I mean, if I see further, it's because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, is all I'm saying.

:snicker:

Man, I mean I think some mystical stuff is pretty cool, like Wittgenstein's stuff in the last parts of Tractatus. It's when it becomes New Agey or "Divine Wisdom" that I find it annoying, like, all of a sudden this person has an experience and thinks they're being insightful. :roll:

Depends on how it is formulated.

But even Kant - whatever you think of him - put strict limits on what could be said about it, which turns out to be extremely little.

And the little he does day does not go beyond all possible experience.

This last claim is fashionable in some mystic circles and whatnot. It's whatever, but, it's been a bit too popular recently, often without taking into account what is being said.

Hegel is a bit of a mess, imo. Others disagree.

From Haaretz:

Reports estimate Israel will launch ground attack in Gaza within 48 hours
Sources in the Biden administration estimate that Israel will launch a ground attack on the Gaza Strip within the next two days, according to The Washington Post.

A spokesperson for the Israeli embassy in the U.S. did not respond to this claim, citing that the embassy does not deal with military issues.

I can't share more, don't want to get into trouble with sharing and all that of paywalled material but, this is important.

What's with this sudden concern of things beyond all possible experience or cognition? You do realize that it's literally beyond experience and cognition, so we can't say anything about it...

Presumably it's a message to Israel's other enemies to not be getting ideas. — Echarmion

It can be interpreted that way. On the other hand it could commit the US military to another war. The aid they get through the US, plus the weapons and the ammunition, more than suffices. Also, if the situation in Lebanon becomes too unstable, Hezbollah may be forced to act. I don't think a ship would be able to stop that.

As a message to Iran though, there, it could be a signal. I don't know. But you have a point.

I doubt the latter, there doesn't seem to be much of a realistic chance to defeat Israel even in an all out effort, and the US has already send a carrier as noted above.

Maybe the Hamas hopes to fatally weaken the IDF in Gaza. It makes at least theoretical sense, but it seems very unlikely to work out.

Of course it could be a sort of 3D chess where Israel occupies Gaza and all the long term costs - materially and politically - are meant to cripple it. But that seems a bit fanciful. — Echarmion

It's a mixture of several factors, including the Temple Mount provocation, creating diplomatic relations with Qatar and Saudi Arabia and trying to negotiate with Israel to free Palestinian prisoners.

If you look at the Israeli press, say Haaretz, they're calling it a disaster for Israel. Of course, if Hezbollah avoids getting dragged in, then Israel will eventually pulverize Gaza again.

Even if Hezbollah gets involved, it doesn't mean Israel will lose, far from it. They can flatten Lebanon quite quickly, the issue would be that Israel does not tolerate high civilian loses and in that respect, it could become much worse.

I doubt Hamas believes it can defeat the IDF. It is more a point of principle, of not being allowed to be insulted by the government and of telling other Arab countries outside Iran that they still exist.

The hostages right now are a key point. But if things remains as they are, Israel will win, as is to be expected.

We will see to what extent this US ship does anything. It's still quite surreal to see, despite the point you made, which is a good one.

US to send aircraft carrier to Mediterranean to support Israel. Who do they think they are fighting, China? This is the world's largest prison. It would be comical if it were not absolutely tragic and disgusting.



Well, that's the issue. From a military perspective alone, the initial stages of this attack were very successful for Hamas. But if this is all they have that is, if they already played all the cards they have, then the only thing they have to negotiate or pressure anything are the hostages. I heard the BBC claim they have around 30 of them.

If Hezbollah does get involved fully, as in a full-scale war, Israel would still win, but the cost would have been extremely high.

We have to see what Egypt will do and Jordan and Turkey. Most scenarios still look bad for Hamas, unless they have something else.

This-is-me” in the sense of: making myself answerable for what will matter to me, what I will be the measure of, what I take as mine, as founding, constituting me in this situation. — Antony Nickles

So, the self as an accountable agent for moral decisions and broader social and contextual circumstances, a bit like becoming who you are by acting or engaging is such a way as to be responsible for who you are.

Yeah, that is another approach to the topic, I believe Kierkegaard talks about this to some extent.

