The problem is “I,” the shortest selfreferential Loop. When speaking about oneself, using “I,” Magic is performed. One creates oneself by creating oneself. “I” is the Operator who is the result of the Operation. -- Heinz von Foerster ⇒ The Ethical Imperative
What We signify by the word 'I' is a complex that is also notable for being exclusively 'psychical', and it is the most stable complex in the series of our experiences. How can we understand *this* particular grouping of experiences? (Bogdanov, Empiriomonism, p. 13)
Problems, Theories, and Methods of We
We see ourselves defined by our ego, an ego that acts upon the world to achieve goals. Without our ego, we are nothing.
See Wu Wei
DE
Was wir mit dem Wort "Ich" bezeichnen, ist ein Komplex, der sich auch dadurch auszeichnet, dass er ausschließlich "psychisch" ist, und er ist der stabilste Komplex in der Reihe unserer Erfahrungen. Wie können wir *diese* besondere Gruppierung von Erfahrungen verstehen? (Bogdanov, Empiriomonismus, S. 13)
~
Are we actually becoming "post-modern"? In this question, the word "modern" is not understood as a buzzword, but as a synonym for "new-age". So, are we actually revising the Renaissance? But if so, what do we actually find fault with it and oppose it?
One has begun to analyze the psychic processes - not only perceptions, but also sensations, desires, judgments, decisions, etc. - of the human being. - etc. It has been found that the "conscious" mental processes - the so-called "I" - do not form a definable unit. They are processes which are based on a tissue of "unconscious" collective psychic processes and which are not only fed by this tissue but are also largely controlled by it. This fabric reaches far beyond the human being, easily encompasses all living things and frays downward. The "I" proves to be a kind of tip of an iceberg dissolving in the collective and crystallizing from there. It turns out to be an ideological reification of psychological processes. Moreover, it becomes clear that even on the "conscious" level there is no question of a definable identity. Rather, it is an inter-subjective networking through which information is produced in constant exchange. From this point of view, the "I" is to be seen as a reservoir into which information flows, where it is processed and provisionally stored in order to be passed on. In this respect, the "I" appears as a constantly shifting node of an intersubjective tissue, which sits on top of a collective "unconscious" psychic tissue.
~