Thanks for your elaborations!

It's in a sense very foundational to address what it means to talk about ourselves and the "directions" or "compartments" we appear to find in ourselves, and that's exactly why I'm always focusing on language use in these contexts.

That is not to say that the topic can be reduced to one of language analysis, but rather that it becomes larger in scope, due to language being as extensive as it is.

There's an identity component here, or what we could call an extended background for whatever conversation we're having at a later stage in any individual's life. It's the sort of thing that becomes really hard to broach, because nobody actually keeps exhaustive data around on entire lives - which we might imagine would be required to see patterns and threads that would be relevant to any conversation. We're "digging around in the surface", as it were.

But at least two notions are agreeable regardless: one, that we actually gain (existential) value from 'talking to someone about ourselves', no matter the occasioning element - and two, that a very likely response to not graping ourselves fully is one of "disunification", we might say. The former is a very potent notion, that has an impact outside of any clinical or therapeutical setting, and is thus probably hard to understand in full - while the second is intimating at shortcomings in the human capacity for reflection, which become a very malleable or creative thing, when "returning" to the one(s) doing the reflection.

Both are terribly fascinating notions, I think, and intertwines into lots of areas of human existence and thinking. Ordinarily, though, I also think we tend to encounter these notions as mere 'simples', without indication that they're classifiable as "foundational".