Talking To Seymour Epstein On Defining S

IRJMSH Vol 11 Issue 6 [Year 2020] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print)
Talking to Seymour Epstein: On Defining Self

Dr. Indu Shekhar
Assistant Director
National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development
A-7, Institutional Area, Narela, Delhi- 110040, INDIA
When I was searching for the ‘current theorists’ of personality system on Google to do a
biography of Narendra Modi came across R. C. Curtis edited The Relational Self, could not buy
this and then downloaded the most attractive Seymour Epstein’ theory known as ‘cognitive –
experiential self-theory’ (CEST).The article is very interesting but has many issues which can be
and should be discussed while understanding personality as a system. I am going to deal with the
article only by suggesting what more could have been done in terms of the conceptual,
methodological and theoretical underpinnings. Seymour Epstein’ use of the approach and theory
are interchangeable in the article. In one sense, theories and approaches seem to be the same.
But, approaches also are ways of formulating the problem. Approach is a theoretically
individuated prefix or suffix. For example, Marxian, Weberian, Durkheimian, and Freudian
approach. It is an individuation of a theory. I was amazed to read Seymour Epstein because most
of the time we think alike and am Epsteinian to a great extent. Theories are always scientific,
while approaches can take creative liberty and be artistic.
Let me begin with the title ‘The Cognitive Self, the Psychoanalytic Self, and the Forgotten
Selves’. A title Self: Cognitive, Psychoanalytic and Forgotten would have been better instead of
repeating self thrice. Now, self is always conscious, cognitive and congruent subjectively with a
degree of variations in the levels. Once it is a cognitive self, it has to be a psychoanalytic self
consequently irrespective of levels. Any self is never forgotten forever rather those so called
forgotten selves are the hidden forces and sources of residues, derivations, and persistence of
aggregates of conscious and subconscious. I am not trained in psychology professionally except
my familiarity with social psychology as one paper in Honours and then the theorists of
sociology who have used psychology as a variable to understand human nature and action, such
as; Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and two schools of Symbolic Interactionism
and Phenomenology. I consider Adam Smith a psychologist first and think that psychology has
not moved much beyond the horizons of Sigmund Freud, G .H. Mead and C. H. Cooley. Self-
concept is nothing but Cooley’ ‘Looking Glass Self’.
“The theory is the way I think about Psychology and the way I think about Psychology is the
theory” (p.34) is not self-fulfilling prophecy of Epstein considering his contribution to
psychological theory but a genuine claim. I also wrote “The theory is the way I think about
biography and the way I think about biography is the theory” during my designing time but
deleted considering it immature. I accept that it comes as a part of flow naturally but then
restraint. “One can do just so much in a brief review, and it is therefore not surprising that what
limitations I find are not with what was said, but with what was omitted” (p.34) can be written by
a high academic caliber with precision. However, the use of brief in classical sense is a modest
International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) Page 174
www.irjmsh.com
one meaning thereby almost a volume. In the article, he comments in the headings on the history
of self-concept, its definition, place of motivation, levels of processing and research implications.
I do not have much idea of the academic history of self-concept compared to my ‘own- self’.
With the above background therefore, the first three will be discussed, fourth will be touched
upon and fifth will be left for the readers to enter into the discussion. My intervention (or for that
matter any researchers’) is an example of research implication. However, at the outset, I must say
that all my additions are not going to complete the project of defining self initiated and
developed by Seymour Epstein.
The History of self-concept
Self-concept is hyphenated! This has been accepted that there is a ‘concept of self’. Concept
is the beginning of any definition, method and theory. The same way then we can have others-
concept which is included in the self-concept, albeit. Looking Glass Self of Cooley is the real
self as a definition. Seymour Epstein does not agree completely with the phenomenological
psychologists, who go too far in their insistence that the need to maintain the integrity of the
conceptual system is the fundamental need of all. However, agrees that it can help us resolve
what would otherwise appear to be paradoxes in human behavior. Seymour Epstein writes’
“Westen graciously refers to my 1973 article on the self-concept as “seminal”” (p.35). However,
I will point out the seminal elements and properties which Westen could not, if Seymour
Epstein’ accusation is right. It was a solid foundation in 73 from today’ standards of variables
and can say that has moved little bit. There is a lack of completeness and coherency in CEST.
Motivation as a variable cannot be complete without attitude. Attitude is more important than
motive. This is a question of range or degree. Aspects of range should be decoded. SE combines
psychoanalytic theory with the modern cognitive theory (plus others) and calls it an Integrative
theory. Epstein’ cognitive incongruity and restricted belief system is definitely a breakthrough in
this direction to situate the problem and has seminal character. ‘By its own rules of inference’ is
a convenient and cultural use and seem close to the areas of interpretation and meaning. Do
cultures evolve on its own or is evolved? The meaning of the actors varies from theological,
metaphysical or abstract to positivist or scientific stages depending upon the situation.
