I’m seeing the concepr of «me» (memories, associations, aspirations, etc) from the outside now, not just embodying it matter-of-factly. There’s an ability for the brain to switch identification – point-of-view – from inside this collection of things, to outside of it, where it’s quite possible to have a much more detached and peaceful relatiom with daily life. It seems that much in the field of psychology has to deal with the (dys)functions of embodying one’s self, and how to manage that, without really considering alternatives to that, e.g., the psychologist tries to help you process – integrate – memories with negative connotation into your sense of self such that you are more able to live alongside them while embodying your sense of self, but will not try to help you step outside the delusion of your self to see that what has happened in the past is in fact not happening in the now and that it is not the past experience in itself but the habitusl embodyment of memories being left unquestioned and disabondent that arguably continues to perpetually or periodically leave you in psychological discomfort («pain» in the non-physical sense).

There is precedence of tripart psychological thinkers that integrate what is often called «soul» but that could more precisly be called «disidentification» into the previous bipart psychology thinking of «mind» («identification») and «body», which before followed monoitic psychological thinking of either «mind» or «body».

The main advantage of transitioning from a bipart to tripart psychology, is that the latter is true, while the former is false, in the sense that identification deludes that there are characteristics of sections of space that enable determining them from the rest of space, when this can in fact be easily refuted by simple facts such as:

• The air in your lungs was a moment ago outside your lungs and some of the air that was inside your lungs is now outside of you
• The protein in your muscles was before in plants and/or the muscles of animals that you ingested and once you decay will become the protein in insects and worms
• The salivia in your mouth is later in your lover’s mouth and theirs in yours

The notion of self, that there are characteristics of some section of space that determines it from the rest of space, is perhaps useful, but also quite clearly false.

In perpetually and unquestionably embodying identification, one is therefore unable to comprehend traits of reality that are incompatible with this useful but false perspective, leading to common cognitive dissonance such as:

• Why isn’t the other person doing what I’m telling them to (bipart perspective); there is no you or them just all and in the all the section of space inhabited by what you refer to «practically» as «them» is doing something while the one «practically» refered to as «you» is doing something else but there is «actually» no distinction and «practically» refering to the whole of it as in turn doing something of itself is «actually» true (tripart perspective), and cognitively harmonicable.

Why practice holding tripart psychological perspective? If not for truth and sincerity or compassion, then for the peace, calm and health of not sufferingly bodly decay at every daily instance where the bipart expectation of reality conflicts with actual reality, and flushes your body with cortisol.

Next comes thoughts on switching language from bipart to tripart psychological thinking.

Since there is no «you» or «them» in tripart perspectives, there is also no compatible use of the word «I» when holding this perspective. An alternative pseudo-pronoun might be «Is», e.g., «Is» is doing something in some section of space, where «is» encompases not just the section practically refered to as «you» or «them» but all of it.

This isn’t very practical in interactions with others, but it is in thinking, and quite effective as a tool to force thinking and inuition from bipart to tripart, even quite freeing when the emotional evocations of thoughts about one’s self falls away and is seen as something of somewhere rather than an inescapable emotional torment that is real, when it is not that.

Quite often I find times where dropping thinking sentences that start «I…» («…have to…», «…should…», «…should have…», «…must…», «…will…») and replacing them with sentences that start «Is…» («…walking», «…sitting») or «It…» («…is raining», «…is sunny»), doesn’t really make me suffer, nor forget to do things necessary for survival, nor make me neglect others, but rather empty out quite a lot of useless activity from the mind, leaving in place room for truthful activity, or calm nothingness (fear of forgetting, including an ego-driven impulse for the ego not to lose anything or die if it was left alone for a bit, seemed to keep me away from letting go of bipart thinking for the sake of tripart before, but once this is pointed out and tried a few times, one can see that if the body really needs to do something, it will tell you no matter what state it is in, and beyond that most needs aren’t actually needed but just the tendency of the ego to protect itself to little benefit of you out of unquestioned habit).