Recently I've come to realise the importance of self-expression in regards to living effectively, but I'm not sure how it fits into the ACT model.

To me, self-expression is about learning to be yourself in your most pure form, but I think ACT rejects this notion (or at the very least, diminishes it's importance) because from the point of view of ACT, self-expression is just an intense form of obeying/hooking your emotions, and is therefore unhealthy? Because in a sense, self-expression is like an emotional urge. It's a part of you that you feel connected too, and I feel like ACT tries and distinguishes between urges depending on what you find "useful", but I find this approach weak.

The problem (as well as the great thing) about ACT is that I would get myself under control, but then it would fall apart because I simply wouldn't know how to just "be" myself anymore.

The other issue I have is with describing self-expression as a "value". I feel that self-expression is much more fundamental than a "value", in the same way that mindfulness is presented as much more than a value.

I feel that self-expression, much like mindfulness, should be considered as part of the core of the human experience, not something that's treated as optional or individual.

In a way, they kind of achieve the same thing, but in different ways? I don't know.