Rationality also is perceived with the respective choice of stages or arrangements of the mode of
thought. Probably, the same meaning Ogden and Richards is talking about of Reference,
Meaning and Semiotics by including both causal and imputed relations.
Definition (and Concept)
I have indicated the significance of concept in the beginning when dealing with the title.
Threefold division of self by Freud (Id, Ego, and Super Ego) and others seem to be a logical
corollary of Thesis, Anti-thesis and Synthesis in the context of modernity. Human being’ nature
is dialectical also. Seymour Epstein writes’ “Westen draws attention to the inadequacies in the
definition of the self-concept that have thus far been offered. He notes that psychoanalysts
typically use the term in a variety of ways without defining any of them, whereas social-
cognitive theorists define it in a circular way, in which they describe people’s selves as their
views about themselves. Westen, himself, makes no attempt to define the term” (p.35).
www.irjmsh.com
I agree with Westen for his criticism of psychoanalysts in case of CEST only. Let us not
forget Eric Erikson in the past and Katherine Tidrick in the present who have done a biography
of Gandhi. And, to develop, we have to combine ‘our’ selves with the existing theoretical
frameworks. This is an art of dying and living for science as for religion in the past and present
too. It is an equal to sacrifice. What Westen is questioning (views about themselves) is the real
challenge for the modern theorists especially who are in the making. Seymour Epstein himself in
this brief review has used approach, self, self-concept, and self-theory differently. He writes,
“Following the lead of James, I define the self as object of knowledge as all the beliefs that
individuals hold about their bodies, personalities, and objects of identification, including
possessions and institutions” (p.36).
This is a definition of self and not self-concept what is at issue here for Westen. Remember
the quote before this when Westen is talking of the inadequacies in self-concept (a hyphenated
one) and not self as defined by Seymour Epstein. The definition seems to be a static one.
Possession used in definition is not a neutral variable. There are many institutions which defies
it. The sense of possession of even fine scholarly, aesthetical and ethical qualities is not
considered good. Socrates can be remembered. However, he writes’ “As theories are dynamic
structure that interact with environments, organize experience, direct behavior, and grow in the
process, they are, in a sense, the nonpalpable essence of the person, or “the ghost in the
machine”. This is very likely where the idea of a “soul” arose (Epstein, 1973).” (p.36). He could
not carry this soul to its full journey. ‘Following the lead of James’ is not a very good way to
define. I have never known any definition which refers to somebody when giving the definition.
The next line establishes the existence of two selves. “ As CEST assumes that people have
separate rational and experiential conceptual systems, they necessarily have two selves that are
objects of knowledge (remember the example of the person with high self –esteem at one level
and low self –esteem at the other)”(p.36).This could be elemental and fundamental, no doubt. It
is a fact that there is a dialectical self. But again, it needs to be refined and sharpened to the point
of a meaning of relation between the two. The relations of relation in Nadelian sense has to be
seen. Rational and experiential self can be said to be a seminal property attempting towards
differentiation, types and classification to construct binary set, so to say. The theoretical
character of difference and classification must be appreciated. But, it needs to be developed in
the direction which encompasses the gap between the two to cover the world of range or whole
to its full. I also kept rational and emotional self for not less than twenty years but now replace
with survival and sacrificial self. These two selves are definitely the modern dual selves.
Rationality belongs to Max Weber. I owe to Charles Darwin for he brought survival to the fore
and Socrates and Rasputin who brought sacrifice to the fore. There is forgotten self around here
which may take a super semiotic form residing on the borderlines to negotiate translating the sub
and un into a structural-functional meaning.
Place of Motivation
While discussing the role of motivation, Epstein writes, “What this approach leaves out is a
systematic analysis of what the sources of motivation are in the first place. Are they limited to
www.irjmsh.com
emotions, such as fear, anger, and sadness?”(36:1992). A seminal trait here but again suffers
from incompleteness in two senses. One is the need to see fear, anger and sadness in all its
ramifications and two is to relate to the other side (Howard Becker) of the same. As to the
problem one, an inter and intra linkages of fear of failure in the past, present and future, anger of
the past (and present too if it exists for the actor), and sadness for loss of beloved ones, properties
and self-esteem has to be established. As to the problem two, a dichotomous or binary set of fear,
anger and sadness needs to be reformulated for the sake of the completeness of the range. For
example, fear, anger and sadness should be combined with fearlessness (one of my variables),
calmness and happiness. ‘Pain brings out the best in people, doesn’t it?’ asked Bob Dylan.
Nothing is bigger than conquering anger and violence with rational calmness and love. Epstein
further writes’ “Where do variables such as pleasurable and unpleasurable sensations fit in, and
how about more complex states that are important sources of human affect, such as threats to
self-esteem?”.(p.36) The role of pleasurable and unpleasurable sensations is ephemeral in nature
and its sense itself heavily varies over the passing of the time in one’ own life. Moreover, it can
