C h a p t e r  I.   "I"  p l a y i n g  w i t h  o n e s e l f.

From Igor Kalinauskas book "Games of I"
Translation by I. Shpigelman and B. Macdonald, 2006

As the practice shows, the target of any, I repeat, of any so called self-regulation method is Self-concept, that is, the collection of one's own perceptions.

If we imagine that we possess a set of sufficiently objective instruments for Self-concept analysis, we will find out that every self-regulation method, even such a harmless one as auto-training, first of all changes the Self-concept.

This story happened when I was working in an organization that assembled several instructors specializing in different self-regulation methods. On the coordinating council, where we had our theoretical seminars, I suggested: "Gentlemen, let us meet and discuss all our methods from the point of view of affecting the Self-concept. If we do that, we will have a reliable criteria for differentiating between the methods." Everyone agreed that it was very interesting, and very important. And yet, there always was found a pretext not to have such a seminar.

There are two reasons why I think that it was not a coincidence. The first reason is that, unfortunately, there exist instructors, who know, even approximately, which shifts in Self-concept are made by their methods, yet, who do not not want to make it a topic of conversation, do not want to make it known. Such instructors may be tentatively called manipulators. In a certain sense, all of us are manipulating each other, because we all interact, and, in this or another way affect each other. But when a person possess the knowledge and conceals it, and also conceals the consequences of the application of such knowledge we may speak of manipulation in its pure form.

The second reason of such an attitude toward Self-concept, as I think, lies in the fact that many instructors never think about what actually happens. They limit themselves by the description of the influence of their method on certain psychological or physiological aspects. They make tests and report: "As a result of the method's application, the average mental stability factor in the group has risen by two points. The anxiety factor has fallen by 3.5 points." And, at that, they consider their work completed. And we cannot blame them: this is how they were taught, this is how they understand psychological criteria, and, based on that material, they may quite reasonably talk about the impact of this or that method.

My compelling stand is that wherever possible, a person must realize what he is doing with himself, or, if he does not want to realize that, my professional duty is to inform the person of it. And, to start, I must begin with the explanation of what Self-concept is, and what happens with it.

If you want to stand on an active, creative position toward any method that starts with the word "self", you must try to understand what Self-concept is.

Self-concept. What is Self as I

There is neither too much or too little literature on the subject of Self-concept, however, the information is dispersed, with the sole exception of one (known to me) book, where this topic makes the corner-stone. This is the book by Robert Burns, "Self-concept in the classroom". In the book, the link between Self-concept and issues of pedagogic influence is described. The book is of equal interest for teachers and parents alike.

However, it may be said that the problem of Self-concept, the problem of the dynamics of its development, and the like, is far away from being analyzed in detail.

I tried to view this problem from a very practical angle, and, little by little, the following construct, consisting of three blocks was born.

The first block: Self as I. Each one of us has such an aspect in one's Self-concept: Self as I, or, Self as subject, but in this case as pure subject, vacuous and not differentiated. Self as self-identity. This is what gives us confidence before we go to sleep, the knowledge that tomorrow the same Self will wake. This is precisely why we can go to sleep with calm, because in the morning, waking up, we immediately find ourselves and immediately recognize ourselves. And although this point rarely enters into our thoughts, under careful examination we will find that a tremendous amount of psychological energy is spent on the sustaining of this self-identity.

There is a large variety of constructs, various psychological accommodations, which support this seemingly perfectly natural assuredness that I am I. And when you read some interesting books under the common title "spiritual literature", you should realize that such books cannot tell anything to a person who does not have special training. Why is it so? Because the larger part of psycho technology, hidden in such teachings as "Radja-yoga", "Tibetan Tantra", "Agni-yoga", "Teachings of South-American Magis", "African healers", traditions of certain Sufi orders, are all directly linked with the self-identity aspect of Self-concept.

Ideally, in the most of these teachings, an attempt is made to reconstruct the person's psyche in such a way, that his self-identity is be based on the plain assertion that I am I, and does not require any additional constructs. It is due to changes in the self-identity support mechanism, the tremendous amount of mental energy, described in those books may be released.

