#but their plurality formed through the compartmentalization of the personality

[canonicallyplural]

Welcome to canonically plural. 

This is a blog that is dedicated to your favorite characters who are canonically plural in some way. 

Defining plurality 

When I say canonically plural, what I mean is that the characters are depicted with multiple self-conscious agents of some kind sharing a single body.

It should also be long-term rather than characters who just share a body for a few moments. This time limit is relative. If a character is plural for all of their existence, but only exists for a couple hours, they've been plural their whole life. For characters with normal lifespans, I would say their plurality needs to be demonstrated to exist at least over a period of multiple days. But discretion is allowed.

This can take many forms. Venom from Spider-Man has a form of biological plurality where the alien symbiote fuses with a host. Blue Beetle is technological plurality. Moon Knight is both psychological and spiritual.

The Checklist

By my criteria, a character is canonically plural if...

The character has multiple agents in their mind/body. ✅

These agents share a body for a decent length of time. ✅

These other agents possess at least some rudimentary level of self-awareness and memory, and could reflect on past events. ✅

You used your best judgement and the submission is in good faith. ✅

If the above criteria are met in canon, the character is canonically plural!

The Good Faith Rule: On the last criterion, note that I won't be researching a lot of these before posting. So please be reasonable and remember the goal of the blog is introducing people to plural characters in different media. I realize that maybe something like the Power Rangers spending a few days in a Megazord can technically fulfill the criteria of multiple people sharing a body if you stretch it enough. So please don't go on a mission to find loopholes to the criteria.

Nothing is metaphorical 

Assume for the sake of this that unless something is explicitly stated to be metaphor in the work, it is literally happening within the context of the narrative. 

Perhaps the writers of Inside Out wrote the emotions as a metaphor for the emotions of singlets. But within the Inside Out universe, the emotions are actual distinct characters with their own distinct personalities. They have their own memories, their own wants and desires, their own agency. Within the fiction of the Inside Out universe, people are just naturally plural through these self-conscious emotions in their head.

All the characters in Inside Out are canonically plural. 

Canonically plural character guidelines

When submitting a character that is canonically plural, please include a description of why you think that they are plural. There's no maximum length but at least a few sentences would be ideal. It doesn't need to be a huge essay. But it at least needs to convey what is plural about the characters.

Please state both the name of the character or characters who are plural, as well as the piece of media they originate from.

Ideally, submissions should use the following template:

[Character Name(s)] from [media name] is canonically plural. [Description of their plurality.]

For example...

Pearl from Steven Universe is canonically plural. In one episode, Steven enters into Pearl's mind through her gem. Inside, she has a layered inner world, each with its own compartmentalized version of her. Each Pearl has its own memories and there are even dissociative barriers between the inner Pearls, where some are just not aware of what other Pearls are doing. There's the main Pearl with control of the body on the outside. There's a Pearl on the surface level of her mind responsible for organizing thing and keeping them neat. And then each layer beneath that holds a different trauma Pearl suffered from her past. One Pearl holds onto the death of the person she loved. And another from her trauma over the deaths of her friends in the war. And another holds onto a trauma from losing who she used to be.

Fanfiction Contributions Guidelines

For those looking to share fanfics, formatting is slightly different!

[Character Name] from [fanfiction name], a(n) [original media name] fanfiction is canonically plural. [Description of their plurality.] [Link to the fanfiction]

The link and the media name help make it easier to locate the fanfic and share fan works about plurality with others. It also helps me what tags to use for the post. Additionally, you can optionally post links to FREE original fiction such as free webcomics or stories that involve plurality.

Self Promotion

If you've written any plural works, you're welcome to share those here too! But please mention if you're the author in the description! Thank you!

And thank you all for your contributions!

[sophieinwonderland]

Hullo! I have questions? I’m trying to figure out what endogenic systems are, and it’s all decently new to me.

If this ask is rude in any way please void

What is a willowgenic system?

Are median-systems (monoconcious) systems strictly endogenic?

Are dreamaway systems (maladaptive daydreaming systems, MaDDs systems) endogenic? (Curious about this one because anti-endos do not like answering that one)

And last but not least, how does tulpmacy works (idk if I spelt that right)

Thank you for your time!!!

Hi there! Thanks for the questions!

A "willogenic" system is a term for a created system, and is usually used as an alternative to tulpamancy. The big difference being that tulpamancy has a much more extensive community with a masive trove of resources that isn't always connected to the more general plural community.

I don't much like "willogenic" as a term personally as I feel it simplifies the process, suggesting the headmates can be created through will alone.

Tulpamancy generally works, in its most basic form, by talking to an entity in your head until it becomes autonomous and sentient. There are a few different variations of this.

The most popular in the community seems to be starting from scratch. You give your tulpa an appearance and imagine their appearance, but not much else. Maybe you'll imagine a few personality traits for them as well. If you talk to them enough and treat them like their own person, you'll eventually hear a voice belonging to them. It will sound similar to your internal thoughts, but different at the same time. So the job of a tulpamancer is to listen for these voices. Or often before a voice, you may instead sense your tulpa's feelings and emotions in the beginning before the tulpa is actually vocal. (This is usually called tulpish.)

The less popular method, but the most common for producing accidental tulpas, is creating a more-developed character and "parroting," where you speak for them in the beginning. Do this long enough, and that character you controlled initially will develop independence and autonomy. Many tulpamancers end up being writers whose creations become sentient.

The reason for this, I believe, is that a lot of fiction writing involves low levels of dissociation. When you think about it, it requires you to compartmentalize. To feel what a character feels, you need to put all your knowledge and feelings as the writer in one box, and the feelings of the character in a second box.

This is even more true when you start talking to the character, and having conversations with them as yourself.

And no, median systems are not inherently endogenic. There are plenty of median systems out there who are traumagenic, and one could consider certain forms of OSDD a type of median system. Additionally, many polyfragmented systems will describe having median subsystems.

Dreamway systems will also vary in origin. Some are traumagenic. Some are endogenic. And sometimes it's complicated.

Maladaptive daydreaming itself is heavily associated with trauma, but can exist without trauma present. This is because of an addictive quality of daydreaming. And even if the daydreaming is caused by trauma, that doesn't mean that the system is. In a traumagenic system, the system is created by the trauma directly, and the brain basically trying to quarantine the trauma from the rest of the system. In a dreamway system, the maladaptive daydreaming may be caused by trauma, but that doesn't mean the system is.

Dreamway systems, even if the MADD itself is traumagenic, may lack the "EP" or trauma-holding headmates characteristic of CDDs (complex dissociative disorders) under the structural dissociation model.

[butchmeows]

Ramble abt polyfragmented DID and online "plural" culture

I don't feel like I have anything in common w "plural"* culture, having such a different presentation of DID (and relationship to it) due to polyfragmentation.