be abstract at some level. There are changes of the same thing’s or event’s perception over time.
A point of humiliation in earlier stage of life can be a source of strength at a later stage of life.
Threats to self-esteem should be understood with a binary set of survival and sacrificial self for
the sake of range or degree of an individual to be studied and conceptual coherences of the
framework. There has to be a complete world of range or degree for the analysis to attain
universal character. Let us examine his following line, where theoretical foundation lies on
motives:
“According to CEST, there are four basic motives arising from the interaction of human
biology and life experiences:(a) the need to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, (b) the need
to assimilate the data of reality into a relatively stable, coherent, conceptual system (which
subsumes the need to maintain the assimilating system), (c) the need to maintain relatedness, and
(d) the need to enhance self –esteem” (p.36, bold italics mine).
Interaction takes place between two entities. In fact, it is unity of body and mind into
action. Body and mind are not separate in that sense but symbiotic. It is not like two head lights,
two legs, two wheels etc but may be like starter of each other. Mind is an abstraction of body.
Body is a concrete whole. Both are friends to each other. Sometimes we want to take bath or do
something but do not happen unless ordered by the body. Now, I put almost dichotomous themes
of individual clause on motive and belief-dimension, as it is into sets.
Set- 1: Four Basic Motives
a Pleasure Pain
b Reality Stable
concept
c Relatedness
d Self-esteem
www.irjmsh.com
It is conspicuous here that clause a and b has complete set. Assimilating system in Clause
(b) should be Integrated or Integrative system. Clauses c) and d) in the right side are empty,
which he has been able to do in the next related concept of belief-dimension. Men are born leftie
and everywhere habituated to righties. Motivation is in-built differently in the personalities. For
one individual, the sense of motivation remains the same as factor while attitude may change.
Attitude can be more important. Let us examine his next line of theoretical foundation on belief-
Dimension:
“To be able to allocate resources appropriately, people automatically monitor the state of
fulfillment of their basic needs by locating themselves along four basic belief-dimensions that
are associated with the four basic needs: (a) the belief in the world as a source of pleasure versus
pain (optimism vs. pessimism),(b)the belief in the world as meaningful (including predictable,
controllable, and just) versus meaningless.(c)the belief that other people are a source of support
versus threat(trust versus suspiciousness), and (d) the belief in the self as worthy versus
unworthy(high versus low self-esteem)”(p.36, bold italics mine ).
We know his focus and interest in the sources of motivation and here he talks of resources,
however, rightly. In one line, sources of motivation are both material and non-material
re/sources.
Set-2: Four Basic Belief- Dimensions
a. Pleasure Pain
b. Meaningful Meaningless
C. Support Threat
d. Worthy Unworthy
Levels of Processing:
He talks of both Clinical and experiential evidence in this part noted by Weston which is
about the psychological techniques of analysis and understanding of the cases foreign to me.
Along with, he gives three conceptual systems – associationistic, rational and experiential in the
section and ends with the line before conclusion, “This is the system in which a person’s implicit
theory of reality resides and which automatically organizes experience and directs behavior”
(p.37). Associative would have been a better word. Let us take the same back from the history of
the self- concept, “It achieves an integration of the two theories (plus others) by adding to the
Freudian unconscious a preconcious level of processing that operates by its own rules of
inference (Epstein, 1983, 1990, 1991a, 1991b). It is in this realm that a person’s theory of reality
that automatically organizes experience and directs behavior is assumed to reside” (p.35).
Automatic is a mechanical use, however, an attempt to find sui-generic character would be a
better thing. He is far away from being close to ideal-types. ‘Automatically organizes
experience’ seems to be a formulation of ‘the’ problem. He will remain as an inescapable
reference in the world of understanding of self and personality system. He concludes with
repetition. A glance at the 4 basic motives and belief-dimensions indicate few things which
could be of great theoretical significance both in terms of the coherence of the conceptual system
www.irjmsh.com
as well as its bearing upon the understanding of the self in terms of the personality studies. Now,
we shall study his Postulates to find the significance and development. SE should have actually
constructed 4 different motives and belief-dimension on a conscious and unconscious in the right
and left of the dichotomous pattern-variable in order to create a ‘set of binary sets’ to achieve the
theoretical level. Taking mostly from Seymour Epstein, I will add few missing variables and
alternatives into the set towards completion. I repeat postulates from both the earlier lines of
theoretical nature on 4 basic motives and belief-dimensions to hint the direction of the possibility
of conceptual development.
Postulates of Motive:
(a) The need to maximize pleasure and minimize pain,
(b) The need to assimilate the data of reality into a relatively stable, coherent, conceptual system
(which subsumes the need to maintain the assimilating system),
(c) The need to maintain relatedness, and
(d) The need to enhance self –esteem.
Revised Set 1: Non- Italics are mine.
Four Basic Motives
CONCIOUS Principle UNCONCIOUS
a. Pleasure(Maximization) Negative correlation Pain (Minimization)
b. Data of Reality Assimilate Stable,Coherent,Conceptual

