and a highly subjective experience to define. despite many common psychological ideas that point toward human multiplicity (Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego, for example), and yet, the plural experienced has been highly pathologized. even within online communities, there is much contention between endogenic and traumagenic, professionally and self-diagnosed, those who are "real" and those who are not.
it should be the natural next step, one would think, to know that there are multiple experiences of plurality. and that just because for some it is dysfunctional does not mean that plurality should be defined by dysfunction. we should be able to define ourselves, investigate our inner workings, and interpret ourselves, not to be told what we are.
we firmly believe in plurality as a social construct that can include a wide variety of experiences and ways of living, some intrinsically linked to pain and discomfort, and others to joy and life. clinical/medical/pathological constructs of plurality can include things like DID/OSDD, spiritual constructs of plurality can include things like tulpamancy or daemonism. these experiences are all unique and distinct, but it is undeniable that they overlap. therefore, we musn't focus on creating a community that excludes others, but rather, a truly plural plurality that includes all who think it applies to them.
it is abstract and vague, difficult to define. there are patterns to it, but there is also much we don't fully understand. there are terms that get close,, "midcontinuum", "plural non-system", "adaptive",, but no single label will ever be able to accurately describe our plural experience. no single story we could tell. something so subjective and dynamic isn't really meant for others to fully understand, either. but do enjoy discussing it if asked, and appreciate those who seek understanding.
our memory from before 2020 is incredibly sparse, so our recollection of our plurality (or really much of anything before then) is not great. no members from before then currently exist today. this has made it difficult to "untangle" ourselves from one another and figure out how this all works.
we have ~3 consistent members (1 core, 2-ish facets), and the lines between our members frequently overlap. the core (fynn) is consistently frontlocked, while facets may front through/influence perception/emotion/cognition of the core. it's less like the stereotypical vision of multiple people in one brain,, it's more like multiple versions of the same brain with slightly different folds all overlayed on top of each other. it's messy, hard to differentiate. but it's served us well, and we don't really have a problem with it being this way
we don't typically talk to people about this sort of thing in real life, it tends to make things complicated. but if asked, it's definitely something we do enjoy discussing! we are fine being refered to individually (aspen, fynn) or collectively (aspens). you do not need to ask who is fronting, but if you're curious, we try to update our pluralkit semi-regularly. if you must use terminology to describe us, "facets" and "parts" is fine.