No one can do it by himself, even if one possesses the knowledge. One requires an instructor, who not only knows what is needed to be done, but also the mandatory sequence of steps, as well as the safety regulations. Trauma to the self-identity aspect of Self-concept causes a large number of experiment lovers to be gathered in the special divisions of mental hospitals, where the victims of the various experiments are maintained.

Any work with this aspect of Self-concept in the field of self-regulation demands the highest qualifications. I believe, that many instructors today, without a shadow of a doubt, organize courses, psychic schools, and the like, never think of this. If they were to take seriously the thing that they touched so clumsily and incompetently, most of them would never return to such activity. "But humans do not know what they do, and in that lies the power of this species".

What is Self as Other

The next large aspect that is more or less recognized by us, or, at least, which is easier to recognize, is the aspect Self as Other. In this aspect, one perceives oneself as an object, and describes oneself in the object's terms: "I am such and such, I have this and that, etc." We know, that there exists a problem of such-ness, the problem of attachment to a who knows how formed, yet rigid description of oneself as Other.

What is happening here? Let us ask ourselves a question: from where does the precise knowledge come that one of us is such-like, but not else-like? From nowhere. This aspect of Self-concept, as well as Self-concept in full, is constructed quite spontaneously, without us taking a part in its construction. The description of oneself is being built gradually, in the process of social communicating. And it is this description that so many people will defend with tears in their eyes, and fight for, with aggression and hysterics, being fully convinced that this description is the only true one. While, at large this description is not even made by us, it was made by chance.

You may argue: "But how could it be, Igor Nikolayevich? What about practice, practice of communication, practice of activities, practice that confirms or disproves certain facts?" And I will answer you: "But the practice itself, is it not conditioned by the description? And when the description exists, the practice will have no choice but to confirm it. Should I have decided that I am such and such, I will search and find the situations that confirm this such-ness. And I will avoid the situations that threaten to change my self-description." And this is precisely what we do in everyday communications and in the targeted communications as well.

When we say, "Ah, manipulators! Ah, villains!", this is completely groundless ethical enthusiasm, based on sheer ignorance. No one is manipulated by anyone, simply because no one knows anything.

Do you know your own description? Have you researched it, have you found out why there are contradictions, why it is incomplete, why in one place it is abundant with details, and in the other there is only a sketch? No. The greatest illusion, and, at the same time, the greatest psychological defense, is that assertion that a person seemingly know oneself. A primitive analysis shows that no one does.

The person does not know oneself. He has a self-evident opinion of himself, and this opinion is formed by mere chance. And you might try to persuade him in a direct manner that something is not correct in this opinion - he will fight you to the end. But, indirectly you can sway this opinion in any direction. He does not have control over his Self-concept, anyway. Even the mere fact of filling out a personal questionnaire already changes the person, because he has just answered so many questions about himself, that he had not asked himself for his whole life. In such a case, the measurement itself affects the one who is being measured. And that should be taken into account.

What is Self as Us

We have one more part to our Self-concept, as enormous as the two already described. The name of it is Self as Us. What does it mean? It means that even the most radical individualist, in fact represents a certain group, or, a certain Us. Such Us is somewhat studied in the psychology under the name of "reference group". This Us may consist of ideal subjects or real subjects, it may mutate into a certain direction, but it always exists.

Note, how rarely we say: "I think so", or, "I endorse it". More often than not we are trying to multiply ourselves, somehow: "Us, all of us, some of us, in our sphere, accepted by us. Us, by the grace of God, Nikolay the Second, Emperor of all Russia". This multiplicity, this non-stop carrying around our Us is a necessary attribute of the Self-concept, as in, of our integral self-identity. You may be up for an interesting discovery, if you try to get better acquainted with your company, because the definition of Them will be dependent on your definition of Self as Us. You will have a real chance to find out, in what kind of world you landed yourself, among which people you psychologically exist. What depends on it is your ability to notice or to ignore people, you will see which people will pass by without your paying the slightest attention, even though they would possess all imaginable and unimaginable virtues, they do not belong to your own Us , they are not from your company, not from your circle.

