plurality
So, here's what being composite is about. Even if you've never experienced it, you've probably heard pluralfolk talk about being "blended". That's where the clear boundaries between individuals blur and it's not clear even to them who is thinking what.
That's what I am, all the time. For most systems, this is a distressing experience to be avoided. For me, it's the comforting normal I seek to return to, and I am entirely used to being all of myselves at once.
Sometimes, one aspect has a stronger influence than all of the others. This is the closest I ever get to someone fronting. It's a state I can consciously choose to be in, when I need one of me's particular strengths, but it gets uncomfortable after a while and I naturally tend towards equilibrium.
None of this is actually new, but it's good to finally understand how it works. First person pronouns are a challenge, however.
re: plurality
@terrana Yeah. Though it could be said that given the same exact degree of blending, one person might decide that "I" fits better, while another system might decide that "we" fits better--not that "degree of blending" is really something that can be measured in any objective way, though
-F
re: plurality
@Felthry No, it's completely subjective. I don't think I could be reasonably criticised if I did think "we" was appropriate for me. So maybe there's not that big a difference, except in how you and I think of ourselves, but isn't that what's important?
re: plurality
@terrana Thinking about this, I think one of the most important things we've learned is that subjective experience is no less important or real than objective experience. Plenty of things like this, you're (general you, not specific) the only one (or in our case ones) who can say anything about it with any authority.
-F
re: plurality
@Felthry I completely agree.
re: plurality
@Felthry Definitely not to the same degree. You still think of yourselves as "we", whereas I'm definitely still "I".