#'it's plural! its always been plural! i just don't get it-'

[writingwithfolklore]

Punctuation Rules

Punctuation is like the very last thing I actively think about when writing something (what's the point of fixing the punctuation of a sentence you'll end up taking out or editing anyway?) but it is still an important step!

Having proper punctuation increases your credibility and the overall quality of your work. Also, it’s doubly important in professional work, emails, and resumes. With that, let’s get into it!

Commas

We use them all the time. We get them wrong all the time. There are six rules for where you can use commas:

Use to separate items in a list or series:

The book was long, tedious, and painful.

The comma after tedious is called the Oxford’s comma. Feel free to debate if you need it in the reblogs, but you won’t get in trouble professionally if you use it or leave it out (in most cases.) It always comes before ‘and’ in a list to prevent confusion of the items:

I ran into my mother, my best friend and a scientist. (1 person?)

Is very different from

I ran into my mother, my best friend, and a scientist. (3 people)

2. Use to separate independent clauses, with a coordinating conjunction.

An independent clause is just a sentence that makes sense on its own.

A coordinating conjunction is: and, but, or so.

Miley had a ton of work to do, so she set her alarm early.

3. Use after an introductory statement.

Introductory statements begin with many different words, but typically: Before, after, when, while, as soon as, etc.

Before her first class, Stacy looked up her prof on Rate Your Teacher.

Main point about this, “Before her first class” is not an independent clause, it needs a second part.

4. Use to surround info in a sentence

This info is not essential to the sense-making of the sentence, but it should be relevant.

Parents, no matter how skilled, cannot function at 100% all the time.

5. Addresses and Dates

6. And with direct quotes

Important for essay writing.

Casey said, “I hate this house!”

Colons:

Introduce a list after a complete sentence:

I have three favourite foods: spaghetti, chowder, and garlic bread.

2. Use after ‘the following’ or ‘as follows’

Please provide the following information: your date of birth, full name, and address.

3. Don't use with sentence fragments

A sentence fragment is an unfinished sentence (that doesn’t make sense on its own).

My favourite foods are: spaghetti, chowder, and garlic bread.

This is wrong because, “My favourite foods are.” Isn’t an independent clause.

4. Introduce an explanation

My parents ask one thing of me: that I try my hardest.

5. Introduce a quotation

Mom always quoted the bible: “The truth will set you free.”

6. And times (12:00)

Semi-Colon:

Not super common, but makes you look good if you can use it properly.

Separate two related independent clauses

I never drink Starbucks; it tastes burnt.

2. Similar, but with conjunctions: however, moreover, therefore, nevertheless, etc.

I don’t like Starbucks; however, it does the job.

Agatha didn’t witness anything; nevertheless, she was called in to court.

3. Use to avoid misreading in a series

The invited guests are the club leader; the treasurer; the new member, Jason Tanner; and Wanda Johnson, the investor.

Semicolons clarify the separation between the four people. Had it been, “The club leader, the treasurer, The new member, Jason Tanner…” it would seem that the new member and Jason Tanner are two different people.

Apostrophes – Possessive

‘s shows possession of a singular noun

The girl’s parents were quite rich.

2. S’ shows possession of a plural noun

The students’ books were all over the place. (there are multiple students who have books)

3. ‘s to singular words ending in s, and nouns that are plural

My boss’s office My children’s toys

Apostrophes – Contractions

Use to combine two words (they are, he is, there is, etc.)

It is -> It’s a beautiful park They are -> They’re really good friends You are -> you’re good at this and so on.

[doin-just-fine]

MAJOR UPDATE: Questioning systems or systems in a doubt spiral pls read.

I recently told my therapist about potentially being a system. This was a scary move because she has previously had some iffy takes about systemhood. But I told her because I trusted that she would meet me where I was at and help me navigate , at the least, the general idea of not understanding my own brain if nothing else which I was ok with. I told her and it went as expected. I explained why I thought I might be a system but also the doubts I had about it and how it was distressing me to not understand myself. She agreed to use the language I was using for it and was happy to help me through (as is her job) and also because whether it was systemhood or not it was something in me that was trying to be seen and we would work on figuring out what it was.

Fast forward a few session, and I was going through another bout of "what the fuck even is my brain". I was starting to realize that my "systemhood" is very different from the things I've been seeing online. In the ways that it's different to other systems is: - I'm always in the front, always in the captains chair - I have no amnesia because I never switch out - My hyper-vigilance never lets me dissociate fully though i definitely "check out" in my own way - Head mates just feel like vague ideas or emotions

But the ways that are similar are: - These vague ideas or emotions have opinions and feelings that are different from my own. - Though they are vague, I can definitely tell they are separate from what I have come to understand as "me" - I become "a different person" in the sense of my attitude, vibe, behavior, and opinions change from where they were 5 mins ago, but I am still me, just a different me.

Anyway, I was already trying to make sense of all of this and was not planning on talking about it with my therapist because nervous... However, my therapist ask me about it first. She asked some clarifying questions about my partners system vs my own and how they are different. When I explained what I just wrote above to my therapist she said "Thats what I thought and I owe you an apology."

Basically, my therapist, like any good therapist should when confronted by something they don't know a lot about, had been doing research on complex forms of trauma and coping. Things in the same vain as CPTSD and Plurality including those two topics. She had specifically been reading a book called "The Body Keeps The Score" (TW it is a book about trauma and studies of trauma so it has details of case studies that some people may find incredibly triggering). I did some research on what exactly the book was talking about in regards to "systemhood" and from what I've found, chapter 14 at the end of a section called "Writing to yourself" and the first parts of chapter 17 have interesting information regarding systemhood and how its not entirely limited to things that are diagnosable like DID or OSDD. It seems to talk about how we all have several selves and trauma can get in the way of those selves communicating effectively. My therapist told me about this book and what she learned from it and apologized to me because the book made her realize that she was wrong and that I was in fact a system....

The session ended and I just kind of sat there... not sure how to feel but definitely feeling relief and validation.

After doing research on the book to write this I have some words of wisdom. If you are a questioning system or are doubting your validity remember this: The human brain is so incredibly complex and no one actually understands how it does anything beyond its basic physical functionality... the conceptual abilities of our mind are a mystery. How we define self is just theory. If you don't fit into boxes, labels, identities, or diagnoses that does not mean your experiences aren't real. You are going to be ok. Understand YOUR mind and how it works for YOU, not through a label or diagnosis. If those things come later, great! Do not let them destroy you just because you don’t fit perfectly. I am a system. Simply. No types, labels, or diagnosis. I am a system. I have a unique experience because my brain is no one elses. I am a system. I may not have people in my head in the traditional sense but I'm also not alone up here either. I am a system. I am a system. I am a system. Nobody has the right to deny me this for they do not live behind my eyes.

