what exactly is self as context & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

[Guest guest]

an email today by cat, really got me interested in finding out more about this topic. While i have to confess i was not at all able to keep with 'your story' posts, But i did read cat's reply and i found it very informative and interesting. please don't think of me as taking sides, or negating anyones pain here, i am simply trying to interstand some of the act concepts that can be a bit tricky, not when one is using it to their own exprecine in their life, BUT when they r trying to help someone who comes to them with their struggle asking for advice. here the concept of 'self as context' as was being explained by someone, did come out right? i am not sure. but from merely having read one email (cat's) i am gonna assume that perhaps it didn't come out right, or was perhaps misunderstood. so my question here is not if it was misunderstood or not, or what the exact intention was behind the post, my question is: what exactly is self as context, and how can it me misunderstood somtimes? and can u gimme examples of where self as context is applied?the few things that caught my interest here were: <<<<our habit of evaluating

experience as "good" and "bad" is just that - an evaluation or a

judgement. I see him saying that these judgments are created by our

brains and do not exist outside our brains (or minds). I see him and

others saying that one "is" event

can be evaluated differently by different minds or even more than one

way by one mind.>>>><<<....our habit of evaluating experience as "good" and "bad" is just that - an evaluation or a judgement...... these judgments are created by

our brains and do not exist outside our brains (or minds). ........ one "is" event

can be evaluated differently by different minds or even more than one

way by one mind......a

description of the philosophy of contextualism, which is the philosophy

that unlies the work of the scientists in RFT and ACT.>>>>and then this was followed by cat's own personal expereince to show what exactly she was talking about. while i did understand what she wrote above, and her example, i can't say i still ompletely get what 'self as context' really isAll i know about self-as context is that we look through the glass of the observing self. So can someone tell me more, with examples, i would really appreciate it. thank youwasalaam:-)

[Guest guest]

,

I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of

Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong,

Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book

(1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by

Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser,

and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to

finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article

printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker.

I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others.

And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have

to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness

of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the

way and each one brings me a little further into the light. (well, I see it as

light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best

yardstick for measuring " progress " . I also find that talking about it with

others helps a lot too.

To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the

hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen

to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of

holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row.

There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449

holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from

the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an

infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of

the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they

could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes in their voice, their

language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life

they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each

one is recognizable as " me " . There is something that makes each one from the

newborn infant to the one made this month " me " , even though everything else has

changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as " me " is

the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens.

(yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)

I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain

makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.

Cat

>

>

>

> an email today by cat, really got me interested in finding out more about this

topic. While i have to confess i was not at all able to keep with 'your story'

posts, But i did read cat's reply and i found it very informative and

interesting. please don't think of me as taking sides, or negating anyones pain

here, i am simply trying to interstand some of the act concepts that can be a

bit tricky, not when one is using it to their own exprecine in their life, BUT

when they r trying to help someone who comes to them with their struggle asking

for advice.

> here the concept of 'self as context' as was being explained by someone, did

come out right? i am not sure. but from merely having read one email (cat's) i

am gonna assume that perhaps it didn't come out right, or was perhaps

misunderstood. so my question here is not if it was misunderstood or not, or

what the exact intention was behind the post, my question is: what exactly is

self as context, and how can it me misunderstood somtimes? and can u gimme

examples of where self as context is applied?

>

> the few things that caught my interest here were:

> <<<<our habit of evaluating

> experience as " good " and " bad " is just that - an evaluation or a

> judgement. I see him saying that these judgments are created by our

> brains and do not exist outside our brains (or minds). I see him and

> others saying that one " is " event

> can be evaluated differently by different minds or even more than one

> way by one mind.>>>>

> <<<....our habit of evaluating experience as " good " and " bad " is just that -

an evaluation or a judgement...... these judgments are created by

> our brains and do not exist outside our brains (or minds). ........ one " is "

event

> can be evaluated differently by different minds or even more than one

> way by one mind......a

> description of the philosophy of contextualism, which is the philosophy

> that unlies the work of the scientists in RFT and ACT.>>>>

>

> and then this was followed by cat's own personal expereince to show what

exactly she was talking about. while i did understand what she wrote above, and

her example, i can't say i still ompletely get what 'self as context' really is

> All i know about self-as context is that we look through the glass of the

observing self.