In a famous proverb, God was asked to show the greatest general of all times and people. And God pointed toward a shoemaker who was sitting and cobbling. And exclaimed the one who asked: "But he is just a cobbler?" "Yes he is, but if he had been a general, he would have made the best general of all." Roughly in the same manner we indifferently pass by the most interesting people, just because we are attached to our Us.

The true subject of self-adjustment

It is easy to derive from the above, that the person behaves toward others in exactly the same manner as he behaves toward oneself, and this manner is defined by his integral Self-concept. He simply cannot behave otherwise.

Therefore, we may conclude that this intricate, yet insanely attractive psychological construct under the name of Self-concept is the only true subject of self-adjustment. Whatever you do with yourself, whatever system you practice in an attempt to take hold of yourself, you, consciously or otherwise, affect the structure of your Self-concept, either predominantly in the mechanisms of self-identity, for example, Self as I, or in one's own description, for example, Self as Other, or by corrections to the content of your reference group, for example, Self as Us.

By changing your Self-concept you are also adapting to the new elements of the world view that is proposed by a specific self-adjustment school.

The easiest achievement is to learn, to live out, to experience that you are emptiness, a part of the Void. This is considered the easy step in all serious traditions ( Self as I aspect) - to experience the emptiness of this Self , because, as it is known, the pure Self is an empty Self.

The second by the degree of difficulty achievement is considered to experience oneself as a part of the Cosmos, as a fraction of the Universe, to experience in reality the unbreakable link between micro and macrocosm, when the description of oneself as Other becomes equal to the description of the Universe.

The third and the highest achievement of all times, that glorified the famous Hojja Nassreddin, it is to experience in reality oneself as part of humanity,for example, make Self as Us to equal all of humanity, that includes all people without a single exception, all living, all dead and all unborn. Therefore, stepping on the path of deliberating upon Self-concept we receive a key to any school of psychic development, constructive or destructive alike. That is, of course, if we still maintain the realization that cognition is in the search of a more adequate description of the world, not in the process of useless digging under the name of "How is it in reality?", the latter being simply methodically incorrect.

Realization of one's Self-concept

If you want to take an active stand toward everything that is done to you, attempt to become aware of your Self-concept. Instead of loading your head with an innumerable amount of books, in which people say all sorts of things about their own concepts, I encourage each of you to become an explorer of oneself, choosing as a starting point this simple construct: Self as I, Self as Other, Self as Us. And, in the places where you will fill a subconscious anxiety, I suggest you think and think and think.

Think. The anxiety is a signal. It is a sign of serious problems, a sign of serious blockage, it is your physiological defense in action, it is where the professional help is needed. But, to a certain extent, such a realization is accessible to anyone.

Although, if you do not wish to be left without illusions of being affected by voodoo, malefice, diabolism, and other things that fall upon us, poor creatures, from all imaginable sides, then stop thinking. It is a quite convenient approach toward explaining many things: "It was not my fault, it was because of that." If you do not want to be deprived of it, then do not analyze your Self-concept, because, as soon as you step upon this path, you will begin to notice that in much greater extent than you could ever imagine, all aspects of your life are passing in the dialog between your Self-concept and the circumstances of reality. And precisely in such interaction the reality is so multifaceted, so full of various meanings and multiple aspects, that it will easily unfold toward your own description of it.

There is an ancient formula: any description will correspond to some aspect of reality, but all possible descriptions will not exhaust all of reality. It seems to me that it is a quite sound methodological position. Accepting it, and analyzing your Self-concept, you will see, and, to a greater or lesser extent, realize the influence directed toward you from outside. You will sit at your TV, watch a show, and not only enjoy it, but also realize which programs are planted into your so called "completely independent" consciousness via your Self-concept mechanisms. Even the producers of the show may not realize it, but you will, because nothing at all may be done to a person, bypassing his Self-concept. Any influence is an influence on Self-concept, any psychological training is directed toward affecting Self-concept.

In the last twenty years, on the West, due to the birth of humanitarian psychology, there are some developments on this subject, but they are conceptually apart. Certain variations work better than others. Do not be afraid that someone will do something to you. One certainly will. And you all do something to each other all the time. We are humans. We are made in such a manner that we make each other. As, in the process of socialization we were made into humans in our childhood, so we make each other.

