X-Message-Number: 17089
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Self worth, survival, motivation and other weird stuff about identity.
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:51:13 -0700

There is a version of English called "e-prime".

The first person to draw this to my attention was Albert Ellis, creator of
Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (formerly RET).  In brief, with e-prime
you choose to delete the use of the verb "to be" in communication.

Thus instead of saying "I AM angry", you are a little more accurate by
stating "I FEEL anger".

What is the difference?  Identity and clarity.

What is the outcome?  Potentially a revolution in your responses to the
world.

By the way, wanting to stay alive does not necessarily require language at
all.  Ask your cat.  Motivations exist without having to make any
evaluations of "self worth".  If I feel a full bladder I do not need to have
high self esteem to want to go to the privy.  If I want to stay alive
through Cryonics I do not have to feel that I "measure up" against some
arbitrary standard first.  Me and my cat both agree on these issues.

"Self worth" and all of its cousins like "self esteem" require TWO arbitrary
excursions into pure fantasy: (1) deciding on what you "really" are" and (2)
feeling a need to compare it against something else (an evaluation
determining "worth").  Neither of these steps is necessary though they are
virtually global and almost everything in our cultures and histories are
based upon them.

Of course, that doesn't mean they are correct or useful.

(1) Deciding on what you "really" are.  (or, "Who's asking?").

For self esteem (self worth, etc.) you have to decide you already know what
your "real" self actually is.  That is an arbitrary decision you make.  Am
"I" my body or some part of it?  Am "I" my memories or a percentage of my
memories?  Am I my likes and dislikes, or some of these?  Am "I" my actions
and social roles (voter, car driver, brother, friend, father, citizen, CI
member, etc.)?

Of course, this really is completely an arbitrary choice.  If you try very
seriously to actually determine what "you" as a "self" actually are in
experience, if you are incredibly honest in your examination of this
question, inevitably you will discover that "you" are the "experiencer" and
not any particular experience.  This is not just another a nonsense concept
from philosophy or religion or mysticism.  It is simply the issue at hand.
If "you" exist at all then we can at least suggest that "you" are LOOKING at
these words right now.  ("Are you there, Edward?" -from the movie "From
Beyond").

But, the problem is that "you" (sorry, have to use English or some kind of
subject object language to communicate at all)  can not experience "you" at
all on this level.  The eye does not see itself.  The experiencer is not the
experience.  Mentally there is the INFERENCE that there must "be" (see,
can't say this in e-prime!) a "you" who "is" the experiencer.

For example, Professor Ettinger has mentioned many times his strong
suspicion that the experience of the "self", subjectivity, involves feeling.
I am simply addressing the "meta" question of "Is there anyone who is
feeling the feeling?"

It is at this level that theraveda Buddhism and many mystical perspectives
operate.  Some will simply say that this inferred "self" is an illusion
caused by recursive thought patterns (the inference that assumes there must
be an "experiencer" or "feeler" itself in the first place).  Others (like
mahayana Buddhism or Hindu Vedanta) will claim that the "self" is actually
"consciousness itself" and ascribe to consciousness the quality of being the
"primary" of reality, much like a screen upon which the movie of experience
is projected.

I do not claim to be able to "prove" any of these extreme views to be
correct or incorrect.

You don't have to go into orbit in order to cross a continent.  You don't
even have to leave the atmsophere.  Even walking can get you there.

What I suggest on a much more limited scale for very practical purposes is
that to the degree people choose to identify with things, they also identify
with the qualities and limitations of those things.  (If you have "high self
esteem" because you believe are competent to handle the affairs of life in
principle, then you will lose that "high self esteem" if you fail to
maintain that level of competency in reality, say due to a stroke or other
debilitating injury, for example.  There is always gong to come a younger,
faster gunslinger into town).

This leads to the second arbitrary fantasy:

(2) You must (have to, should, ought to) place a value on the self you
select!

"Self esteem" has become the new idol of pop psychology.  The implication
commonly held is that we have no choice in the matter.  All people have to
place a value on their (sorry, James, just a common use word here) "soul".

But is that true?

I would suggest that the evidence is overwhelming that in category after
category it is not necessary to establish "self worth".  In fact, usually it
is this second level of fantasy that occurs after the fact.  We confabulate
the "reasons" for our actions and in this culture "self esteem" commonly
gets the praise or blame for whether we did well or not.  ("Johnny failed
his math class because he has low self esteem which caused him to never do
his homework" versus "Johnny failed his math class because he never did his
homework and now we need to discover what, if anything, he needs different
to succeed - such as a competent math text book by John Saxon based on
proven learning principles instead of the incredibly badly written textbook
the school system purchased from their old publisher again this year.")

In fact, the contrary can be demonstrated.  When you drop the need to
evaluate "you" in regard to any particular issue, you operate from the
stance of a player OF the "game" as opposed to being an object IN the
"game".  ("Game" used here in its broadest possible context).

In any confrontation between people I have generally found that the person
with the greater number of choices will win out.  When you choose to "self
identify" you take on the limiting qualities of whatever you have identified
with.  Without that step, you lack those asssumed inhibitions based upon
identity and have greater choices consciously available.  You are also not
hallucinating as much.

A patient complains that they lack enough self esteem to pursue a desirable
romantic partner or more rewarding career.  And I ask, "What would happen if
you skipped worrying about whether you deserved it, and did it anyway?"

It is possible to imagine a life without self judgement first.  Just imagine
what it would be like to skip that part and get on to doing what you wanted
to do.  The first step in planning is knowing where you want to end up.

With sufficient understanding that self esteem is an active conscious CHOICE
requiring constant mental reminders to maintain, I have found that most
individuals come to realize that this choice is not useful but simply an
additional and unnecessary step outside of what is required to achieve goals
and satisfy needs.  Usually the self esteem 'step" is a stumbling block to
goal achievement.

For those unable to understand the arbitrary and somewhat alien cultural
concept behind choosing a "self", I usually offer the new words "self
acceptance" to substitute for "self esteem" and it's ilk.  "Just accept that
you are here.  You exist.  Forget deciding whether you are deserving or not.
You don't need a price tag.  No one is judging you if you stop judging
yourself.  Now what do you want to DO?"

I see a large part of therapy involved with simply helping people break free
of the trap of the self esteem belief system whose "credo" I view as "I
believe in the existence of God the Father (my "self" which is something I
can know and understand as an object in the universe), and I believe in
God's Final Judgement (in that my self must always have a particular value).
Amen".

Instead of this, I work in therapy to suggest that "I am simply here, and I
am not what I do, and I am not what I have done.  Identity is not utility.
What I do I can usually change and the sooner I decide to do so based on
what seems to be true, the better".

I do indeed see the entire "self esteem" thought trap as a vast worldwide
belief system which probably evolved out of the need for social control in
tribal situations and became internalized such that instead of the tribe
punishing the "evil doer", the person did this to himself.  The same for
"rewards" as well, of course.  The "standard" used to determine "self
esteem" was probably at first whatever the tribe considered good for the
tribe.  Today it has become disconnected from anything so relatively simple.

In my experience the more a person dumps the pursuit of "self esteem" and
breaks identifications with experiences, the more flexible, successful and
happy that person tends to be.

(In e-prime:  "In my experience, the more a person dumps the pursuit of
'self esteem' and breaks identification with experiences, the more that
person tends to exhibit flexibility, achieve successful outcomes and reports
feeling more happiness.")

Hope that helps clarify what I've been talking about here.

Just my opinion,

George Smith
CI Member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17089