There have recently been some really great and helpful discussions/thoughts on the ACT listserv around the utility of the use of different versions/perspectives of “self”.
On this topic, I think there are probably many different ways one could perceive, talk about, and/or otherwise reference a “self”, and some of these ways may very well be more useful than others to use within different situational contexts (i.e.,, for different purposes/reasons).
But utilizing “self” in any context and in any way may also function to point to (i.e., reify), if even in a very subtle way/s, a notion/conviction and thus a “felt sense” of a fundamental distinction (e.g., “Self-as-agent is the REAL me/self!”) between “self” and “other”.
I (currently) believe it may be useful, in some or even many contexts, to perceive and talk/think about “self” from a much different perspective: from the perspective that whatever “self” that can be pointed to verbally can also be described/understood/perceived, with the same level of confidence/certainty/conviction that one has in “it” being a “self”, as “not self”. Thus, this perspective would not pertain to referential uses of the term/idea of “self” within contexts but rather to an “understanding” (i.e., a well-conditioned/learned view/perspective of the idea/term/notion) related to a referenced “self” in any context.
…
Consider the example of a wooden rocking chair that a person sits on everyday for 20 years and comes to have a certain affinity for.
If one were to point to the chair, look at that person, and ask them, “Is that a chair?”, they likely wouldn’t be surprised to hear a “Yes, of course. That is my chair and has been for a long time” from that person. And if one were to (unfortunately) then take a hammer and destroy that chair, they also wouldn’t likely be surprised to find the person has become very angry. A portion of the anger elicited “within” the person whose long-time chair was broken might likely come from the belief/conviction that the chair, currently destroyed, was the same chair (fundamentally) that was sat on daily for 20 years (i.e., what one might conceive of as a level of interoceptive “attachment” to the concept/idea of a real/actual “chair”).
Here’s the thing: a collection of wooden sticks is not inherently a “chair”; it’s simply a collection of wooden sticks. That these sticks are combined with nails to form certain shapes and colors and then sat upon frequently doesn’t change this basic fact of its very existence. The name (i.e., “chair”), and thus the perception/belief of continuance of form/existence (i.e., the belief/conviction that it’s the “same chair”), fundamentally arise from its functional use (i.e., “its” something that is sat upon).
If this basic understanding regarding the fundamental “reality” of the chair was well established, the person may be less likely to lament (and even worry less leading up to that fateful moment) over what they understand to be, at a more fundamental level, a collection of sticks (not inherently a “chair” and not really inherently special as compared to other collections of sticks). Armed with this well-conditioned understanding, this person might likely experience/feel less “attachment” in relation to that “chair” and thus likely suffer less overall through worrying less (regarding the maintenance/continuance of “existence” of that “chair”) and experiencing the event less aversively when that chair is eventually broken (while probably also being more likely to “let it go” after the event happens rather than ruminating over the loss).
…
What is a “self” other than it’s collection of “parts” (e.g., mind/body; I/here/now perspective)?
What is a “self” other than its own good idea (arbitrarily applicable relational responding)?
Maybe things/events that “happen” to “selves” (e.g., dying) could function to be a little less scary for people if they really understood this basic fact of existence about verbal “selves”?
Maybe this understanding, through worrying less, could then function to increase ones contact with the present moment (i.e., less attachment to the idea that the same “self” that was born will one day die) and thus increase the probability of valued living?
Thoughts?
Jesse