Practice of our Tradition

So, what makes sense to know and remember, and how to apply that knowledge to our pragmatic tasks? In order to make the external influences constructive to a maximal extent, and in order to efficiently shield oneself from destructive influences, we will introduce the notion of "instrumental Self-concept". More specifically, the notion of "instrumental aspect of Self-concept", because this is only a fragment of the whole.

I propose to introduce into the description the psychological construct named "instrumental aspect of Self-concept" and to single out the bulk of self-relations that can be assembled under the common term "I can do it." And divide all such skills that can be related to oneself into three categories: skills related to physical abilities, e.g. to the control over one's body, we will call such skills "body as instrument"; skills related to our consciousness, which we will call "consciousness as instrument"; and skills related to our psycho-emotional sphere and psychic energy - "psycho energy as instrument". Since we have built "I can" into our construct, this "I", the self-consciousness in the form of "this is I", or, in any other form, will link this construct together as its aspect of coordination.

The instruments between "I" and the World

Why am I emphasizing this point: the instrumental aspect of Self-concept? Because we got used to dealing with tools. As text books teach us, at some point in time, between us and the reality an external instrument has appeared - the instrument of labor. This instrument became the "third voice" in a dialog with the world.

But we often forget that the instruments of labor are not only represented by crude material objects, such as a bludgeon, bow, axe, excavator or computer. There exist also the ideal instruments of labor: ways of thinking, ways of perception, ways of reacting. We forgot that in our psyche there are higher domains of self-control, "higher activity of the higher nervous system."

Psyche by itself, psyche that is not reduced to any material essence is also an instrument of labor. And this tool may be capable of much more than the mightiest material instrument. But we have trust in objects more than we have trust in ourselves, to a ridiculous extent, bordering on fetishism. And this is also a peculiar side of our existence.

We contain an instrumental concept within ourselves, and we need to learn to use it and to perfect it. To perfect in two directions: the quality of the instrument itself, and the art of using this instrument. In order to avoid provoking some damaging processes,for instance, breaking the personality into unfit pieces, we introduced the definition: we call instrumental everything of which we can say: "I can do it".

If you can think in three different ways - this is the instrumental part of your intellect. If you can react in four different ways - this is the instrumental part of your reaction. If you can enter into sixteen distinct states of psycho-energetics - this is the instrumental part. I like a lot of sayings by Gurgiev: "In a sense, the goal of any spiritual teachings is to transform a person into an Actor with a capital `A', that is to make a person play on oneself". It is necessary to get used to such a view of oneself and of the other selves, get used to the statement that we possess an instrumental quality, and it only makes sense to learn to use this quality and to learn to perfect it. And then, instead of our customary "Ah, psychic!", there will be natural realization: here is a person, who, due to his specific gift, or, due to some event in his life, or, due to his training (one can always see the difference), mastered his instruments to a certain degree, the instruments that I possess as well, and the instruments, that I can master as well, to a greater or lesser extent.

Then there will be no need to talk about mysticism, no need to invent some exotic entourage for the most simple facts - it will be sufficient to introduce into your self-description the notion of the instrument, and the doorway will be open for you toward anything that now only causes a naive astonishment. In our own selves, not only bodies but psyche as well, there exists such a set of instruments that may empower us to make real changes in objective reality.

Why are all extraordinary abilities are manifested in the course of interaction with people? Because we are made out of people. The instruments we have are all the same. True, we are all different, unique, but in a completely different aspect, in the aspect where we are pure subjects that possess or do not possess the instruments. In the instrumental aspect we are all pretty much the same, because we all are the product of the evolution of human society, which created the instruments in the course of the history of its existence. The scientists and the artists will understand well what I just said. If a certain way of thinking was not known to anyone, then it would not occur to anyone that such a way was even possible. But as soon as it is discovered by someone, everyone else joins the chorus: "Dear Lord, how could it be, it is so obvious, it is precisely the way to think now."

Those who develop their instrumental skills will immediately take the stand of sobriety. I will remind you that sobriety here consists of three parts. Firstly, our description of ourselves, for example, the aspect of Self-concept that is called Self as Other is at least incomplete, it does not give a full picture, and, in its large part it was constructed by chance and without our subjective participation.