I call them parts instead of alters or headmates. I would never want to be called plural or a system or be seen as multiple people / a member of system of multiple people, as opposed to one person who exists in dissociation causing a variety of compartmentalized self states for my survival. I want to fully integrate. I view my DID through the structural model of dissociation. I view fictional introjection clinically, as a substitute belief/memory rather than the part actually being that character. I have only ever had 2 fictional introjects despite being prone to introjection (of abusers, mostly) and having nearly 200 parts. I don't pathologize my DID because I don't believe in psychiatric pathologization of any kind as a psych abolitionist but that doesn't mean I want my parts to be seen as people or treated as separate from me. I don't feel like a person at all and neither do any of my parts, we feel like collections of various parts trying to form the image or shadow of a person instead. This is because parts that could be called "alters" as opposed to fragments are expansive subsystems with at least a dozen different parts (both fragments and "alters") making them up. My primary host is a collection of over 50 parts, and has 5 other cohosts made of many parts as well.

*I put these terms (plural, alter) in quotations not because I take issue with them or view them as illegitimate when others use them but because I do not identify with them whatsoever and find them clunky to use in relation to myself. I also personally really dislike the term plural and find it (as well as plural culture) alienating, but I don't dislike other people liking it or resonating with it. It's also just objectively true that the way DID is experienced and presented within plural culture is not the norm for DID and applies to only a minority of the people with it, leading many to feel alienated from these spaces.

This is not a criticism of the plural community but rather an expression of my personal disconnection from it.

[ya-killin-me-smalls]

i had this thing that happened with me when i was going through a really rough time, where i separated my thoughts into two people

red and blue

red tormented blue, red was the bad thoughts. blue was simply me, blue was weak and couldn't fight back

sometimes there was more. like void, an empty null feeling. static. it was easier for me to talk as them, to use their speaking style and talk about myself as if someone else was speaking of me. it was easier to vent online as i felt more shame in speaking as myself instead of someone else

i thought maybe we used to have a purple to keep them all in order

but now they aren't here anymore, there's only me

blue

and now that i've recovered some, red is gone, bad thoughts and horrid desires are all mine now

sometimes i still refer to my feelings as it or call myself a we, talking about myself in the third person even, again using it

is there a name for this happening or is it just a trauma response?

- the blue suit of caution hiding as anonymous

(i felt like maybe you'd know more about this than i do, sorry if this is a bit much on you suddenly- if it is just delete this ask)

I mean, I'm by no means an expert on systemhood, DID, or anything related. sounds similar to symptoms of OSDD-1A but could just as easily be a form of maladaptive day dreaming or compartmentalizing yourself

really this stuff just requires a lot of soul searching but also looking at symptoms you deal with outside of (possible) plurality. do you deal with a lot of dissociation in your day-to-day life? chunks of memory missing or it feels like there's a barrier between you and certain memories at times? psychosomatic symptoms like headaches/migraines?

getting a diagnosis for this type of thing, and an accurate one at that, is really difficult from what I've seen so while we're hesitant to label our situation as a specific disorder, we are certain that we're a system due to trauma. I'd like to see a shrink someday but financially and socially it just isn't an option right now. my recommendation is to do your research, read up on experiences from systems, and again, soul searching

if you'd like to talk more in depth about anything feel free to dm me. not big on putting everything out there on main but I'm happy to share my own experiences and discuss yours

[snezhnayan-nights]

So anyways, I'm still pretty curious on why (a good majority) of endo plurals won't stop using system. There have been lots of implications that it's originated from DID/OSDD spaces or even medical text in general, and it's still on my mind a lot.

I understand that normalizing the changing terminology would not be fast considering how relatively big the demographic is. But I don't think it's hard to just... Change terms?

Hypothetically, I think the change would actually clear up a lot of problems and confusion about endo plurals being seen as the same as CDD systems. Endos have their own junk and CDD systems have their junk, despite some of the similarities and certain overlaps. I don't think "system" needs to be one of those overlaps.

In a likely actuality, lots of endo plurals would disagree on the change of terminology with whatever reason they say. I don't really know what reasons, so anyone that disagrees, feel free to say.

The one argument I do think would be prominent would be, "The meaning's changed now, it's for general use!". Which, I can agree with that point, but it doesn't help the fact endo plurals get mixed up with CDD systems a LOT just by a single word.

[girldraki]

Can you elaborate on what i.d is supposed to be about? As well as what your possible interpretation is

Although I love the song (and have for a while) I've personally had a bit of a hard time discerning the meaning, intentional or not (I also see the system interpretation a little easier than the trans one, although I am trans and not a system to my knowledge)

uhh so i guess this is partly bc we read a lot of other trans content, but the song is imo a pretty classic example of an extant form of trans symbolism where Genderfeels are distilled into a partially-distinct entity within the pov character's head who keeps popping up and reminding them of their feelings-- like, maybe you've seen "different reflection in the mirror" type stuff, it's like that but taken a little farther (and, anecdotally, seems to represent a real kind of compartmentalization at least some closeted trans people use to process).

usually the focus is on the internal dissonance between the closeted pov character and this trans/differently-gendered version of themself who at once represents something they viscerally desire and want/need to reconcile with and that they categorically cannot accept because that would entail dismantling their identity, and the resolution is always focused on self-acceptance and coming to terms with this trans self.

(it's one of the kinds of trans symbolism that most often lends itself incidentally to plural double-meaning when the work is vague enough about it due to this being a literal process systems have to go through to function well; an adjacent example we'd point to is madeline/badeline from celeste who at once made a lot of trans people point to madeline as a clearly trans character, again, she's in conflict with her reflection who she needs to come to terms with to grow, and systems to point at her as a literal representation of something they have gone through.)

in terms of the song itself... well, the lyrics themselves aren't explicit, which is why the Sysfeels interpretation is itself even possible, but if you recognize this form of symbolism it's fairly straightforward. under the cut because this is long enough as is

so like, uh, obviously the song is called "i.d." as in identity (or i guess identification like the single art), which is basically the first clue. and then the lyrics-- ok. i guess we'll do this roughly in order?

so. penny's first lines indicate that she and the other pov character have been stuck on some issue for a very long time, and you'd think she'd be sick of this by now but she keeps coming back to it. chi-chi's first lines elaborate that the issue she represents and which the two of them have been grappling with is so important and so fundamental to them that if. God this is a nightmare to word. the first pov character were to lose her it would basically destroy her.

so notably this narrative seems to open already part or most of the way to acceptance, because the entire song centers on the two characters calling out to each other to attempt some kind of synthesis, which we get to by penny's second part in the first verse-- "how hard can coexistence be?"

and ok THEN we make it to the chorus which at once scans to us as one of the most obviously trans parts of the song and which is objectively one of the most oblique.

so. with the context of this entire codified symbolism from above here. "if i stopped myself when you showed up and interrogated your presence it would be easier to dismiss you outright, but i never do it fast enough and what you represent gets in my mind. it's been this way ever since--" cutting the paraphrase to directly quote "you told me your name", which while we feel a bit pepe silvia saying this DOES scan to us as, like, Very Transgender because of the sheer symbolic importance names can Have etc etc you know this you're trans too.

the first part of the second verse is a little less interesting, just chi-chi's character saying penny's character shouldn't be so afraid, she can handle this, and honestly she's incomplete as is.

then penny's part-- "if i spend all my time as what i'm not then i would find it in me to tell you to leave", and, okay, again you are trans and we are trying not to explain basic transness to someone who knows it, just. The thing people do where they overcompensate performing their assigned gender as a way of deflecting or suppressing their desire to go in the other direction, which of course doesn't tend to fully work, "here you are and you won't".

then chi-chi's part is also uhhh pretty straightforward. come on, we can coexist, are we seriously beyond it, and then the Chorus which we've already gone through but will note that chi-chi's voice is much more obviously present as her character's argument gains ground.

and then, ok, the outro we've lyrically gone through bc it's another repeat but the obvious thing the song is designed for you to notice is that chi-chi's voice comes in partway through and eventually eclipses penny's. coming to terms with it.