> So can someone tell me more, with examples, i would really appreciate it.

thank you

> wasalaam:-)

>

[Guest guest]

OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-) As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya when u start to explain it, and then i get lost. self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self? as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad" experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on relying on solely ur thinking self. Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff) expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life' (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and view it as simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally off??????to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing self. -K Designs."" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.

That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their

shoes." ~ a very pious intellectualTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: castonemsw@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000Subject: Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

,

I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker.

I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the way and each one brings me a little further into the light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I also find that talking about it with others helps a lot too.

To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449 holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes in their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me". There is something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)

I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.

Cat

[Guest guest]

This is a goofy postI thought of not sending it. I know it will drive some folks nutsbecause it is full of that frustrating " why don't you just SAY it " quality that sounds new agey etcYuck

But there is a reason for thatOK, with apologies then .....Self as context is hard because it has no features(from the inside out). Why not? Well because you can't contactthe edges of awareness with awareness. A thing without edges is not

a thing at all -- we know features of things. We don't know features ofno - thingsBut we can catch a glimpse. A sense. A quality.These are guides (hold them lightly) but they guide usto " that which cannot be named. "

This sense of self is not a concept -- it is an aspect of experience.

I like the metaphor of the holograms ... but to digdeeper into the strand that holds them all together ask this.Who saw the holograms?Think of the movie Avatar.If you woke up in a different body would you be you?

Do it in imagination. I mean really, Do it. Open those bigAvatar eyes and look at your hands and feet. Are you you?

Think of the weird (and frankly cruel) experiments the militaryran in the 1970's with LSD being given to unsuspecting people.If you started hallucinating right now would you be you?Imagine that your walls start to melt right now.

Do it in imagination. I mean really, Do it. Open those eyesand watch the wax walls melt. Now ....Who is noticing? [DON " T ANSWER ... just open to the question]Be veeeery careful here. I'm not asking a logical question.

I'm pointing a finger at the very ground you stand onwhile whispering a question. " what's that? " or maybe " who dat? " All questions pull for categorical andverbal answers ... but this question is designed to pull for

experience not just categories. Are you here?Are you now?Are you you?All of the words get in the way.People say " spiritual " or " soul " or just " me " but even THOSE words get in the way.

I'm not speaking as a religious leader -- I'm speakingas a naturalist.

Inside this experience it is not me, alone, cut off from others.It's me and thee; me inside a we. Me in and with the whole.Everywhere. Always.We call it " a transcendent sense of self "

More wordsBut still ... that seems right. We all have moments when that seems right.If you are not sure ... look in the eyes of someone you loveand see what you see. This is not the isolated self.This is not the self you can tell a story about or evaluate.

It is a shared consciousness

Words get in the way. Yet here we are.Interconnected. Beyond categorization. Aware and aware we are aware.All of you know this place. Look into the eyes of a child andyou see yourself. I saw an old woman walking hunched over today

holding on to her shopping cart as if she would fall own without it.She glanced over at me and a smile flitted past.Just for a second I saw her seeing me seeing her.In that moment she could have been anyone.

She was not just " an old woman hunched over her shopping cart " She was aware. Of me and I of her. In the last 500 years (at 25 years per generation)between the two of us over 4 MILLION parents and grand parents and great grand parents

(and so on for 20 generations) were looking out of those four eyes.They (each generation) talked to us and brought us into consciousness.Consciousness is passed down.In a sense all 4 million were standing here in this moment

We are creatures who have created or have been visited bya kind of consciousness that spreads across time, place, and person.It is not a concept. It is an aspect of experience. " Spirit? "   " Soul? "   " consciousness? " " Me? "

" Self as context? " I don't knowI know this. It is a place from which I am whole, as a birthright,and radical acceptance is like breathingAs I said ... a goofy post- S

C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062

" Love isn't everything, it's the only thing " hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be):

Blogs: Psychology Today  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mindHuffington Post  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site:  http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own values.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

 

OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the list, and it instantly  struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)

As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya when u start to explain it, and then i get lost. self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self?

as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff stages of ur life,  which would be classified as a " good " or a " bad " experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on relying on solely ur thinking self.

Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff) expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life' (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of normal human expereinces.  and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if it. so when viewing a neg expreince as " neg " , can step back and view it as simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally off??????

to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing self. -K Designs.

" " Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.

That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their

shoes. "   ~ a very pious intellectualTo: ACT_for_the_Public

From: castonemsw@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000Subject: Re: what exactly is " self as context " & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

 

,

I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker.

I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the way and each one brings me a little further into the light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best yardstick for measuring " progress " . I also find that talking about it with others helps a lot too.

To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449 holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes in their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as " me " . There is something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this month " me " , even though everything else has changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as " me " is the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)

I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.

Cat

[Guest guest]

Hi -Thank you for the provocative post. I read it during my midnight snack and now my mind is spinning!I have probably grossly over simplified this but I think of self as context as a perspective from which I am able to see what needs to be seen to live a valued life. It is how I am able to effectively invoke the ACT core processes and do "leaves on a stream," "notice five things," identify my values, be in contact with the present, etc. From this understanding I use "take a step back" (from I think) as an exercise to gain the perspective I need to live a valued life. I assume this is why Russ uses "observing self" for "self as context."Back to sleep, I hope.BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: stevenchayes@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:13:57 -0700Subject: Re: Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

This is a goofy postI thought of not sending it. I know it will drive some folks nutsbecause it is full of that frustrating "why don't you just SAY it"quality that sounds new agey etcYuck

But there is a reason for thatOK, with apologies then .....Self as context is hard because it has no features(from the inside out). Why not? Well because you can't contactthe edges of awareness with awareness. A thing without edges is not

a thing at all -- we know features of things. We don't know features ofno - thingsBut we can catch a glimpse. A sense. A quality.These are guides (hold them lightly) but they guide usto "that which cannot be named."

This sense of self is not a concept -- it is an aspect of experience.

I like the metaphor of the holograms ... but to digdeeper into the strand that holds them all together ask this.Who saw the holograms?Think of the movie Avatar.If you woke up in a different body would you be you?

Do it in imagination. I mean really, Do it. Open those bigAvatar eyes and look at your hands and feet. Are you you?

Think of the weird (and frankly cruel) experiments the militaryran in the 1970's with LSD being given to unsuspecting people.If you started hallucinating right now would you be you?Imagine that your walls start to melt right now.

Do it in imagination. I mean really, Do it. Open those eyesand watch the wax walls melt. Now ....Who is noticing? [DON"T ANSWER ... just open to the question]Be veeeery careful here. I'm not asking a logical question.

I'm pointing a finger at the very ground you stand onwhile whispering a question. "what's that?" or maybe "who dat?"All questions pull for categorical andverbal answers ... but this question is designed to pull for

experience not just categories. Are you here?Are you now?Are you you?All of the words get in the way.People say "spiritual" or "soul" or just "me"but even THOSE words get in the way.

I'm not speaking as a religious leader -- I'm speakingas a naturalist.

Inside this experience it is not me, alone, cut off from others.It's me and thee; me inside a we. Me in and with the whole.Everywhere. Always.We call it "a transcendent sense of self"

More wordsBut still ... that seems right. We all have moments when that seems right.If you are not sure ... look in the eyes of someone you loveand see what you see. This is not the isolated self.This is not the self you can tell a story about or evaluate.

It is a shared consciousness

Words get in the way. Yet here we are.Interconnected. Beyond categorization. Aware and aware we are aware.All of you know this place. Look into the eyes of a child andyou see yourself. I saw an old woman walking hunched over today

holding on to her shopping cart as if she would fall own without it.She glanced over at me and a smile flitted past.Just for a second I saw her seeing me seeing her.In that moment she could have been anyone.

