 Well, with your Suggestion of what's wrong with the concepts of self individual and personality. I'm not totally surprised and I'll tell you why I I'll say it again. What's wrong with the concepts of self individual and personality. I come From a place where this professor went around from university to another university holding lecture lectures where he Pronounced that there was no I He said it in Hebrew, of course and in Hebrew. It's even more elegant. He said ain Ani ain is Aleph you'd noon. I mean is Aleph noon Yud He said there is no I and he said to this lady in the front row you know you and I have much more in common than Me today and I did Samach when he was seven years old so Absolutely agree Regrettably I did Samach took this from David Hume David Hume Wrote exactly this text more or less the redhead the the Scottish redhead. He wrote it in 1739 So in 1739 you wrote there is no He wrote actually self is fiction there is no self and I have very so very little in common with with myself in my youth Okay, he said he said actually and I fully agree with that it's Emma and David Hume and so on so forth I think men is a river not a lake Men flows panter a heraclitus Panter a you cannot enter the same river twice, right and you cannot meet the same person twice twice So you can't meet yourself twice Of course you cannot meet yourself twice Consequently psychology will never ever be a science. It's a pseudoscience Because the subject matter is mutable Constantly changes and it's transformed in substantial and meaningful ways over periods of time So but that's beside that's that's another issue another topic all together There are many current current day scholars for example James Giles of Canada And he says that there is not such thing as self. There's not such thing as personal identity Philip Bromberg who came up with the self states theory Young himself had the concept of complexes which were divorced from the rest of the self So in effect he described multiplicity of selves in object relations theory We have what we when it was called ego nuclei and this ego nuclear nuclei Ultimately merged and integrated, but you spend a lot of time as a child having multiple egos Some personalities is another theory with some subpersonalities. There's a theory With egos to ego states ego state therapy even and there is something called internal family system Which also involves a multiplicity? So what I'm trying to say multiplicity of states what I'm trying to say is that This is not a new idea at all the the Opposition to the rigid concept of a core identity that is immutable not changing That is not amenable to to modification via the environment It's very reminiscent of Darwinian evolution where all the change in Darwin's work all the change is internal through mutations The environment has no impact on genetics and today we know it's not true today We are more lamar kiss than we used to be and we know that the environment does modify genetic expression And by inconsequence modifies heredity. It's the same in psychology. There was this perception of a Core core unitary rigid self that is formed Latest age six and you are like that for the lifespan. Can we call it suchness? It's a each person each person who would have a certain suchness. There will be yes There will be such he is there will be a hand illness and a vacanness. Yes, and it would be for life It's not if you consider for a minute Following fireman you should always ask yourself in which cultural social context Was a theory developed in my home of What of this of the self being being valid being being a unitary core thing? This was developed by Germans and Austrians at the turn of the 19th century in the beginning of the 20th century These people lived under Kaiser Wilhelm and in the Austro-Hungarian Empire Habsburg the Habsburgs These people lived in a middle class with extremely rigid values Victorian in effect. So these people who had invented the concept of self Their their mindset was hierarchical fixed rigid disciplinarium Etc. So of course they created and a picture of psychology, which was I don't understand What what happened before that? I mean didn't people know that they I'm I'm I and you are you no There was no concept of self. There was I of course there was I but there was no concept of self Concept of self was up single-handedly invented by Freud and young later. You you mean the the the term So not only the term the perception that there is a unitary court that never ever changes and so on on the very contrary in the Middle Ages The church offered you a way to not be you You were sinful and the church offered you numerous ways to be absolvations indulgence Indulgence in changing your faith a change the concept of change personal change Yes, right was the core ideology in the Middle Ages. You're right. You're right Yes, and you can you can change and you're you're substantially change. You're Asked to change Invited to change but not change in minor ways substantially change from a sinner to a saint and so And so but because in the in medieval in in the medieval perception of of humanity There were two states either you were a sinner or you were not a sinner or even saint and so these were the the organizing principles of mankind's soul or psyche and You could transition from being a sinner to being a saint while in in the psychology of Freud and Jung You were if you were a sinner by age six you were a sinner for life Oh, really? I mean if you if you developed there was a fix self There was no hope for redemption not after not after not after six years old After six years old which is called the formative years You developed what you called a constellated self and it was with you for life. That's it It's interesting Constellation in in he was mazal and mazal is the mazal is a constellation. There was your luck luck your fortune fortune So and I'm asking myself. Why did they create such a rigid? theorem such a rigid, you know way of looking at the human beings because they were living in a society that Regarded human beings like that Society which was hierarchical dictatorial rigid Victorian that was also the time when people had to receive Family names, so they would be recognized. Yes, it was a regiment of society bureaucracy was first created by Bismarck and then you had Weber who was a few reticent of bureaucracy Human beings became Atoms they became cogs and wheels and wheels in a big machine Identity identity numbers are very important. Yes, for instance, if you want to know whether I am I ask me What my identity number is and then the Benny handle of yesterday will definitely be the same as the one of tomorrow because Tomorrow, I'll have the same identity number as the day before yesterday. Yes, so This unitary core is counterfactual. It's not true People are not like that People do change and so the my perceptions that man is a river not a lake and so I came up with a new Theory in essence in psychology that is now gaining gaining