SO! that's the long and detailed trans symbolism reading! the system one is shorter because it is just a literal read of the narrative the song presents and doesnt fit as well in some places.

Uh.

realizing you're a system, if you're in the kind of system that has to realize that, is very difficult. you grow up in a society built for singlets and you assume you must be one too and you maybe even think ~multiple personality disorder~ is actually fake because those people are delusional and then suddenly there's another voice in your head and taking control of your body and your entire identity is falling apart at the seams and you have to reconcile this impossible to reconcile thing that will make you a social pariah. like you literally have to if you want to function long term in any way.

(as someone(s) who have come to terms with both being trans and a system, it. Yeah. there's some similarities.)

so a lot of hosts tend to just fucking pretend the whole thing isn't happening and you get this weeks or months or worst case years long scenario where the host (rarely even everyone else) is arguing This Isn't Happening LOL and very obviously it is and, like, the only good ending is that everyone involved acknowledges each other as people and works together to whatever collective goal. which is... there's some nuance to why the symbolism we explained above has plural double-meanings, like obviously there is the More Than One of it but there's also the absolute need for mutual acceptance as a prerequisite for growth. madeline/badeline again being a prime example.

so with all that considered the secondary read is a pretty straightforward dialogue of, like, the narrative we explained above but. more . literal. "i keep coming back to this question/i'm fundamental to you and you can't lose me/are you listening? can we coexist?" and then-- the chorus works a little differently when taken literally, it's the same basic idea but "you get in my mind" is more. Uh. tangible and "since you told me your name" is... names are also important to systems albeit in a slightly different way. they are a very concrete form of self-definition and importantly distinction from the whole. and then uhh the second verse on is basically what we've already analyzed but in a system way instead of a trans way so

SO uuhhh if you read this genuine fucking probably over 1k essay that took almost two hours to write thank you for that. apparently we have Thoughts on this matter! and if you are someone who has not listened to the song you should go listen to it. it really is good.

[dandelionuprising]

Actually, let me expand a little on the overlap of psychotic, dissociative and plural experiences, because it’s been on my mind.

Bear with me, these are half-formed thoughts, and I am not stating anything with certainty.

The things is.. having DID/OSDD/the ICD-equivalent, or experiences that align with those disorders, come with lore. It comes with a certain narrative, and it’s a clean and easy-to-follow narrative. Child is born. Bad things happen to child. Child splits off into different identities to deal.

And people like simple explanations, people like external explanations, and they like explanations that are emotionally coherent.

Meanwhile people who experience similarly extreme symptoms, who don’t follow this narrative, are more lost. Let’s look at psychosis as an example. Psychosis can certainly be triggered by stressful and traumatic events, but it also may happen for seemingly no external reason at all. This is painful, bc humans crave explanations, we want to know why. 

At the same time, there’s a good deal of overlap in symptoms. Hearing voices, dissociation, blackouts.. Even delusions of control often have a coherent personality/narrative/story, just like voices might be certain characters/personalities, and sometimes those overlap. The disorganized thinking associated with psychosis, combined with an often impaired sense of self, can lead to experiences in the vein of identity compartmentalization.

Being active in the psychotic community, I have known many psychotic people to discover the idea of plurality, and find a sense of belonging and healing there. 

What used to be scary voices or delusions of control, are now other parts of yourself, that you can work with and come to an understanding with, and who can develop and have character growth.

While this can become excessive and problematic, I have found that most people I know (myself included) who went through this process, came out happier and healthier.

And I feel like.. somehow a few people in the DID/OSDD, PTSD (and C-PTSD) communities have a tendency to cling to their trauma as a defining characteristic of their mental illness, which “absolves” them of the “moral failing” of having weird symptoms?? And as such anyone who experience similar symptoms without following the narrative must be silenced, lest people question the legitimacy of their suffering.

Kind of like how people sometimes have an easier timer understanding “I was in an accident and broke my back, so I can’t walk”, better than they understand “I have fibromyalgia and no one really knows why but I can’t walk”. 

Ofc the person who broke their back will not have the same experiences as the person with fibromyalgia, and vice versa, but it doesn’t mean that one of them is faking their experience or deluding themself.

In the same way, people can experience dissociation, identity compartmentalization, plurality etc for vastly different reasons, in vastly different ways, with vastly different levels of impairment..

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 358

CAUSALITY AND THE QUR'ANIC WORLD-VIEW: Part 1

The universe has been made in the form of a book, intelligible, so as to make known its Author. The book addresses man. The aim is to make him read the book and its parts, and respond with worship and thanks to the will of the Author. Man attains to that worship by uncovering, through scientific study, the order in the book of the universe, and displaying the functioning of beings and the workings of the universe.

The universe is not passive. It is not neutral. We cannot interpret it as we wish. There is only one correct way of looking at the world, one universal world-view which is common to all humanity. This view is taught to us in the Qur'an as well as in the book of the universe by our Creator.

This does not mean that the Qur'anic world-view does not recognize that the perception of the world differs from one person to another. It allows for plurality within unity so that a universal dialogue is possible. In this world-view there is no fragmentation and no conflict. There is only harmony, assistance, peace and compassion.

The materialist scientific world-view is based on radical fragmentation. Materialist science takes nature to mean a mechanism with no inherent value and meaning. It isolates an object by cutting off its connections with the rest of the world and studies it within its immediate environment.

Whereas our perception of ourselves tells us that we are meaningful and part of the whole universe, and everything must have a meaning and must be part of the whole universe, materialist science has left the subject. i.e. man, out of the universe, and insofar as this science is taking over, people feel that they have no place in this world. They are isolated from other people. Their lives have no meaning, except in a very limited, egoistic sense. Man is alienated from his environment and from himself.

In the light of modern physics, the mechanistic view is an incoherent description of nature. The developments of modem physics call for a radical revision in our concept of reality. They shattered all the principal concepts of classical physics.

Many concepts, like the causal nature of physical phenomena and the ideal of an objective description of nature, changed with the advent of the new theories of modern science, quantum, relativity and, more recently, chaos theory.

However, these changes have not been matched by parallel changes in the world-view of science. The modifications took place only on a mathematical level. Because all that counts for scientists is the development of mathematical formulations of the behaviour of physical phenomena. Such a goal is not regarded merely for its technical utility; rather most scientists believe that prediction of this kind is all that knowledge is about.

They claim that our concept of reality is of little or no importance. However, it is clear that our concept of reality has a tremendous effect on how we behave in relation to nature and to other people, and also on the meaning life has for us as individuals. We cannot dispense with a world-view.

