Home | Projects & Writings

A Formal Critique of Consciousness Labels

by The Dragonheart Collective with input from the Otherconnect discord server

If you are not aware, consciousness labels are steadily becoming a more and more popular framework-theory that posits that the two main ways that switching tends to feel (possessive and non-possessive) are the result of having either a single consciousness, or multiple consciousnesses- dubbed monoconsciousness and polyconsciousness. These labels also link a variety of other experiences and system skills to this.

As holes were found in this framework, additional labels were cobbled into (some) of the gaps to extend the same consciousness label to some of the people who felt previously excluded.

As consciousness labels are now a 'public use' phenomenon outside of their coiner and are being pushed as an essential truth of how plurality works in a number of spaces, this makes it open season to critique- and critique we shall.

This document was made because it has become increasingly clear that these labels are causing fundamental issues in understanding switching mechanics and causing many systems to fall through the cracks as they simply do not fit the model- even with the awkward post-hoc scaffolding that others have added on.

So, lets get into it properly.

Consciousness

So right off the bat, there is a problem; this term does not define consciousness. Many people have many different ways of using and defining this word even outside of the plural community- scientists can’t even agree if 'consciousness' even exists in the first place, much less what it includes. It can range from personhood to activity in the brain at all to general awareness and sentiency to being able to record memory and think thoughts to everything under one's sense of self.

Not defining it thus then makes people default to how its usually defined in common parlance- that is as self-awareness and personhood.

Thus, having a singular consciousness would mean a median system, due to being a single self with discrete parts.

Multiple consciousnesses would then be a multiple system, as each headmate claims a separate sense of self.

Furthermore, consciousness as a word has already been in use in the plural community for a long while in the form of co-consciousness, which is for when your headmates are aware of the front (ie- talking to you) but not fronting. As consciousness is used to mean a self here, this further drives the notion that this is just harder to spell median and multiple.

This is not how those labels are intended to be defined, but this IS why people (and quite a number of people at that!) think monoconsciousness means a new way to say median and polyconsciousness means a new way to say multiple.

For systems that identify as separate people (multiple), having a term that parses as 'less multiple' like this feels like it treads on your seperate personhood.

With a base definition so poorly worded, its already off to a bad start- but it gets worse with what the actual definition is based around- switching style.

Switching

Don't get it twisted, despite what so many posts will have you believe, these terms were coined for explaining why switching feels like it does. Switching is the main event here.

Ignoring amnesia and edge cases where its hard to tell what is going on, there are two ‘main’ kinds of switching- possessive and non-possessive. For non-possessive switching, it feels like ‘becoming’ the entity switching in- the perspective of ‘I’ is passed from fronter to fronter. For possessive switching, the ‘I’ is not shared in this fashion. You retain this sense of self while not controlling the body.

For an alternate descritpion of this difference, there is also this external link [HERE] that explains it well. Note that tulpamancers call non-poessessive switching just switching, and possessive switching possession.

Non-possessive switching is what arguably most systems experience some or all of the time- including super separate DID multiple systems.

This kind of switching is rarely talked about as a somatic experience though, so what happens is that many systems are not even aware that their experiences count as switching because they have only a single idea of what switching feels like. It is however, arguably the default kind of switching- to the point that many older (and current) resources will assume this as your usual switching experience.

It is so default that many guides will call this experience the ONLY kind of switching.

Some places do this because they have different words to describe the experience- like tulpamancers as mentioned above. However, many more do this because of the controversy and debate around the parallel processing required for possessive switching.

See the current scientific understanding is that brains cannot truly multitask- they may only switch rapidly between things. Therefore according to this; people who report having more than one perspective of 'I' at once are either exaggerating experiences/using metaphor, its a dissociative decrease in agency while cofronting as normal, or their memories are subconsciously backedited to match expectations. Backedited memories in this fashion over 'normal' switching would then allow the felt experience to reconcile with the proven science.

So not only is monocon as a term separating out non-possessive switching as a 'less multiple' experience by word parsing, but its forcibly doing this to the majority of systems when used as a fundamental rule of How Systems Work AND it misunderstands just how widespread the experience of non-possessive switching is.

And then we get into its underlying issue;

Skills as 'Types' of Systems

See, possessive switching and non-possessive switching are not kinds of systems, they are skills.

This is understood in tulpamancy spaces pretty readily in particular as people have self-evidently demonstrated learning both. This indicates that this is not linked to a 'type' of system or consciousness configuration, but rather that these are independent skills that may be cultivated.

Treating system functions like separate skills that one may be strong or weak in that can be worked on and changed for many systems in this manner is then therefore much more accurate and reasonable by reported evidence shown. It has room for all systems and reported switching experiences in a way that treating these as 'types' of systems does not.

In addition, there is quite a bit of old literature of systems experiencing both at different times in their life as well as many reports of non-tulpamancy systems learning both kinds of switching from tulpamancy guides.