. So I guess I just don’t know what sets what I am saying apart from trying to “articulate (through reason) what this phenomenon is”. What do we want, or need, to explain that we don’t think we can? — Antony Nickles

That's person-dependent, when it comes to specific details. As I understand it, philosophers are trying to elucidate, or find in experience the I, that binds everything together, not only objects in the world, but, as you mention, moral choices too.

But all have failed, to some extent or other. I think it's weakness of understanding, you seem to take a view that it is a misleading or incomplete or potentially risky way to deal with the topic, because there is so much else to consider.

As for legal matters, I do think we have differing pictures of the mind.

It's a kind of experimental state, in that the US sends cutting edge military technology which can be used on a civilian population and have no repercussions, because the Palestinians have nothing to offer (oil, technology, etc.) but their lives. Yeah, once in a while the US can be embarrassed by Israeli actions, but nothing they can't handle.

I wonder, however, have they planned for a wider war? No doubt Tehran & Moscow want one (though Beijing & Brussels certainly don't due to the coming price shocks in global oil markets and winter just a couple months away). — 180 Proof

That's a good question. I am waiting for the obligatory commentary on this topic by Norman Finkelstein, he'll have the best information on the topic.

There are reports of a few minutes ago claiming that Israel and Lebanon have exchanged fire. I know that Hamas has asked Hezbollah to get involved, I don't think they want to, but if an accident happens, they could go in and then all bets are off.



Yes, plenty of times actually, there's lots of examples here, much of it covered in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim.

As for your question, does it help them? We don't know what will be the long-term consequences of this war, but at the moment, Gaza is going to be destroyed, with overwhelming civilian deaths.

If I were them, I do no know how I would react. The options on the table are all horrendous.

I think for Hamas the idea may be the same: by launching this attack, they note to their people and to the World that they exist. Now for them it's only the part of enduring the Israeli counterattack. Because ending the open prison of Gaza for Bibi will be a very costly thing, hence likely they will make this retaliatory operation and possible free or get freed the prisoners. — ssu

I think this is right. It's a high price to pay in terms of lives, but it's a desperate situation. Ironically, I do believe that if the blockade on Gaza was lifted and the people there had a decent life, violence would go way down. Collective punishment just leads to retaliation.



Yes, these threats are not existential. Few of them are actually, despite Israel's constant fear. The one big scare they had was the 1973 war, the other ones weren't particularly existential for them, though of course, things could have gone differently.

If Hezbollah gets involved, it's impossible to guess how this will turn out. I tend to think that the fact that Israel has moved so far to the right, makes compromises or deals more difficult and costly.

I don't believe that killing civilians has justification, nor celebrating death. All I am saying is that the situation in Gaza particularly, is quite desperate. And if you take that into account with the provocations, land theft and the walk on the Temple Mount, it was a matter of time.

You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing.

I thought I had a general idea of what you had in mind, this last post leaves me unsure:

As I understand it, one of the things you are trying to say, maybe the most important one is that philosophers often fall into a trap of trying to force or impose on the self a kind of structure - a "this-is-me" moment, which may not happen, because we are forcing certain demands made by our knowledge onto something which either fails to meet these demands or because we overlook all those other situations in which reason cannot attain what it seeks, the demand of finding this moment of "this is my self" being one way, among many, in which such an issue can arise and be discussed:

"And so, the criteria and circumstances of the life of the self (which may not, or not continually, happen), work and are measured in totally different ways..."

If I am anywhere near what you are trying to say, then yeah, the issue of self arises in many circumstances, most of these circumstances being quite foreign to the usual philosophical obsession with trying to articulate what this phenomenon is, through reason.

What's the problem then?

Sure, such language is excessive, and war is horrible. Nevertheless, one can imagine living in Gaza under some of the worst conditions in the world, if you stay long enough in that situation, I know I would do nearly anything, however morally reprehensible my acts may be.

It feels as if, had they not done something like this, they would simply remained ignored as Israel gets peace treaty after peace treaty with traditional enemies. It's no justification mind you, it's context.

Likewise, if I were going to go to work, or having fun with some friends in a club, if they get kidnapped or worse - it's quite likely I'd want my country to do something, damn the consequences.

It would be ideal if only active military personal were targeted by combatants. That's impossible. Made much more difficult by the situation on the ground. Will it pay off in the long run for Hamas? Or will it only be another, much bloodier war, like the one's we see popping up every 4 years or so?