This attitude of the scientists is in contradiction with modern science. Classically it was thought that science could describe and explain everything in the world 'objectively' i.e. as it actually is in reality and that the 'observer' i.e. the scientist himself, could describe the world by means of mathematical models which were independent of his judgement. The discoveries of modern physics, however, point towards the unity of all things, an unbroken wholeness which denies the classical fragmentation of the world into separate and independent parts. In the quantum theory, every particle is linked to the rest of the universe and cannot be isolated from it. This oneness of the universe includes human beings as well. The quantum theory, together with abolishing the notion of fundamentally separate objects, has introduced the concept of 'participator' to replace that of the neutral observer. Modern science therefore restores man to his central position. It puts an end to the notion of neutral, objective description of nature and thus to impartial objective science.

Up to the present, materialist science has been based on a deterministic, causal view of the world. Although the latest theories like the quantum and chaos theories are leading to a world-view where there is no room for fragmentation and determinism, materialist scientists still insist on following the fragmented and causal approach. They have to be reductionist because they believe in causality. At the same time they do realize that their materialist world-view is collapsing. Theoretically they understand that, in order to explain one thing, they need to know its connections to all other things. This is obviously impossible because these connections extend in time and in space beyond human capacities; they are infinite and cannot be embraced by human beings who are also parts of those connections.

The materialist scientists understand that the unity of the universe points to an Absolute Creator. For the things we study do not bear meanings limited to themselves but testify to the Absoluteness of their Creator. But in order to be able to claim that their scientific studies produce knowledge, the scientists insist on denying the Absolute Creator. And because their scientific method is based on causality which cannot accommodate the unity of the universe, they ignore that unity and compartmentalize the universe so that they can study each compartment as the product of a limited number of causes. In this way, they can pretend the universe has no Creator and its meaning is limited to what they tell us about it. They thus claim their science to be the source of knowledge.

[system-of-a-feather]

So my teacher is using Monster High Freaky Fusion (And assorted clips of Jackson Jekyll and Holt Hyde) to teach my psychology class about DID, and I was wondering if those are good comparisons?

I haven’t watched that really at all so I can’t say with 100% certainty, but just on 1) The basis of how media represents DID 2) The general knowledge I have of Monster High and 3) A quick read through the characters wiki page, it is very very very very not a good comparison.

I skimmed through a few scenes on youtube and really, it is better than using Split or something to explain / teach people about DID, but that REALLY isn’t saying much since Split is problematic in a whole other stream of reasons.

Generally, using a form of media to represent / teach / understand DID is usually a very very bad idea since I have yet to ever see a GOOD representation of DID in media. I have been told a few movies that get it okay like “What if it Works” or “Mr. Robot” but I can’t say that personally as I have never watched them - only that I have HEARD that they are okay representations.

A very very very large portion of media that has “alternate personalities / identities” or characters “with DID” are either stigmatized, sensationalized, made into a trope, or made laughable and also hyper fixate on how the parts are “totally separate” personalities when in reality the personalities are all part of a fragmented person. They also almost always leave out the concept and idea that DID is a disorder built upon by repetitive childhood trauma and DID is a response and coping mechanism to compartmentalize and handle the intense stress that a child can go through.

DID is more than just being “plural” or having multiple identities and is much more a disorder that is trauma-driven and the result of a not-integrated individual.

When trying to learn about DID, it is best to try to talk to look more into scholarly sources, documentaries, and people who either specialize in treating / researching the disorder or people who have been diagnosed with it.

Also, I really wouldn’t recommend using DID Youtube as too heavy of a resource either since there has been a lot of sketchiness around there. The only one I would maybe recommend is Multiplicity and Me (Youtube, @multiplicityandme , Twitter). Do take that with a bit of a grain of salt because while I have yet to find out anything problematic / that I dislike about them, I have previously regretted recommending certain DID Youtubers when I got more information.

I don’t want to be the person to say YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM NOT TO!!! because it isn’t your responsibility, but if you are comfortable in doing so, I’m sure many in the community would appreciate giving a bit of a “hey btw I don’t think this is good representation of people with DID and is not appropriate for educating people” or something similar. You don’t have to and no one should get mad about you for not doing so, but psychology teachers and professors using inaccurate media to explain / teach DID is part of the reason why there is so much stigma around the disorder, why there are people that don’t believe it is a real disorder, and that so many people think it is something that it isn’t.

Best of luck and thanks for questioning the information you were being fed. It is a really important skill and something many people don’t do so thanks. It’s appreciated.

-Riku (Host)

[cambriancrew]

The Plurality Perspective of Human Systems

by the Crisses, who posted this here. There's some great articles there, and I thought this one deserved to be shared. Text of their article below to make it easier to discuss.

-----

We have been thinking more and more about the big umbrella of "Plurality" and having spent a good bit of time with a wide variety of plurals in our lifetime, including our father (in denial), many lovers/partners, quite a number of in-person friends, online communities we have participated in and forums we have facilitated, and more recently the 2 plural caucuses in the last month in DC & Philadelphia (July-Aug 2018).

Plural is a big umbrella. It includes those with aspects and facets who are not "one" but also not quite sure they're "many people" either. It includes multiples (many people), it includes those whose many are not (always) human, it includes those whose Front is a portal to another world inside, those with no internal landscape, those who somehow chose it consciously in some way shape or form, those who were forced/manipulated/programmed to be plural, those who acknowledge that the experience of life is complex and multifaceted and that their spirit companions and guardians may or may not be "all in their head", and it includes those who simply ARE that way with or without knowing why, whether or not they attribute it to their experiences of trauma (or lack thereof).

The wider net we cast, the more inclusive we are, the stronger we will become. There's myriad lessons we can learn from this beautiful multifaceted tapestry of plurality that we will never learn if we're busy generalizing traits and acceptability and wasting cycles trying to determine whether a system is "real" or "fake" — this is not in question at all.

Our only exclusion criteria is whether or not someone is an asshole. Assholes should be removed from any community based around identity. Assholes include people cluelessly rude and unwilling to self/selves-correct through to horrifyingly and purposefully abusive.

With such a wide net cast, it may be that one day the overwhelming majority of humanity identifies as plural and singlets become the minority. And we won't be sorry — but we shouldn't be rude to them or stigmatize them lest we've forgotten our roots. Our umbrella includes questioning, singlet allies, singlet partners/spouses/spices, etc. because we need their strength against the stigma society casts against us and because we're not assholes. ;)

This means when a singlet gives the usually-considered-lame excuse of their separate roles, perhaps we should nod and say "You're right — maybe you're on the plural spectrum, too. Let's talk about how you experience the separateness of your roles. Do your roles ever conflict or fight? Do you ever have any memory compartmentalization between your roles? Does anyone ever comment about how different you are when you 'let your hair down' after work?"

This is always possible because there's a continuum of plurality. It's not a black-and-white, on-and-off. It's a big beautiful bell curve, a spectrum or contiuum. And we often find ourselves explaining that being only strictly one person-per-body regardless of whether one is dealing with work, home, kids, parents, etc. is actually maladaptive. You can't treat your children the same way you treat your spouse (yipe!!!), and if you can't adjust to your environment you can get into or cause trouble. The next time someone says your switch was "convenient" explain this to them. Yes, adapting to your environment and inputs is a positive survival trait (whether singlet or plural!). Everyone healthy and functional does, too — just that plurals often take it to an extreme and become an entirely separate individual highly tuned to said circumstances, sometimes down to completely separate awareness and/or memories.