foothold in the mainstream Possibly will replace the paradigm of self and individual and my my work is I Called it pseudo identity. So here's pseudo identity. Yeah, I will explain it in a few sentences First of all, I I I say that human beings have an operating system The operating system is internal And the operating system makes decisions about Which Benny handle will interact in any specific with any specific environment? So I'm saying that there are many many Benny handles. I call them self states after philly problem There are self states. There are many of them They are many of them simultaneously It's not that they all exist Simultaneously their core extent But there is an operating system that says Benny handle number seven should come to the four Right because of the so how does the operating? How does the operating system decide? Which Benny will come to the four which Benny will be it it takes in queues information from the environment And information from inside internal queues It puts them together and it says Benny handle seven is the best suited To deal with this with this set of circumstances With these constraints With these boundary conditions with these specific people who happen to be here, etc So Benny seven is best suited Benny seven come here Go out and take care of things. I have an example Benny handle used to be a radio announcer And Benny handle three was now we're going to play a symphony by Tchaikovsky Benny handle seven would be excuse me. Do you know where Chernichovsky street is which is a totally different Benny handle? Yeah, the Benny handles the self states They of course have a lot in common But they have specific sets of skills and traits And behaviors and even facial expressions And so on that are Sufficiently differentiated them from each other and there is an operating system that decides based on on the reality Internal reality and external reality because sometimes another Benny handle will appear Because internally he became depressed So there will be another Benny handle who will tackle the depression in order to guarantee survival So what what is the principle? How does the operating system decide which Benny handle would take charge? At a given moment at a given moment reactive to a specific environment and to specific internal processes What is the decision-making procedure of that operating system? It's something called self efficacy Self efficacy is a concept in psychology that says That people try to extract the best outcomes From any given environment. This is called self efficacy. You're efficient. You're efficacious The operating system is asking the question and only one question Which Benny handle self state is best suited to the environment Taking into account his internal state Best suited to the environment in the sense That he will likely obtain the best outcomes if he takes over So then the operating system suppresses Benny handle three who is not best suited And bring forth Benny seven who is likely to get better outcomes from the environment The next thing is what happens if Benny seven and Benny three Are equally qualified to tackle this specific environment with these specific people The internal states of depression or anxiety or love Or fear or what what happens if you have two self states which can tackle the situation equally equally It's a stalemate Okay, and one of my major contributions to To this approach is to suggest that it is possible to have binary systems Because until now everyone Philip Bromberg and Giles and all the names are mentioned They suggested that there's only one self state at any given time And i'm saying it's not true It's possible to have two self states competing arguing Conflicting and being co-present Yes, and because they're equally qualified and they both want to manifest and to express and so they begin to have a fight An internal fight And and this this I call it the binary system And the binary system Gives rise to mental health disorders I actually succeeded to to to show direct linkage between binary systems And narcissistic personality disorders mood disorders anxiety disorders Stuttering Possibly yeah, it's called somatization if the stuttering is you know why I thought of that because In in Hebrew we say the gum game which means gum You have the same syllable again gum gum and gum is is also and gum is also so you have two Forces competing in your in your psyche And and you don't know which to bring out so for a long time I've been thinking that Stuttering may stem from the fact that you don't know how to say what you want to say So you say it in in in doubles or in triples two two self states are trying to obtain monopoly of you And because they're equally qualified to deal with the environment They create a stalemate So this stalemate may somatize may manifest in physical physically Stuttering paralysis Freud describes states of paralysis Uh, your hand can be paralyzed your face. I mean The body can take over and we have today Scholars like van der keel can so on they they clearly say the trauma can create somatic Bodily manifestation And so the binary system explains almost all mental illness It's when there is no consensus as to which self state will take over In narcissism for example, there is a false self and a true self The false self is the facade the compensatory facade Compensatory facade that the narcissist is trying to show the world. I'm great. I'm perfect. I'm brilliant. I'm decent that Internally, he feels inferior. He feels so he's compensating these two self states Are equally efficacious and so this creates a lot of dissonance in the narcissists most of the time But if he is in certain environments, the false self is much more qualified And then the narcissist is at peace so when the narcissist for example is Is an artist And he has an audience And he's playing the the violin and the audience is appreciative and they clap The false self is much better qualified to deal with this situation. The false self. That's the facade the facade that i'm brilliant Violinist It's much more qualified. Right at that point the narcissist is at peace He feels wonderful He feels elated. There's no conflict. No dissonance. No argument because because the the the real self is put to sleep Yes, because it's not relevant. It's not right efficacious with it. I see that but Binary the possibility of a binary system gives rise to mental illness one of the main problems in previous theories of self states They couldn't account for mental illness because think for a minute if the operating system Operates on the basis of efficacy the basis of efficiency. You would never have mental illness Because you know when when to to take out this one and when you and you will never bring bring about mental illness is Dysfunction mental illness means you are not efficient. Something's not no much. Yeah, something's not working You're not efficient So if you have only One state situation where the operating system chooses benny 3 and