Purposive frames compete for priority of control in planning and execution of actions, and each such system comes with a first-person story by which it justifies its centrality. Since there are multiple frames all pulling in different directions there is a kind of mediation between them which is itself an I-story but on a higher level. Any frame can be disengaged so that it can be weighed against other frames, which means that the capability of being detached from any "I" is intrinsic to its functional nature. What an "I" is is not just a role you can step into and run with, but also a role you can step out of in response to another kind of message, one that can only come from a more primary "I". Frames pivot on this I-point, because not only does it lend them ultimate permission through its apparent freedom or sovereignty, but it also connects them to all the other "I"s. To disidentify is also to renounce the illusion of autonomy, but doing so is the action of a higher autonomy. You can act with identification, without any explicit awareness of the limits of the current enactment, or you can carry out the same actions in a detached way, with the centre of the "I" held further away from the situation at hand in a more overarching and authoritative frame. The advantage is genuine, but seems largely strategic. The further back the selves go in this sovereign hierarchy the more immune they seem to disidentification. But none of them is. The problem is, what is the point of the whole structure if every self in it, every centre, is only a function with no ontological weight, if they all just melt away?