plural manifesto

there are many ways of being and becoming plural.

this is a good thing!

there are billions of people, each with their own unique experiences, and it is impossible to account for all of the ways in which some of those people are plural. there are too many factors, and the idea of a singular state of self is merely an assumption.

there are ways of becoming plural that are nonvoluntary and others that are voluntary. plurality can be spiritual, psychological, neurological, natural, metaphysical, et al.

source is only one facet of plurality, and it can be important or trivial. that's up to the plural in question.

limiting our understanding to a single narrative of plurality is at odds with respecting the ability of others to define their own experiences.

plural language is inclusive.

terms such as "plural," "system," and "multiple" belong to all plurals who want to use them.

hoarding plural terminology and claiming it's exclusive to a specific category of plurality is unnecessary gatekeeping that doesn't benefit anyone, including the people who do the gatekeeping. it's dishonest and doesn't reflect reality or history.

fictives and other introjects can be who they want to be.

introject is a generic term for any system member who has a source external to the system.

there are no rules for how an introject identifies with their source material. introjects can identify "as" their source or "like" their source or anything else.

a fictive/factive/other introject may keep the same identity as their source or they may not. neither of these is superior to the other.

insisting that all introjects must feel a certain way about their source is harmful and prevents their natural development as living beings.

additional reading