benny 7 benny would be perfect forever There will be no problem What's but what happens if benny if benny develops a mental illness how to how to explain this Did the operating system fail? How could it fail? It knows which benny suits which so my explanation is they're actually competing bennies multiple bennies who are who are competing And the operating system is unable to decide between them Because they're all equally efficacious So this is I won't tell you why but I think I I know what you're talking about Yes, everyone knows what i'm talking about because every my work is based on much much closer to reality than the concept of self and because These are obstructions the concept of self is an obstruction anyone will tell you That they had situations where they didn't recognize themselves Anyone will tell you I can't believe I did this it's it's so not me Yes, true. It wasn't you. It was somebody else who is also you. Yes, it's a self state and this leads to This leads to the question of switching How the how is the switch taking place? So I came up with I I enlarge upon concepts of collapse and modification Collapse collapse and more more ratification Mortification collapse is when the self state no longer yields self efficacious outcomes fails the self state fails The sets of fails this creates Mortification mortification means enormous fear enormous apprehension anxiety dysfunction paralysis Etc etc etc angst Exactly and yes angst is much better word and then the the operating system switches It it Disables deactivates the failing the collapsed state And introduces another state which will be more Selfifications and then There's a question of what happens if you have seven Benny handles of 700 Benny handles. We don't know How many Benny handles there are How do you still feel that you're Benny handle? So of course all these Benny handles. Let's talk about Walter Mitty. Okay, Walter Mitty How do you still know that you are what they are? Gets close to home How does Walter Mitty knows that he's Walter Mitty? So Walter Mitty Knows that I mean has this feeling that he is one has this feeling of one unity of one continuity Because he shares memories And because he shares resources All the self states for example can access the imagination of Walter Mitty All the self states can access his intelligence at his recent his memories his memories. Does he also have hopes? Hopes these are effects. Yes Aspirations, which is which is an award for hopes He can they can they all access the same databases They they share the same databases and this creates a feeling of togetherness. Yes, right a feeling of teamwork kind of yes, and this is the continuity that we are feeling and But This the self states don't share all the memories The self states don't share all the memories. So we there is something called dissociative partition Only some of the memories are shared a big portion 80 percent 90 percent 60 percent But some memories some memories are unique to each self state And they are not they are not shared Now finally Why Why do people why do people fracture? Why do they fragment into self states? Why isn't Jung right? Maybe people really start off fragmented And then become a unitary self and this self is for life. Maybe he's right. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean why Why do I think that it's much more likely that people are fragmented? Then that they are they start out fragmented Everyone agrees that they start out Basically fragmented More or less because of the different influences they have From the father from the mother from the because they for example at some point They realize that mother is not the same as they are So there's already one object there a break. There is a break a schism and so on so More or less everyone agrees that in the initial few months Of life we are all fragmented somehow. There's a debate how the debate how but This but then the prevailing theories Multiple is that there is a process called synthesis or integration And all these fragments form finally a unitary whole. Okay, and I'm saying No, they don't form a unitary. They form an assemblage A group a troop like a theater troop, you know, yeah of self states ensembler ensemble of self states for life And then the question arises and that's a final question. I mean I can't go into all the my work The question arises. Why? Why there's no integration? Why don't I don't I believe in integration? I don't believe in integration because Of dissociation and because of trauma Life is full of traumas from a very early age Traumas Dissociations where your need when your needs are not met When you're frustrated When you are humiliated when you're shamed Etc etc They create A failure of synthesis and integration They create something which which is called realization deficit so This forces The child to actually maintain self states That each of these self states can cope with an unmet need Or a problem or a frustration or a trauma or The amazing thing what I find amazing is that everyone agrees that The first few years of life are exceedingly traumatic Just separating from mother At age six months to two years It's a process called it was two years in my case. It's it's This process is exceedingly traumatic just this So Everyone agrees that there is trauma massive trauma in early childhood and so on But then they're going to say, okay, there is a normal trauma, but it doesn't matter Which is shocking. Of course it matters It it does not allow A synthesis it does not allow constellation It leaves us broken for life And then we we take these fragments and we use them to cope with reality as best we can So we can say that we are actually as we said earlier. We are an ensemble. We are um a kaleidoscope Of fragments Working together. Yes I that's that's precisely what I believe. I believe we have a series of narratives I believe self states are essentially narratives We have a series of narratives Because in early childhood we learned that we are going to be frustrated. We're going to be traumatized. We're going to suffer pain Many of our needs are not going to be met We've learned this So we said, okay, we're going to create solutions For each of these situations multiple solutions These multiple solutions include what we call ego functions the ability to cope with reality The ability to regulate your sense of self-worth in the face of adversity in the face of conflict The the the ability to test your environment And to get cues from your environment. So There are these solutions these solutions and narrative solutions. This is a story It's a story you're telling yourself about who you are You know And then as the environment fluctuates and changes and flows You use your resources as you as as is self efficacious I think it's defies belief logic and observation To say that people are the same from age six to age 90. This Is mind-boggling. I find this mind-boggling and yet this is what we teach in university and So this might work