Who I was, how I acted in the past, is the basis of my story. This is how I am known to others-- by who I was. The power of their expectations leads me into acting in a manner consistent with that story, because of my desire to be accepted into the safety of the social construct.

But who I am is not who I was; nor am I my story. One's viewpoint of the past is only a story; but if I allow myself to become identified by it then I am its de-facto prisoner. Dropping personal history does not mean deliberately acting in a manner inconsistent with the expectations of others (although it very may well happen that way.) It simply means not confusing your story with yourself.

It seems to me that whenever I say "I am" personal history comes into play; because it is an attempt to express an inventory. But if I embrace the assertion in the wondering parenthesis of inner silence the real intent is kept alive. Then "I am" can pass from self-expression into personal history without becoming a lie.

Even as I write that, the question "Is that really true?" arises. It was when I wrote it... damn, this is tricky! It's out there now, committed, submitted and subject to critical peer review: Personal History 101. I can’t defend it: when I try, there’s nothing there. But when I silence myself… I can touch it, again.