一次聊天记录。
欢欢老师：
马老师之前说过一句话，心理咨询的各种问题，本质上都是在解决关于“我是谁”的问题，只是环节不同而已。 自我概念确实影响我们生活的方方面面。比如，自我概念影响记忆。
当我们把自己和某个故事中的人物做比较时，我们能更好地回忆出那个人物。
在和某一个人谈话的几天甚至更长时间后，我们对其说的与我们有关的话的回忆是最准确的。可见，我们可以更好地回忆与自我有关的事情。一切记忆所围绕的那个核心是“我”，而非“TA”。
但我们的传统礼教文化会让我们放下“我”，满眼是“TA”，PUA我们要为别人而活。
马老师很早之前就提过“所有人做所有事都是为了自己”，但为什么很多人不愿意接受这种观念，偏执的认为我做什么，就是为了对方，就是在为对方付出呢？
一个重要原因是，承认自己做的所有事情都是为了自己，有很明显的独立的标志，意味着自己从心理上已经独立。很多人拒绝独立，是因为害怕独立。
但我认为人们真正的害怕不是独立，我想给这种害怕一种新的解释：我们并不是害怕独立，而且害怕“陌生感”，我们害怕所有陌生的东西，因为陌生意味着不熟悉，不熟悉意味着不可控，不可控意味着自我存在感会被极大的削弱。所以我们怕的不是独立本身，而是一种从未感受过、体验过的陌生状态。
这样，问题就变得简单多了，因为我们的过往一定有很多个突破陌生的图式，比如曾经从没吃过的东西尝试过了，从没做的一件事尝试做了，从没看过的电影类型去看过了……我们有很多的成功经验是“看到陌生——品尝陌生——把陌生变熟悉”，对独立，亦如此，感受独立就像品尝一盘从未吃过的菜一样，先放进嘴里吃一口才能品出个中滋味。
不吃独立的苦，就必须要吃生活不能如愿的苦，就得吃求之不得的苦。毕竟，意念控制不了世界，全能自恋是一种过期产品。做个不卑不亢的自由人，只掌控自我，把自我打磨成随心所欲的样子，是我们的追求。共勉。
——
我：
今天正在看弗洛姆的《论不服从》：
人是这样一种动物：会说“我”，会意识到自己是一个单独的实体。尚未与大自然分离、尚未超越自然的动物则不具备这种意识，它没有身份认同的需求。脱离了自然状态的人，被赋予了理性和想象力的人，便需要形成一个关于自身的概念，需要表达、需要感觉“我即是我”。
因为人不是被动地生活，而是主动地生活；因为人已经扯断了与自然一体的原始纽带，得自行作出各种决定，了解自己和邻居是不同的人，必须清醒意识到自己是行为的主体。这种身份认同感的需求亦如此重要和不可或缺，如果一个人不能以某种方式满足这种需求，同样不能维持健全的心智。
笛卡尔是这样回答对身份的探索的：“我疑，故我思；我思，故我在。”但这一回答将全部分量都压在了“我”作为体验我的思考活动的主体，而没有顾及到“我”在感受和创造行为过程中亦是被体验的客体。
人们不断寻觅并且的确发现了不少真实个人身份认同的替代品。民族、宗教、阶级、职业，这些都能用以填补某种身份认同之需。“我是美国人。”“我是清教徒。”“我是商人。”这类表明身份的套语有助于人们体验身份认同感——其所处的原始部落身份已经消失，而一种真实个人身份认同感尚未获得。
当今社会这些五花八门的身份使用通常并行不悖。它们在一个非常宽泛的意义上可称作地位型身份认同，若与旧有封建世袭残余混合使用，这种身份认同还要有效得多，一如我们在欧洲诸国见到的情形。在美国，封建的遗迹几乎可以忽略不计，社会流动性又如此深入人心，这类地位型的身份认同则自然积弱一些，而人们将身份认同感越来越多地转移到了对从众的体验上。
结合我们现在普遍的困境，在于如何从共生走向独立，如何从依附于外物，比如集体、他人、标签转向构建真实的自我。
弗洛姆认为，身份认同是一个从“不得不”到“我是谁“的过程，人因为拥有了理性，所以被逐出伊甸园，这种分离带来了巨大的孤独感和恐惧，为了不发疯，人必须回答“我是谁”。
欢欢老师的视角更接近我们日常一点，我们的心理结构是围绕“我”构建的。如果“我”不存在，记忆和体验就不再那么深刻。
所以“我是谁”不是一个哲学里形而上的问题，而是心理生存的刚需。
但是既然“做自己”这么重要，为什么做起来并不容易。
在历史上，人们用“我即是我们”来获得安全感。到了现代，人们就开始用替代品，比如我是哪国人哪里人，什么身份什么标签，通过融入集体或标签来假装自己很安全，这种替代品可能表现成为别人而活，有种道德绑架式的利他。“我做这一切都是为了你”，是一种共生关系的变体，如果承认“我是为了我自己做的”，就必须独立承担后果，但如果说是为了别人做的，就可以把责任或者控制欲转嫁对方。
所以无论是西方的标签身份，还是东方的“我都是为了你好”，都是把“自我”寄生在外部评价或他人的反馈上，这是一种伪独立。
欢欢老师说的不是怕独立，是怕陌生，我觉得看到这个让人感觉很轻松，因为我们总以为独立需要巨大的勇气，意味着责任和其他难以承受的东西，但欢欢老师说独立其实只需要像尝试一道新菜那样去尝试一种新的心理图式。有一种存在主义焦虑突然转化成了日常的感觉，只是尝一下新的味道有什么可怕的呢。
所以我们都可以成为一个主动的主体，像只是去一家没去过但经常看到的餐厅一样，去练习这种陌生感。承认我为自己而活，让“我”成为体验生命的主体，我选择，我主动，我得到（这里的“得到”不是我拿到了外界的反馈，是我在“主动做”这个步骤中已经体验到的自我掌控和满足）。
——
Teacher Huanhuan:
Teacher Ma once said that all psychological counseling issues are, at their core, questions of “Who am I?”—just manifesting at different stages. Our self-concept truly influences every facet of our lives. For instance, it shapes our memory. When we compare ourselves to a character in a story, we recall that character more vividly. Days or even weeks after a conversation, our most accurate memories are of the things said about us. Clearly, we remember self-related information better. The core around which all memory revolves is “I,” not “Them.”