As I understand myself: I am a system.

[itswalky]

i just finished binge-reading dumbing of age, and i'm now going through the archives on the itswalky site. the commentary underneath the anti-joyce reveal panels feel really really insightful, especially wrt the theme that got me to read the dang comic -- plurality! (someone sent me the amazi-girl strip from a few days ago and i read the entire thing because of it.)

were themes about plurality just sort of a low-lying "snuck into your work" kind of deal for a while? how did they evolve into stuff like booster literally asking aloud with words, "oh is amber plural?"

the evolution of plural "rep" is really fascinating stuff to me in an artist's work, especially when it passes through from being "wow, dark link but for sex trauma!" to "amber has a Guy In Her Brain who has Her Own Friend Group Entirely, And This Is Working Out Pretty Well For Them".

it'll also be really funny bc i plan on reading shortpacked after finishing its walky, and i assume know amber ISNT plural in that one, so asjfhsjdgsdg

ANYWAY YEAH. evolution of plurality in your work was the question. (and i guess other pathologized brainstuffs becoming more textual.)

LOOK IF WE WEREN'T MEANT TO DISSOCIATE THEN GOD SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE US BE BORN IN SINFUL VESSELS WHO JUST WANT TO GET WRECKED

I dunno! It's a very good question you're asking and I don't know exactly how to answer it. You're right that there's been a longrunning theme of characters being a little splitsies due to trauma, even before I made things textual after... learning more about the real life phenomenon! When folks spoke up about how Amber felt true, I did my best to do right by them. Like with many things we discover along the way, sometimes we find stuff that just really hits a groove with how our mind works. Maybe that groove isn't exactly ours, but it's definitely something we understand on a deeper level.

And then we find words for it! That's always the helpful part.

[ouroborosorder]

I once heard someone say that because Arknights' disability representation is mostly tied to their fantasy turbo-cancer, then it doesn't feel like real disabled representation, and I've been unable to get it out of my head, like a piece of popcorn stuck in my teeth. So, rather than doing my homework like I'm supposed to be, I want to talk about why I disagree and why I love Arknights' approach to disability.

So, for those who are unaware, Arknights has a shockingly high amount of disabled characters, and characters who are disabled in a lot of different ways, both caused by being Infected and just being disabled in the way that normal people are. Nightingale has chronic pain, Lemuen is the best sniper in Laterano while being in a wheelchair, Akafuyu is mostly blind, Eyja has severe hearing loss, Rosmontis has severe memory loss, Amiya has very severe PTSD, I could go on and on.

And of course there'd be a lot of operators with disabilities! Rhodes Island is a medical organization dedicated towards long-term care of terminally ill patients. Of course many of them would develop disabilities, and of course Rhodes would have the resources and facilities to help them. They even make notes of how to treat them in their medical files, like how Ejyafjalla's has a little guide on how to best have a conversation with her. It makes perfect sense, but I can't say a lot of games would think about it on that level.

And that why I like this game's approach to disability so much. A lot of video games just treat disability as "someone missing an arm" or "someone in a wheelchair because of Their Injuries From Combat. It's usually treated as an individual thing, just someone who got hurt, or who maybe has a frail constitution or whatever. But in Arknights, disability isn't simply treated as a character trait for individuals, but as part of the worldbuilding itself. The world is largely defined by Oripathy, this fatal degenerative disease with no cure. And the Infected are treated as second-class citizens, considered free labor that they don't have to treat ethically because they're dying anyway. The writers realized that this would cause severe disability, both real and fantastical, and worked it into the story and world.

This runs the other way, too! Arknights' worldbuilding follows a sort of social model of disability, in a way. There's a lot of fantasy stories that treat the inability to use magic as a sort of disability, but to Arknights, it's... not. Because Arts require specialized training, and so a lot of people just don't know how to use them, and might not even know they can't use Arts. So it's not treated as such, even though it is still a physical inability to perform things other people can.

But on the other end, Laterano's culture is based around the Sankta having empathic communication between each other. Mostima, as a fallen angel, can't use this telepathy anymore, and she speaks about how othering it feels sometimes, to be physically unable to engage with an important part of her culture. While it's not explicitly stated as a disability to the Lateran culture, I certainly feel like it's treated as one to some degree. Namely that it's explicitly contrasted with Fiametta's PTSD rendering her unwilling to empathize with the people around her, as opposed to Mostima's physical inability. It's the fantasy disability treated with the same weight as real world disability, because within the world of Terra, they're the same thing.

And of course there's just some of the more fucked up fantasy stuff like "On top of her existing narcolepsy, Ptilopsis was forced to become plural after she had to have part of her brain replaced with a computer that forces her to speak and think like a computer or else it causes her severe mental stress to the point of physical pain." Which uh. I don't know where that fits in the conversation but jesus christ someone hug that owl

Of course, its representation isn't always perfect. Just off the top of my head, Nightmare is a pretty rough stereotype, with the whole "Oripathy gave her multiple personality disorder with a violent personality trying to take control of her body!!" trope. And, of course, I'm sure other people have complaints with the representation of their disability in ways that I'm not aware of because I only have the perspective I have.

But... what I remember about this game's treatment of disability isn't when it fails. What I remember is reading Glaucus' module for the first time, the story of the first time she ever put on the mechanical exo-suit legs that allowed her to walk for the first time in her life. And I started bawling my fucking eyes out. I cried because, even though I don't know the specific feeling of walking for the first time in years, I know well what she felt. That feeling of liberation from something you secretly feared was just who you are now. Even though you know it won't be a perfect solution, the physically choking emotion that you're able to get a little closer to a normalcy you've always wanted. The feeling that right now, the only thing you can do is run like the wind.

[orange-orchard-system]

Since mottos and slogans have been a hot topic in the plural community lately... I want to introduce one that I've been thinking of for a long while now! It's part rallying cry, part "defiance via continued existence", and part punk in the "spikes as a deterrent" way (if that last comparison makes sense at all, lol – I'm specifically thinking of things like how wheelchair users may put spikes on the handles of their 'chair so others don't try to touch or move them without permission). It's this:

"Plural as in there are more of us than you think."

[PT: "Plural as in there are more of us than you think." / end PT]

I've also considered a longer version that would tie in the queer community/queerness – which I know is intertwined with plurality for many people – and that version would be: "Queer as in here without fear, plural as in there are more of us than you think". What do you all think?