She was not just "an old woman hunched over her shopping cart"She was aware. Of me and I of her. In the last 500 years (at 25 years per generation)between the two of us over 4 MILLION parents and grand parents and great grand parents

(and so on for 20 generations) were looking out of those four eyes.They (each generation) talked to us and brought us into consciousness.Consciousness is passed down.In a sense all 4 million were standing here in this moment

We are creatures who have created or have been visited bya kind of consciousness that spreads across time, place, and person.It is not a concept. It is an aspect of experience."Spirit?" "Soul?" "consciousness?" "Me?"

"Self as context?"I don't knowI know this. It is a place from which I am whole, as a birthright,and radical acceptance is like breathingAs I said ... a goofy post- S

C. Foundation ProfessorDepartment of Psychology /298University of NevadaReno, NV 89557-0062

"Love isn't everything, it's the only thing"hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

Fax: Psych Department: Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be):

Blogs: Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mindHuffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page or my blog at the ACBS site: http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc), please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your own values.

If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

orhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/joinIf you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., "Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life" etc) and want to be part of the conversation go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)

As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya when u start to explain it, and then i get lost. self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self?

as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad" experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on relying on solely ur thinking self.

Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff) expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life' (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and view it as simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally off??????

to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing self. -K Designs.

"" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.

That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their

shoes." ~ a very pious intellectualTo: ACT_for_the_Public

From: castonemsw@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000Subject: Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

,

I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker.

I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the way and each one brings me a little further into the light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I also find that talking about it with others helps a lot too.

To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449 holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes in their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me". There is something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)

I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.

Cat

[Guest guest]

But is it possible to live from that place? Even in part?

It would be like sitting in the audience for the whole of your life - watching the show. And who or what is directing the play?

'Inside this experience it is not me, alone, cut off from others.

It's me and thee; me inside a we. Me in and with the whole.Everywhere. Always'.

Father, Son and holy ghost? Or stardust? Or both?

Sheesh! What have you started!

Simone

OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya when u start to explain it, and then i get lost. self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self? as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad" experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on relying on solely ur thinking self. Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily

labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff) expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life' (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and view it as simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally off??????to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing self. -K Designs.

"" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their shoes." ~ a very pious intellectual

To: ACT_for_the_Public From: castonemsw@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000Subject: Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

,I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker. I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the way and each one brings me a little

further into the light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I also find that talking about it with others helps a lot too. To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449 holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes

in their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me". There is something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.Cat

[Guest guest]

Hi lou,

I've read this book. I think I might re-read in the light of this topic. It's very hard to get your head around. But then maybe we can't get our head around it because as Steve says it has no limits. Think I need a beer!

Simone

OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya when u start to explain it, and then i get lost. self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self? as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad" experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on relying on solely ur thinking self. Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily

labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff) expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life' (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and view it as simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally off??????to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing self. -K Designs.

"" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have their shoes." ~ a very pious intellectual

To: ACT_for_the_Public From: castonemsw@...Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000Subject:

Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can it be misunderstood sometimes?

,I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup, ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker. I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments have happened along the way and each one brings me a little

further into the light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I also find that talking about it with others helps a lot too. To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449 holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes

in their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me". There is something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I think what it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context - the me that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my metaphors)I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.Cat

[Guest guest]

The old woman did it for me. My mind's eye met her eyes and for a moment her labels were superfluous.D

I know this. It is a place from which I am whole, as a birthright,and radical acceptance is like breathing

As I said ... a goofy post- S

[Guest guest]