Secondly, the aspect of Self-concept that is related to Self as I, , to self-identity, is not known to us at all. And one should not touch this aspect without specific needs to do so, without adequate skilled guidance, or without precise and constructive knowledge, because here lies the most dangerous potential - the potential of destructive influences.

Thirdly, the Self as Us part of Self-concept - this aspect may and should be scrutinized. We should get a sense of the company that by mere chance was built around us, and try to decide whether to keep it or leave it.

Such an approach to the design of Self-concept gives us an opportunity to realistically, constructively, and technologically interpret the texts about "self-improvements" that many people are so fond of.

Psyche as instrument

Psyche is not only a beautiful, skillfully and intricately made thing, but in certain places it is also a very fragile one. Amateurs, as a general rule should not touch things that do not need to be touched.

Practical, constructive knowledge here is quite dangerous for its own bearer, because a person cannot separately relate to oneself, and separately relate to the other. This is one whole system. If I harm something in my system of relations with others, I will harm the same place in my system of relations with myself. It is not possible to separate those two spheres so that they do not touch each other. There is such a design flaw in our psyche.

But on the other hand, it is an advantage rather than a flaw, because it does not allow to exist in the real world all those mystical villains that strive on the pages of fiction and non-fiction books. Due to this "flaw" the real life villains are not fictional ones, and the real ones are self-destructing. There is always a limit to their abilities.

These two things are intimately tied together: my attitude toward another human being and my attitude to myself. It is very difficult "to saw" it apart. To do so, the self-identity block must be built in a completely different manner, with a fundamentally different design. But this fundamentally differently designed block requires such radical changes in the world outlook, in various views, that in the end such a being simply will not be capable of doing that we might think he could do.

Any design is limited, even the design of our psyche. There are rules of interaction between subjective and objective realities and those rules cannot be bypassed in principle. We have quite an amount of illusions on this subject, dark fantasies, scarecrows and bogeys that outweigh the reality. Simply out of ignorance. Those scarecrows and boogies play the role of negative reinforcement in the process of socialization. They anchor certain values and behavioral conventions within us. They are needed by our culture, but have nothing to do with knowledge.

The traditional methods of psycho-technique are often coined as magic, the methods that allow us to simply maintain psychological equilibrium. It simply means that we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Destroying religion and everything that, as we thought was connected to it, we have destroyed a huge cultural stratum that used to take an active part in the process of socialization, or, roughly speaking, in the process of manufacturing human beings, destroyed what we call psycho-culture, descent of psycho-skills. And as a result we received the end product, again, very roughly speaking, that was deprived of many defensive psychological mechanisms. So as soon as the totalitarian order of the society started breaking apart, very many people, I repeat, very many people started experiencing a serious psychological discomfort.

Psycho-culture in its details

Psycho-culture is a very delicate thing, as any other culture. The process of building certain psychic mechanisms required for specific goals was taken out of the technology of human manufacturing, and nothing of equal value was introduced instead. I am quite dismayed that so far there was not any attempt to comprehend and analyze the technology of human manufacturing.

I am not saying that we could possibly create an exhaustive description of this process. There were cruel experiments in the history of humanity, where babies were placed into a fully controlled environment, and yet, the equivalent results could not be produced, because our brain is inherently unique and all chances cannot be blocked out. But we may at least comprehend certain general key points, lest we should commit such terrible, should I say, follies in the future, when dealing with culture. We engage so much in science (the scientists will now say: "Not enough". Perhaps. Yet, too much). And we engage so little in culture, very little.

No one seems to be interested in it, but it is the culture that ensures the human manufacturing process. Culture, of all others! Science does not manufacture humans. Science is capable of interfering with the biological reproduction,for example, in the manufacturing of a body with a nervous system and a brain. But in order for this body to become human, it must get through the process of socialization. And this process is conditioned by the culture. Once, I came up with the following image: we live in a culture of broken mirrors, we have broken the mirror into which the human looks, and through which he realizes oneself and changes oneself, the mirror of culture, or psycho-culture. Now we are using only chips. Whoever gets what. One gets yoga, another - something else, but all of them, at the end, are the fragments of someone else's mirrors. Until we digest all of it, integrate it back, and create anew something that blends well, more than one decade will pass, or perhaps a century.