I think it's very to-the-point, and plays on a simple premise: that we're not backing down – not in the face of hate, and not in the face of fear. Especially with the longer version; we're here, we're queer, get over it – and if you refuse to, just know that you can't silence us all, no matter how loudly you try to drown us out. We will always be here. There will always be someone to fight against the hate, to spit in the face of bigotry just by continuing to draw breath. It also has a nod to an older queer sentiment that I think we should bring back for both queer and plural folk alike – that we are everywhere. The cashier that scanned your groceries might be plural. The classmate sitting next to you might be plural. The neighbor across the street might be plural. We are here. There are more of us than you think. And we will not be afraid.

"There are more of us than you think" is also a nod to how statistics are often both misunderstood and just plain lacking in data. People really don't seem to realize just how population statistics translate to real life; how many people they pass by or have brief interactions with fit that "extremely rare" condition they dismissed, because something like "1.5%" doesn't look like a lot on paper, but ends up as a whole lot when you wander out into the world. That's at least one out of a hundred – and that estimate is on the more conservative side about one specific presentation of plurality, and doesn't account for many, many other forms of it. So, yeah, there are definitely more of us than they/you think.

I admit it can be read as a tad aggressive, but that's also part of the point. It's meant to be a very in-your-face type of motto, especially as a spit in the face of pluralphobia and all other forms of bigotry it entangles itself with – racism, sanism, disableism, ableism, religious intolerance, queerphobia, etc.. Yeah, your cashier, classmate, neighbor might be plural – and so what?! Yeah, maybe you should think twice about messing with us, because acceptance is growing and you're not going to be able to excuse your hateful nonsense for much longer without it being called out as such! But on the other hand, I think it can work well as a conversation starter, giving people the prompt to ask, "What does that mean?" In this case, the slogan being so provocative works in its favor! Yeah, actually, I'd love to talk about how plurals go unknown and deserve more awareness, how there are almost certainly more of us than even we can know for certain! And, again, spikes on a wheelchair – taking words as an art form, this slogan is art that's meant to make you uncomfortable, to make you question things; "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.", as Cesar A. Cruz said. It makes you scared or uncomfortable to think about there being more plurals out there than you first estimated there to be? Why does it make you feel that? Is this the result of unconscious bias? Why do you think we, the makers of this slogan, might be comforted by the same phrase that disturbs you?

We're plural as in more-than-one in more than one (lol) meaning of the phrase. More-than-one in this body, more-than-one of us out there fighting the good fight – helping others, breaking down walls, and pushing for a kinder and more accepting future.

Plural as in there are more of us than you think. Fuck your hatred, we're gonna be here no matter what.

[sysmedsaresexist]

hey fellas it's me again

systemscringe is using this horrible essay (https://text.is/pluralkit-) to say that systems shouldn't use pk (and by extension simply plural) even though it's blatantly wrong, promotes the "evil alter" stereotype at the end, and DOESN'T EVEN HAVE AN AUTHOR

this stupid essay made me think that sp wasnt something i should use (and sure, its not good for SOME people, but it can be helpful, and it is for me). now that i am using it ive been able to learn more about my system and fronting triggers and i really dont want any other systems to go through what i did.

i would debunk it myself but i feel like yall have more reach than i do, and i also know youre more researched than me and would be able to do a better job.

if u could help that'd be great :)

Sigh. Systemscringe back at it again, making things more difficult for literally everyone. First things first:

Pluralkit, Simplyplural, and anything similar are NOT inherently harmful to people who dissociate.

They’re also not inherently helpful, either.

To say they are always harmful will confuse people on how to recognize the signs of increased dissociation. That makes it harder for people who are actually harmed by using these things to get help. It also invalidates people who are genuinely helped by these tools. These tools do not inherently prevent integration. For some people, tools like these can help them recognize and work with their systems, which is necessary for reducing dissociation.

"To be an integrated human, as Dan Siegel (2010) insists, requires 'differentiation—with linkage,' that is, it necessitates the ability to make distinctions between different parts of the self, to name them as parts, but also to link them to other parts and to the whole of which they are a part." - Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors, by Janina Fisher, Page 21

To say that Real Dissociative(tm) people don’t use these tools is utterly false, a bad excuse to fakeclaim people, and they know it; these tools are popular as hell in the online community, and many people, even people who eventually found them harmful, have used them. Can we please put this “faker” shit to rest so that actual productive conversations can be had?

Personally, I think that there's a lot of things to critique about both pluralkit and simplyplural (hereafter just called pk/sp). They're not perfect -- nothing is! I'd love to have a nuanced discussion about how they can be helpful and harmful to different people and why, but often it feels like I can't have discussions like that. Not when just using pk/sp gets entire subreddits calling you a faker, not when systems who simply dislike pk/sp get called "sysmeds," not when we approach these things as either Always Good or Always Bad.

In reality, how helpful or harmful pk/sp can be is an entirely subjective matter. It's a personal issue to your system and your system alone. I know systems who find pk/sp to be very helpful and I also know systems who find them to be unhelpful, even harmful. In my own experience, I've found that pk/sp made my symptoms worse. So, I just don't use them. It's literally that simple.

Notice how the essay makes such broad sweeping statements about pk. They don't say that it can increase dissociation between alters, they say that it will. They don't say that it can lead to delusions, they say that it will. How about instead of jumping to conclusions, we actually ask the community what their experiences are? I’ll get us started:

I also notice that the essay states that the functions of pk go against treatment recommendations, but I don’t know a single clinician who is using pluralkit to treat their patients. AFAIK, they’re correct that it’s not really an accessibility tool, but it’s also not a therapeutic tool either? So, I don’t understand why they’re judging it like it is one? It’s just a discord bot, dude. It’s not that deep.

I don’t want to glance over the harm they’re talking about, though. Stuff like pk/sp can reinforce dissociation. You can have an unhealthy relationship with them. That’s not specific to pk/sp, though, it can be like this with anything seemingly innocuous. I know some people who self-harm by reading fanfiction…doesn’t mean that everyone who reads fanfiction is self-harming, or that fanfiction is universally harmful. That's why, instead of telling people pk/sp are Bad and Always Harmful, we need to spread awareness so that people actually know how to recognize actual harm and take care of themselves. That’s why I’ll leave this post off with a list of some red flags. Anyone is free to add on, but remember that these are potential signs of harm. If you think your use of pk/sp is harmful or unhealthy, please investigate that with a professional or close loved one!

