I first published this series of articles in the German-speaking area under #freie-gesellschaft. I started the attempt to translate this article series also for the English-speaking countries. I have only a limited command of English and have therefore used a translation program. However, many terms are very difficult to translate because there is no clear translation for some words. I hope, however, that at least the meaning of the content will be understandable.
for the English readers I will open the section #free-society
Today the focus is on the sociality of the ego. I recommend to reduce the reading speed a little, otherwise a stumble could happen.
In part 3 of the series #free-society we had the two ways of being of the ego in mind. Now the theme of this series is society. And this is documented in the way the I (ego) meets the you (also called alter ego). The others come into play (by the way also the rulers dominating the ego).
So what about you and the way an ego exists? Is there also there the dualism described in part 3 and thus a level on which I and you cannot meet purely physically?
The one thing is to have that you do. The other is to recognize it. There is an unmissable barrier here. It is not possible for us to grasp you as a person - as an "intelligent ego". It cannot be experienced as an original phenomenon, let alone recognized. We can meet the others physically, but not "look into their heads". Some think they can unravel the ego in you with the help of tools, but so far without success. This undertaking will also remain unsuccessful in the future. A barrier of knowledge prevents the comprehension of the other as you - as a special "intelligent ego" next to mine.
I can experience my own self as a spontaneous center of my activities, even if I cannot recognize it (see part 3 in #free-society). But not only my recognition, but also my experience remains closed to you in the form of an independent ego. The self-attempt to experience you as I must fail. For the strange character of experiencing the ego means that it can always only be directed at one's own ego and remains limited to it.
With my neighbour I cannot discover an ego, even if he says "I" so often and even if I look into his head armed with such devices. We only ever experience the you as it appears to us: as a carrier of qualities, as an actor, as a speaker and - with the help of devices - as a neuronally active, but not as an original ego. The other ego as such is beyond our horizon of experience, let alone knowledge.
But how does the ego then generate sociality - as a relationship of the ego to the you? Put differently: how does the you-constitution of the ego take place? That is the core question of human sociality. Most social theorists carelessly ignore this core question. The answer is complicated above all by the fact that the consciousness both about the ego and about you does not originate from a knowledge (in the sense of knowledge of nature).
Since the ego (by reflection) only always experiences itself, the you as such remains closed to it (although the you as habitus, as body with its activities and needs is present and can be recognized real). Every attempt to gain real knowledge on the terrain of scent finding fails at the limits of our intellect. These limits are clearly visible to everyone through Kant's research. From this follows: Statements about the ego (in the sense of an "intelligent" ego; see Part 3) and about the you (also in the sense of an "intelligent" ego) cannot be based on the ground of (nature) knowledge.
How then does it come to having a you at all, to the consciousness of the spontaneous center with another human being, in other words: to the consciousness of the other as a person? The sociality of the ego presupposes that there is another ego that one's own ego can encounter as you! Without this, every form of human sociality must sink down.
For us humans there is obviously no other way to the you (to the "intelligent ego" of the other) than the way of an ego-transferation. The you (as "intelligent ego") would thus be a design of the ego, a "transfer" of the originally experienced ego into the other. It is otherwise only physically present to me, but not as ego, as self-spontaneity. The you as your own ego (not as body, but as person!) can, for lack of other access possibilities, only be generated by me on the basis of an act of will. The reader tries once to win the you (as "intelligent ego") through an act of knowledge.
The body, the qualities, habits and needs of another person are sensually present for me. But the you, as the ego of the other, is for me neither experiencable, nor otherwise (e.g. through reflection) originally experiencable. The I (ego) never experiences the I of the other (alter ego) directly. It only experiences its utterances in action, in its verbal expressions, etc. So how does the ego come to speak of a you at all in the sense of an alter ego? - Not differently than by the fact that it simply transmits to its counterpart an ego - its own, originally experienced one - and implants it in him, so to speak. From then on not only the ego is "twice there" (see part 3), but also the you.
The "you" constitution is not an original experience. But it is based on an original (non-physical!) experience: the conscious having of the ego - as the source of one's own activity and spontaneity. Only on this basis can the you-constituting transferation through the ego take place. The you-constitution is a knowingly and deliberately executed free act of the ego. And because this act represents the main switch on the path of development towards sociality, one can see in it the actual social-forming act, the social basic act par excellence.
The act of will "You Constitution" creates the supporting framework of human sociality. From it emerges "the idea of humanity in our subjects" (Kant). He is responsible for the fact that for an ego there is something like a you (in the stringent sense) at all, which it can get involved with, with which it can discuss itself, conclude contracts, etc.
