A formal argument against using "I from We" as a Diviner of Self-Conception
Premise 1: The "I from We" is a Construct of Societal Norms
The "I from We" originates from societal frameworks, designed to facilitate interaction within a group.
It is shaped by collective values derived using linear hierarchies and emotional bindings that use an Imprimatur/Status/Value system that can be witnessed in each dominant logic group that prioritize societal conformity over individual authenticity.
Premise 2: The Me-Mind is Emergent and Dynamic
The human Me-Mind evolves continuously through awareness in the present, in an embodied, interdependent, time-forward lifetime, shaped by lived experience guided sentient and sapient events cognitive interactions with data, information, and lived experiences.
It is dynamic, non-linear, and transient, with each moment of awareness (iStates) being unique and unrepeated.
Premise 3: The "I from We" distorts conflates simplifies self conception
The "I from We" imposes a static, linear framework that distorts the emergent, dynamic reality of the Me-Mind:
False Continuity: The "I" treats the self as a unified and unchanging entity (e.g., "Me at 5" equals "Me at 50"), ignoring the profound physical, psychological, and experiential transformations over time.
Emotional Distortion: The "I" is tied to societal constructs that create emotional and somatic bindings, aligning identity with external norms rather than personal realities.
Autobiographical Constraints: Self-conceptions based on the "I from We" are shaped by societal narratives, creating a constellation of choices that reflect external expectations rather than the Me-Mind’s authentic emergence.
Premise 4: Modern Knowledge Reveals the Inadequacy of "I from We"
Developments in philosophy, logic, and cognitive science highlight the inherent limitations of using the "I" as a tool for self-conception:
Self-Referential Paradoxes: Insights from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the linguistic turn reveal that self-referential systems like "I" are prone to error and inconsistency.
Linguistic Limitations: The "I" cannot capture emergent phenomena that transcend natural language, such as synesthesia or other knowable but unnameable aspects of awareness.
Iterative Incompleteness: Each iteration of self-conception based on the "I from We" inherits the distortions and limitations of its origin, perpetuating a cycle of incomplete and unreliable representations.
Premise 5: The Pathway from Me to I Must Be Empty
For the "I" to authentically represent the Me-Mind, the pathway from Me to I must be free of societal constructs and impositions.
The "I from We" fills this pathway with preconceptions and norms, obstructing the Me-Mind’s direct expression into the world.
Conclusion: The "I from We" Cannot Serve as a Reliable Diviner of Self-Conception
The "I from We" is unsuitable as a tool for self-conception because:

It distorts the emergent, dynamic reality of the Me-Mind with static societal constructs.
It enforces false continuity and emotional bindings that misrepresent the self.
It is revealed by modern knowledge to be an incomplete, unreliable system for mapping the Me-Mind.
It obstructs the authentic pathway from Me to the world by filling it with societal baggage.
As such, the "I from We" cannot act as a viable direction-finder or diviner of self-conception in a one-time forward lifetime.

Implications of the Argument
Philosophical Implications:

Practical Implications:

Recognizing the limitations of the "I from We" can inform practices in therapy, education, and self-reflection, encouraging approaches that decouple self-conception from societal constructs.
Ethical Implications:

By addressing the distortions caused by societal norms, this argument advocates for greater autonomy and authenticity in individual identity formation.