The thing I have of being "not multiple enough" has to do with being a median system, specifically a median system that has a lot of experience self-conceptualising as singlet. We share a . . . what I want to say is we share a bloodstream, but that's obvious, I'm being metaphorical here . . . in a way that a lot of multiple systems don't seem to.
I can pass as a singlet without doing anything other than not mentioning the plurality. I essentially did that before I realised that the plurality was a useful way of processing my sense of identity -- I've mentioned before that I had names for everyone for ten years before thinking of myselves as plural -- and the only effect was that sometimes other people were confused. (Boyfriend says that the idea of my plurality gave him the right angle to look at to determine that we were self-consistent. He knew there was such an angle, he just couldn't find it on his own.)
But we're not distinct people in the same way that other systems' members are distinct people. We're . . . each something like 3/4 of a person, and the other quarter is everyone else. And sometimes that doesn't feel like it "counts".
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 05:16 pm (UTC)I can pass as a singlet without doing anything other than not mentioning the plurality. I essentially did that before I realised that the plurality was a useful way of processing my sense of identity -- I've mentioned before that I had names for everyone for ten years before thinking of myselves as plural -- and the only effect was that sometimes other people were confused. (Boyfriend says that the idea of my plurality gave him the right angle to look at to determine that we were self-consistent. He knew there was such an angle, he just couldn't find it on his own.)
But we're not distinct people in the same way that other systems' members are distinct people. We're . . . each something like 3/4 of a person, and the other quarter is everyone else. And sometimes that doesn't feel like it "counts".