It's just a tragedy. And again, Israel hurts itself and massacres the worlds largest prison, not helped by the fact that, Israel has the most right wing government in its history.

How Hamas will end up, we do not know. Nor if Hezbollah will be dragged in. But we know the people in Gaza are screwed, as are more Israeli civilians than usual.

To a small extent. As far as I can recall - it's been several years since I read up on this topic in depth - Iran offers more direct help to Hezbollah, but some of it probably ends up in Hamas' hands.

But yeah, it's one of the few remaining states in which the leadership clearly voices support for Palestine, which is why Israel hates Iran so much and even wanted the US to get out of the Iran deal, which Trump did to spite Obama.

Hopefully others here can tell you more details or correct my statement.

Oh sure, it's extremely expensive. And even then, it's not a guarantee against some of the most basic missiles which can be made.

But as long as the US keeps pouring in the foreign aid, why would they care about costs?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/7/from-hubris-to-humiliation-the-10-hours-that-shocked-israel

Interesting article. Makes some good points.

Those rockets look like they belong to Hezbollah to me. I don't doubt Hamas has some limited access to a few precision rockets, but not too much - Israel would usually spot more sophisticated rockets.

Yep, I should've added that they likely have more than one type of missile, but they tend to be rudimentary.

Israel is just on another level, though I've read that, when it comes to the Iron Dome, most of it is PR. That that system is not actually that good and you add that to the quality of Hamas' missiles, you'll get a relatively low missile launched to death caused by missiles ratio.

However, this time Hamas has killed 250 Israelis, that's not a trivial number compared to other Gaza massacres, on day 1, no less.

They're called "Qassam rocket" and the cost ranges from $300-800

https://jinsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Memo_Evaluating-the-Danger-from-Gazas-Weapons-Stockpile-1.pdf

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/israels-push-to-repel-hamas-retaliatory-fire-incurs-heavy-cost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket

Worth noting that: The introduction of the Qassam rocket was unexpected by Israeli politicians and military experts,[18] and reactions have been mixed.[19] In 2006, the Israeli Ministry of Defense viewed the Qassams as "more a psychological than physical threat."[20]

They aren't very effective, given they don't have access to sophisticated materials. But they can still kill, obviously.

Reminds me of some portions of Dhalgren sans the violence. It's difficult for a book to disturb me.

Sounds fine - will add it to my reading list. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, you are probably right. There's a recent quote by the Israeli defense minister, "We will change the face of reality in Gaza years from now."

This will be horrific. :(

see[ing] that each thing has its own criteria. So “degrees of confidence” is still an approach dictated by the desire to see the fallibility of the world as a problem which knowledge can answer (even if sorta), rather than as a truth that shows knowledge is not the only relation we have to the world, others, and ourselves. — Antony Nickles

Now we are in deep waters: what would you say does not count as knowledge, which plays a role in our attempting to deal with or accept or deal with the issue of the self?

I have not thought about this deeply at this moment, but spontaneously, nothing comes to mind.

These are not “natural phenomena”, as vision and awareness and focus are, nor are they our ordinary criteria for judging. — Antony Nickles

How is this not natural?

These are not individualized experiences or perceptions, but they may clash, though not as a matter of an internal something (even if not “perceived”). Our differences are be personal, matter to “me”, which may require me breaking with the judgments of our society, even reshaping the criteria or ordinary working of that judgment, but this is not a “‘fiction’ of convenience”. — Antony Nickles

I agree that in the example provided, we can do away with the case of fictions of convenience. What's less clear is why are these differences not internal? What to me needs water, to you looks beautiful yet, it is by virtue of something internal that we recognize what we end up paying attention to.

Yeah, 198 Palestinians killed. I wonder if having captured civilians will make Israel use some degree of restraint when bombing Gaza. It may.

Yes, ontological principle which makes us postulate "external objects".

It becomes very murky very quickly.

Surprised that the Mossad did not know about this at least 70 Israelis killed. Now Gaza will feel - for the umpteenth time - the hell of the Israeli military, probably going to be several thousand civilians killed in Gaza.

Appears to be a reaction to Israel's provocation of having that minister walking on the Temple Mount. I suppose that in retrospect one should've expected this reply.

I wonder if Saudi Arabia or Qatar will do anything to try and make this shorter than it would otherwise be. Another bloodbath and worst of all is the loss of civilians...

