I adopted the metaphor which works for me here from Ken Wilber, though I'm sure that the idea appears in the works of other writers, and much earlier: hierarchies of growth vs hierarchies of domination. The former (your "one hand") are nested hierarchies (inclusive); the latter (your "other hand") are conventional hierarchies (exclusive). The way I understand this is that "I am nothing" puts the "I" - whatever it is - at a leaf node if the reference is an exclusive hierarchy (a "hierarchy of domination"), whereas if the reference is an inclusive hierarchy (a "hierarchy of growth"), "I am nothing" appears at the root node.

Edit: typos.

It's about finding an unconstrained perspective. Perhaps re-read the last paragraph?

Fair enough, I re-read it.

I'm thinking about "perspective" -- the word suggests a relationship to something bigger. For example, when an artist draws with perspective, there is a point on the horizon toward which lines extend. Removing constraints may be a useful exercise, but removing all constraints would, in a sense, remove all perspective as well. So I think I'm looking for a perspective that's constrained by what's true, rather than one that's unconstrained.

I guess this is what I find inconsistent. There's this idea: "Until we let go of our mental images of who we are or who we should be, our vision remains clouded by expectation." But in the same paragraph, there's a notion of "self improvement." If I remove all expectations of who I should be, how can I measure my self improvement (assuming I intend to improve myself in the first place)?

There's the potential here to replace stressing out over a question like "am I a good father?" with stressing over things like "am I nothing? Am I improving? Am I myself yet?" Might this be just another "path to insanity?" Just a thought.