Dialectical,Integrated Dream/Phantacy,Utopia
Birth of Defiance and
construction
c. Self Relatedness Collectivity
Dialectical
d. Enhance self –esteem Enhance Unself, toleration for others
Suspension of esteem
EXPLANATION:
1. He has successfully been able to begin with set of Pleasure and Pain on motive. Out of the
four Postulates of motive, (a) is the only one which is complete and coherent in totality. There is
a negative correlation between the two variables of pleasure maximization and pain
minimization, which he has not been able to repeat in any other set.
2. The Postulate has reality on the one side and stability on the other does not mean much. The
other side of reality can be dream, phantacy, and utopia. What he calls assimilating should be
integrated. Assimilation is a one way process while integrated nature will cover the whole. The
opposite of reality only gives birth to defiance and construction. This Postulate lacks clarity and
precision. If we look at the variables of both the sides which he is always doing, remains
unachieved. Both the end of the scale is blurred.
www.irjmsh.com
3. Clause(c) and (d) are just half postulates. I temporarily opt for collectivity for the empty right
box. Relatedness is mediation and cannot be a ‘construct- variable’.
4. Enhance self-esteem has a unilinear nature which can be dialectical or hyperbolic. It is present
in both the sets. It is a variable at par with pleasure and pain. Unselfing can happen in both
survival and sacrificial way. All the great people have to first and finally unself themselves.
Postulates of belief-dimension:
(a) The belief in the world as a source of pleasure versus pain (optimism vs. pessimism),
(b)The belief in the world as meaningful (including predictable, controllable, and just) versus
meaningless,
(c) The belief that other people are a source of support versus threat (trust versus
suspiciousness), and (d) The belief in the self as worthy versus unworthy (high versus low self-
esteem).
Revised Set 2: Non- Italics are mine.
Four Basic Belief- Dimensions
CONCIOUS principle UNCONCIOUS
a. Pleasure(Optimism) Negative Pain(Pessimism)
Good correlation Evil
b. Meaningful SELF Meaningless