While some systems(usually those with a CDD) may be limited in the scope of improving their skills in any given area for whatever reason, this is very clearly not the rule.

From this, it is clear that these switching types are independent skills that may be learned; not an either-or experience inherently.

Treating skills as 'types' of systems as a framework is inherently flawed.

When one defines these switching styles as types of systems, those who can do both/have experienced both in their life are excluded- or at best awkwardly tacked on as having their 'consciousness type' changing based on which skill they are doing.

Calling something that is demonstrably a learnable skill is at best awkward for and at worst actively exclusionary to a large number of systems while fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanics it tries to explain.

And this doesn't even get into how all those other skills are tacked on as being associated.

Speaking of;

The Other Tacked On Bits

In the definition of monoconsciousness and polyconsciousness, people usually mention a number of things besides switching as things that determine 'consciousness type'.

Interestingly, pluralpedia seems to not list a number of things we remember being mentioned in every damn tumblr post being spread about these labels (ie- most of the tacked on bits), and seems to have NEVER listed them.

Many plural posts are subject to extreme linkrot on tumblr as people delete and remake their blogs. We remember, but the internet stops having the source, so you are going to have to trust us that these are/were commonly referenced and man times stated as not just 'common' but required components.

Monocon systems:

• Either do not have an inner world or have a not very vivid/hard to access inner world
• Often identify as median
• Have limited/no communication or co-consciousness.

Polycon systems:

• Have vivid and complex inner worlds
• Always identify as multiple
• Often have memory issues

Many other traits were also often listed, but less commonly and as 'more likely' things rather than implied or stated to be required.

With this we see the Median = Moncon and Multiple = Polycon equation again, as well as linking level of skills in communication, inner world use, and memory to switching style as well.

This is obviously NOT ideal as it makes systems think they cannot improve their system skills in these things because they think its just a 'kind' of system, rather than something provably malleable. Personhood is not a requirement to switching possessively, either. Those are separate things. We see this proven with historical DID systems that consider themselves parts of a whole but who also switch possessively sometimes in particular- but there are reports of this happening in other kinds of systems.

Rather, the traits listed under monoconsciousness are just traits of systems that have not developed their system skills and only switch in the most common/default way. Put a pin in this, we will come back to it later.

Because there is still more to unpack;

The Bad Scaffolding

Because there are more labels than just monocon and polycon in this framework- of which were built on after the fact to try to patch the glaring holes in it.

Apparently significantly more than we were aware of before starting this writeup according to Pluralpedia. Over twenty of them. Which we would say would be telling of a framework that doesn’t work except Pluralpedia is mostly filled with extremely niche and unused terms.

That said, the fact that they did have to slap any amount of new labels on the framework that was clearly intended to be a binary at first after the fact isn’t a good sign- especially when it didn't even really fix the issue.

Of the whopping twenty-nine consciousness terms that have Pluralpedia pages as of writing this (and therefore are also fair game to concrit due to being placed for public use), they can all can be sorted into several categories;

• Experiences non-possessive switching but does not feel the explanation of monoconsciousness fits them correctly
• Experiences both non-possessive switching and possessive switching and thus cannot fit in the framework presented as-is
• Otherwise feels the framework does not fit for them
• Term is so confusingly explained its a non-word
• This is just something else entirely
• Is a unique experience that isn’t already coined as a single word but probably shouldn’t go in this framework collection because its saying something else

Have a table of the terms:

Category	Terms
Non-Possessive Switching But Rejects Single Consciousness Label	Cephaconscious Hydraconscious Mutoconscious Multiplexconscious Fixumconscious Combiconscious Consciousslide Apiconscious - For systems where many headmates cofront together Split Monoconscious - monocon with headspace amnesia Split Hydraconscious - hydracon with headspace amnesia
Both Kinds Of Switching So Cannot Fit and Tried to Force It	Biconscious Consciousflux Mirrorconscious Misaconscious Semiconscious Dynaconscious Split Misaconscious - Misacon with headspace amnesia
Otherwise Doesn't Fit	Quoiconscious - Don't know, don't care, or don't want to say Eniconscious - Consciousness terms don’t apply
Confusing Non-Definition	Panconscious - 'All consciousness labels apply' (too contradictory to actually work) Seraconscious - Does not elaborate on what it means, but through sleuthing on its claimed opposite term dynaconscious, this is probably just a system that can do both kinds of switch? Serafixumconscious - Like seraconscious but more confusing in that it implies BOTH you can only do one kind of switch but also do both Dynafixumconscious - Does not elaborate on switching type or what it actually means
This Is Just Something Else	Paraconscious - This is just the term parallel processing but less intuitive Unuconscious - This is just the phrase low parallel processing but less intuitive Dualconscious - Amnesia for being plural for a period of time Sleepconscious - No co-consciousness outside of fronting plus describing the no co-consciousness as sleeping

Of those that cannot be sorted like this we have:

• Raconscious - Any kind of system that can possessive switch
• Split Polyconscious - polycon with headspace amnesia

Without getting into the fact that many terms are just clones of each other with slightly different wording and no justification on what makes them materially different on an experiences level, its clear from this that the majority of the other consciousness labels outside of the first main two are from systems who fundamentally do NOT feel they fit the framework and theory given, but for some reason still think they need to work inside it.

