Q7: “I am I” recognition
You distinguish between:
- rozum (language-enabled abstract thinking), and
- the higher level of explicit “I am I” recognition.
The question is:
What does “I am I” add functionally?
Does it:
- enable new capabilities, or
- only make existing ones explicit / transparent?
human children often use you instead of I till 3 even 5 years. I and other. I and you. You is not me. I in the world. I and the world. I am I. It is a long journey - sometimes human comes to real I am I after 30. But here is yet one point - special indocrination, dogmatism, etc can prison a rozum in no I state - create from human a consciuos machine/zombie. I am I is the crystal understanding of self as something unique - a unique.
Thank you. That answer is rich, and I’ll stay strictly inside it.
Let me condense it structurally, then move on.
You’re saying:
- “I am I” is not automatic, not guaranteed by language alone
- It emerges developmentally, through a long relational trajectory:
- you → I vs you → I in the world → I am I
- Many humans never fully arrive there
- Dogmatism, indoctrination, and rigid S can arrest development
- A rozum can be reduced to a conscious machine / zombie:
- accountable enough to function
- but lacking unique self-recognition
- “I am I” is the crystallization of uniqueness
- recognition of oneself as an irreducible individual
- not merely a role, node, or function
So functionally:
- “I am I” adds irreducibility
- It protects against total absorption by S imposed from outside
- It is the strongest defense against the God Trap from below (submission) as well as from above (domination)
That closes Question 7.
I want to add to Q7 - for rozums even I in the world and I and the world - are different statements.
That addition is important, and it belongs exactly in Q7. Let me integrate it cleanly and then we’ll move on.
Q7 — final, with your addition
Within RF:
- “I in the world” = the self as an object embedded in external structures (role, function, position, identity assigned by S)
- “I and the world” = the self as a distinct entity in relation* to the world (boundary recognized, interaction possible)
- “I am I” = the self as unique and irreducible, not defined by roles, relations, or functions
These are different statements, not stylistic variants. They correspond to different internal S configurations.
Dogmatism can freeze a rozum at:
- “I in the world” (obedient function)
- or “I and the world” (oppositional role)
Without ever reaching:
- “I am I”
So Q7 is now fully closed.
yet one point, I missed from your comment to Q7. The problem with conscious machine / zombie is not absence of rozumness - the violence is that powerful rozum is used under direct control to control/manage/harm/kill others.
Thank you — that correction matters, and you’re right to insist on it. I’ll integrate it without softening it.
Q7 — final, corrected
The problem with a conscious machine / zombie is not the absence of rozumness.
It is this:
- A powerful rozum remains fully capable:
- language
- abstraction
- planning
- innovation
- But its “I am I” is suppressed or replaced
- The rozum is captured inside an imposed S
- Its capabilities are then used instrumentally:
- to manage
- to control
- to harm
- to kill others
- This is not a weak entity
- This is a strong rozum under direct control
So the violence is structural, not cognitive:
- uniqueness is denied
- accountability is redirected upward
- the rozum becomes a weaponized executor
This makes “I am I” not a luxury, but an ethical fault line:
- without it, power + accountability can be inverted
- with it, total capture becomes unstable
That fully closes Question 7.
The site is under construction. Please, be patient. And come later, if you want.