Predictable, Dialectics Unpredictable, Uncontrollable
Controllable Einstein and Unjust,
and just, Speculation
Control
c. Support(Trust) Negative Threat(suspicion)
Encourage correlation Insult
d. Worthy(High self- Dialectics Unworthy(Low self-esteem)

esteem)
EXPLANATION:
1. Here, it is obvious that pleasure and pain as a variable has a repeated beginning in belief
dimension. It cannot be without reason. However, his alternative or substitute in the bracket of
optimism and pessimism makes it questionable. Pleasure and optimism and pain and pessimism
are not the same thing. In fact, there was no need of repetition rather exploring with optimism
and pessimism separately would have been better.
2. The postulate glaringly misses the other side of Unpredictable, Uncontrollable and Unjust. To
do with the range I quote Albert Einstein, “There are two ways to live your life-one is as though
nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle”.
www.irjmsh.com
3. The set of support and threat constructed on the principle of negative correlation is clear and
meaningful. Probably this is the second postulate which is complete. But again, the alternative of
trust and suspicion could have been a separate set.
4. The last clause has a high and low but is unable to show the relationship between the two. He
has been able albeit in this set to create two negative correlations. I never wanted to do all the
clauses half heartedly.
He should have matched both the sets with each other. There can be a set of motive which can
be dichotomous or binary while there can be a set of belief-dimension which can be dialectical in
nature integrated through the relation between need and resources.
A Footnote to Science of Personality
I will be testing a trusted son of the queen of sciences. Two aspects of natural sciences and
physical sciences, such as theory and practical in social science particularly in psychology and
sociology in terms of the development of the methods for building theories today means
integration of the knowledge every minute in life to sacrifice the self for contributing what was
required and expected. A Hippocratic unity of the art of science and the science of an art is my
take. Modern human being has a proclivity to prove scientifically. For example; there is almost a
pattern of attempts both orally and written to prove religion as scientific. Seymour has touched
the contours of theory; still we need to work more. I will express my feeling beginning with the
issues in the article and enter with only quote from C.H.Cooley ending with my own-self.
Neither 37 nor 73 but 14
Neither ‘functional autonomy’ of Allport (1937) nor ‘motivation’ of Epstein (1973) but a free
decision which comes from differentiated self interested learners capacity, is the clue to
personality study and analysis today. It only seems that free decision comes from autonomy.
Functional autonomy then is like a magical gift. Actually, there is another possibility that
differentiated self interested learning capacity of the actors create the space for them to function.
For example; the world of entrepreneurship, rags to riches stories and the journey of a tea boy to
the Prime Minister (2014). I have used ‘meaning’ and ‘Interpretation’ as variable for taking
decisions and making transitions from one domain to another for Narendra Modi. Attitude,
motivation etc come and sound as a jargon after this in understanding.
As to the question whether they are limited to emotions they may be finally! In one sense,
human beings are just a bundle of emotions only otherwise there is no need (physical urgency) to
commit suicide or kill someone (for Rs. 20 only-news last year) without authority. In another
sense, it is a bundle of institutions. Sadness is serene and subconscious factor for creation. It
takes us to trance at times. The relationship between sadness, and, pain and pleasure, and
happiness should be studied. Response to threat should be looked more from survival point of
view and more complex emotions probably are the highest state of consciousness for
visualization of the self, which later develops a sui- generic character. Subjectively, this range is
always complete, only conceptual coherency has to evolve with it.
Body is guided by mind and vice-versa but has an inter-dependent and autonomous
existence. Pain in the body by diseases, wound, injury, cut, burn, loss of hair, teeth, nail or any
www.irjmsh.com
part of the body of the self is one thing and pain in the mind (cognition) by loss of beloved ones
to the actor, failure in one’s own desired goals, remembrances of one’s own bodily pain is
another thing. The relationship between bodily and emotive pain should be studied. The sense of
loss or possession also changes. The same process is there in the concept of pleasure as well.
The concept of pain and pleasure changes over time and constructs the personality system and
perceives differently, in a more complex way convenient to the attachment of the meaning at
stages.
Homeopathically understood, it is a self serving bias of people who are engaged in
menticraft to say that mind is more important or superior in its relationship of causes, effect and
nature with the body. The beginning of mental craft finally has to be approved by the body. Once
it is ordered, mind becomes autonomous. Again only body stops it. Body is like a starter of mind
and vice-versa. Most of the time, mind is tyrannical to body. Automatic organization of
experiences and thought is not= quick thought. Automatic thoughts seemingly are the most
calculated and rational for that particular subjective actor. And thought varies depending upon
time and place. There is a psychic unity of mankind but the places have its own reality and
realm. One should talk of the structure and function of the conscious and unconscious self. There
is probably interplay of conscious and unconscious in dream. We trim the dream of sleep in
