#void dreamer

[haaaaaaaaaaaave-you-met-ted]

Void Dreamer Morlaith by Berseria

[titanomancy]

Oldhammer just keeps winning with the prophesied return of Prince Yriel of Iyanden, bug-eye Farseer update, plasticized Forge World Corsair wings and the long awaited refresh of the even more long-serving Vyper. Great accompaniment to the previously released Voidscarred.

I don't have any particular criticism for any particular Eldar model. I hope their fans appreciate them.

[polypersonalpomary]

I feel like the "monoconscious" and "polyconscious" labels have this barnum effect thing where they're actually described so vaguely that you could apply their canonical descriptions to the Same Exact Experiences and have them both fit, except for some reason most systems/etc. seem to be biased towards seeing their own experiences in the monoconsciousness box while seeing everyone else's experiences as being in the polyconsciousness box, and then equate the stated definitions with a bunch of stuff that Are Not Stated At All in the canonical definitions and turn them into these hyperspecific things, except if someone fits one of the expanded criteria for monoconscious, they are automatically into the monoconscious box and assumed to have the other stuff, but someone must fit all of the polyconsciousness expanded criteria to "count", but also if someone doesn't fit right in the monoconscious box then they are offered several labels that are effectively just a third hyperspecific thing that are also just monoconscious+ in the same exact way as eachother and if you don't fit those either then you're given poorly defined labels that people can just paste their assumptions over.

They can work perfectly fine as intrasystem terms, but it is frustrating to see them used as intersystem terms while also being treated as Objective Universal Things when they're actually mostly just a bunch of assumptions taped together with bandaids.

~Void Dreamer Corvus

[polypersonalpomary]

I am not mistaking anything when I describe my experiences as how I experience them and I am not ableist for acknowledging how I experience myself instead of forcing myself to lie and I am not ableist for intentionally doing the thing that my mind already does on its own.

It is not ableist for me to have autonomy over how I exist instead of allowing people to use my mental issues to force me into a confused failed denial. Maybe it's harmful to tell people that they don't know their own experiences and to tell them that they're harming people by Existing Wrong.

It has taken me nearly a full decade to not be frozen in fear followed by scrambling in a panic because of people picking up on the thing that I Wasn't Allowed To Be.

~Void Dreamer Corvus

[polypersonalpomary]

For better or for worse, people aren't (necessarily) going to to fit into discrete categories that have absolutely no overlap.

In regards to stances, it's not like there's an exact moment that a previously extreme strict anti-endo who's beliefs have evolved, where they'll suddenly be definitely pro-endo, beyond this hypothetical person going "Oh, I'm no longer anti-endo and I'm now pro-endo". But where they lie on the scale of anti-endo to pro-endo beliefs? Well, good luck on getting everyone to agree on which point on the scale is the turning point.

Because of that, someone in the inbetweens might not have a label that is considered accurate by outsiders. Someone who's been anti-endo but has softened their stance might still feel like they're anti-endo, especially when looking at aspects of the pro-endo stance that they still disagree with. And introducing the label "neu-endo" still has the issue of there being no exact moment of being anti-endo to becoming neu-endo or neu-endo to pro-endo (or in the reverse direction).

And then there's the part where these stance labels kind of have multiple meanings, and not everyone using them is using them for the same meaning. Do I like it when people use the label "anti-endo"? Ehhh, not particularly, but I care far more about the details than the surface level label. And, really, I don't think it's a bad thing for people under the same label to vary; It's better than people being stuck in the extremes.

For better or for worse, people have their own interpretations of categories and how they relate to those categories.

~Void Dreamer Corvus

[polypersonalpomary]

It feels like a common thing in the Plural community to portray people as less plural than they are (as general statements, not people (just) referring to themselves). If you don't meet the narrow standards of "high internal communication, no memory sharing, vivid inner world that everyone goes to when not fronting, always possessive switching" then you're not ~really~ multiple people, so most of plurality gets treated as "basically median" (but not called median), and then real medians get collapsed into the category "not ~really~ plural basically-singlets" even if that's not actually true for a particular median collective.

And, what's even the point? It's not everyone saying things that (at least) imply these, but it's way too easy to run into, with no pushback, only agreement. Who is benefitting from this? Is it a form of validation in not feeling plural enough that is pushed onto everyone else? As someone who's had feelings of not feeling plural enough, it's the opposite of validating, because it collapses my varied experiences of plurality (and singularity) into one or maybe two categories instead of six and it makes me feel like I can't be Plural because I'm too plural. Not just too singular to be plural and too plural to be singular, but now also too plural to be plural, so I guess I'm just a freak of nature. Plurality can be anything and everything, until it's described, and then it's just three specific things, I guess.

