Mordax et al

meeresbande:

There are several different ways in which people see, explain and conceptualise multiplicity.

Off the top of my head – and these are just the ones that at least someone in our own system adheres to:

• medical, scientific, sceptical models, like structural dissociation (“Due to trauma, we developed into several people who later split off even more, instead of naturally integrating our personality like singlet children do”)
• spiritual and/or religious concepts/beliefs (“I had another life before I chose to come into this system” or even “I was sent to help this system by a higher power”)
• empirical – “I know I exist – I experience my own personhood and the presence of other system mates therefore multiplicity is real” cogito ergo sum maybe
• pathologisation of multiplicity (“We are broken, we should not exist as multiples”)
• denial that multiplicity even exists (“We’re not multiples, we’re just delusional!”)

And of course variations and combinations of those and many people, even system members, don’t have something that can really be called a “concept” of multiplicity.

And I think it’s important to at least acknowledge that these different views exist, even if you think that all multiplicity falls into one of those categories – but actually, I think the first three views of multiplicity (and most likely others that I have forgotten or don’t know about yet) all exist. Some systems were formed and work just like medical models describe, others have spiritual origins, others yet just are. And it’s really rude and disrespectful to push your view on other systems, to say that the way they conceptualise their own existance must be wrong or that only one way of looking at things can be right – yours.

Though of course it is understandable to have your own views and not get or not agree with others’ views. But there’s a difference between that and disrespecting others or invisibilising them.

Have we forgotten some way to think about multiplicity?