Yet, our traditional ritualistic culture demands we suppress the “I” and focus entirely on “Them,” gaslighting us into living for others. Long ago, Teacher Ma proposed that “everyone does everything for themselves,” but many refuse to accept this. They stubbornly insist, “Everything I do is for you; I am sacrificing myself for you.”
A major reason for this is that admitting you act for yourself is a hallmark of independence—it means you have achieved psychological autonomy. Many reject independence because they fear it. However, I believe what people truly fear isn’t independence itself, but rather strangeness. We fear the unfamiliar because it feels uncontrollable, and a lack of control threatens to diminish our sense of self. We aren’t afraid of being independent; we are afraid of a state of being we have never tasted before.
Framed this way, the problem becomes much simpler. Our past is full of “schemas” where we overcame the strange: trying a food for the first time, attempting a new task, watching a new genre of film. We have a wealth of successful experience in “identifying the strange — tasting the strange — turning the strange into the familiar.” Independence is the same. Feeling independence is like tasting a dish you’ve never had; you have to take a bite before you can truly know its flavor.
If you don’t taste the bitterness of independence, you must taste the bitterness of a life unfulfilled and the agony of unrequited expectations. After all, willpower cannot control the external world; “omnipotent narcissism” is an expired product. To be a free person—neither humble nor arrogant—governing only the self and polishing that self into a form that follows one’s own heart: that is our pursuit. Let us encourage each other in this.
——
Me:
Today, I’m reading Erich Fromm’s On Disobedience:
“Man is the animal that can say ‘I,’ that can be aware of himself as a separate entity. The animal, being still part of nature and not transcending it, has no such awareness; it has no need for identity… Man, torn away from nature, endowed with reason and imagination, needs to form a concept of himself, needs to say and to feel: ‘I am I.’
Because humans do not live passively but actively—having severed the primal ties with nature—we must make our own decisions, recognize our neighbors as distinct from ourselves, and be conscious of ourselves as the subjects of our actions. This need for a sense of identity is so vital that without satisfying it, one cannot maintain mental health.
Descartes answered this quest with: “I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I am.” But this places the entire weight on the “I” as the subject experiencing the activity of thinking, neglecting the “I” as the object experienced in the process of feeling and creating.
People constantly seek and find substitutes for a true personal identity. Nation, religion, class, and profession fill the void. “I am an American,” “I am a Protestant,” “I am a businessman.” These clichés help people experience a sense of identity—the tribal identity has vanished, yet a true personal identity has not yet been achieved. In modern society, these diverse identities often coexist. They are “status-based identities,” which are even more effective when mixed with feudal remnants, as seen in Europe. In the U.S., where feudal traces are negligible and social mobility is high, these status identities are weaker, and people shift their sense of identity toward the experience of conformity.”
——
Combining this with our current predicament, the struggle lies in moving from symbiosis to independence—shifting from depending on external things (collectives, others, labels) to constructing a true self.
Fromm believes identity is a process of moving from “I must” to “Who am I?” Because humans possess reason, we were expelled from Eden. This separation brought immense loneliness and fear. To avoid madness, we must answer “Who am I?”
Teacher Huanhuan’s perspective is closer to daily life: our psychological structure is built around the “I.” If the “I” does not exist, memories and experiences lose their depth. “Who am I?” isn’t just a metaphysical question in philosophy; it is a “hard demand” for psychological survival.
But if “being oneself” is so vital, why is it so hard? Historically, people used “I am we” to gain security. In modern times, we use substitutes: nationality, hometown, labels. We blend into the collective to pretend we are safe. This often manifests as “living for others”—an altruism that feels like moral kidnapping. “I do all this for you” is a variation of a symbiotic relationship. If I admit “I did this for myself,” I must bear the consequences alone. If I say I did it for you, I can shift the responsibility or the desire for control onto you.
Whether it’s the Western “label identity” or the Eastern “it’s all for your own good,” both parasite the “self” onto external evaluations or feedback. This is a pseudo-independence.
Teacher Huanhuan says we don’t fear independence, we fear strangeness. This is incredibly liberating. We often think independence requires monumental courage and the weight of unbearable responsibility. But she suggests that independence is simply trying a new psychological schema, like trying a new dish. Suddenly, existential anxiety is transformed into a mundane sensation. What is there to fear about just tasting a new flavor?
We can all become active subjects. We can practice this “strangeness” just as we would visit a restaurant we’ve passed a thousand times but never entered. Acknowledge that I live for myself. Let the “I” be the subject that experiences life. I choose, I act, I gain. (And here, “gain” isn’t about external feedback; it is the self-mastery and satisfaction already experienced in the very act of “doing.”)