Right to the point and with no "diplomatic correctness", and this is why I can continue this discussion even after 235 years, Visar. Let it be stated, first of all, that all that false conglomerate of "correctness" will simply not work. It didn't work in Pythagoras' times, it didn't work in Galileoħs times, it didn't work in Goedel's times, and it won't work today too. I am inly glad to have some few guys here that *discuss* instead of "doing mental favours" to each other - you know what I mean. ;-)
I couldn't put it straighter than you did here, Visar, when you wrote:
****************************************** the cognitive *I*, the conscious being, aware of the realities around; this complex mechanism, voulnerable to the process of growth, intellectual growth or enriching oneself with undertaken cognitive processes ******************************************
And for my part I am very upset to see that exactly this is what most (so called) humans... simply are afraid of. The intellectual growing. I would readily assume, after such a strong demonstration of a will from the side of the "average" to grow intellectually, that there is really, really, really that will. But it is only that in most cases, I am afraid: It is only an empty demonstration. Much like the swiss luxury that thinks it has the right of an opinion just because it wears an expensive rollex and it has the right haircut. ;-)
Still some few cases remain, in which it is not only a demonstration. These are cases like for example our deeply thinking Visar, and this is also why you do well by remaining exactly what they call "arrogant". There is no other way to activate at least some two or three grey cells in their brains. And they *will* be activated whether they like it or not.
What we do to spread the transition from the state of the homo erectus to the state of the homo sapiens, ey? But unfortunately for the state of the homo sapiens sapiens they seem to need at least 837 intellectual thermonuclear blasts! ;-)
fine, i see what you mean. my problem is more with the very definition of a certain phenomenon- the *I*, which is a cognitive outcome; without going into other components (possibly being 'the corpse', the load by default- and of which much too many times people just get tired of having it, being to havy to resist gravity).
in addition, the cognitive *I*, the conscious being, aware of the realities around; this complex mechanism, voulnerable to the process of growth, intellectual growth or enriching oneself with undertaken cognitive processes; this is where i find one struggling owning one self!~ it is here i think that all the disputes and crises and cavities of a genuine self are at threat. the whole humanity has been suffering this utter sickness for the last 2000 yrs of Judeo-Christian-... heritage. and here participate too many of the 'illuminates' of our race, who changed the course of humanity! i.e. dream house holliwood; psychobubbology; etc... ... i mean, just have look at ultrasound, there is a Freud kicking the stomach of a mother, ready to be cast in the psychoanalytic world, with a ten thousand pages of a form to be filled, ready to participate in a society~
and, yes, arrogant destitude is requeired, like you put, not to let the water be troubled! ;)
About the "luck of the hunter (after having shot no dear) to catch a fish in desperation"... If I'd be that hunter I't only laugh and take that fish. ;-)
But indeed the "arrogant destitute" is the only way to go in this case. "Destitude" in the sense of concentrating on the few important things in such considerations and not allowing any "intuitive" thoughts smudge the clear water in front of the self. And "arrogant" in the sense that it will appear arrogant many many times, just because the majotity of thin tissued minds around will never care for anything else than for accepting and confirming the direct "average" world that their eyes can see. And if they can see that, and if they are happy to see the same as all the other garbage of "average", then... of course it has to be the world! ;-) So I would say, could you please keep on holding that "arrogant destitude"? It seems to be mentally much healthier than all that overlaod of unneeded "fantasies" and "imaginations", and... you know. ;-)
Keep it up, brother in arts! Not a single of our steops has been "easy" but at least we try ti understand some few things. Better than the eternal sleep of all that zombie public around. They just come to this world, live some years in hollywoodian lies... and then they die as the amorpous matter that they were, when they were babies. Oh, and not to forget! They also never fail to produce the next mind-zombied of this world. ;-) So just keep it up and let's try to get our mental world smoking and steaming.
The question is not "how can one own oneself when that one is split in more than one?", Visar. This is easy. Too easy. Then the "one" simply consists of "two" or even more. Thaty´s no problem. Actually... we all have that and that's great.
It is not a question of "dividing" but rather a question of contradicting in the sense of a self that says to you: "I am not you". Where lies the contradiction? The contradiction lies in the ... "I am"!!!! For having the self (=you per def.) saying "*I* am" the self-cognition *has* to comprehend first what it stands for. It cannot exist without that, since the *I* has to be discovered by the cognition first. This is the identity of the self-cognition with... you. In other words, you don't get a single thought without the self-cognition being the... you. And then, oh then it is able to also say, that it is not you. ;-)
And it just has to do that, as mathematics readily tells us, since else there would be not even the chance for... hahahhhaaaa... here it comes: There would not be a single chance for any thought which is always based to self-cognition, which is based in thinking, and so on. It is a self-contained definition, and as all self-contained things it will contradict its own self now and then.
And for just proceeding correctly, contradiction is merely: To state A *and* NOT A at the same time, using the same apparatus of logical inference. It is not "having the feeling that something is wrong", but only and strictly confirming and negating some given statement at the same time.
Now, the statement that is both confirmed and negated in this case is the statement of the own "self". The "I am" gets fuzzy in this case. It doesn't get any more "complex" or consisting of more parts. It simply starts loosing its sharp contours. It is still there but not as "sharply defined". This is always the result of systems that try to observe, to define their own selves. On the try to get the "complete" picture of the own self using the own means... they start being not as definite as they might have expected.
And this a great! It leaves also some space for movement, and for re-re-re-definition, which is what makes it so full of life, to just be there and re-re-re-define the own self and anything that appears to be the "picture of world" for that own self too.
yes, i guess Nick. it is were the uncalculated essence of all the un-calculated and the un-thought lieth!! isn't it!? i mean, how can one own oneself when that one is split in more than one!!?
isn't it the luck of the hunter (after having shot no dear) caught a fish in desperation!?
beside, what makes one care to care for what that one sees?
expecting understanding, i happen to find a very bourgeois deed- and reflection very intimate, almost uncommunicative. ... and, after that some arrogant destitute.
You know, many times you can define the surroundings of the object perfectly but at the same time not the object itself, though the boundaries between surroundings and object are perfectly known. One might think that knowing the surroundings and subtracting them from the whole scene would give the "difference", the object itself. But it is not always that simple. And you really depicted this in a way that it can be readily comprehended. (Not understood, only comprehended.)
Hi Nick, you left me speechless with this comment. you define it too well in words that i don't feel like adding anything but thank you for your time and will to comment.
Much of the atmosphere of the other foggy one, Visar, but this time also some strange mixture of melancholic and morbid in a way. It always has a strong but also quiet impact to see the faceless humanum in a distinct place in nowhere. The almost non-existing hands and legs enhance that so well, that it could be thought of just having photographed a human as am empty capsule. A definition of consciousness based on less than thin air! And nonetheless it *is*!
It is defined not by what exists but by what is missing, much like defining some shape not by itself but by the rest of the surrounding world. The separation lines between the subject and that rest of the world are there, but then... instead of painting the object you paint the outside. Fantastic work!
1 
{K:89003} 12/19/2015
