Non-Plural Privilege

[voces]

There’s been a lot of discussion about many forms of culturally sanctioned privilege, including white privilege, class-based privilege, male privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege and heterosexual privilege. Unfortunately, there has been comparatively little discussion of the privilege that non-plural people experience, mostly

Comments

[christinaathena]

Interesting article. I'll admit that I often have trouble understanding plurality, but I do make an effort to understand it, and I'm a strong believer in neurodiversity. I'm not entirely convinced that, at a fundamental level, there is even any such "thing" as a unified consciousness, so, really, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that some brains might be better described as multiple consciousnesses and some might be better described as a single consciousness, in the same way that some cultures are more homogenous while others have active, vibrant, subcultures. If consciousness arises simply from the interaction of many neurons, why shouldn't there be multiple stable patterns?

Privilege check.

[voces]

Seriously. I don't mean to be harsh here, because I don't want to be, but what is so hard to get about plurality? Many people, one body. (When I say 'people', I mean...well, autonomous, independently-thinking entities with thoughts and emotions. Like us.) Subjective appearances and history for some systems, including our own. If you want to be materialistic, and omit anything metaphysical (which I would, anyway; I'm pretty non-spiritual), it's how we perceive ourselves within the brain. Subconscious affinities we've developed towards our histories and appearances. The human brain is entirely capable of that.

It's like trans women and men. Body appears one way; self-perception appears the other. But then again, I think that there may be some sort of processing difference here that I might not be factoring in.

The thing is, would you say nonplural people could be reduced to patterns, too, or does this just apply to us?

-Kerry

Re: Privilege check.

[christinaathena]

The thing is, would you say nonplural people could be reduced to patterns, too, or does this just apply to us? Everyone. The only difference is one vs several patterns. I guess I worded it poorly, but what I mean is, I tend to view consciousness as simply a pattern of neural activity. Ultimately, I think it's probably accurate to say that the idea of consciousness, of mind, is an illusion. A very strong and very useful illusion, but ultimately, an illusion, a useful fiction that makes description of actions and thoughts easier

Re: Privilege check.

[voces]

I don't see it much differently, but there's also a part of me that can accept subjectivity, and embrace it along with the idea that we're all neurally generated. I don't think that's necessarily illusory. I think that there's room to accept subjectivity when talking about consciousness. I just...really can't reduce it that far. Perhaps that's a bit old-fashioned of me, but I can't.

I don't think that you disrespect plurals, but that...I don't think that it's inherently a difficult concept. I know it might feel funny to you to share a body with others, but...it's just the way we are. I don't think that we have the 'illusion' that we're separate people, either. We are separate. Even if we are just patterns of neurones firing, the pattern that is 'me' fires in a different way from the pattern-that-is-Hess and the-pattern-that-is-Richard, ad infinitum.

By the way, isn't being trans sort of subjective? A trans woman perceives herself as female, regardless of what her body looks like, for example.

[skyrabbit]

I found that very interesting - thanks

[voces]

I'm glad you found it interesting. (And you *can* ask questions; we're just burnt on...some attitudes we've seen from some people.)

I don't think that groups that have 'privilege' in society should necessarily feel guilty unless there's some deliberate flaunting of it, but I do think that they should be aware of it when interacting with those of us who do not have it.

[skyrabbit]

Yes, I realise you never mentioned guilt. I think some people (not any of you) do use the term in a way that seems to invite guilt. Or maybe it just strikes me that way!

I've realised there's something of a flaw in my above comment. To say that it is a human right to be treated "equally" is actually pretty meaningless, as that could mean being treated equally badly as well as equally well. What I was trying to get at was that I feel that everyone is entitled to being treated with some sort of basic decency and respect (I won't attempt to formulate it more clearly than that, as I have a feeling I will tie myself in knots!), and that I do not see such treatment as a "privilege", although I agree that it is indeed important to be aware that some people are systematically *not* treated in such a way - and also to try to ensure that one is not implicated in such mistreatment.

(I love the fact that you use semi-colons, by the way! Long live the semi-colon!)

[yonjuunana]

Hi! I hope you don't mind if I friend you guys. I keep running into your writing about multiplicity and seeing your comments on friends' journals.

I recently discovered that I might be "slightly multiple", I guess I could put it. I'm a writer/artist and I've always had really intense subjective experiences and fictional people that become a large part of my life, although we're not entirely separate people. I'm still gathering information and trying to figure it all out for myself. I'm also autistic.

[voces]

We shall most certainly reciprocate. We have seen you about mutual friends' journals, and have found your comments rather insightful.

There are many states between multiple and singlet, including 'median' and traditional soulbonding, which sounds a bit like your experience.

-M.D.

[yonjuunana]

Yeah, I've read a lot that I identify with in stuff about being median or soulbonding, although honestly the word "soulbonding" makes me/us a bit uncomfortable, too much association with belief in astral planes and things that aren't our experience at all. jimnightmare (by far the most extroverted of us) made sort of an awkward attempt at joining a soulbonding community a while back and just ended up pretty freaked-out by the whole thing. He prefers to just call himself a fictional person. I'm still not entirely sure what words I prefer to use for myself, at the moment I'm even fine with "writer with active imagination", as trying to classify something so subjective as either "imaginary" or "real" just kind of makes my head spin, and either way it doesn't change its importance to me.

[sheelal]

...normally I would stay out of conversations that don't involve me from the start, but I did want to say that your experience is very common, especially that of joining a soulbonding community online and encountering the current paradigm involving astral planes, etc. "Traditional soulbonding" is a retronym coined to refer to the original form of soulbonding, where the astral plane and so on were not originally involved.

I felt I should stop to say that much, because a fellow Flatlander wrote a lengthy essay on the topic, mainly from frustration at causes of the sort of discomfort that you're experiencing. The current community and its definition of soulbonding only fit a few vocal, prominent members. There are many who identify as soulbonders in a fashion much closer to what you describe. It's just... harder to find them, since nearly all leave the communities after a time, or pull back into silence.

[ladycatherina]

Thanks for this post...I consider myself a 'student of plurality' and am glad for this opportunity to learn better etiquette and sensitivity towards my plural friends. And I acknowledge and celebrate all of your existences and interests.

Wishing you all well with the internship, too!