PRESENCE WITHOUT SELF
There is a very dominant use of the pronoun I in Western language. It suggests that this is our identity and agent of our actions. Interestingly in Japan there is little use of the pronoun I. Language in Japan is very context-dependent. If the situation infers that the self is acting then there is no need for the word I. Japan is much more a collective rather than an individualistic society. The group is more important than the self. Hence, less use of the word I. If they can do it, there is no reason why we in the West can do without the I in conversation.
What would it be like for us to avoid using the word I as a supportive strategy to non-attach with the sense of self. Language is very important in reinforcing our identification.
It is said that the sense of self performs an important utilitarian function. It pays our taxes, makes sure we get to our job on time, buys the groceries, plans our holidays etc. However, could we function without needing to use the word I to define who we are. As discussed, I is just an arbitrary term that is superimposed upon the minds meaning making and self-referential judgment of a stimulus. Can we just be this humanness that we inhabit? This human body and the capacity of our mind to process information and be conscious without being identified as I, the one that is taking ownership for our happiness and suffering.
To some extent we omit the word I in our speech and we are still understood.
Initially one can use a strategy where there is a conscious naming of the present moment experience without saying I. It can be helpful to describe what is being felt or thought in response to the action that has happened. It is not that there is no emotion or thinking present. It is that there is no sense of self to own it. One is just witnessing the experience.
For example one would say: “Worried about losing the keys. Angry with John (my son). Arguing with Joan (my partner). Forgetting to pay the phone bill. Enjoying the holiday. Scared of losing the job. Feeling guilt about being dishonest. Experiencing pride about winning the contest.”
Then in response to what one is aware of can one formulate an internal plan or external verbal response again without using the word I? There is a naming of the action in response to the stimulus. For example, internally one might say: “Need to find the keys. Speak to John. Pay the phone bill. Buy the groceries. Explain the situation to the boss.”
In terms of speech one might say: “Apologies for acting rudely. Action will be taken about the problem. Take care. Love you. Going to the food store. Sorry about being rude. Need some time to figure this out.”
Initially when you do this it requires some mental gymnastics as we are so used to using the word I. This is a good thing to have to really think about one’s response and make the effort for not using the word I that linguistically supports non-identification.
Use of the third person can be helpful to avoid using the word I. It is strange to talk about oneself from the third person perspective. One would preface the comments with your name. For example: “Philip is angry. Philips needs to apologize.” There is a designation of who is responsible for what is happening but it feels more objective and distant.
Avoiding the use of I forces one to remember to search for what is not self to meet the moment.
Can you speak as not-self
by Dr. Phil Blustein
June 7, 2024