I might read it myself, sound intriguing.

Another massacre... Hamas has hostages this time, I've read.

And yes, as mentioned, exactly what the hardliners in Israel want.

Whatever is out there, strictly speaking, cannot be called "objects" - there no good neutral word for it that comes to mind, unfortunately.

So, let's take the neutral "thing" or "stuff", whatever it out-there is, in part, responsible for how we take these objects to be, they stimulate us into reacting as-if, external objects existed.

But in principle, they are not necessary. But in practice they are.

only that the relation of that project to this issue in philosophy resulted from a pre-imposed requirement (for something certain) — Antony Nickles

I mean, if you have Descartes in mind, as you did in the OP, then sure, certainty can arise in this topic. In such cases of looking for certainty, it's a kind of trap. There is some evidence that suggests that Descartes was in part motivated to write what he did to offer a defeating argument to the reawakening of Pyrrhonian skepticism during his time. Popkin writes about this.

Descartes went as far as is possible into skepticism and we know his results. Today, I think that's putting too much weight into something which has no answer: skepticism cannot be refuted, heck, not even solipsism can be.

Degrees of confidence is a more sensible approach on most topics.

that there is no fact (in me) that ensures things won't fall apart; that we may not understand each other or agree (and not based on an inability to communicate the manufactured sense of "my" experience, perception). His attempt to "solve" this fact of our condition creates the requirement that it be certain, that I "exist", or something does, as "perfect", like math. — Antony Nickles

There is no discernable fact in me. "I" cannot perceive it.

Yet, this stops short of a different issue, whether it (the self, or me or I) exists or not.

It could be a "fiction" of convenience, or it could be a real natural phenomenon, which need not introduce dualism.

that the need or event of our differentiating ourselves from conformity is in response to particular needs of a situation or the interests that we are willing to stand up for, in contrast to philosophy's singular "need" (requirement) that this ongoing duty be relieved from us by knowledge of a fact in us (the metaphysical conception of "me") — Antony Nickles

Sure. Of course, there are situations in which everybody thinks about this topic, and people tend to think about it when a particular situation arises: say you are praised or blamed for some big event. That often leads to an assessment of "oneself."

Philosophy's "need"... for some of them - this is one of those topics which fascinates the philosophers.

Invariably we are going to bring in temporality into the discussion because, it's necessary, almost by definition. We can't speak of anything absent temporality.

But now, I have the feeling that either we are in agreement, or I fail to see the problem you see. Which, if is the case, is all well and good. And if not, that's good too.

What I’ve been doing in this thread is discussing a boring experience in a quite interesting way. It’s actually pretty easy, and everyone does it, e.g., ranting wittily about how boring a movie was. — Jamal

Yeah, and that's what's paradoxical. We usually don't tell boring experiences in the manner we felt them, few people would tell you: I got to work at 8, sat at the desk for 30 minutes, proceeds to detail those 30 minutes, then talks about having coffee, etc.

So, we say these things are boring in a manner that isn't boring, somewhat jumping around it. I'm not saying that we should be boring speaking about boredom as in using bland language and uninspired phrases. To then say nothing about what you are already saying the with the word you are trying to elucidate.

Boredom can be fascinating and funny, in retrospect. Maybe another way that boredom isn’t boring is when the boredomee is not him/herself boring; like Proust, they may have a rich inner life that means that even when they’re bored they’re never boring, if we get inside their mind. — Jamal

Yes, I think there is something to this. It's a type of experience which occurs privately, even though we can all be in boring meeting or a boring office or whatever. Yet what would be the point of even speaking about it if doing so would only produce boredom? Strange.

Then that is rare for me.

Actually, the first 240 pages of Gravity's Rainbow were close to being unreadable. One almost has no clue what is going on. But once it takes off, it's nuts.

The topic of boredom itself is hard to speak about in a profound manner. I think David Foster Wallace's last book, The Pale King, tried to speak about boredom - working in a tax office - while attempting not to be too boring. He never finished the book, due to his suicide.

But if you are dealing with dark themes, it may act as a kind of unconscious impulse to know what's going on. :chin:

Edit: na man, I can feel I'm not making any interesting comments. May try again later. :victory:

That’s the puzzle.