Being a singlet is highly overrated. Sometimes being plural is, too. Eventually one day the spectrum will hopefully be accepted variations of human normality — but right now the assumption is singlet normativity and that's become plural oppression. And we've had enough of that.

[sophieinwonderland]

"I have made my position known that I think people identifying as neutral or unaligned are cowards"

What is the best objective evidence you have? Not people with PhDs saying things, raw data and peer-reviewed analysis.

As long as someone is consistent in their standard for truth, there shouldn't be any problems, right? At the very least, not in an environment where external forces aren't forcing interaction.

I think most of the instances I cite of people with PhDs saying things are also peer reviewed analyses.

The Transgender Mental Health book, for instance. Same with Varieties of Tulpa Experiences.

Both are solid analyses.

And we're still waiting on the fMRI tulpa study to be published.

But I kind of want to step away and go in a different direction, because the reason I find the existence of endogenic plurality to be obvious is simply because of basic facts and reasoning. So let's start with one observation that I think we can all agree on.

Fact: There is a phenomenon across multiple religions and spiritual beliefs where people report other agents communicating with them or possessing their bodies. These other agents are recurrent and seemingly intelligent. These experiences can be intentionally induced through willful spiritual practices.

With the fact established, let's talk about possible explanations.

They're all liars: Basically, every person who has ever claimed to talk to a spirit/god or been possessed is intentionally and maliciously lying. To me, this is a pretty silly conclusion and I don't think it's realistic. Especially when it comes to people who report these experiences without having anything to gain for them. If people were lying, these practices wouldn't be as popular since everyone who tried them honestly would find that they didn't work.

They're all spirits: For this, I'm not going to argue about whether spirits exist or not. Maybe they do and some of these cases are from actual spirits. It's not my place to judge. But I don't think you can say that all of the spirits exist. Some religions are just too contradictory. Even if we said some spirits are real, that couldn't account for all of the people who claim to speak to them. (Although if the spirits are real, that's still a form of endogenic plurality.)

So what of the cases that aren't lies, and aren't literal spirits?

Dissociation: To me, this is pretty clearly the only explanation left. People are obviously experiencing SOMETHING. And what they're experiencing involves thoughts that are not their own. Thoughts that feel so different and distinct that they attribute them to some other agent. And yet, these thoughts would be originating from the same brain.

In order for you to have something in your mind that forms its own thoughts separate from your own, while maintaining consistency and being intelligent enough to pass a Turing test, there has to be at least some level of dissociative compartmentalization present.

All in all, even without citing the many studies into endogenic and non-disordered systems, I just find the very suggestion endogenic systems aren't real to be incredibly illogical.

[polyadvice]

Hi Zinnia! If you are comfortable with it, would you mind talking a little bit about your faith and its relation to polyamory? I was raised Catholic in a rather strict community and had to unlearn a lot of toxic teachings to become comfortable with polyamory. I'm curious about your experience and keeping with the faith.

This answer ran really long, so I’l put it under a cut and break it up into sections.

My identity

I believe that I have always been polyamorous; I can look back at some thoughts, feelings, and questions I had even as a young kid and recognize that traditional monogamy just would never have been healthy for me. This “born this way” narrative helps strengthen my conviction that polyamory is an okay way to be; it’s not just urges that I need to resist to be a good person.

My personal faith journey is a bit unconventional in the sense that I was not raised Christian but converted as a teen. So I was lucky in that I didn’t grow up with a lot of toxic teachings about bodies, sexuality, relationships, purity, etc. I converted in the context of the Evangelical church, passionate and individual-focused, but I never held to much of their theology around social issues.

When I discovered polyamory as a term and concept and started practicing, I was 19 and had been Christian for about three years. I wasn’t too concerned with how it intersected with my faith; I was still learning who I was and what I believed, and I was the only Christian in my social group, so there wasn’t much pressure around that. My parents are okay with my polyamory and NOT okay with my conversion to Christianity. Go figure.

By the time I was 21, my identity and theology as a Christian, and my identity and philosophy as a polyamorous person, had both crystallized. They grew in form together, informed by my studies into queer, liberation and feminist theology. My polyamory is part of my faith; my faith is part of my polyamory. I see traditional attitudes about relationships, gender roles, and property rights as violent and outdated, and standing in opposition to the Gospel message, and healthy, intentional polyamory is one way, for me, of re-claiming the dynamic vision of wholeness that I believe the Kingdom reflects.

Romans 13:10 tells us: “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.�� I believe sin is anything that separates us from God, each other, or ourselves; anything that denies someone agency and wholeness; anything that causes trauma to our bodies, earth, relationships, or minds. I can see no evidence that healthy, intentional polyamory does harm. It liberates us from rigid relationship roles that are tied up in oppressive ideas about gender, bodies, and economics. I don’t think it’s “wrong” or “sinful” to be polyamorous.

I am fully aware that parts of the Bible clearly prescribe monogamy - but I believe those sections must be understood in the context of the time. It is clearly sinful to cheat on someone, to use your body or your language in ways that hurt someone or leave someone vulnerable. Without a cultural concept of healthy polyamory, unhealthy non-monogamy of course looks sinful.

But the Bible also condones slavery, plural marriage, and violence against children, so, again, it’s important to understand context and culture. My old priest used to say “Jesus talked a lot more about economics than sex,” and she’s right. If you look at the core message of Jesus - liberation, wholeness, reconciliation, redemption, love - it is a lot more compatible with polyamory than a lot of the stuff we see in the Old Testament, stories being related to us not as an example to follow but a historical record of a specific people’s relationship to the Divine.

I get really insulted when people (that means you, everyone who messages me on OKCupid) imply that my polyamory and Christianity exist “in spite of” each other; or that I must “compartmentalize” in order to be both, or that I have to do some “reconciling” to avoid “cognitive dissonance.” To me, they are intertwined; they inform each other; they are rooted in the same thoughts, beliefs, values, feelings, desires, and needs. 

My Christianity influences my polyamory - Gospel ideas about growth, healing, inclusion, and love. My polyamory influences my Christianity - practices centered around intentionality, identifying and communicating needs, honoring a person and their relationships without having to fit it into a pre-existing box. I am both a Christian Anarchist and a Relationship Anarchist, and that’s not exactly a coincidence.

Being polyamorous in a Christian community

I immediately started running into opposition, however. My spiritual leader on campus, the InterVarsity coordinator, disapproved of my polyamory and cited Scripture about it. It hurt my heart to have such an important part of my life and relationships rejected by someone who I needed to be a safe person, so I sort of just dropped that as a conversational topic, and she did the same, though I know she continued to “pray for me” over what she saw as a dangerous and harmful choice I was making.

Later, I took a volunteer gig as a youth ministry helper in a church. But since I was living with my boyfriend and unmarried, I was unable to sign the covenant the church required of actual volunteer-staff, which was why I remained a “helper” instead of a “leader.” In practice, had all the same roles and responsibilities as a leader, but on paper I held a lower position. The youth pastor and his wife were supportive and welcoming, treating the whole situation like a bureaucratic annoyance. But it was a clear signal that my understanding of sexual morality was different than this church’s party line, and so I kept my polyamory to myself.