It means, all this time we will stay with the broken mirror, we will be viewing ourselves only by pieces. Thus, the problems of psychical integration, problems of holism for oneself ( в самом себе для себя бытие) - these are tremendous problems.

After all, I am a practical psychologist. People bring to me their problems. In principle, a large part of all problems are reduced to their inability to see a live, holistic picture of the inner reality, to integrate the inner reality. It keeps falling apart. Figuratively speaking, pandemic neurosis. You know, as one terrific psychiatrist used to say: "What is the difference between a maniac and a neurotic? The maniac sees just one dark tunnel, and at the end of it a very bright light bulb, and all go there. But the neurotic sees many tunnels, all of them are poorly lit, and he has no idea how he gets from one tunnel to another." Quite an image.

Maybe, you are reading this book because you are searching for something that would let you make peace with yourself. Not with the surroundings but with your very self, that is, using psychological parlance, you require holism somewhere within you, something that will help you to befriend yourself and to love yourself. And the more you love yourself, and the more you like yourself, the easier it will become to live with others. You will become more tolerant, more loyal, more conventional and so on. But why? Simply because you will have solved the main problem - you will have learned to love yourself.

People that come to us from other countries, from the world where this problem is solved (more or less) immediately notice the difference between us and themselves. I seem to be quite a calm person, and yet, I am instantly told: "Why are you nervous?" I ask: "Do I look nervous to you?" - "Yes you are. Even you seem to be constantly astrain". But when I look at him - he is calm.

What training has he practiced? Their training consists of the fact that they have everything in the stores, on the market, at home. No, guys, this is not the answer. He has different relations with himself. When he was made, all the parts were put into him. But when we were made, a few important parts simply did not exist. Because they were declared non-existent, harmful. But nothing else was not put into us instead of those. We all know that if a human child will not be raised among humans, he will not become a human. Therefore, we are made by people and out of people. But we still lack a few parts. And though, the social situation has abruptly and deeply changed, due to inertia we are still unable to trust ourselves.

What could be repaired in there? What could be changed? What could be put in? I do not belong to the idealists camp, I try to find out, precisely, what needs to be put in to optimize the situation to the fullest extent. This search for the missing block brought me to the following realization. Studying and practicing so called ancient teachings and all the scientific knowledge dug out from the most accredited sources, we came to the subject that we called "active self-regulation". We created such a method, that, if a person wants to use it, it will be put into his Self-concept, and it will allow him to become more proactive, will raise his chances to realize himself as pure subject.

Means of Compensation

A person must be given means to compensate the gaps in his construction. Laying claims without such means is as ridiculous as obligating a stove to serve as a personal computer. Let us file a complaint to the Better Business Bureau. Let us write marketing research on why it is so important and why the time is right. But it will stay just a stove. It does not possess what is needed to become a computer.

This is why I think it is more correct to give the person the means to advance his skills in the field of relations with himself before laying any claims. And now I ask you to perceive this book precisely as such a means. This is why I am not against psychics. I am all for them, all along. But I am also for that the knowledge that is susceptible to anyone would not be claimed to be elite, esoteric, magical and only for chosen ones. This is my firm position.

So what is this cheap leg-pulling? If I was taught something, and I am convinced that it is useful, then it is my obligation to share it. Maybe it is needed by someone else? As for esoteric science, nothing will happen to it. It is perfectly capable of hiding itself. It defends itself, because it is - esoteric, you cannot spill the beans no matter what. Not because it is forbidden or something. Simply because you cannot, just like that.

I seriously suggest you remind yourself of Self-concept from time to time, to reflect upon it. It will not be a waste of time, it will not dry out the brains of the artist, who is so anxious about it, and it will not make day-dreamers out of the engineers and scientists, who in their turn are quite anxious about it. It is equally good for anyone, because it is your relation with yourself. And the better you do this, the greater your chances for success in any activity that you have chosen for yourself.

Play and win!