One possibility that occurred to me is just that because I don’t usually read transgressive fiction, Crash shocked me so much that I haven’t been able to get it out of my mind. If that’s what has happened, maybe it means that anything equally shocking would have had the same effect, even gratuitous trash.

But I don’t think so. It’s the way that Crash was shocking that had the effect, a way that distinguishes it as more than gratuitous trash. — Jamal

Then I'd suggest that you weren't actually bored, maybe you were reading it in a disinterested manner. But boredom to me, carries negative connotations that if allowed to continue for too long, is quite exhausting and frustrating.

Unless it's a short book (120 pages or less, for example), then it's doable. But 200 or more pages? That's tough.

It might be a different conception that drives our view, I believe I follow what you are saying. But, my intuition is that there may be something there, which we cannot explain, but which could be explainable to creature with a more complex and sophisticated cognitive system.

Now, you could also be right, in that, there may be nothing there or nothing else to explain, just a confusion due to miscommunicating or misconstruing or thinking wrongly about the topic.

I can't comment to much on your reply to Corvus and frank, but I can mention that Galen Strawson makes a distinction between diachronic and episodic selves, one being the continuous perhaps more common idea that, I am the same person I was, five minutes ago or this morning. If I see a picture of me in the morning, I will (and many others) say that that person is me.

Strawson's a episodic, he does not think or feel himself being a continuing thing, so if he sees himself in the morning through a picture, he doesn't have the feeling that that is him. He recognizes the face, but doesn't feel a connection to that person. He cites a few other examples, Henry James, if I'm not misremembering, being another one.

Ah. Sure, there's content in that, has to be translated, but it can be interesting.

What's interesting to me is that it's not too frequent - in my experience. That something one has read which one find boring, ends up having much impact. It can happen, and when it does, it's just so very strange.

Not in line with the theme's suggested by Crash but, there's something about very, very dark books that, leave a strong imprint in the mind. I don't know quite what it is - I wouldn't want to reduce it to the usual comments about drama or violence at a distance gives us pleasure because we aren't involved in it. There's such a massive mismatch between living a dramatic event - which are just awful, as opposed to seeing it from a distance in other people, other families. Then it's interesting or even fun. And it's strange.

I suppose I have in mind Kirino's Grotesque, utterly haunting, depressing, not a single like-able character, yet, wow, that thing won't leave my mind. The way hatred can be "gotten" or understood from an intuitive perspective, is kind of surreal.

Sorry if it's not replying to your OP, but, it got me thinking about certain platitudes that sometimes are mystifying. Oh well.

I know this is a year old, so maybe you wouldn't say exactly what you said, maybe you would. You think Plotinus' conception of the One to be comparable to Jungian collective unconscious?

I think that Plotinus' One shares certain similarities (anticipations) to Kant's "things-in-themselves", which is interesting, though undecidable.

Collective unconscious... well, that's more modern and in a sense, less defensible.

Typing out loud... :cool:

If Schopenhauer is right, which he might be, I share that intuition, I think that the mere awareness of say the feel of moving your arm, is the closest approximation we have to "what it's like to be energy" - in the external world.

But if he's wrong, then there's nothing it's like to be energy, because energy as used in physics, is a technical term which loses strength when it comes to human beings.

You are asking for proof of what are the conditions we act under as humans (as if philosophy's issues could be answered with science). These authors are trying to get us to see that being human is sometimes beyond the judgment and criteria (and morality even Nietzsche will point out) of our cultural history, our shared ways of judging, identifying, proceeding, etc; not as an ideal but a part of our situation as humans, that our our lives are larger than the limitations of knowledge, that we are not always "circumscribed with rules"(Investigations #68). — Antony Nickles

I entirely agree. Still, when the occasion arises in which some of these things could be addressed, perhaps in an indirect manner, then we should use such results, it's very rare for modern science to have much to say about the lingering problems of philosophy these days. There may be some exceptions, but on the whole, not much.

A case in which a person is raised by wild animals, could give some clues. Some.

I'm a mysterian, so, I have no issue with "being human is...beyond the judgment and criteria...of our cultural history."

My intuition is that there we can't give a satisfactory action to this topic. Then again, maybe good literature could give some kind of insight.