I was accidentally outed during a conversation with the youth minister’s wife - I mentioned a college boyfriend, but she remembered that I had been with my current partner since high school. I said yes, we opened our relationship to get through the distance of college. She said “but now that you live together, that stopped, right?” I could have lied to her, but I really don’t like doing that - staying closeted through omission of details is one thing, but answering a direct question with a lie feels gross. I told her the truth.

She was clear with me that she doesn’t believe that is a wise or healthy or Godly choice. I was clear with her that I respected her position but wasn’t interested in being evangelized out of my relationship and identity. She told me she would pray for me and encouraged me to spend some time with the Holy Spirit seeking discernment about this. I told her that I would (knowing that the Holy Spirit and I frequently come to conclusions together that she wouldn’t agree with). She also made it clear that I was to keep this private at church, especially since I worked with the kids. I promised her that I would. She continues to be a good friend of mine, a loving and supportive sister in Christ.

When I moved to where I live now, I sought out a more open church. I found my way to the Episcopal church. They are known for being incredibly progressive in issues of sexuality, gender identity, etc. They have openly gay and  leaders in the church, perform same-sex weddings, teach comprehensive sex-ed rather than purity-culture nonsense in their youth programs. I joined an Episcopal church in the area and soon was interviewing to be their youth minister. As part of the interview process, I told my priest, who would also be my boss, about my polyamorous identity.

He was less aggressively this-is-wrong than the other church leadership I’d spoken to, but was also not immediately welcoming. He told me that he didn’t see it as a problem and was still happy to hire me to minister to the youth of the parish. However, as a condition of my employment, he did want me to stay closeted at church. Essentially, his position was, he didn’t have an issue with it, but he also wasn’t “for it” enough to take a stand for me if the parents of the parish were put off or uncomfortable. He didn’t want me to put him in the position of defending something he wasn’t sure he was able or willing to defend. He also didn’t want concerns to be raised that I was teaching the kids something inappropriate or out of line with the church’s beliefs.

So I agreed. It was worth it - I love the kids and wouldn’t trade my place in the community for anything - but it is painful and isolating. I do live in fear of being “caught.” I have two long-term partners right now, one of whom is seen by the church as my boyfriend; and another who is my “friend.” I am very lucky that this person doesn’t pressure me to let him be his true self, hold my hand or kiss me when he visits me at church to hear me preach - it is a big thing I am asking of him, too, to be closeted as well, to be kept a secret. I have a lot of church people on my Facebook, so I cannot wish him a public happy anniversary, refer to him as my boyfriend, post any photos of us kissing, etc.

But I also live in most areas of my life as an out poly person. I run this blog (actually, the login page for my gmail which clearly says “polyamoryadvice” was accidentally projected to the entire parish when I plugged my computer in once, which gave me a gnarly panic attack but thankfully had no consequences) and have an OKCupid account (where local people have found me!). I worry about being doxxed or being seen out and about with one of my other partners. So It’s a fine line to walk and I do carry a lot of stress and sadness about it. 

I have been open with my priest about my future desires to go into the Episcopalian priesthood, and he is very unsure of whether he could support me if I continue to be a practicing polyamorous person. If I started in the seminary, I would want to be out and proud, but that is not a bridge I need to cross just yet, because I am making different plans for the next few years of my life.

Why I don’t fight for inclusion right now

I would love to be able to write this blog under my real name. I would love to be able to publish articles about polyamory elsewhere, under my real name. I would love to be able to include all my partners in all areas of my life. I am often asked why I don’t push my priest, and my church community, to be more inclusive and accepting.

The answer is two-fold: one, I simply don’t have the energy right now. I am the only person of faith in my polyamorous network right now, and the only person my age in my church community. I just don’t have the peer support or community foundation to start such a fight right now. This sometimes makes me feel ashamed - I look at the pioneers who fought for women’s ordination or LGBTQ rights in the church, and I know their journey was lonely, and difficult, but ultimately worth fighting. I am just not ready to make those sacrifices just yet, to step into that loneliness and pain and struggle.

The second answer is that I want to be sensitive about what I am asking for. Church community and church beliefs are messy, complicated, and, for many people, sacred.

I wouldn’t appreciate it if I was running a community with a set of stated values and someone just showed up and insisted we change to accommodate them. Even if I agree that inclusion is a good thing! Even if the change they’re asking for would ultimately be for the better! This is the kind of thing where, sometimes, you stay in your seat and be a passenger for a while before you try and take the wheel to change course. I respected the right of my former church to set their morals and covenants, even if they didn’t suit me entirely. 

I do not get to show up to an established community with established values and an established identity and start making a big mess of things. I don’t get to demand that they change the way they do everything to include or accept me. I wish I could. I wish there was space for me, all of me, in the church right now. But there isn’t. This makes me feel sad and lonely. And I intend to continue fighting for myself and others like me, looking ahead to a future where I don’t have to be so closeted or compartmentalized - but, for now, the healthiest thing for me to do right now is keep my head down on this issue, because I need a secure place in a church community to build a foundation on before I feel safe striking out on my own like that.

In conclusion

So there you have it! I hope this answers your questions.

This is a really sensitive topic for me - I often feel rejected and alienated from polyamorous communities because of hostility against Christianity, so please don’t send me hate mail about that. I honor and recognize that a lot of people, especially people in the queer community, have a lot of pain and trauma history around childhoods in the church, and you have every right to your anger. But please try not to direct it at me. I get enough snide comments and casual alienation in my daily life, where 99.9% of my peer group is atheist, and it’s pretty lonesome being a polyamorous Christian in an incredibly secular area, attending a church where my demographic is under-represented along every axis.  And if you are a Christian who wants to send me hate mail about how my Biblical interpretations are wrong and I am a hedonistic sinner, also, please just don’t. It really hurts my feelings. I don’t exactly fit in anywhere. I literally cried when I saw an etsy listing for a polyamorous-and-Christian pendant. So trust me, whatever you have to say, I’ve already heard it, and it made me feel bad, but I’m still polyamorous and Christian, so, save your energy and do something slightly more Christlike with your time. <3

[jesseturri]

Denouncing Caesar While Embracing Caesar: Progressive Christians and Their "Paradoxical" Political Political Theology

“Rhetorically, the political theology many progressive Christians espouse is Anabaptist. The rhetoric is anti-empire. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not.

But in practice, the political theology of many progressive Christians is Niebuhrian. That is, Christians must take and use the power of the state to address our social and international problems. The focus is upon electoral politics and democratic engagement: voting, calling Congress, etc. Jesus may be Lord, but in this unjust world Caesar is how we get stuff done. That’s Niebuhrian realism.

In short, it seems to be that a lot of progressive Christians want to be Anabaptist and Niebuhrian at the same time. […] Why does this paradox exist? I think it’s because progressive Christians have an anemic ecclesiology. Progressive Christians aren’t known for showing up on Sunday mornings.”

The above passage comes from a blog post by Richard Beck titled “The Paradox of Progressive Political Theology.” I usually like what Richard Beck has to say but I’m not sure what he’s trying to do here.

First off, as one commentator on the blog pointed out, Anabaptists don’t have a monopoly on anti-empire rhetoric. I agree; this should be obvious to most. That said, personally speaking, I admit to being big into Anabaptist theology for a while, largely because of the anti-empire stuff that Beck describes above, but I got away from it when I realized that it sort of logically leads to insulated, protected, simplistic, binary, compartmental modes of thinking, like Radical Orthodoxy for instance (yuck!)… If that’s what a strong ecclesiology looks like, then they can have it.