Some red flags that pk/sp may not be helping you:

Episodes of dissociation, switching, and/or memory loss became more frequent or severe after you started using them

They make it harder for your system to cooperate; you all feel less connected than before

There’s more conflict within the system than before

You feel pressured to say who is fronting or when a switch happened, even if you don't actually know

You feel pressured to create a profile for system members that you don't know a lot about or are unsure if even exist or ones that specifically don’t want a profile

You sometimes wish you had more system members so that you could have more proxies or profiles

You or system members feel like you aren’t allowed to have your privacy or anonymity

You feel like you can't talk in discord servers that don't have pk

Using them makes your system members feel less real / less connected as a system

Using them is the only thing that makes your system members feel real / more connected as a system

You don’t really want to use pk/sp but you feel like you’re a faker or doing something wrong if you don’t use them

[ketsuarting]

Thinking about Transistor and how, even though I was Obsessed with Hades, it always paled in comparison for me.

Wanna point out the objectively Hades is a much more developed title, but something about the mood struck within transistor just hit me so much deeper. With Hades I at some point start to feel how much of it is a 'game', meanwhile in Transistor I can literally replay in thrice in a week and it'll still have me in a vice. (Speaking literally, here I just cried and then immediately felt uncomfortable at the alternative voice line that you get for Recursing again. I feel such visceral emotions every time)

I kinda knew that it would end up like this from the beginning too. When I heared that Hades (the first one) was coming out from the same people that have made my favourite game ever (discounting paper mario 2 because that only trumps transistor bcs of nostalgia) I was disinterested because I knew it wouldn't be the same, because what makes Transistor so uniquely horrifying to me (in a good way) is what many would call flawed in game design. The way that it tells it's stories (plural) withing the containment of only 10 enemy types, two human models (+Sybil???), 3 ½ voiced characters... The level design and art style.

Such a short and linear story too.

It was clear that every rough edge that I liked to glide my hands over would be sanded down with future games.

I am glad that I did eventually check out Hades, it's impressive in its own rights and I thoroughly enjoyed that one. 90 hours I think., which is about four times the time that i spent on transistor. and I've already spent 30 hours in Hades 2. Some hardcore gamers might scoff but I don't spend more than 100 hours ona game, if I reach that marker I tend top drop the game. Even if I am far from actually done.

I was never very consciously aware of developers until playing Hades so I wasn't particularly familiar with Supergiant, and I do still keep my distance from interviews for personal reasons, but I've been thinking about playing bastion and pyre too now. A little anxious though.

[bugcatcherkit]

more plural mob talk when you get the time please!

I need to hear about shigeo and mob/other characters it's my favorite interpretation of them!

OKAY I will try my best!!!!! But its a little difficult because the way I think about them changes a lot. There's, like, some set characteristics and all, but I don't tend to think in "definitives" with them. The difference between this and canon is there's More Dissociation and a further degree of separation (though, again, Baseline Identity; they can't exist in isolation).

OKAY OKAY. ANYWAY. I think a lot about the resentment they developed for each other. Mob resented Shigeo ("his power") for how they lost security in their relationships and were isolated from others, as well as his general destructiveness that Mob had to deal with the aftermath of. I also think that Mob sometimes gets hung up on how to live his life to the fullest when he has to share it with a part of their brain that doesn't always agree with what he wants to do.

Shigeo started resenting Mob for taking over their entire life, and also all the demonization, dehumanization, being rendered as scapegoat, and being cut off from all their relationships. Confession Arc was him trying to separate himself from Mob so he wouldn't have to deal with that anymore. And despite learning to accept and be more open with each other, I think they still struggle with this stuff sometimes in post-canon !! When they have problems with each other, most of it comes back around to this. But they're better at working through it and communicating and all that.

In line with their new communication efforts. I think it's interesting that Shigeo seems to know more about Mob than Mob does sometimes. Mob is so good at intellectualizing his emotions and fears and experiences, but Shigeo is more aware of the underlying emotional reasons that Mob struggles to grasp. Mob does not know this much about Shigeo, because Shigeo is mostly Raw Emotion, and he mostly relies on what he's been told about him up until post-canon. I'd imagine finding a balance becomes difficult sometimes even though that's what they're working on. Also, I tie this stuff to their memories. Like, Mob doesn't want to be left in the dark about things he doesn't remember but Shigeo does, especially surrounding stressful experiences. But Shigeo is like "bro you just want to Know you don't want to actually Accept or Feel anything about it yet".

I know I have other stuff about how i view their dynamic but I can't think of it right now so I hope this suffices. Most of the time they're just going through life. Mostly co-con or blended. So.

OH AND OTHERS. One I really think about a lot is Mob/Shigeo and Dimple. IT'S SO GOOD. They severely understand each other. Also, whether he knew it or not, Dimple was one of the only guys in Shigeo's corner for a while because he was always encouraging them to stop holding themselves back and consider their emotions. And Dimple was there to help them out a LOT when others couldn't, which was a big hang-up for Shigeo during Confession Arc. They all understand what it's like to be seen as scary or insignificant or inhuman in some way or another, so they don't do that for each other. And its great for Shigeo to know that once Dimple realized he couldn't use their power (which he never actually succeeded in doing), he stuck around anyway when he Rematerialized. Overall, Dimple would Get It and not pass a lot of judgment I think. Dimple dynamics are so underrated guys…..

Another fun dynamic is them and Ritsu, who I think was the First to know by the way. Sometimes he helps figure things out between them when they're having an especially difficult time communicating. Also Shigeo's general strong attachment to nostalgia means he kinda struggles to see Ritsu as more grown up, and he babies that kid in a way that Mob does not. He also likes to give Ritsu so many cool rocks off the ground and he'll feel mildly offended if Ritsu doesn't keep them.

And also Shigeo and Tome would get along great. Their shenanigans would be worrying.

Sorry I didn’t explain many other dynamics I got sidetracked and also I didn’t want this to be too long. This took a while because I’ve been in my “school is starting soon” slump where I am so so so tired all the time and struggle to focus on anythingg 🙏

them..

[sophieinwonderland]

okay first off i dont even care that i have the possibility to be put on blast FUCK YOU ? you're trying to convince people that being a sys without trauma is valid when its medically proven its not true ?? + tulpamancy is a closed practice

okay ! have a horrible fucking day and if i get put on blast oh well <3

The... possibility to be put on blast?

I mean, you sent an ask off of anon presumably with the intention of it being responded to publicly. So I'm responding to it publicly, as I assume you intended?

Like, you're acting like being "put on blast" would be something terrible I'd be doing to you, but it also feels like it's something you very much are wanting.

You're an odd little person.

To get this out of the way first, while tulpamancy draws its an etymology from a Tibetan Buddhist practice in the same way the word hurricane has roots in Native American culture, a word having an etymological link to another culture doesn't make it appropriation. (Unless you plan to remove hurricane from your vocabulary too.) And if you think that there's a closed practice anywhere on Earth called "tulpamancy," I don't think you're nearly educated enough about the basics of these cultures to presume to speak for them.

