“I have reason to believe that we are supposed to have multiple pseudo-distinct “selves” or ‘identity facets’ which only become pathological when inhibited or exposed to a culture that demands one of the most absurd ideas imaginable: a single self. What could be the purpose of such ridiculous abstraction? Why, prosecution. You cannot blame or prosecute an entire person for the acts of an aspect of themselves… at least, not according to the standards that purport to underlie our ideals of Justice.

But the point is this, we were born to explore and exist not as a single person, but as a constellation of streams. When it was demanded that this ‘only just be one and only one’ that pressure actually produced the pathologies that appear as the shattered self, or the multiple (pathological) selves of the deranged.

There is more still to the story, since prodigy often depends on employing multiple unique and well-informed perspectives simultaneously. It should be immediately obvious that a self comprised of diverse yet uniquely developed ‘aspects’ would be astonishingly more proficient at tasks involving creativity, problem-solving, invention, novel insight, and utilitarian systematization.

In other words: a loose yet organized ‘multiple self’ model may, in a wide array of contexts, function vastly more effectively, creatively and efficiently than the ‘single self’ our common models, governments, courts, prisons, social systems and collective institutions demand. Furthermore, it appears that this is actually ‘more like what we are and may become’ than the relatively banal and constrictive (not to mention absurd) demands of our cultures.”

— an a i