The eventful basis for the consciously undertaken ego-transference is already laid very early: with the observation of the child that all others - like themselves - also say "I". The later conscious constitution of the You takes place on the basis of this preliminary understanding. It turns the other, the mere age, into the alter ego. Thus my ego also forms the other into the ego-isth. This is of extraordinary importance for dealing with each other. Because of the ego-transferation, my egoism absorbs the egoism of the alter ego. My egoism becomes altruistic. That is the basis of the altruistic.
The thesis that it is my own will that produces not only the ego, as pure ego, but also the you, also as pure ego, is an epistemologically justified requirement. For our capacity for knowledge has its limit not only where it is about one's own ego, but also where it is about the ego of the other, about which you are concerned.
For the du constitution I also use the expressions "transfer of the ego into the you“ "transfer of the ego into the you,“ "step out of the ego into the you,“ "step out of the ego into the you,“ without thinking of a cognition. For the constitution of the you (as "intelligent ego" of the other) is no knowledge. It is a deliberately set in motion insinuation or bestowal. The ego, so to speak, gives an ego to the you.
As the transferring ego, I have to subordinate the other person's ego, so to speak. This is all the easier for me, the more I observe what I experience as a result of my own spontaneity in myself, also in the other. Above all, the other's ego-saying strengthens the assumption that the other experiences his ego exactly as I mean it. But that is and remains a mere assumption and is not a knowledge. A you-knowledge does not awaken for me, even if I experience it massively as reluctant to me when I say "I want" or also when I say "I do not want".
The creation of the you - as an "intelligible" you - is a process beyond the physis that I can experience. It may therefore also be called "meta-physical". The above-mentioned social basic act thus causes a meta-physical collective between you and me. This collective is the actual "we", and not the "we" in the sense as it appears, for example, in a physical being together in a group, but the "we" in a much deeper, more intimate sense, in the sense of the non-physical being together of the "intelligible ego" and the "intelligible ego" of the others (alter ego).
From time to time the assertion is made that a clear consciousness of one's own ego can only be attained through you. I can't agree with this in general. But should the assertion mean: The historical development of the ego-finding, in the sense that in the end the ego really has itself as "pure" in all consciousness, is initiated and triggered by a you, e.g. by an interpersonal borderline experience, then I agree with it. However, the cause and outcome of the ego-finding lies with myself. This also applies to the you-finding.
The creation of the you as a person is a free decision brought about by the analytically cultivated intellect. The true you-constitution is a matter of will and not of a researching search for the ego of the other with the methods and equipment of an empirically proceeding science. Here again (see Part 3) it is merely a question of the personal stage of development, which you should see not only as an empirically encountering habitus, but also as an independent ego - and thus as an end in itself. The self-purposes of the other is the original act of the creation of human sociality - in contrast to the animal one.
If the ("intelligible"!) you did not exist, then the ego would experience its counterpart only as a thing among other things, which may serve as a means for its own purposes, but is not useful in itself. With the I-transferation to you, the self-purpose character of the I is transferred into the you. Thus the you becomes an end in itself. In other words: with the you-constitution the ego approves the alter-ego, and thus the egoism of the you. Thus the Other is no longer only a means for me, but is - just like me - an end in itself. If the you constitution is not completed, then the ego has not yet completely absorbed the you. You as an end in itself is alien to the ego. Altruism is then not yet part of egoism.
Kant had also formulated his categorical imperative, of which there are a total of about 20 versions in his works: "Act in such a way that you use humanity, both in your person and in the person of everyone else, at all times simultaneously as an end, never merely as a means. Because of the recognition of the you as an independent ego, the egoism of the you, i.e. its selfishness, is secured. It is this because the ego wants you to possess yourself, to develop according to its nature, to recognize and pursue its own goals, because the ego wants you to be an end in itself.
The noble behavior to see the others not only as means but also as an end in itself is in principle possible for every human being - if he has advanced his ego to such an extent that it absorbs another as an independent you (alter ego) through a transfer act, so to speak. In this respect, the act of will of the ego-transfration into the you is not only the social basic act in general, but at the same time also the ethical basic act.
To see the others not only as a means, but also as an end in itself, that's what one has to want! To be aware of this fact is not only of epistemological importance. Such awareness is also indispensable for economic, legal and political considerations.
Pooh, you have to be careful when writing, so part 4 is finished today. All parts are untre #free-society deposited for reading.
The next part follows
Your @zeitgedanken