Anyway, to the big point, where has it been "medically proven" you can't possibly be a system without trauma?

What were the studies that "proved" this? Can you name the doctors?

I have no problem listing doctors who have expressed support for endogenic plurality. I did so just yesterday.

It shouldn't be hard to find at least one saying "you can't be plural without trauma," or "you can't be a system without trauma," or even "you can't have dissociated parts without trauma."

Speaking of which, one source I didn't include above because it seemed more neutral was from the creators of the theory of structural dissociation. This one suggests it may be possible that hypnosis and spiritual possession may involve self-conscious "dissociated parts of the personality."

This one doesn't seem explicitly pro-endo but at the very least is open to the possibility and encouraging future research to explore it. Which is a far cry from your claim that it's been medically proven you can't be a system without trauma.

Surely, if it had been proven that the only way it was possible to have multiple self-conscious parts was through DID, the creators of the theory of structural dissociation themselves would be aware, wouldn't they?

Different academic sources use different terms for plurality. Where the creators of structural dissociation refer to having multiple self-conscious "dissociative parts," the World Health Organization's ICD-11 uses the term "distinct personality states."

The ICD-11 also adds though that you can experience the "presence of two or more distinct personality states," the characterizing feature of DID, without a disorder.

Thus far, every academic source I've been able to find on the concept of endogenic plurality has either been explicitly supportive or at least neutral.

If you've found sources saying otherwise, you're always welcome to provide them.

But if you're just repeating things because you've heard your friends saying them, I'd advise being more critical in the future because it's very easy to spread misinformation on the internet. If someone is claiming that something is scientifically impossible, you should always ask for the sources to back up their claims to make sure there's actual support behind it before spreading those claims around.

[scapeg8ats]

(Sorry for this being a long post, it became a rant/vent and a lot of thoughts. Someday I'll shut up about this I SWEAR lol. There's a TL;DR at the end.)

Maybe I'm not even interested in syscourse outside of learning more about plurality and its connections outside of CDDs and why someone may see themselves as plural or really any way of not seeing oneself as One Singular Self (whether it has to do with a disorder or it's a cultural/religious/etc. reason). Or I guess that does make me interested in syscourse. Just not echo chamber syscourse.

Like I'm sorry but y'all are fucking mean. I LOVE having discussions where I can learn and understand other perspectives. I guess to steal SAS's label, I'm very pro-syscourse conversation (though—and this isn't to bash SAS AT ALL—to me that feels redundant because syscourse is supposed to be conversation anyway. But it's not so the label is necessary). I want to learn. I want to be educated. I want to discuss this, even with people who disagree with me, because I want knowledge of other perspectives.

But it is so hard to find syscourse spaces that AREN'T echo chamber syscourse spaces. The desire to attain knowledge is stomped out by attaching inherent morality to labels that can be boiled down to one argument: Do you or do you not believe that plurality is exclusive to CDDs?

And shockingly this has more nuance than "endos are/n't valid". What may cause someone to see themselves as plural without a CDD? And the answers are vast and could be a FASCINATING discussion. Not even necessarily a debate, just learning more about people. And yet the answer to this question isn't even considered before so many people just go "[extremely loud incorrect buzzer noise]" and shut it down.

Maybe, ironically, this is me struggling to understand perspective. But I don't understand the lack of interest in wanting to understand, despite having experienced it myself. And even that, I want to understand. But I know that the fact that because of the nature of my opinions, I would be marked pro-endo, and shut out of that discussion. And it's INFURIATING because I respect the fact that they don't want to interact with me but I just don't understand!

There is endless room for discussion that's shut out and it's frustrating. It's heartbreaking. I want there to be discussion. But there won't be until the echo chambers start to open their fucking eyes.

I remember the moment for me was when someone in the Twitter dissociatwt community who I really respected, who always provided good resources, who was reliable and kind and honest...was pro-syscourse conversation. And my knee-jerk reaction was almost betrayal. How could someone that I respected be a pro-endo??

But I realized that they didn't stop being reliable because of this. Some of y'all will discount doctors who have been studying plurality, trauma, and dissociation longer than some of you have been alive because they're a stinky smelly "pro-endo". Therapists and doctors and the like who go "Why isn't it possible" get discounted because of this when they, too, just want to understand. Because with all due respect and in the most positive way, they're a bunch of nerds. And I don't understand. I don't understand how you can do that.

And that's really the thing. I don't understand and I'm not given the space to understand because my stance is somehow morally wrong. I'm not virtue signaling right. Sometimes for both sides. And it's awful.

TL;DR, I don't understand and am frustrated by echo chamber syscourse. That's it. That's all this long-ass post is saying. I don't get it. It didn't need a post but a lot of me just started Talking and did not stop.

[dnangelic]

this blog's 1yr creation anniversary is only two months away and tbh even though nobody asked there's always a point for me where i try to evaluate my portrayal and whether or not i'm having fun, whether or not i confidently feel like *other* muns are having fun, (if nobody was why would anybody even be here?? alwdjadkfj) but in a more personal regard, also evaluating whether or not i feel like i've finally 'broken in' a muse and can finally stop 'studying' or trying to reference and adhere as strictly as possible to canon, especially since so many interactions that can happen with rp have never even been remotely explored in canon settings.

there's always some malaise that comes with that; i worry that too much change or growth and comfort with my own private interpretation and portrayal means that i'll somehow drift away from and lose dark and daisuke's original points; their initial thematics and the deeper organic messages of their characters, which i guess makes me sound like a pretentious novelist or your highschool english teacher instead of just a hobby writer, but it's also still important to me who found a lot of positive messages and theatrical magic in dnangel as a series itself to therefore try to be able to handle such things about its characters with equal sincerity and care. i don't want daisuke's overall kindness and optimism to turn bitter or his inner will and courage to turn weak, i don't want dark's tragedies to be neglected nor do i want him to become nothing more than a shallow shipping or fanservice item because of his design and facades, and i definitely, definitely don't want to snip the way these two are so irremovably intertwined within each other, and the way that i'm quite literally writing a 2-in-1 muse, my son(plural) and my sons(singular.)

that all being said, i think i have the confidence to say i've done an okay job, maybe even a Good one. my muse still goes very strong for them even after all this time, and i really enjoy all the relationships they have, especially those of you who were willing to give a completely nonfamiliar canon (or even just a child/teenaged muse with off-the-walls magical girl... criminal.... body horror-y goth phantom of the opera and shoujo satan alignments) a chance. to the old muts i've known from other blogs who've stuck around, thank u! to the new ones that i've only first met on this blog and are still here, thank u guys too! i'm always hoping that i'll get to have plenty more time with everyone in the future, but even if something happens i still can say that i had a really good first year writing dark and daisuke <3

[avelera]

Where the heck is Satan in Good Omens S2?