It just seems bizarre that what is effectively "Only these people with this specific mix of typically-disordered and typically-nondisordered features are actually multiple people and anything less is just distinct personalities that think of themselves and eachother as different people and medians are basically one person who just changes between personalities" seems to be as pervasive and accepted as this. It can be true for some, and that's perfectly fine, but it feels like an insult when your experience is reduced to something that isn't actually (completely) true for you.

~Leer/Nox/Void Dreamer Corvus

[polypersonalpomary]

I do not, in fact, think that vents have no place in #syscourse. It can actually be an important thing to make ones problems be heard (and even if they end up being somewhat harsh about it, because it is understandable that expressions of pain may come with rough edges), or to be the one hearing out another's problems.

The issue is when the post is solely something along the lines of "these people are stupid and evil and have something wrong with them mentally and they deserve to die or otherwise be harmed and anyone who disagrees with this even a little bit also falls under all of these".

~Void Dreamer Corvus

[polypersonalpomary]

I find it irksome how the "generous" view of endogenic plurality by disbelievers of it is that they're traumagenic CDD systems who are either amnesiac or in denial of their trauma, with those being the only options given, at least from what I've seen.

When, even if they are actually traumagenic and have a CDD, it neglects a third option: That their mind dealt with it too well to the point that it never felt like trauma. A wound that happened so subtly that you barely could have noticed, and healed into a scar that looks exactly like a birthmark. It's not really denial at that point, to think that it's merely birthmark, when that's exactly what it looks like, and when you never saw it until after it healed into that form. Sure, maybe it bleeds easier than the rest of your skin, but you'd have to bleed first in order to notice, and maybe you've been fortunate enough to have not bled (yet).

Perhaps it would be more harmful to assume that what looks like a birthmark is definitely a scarred wound that still bleeds underneath, when it might just be a birthmark.

Trauma is the wound, and if you don't feel the wound, why would you think it's trauma? Why should you? Especially when you have known wounds to compare it to, wounds that very much feel like wounds, even wounds that are still bleeding.

There were some events that I experienced long-term as a child, that started out favourable until they started to feel bad to me, for reasons unknown to me at the time. But they merely felt unpleasant at the time, and I was too young to really have the concept of long-term, so I never felt trapped, even though it was a recurring event that had a predictable end of me doing something that I did not want to do.

So when I grew up, and could think back upon these events, and only felt distressed over the thought of other people reacting unfavourably towards me for it, and didn't feel distressed over the events themselves at all, why would I call that trauma, except to appease others who would stigmatise me for saying it wasn't, and maybe even if I said it was, anyway? Especially when I had other events to compare to, relatively minor and definitely short-term events, which despite so many years passing, were still enough to make me cry for half an hour to an hour upon thinking too hard upon such things?

That recurring event that merely felt unpleasant, it may have left a sore spot, but what is a sensitive "birthmark" when you have sunburns all over your body? When you've always been a sensitive person who gets bothered by everyday things or even the hypothetical. Even when, years later, a new minor but repetitive event caused me to feel like I was in that old situation again, making me feel sick to my stomach in the same way, and causing me to wail and scream each new time the new event happened upon the realisation that it made me feel as I did in the old event, I still fit it into my Story as it being something that made me more sensitive to trauma but was not itself trauma, a "pre-trauma" of sorts, because it made no sense to me that I would feel perfectly fine towards those events if I'd been traumatised by them.

It was only recently that I've realised, while thinking about I relate to my headmates and how they relate to eachother, and some things that seemed odd about my/our plurality, that it could be very possible that my developing mind was affected to a deep level by those events, and that it was affected in such a way that it was able to adapt to it to such a great degree that it never seemed like anything ever went wrong until nearly a decade later when I got traumatised by a completely unrelated long-term event, where I seemed to inexplicably shatter in a way that I wasn't "supposed" to.

I'd previously thought that I wasn't traumatised because I was young enough to not be overly introspective over something that would be futile to introspect about. So oblivious that I missed the trauma and was therefore fine. But now, though I'm still grateful that it happened at a young age due to the lack of introspection, as messed up as that may sound, I think that I most likely was hit by trauma, and part of my not-yet-cohesive mind just absorbed it, as if nothing had happened, once it was over with. But nonetheless, a wet sponge is different from a dry sponge, and leaving a wet sponge hidden away can very well have consequences, even if you're unaware that there's even a wet sponge anywhere.

I do not regard it harmful that I previously considered these events to not be traumatic. In fact, if I had assumed that it was traumatic purely based on the content of the event and not how I actually felt about it, just because it's "supposed" to be traumatic, who's to say that I'd have ever realised how it truly affected me?

~Leer/Void Dreamer Corvus