"A transcended sense of self" is what I caught a glimmer of over 40 years ago, during my one and only "experiment" with LSD. I was about 19, or 20.I don't know how "pure" or what strength the dose was, but this is what I remember:Not long after the drug kicked in, I needed to go to the toilet. We (there were 4 or 5 of us) were in a small, second story apartment in St Kilda - a bohemian seaside suburb of Melbourne, Australia.The toilet (the smallest room in the house) was necessarily tiny, with enough room for the actual toilet and nothing else. The "hippies" who lived there had attached multicolored paper to the solitary light-fitting, so that the small room was bathed in multiple hues. Sitting on the toilet, I looked up at that light fitting, and it seemed to pulse in harmony with the pulse generated by my heart.That was the first thing I remember.We listened to Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, and its songs were the most wonderful I had ever heard.That's the second thing I remember. That album is still an all-time favorite of mine today.Later, we decided to go outside and walk to a nearby all-night hamburger joint. It was well after midnight.Outside seemed like a sort of Disneyland, or how I imagined a Disneyland to be. Everything, the houses, the night sky, the yellow streetlights, seemed utterly beautiful and perfect.I remember coming across some dog turds, and even they seemed utterly beautiful and right.The only "downer" I can recall was when someone pointed out a passing police car. I became anxious and a bit panicky, but that soon passed, along with the police car.There were some other anxious moments, bordering on panic, but they came and went, and I somehow managed to "hold it together", mostly, I think, because I was being continuously distracted by the sheer beauty around me, and the general bonhomie and camaraderie of my friends.In general, my experience seemed to be that my ordinary, everyday worries and concerns were null and void; they just seemed irrelevant. I've yet to experience an antidepressant that has that effect!I think I attribute the fact that I'm still around to the memory of that most salutary experience: it taught me that there is an alternative way of experiencing.The article I referenced in an earlier post - see it here brings back my memories of that time, and makes me wonder why these types of chemicals aren't more widely used in therapy, especially for with those of us who are stuck in the places we are stuck in.Regards,Detlef> > > **> >> >> > OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post to the> > list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me. Thanks> > sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here as there is> > soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)> > As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a little bit> > better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i am with ya> > when u start to explain it, and then i get lost.> > self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self?> > as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in diff> > stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad"> > experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces based on> > relying on solely ur thinking self.> > Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.? stepping> > back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not necessarily> > labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely (diff)> > expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete, rich life'> > (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full range of> > normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and r part if> > it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and view it as> > simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i totally> > off??????> > to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined self as> > content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs. observing> > self.> >> >> >> >> >> > -*K Designs.*> >> >> > *"**" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.> >> > That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND you have> > their shoes."> > * *~ a very pious intellectua*l> >> >> > ------------------------------> > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000> > Subject: Re: what exactly is "self as context" & y can> > it be misunderstood sometimes?> >> >> > ,> > I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read Get Out> > of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly Horribly> > Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and Commitment> > Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah Waldrup,> > ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma, Steve> > and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig and Steve> > . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned about ACT> > from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy Networker.> >> > I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and a few> > others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly, though, I> > would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and> > increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little aha! moments> > have happened along the way and each one brings me a little further into the> > light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave with my son> > and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I also find> > that talking about it with others helps a lot too.> >> > To response to your other question about self as context. I find that the> > hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor I have> > seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there are lots of> > holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you, going in a> > row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself thats 449> > holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so they go> > from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the first one> > thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is different> > from any of the others. There are other differences in the holograms, if> > they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see changes in> > their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams, their> > activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing about them> > has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me". There is> > something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one made this> > month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I think what> > it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context - the me> > that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm doubling up my> > metaphors)> >> > I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if it just> > plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.> >> > Cat> > > >>

[Guest guest]

You have a flair for writing, Detlef and I much enjoyed your essay.

LSD has caused lots of people serious harm and many suffer today (about

1 in 100 users) with a disorder that leaves them mildly hallucinating

all the time but without the high, plus they are much more prone to

depression. These people really do regret ever taking the drug which

includes ecstacy and other psychedelics.

For now, it might be a good idea to try to get your drinking down to 3

evenings a week and have no more than brings sufficien and other relief

- plus a little bit of fun. This might be hard at first but we are all

creatures of habit and so after a while it will become normal to drink

no more than that. Later, two evenings a week would be even more healthy

but don't fret about it.

I like your posts because they are succinct and mischievious, and you

might be a natural writer, like me, as I enjoy it too.