And could we perhaps find evidence of him in the places where the furniture used to be?

For reference:

Hastur & Ligur, 1.1: "All Hail Satan." "All Hail Satan."

Crowley, 1.5: "I never asked to be a demon. I was just minding my own business one day and then… oh, lookie here, it's Lucifer and the guys."

Adam Young 1.6: "You're not my dad and you never were."

Satan, 1.6: "No, no, no!" (He promptly dissolves into black ash and vanishes. Immediately after, Aziraphale and Crowley look at their no-longer-flaming sword and tire iron as if not entirely sure why they're there.)

Crowley, 2.1: "Do you ever think, what's the point? ... Heaven, Hell, Demons, Angels?"

Crowley 2.2 (circa ~2000 BCE): "Satan and his diabolical ministers..."

Gabriel 2.3: "I remember when the morning stars sang together and all the angels of god shouted for joy.” (emphasis mine. Lucifer/Satan was the Morning Star. Why the heck is morning stars plural??)

Edit: Shax 2.6: “I demand that you hand over both Gabriel and Beelzebub as gifts for Satan, our master.” (Could debunk the whole theory, might not only because she seems pretty low-ranked and could be going through the motions even though he's gone, but we'll see. Including to get all the evidence down.)

... And I think there's some other S2 references to higher ups and "Our Lord" by Shax supposedly, but I'm too sleep-deprived to go combing through for them (I'd be much obliged if anyone else could grab any other exact quotes that mention Satan by name or seem to refer to him in Season 2.)

Let's first get the Doylist explanation for why Satan might not be around out of the way: Satan was the Big Bad of Season 1. He's been dispatched. Furthermore, he's played by the most likely very expensive Benedict Cumberbatch, so he's not likely to be back in a hurry if it at all can be avoided, and alluding to him at all might just create confusion with viewers who will then expect to see Satan.

(Below the cut: but what if there's more to it than that?)

But as others may have seen with the, "Metatron is actively editing the Book of Life in S2 and that's why things are weird," meta, there's quite a bit of speculation going around that something fucky is going on in S2.

However, while I agree that some points in S2 are certainly fucky I'm not convinced on all or even most of the supporting evidence. Most of the explanations have a Doylist counterpoint like "It's just bad writing," or "They just wanted to bring back some actors they enjoyed working with," or, "The film crew just made a mistake," or "They just forgot that bit of continuity." After all, half of the original writing duo is tragically no longer with us, so there's going to be some level of story drift regardless.

While in general I find the, "It's not that deep," explanation more plausible in most instances, I'd be a very poor disgruntled English Major indeed if I made sweeping claims that the wallpaper being blue is always a coincidence. It's muddier with TV because there's so many proverbial cooks in the kitchen and plenty of human error to go around, but I'd equally never claim that I think Good Omens S2 wasn't a labor of love by those who worked on it, and certainly there's evidence that care was taken in its production, so everything that's off being a mistake is also not a sweeping generalization I'd want to make either.

Which is my way of saying that I'm not convinced by the Metatron meta but I think some of the ideas there are on to something. I don't think it's plausible that a writer would in S3 reveal that in S2, the heretofore largely off-screen character of the Metatron was actively editing the story as we went with the heretofore only mentioned once, never seen, and immediately denounced as a joke Book of Life. BUT, there is some fucky stuff happening that I won't say was the result of some Genius Mastermind Writer deciding it was a good idea to actively write badly and provide stories with no payoff, but I will consider that some of the apparent continuity errors might not be so accidental as they seem, because this was a labor of love and at least on this count, I don't think that Neil was necessarily that careless. Or at least, I'm more inclined to look for clues in places where I can see logistical choices being made, rather than in more subjective claims like "This bad writing is meant to be Bad Writing and therefore a Clue." Because writing is hard even under the best of circumstances, especially in TV and having lost the aforementioned half of a beloved writing duo.

Moving on! Thing is, if we're to believe that there's some sort of mystery hidden in plain sight that was introduced in Season 2, then it did not pay off yet. This makes me a little suspicious of the overall claims that there was a hidden Season 2 mystery, because a good mystery really should pay off within the text, and expecting the reader to keep their unsatisfied suspicions in their heads for 3-4 years for a later satisfying conclusion is... optimistic at best and downright sloppy at worst.

Unless, the mystery spans the entire show. If the clues we're seeing are meant to pay off in S3, and we assume some level of competence, then more likely these are series spanning mysteries that will be satisfying when one is able to watch all three installments. And that means, if there is a mystery in S2, we should be checking back with Season 1 to look for the roots of it.

Which is what brings me to Satan.

What on Earth happened to Satan?

Is Satan still around?

Now, my theory would be much more satisfying to me, personally, if Satan's name was never spoken in S2 but alas, there is the Book of Job episode and I believe some other mentions by name, mostly by Shax? I'd love some backup on that. But I very deliberately don't count demons just saying things like, "Our lord" or making vague referrals to the powers that be to be references to Satan because if he's vanished, someone could have easily filled the power vacuum or there could be an empty throne room somewhere and everyone is just going through the motions (or he's become the Sandman Lucifer who fucked off to lie on a beach, which would be delightful. Anyway).

When Hastur and Ligure showed up in 1.1 they specifically said, "All Hail Satan," and Crowley was shown to be an outsider that he did not return this familiar call-and-response. Yet no one in Hell in S2 uses the All Hail Satan greeting. The references to Satan are few, even in Hell. There doesn't seem to be a lot of fear of Satan either, but more around other higher-ups like Beelzebub, Duke of Hell, who appears to be the highest ranking person we see in Hell?

And also interestingly, Crowley and Beelzebub are both lamenting how pointless all of this seems. Kind of interesting for two individuals who still despise Heaven too and, presumably, took Satan's side once long ago when they all Fell. The political fire has definitely gone out of them, which can be plausibly attributed to the Apocalypse failing and/or the two of them falling in love with their Angelic counterparts, but it's also just kind of weird that suddenly they both really don't see the point in any of these conflicts that once defined their existence.

Perhaps, and this is where I go out on a limb or ten, because Satan isn't around anymore?

Is there no longer a hand at the wheel in Hell, reminding everyone of their loathing of Heaven?

Is there no longer someone actively above Beelzebub, telling them what to do, such that they have the freedom to sneak away and pursue a romance with an archangel and not have their boss show up to stop them the way Gabriel's did?

