An I beyond defining(?)!

The definition of I has always been a fascinating subject to cover for humankind. It resulted in conflicts and deaths between religions and early humans. Are we the so-called eşref-i mahlukat (the most honorable beings) or are we nothing more than a mere random mutation pile?

What about on a personal level? How can one differentiate “I” among “we”s? How am I any different from the neighbor next door or a murder convict rotting up in prison? What is “I”?

Is “I” what I do? A working-class white collar. Is “I” whom I interact with? An Agoraphobic. Is “I” what my interests are? An art enthusiast. Is “I” where I am from? A World citizen. Is “I” what I know? A PhD student in Sociology. Is “I” my abilities? An excellent cook.

One of the most intriguing theories -and the one I love the most- of “I” is from Thomas Cooley. He defines “I” as;

“I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I am”

Problem solved? No. This very sentence also guides us to another uncertainty: If I is the creator of such beliefs, how am I to be certain of such beliefs to be true? Superposition is how I will be explaining my understanding of “I”. When a quantum system is in a superposition state, it is in multiple states simultaneously until it is observed just like Schrödinger’s cat. If I am in multiple states of “I”; aren’t I the mother and the child, aren’t I the help and the foe.

“Until observed” is the crucial point in the superposition theory and the one I am most terrorized by. One’s understanding of “I” is entirely dependent on one’s self: Petitio principii. A circular destination. A being like “I” already clueless of themself is responsible for decoding “you”s understanding of their self through themselves. How can I ever be -truly- “I” if I don’t even know what “I” is for me to observe let alone for you?

Isn’t “you” a creation of “I” like any other thing we observe or question? Aren’t I the creator of all things if even “I” depends on my consciousness? Ethics, Laws of Nature, aren’t they just a mere interpreted creation of “I”? Above all aren’t I the creation of “I”? How can one ever trust themselves when they are the only judge and the assassin of their beliefs which created all beings?

Is “I” who observes, questions, and amends real? If “I” is the creator of even “I” is it all even real?

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

A circular destination. When I thought that I figured out the one who answers created a new question of “I”s reality.