I noticed that it seems you've categorised afferent attachment as fronting, whereas we tend to identify the efferent attachment as fronting - hence, "I can feel the body while someone else is there" or "I can feel headmate's limb" or "I can see, but not much else". This has caused me some confusion with other terms you've based on this, and wonder if I should use them if I identify the appropriate range of efferent/afferent matches, or...
In my Manifestations post, I used fronting as a catch-all term for any sort of physical attachment to the body.
I'd like to delve into that a bit more here, exploring language to better explain individual experiences of fronting and control over the body.
This isn't really intended for every day use, but is meant to better explain plural experiences of fronting in a more clear and more precise way.
Full body attachment is, as expected, attachment to the entire body at once.
Locational Attachment is attachment to specific body parts such as only a hand or just the legs. When referencing locational attachment, it's usually useful to refer to the part of the body one is attached to.
Besides simply being locational, attachment can come in afferent and efferent forms. Some nerves send signals from the brain to the body. Other nerves in the brain receive signals from the body.
Nerves responsible for sending signals from the brain to the body are called efferent nerves. These allow you to control the body. Nerves responsible for receiving signals are afferent. These allow you to sense things through the body.
Attachment can exist in both forms separately.
If a headmate feels like they're experiencing everything happening to the body but feel like somebody else is controlling it, they're experiencing afferent attachment with efferent detachment.
If a headmate is controlling the body but feels disconnected, as if everything is happening to somebody else, this is efferent attachment with afferent detachment.
Alternative Terminology:
The terms above are more technical, designed to help conceptualize the dimensions of fronting. For everyday use, I would recommend Possession and Attunement.
Possession referring to taking control of the body, attunement to receiving signals from its senses as if they were your own.
Any of previous attachment types may be experienced by multiple headmates at once. Multiple headmates feel like the whole body is theirs and share control over it simultaneously. Shared attachment can also be over specific limbs, where multiple headmates feel like the limb is theirs at once.
If only one headmate feels attached to the body or limb, this is solitary attachment.
When multiple headmates are controlling the body, this is usually called co-fronting.
One thing I often struggle with is putting our experiences into words.
A lot of plural language is vague and has multiple conflicting meanings. Part of an issue with having such a large community made up of many smaller communities.
What one person means when they say they're fronting may not be what another means.
This allows us to more easily describe and compare different plural experiences.
For example, a distinction for our partial possession vs our proxying.
When I partially possess an arm, I fully experience that arm as if it's mine. I experience both afferent and efferent locational attachment to that specific limb. If using possession and attunement terms, this may also be considered Attuned Locational Possession or Partial Attuned Possession.
In contrast, when proxying (typing while somebody else is fronting,) I don't feel like the hand belongs to me. I send signals through them, the words typed out are mine and coming from me, but the fronter still experiences the hands as if the hands belong to the fronter. I experience a locational efferent attachment (sending motor signals) and afferent detachment (an absence of sensor signals) to the hands, while the fronter may experience afferent attachment and efferent detachment to the hands. This can also be considered a form of Unattuned Locational Possession of the hands.
Full body Attachment and Detachment:
"I'm in complete control of the body, everything that happens to it is happening to me."
Full Fronting (full body efferent and afferent attachment.)
"I'm in control but everything feels like it's happening to someone else, as if I'm outside the body."
Complete Unattuned Possession (full body efferent attachment and afferent detachment.)
"I can feel everything but it's as if someone else is controlling my actions and making me act things out."
Complete non-possessive Attunement (full body efferent detachment and afferent attachment.)
"I'm a spectator watching while someone else controls my body. Everything that happens is happening to them and I just exist in the background."
Complete Detachment (full body efferent and afferent detachment.)
Partial Attachment and Detachment:
"I have total control over this limb, and feel through it as if it's mine."
Partial Attuned Possession (localized efferent and afferent attachment.)
"I can control this limb but I feel like it's someone else's and don't feel these sensations are happening to me."
Partial Unattuned Possession.(localized efferent attachment and afferent detachment.)
"I can feel through this part of the body as if it's mine, but I have no control over it."
