for instance, while I don't identify as a plural system with multiple other persons sharing headspace with me
Ah~
May I offer the remark: perhaps the trouble is there in the wording of you identifying as a system, because the plurals I've encountered don't seem to identify so much as a system, as much as a member of a system. That's part of why I find plurality so exciting--because of an interest in the way individuals have developed as part of a group sharing a body, and less to do with the idea of one person who feels like they've somehow been split and exist as several facets of one person.

(...although to be fair, I think medians can feel that they are somehow separate people who are simultaneously connected and also aspects of one collective individual, an illustration being different leaves growing on the same branch. That's an entirely different can of worms though ._.)

From the Zyfron System:
For us...I can tell you what it's like to be a member of that system, or about our interactions from my perspective, but

[gileonnen]

I'm not sure I was expressing trouble? But the terminological correction is apt.

[dejablue7]

I'm not sure I was expressing trouble?
*rolls around* bleh, you're right, sorry about that ._. and here are my language troubles, I suppose.

I do think it is pretty loaded wording though, for someone to refer to him/her/hirself as or as not experiencing being a system, since it sounds too much to me like defaulting to a method of thinking/using language that's mostly related to MPD/DID (assuming one "true person" with other characters sort of floating around under the umbrella or whatever).

[gileonnen]

*nods* And again--you're absolutely right, and I was absolutely misspeaking! But if there are no other members in a system, and one is a singlet, one can't call oneself a member of a system, can one? Where does the 'system' exist in terms of a singlet's identity?

[dejablue7]

...that's a very good question/point. :O
Ah~ I'm not even sure I have a good response to that! I guess I figure though that singlets...just don't have systems. It'd be like here's a swan, and over there is flock of swans, but you don't have the flock without several swans...it'd just be... one swan. I'm not sure if that adequately addresses your remark though?

[gileonnen]

*nods* Whereas I was assuming, when I spoke carelessly, that 'system' was more like 'species' than 'flock'--you can have swan with a single swan, but you definitely have more swans when you have plural swans. ^_^;; It's useful for me to think of it in terms of a specific collective noun.

[dejablue7]

I'm going to have to admit, it took me a minute to understand how you were using language, what you meant by 'species'...but then I got it, and that's actually really interesting because I would have never thought of using the term system like that! :) I guess it's complicated with topics like plurality and multiplicity because concepts like that haven't entered mainstream society and language to describe the subject isn't always quite there, or isn't quite there in a way that's been standardized per say... it's really interesting seeing how different people try to work out how best to converse on these types of subjects though.