Even at this late stage you can recover, but sometimes things can be

really hard and painful indeed. I'm going through enormous suffering

right now too but I expect that one day I will find suffiecient peace

and then be able to meditate, then I might go down the Buddhist route,

afterall, or I might not need to - who knows. But I reckon that

something much better is comig up at some stage because of all the hard

work I have put in.

That was a intersting site you posted, by the way, my sort of thing.

All the best, Detlef.

Kv

> >

> > > **

> > >

> > >

> > > OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post

to

> the

> > > list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me.

> Thanks

> > > sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here

as

> there is

> > > soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)

> > > As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a

little

> bit

> > > better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i

am

> with ya

> > > when u start to explain it, and then i get lost.

> > > self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self?

> > > as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in

> diff

> > > stages of ur life, which would be classified as a " good " or a " bad "

> > > experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces

> based on

> > > relying on solely ur thinking self.

> > > Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.?

> stepping

> > > back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not

> necessarily

> > > labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely

> (diff)

> > > expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete,

> rich life'

> > > (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full

> range of

> > > normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and

r

> part if

> > > it. so when viewing a neg expreince as " neg " , can step back and

> view it as

> > > simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i

> totally

> > > off??????

> > > to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined

self

> as

> > > content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs.

> observing

> > > self.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -*K Designs.*

> > >

> > >

> > > * " ** " Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in

their

> shoes.

> > >

> > > That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND

> you have

> > > their shoes. "

> > > * *~ a very pious intellectua*l

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

> > > To: ACT_for_the_Public

> > > From: castonemsw@

> > > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000

> > > Subject: Re: what exactly is " self as

context "

> & y can

> > > it be misunderstood sometimes?

> > >

> > >

> > > ,

> > > I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read

> Get Out

> > > of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly

> Horribly

> > > Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and

> Commitment

> > > Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah

> Waldrup,

> > > ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma,

> Steve

> > > and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig

> and Steve

> > > . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned

> about ACT

> > > from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy

Networker.

> > >

> > > I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and

a

> few

> > > others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly,

> though, I

> > > would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and

> > > increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little

aha!

> moments

> > > have happened along the way and each one brings me a little

further

> into the

> > > light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave

> with my son

> > > and his father is my best yardstick for measuring " progress " . I

also

> find

> > > that talking about it with others helps a lot too.

> > >

> > > To response to your other question about self as context. I find

> that the

> > > hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor

I

> have

> > > seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there

are

> lots of

> > > holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you,

> going in a

> > > row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself

> thats 449

> > > holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so

> they go

> > > from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the

first

> one

> > > thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is

> different

> > > from any of the others. There are other differences in the

> holograms, if

> > > they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see

> changes in

> > > their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams,

> their

> > > activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing

> about them

> > > has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as " me " .

There

> is

> > > something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one

> made this

> > > month " me " , even though everything else has changed over time. I

> think what

> > > it is that is identifiable in them as " me " is the self as context

-

> the me

> > > that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm

doubling

> up my

> > > metaphors)

> > >

> > > I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if

it

> just

> > > plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.

> > >

> > > Cat

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

For now, it might be a good idea to try to get your drinking down to 3 evenings a week and have no more than brings sufficient relief- plus a little bit of fun.

This is what I meant to have said.