Partial non-possessive Attunement (localized efferent detachment and afferent attachment.)
"I can't control this limb and I feel like it belongs to someone else."
Partial Detachment (localized efferent and afferent detachment.)
While writing this, there were some experiences that were hard to categorize. This is especially true of unconscious reactions. If you tickle a headmate's mindform who is co-con but not fronting, and their reaction causes the body to jolt, do these sorts of automatic and unconscious reactions constitute a form of Efferent Attachment?
This model is still not comprehensive. But I believe it's a good starting place for understanding fronting experiences.
Mob Psycho 100 II OP
Ya know... I think that if correctly armed, a penguin could probably set off explosives present in a warehouse, thereby being the party most responsible for blowing up the warehouse. Given what I know, I feel confident that correct armament is likely to be some sort of fancy laser-glasses.
okay contrary to a previous post i made: what if jason wrote fanfiction but it became a MC Daredevil situation where literally everyone knew his identity but he just waves them off
Jason: *writing A/N* here you go guys, sorry, something came up with my job comments: we all know it was the warehouse penguin blew up. its all over the news jason: *responding* idk what you're even talking about dude, i don't own a tv. how could a flightless avian blow up a warehouse
jason: this chapter's gonna be a little dark cuz that's my mood this week comments: is it because they took you off the earth's greatest threats list? jason: they wh---no of course not
jason: *posts* comments: we missed you red hood! jason: idk who that guy is but he sounds cool
jason: ugh, have you guys seen the new episode? shit's horrible. here's a fix-it. comments: do you . . . perhaps . . . think its horrible because they misused the gun props . . . jason: no i was talking about x character dying but YES OH MY GOD THAT PART HURT ME TO WATCH comments: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
comments: so when r u going to change your ao3 name to redhood? jason: i fucking swear if one more of you moterfuckers insinuates that i am the gotham vigilante known as the red hood i will withhold five of my most recently written chapters from the entire fucking lot of you comments: . . . you'd never jason: fuck
comments: you have an interestinly in-depth and expanisve kowledge of firearms jason: well, we all have hobbies jason: mine was born out of fear of the ao3 author curse. ima fuckin shoot the thing the moment i see it comin comments:
what if we took the kid from this post …
AND GAVE HIM THE BACKGROUND/PERSONALITY OF THIS POST
AND MAYBE WE CALL HIM GREG OR SOMETHING.
who needs charity when you can just give laser guns to the impressionable youngsters?
The issue isn't them being in a landfill, really - that has its own explosion risk issues, of course, but once it's in the landfill, I suspect glass would be worse anyways.
I haven't heard this claim about them exploding compactors, but rather of them exploding in incinerators (one of the many things one shouldn't burn). Irregardless, this isn't 'it'll start a trash fire' but rather, that they'd destroy a much more expensive piece of equipment and, in the case of the compactor, not actually wind up in the landfill they were meant to get to.
Having of seen the comment about 52% from more neutral sources, that sounds unreasonable based on the light pollution in Pyongyang, assuming that 100% of China's people have electricity.
Although it is to my awareness that at the least, environmentalism is a historical socialist secondary goal, so it would make sense that the socialist/communist countries would have less light pollution, so a light pollution comparison of NK vs SK is simply going to be wrong.
However, it is fair to compare NK and China. Obviously Wikipedia's main 2020 Dandong stats don't directly compare to Pyongyang's 2008 stats. However, a 2005 Dandong stat is seen on Wikipedia too; from this, I find it reasonable to conclude that Pyongyang is thrice as large as Dandong. Now, if I read the Wikipedia page right, Dandong is Both of those slightly larger than Pyongyang lights near the coast on North Korea's north-west border.
Therefore, I conclude that, if anything, the CIA's 26% statement is likely an overestimate; it's more likely something just under 16%, instead. Assuming China's population all has electricity, of course.
thank you wikipedia that seems like a very unbiased and reliable source
When this bug is triggered, each reblog is counted as a seperate post, @lesbianhouseplant . (And anyone else who may see this, but I'm not sure if this will give proper notifications if I don't @.)
bungus