Plurality Redefined

Kaimi of Kaimialana

In the past, the word plurality has been almost synonymous with the word multiplicity. Both of these essentially meant “multiple people sharing headspace” or something of that equivalent. More recently, however, there has been a shift in usage for these words, with the former definition equating only to the word multiplicity. The meaning of plurality has changed with our understanding there is more to this issue than singlet versus plural. In this essay I hope to redefine plurality as to be useful in describing the states of consciousness from singlet to plural and in between.

First, plurality should not in concept be confused with pluralism, which represents an ideal of society composed of many cultures, religions, beliefs, ideas and the benefits that are derived from it. Our pluralistic society makes it possible for us to have this discussion about words and ideas, about our very nature within our systems.

When studying consciousness in relation to plural systems and singlets, one finds that lines are not so cut and dry between the two. Indeed, plural systems have aspects similar to the workings of singlets, and singlets have inner workings that mirror workings of plural systems. Instead of the cut and dry separation of the two, there seems to be a continuum between these, with many factors of dis-integration of consciousness (or integration, depending on what direction you work towards), as well as compartmentalization of consciousness and identity, lying in between. A midpoint between plural and singlet is often referred to as median or midcontinuum, representing a state of dis-integration that lies somewhere between singlet and plural. Whereas plural represents many consciousnesses within one mind retaining separate identities, and a singlet represents one consciousness within a mind having a single identity, then median represents a single consciousness having many identities, with disintegration and compartmentalization not completely separating these as in plural systems, but not integrating them as in singlets. To say that singlets are completely integrated beings as opposed to plural systems is a misnomer, however; most psychologist recognize that “singlet minds” operate on many levels of consciousness (see my essay on plural therapy). Thus, we recognize singlet, median and plural operate on some sort of continuum with many levels of dis-integration of consciousness in between. Other authors have likened this continuum to a circle with median, plural and singlet resting at different points around the rim with blending of factors between these. Regardless of how the continuum is idealized, we find labels between singlet and plural separate these not into distinct categories but a blurring of factors. We call this the plural continuum.

This is plurality, as I redefine it in the context of this discussion:

Plurality: n. The level of dis-integration and compartmentalization of consciousness within a body system via the plural continuum. The plurality of Kaimialana system is plural. Adj. A qualifier following labels indicating the level of dis-integration and compartmentalization of consciousness within a body system.. Sam has a singlet plurality.

This new use of plurality allows us to talk about the plural continuum from a more holistic perspective. It also includes all people of all pluralities in the discussion. Singlets should be as welcome to discuss integration and compartmentalization of consciousness as much as plurals are, as we all are located on the plural continuum and share characteristics with one another.

It is the hope of this author that communities based around the study of plurality can use this definition in order to gather new perspectives and include more people in discussion. The term plurality can be used within this context in the same way that the word gender might be used in another.