Going from “Parts” to “Self,” you said the Self might be all the Parts processing together. (Capitalized “Self” means the IFS “Core Self.”) How likely is the hypothesis that the Self is an artifact of the therapeutic procedure? When someone says they feel angry at a Part and claims that anger does not come from a Part but is their self, the therapist doesn’t accept it. The therapist tells them they need to unblend. But when they describe the 8 C’s and say that is their self, the therapist does not ask them to unblend, perceiving that as their Self.
When you ask how likely it is that it’s an artifact of the therapeutic procedure, what’s the alternative hypothesis you have in mind? What would not being an artifact of the therapeutic procedure mean?
It would probably mean something like “rigpa” or “buddha-nature” or “atman” or “hridayam” or “spirit” or “divine spark” or “pure intelligence”, right? The general concept (or transcendence of concepts) behind those terms seems to have been established as an empirical phenomenon, even if one feels a need to avoid all supernatural connotations of the language used to describe it; it’s what Sam Harris tries to get users of the Waking Up app to experience with the instruction to “look for what’s looking” (or what’s described in the “Dancing with the Gods” essay mentioned in another of your posts).
Going from “Parts” to “Self,” you said the Self might be all the Parts processing together. (Capitalized “Self” means the IFS “Core Self.”) How likely is the hypothesis that the Self is an artifact of the therapeutic procedure? When someone says they feel angry at a Part and claims that anger does not come from a Part but is their self, the therapist doesn’t accept it. The therapist tells them they need to unblend. But when they describe the 8 C’s and say that is their self, the therapist does not ask them to unblend, perceiving that as their Self.
Oops, never got around answering this question.
When you ask how likely it is that it’s an artifact of the therapeutic procedure, what’s the alternative hypothesis you have in mind? What would not being an artifact of the therapeutic procedure mean?
It would probably mean something like “rigpa” or “buddha-nature” or “atman” or “hridayam” or “spirit” or “divine spark” or “pure intelligence”, right? The general concept (or transcendence of concepts) behind those terms seems to have been established as an empirical phenomenon, even if one feels a need to avoid all supernatural connotations of the language used to describe it; it’s what Sam Harris tries to get users of the Waking Up app to experience with the instruction to “look for what’s looking” (or what’s described in the “Dancing with the Gods” essay mentioned in another of your posts).