Self-Improvement?

Tejaprabhā (熾盛光佛) and the Five Planets
by Chang Huai-hsing (張淮興)

Self-Improvement?
Saturday – March 21, 2026

Self-improvement, really? Indeed, in modern times there is much talk about the concept of "improving the self", but what all this talk really amounts to at the end of the day is nothing more than a mere momentary improvising that will be sure to lose its glow rather quickly. So, is there even such a thing as "self-improvement"? To be blunt: no, for the most part, there is absolutely no such thing as an improvement of the self, and if you care to actually read and listen to the proponents of this theory of "self-improvement", you would gather rather quickly that these people are monumentally full of crap, and what they really are attempting to do is to sell you another product. Indeed, the entire concept of "self-improvement" is another industry, another way for charlatans to earn money by exploiting the stupidity among the majority of men. But, is there nothing that may be improved about the self? First and foremost, there is essentially no such thing as the self, at least not in the modern conception, and what the theory of self-improvement truly amounts to is to reduce further still the essential aspects of the supra-individual order, and this sort of thing, called "self-improvement", truly has nothing to do with improving anything; at the end of the day the only thing that would be true about the theory of self-improvement is that it does quite the opposite: self-improvement amounts to uniformity, to the rectification of the formless man, to the murder, symbolically, of the primordial being. Whatever else may be said about this concept, it has nothing to do with self-improvement.

    Of course, one should preferably seek to understand the concept of self-improvement from its very modern and individualistic point of view: would a man who was alive during the early middle ages, for instance, even begin to understand and comprehend the deviated and storied developments enabling such a question to be asked in the first place? Of course not, because during the time of the early middle ages, men were quite right in their place within the societal organization, and the concept of improving oneself would only be expressed in a profoundly private and anonymous sense, a truly sacred and transcendent qualification between man and his becoming. The individualism of this theory of self-improvement cannot be understated, and goes to show how egalitarianism and individualism are indeed quite the same phenomena, expressed in different domains and at different strata of the societal organization. Indeed, it would make sense for individualism to rely on egalitarian notions, as each man is considered his own island, sovereign in his own right – a true monstrosity. How could this concept even be a thing without the continual tendency of individuation? But what is perhaps lost in this discussion, although briefly mentioned, is the fact that this individuation is aimed not at the ascension of the individual order, but rather to the descent of the supra-individual down to the lowest level, the crude plane of mere substantive and "open-ended" discourse – a rude and offensive noise. It is almost as if the moderns prefer continual interruption and disturbance, and this is surely the aim of self-improvement: to cause momentary disruption, so as to enable a certain intercommunication that promotes the contrived order of the immediate, the available, the corporeal, an attempt at "escapism", to use a neologism, or really an attempt to evade reality.

    Besides all of these points, what would be the purpose of self-improvement? Again, the main purpose is simply to provide a routine, a schedule, a program, an algorithm, an easy to follow mechanical pathway to modern success, really to money and to what the modern refer to as "freedom", something that for the most part appears to constitute negativism rather than something quite apparent or positivist; the saying always seems to go something like the freedom from. Now, do with that as you may, but try to be honest here: why would a man need to be freed from a station where he belongs, a place that truly belongs to his domain, something that even a modern man would consider to be a good thing? Is this perhaps a problem with attitude? No, no, no... The issue here is something quite addictive that should be understood in the light of what I previously mentioned: if the only goal for modern men is to live in the moment and as compartmentalized units at the bottom of the material order, why would any improvement be necessary, really, should it not be the other way around? Verily, here we are dealing with an inversion of the metaphysical order of things: this inversion can be seen in the seemingly acceptable notion that humans exist at the bottom of the material order, and this same inversion holds true in the ever accelerating compartmentalization of everything in the sensible order, and this compartmentalization is the same thing as the pursuit of momentary goals, really the core of self-improvement at the edge of the horizon, read "The End of History". If a man exists in full accordance with his supra-individual order, there would be no possibility of improvement, for that man would truly be blessed, Barakat (بركات), but a man that exists at the edge of the horizon is a man that is increasingly unstable and unreliable; truly such a man would quite encapsulate the modern man. The continual changes and fluctuations of the modern world enables the attenuation of the supra-individual order, and this invariably renders man essentially without essence, thus the only room left is anxiety and mental confusion. Why do so many people claim to be disabled, when this supposed disability apparently eludes everyone but themselves? This last question must be understood in the profane anonymity of the mass, which would explain the apparently invisible and illusory nature of these conditions, truly something virtual that appears to adversely affect the mind. Perhaps the right word would be demon?

    Lastly, it could therefore be quite honestly concluded that the theory of self-improvement is a natural extension of the disordered and confused modality of modern men: continual change without even an average of some balance, creates no equilibrium that colors the path forward. A path without distinction is indeed no path at all; the only thing left is compartmentalization at its extreme limit, a kind of mental prison – the rupture of the self. Under these confused circumstances, it would be quite natural for men to seek guidance – self-improvement.

Reginald Drax – March 21, 2026.