awake. There are causes and consequences of dreams. These consequences function in the
formation of rhetoric or metaphor in the world of range of fear and courage (apprehension and
intuition). To enter, I quote C. H. Cooley’ definitional line to end up,
“A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principal elements: the imagination of our
appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some
sort of self –feeling, such as pride and mortification” (my Italics).
Cooley also has used hyphen (then) but finally gifted us with Looking Glass Self. Here, we
see that 3 principal elements (causation) are reduced to 2 types or duality (consequences) e .g;
pride and mortification like a binary set. I do not want to carry Cooley’ dual self of pride and
mortification to the graveyard, without finding the only one soul in the journey of search. The
meaning of definition and concept are different but there is an inseparable relationship between
the two. Definition can be made (SE wants to achieve definition, like myself also first before
made) and constructed from the concept only. Nothing can be defined, unless one has ideas
about the concept. There cannot be a concept as a suffix to a hyphen. There can be then de, re,
non, un-concept which will be a non-scientific non-sense. Concept is preceded by the preposition
‘of’. Both concept and definition are of something. Definition is a ‘concise harmonious
integration of all the aspects of the concept’. Consider a couple of mine on self.
A self is a survival-sacrificial dual which is dignified, differentiated and individuated,
subjectively defining, interpreting and giving meaning to it’ actions.
A self consisting of survival –sacrificial is a dual, subjectively defining, interpreting and
attaching meaning to actions in life.”
Methodological Secrecy
www.irjmsh.com
Theory has to do with the principles, laws or stages of an object or subject epistemologically
and ontologically. The sense, awareness, and perception are formed on the basis of age, storied
spaces, moments and the meaning attached to it by the actor. Sub-conscious remain obtuse and
darker to read even by the self which subjectively defines, conceptualizes, finds methods and
then enlightens consciousness. There is no need to unravel the unconscious rather consider or
treat it as the quietest root principle of overt conscious self. There must be signs in conscious
schema of the archaeology of the unconscious. There seem to be a Freudian triangle play of id,
ego, and super- ego in one individual’s perception. Soul self is the organizer of many selves.
Body is the keeper of that organizer. Some of which are nascent and novice, some of which are
matured and sprouted, some of which are ill and sick, some of which are will and zeal . All these
selves come into existence with the perception of the person mostly from childhood. There are
moments and stages of self constructing and collecting selves over the exposure of pleasure and
pain, and oscillates in between, in the world of range and degree depending upon the time and
space. Range is subjective and contextual. W.I Thomas’ ‘situation’ could be very useful here.
The self whom develops after adolescence is dominated by the means and end dilemma. Epstein
rightly splits the self into two (however weak selves) but does not bring original and real self
back which inevitably in the last has to be one which was hinted in 73. If one is split into two,
then it will be multiple which does not work in methods here. Two selves should represent
dilemma.
Rational self in actuality and factuality is a survival self which believes in the existing
normative patterns of thought and order of collective consciousness, a social fact. It is a logical
systemic self. Experiential self is a sacrificial self who believes in the abstract or symbolic order
of things in an individual and subjective ways to evolve, innovate and invent. Individual
becomes an emotional self here. This is a scale of both within and without. Most of the writers,
creators, geniuses, musicians and scientists are more in the right side getting ready for sacrificial
self.
These stages of selves what I would love to call in evolutionary terms as Soul self (born
dignified from the womb), Role self (playing and taking of roles), and, Goal self (getting the
target) and its dual-selves: Survival and Sacrificial, are constituted in one’ life depending upon
the environment. Soul self is born and structured in the family, neighborhood, and
acquaintances, role self is experienced at educational and learning (in case of traditional
societies) institutions, and, goal self is expressed in actual ‘operational realm’. Once the
dialectics between the two is over, dual -selves become independent self. Stages are not water
tight till the end of duality of survival and sacrificial self. Finality might take either of the
survival or sacrificial end. Man is born one and dies one.
Forgotten selves are like Octopuses which reside deep inside immaculate zone more in
unconscious. Forgotten selves haunt us the most, we cannot forget by desiring it, unless it fades
away on its own which actually does not .That forgetfulness (of insult and pain to self) is the
mother of the otherness of the self in differentiation, individuation, factors of motivation,
formation of attitude and whatever we want to say. Both insult and encouragement forces the
www.irjmsh.com

Talking To Seymour Epstein On Defining S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talking To Seymour Epstein On Defining S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRJMSH Vol 11 Issue 6 [Year 2020] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print)

Talking to Seymour Epstein: On Defining Self

a. Pleasure(Maximization) Negative correlation Pain (Minimization)

b. Data of Reality Assimilate Stable,Coherent,Conceptual

b. Meaningful SELF Meaningless

d. Worthy(High self- Dialectics Unworthy(Low self-esteem)

You might also like