Are you saying with Jimi Hendrix that, I'm the one that's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to?

Say more about the difference between "MUST" and "COULD."

I don't understand the condition of mortality as a disincentive to learn. It certainly kicks my ass to not just lounge around and wait for good opportunities.

I do hold a sizable chunk for that man in my heart, and I do side with that.

By must, I mean what you must, colloquially, do to remain alive; consequently being finding a reliable source of food, water, consistent shelter, etc. The same as any of our Darwin cousins. However, the human is set apart by its own mind. We have developed a sense of self, and a desire beyond colloquial survival. Due to this sense of being, we have an instinct keen of our individual survival. A guard that is not aware of what it is guarding is, more often than not, a foolish one. We are aware of our fate. What seems to be a trend among suicide victims? A note. The suicidal know what is to come. They find great comfort in it. Everything that has plagued them, will swiftly be relieved. What does one do in the arms of such comfort? They portray it, all in a note. It is the justification for their inevitable release. Everything you do and say, everything you write, sing, draw, or any other form of expression, is your note. There is an end. We know there is an end. It is plastered in our writings, our art, and our very selves. This allows to see what we could do, what can be done knowing of our end. To fish is to cast the line. You cannot understand what could be if you do not understand what you are in the first place. So you must strive to reach that understanding. The same for every human. You must strive to become the best mind possible of yourself. You think, therefore you are.

I can follow that explanation. It leads me to not understand your postscript:

Please find any fallacy with this, I'd like nothing more. I want to be wrong, it means I can continue to learn — nihil

What is it that you want to be talked out of?

Not so much be talked out of, I want to refine my belief as much as possible. Is it valid, to your eyes at least?

It is valid as an expression of a condition. I don't know if it excludes other expressions. The necessity invoked serves a purpose but maybe not purposes that start from opposite presuppositions. I am reluctant to join in the last word on last words.

Foucault wrote on this topic. I don't follow all of it but I don't understand all of it either.

An expression of the condition of our conditions themselves. An expression that accounts the absurdity of the conscious, self-aware mind.

It is the struggle accounted by every condition, to be, and in the words of Camus, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

One could say our ego is too small for itself. It realizes its own insignificance and, dismayed by it, seeks greatness - something beyond the tiny thing it is. All human endeavors can be spoken of in these terms.

As you say Madfool the ego" realizes its own insignificance". It serves us in order for the physical body to survive in our physical world.Yet often holds us back spiritually, mentally and physically. Perhaps the ego serves us to protect our physical form but when it is allowed to dominate our conscious self our ego can blind our other senses , leading us to believe that it is our true self..Our ego may be necessary in order for us to prolong our lives...but prolonging life at any cost .Perhaps our ego like a horse pulling a cart should be carefully controlled. At least a carefull balance attained and an ability to mute the ego's voice is perhaps advantageous..While not being the true self, perhaps the ego is a real construct..How to control the ego may be among our intrinsic goals as humans.

Getting back to your initial post nihil...perhaps the ego does not offer us liberty at all.Perhaps it chains us to physical dimensions and actually prevents us from realising our true nature by making us focus on the physical at the expense of so much more.

]

Perhaps it chains us to physical dimensions

Elaborate. What other dimensions do you proposer there are?

I am defining the ego in Freudian terms, are we on the same page?

I do not have the information to even begin to describe what i mean by probable other dimensions....sorry...wish i did.
Expressed in another way....when the focus of our attention is consumed by the desires and chatter of our egos, it is to the exclusion of everything else in the universe which being such a very large concept , may well contain many very different models of reality and its rules or dimensions..would any of us choose to be unchained from the inner cave wall if we suspected what llies outside the cave.Not with our egos intact i suggest.

I am defining the ego in Freudian terms, are we on the same page? — nihil

I'm always careful using Freud as a source for definitions as most of his ideas about the mind, consciousness etc. are outdated and updated with a more modern understanding of psychology.
Does your argument hold up when looking into modern psychology research about how we perceive ourselves and also how we delude ourselves?

Also, what must we do? What is the divide you make between could and must? Meaning, how do you define could and how do you define must within the context of your argument?

I am defining the ego in Freudian terms, are we on the same page? — nihil

What is a Freudian ego?

Nihil
I don't think you are making any sense. Liberty is freedom... the ego is a motivator, we cannot give freedom to motivations, only actions.

Transitively, we all share the ego, as certain as we are born. If we all share this, then we have a right to it, as certain as it is ours. — nihil

To say we have a right to an ego is meaningless. Bentham called rights 'Nonsense on stilts'. Where is that 'right' enshrined? You could say we have a right to legs or eyes, but not all of us have them.

the cultivation of the self in order to understand what could be done in the face of the inevitable — nihil

Dealing with mortality has nothing to do with ego. The ego reacts against death with fear, anger, denial - not understanding and the will the learn. To handle the big questions of life you need to move beyond ego.

I agree with Bentham that 'rights and duties' are not moral at all. They are completely meaningless in an ethical scope, purely speaking. I am proposing that, for the sake of it's utility, we let each their own without fear of persecution. You are correct, we have the right to legs and eyes, but not all of us have them. However, you cannot lose your sense of self. After all, it is what allows to realize you are in lack of appendages and blind in the first place!

Would you rather be made to live or have the freedom to die?

I am simply using the ego to justify our mortality, nothing more. I agree that mortality spawns disdain, anger, and desolation. However, it also allows us foresight unto our life to come. With this, we can push past the dismal. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

I agree with Bentham that 'rights and duties' are not moral at all. They are completely meaningless in an ethical scope, purely speaking. I am proposing that, for the sake of it's utility, we let each their own without fear of persecution. You are correct, we have the right to legs and eyes, but not all of us have them. — nihil

I'm not sure what you mean in the 3rd sentence..

What I'm saying about arms and legs is not that we have a right to them, but that it is meaningless to talk about whether we have a right to them. If we do, who gave us that right, God? If you believe that, then fine, you can talk about our right to a self in the same way. If you're an atheist like me then the idea of the right to a self or ego makes no sense..

Nihil I suppose what you're referring to is the ‘Death Drive’ as mentioned by Freud in ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle.’ Here it seems to me to diverge from your view because the death instinct keeps us in a state of predication to the outer world. I don’t fully believe it should be our right to exercise the ego in all cases simply because it has been defined. Freud himself wrote that if our repressed sexual drives were to be allowed to rule, society as a whole would probably break down. But your notion of transcending the necessary and of our human privilege to do so is wholly agreeable. There are inspirations and disorders, and the advantage of one comes with the burden of the other. It is our right to follow what we are told not to follow from within but not without. Our liberty rests in the opposite of the outward expression of repressed motivations, because with that as a global rule nobody would posess any liberty.

Liberty is an illusionary condition instilled via indoctrination. All humans have "ego", not all humans have "liberty".