Additionally, I think Beck’s claim, that “the paradox running through much of progressive political theology…[is] Denouncing Caesar while embracing Caesar,” could be applied to Anabaptists as well: Anabaptists denounce Caesar while embracing another Caesar; a kinder, gentler one named Jesus. My point, obviously, is that claiming Jesus as Lord over Cesar is not a cry for no Kingdom, it’s a cry for a different sort of Kingdom. But this is still a political, Imperial-type move. A Lord is a Lord is a Lord, and a Kingdom is a Kingdom. Period. Even if you want to use the term “Commonwealth” as John Cobb does (and which I prefer), there is still a form of social organization implied here complete with a monarchical type ruler/leader of some kind…

Look, despite our Liberal Democratic attempts to separate Church and State, the reality (to paraphrase my friend) is that our 21st Century secular society is integrated/infused/marbled/mixed with religion and expired religious forms so thoroughly that it forms a multiplicity of bricolage pluralities. And this was just as true in Jesus’s day. So it seems to me that by describing themselves as “Progressive Christians” they are being political AND theological (just like Jesus was), and are at the very least opposing certain types of little “c” caesars all of the time… Using Corey Robin’s language, Christians who think of themselves as Leftists or Left leaning could be thought of as revolutionary in the sense that they would naturally oppose any sort of counter-revolutionary, reactionary conservative movement attempting to stifle the advance of a new egalitarian social order.

On the other hand, Anabaptists and others who may fall into the realm of Radical Orthodoxy (and this criticism also applies to various other stereotypical flavors of anarchism), with their strong, exclusive ecclesiology, isolate themselves from the politics of the World (and the people in it), in favor of some sort of Christian utopianism and thus become politically irrelevant. As with most simplistic Manichean views against working “within the system,” this is ultimately self-defeating and pointless at the very least, and openly imperialist and anti-democratic at worst.

Denouncing Caesar While Embracing Caesar: Progressive Christians and Their “Paradoxical” Political Political Theology was originally published on TURRI

[sophieinwonderland]

I have a (benign) hot take, and I want your opinion: do you think that acting/roleplaying is inherently a little bit plural? or do I just feel that way as part of a plural system lmao? because I feel like whenever I put on a costume or play a part, if I do it for long enough and get invested enough, eventually that character will start talking back to me. a lot of times this fades away after whatever thing I'm doing is over but not always. and whenever I've heard professional actors talk about how they do it, especially method actors, it always seems extremely plural to me, like they're literally inviting the character in and letting it possess them and speak through them. Does that make sense?

I think it can be related, but I wouldn't say all acting is inherently plural.

What I do think though is that certain forms of method acting probably involves some level of dissociation, and over time, that dissociation can form full headmates.

I've theorized in the past that plurality may be related to empathy, hence explaining the tendency for systems to introject other people.

There are two prevailing theories of empathy, and I think these can also apply to acting as well. These are theory theory and simulation theory.

The theory theory is basically when we think about what somebody does consciously by considering facts about that person. In acting, you are thinking "how does this character feel," and you are trying to think about that consciously to replicate the appearance of those feelings. This doesn't involve dissociation. It's merely thinking about what someone else will think and do.

In simulation theory, your mind is unconsciously creating a mental simulation of another person to empathize with them and predict their behavior. The problem is that this, I believe, is going to be just a bit dissociative. Your mind needs to compartmentalized, sectioning off a compartment for this simulation to run on.

You aren't thinking about what someone would think, you are thinking what they would think. Over time, I think this can retrain your mind and the barriers you create to run that simulation might become permanent.

I strongly suspect this happens a lot with method acting, and that there are probably plenty of method actors out there who have headmates they created this way. But I don't think it's the acting itself that causes plurality, but dissociative mechanisms that some people might employ without understanding what they're doing.

[sophieinwonderland]

@wisdomssoot

Okay, I'm going to address the rest of this now...

The shattered glass metaphor is bad. That's not how dissociative disorders work at all according to current theories. To quote DID Research on splitting under the theory of structural dissociation:

The newer theory of how alters are created is that of structural dissociation. According to this theory, alters are created when no existing parts can integrate new materials (e.g., memories, strong emotions, perceptions, attachment styles) because these materials are too threatening or are perceived as conflicting too strongly with what is already held. Over time, these materials are used together often enough that they integrate into a new self state. This appears to accurately describe how DID is first created and how new alters are formed in response to new trauma, high levels of stress, or other overwhelming experiences. Alters that form this way start from scratch and do not have the benefit of beginning with another alter's traits as a foundation. On the other hand, this can allow for high levels of specialization. According to the theory of structural dissociation, alters created in response to trauma are emotional parts (EP) while those created in response to or to handle aspects of daily life are apparently normal parts (ANP).

The brain is believed to have a near-limitless capacity for forming new memories. The self can be seen as a data file. Within it is all the information you associate as being "you." Traumatic memories will not be incorporated into this file though if they conflict with the data already present and will end up being compartmentalized, stored in separate files.

But it's not taking data from an existing file. It's not making the existing alter(s) less or breaking them apart.

Under the theory of structural dissociation, the system isn't shattered, and there could be a core even if it wasn't known who that core was. (Although since every alter is just as valid as another, who the core may be isn't important, and in many systems may be unknowable.)

Sometimes existing alters can be broken into separate alters too, as that page goes on to explain. But that's not how the disorder is formed under the theory of Structural Dissociation.

There is no science that proves or even suggests anything of the sort.

Plurality can exist in many forms outside of the DID. The creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation have also said as much in one paper.

They consider that spirits in mediums could be self-conscious dissociative parts, which would qualify them for falling under the plural umbrella. They also believe this can be induced through hypnosis, which matches theories that tulpamancy may be related to hypnotic practices.

And as for claiming some endogenic systems may be schizophrenic, possibly. But that doesn't make their voices any less dissociative nor does it make them any less plural. Doctors Colin Ross and Dolores Mosquera have theorized that the voices heard in certain schizophrenics may be dissociative parts of their system.

Back to the topic at hand, my personal belief, which has yet to be tested in a formal setting, is that there are a number of causes that can result in memories and experiences failing to integrate with an existing identity, and that while it occurs most often during childhood when the brain is more plastic and existing headmates aren't as strong, it can likely occur at any age.

And I think this shows one way this can happen. Like in the Structural Dissociation model for how alters form, Phia's experiences in VR are failing to integrate with Phia's own self-concept. Just for a completely different reason.

Experiencing this for a few days may not result in plurality. I certainly wouldn't speculate that this made her plural and that she created a headmate by doing this for this short amount of time. But doing this for months or years while the experiences and memories continue to fail to integrate... that level of consistent compartmentalization, I believe, is what could theoretically result in the creation of a headmate.

VR, Plurality and Virtugenic Systems

Before we begin, I want to talk about roleplaying tulpas or autojects.

