View source for 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.

{{sitemap}}