So this is adding onto this post, but the statement I'm expanding on is "I think people see fusion as parts melting into each other but honestly, I think its more like your concept of self widening over multiple parts"
Context; skip to Context Clear if you don't care
For context, this is something I was thinking about because yesterday, at work, we found it really funny that since we were working with a client that reminded us a lot of our younger selves for better or worse, that we were inevitably going to utilize more of our Ray brain and energy to give them the best care and we were going "haha the amount of times we did the signature Ray 'No.'" because Ray specifically just has such a signature "no" and it made us snicker mentally everytime we did it
But today we were thinking back on it since we were choosing to listen to some of Ray's music, and really, we spent almost ALL of the day primarily in Ray mental space, but we really didn't notice it at all until the day after and THAT is incredibly odd for our system because Ray is a part that is EXTREMELY internally obvious. He's not a part we'd ever be "blurry with" in the past, and hes not a part we wouldn't realize is out. So it was really interesting that we were almost exclusively operating in Ray brain and DIDNT notice it
But the reason we didn't really notice it, is because while we - in hindsight - were obviously operating as Ray (including the iconic chronic passive singing of Frank Sinatra and similar songs), it was NOT unique or different to the concept of just what we as Feathers are like and do and that's because everything Ray does is basically completely normal and within the concept of what Feathers is. And that made me think; Ray didn't "fuse" or "meld" with any parts when we fused, the concept of Feathers expanded so that Ray is just an obvious and normal part of the "I" which Feathers is.
When it comes to fusion, its not really as though parts disappear or stop interacting or existing in any way or form. Sometimes they might not be super obvious or outwardly identify as themselves with fusion, but that's largely a matter of perspective and focus.
I'd like to think of it kind of like how I've heard similar things explained in some Buddhist literature; Think about table. A table is made up of many parts that we can look at individually; four different legs, the table top, maybe theres some center piece; some might even include the chairs around the table to be part of "the table".
Now imagine you stubbed your toe against one of the legs. Clearly, you can look exactly where your toe hit, and you can say that it was OBVIOUSLY the left most leg. However, you could ALSO be 100% accurate in saying "I stubbed my toe against the table". When you say "table" the legs are not suddenly melting into the table top and the decorations and the chairs; the legs are still there and they can be individually referenced and looked at, but at the same time, the table exists as a seperate concept that CONTAINS the legs.
The legs of the table can exist and be separate from the concept of the table while still being a specific part of the table that can be referenced, acknowledged, expressed, and focused on. At no point does anyone ever stop seeing or being able to discuss or interact with the legs of the table when they start talking about the table. At any point, anyone could look back at the legs, but sometimes its easier or more realistic / appropriate to just talk about the table as a table.
Similarly, if you put a plate on the tabletop, you could say "I put the plate on the tabletop" and have that be accurate, you could discuss the table top specifically, but it probably just sounds more reasonable to just say "I put the plate on the table."
With that analogy in mind, not being fused it kind of like getting an Ikea table in the box. All the parts are disjointed, unconnected, and seperate from one another. You can't really discuss these parts as "a table" because they're not together, they aren't really able to work like a table, and the parts can be taken miles apart - you could even loose parts; what happens to one part does not necessarily echo throughout the non-unified whole. If you stub your toe on the leg, you probably didn't impact the table top and every other part of the would-be table. If you place your "plate on the non-unified table", its hard to imagine where exactly you would have put the plate down. The concept of each part operates really only independent of one another.
Fusion, on the other hand, is like putting that Ikea table together. Once everything is all together, you can easily refer to the whole as a "table" but you can ALSO refer to the legs, the table top, the screws, etc.
Its not so much parts melting together to make a new whole, its more about parts connecting and unifying to create a solid whole concept. Pre-fusion, the concept of "I" is limited to the individual parts that don't really exist in a unified form - you are either interacting with the leg, the screw, the table top.
Fusion, the concept of "I" is expanded to the unified whole, meaning you are always interacting with "the table" but you can also specifically be interacting with the leg, the table top, the screw, etc.