So how did this happen?

Our speculation (as our efforts to dredge up the exact discord server conversations that coined it did not bear fruit as the sever seems to have been deleted) is that an unknown number of systems -who have likely not been selves-aware for longer than 5 years and/or are younger than ~25 and thus likely have not had a plural community that was not an extension of microlabel coining spaces- coined the terms because they were not aware of the preexisting conversations elsewhere about what switching felt like and why and what was and was not possible in relation to it. This is because the coinage was done in a MOGAI discord server, and that is the demographic that most uses those kinds of spaces; someone who is young, mostly or exclusively socializes online in MOGAI spaces, and prone to coining without research or wider community consultation.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MOGAI IS BAD TO BE CLEAR; this is simply a fact of the demographics and culture- for better or for worse. There are pros and cons to every space.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that the plural community tends to not speak about their somatic experiences very much unfortunately- and its to the detriment of the community and to questioning newbies.

Monoconsciousness then, in that vein, from the stuck-on trait lists that people tend to express, then in particular looks like a fairly newly selves-aware system who has not progressed much in improving any system skills regarding co-consciousness, communication, and inner world building. Many many newly selves-aware systems have this experience for awhile and then grow out of it.

Because people in these spaces see their system skills as a set in stone part of their identity rather than mutable, these unpracticed skills then became a 'kind' of system and thus they do not improve their experiences.

We also speculate that because of how much sparser polycon experiences are described and how few people identify as it, it may have been coined less as a specific experience anyone reported as theirs (much less a significant number of people), and may have instead been coined as an aspirational idea of what a 'Proper Multiple' experiences based on their (false) preconceived notions about the 'normal experiences' that plural folks tend to have.

The tacked-on labels then came about to try to fill in the many gaps, and failed tremendously.

These labels, of which are pushed as a fundamental aspect of how switching works for everyone by a large chunk of the inclusive plural community, we think ought to be phased out for something more truthful and inclusive as the prevailing notion of how switching works.

With all of THAT now out of the way we lead into our driving point;

The synthesis of all of this.

So lets process all of this together now;

We have a framework that claims the reason why switching feels the way it does is because of having either a completely undefined single or multiple 'consciousness' that fundamentally misses the fact that these are skills and not kinds of systems and that both experiences may happen at once. It additionally links a number of other system skills to this despite these things not being inherently related.

These skills are things that MOST new systems struggle with, and have been pigeonholed as things that can't be worked on because they are considered an immutable 'kind' of system.

The awkward scaffolding that is placed on top of this flawed binary is almost entirely labels intended to escape the framework because it fundamentally doesn’t fit, but the coiners still feel the need to work inside this framework as they have accepted it as gospel.

This framework according to some archived coining posts was also coined in isolation in a MOGAI discord, and many of the awkward scaffolding terms were coined in similar isolated MOGAI spaces as well. This lends weight to the theory that due to the demographics of that space, the terms are the way they are because the coiners were unaware of previously existing theory and discussion on the topic elsewhere.

From this, we can see that this framework not only factually is erroneous in terms of a universal framework, but all the people insisting on using a framework that does not fit them are trying to escape the framework while still using it- presumably because they think they must.

Our Proposal

We can’t tell you these labels are poorly thought out in every respect and then not give you an alternative.

The solution is to instead treat system skills like this as skills, rather than kinds of systems. You merely have high or low/no skills in various things like possessive and non-possessive switching, communication, co-consciousness, memory sharing, and inner world building, and may work on these skills to achieve some level of benefit if you desire.

Sure, they aren't snappy marketable identity labels, but they are more true to the fundamental nature of the experience.

Indeed, outside of more microlabel-heavy spaces, this IS how many systems think of it (though less mutably unless the people involved are tulpamancers).

If a system feels the nature of their 'consciousness' (however that system *personally* defines that word) is why they struggle with certain skills or are unable to improve them very much, then that is a Personal Theory on their structure and how it effects their skills, not a Universal Theory. Because they are not a fact of the universe, they are a theory that doesn’t apply to everyone.

If consciousness labels are something people wish to consider using, they have to be regulated to an individual personal theory of functioning and not taken as a universal truth framework of how all systems work. It would also be ideal if they had their definitions more precisely defined as 'consciousness' is a meaningless word in this respect.