Splitting the Self
What does parts work do to you?
Most people don’t act as unified agents. We treat future selves as different from our current selves. Our psychology is often context-dependent: a new year’s promise to stay healthy coexists with splurging on delicious cookie-dough ice cream.
One way to reason about these conflicted inner states is through parts work: internal family systems, or the loving of inner children. These perspectives are helpful ways to model inner conflicts. However, the perspective might do more than model conflicts; they might create them.1
From the perspective of parts work, you are split, and need to form alliances to gradually become unified. From the perspective of the Option Method, you have always-already been unified: the idea that unification requires work is what drives the illusion of non-unification.
The core message of the Option Method: you are always on your own side. There are no parts. You are always acting in your own best interest. If you eat ice cream, even though you promised not to, then that’s because you wanted the pleasure of making a promise, while also wanting the pleasure of ice cream (and chose to break your promise).
Which one of these perspectives are more correct?2 Does it matter? Personally, I care more about impact than correctness: how do we use these perspectives? What do they do to us?
Are you using parts work to shift blame to your inner child (for acting up) or your inner critic (for being a dick)? Or are you using the split to lean into compassion for yourself?
Do you see parts as fundamentally real, immutable; creating gridlock that keeps you stuck? Or are they convenient ways to look at your inner state?
Do you lean into both unification and splitting, or do you consistently act as if you are split?
Do you make up rules for yourself to make yourself do the things that you already want to do? Or do you trust yourself to care about the things you care about?
This post is inspired by:
Husain Happiness’s writing on the Option Method.
P.S: I offer philosophical guidance: 1on1 sessions where we explore important confusions in your life. Sessions are 60-90 min, and run in the gifting economy (pay what you want).
Here’s a statement from my client Frans-Lukas, shared with his consent:
“I’ve attended Jonathan’s philosophical guidance sessions four times, and the experience has been transformative. […] I often share the concepts discovered in Jonathan’s sessions with my friends, and they’ve significantly impacted my life.“
used to write “make them seem real”, which is more correct than the reified “create them”, but way less punchy.
Given the pre-paradigmatic nature of psychology, and the curse of reflexivity, I’m inclined to label this a standard case of the non-duality between duality and non-duality. If you know you know.