Did Adam, when he made Satan not his father but more importantly that Satan never was his father, undo more than we realize?

Because that's the kind of Gaiman mystery that I can wholly believe is lurking in plain sight, because Satan was a big deal in S1, he was the Big Bad! It's in the text! The damned book series is built on the idea of a satirical Antichrist take on The Omen. All Hail Satan is one of the first spoken lines of dialogue in the book. Satan is kind of central to any story that's going to revolve around a battle between Heaven and Hell!

And yet... he's barely mentioned this season. And demons suddenly don't remember what they're fighting for. How odd.

Maggie and Nina's actresses also played nuns of the Satanic Chattering Order of St. Beryl. If there was no Antichrist, isn't it possible that neither of those women would have become Satanic nuns and might, instead, own a coffee shop and a record store somewhere?

If there was no Antichrist, isn't it possible that through some convoluted series of events, Madame Tracy, a witch, fell afoul of a demon or managed to become one herself?

Isn't it possible that once you open the door to the ripple effects of a Satan who either never existed (though the Fall still happened) or who only existed up until at least Job, but who was never Adam's father, that some other fucky things could happen too, like Aziraphale suddenly not being fond of alcohol? This continuity detail is much more of a stretch but it is such a plot point in the book that Aziraphale loves to drink and S1 that I do find that particular continuity break particularly vexing and it's one I side-eye the most in terms of "not sure if sloppiness or a Clue".

Anyway, point is:

Satan is curiously absent this season and technically, he was unmade or at least unmade as Adam's father last season. If something is fucking with the timeline, I think that on-screen, very visible event deserves some scrutiny over and beyond vaguely alluded to, off-screen fuckery by the Metatron with no in-text confirmation at all.

There's a lot of weird and bad writing in S2, sure, but some of the continuity breaks do, admittedly, feel too big to be simple oversights and I don't think it's entirely conspiratorial to think something more might be going on and if such a mystery is going to span multiple seasons, we should look back to S1 for the seeds.

It is possible that the unmaking of Satan has had ripple effects that explain some of these continuity changes and some of the cheeky casting of S1 actors in new roles as perhaps not entirely without in-story justification.

So in my mind, the question I have no answer to, but that might deserve some scrutiny going into Season 3 is:

How much did Satan never being Adam's father alter the timeline?

Edit: And here's one last spooky quote to consider: “I remember when the morning stars sang together and all the angels of god shouted for joy." - Gabriel's weird prophecy / quoting of God

Why single out the reference to morning stars plural? Lucifer is very famously the Morning Star, you can't accidentally allude to morning stars in this context without referring to him, you just can't. So what the fuck is going on with this Biblically sourced quote that sort of alludes to Satan, but not by name, and makes the reference to the Morning Star plural?? And even though it is the original text, apparently, it's still a choice by the writers to really highlight the line about morning stars and give that line to Gabriel to say in the present too. Something is sus.

[wondercourse]

I think it's time to bring out the Venn diagram I never shut up about officially on a post that isn't a reblog, because I think I want to take this opportunity to discuss it. Have a good faith sysconversation about it, if you will. Discourse by its dictionary definition, not its online one.

Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be scientific. This is my view of CDDs, plurality, and the overlap. If there IS science to go into, please feel free to contribute! Consider this more of an Informed Opinion Piece™, though.

Prepare for her debut; she's plain but she's gorgeous.

[ID: A Venn diagram. The left circle is labeled "CDDs", the right circle is labeled "Plurality", and the area of overlap is labeled "CDD + Plurality". \End ID.]

So this is kind of grossly oversimplified as a concept, due to impossibly minute levels of nuance that I can't really even begin to get into right now that make it less of a Venn diagram and more like an infinitely complex matrix, but I think this gets across the basic idea. Basically, while CDDs can be a plural experience and having a CDD and being plural can have very heavy overlap, they are not ALWAYS one and the same.

The first thing that got me thinking about this was when I was taking my first steps out of the throes of being a hardcore anti-endo and realizing that not everyone with a CDD experiences themselves as plural. Even people with DID might not qualify their experiences as "plural"!

This led to the realization that plurality is a very subjective experience. If people with a CDD can experience non-plurality, and people with CDDs can experience plurality, AND people without CDDs can experience non-plurality…then what about people without CDDs who experience plurality?

Initially, this felt like a really weird leap in logic to me, having just come out of a space where plurality was in two halves (plural + CDD vs. non-plural + no CDD) rather than four quadrants or a Venn diagram. But with how subjective plurality is, it led me to wonder the same thing as some people who have been studying dissociation for longer than I've been alive probably (I'm a mid-20-something):

Why can't it be in quadrants? Why would this incredibly subjective experience of the self/selves be limited to this one specific circumstance? Why are we trying to tell people "If you don't have this thing, then THIS is how your self is defined"? Because that's what the view of plurality is, really: A way to define the experience of the self/selves.

So I guess when people push for reducing it to a duality rather than a complex matrix (see also: "The Venn diagram is an incredibly oversimplified visualization of this concept, as would a four quadrants model and I am INCREDIBLY aware of that), it just confuses me. I understand the fundamental fact that it IS a duality to many people—it was to me!—but I guess I just don't get it. You're trying to define two different things in my mind: Whether you have this dissociative disorder or not, and whether you have this subjective experience of self/selves. And the latter, like…really isn't something you can define for someone? How are you going to tell someone how to define themselves, y'know?

I'm getting The Fog pretty bad right now so I'm gonna leave it as like. Open discussion, I guess. I put this in the syscourse tag as well but please be civil because I'm not going to entertain bad faith with this. If you disagree, please actually say why instead of just hitting me with "You're wrong and you sound silly". This is genuinely something we're really interested in.

Sorry if this post is a mess; these always end up taking a lot out of us because they require a lot of thought. 😅 Thank you for humoring us if you decide to discuss!

[candyskiez]

Saw ur also a ???% fan… 👀

Care to share your thoughts around him? Or headcanons if you have them? :D

1. You just noticed? I have NOT been talking enough about him then. I will rectify this immediately. (This is a joke you're good)

2. SO.

These will be scattered. Because I am a very scattered person.

I will flip flop between if I like the disconnect between ???% and Mob better as a plural thing or an allegory .I like both! Both is good! He's so fascinating as an allegory but also he's the most accurate representation of being plural I've ever seen and it's not even canon. So like. Two cakes!

I will always be insane about the manga version of confession arc. Hold on I need to talk about this in detail or I'll actually die.