Different groups of plurals have different names for the phenomena, but the basics remain consistent. You roleplay a character long enough and eventually, your brain may start to see that character as someone else entirely. It dissociates from the character and the character may start to develop a life of their own, acting on their own terms, even talking to the host at different times thrpugh the day when not roleplaying. They've gained independence, autonomy and sapience.

Right off the bat, you can imagine how VR could lead to this type of experience being common, especially with characters who are vastly different from the core. What really made me interested in this concept though was this video from The Virtual Reality Show, where the host (of the show; she's not a system as far as I'm aware) pretends to be a guy for a week in VRchat.

"I mean, when in your life have you ever looked down and not been you? Never."

Okay, yeah, she's DEFINITELY not a system. 😜

I am not going to read too far into Phia's wording because much of it seems off the cuff and it's impossible to know how this really affected her exactly without being in her head or at least getting an in-depth interview.

But the short of it for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video is that it only took her four days to feel incredibly dissociated, start talking about this character as a separate person with his own thoughts and feelings, and to start talking about herself in the third person. Seven days later, she describes the character as becoming a part of her that will be always be there.

Again, I cannot possibly speculate what these words might mean to Phia or what she experienced. It obviously sounds reminiscent of system language, but it's just impossible to know what this really means to her.

But what I think this does show is what can happen to others. That you can have people with completely different avatars that they'll strongly identify with in the game and then outside of the game still identify with their physical bodies.

Remember, this is how the experience started affecting Phia in only four days.

For others in VR, they're existing in these worlds for months or years. We may have a new generation brought up in a virtual world from the age of 13. There's no telling the psychological impact that could have.

For existing plural systems, the propagation of VR is a massive boon. Apps like VRchat can allow headmates to present themselves to others in something close to their actual forms.

And I really want to take a moment to appreciate how amazing of a concept that is. This is something that has never been possible for plurals at any point in history.

But something I've never seen brought up is the potential for new systems to be created through VR dissociation. Virtugenic Systems.

Yes, I'm just coining that right now!

If this technology becomes as common as is hoped, this might actually become one of the primary ways accidental endogenic systems will develop in the future.

There have been studies into the characters of writers showing them possessing a degree of autonomy and separateness, and even the ability to speak to their creators mentally.

What I would love to see is an equivalent study to this for VR. How many VR players see their avatars as separate people? Do they hear the voice of their avatar on its own? Do they feel like they become someone else when in VR? Do they use reflexive or non-reflexive pronouns when they think of their non-VR self while in VR?

These are all topics I would love to see explored at length in future research.

I would love to hear other's thoughts on this and to hear if anyone has developed headmates in this way! 😁

[sophieinwonderland]

Thank you so much for the info!

I think combining the disorders under one label in the DSM would have been a really a good decision given how similar they are and how treatments are largely the same. But perhaps still separated into subtypes with the knowledge that subtypes can change through treatment could be helpful?

It's never made sense to me that OSDD, which is meant as a catch-all, ends up being as common as it is instead of being its own disorder.

Would a tulpa consider their system to be a dissociative system? Wait - I'm getting off topic 😆

Kind of? Not really. Maybe... sometimes?

As you know, there are two main types of dissociation. You have compartmentalization and detachment.

Detachment is the feeling of experiencing yourself outside your body in some way. You're not connected to it. This is, I think, experienced by most types of system that switches, whether they're psychological or spiritual. Even if you feel like your body is being possessed by a spirit, then you're still experiencing detachment type dissociation.

A lot of tulpamancers don't start off switching, so we have guides that help with that. And in these guides, the word "dissociating" tends to come up a lot. The host has to learn to dissociate in order to switch with their tulpa.

Now, when I think of a "dissociative system," my mind usually goes to compartmentalization, since that more relates to how headmates are created. So I would not think of a system that dissociates to switch as being a dissociative system.

But I do think the terms can be confusing sometimes when it's misinterpreted to imply that only systems with dissociative disorders can dissociate. Especially with the distinction between compartmentalization and detachment not really being common knowledge in the system community.

Compartmentalization is when memories or feelings are divided into, well, compartments. These can be states that lack self-consciousness like in PTSD, or fully conscious states like alters.

I would consider this a necessity of most forms of psychological plurality. It's what's responsible for the so-called "emotional amnesia" or the "not me" feeling you get when recalling what someone else in the system did. (Either in the body or headspace.)

I think that this is in a weird place because I don't think many tulpas view themselves as being created by this type of dissociation. But I think that under a singlet-normative view where a human brain is only meant to house one conscious agent, then having multiple self-conscious psychological agents with their own thoughts that aren't identified with other self-conscious agents would qualify as dissociative compartmentalization.

And there are theories that even the spirits communicated by mediums may constitute self-conscious "dissociative parts of the personality."

Where I am right now when it comes to dissociative compartmentalization is "I don't necessarily identify by these terms or like how they sound, but also acknowledge, objectively, that the experiences of tulpas would probably be included in their definitions, and these are the lenses they'll likely end up studied through."

Language is really complicated.

It's one reason I like to use "agents" a lot since so many debates are had over "parts" or "people," where I think both sides are using definitions to refer to phenomena that could be described as having separate agents with their own self-consciousness, and just have different philosophies about what those agents are.

Dissociation is the term psychologists use when discussing these experiences, whether they're viewed as spiritual or psychological, so it's worth using dissociative terminology when communicating about the science even if it's not something I necessarily identify with.

Does that make sense?

When we first started seeing CDD used in place of DID/OSDD we were really confused because all of our searching turned up was "Childhood Degenerative Disorder". Which now we're seeing folks say "Complex Disociative Disorder" is a very strict medical term (reminiscent of system).

And we were thinking, "but wait, aren't there other complex dissociative disorders besides plurality?" And now of course, folks are saying that CDD requires specifically being multiple (as opposed to median)? So like, what was the point of changing the nomenclature from DID/OSDD to CDD?

Idk, bit of a ramble I guess. But we were suspicious of the change at the time, and it's looking like those feelings are being validated.

-Faye

Yeah, the whole discourse around the term is weird.

I support the thought process behind the term. People wanted a word that would encompass DID, OSDD, UDD and partial DID systems. Traumagenic includes non-disordered systems formed from trauma. "Dissociative" has always been strange to me since the psychological model would hold all plurality as a form of dissociation. And I've used "disordered" in a broad way to include systems formed from other disorders like psychotic disorders or BPD.

I personally never used this much though because, as you kind of referenced, it's basically ungoogleable. "Complex dissociative disorder" does appear in academic texts in reference to DID and OSDD bug the acronym doesn't which means people are going to ask what a CDD is every time it's brought up which feels like it defeats the whole purpose of having an acronym in the first place.

I might pick it up if it becomes more widespread but it seems to only add to the confusion right now.

But the term was used and was useful within this context. But this whole controversy muddies the waters. Here's a term referring to systems caused by dissociative disorders, and now we're gatekeeping which dissociative disorders actually count as complex enough.

I'm expecting Partial DID to be on the chopping block next because academic sources which were mostly written before it existed don't explicitly desctibe it as a complex dissociative disorder.

And not just that, but whether OSDD-1a systems can even refer to their parts as alters. Because "OSDD-1a doesn't have alters" is apparently part of this discourse now. Ugh... 🤦‍♀️

Oh, hey! I returned your ramble with a ramble of my own! 😜