Kv

> > >> > > > **> > > >> > > >> > > > OMGOooodneeeeeeeeeeeeees........NO WONDER!! :-) i read that post> to> > the> > > > list, and it instantly struck me and totally made sense to me.> > Thanks> > > > sooooooooo much for posting it and PLEASE continue to posts here> as> > there is> > > > soooooooooooo much i could learn from u.:-)> > > > As far as self as context, i havta confess i understood it a> little> > bit> > > > better in ur previous post than this one. this one i feel like i> am> > with ya> > > > when u start to explain it, and then i get lost.> > > > self as context is looking at urself throught the oberving self?> > > > as in u c urself not in terms of the content of each struggle, in> > diff> > > > stages of ur life, which would be classified as a"good" or a "bad"> > > > experince, which would mean analyzing and evalutaing ur expreinces> > based on> > > > relying on solely ur thinking self.> > > > Rather it would be like seeing urself as the whole, complete u.?> > stepping> > > > back and seeing urself from the observing self, which means not> > necessarily> > > > labeling every experince, but looking at it as a whole, as merely> > (diff)> > > > expreinces of life, which would be needed to make it a 'complete,> > rich life'> > > > (coz ur life is not complete unless u r able to expereince a full> > range of> > > > normal human expereinces. and struggles and pain r inevitable and> r> > part if> > > > it. so when viewing a neg expreince as "neg" , can step back and> > view it as> > > > simply 1 of the 100's experecies that life has to offer. ? is i> > totally> > > > off??????> > > > to tell ya the truth cat right now i have no clue if i defined> self> > as> > > > content vs self as context or i just defined thiking self vs.> > observing> > > > self.> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > -*K Designs.*> > > >> > > >> > > > *"**" Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in> their> > shoes.> > > >> > > > That way, when you criticize them, you're already a mile away AND> > you have> > > > their shoes."> > > > * *~ a very pious intellectua*l> > > >> > > >> > > > ------------------------------> > > > To: ACT_for_the_Public > > > > From: castonemsw@> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:03:52 +0000> > > > Subject: Re: what exactly is "self as> context"> > & y can> > > > it be misunderstood sometimes?> > > >> > > >> > > > ,> > > > I have been working on learning ACT for about 5 years. I have read> > Get Out> > > > of Your Mind ..., The Happiness Trap, Thing Might Go terribly> > Horribly> > > > Wrong, Mindfulness for Two, some of the original Acceptance and> > Commitment> > > > Therapy book (1999), The Mindful Couple by Robyn Walser and Darrah> > Waldrup,> > > > ACT with Love by Russ , some of Learning ACT by Luoma,> > Steve> > > > and Robyn Walser, and some of ACT Verbatim by Twohig> > and Steve> > > > . (yeah I need to finish what I start). I originally learned> > about ACT> > > > from a magazine article printed in 2007 in Psychotherapy> Networker.> > > >> > > > I have been to several workshops by Steve , , and> a> > few> > > > others. And I did some individual work with Robyn Walser. Mostly,> > though, I> > > > would have to say I have learned ACT by practicing really hard and> > > > increasing my awareness of the concepts in my real life. Little> aha!> > moments> > > > have happened along the way and each one brings me a little> further> > into the> > > > light. (well, I see it as light). The difference in how I behave> > with my son> > > > and his father is my best yardstick for measuring "progress". I> also> > find> > > > that talking about it with others helps a lot too.> > > >> > > > To response to your other question about self as context. I find> > that the> > > > hardest ACT concept to grasp of the 6 processes. The best metaphor> I> > have> > > > seen to explain it goes something like this: Imagine that there> are> > lots of> > > > holograms (3D representations) of yourself lined up behind you,> > going in a> > > > row. There is one hologram for each month of your life (for myself> > thats 449> > > > holograms). Each on looks exactly how you looked on that day - so> > they go> > > > from the one right behind you looking almost the same, to the> first> > one> > > > thats an infant. So the physical characteristics of each one is> > different> > > > from any of the others. There are other differences in the> > holograms, if> > > > they talked, they could tell us their thoughts and we would see> > changes in> > > > their voice, their language usage, their beliefs, their dreams,> > their> > > > activities, the roles in life they have - pretty much every thing> > about them> > > > has changed over time. Yet, each one is recognizable as "me".> There> > is> > > > something that makes each one from the newborn infant to the one> > made this> > > > month "me", even though everything else has changed over time. I> > think what> > > > it is that is identifiable in them as "me" is the self as context> -> > the me> > > > that is the bowl in which the life soup happens. (yes, I'm> doubling> > up my> > > > metaphors)> > > >> > > > I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. If not, or if> it> > just> > > > plain makes no sense, let me know and I'll try again.> > > >> > > > Cat> > > >> > > >> > >> >>