His fucking. His fucking talk with Mob. "And you were never...never...looking at me." WHAT IF I SCREAM. Literally everything he says to Mob is so interesting and also relatable as shit whether you view it as plural or as an allegory. Both is good. Like you can view him telling Mob he forgot to protect himself and all that shit as like "You only do these good things to ease your own guilt. You don't actually want to be around people. You're selfish. This is who I am. I want to be able to exist without trying to be normal. I want to be able to be seen and not be harmed for it. I am tired of everyone ignoring this part of me because they prefer you. Would they actually do what I've done for them, or are they using me?" Like. Holy shit. It's so so fucking OW especially as an autistic person. But also as a system it's so easy to read him going "You pushed all the memories you didn't want onto me. You let me handle the things you didn't want. You shoved everything onto me, and I took it with stride because I loved you. You let me take all the hard things so you didn't have to face them, because you're a coward. This is my body too. This is my life too. Why don't I get to have that? Why do I have to give it up because you don't want me? They're my family too. You don't get to decide I don't deserve to exist because you hate yourself too much to admit I'm here." Like. Its so easy to read it as him being a protector who is SO fucking resentful of all the shit he's had to deal with, all the memories he has to hold alone, all of the shit he's experienced, and not a sliver of gratitude. Like goddamn does it remind me of my experience being a system. Either way the distance from him and the relationship between him and Mob has been my favorite part of the show since I started watching. And the manga is even more interesting and it's so!!!!!!!!!!!

More confession manga thoughts!! Him saying "Ritsu is my little brother. He was calling me Nii-san." Is so. He said that when Mob asked who he was. He viewed that as a solid part of his identity. RITSU is a massive part of his identity. Does he view Mob as not Ritsu's brother then? Does he feel like he was cheated out of his own family? I wouldn't be surprised nor would I blame him for feeling like that.

And even more confession arc shit. Hi. Thinks about how ???% in the anime at least had to steel himself before raising his hand at Reigen. He hates him but he still cares about him. He hates him but that guy raised him as much as his parents did. Clawing at the walls.

Actually y'know what I haven't talked about my thoughts on Reigen and ???% with anyone but the friend that I watched the show with and that is a tragedy that will not stand. ???% hates Reigen so so much but also cares SO much about him. Thinks about he passed out the second Reigen told him his parents were fine, and contrast that to him saying that he can't listen to Reigen in confession. He knows that if he listens to Reigen he'll believe him and that fucking terrifies him. He'll follow after Reigen because he means the world to him, because that man raised him, because he just wants him to be proud of him so fucking badly. He'll go back to being miserable and trapped, and everyone will go back to pretending he doesn't exist. He's terrified of Reigen, I think, because he knows Reigen is a good liar. Reigen can make him believe things. And he doesn't like that. He doesn't like how gullible he actually is. That's why he doesn't trust anyone- he's gullible enough to believe anything, so he has to distrust ANYTHING, no matter how much sense it makes, because he knows he can't trust his own judgement. He's been tricked before. He'll be tricked again. Don't trust anyone. Don't trust anything you see. This is another thing that works with either autism or plurality. The autism trauma of being lied to and deceived as "jokes" constantly turning you into a trust issue riddled mess that doesn't trust your own judgement or view of people, or a traumatized protector who FORMED to help you deal with people taking advantage of you and now distrusts everyone you love because "it happened before, it'll happen again, i wont let it happen." Or both!

God. I just LOVE ???% y'all don't understand. He's everything to me. Please god read the manga. I don't know if the translation I read was completely accurate, but I love the manga and anime both so so much. ???% is my favorite character as anyone who knows me can tell you and I will never shut up about him. My GUY

[eesirachs]

You may have answered this before or written something on the subject, so pls forgive any overstepping! But I'm having a hard time reconciling the nature of God in the ot vs Him in the nt. Is it just because of like the times, in a sense, that He feels so different? In the ot He seems extremely wrathful - I'm reading through 2nd chronicles and just so many times the kings turn their backs and God brings down sickness and war and slavery upon them and so on until they (the king) finally repent. But in the nt, Jesus and his ministry is all about love and mercy, and God abides in it.

I know time changes a lot of things, and the inclusion of God's own son and his sacrifice makes this much more personal and close to him, but the change is almost too much for me to understand. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding it, maybe His love has always been the same and I'm just not understanding it in the ot ? I'm not sure.

Any thoughts or advice or..? Idk, this has been bothering me for weeks and I don't have ppl in my life who can answer this type of question. Thank you for your time T–T

difference as a rubric needs to be kept warm. the god of the bible (who is hashem, who is jesus) is not monolithic, and neither are his texts. so many hands touch each corpus. some of those hands held the tent of exodus but most did not; some hands held jesus’ own but most, again, did not. i am trying to tell you that you can’t hold the hebrew bible as one thing with one kind of god and the second testament as another thing with another kind of god. each book has its own figure of him, or, figures plural. hashem cries, jesus flips tables. hashem burns, jesus has a meal. un-attach from any vagueness or rigidity that foreclose real meaning, re-turn to these texts with a posture that is both critical and generous, and let the hands of and within and across the bible hold you before those of marcion of sinope get to you

[orange-orchard-system]

Been thinking for a while about what one of our singlet friends said about not really getting what it's like to have DID or be a system. And while I get it, it's just something that stuck in my mind because... I don't really know what it's like to not be a system. I haven't had that experience. For as long as I can remember, I've been more-than-one. And so it's interesting to think of my life as something that others struggle to fully understand.

Again, I get it. It's very hard for me to put certain experiences into words or even art, and I've been in the position of a "singlet" (a plural egg, really, but at the time I didn't have any awareness of that that would help me understand) trying and failing to understand system things. I've been there. I know how hard it is to get something like this, and I know how hard it is to describe something like this. I get it.

But at the same time, I don't think it's an impassable mountain. I think of that post going around Tumblr that easily and clearly explains calculus, of all complicated things, and I think "Is plurality really so impossible to explain when this can be done? Difficult, yes, but impossible?" and I don't really think it is. Sometimes, things will have to be simplified – which is a large hurdle I find people encountering, trying to simplify something enough to make sense but not enough that it loses all its meaning – but I think it's a bridge we can build.

Do I know how? Sort of. I don't have a foolproof plan, but I like to bring up and explain plurality to the people in my life. I told a professor about plurality and am writing to her to explain it more in-depth. I gave a speech on dissociation and highlighted dissociative disorders as something I recommended the audience learn about. I wear plural merch and answer people's questions on it. I think just making the attempt, even if you have to simplify things, goes a long way in the long run.

Every time I try to add more to this post it devolves into poetry that only vaguely makes sense, so I'll end the post here. Moral of the story is uhhhh differences in experiences aren't walls between us, we can always work for a better future together. May you have the strength and courage to help both others and yourself