on self-inquiry
if you are human…
odds are that around the age of two, the brain brought a formal language model online, stabilizing the tools of speech and syntax. foundational to this model are self-referential concepts—“i”, “me”, “mine”. as social animals, the human organism develops pattern recognition, learning quickly what gets approval, what gets rejection, what keeps it safe, and what makes it belong. as a means of efficiency, these concepts collapse into a fixed identity frame—an interface the organism mistakes for itself.
once this organism perceives itself as a separate entity, the nervous system automates its defense in service of that illusion. the mind-body interface builds behavioral strategies—pleasing, performing, controlling, overworking, shrinking, proving. these are not personality traits; they are the relational technologies of tribal safety and belonging.
then enters relative moral socialization.
the intelligent design of the nervous system is shaped over millions of years of evolution, yet it is now forced to abide by the laws of a social structure in its infancy. the scaffolding of this structure is a fundamental misconception that crystallized in the brain of a two-year-old—an entire social paradigm built upon the shaky architecture of a toddler’s “i”, “me”, “mine”.
“we” have taken biological imperatives and graded them, building a false paradigm on top of a false self. “we” hand out gold stars for compliance and categorize survival as a moral failure. the scripts are pervasive:
boys don’t cry.
nothing worthwhile comes easy.
whiteness is the baseline.
the body is a project to be fixed.
disposable people belong in cages.
independence is the only strength.
the psychosocial shackles “we” wear are not just in opposition to our biology; they are the physical manifestation of a mistake. and yet, because the identity frame feels so heavy, “we” spend “our” lives trying to renovate it. “we” think the problem is the decor of the "self," rather than the foundation of the “i”.
so the mind-body interface does what it does, consumed by constant pattern recognition and surveillance, running a very active “i” story:
“my” bank account was pennies away from an overdraft fee thank g “i” finally locked in this contract—no thanks to “my” agent. the help would have been nice because the rate “i” settled on is offensive. “i’m” sure “they’re” gonna pay “my” invoice late too. “‘sorry for the delay… our controller should have this out by next week.’” k. “i” have to buy “my” ticket to greece for jane’s wedding asap so the universe is simply going to have to deliver. truly so annoying of jane though… this is the third destination wedding in a year. should maybe… ya “i’m” just gonna put everything else on “my” credit card.
idk why people feel the need to divulge “their” life story to “me”. like “i” know too much about the first ad and “his” home renovations?? not one person has said, “joe, please chew with your mouth closed!” tf. whew “i” need to chill. “my” therapist said what’s actually happening is “i’m” triggered because “he” reminds “me” of “my” ex, who reminds “me” of “my” [insert early caretaker figure]. so… “i” stopped going to see that therapist. but “they” stopped taking “my” insurance anyway so. “i’m” just gonna really commit “myself” to sticking with jiu jitsu. maybe “i” need to read that gabor maté book again because it really is hard out here for the neurodivergents. “i” just need to be nicer to “myself”. that and have chatgpt help “me” build a better routine for “my” mornings.
…didn’t go to jiu jitsu… these chicken breasts in the fridge smell weird… doordash it is, again. tomorrow though, “i’ll” be better. “i’m” gonna wake up early and hit the gym.
so “i” speed scroll at night, no doom just giggles, sometimes tears. in the morning it’s the first thing “i” check. what updates did “i” miss from all the well-curated avatars on “my” ig feed? it's not even remotely relevant to the conversation and “my” sister will find any opportunity to say ‘well ya i’m not on social media so i don’t know what’s going on in denmark.’ babe… “i” scroll past jane reposting her god damn engagement photos. “we” haven’t talked on the phone in months. “i’ve” just been super busy.
the tragedy of this loop is the belief that “i” am the operator—that if “i” could just arrange the thoughts and effort well enough, “i” would finally be at peace. “we” act as if life is a task performed by a “self,” yet the performance has no performer—and what a beautiful spectacle: the performer’s performance, performed.
while the mind and the manager concoct the perfect morning routine, the body carries on with the business of existing. it does not wait for the “i” to decide to breathe; the lungs expand, the heart beats, the cells divide. life is happening as the organism, regardless of the script.
self-inquiry creates a paradox. to use the self to look at the self is like asking a fish to point to water. the fish says, "wtf is water??" all the while, those gills keep extracting oxygen. the fish can’t point to the water because it has never been separate from it. similarly, the “i” cannot find the truth of itself because it is a thought appearing within the sequence of thoughts creating the illusion of itself.
if “we” understand the organism a bit better, “we” can recognize that pattern recognition is a useful evolutionary adaptation. the issue is that pattern recognition is confused for objective reality. to invite questioning of assumed objective reality would invite total collapse.
that’s what we want.
not collapse of existence, but collapse of the illusion of a non-existent entity. nothing is actually collapsing because nothing is actually there to collapse, other than the sequential energy of thought after thought.
this ultimately is a somatic occurrence, because it is the nervous system that registers release from the “i” sense.
if “we” look at it this way: the exhaustive process of reading this now can be broken down to a sequence of thoughts—a process of cognition. each thought is captured in time like the individual image that makes up the reels of a film. the rapid-fire sequence of these static frames is the moving image that is “you”.
to witness the film, light passes through each frame, distorting the input by inverting each individual image and projecting them in sequence onto a screen. “we” witness the highs and the lows, the laughter and the terror; the pleasure of drama on the screen. all the while, the screen is completely unaffected by the movement flickering in its presence. at any given moment, the screen is the image projected upon it, which doesn’t make it any less a screen or any more an image.
“You” are the screen.
what as_hu proposes is simple: “you” don’t have to do anything. not because “you’re” opting out or “letting go,” but because there is no “you” to do anything anyway. the “i” is a linguistic artifact—a survival technology that outstayed its welcome.
“You” are the field in which “You” are experiencing “yourself” as an individual “you” that is reading these words :)
an intellectual understanding—or even a total lack of one—is still just more frames on the reel. as_hu is here because the body doesn’t speak in metaphors. knowing the truth is not the same as being the truth.
while the mind may see the illusion, ultimately the nervous system is the space that determines when “we” are freed from it. one can arrive at a logical conclusion of freedom within a body that is still bracing and contracting under the unconscious grip of the misidentification. logic does not unbind the body from this—the body must be allowed to decouple from the narrative.
this is the somatic application of higher unlearning. it is the process of moving beyond the theory of the screen and into the actualized presence of being. applied somatics for higher unlearning softens contraction around the paradox into the expansive.
“we” aren't here to analyze the “i” interface; “we” are here to somatically unlearn it.
