States of Fragmentation Across Human Actuality and Proposal of -genic Prepositionality: Accessibility, Reflectivity, Regulation During Development

Abstract ** This framework is intended for conceptual and research discussion. It should not be used to force an interpretation onto lived experience, to invalidate persons describing their own experience, or to substitute for clinical assessment and care. This preprint proposes a theoretical, research-facing framework for understanding fragmentation through accessibility, reflectivity, and regulation. It does not offer diagnosis, one-to-one neurobiological localization, or settled proof. Its aim is to organize a transdiagnostic literature into a testable interpretive model for examining fragmentation through accessibility, reflectivity, and regulation across development, embodiment, and bridge-system burden, while preserving phenomenological seriousness, ethical caution, and openness to critique and revision. Trauma and Sensitivity Disclaimer This preprint engages trauma, dissociation, fragmentation, plurality-adjacent language, identity discontinuity, embodiment disturbance, and related questions of inner experience. Because these subjects may be emotionally activating, destabilizing, or personally sensitive, readers are encouraged to approach the material with care, pacing, and self-attunement. Nothing in this manuscript is intended to force an interpretation onto a person’s lived experience, to invalidate self-understanding, or to substitute for clinical assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or supportive care. The framework presented here is theoretical, research-facing, and interpretive. It should be read as an effort to think carefully about difficult human realities, not as a demand that any reader adopt one explanatory model. Readers are encouraged to pause, step away, seek grounding, or consult trusted support where engagement with these materials becomes burdensome. This preprint argues that fragmentation is better understood through accessibility, reflectivity, and regulation than through reduction to a single diagnostic category. Dissociation has already been described as having "transdiagnostic consequences" (Şar 2022), and recent work calls for "a more encompassing transdiagnostic and transtheoretical perspective" (Lynn et al. 2022). Building from that literature, the manuscript treats fragmentation as a cross-domain disturbance in the co-availability and co-regulation of embodiment, memory, perception, attention, affect, self-reference, and relationality. The central problem is not simply whether differentiated states exist, but how well they remain connected for continuity, self-recognition, and regulated transition. Trauma-related pathological dissociation has been described as involving "disruptions in one's sense of self, perceptual, and affective experience" (Lebois et al. 2022), while depersonalization and derealization have been described as "an estranged state of mind" (Murphy 2023). These formulations support a model in which fragmentation is approached as patterned asymmetry rather than simple absence. The manuscript further argues that "-genic" origin-language is best treated prepositionally rather than absolutistically. On this view, origin terms are most useful when they indicate where, through what, under what, or toward what a differentiated structure became intelligible, rather than serving as singular causal proof. The resulting MDRGToISQ framing is presented as an integrative grammar for interpreting differentiated states through accessibility, reflective legibility, and regulational passage, not as a replacement for diagnosis or neuroscience. The preprint also advances a research-facing proposal that the most plausible biological middle layer for such differences lies in distributed bridge architecture, especially executive, salience, default, thalamocortical, and long-range white matter systems. It does not claim one-to-one localization or settled proof. It is offered instead as a theoretical and falsifiable synthesis intended to sharpen future work on fragmentation, continuity, and healthful integration. What this paper does not claim This paper does not provide diagnosis, establish one-to-one tract localization, treat community-origin labels as medical mechanisms, claim that MRI can currently diagnose these conditions, or replace clinical science or professional care. **