I completely understand what you are pointing out. But perhaps the phrasing is problematic. Is it not rather that the commitment to actual freedom must be integrated into each of the different identities? Let’s say that rather than pitting one identity against the others, what it would be about is incubating pure intent in each part. “I have an identity as a boyfriend/partner, etc…” am I 100% committed to living that condition in actual terms? To not leave anything under the rug in that identity process? I have a job, with a certain position, responsibility, corporate identity, etc. Do I live every moment while performing that function in the happiest and most innocuous way possible? I am the son of parents, the brother of brothers…do I live every moment with them in the purest and most pristine way? Do I give them 100% of my attention when I am with them, enjoying them as autonomous human beings?
What I mean is that it could be confusing to adopt the actualist identity, as if that were also truly possible, because it is a commitment, a practice, a mode of attention and affective (until it is done) experience (with appreciation and enjoyment) that must traverse all possible existences or identities that I can have. That is to say, it is not something that can be pigeonholed into a series of principles that, when fulfilled, are checked. There is or there is no conection with pure intent. There is or there is no commitment. I feel good, excellent, or bad, whoever I am and whatever role I am playing, etc. In other words: I cannot be an actualist for part time, I can only always be in this only moment of being alive, whatever part of the identity is operating…let’s play it, but towards actual freedom. Don’t know if it helps!