"chattel"
The term is funnily and cringely the best 'narrative' the great deceivers have to 'justify' their premise that we ARE divided.
What other way is there to the divide the people than to repeat the deceitful narrative that the people ARE divided all the way to the point of a self-divided 'existence' that 'appears out of 'nowhere' as to how we're supposed to BEGIN ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH EACH OTHER.
"Understand this not as 'my' unified consciousness but rather as what I am being told I have to invent as a voice from one of the PIECES of me that are themselves LOGICALLY PREDICATED on the notion that that's all I am, a bunch of pieces and no unified self-existence as MORE than just how people 'LOOK' self-divided IF we already logically accepted the notion we ARE divided, even including ideas influencing 'empirical' actions that radical (and wrong) understanding of empiricism is the abandonment of any notion of the existence of manipulated information to corrupt the empirical scope of experience.
No empirical case that is limited to presuming that one's theory is proven true BEFORE we know that the reference to the implicit dataset can be demonstrated as not itself containing deception or intended inconsistencies between declarations of data, and, if there is corrupted data, for everyone to see the logical presumption that then impacts people's 'empirical' experience that aha yes look this theory 'has an observable example'.
What if the empirical example was itself predicated on and motivated by corruption in that communication space you are choosing to understand as verification of the 'narrative' you started with?
Garbage in, garbage out. The human mind is not able to 'reconcile' any worldview that is predicated on a mandatory 'show me your ID" that abandons reciprocity in favor of ritualistic 'battle' of passions behind each 'side' contradiction / inconsistency that starts with 'A's 'pieces' conflict with B's 'pieces', and we need to ensure fault and liability are also divided and not reciprocal.
If anyone tells me or approaches me with 'as a person with features [a, b, c] that logically divides us', I think in my mind what offensive really is, which in this case is logically insisting on non-reciprocal liabilities that in the event of future conflict resolution will logically imply fault where there could very well be INNOCENCE qua statements and actions as they are really motivated, by whole unified selves, tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, at any social communication scope level.
Anyone who starts an argument that LOGICALLY divides me from them, by the speaker 'identifying' themselves through differentiation of the mind by reference to pieces of self that do not and never usurp the unified consciousness of self and reciprocal self-SOURCES of what is really going on in anyone's minds, I am not and never will accept anyone's statements as ever saying anything that I am supposed to accept as true through black box dialectic manipulation.
Don't accuse me of saying or doing anything that is predicated on dividing me internally nor on people being divided as an 'this is an is'.
I am not AT SOURCE divided from anyone