I personally interpret the "parts" quite literally, but what's most interesting is:
You can make most people say that "a part of them wants X, while another part of them wants Y" without having swollowed any metaphysics. It's like the ability to address the ambiguity of one's mind, without needing to admit that it is fundamentally fractured, is a language that many will eagerly adapt to.
And yes, IFS also makes the claim that "multiple personality disorder" isn't.
Here's a website that tries to explain what it's like to embrace the plurality of one's being:
> Here's a website that tries to explain what it's like to embrace the plurality of one's being
I'm not sure if the content matches your description of the site, or your description is ambiguous, or...there's work to be done in the reader's mind to understand your point than you articulated.
Specifically, I don't think that conflicting desires or emotions in people inherently equates to plurality in "one's being", but this site immediately jumps off from the perspective that you are communicating with a collective person. So, my take away is that your point is that everyone is plural?
> It's like the ability to address the ambiguity of one's mind, without needing to admit that it is fundamentally fractured
I still also don't think that ambiguity or admitting that your mind is "fundamentally fractured" immediately equates to plurality?
I personally interpret the "parts" quite literally, but what's most interesting is:
You can make most people say that "a part of them wants X, while another part of them wants Y" without having swollowed any metaphysics. It's like the ability to address the ambiguity of one's mind, without needing to admit that it is fundamentally fractured, is a language that many will eagerly adapt to.
And yes, IFS also makes the claim that "multiple personality disorder" isn't.
Here's a website that tries to explain what it's like to embrace the plurality of one's being:
https://morethanone.info/