Consideration about conceptual “I”, “fictional self”.
Where the verbal “I”, the sense of “me” is located?
How can simply communicate the conceptual “I am” in a down-earth terminology, to whom doesn’t “speak” the language of dzogchen?
An interesting support can come from neuroscience.
Let’s suppose that the conceptual “I” is a product of schooling and his roots are findible in the brain, precisely in the Broca-Wernicke’s area. If we understand that the linguistic brain section is involved in our limitated/distorted’s identification we are also motivated to pay more attention to the implications of our (or others) way of talking and thinking.
We will not be tricked by linguistic games (the main source of our confusion and delusions about many things, especially our identity).
Verbalization is the big deal, dialectic is the bound.
If we can point out that the neurotic mechanism (the auto-referential tendencies culminating in stories about a mitical “me”) are in fact a conseguences of a learning process (started in the primary school) we then can correct this misleading linguistic process by ourselves.
The localization of the “false self” is just an aid to point out a practical way to dissolve a dilemma that maybe with the mere spiritual’practice will never be solved.
It’s like Don Chisciotte: many teaching, books, forums and people talk a lot about non-self etc. without actually saying nothing important, useful or concrete.
In that sense a practitioner that doesn’t recognize this mental process will always be caught in this neuro-linguistic cheat, never be able to get rid of this deceptive pattern, even if he meditate for many lifes. His looking begins (unintentionally) from the wrong place. His is spellbound by the sound “me”, his sense of existence is associated to this word, therefore his fellings will always be unsatisfactory.