I am trying to show these authors take the creation of the self, thus the possibility of its not existing, not that we can't find an answer to the problem of skepticism,but that we are in the position were we "answer" for our actions and speech in ongoing various ways (not as a picture of matching up with what is "my self"--as above). — Antony Nickles

Sure, I think that the "actual" existence, the real thing not (merely) a fiction of the mind, of a self is quite unclear, I do not think we can say with confidence (not certainty, of course) whether such things exist or do not.

We act as if they existed and in fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, base our law on the assumption of the existence of something like a self.

It is not "metaphoric" as in just language or a social commentary; there is actual import in it for the analytical workings of the conditions of being human. — Antony Nickles

I'm not saying it's nothing, but in a court of law the difference between sleepwalking and intent to kill has literally prevented a person from going to prison.

How do you know this? Those experiments are just experiences more precisely and rationally carried out (than every-day-to-day ones). Thusly, it cannot be said that we receive anything if we take away the forms of our experience, since there isn’t even justification for there being causality. — Bob Ross

But this sounds as if experience is experience of something that is only a representation and nothing else in any case. I don't think that follows, are natural numbers a representation or are they real constituents of reality? That 2+2=4, regardless of how you write the numbers, will be a fact, regardless of people being around or not, it's a fact - it's true regardless of belief or consciousness.

As for causality, again, yes, we discover it through experience. But we have to options: either things "just happen", that is, there is no reason why light can't escape a black hole, which suggests that there is no reason why light could escape a black hole, or why a photon couldn't turn in to an electron.

Or there is a reason which we discover and attribute to the external world, and it happens to be an excellent approximation of what happens.

But this is just a semantic issue. I am talking about the thing which we normally call a ‘chair’, which is not a trashcan flipped upside down. My point was that the thing we point out as a chair is just as real as what we point out as an atom. — Bob Ross

I don't agree. It's not a semantic issue, but a conceptual one. We don't sit on what we interpret as "spikes", but we could sit on many things - that depends on what we take to fit under the conception of chair.

An atom is not like this, I cannot, with significant flexibility, decide that an atom is a proton or that energy is made of particles. That doesn't happen with chairs or tables or keys, etc.

But they can’t be said to ground reality sans the model, which is where Kant goes wrong, since we cannot grant that anything we experience exists beyond it. Takeaway the forms of one’s experience, and nothing we experienced remains. — Bob Ross

We can't have a form of experience without something providing that form which is not experience. Otherwise, I could, by mere thinking change a notebook to a puddle of water. But I can't. Something prevents me, which is not my imagination, but a fact about something existing.

How did they define metaphysics? — Bob Ross

They didn't really have a definition, it was an activity. It was them describing what the world consisted in. As we know Descartes - with very good reasons for his time - thought the world was made of matter and mind.

Locke is much more subtle, and says we do not know if only matter exists, or if dualism is true. For all we know, he says, matter can think, it is not beyond the power of God to give this capacity to matter.

But they also discussed issues such as the self and skepticism, under the rubric of metaphysics.

I would say they study things independent of us: but the very concept of “independence of oneself” is conditioned by those forms of experience, and are not valid beyond that. — Bob Ross

That's fine. We don't see things similarly here.

So there's a conundrum. If John was sleepwalking, he did it, but he's not responsible. But what if we're always sleepwalking in a manner of speaking? Always playing out the same habits and grinding the same axes, or maybe only doing what we think we're supposed to do. That's a kind of loss of selfhood. — frank

I mean if you have that in mind, say, sleepwalking through life or drowned in consumerism or some other metaphoric use of the term, I still think the whole "reasonable person" standard applies, you would be responsible for your actions because you know what you are doing is wrong.

In the case of literal sleepwalking, as in, not being conscious of what you are doing in your "awake state" - your behavior in other words - then culpability feels wrong, there was no intent, no sudden impulse, just a reaction is sleep.

am saying your being you (individually) works through a process of putting yourself in line or against our culture (the social contract as it were), and that this happens as an event (not all the time), either moral, political, relational, etc. — Antony Nickles

Sure, I can see that. But aren't there empirical cases we could look into? As in a child being raised by wild animals in which they don't have other human beings as a reference frame, what would happen to them?

Maybe they don't have a sophisticated sense of self.

Well, let's try to imagine a context in which we would say this (not to be too Wittgensteinian about it). Perhaps if we were getting ourselves psyched or trying to get our confidence up in the face of someone treating us as insignificant (less than a person)--"I exist! I exist!"--and this would be in the sense that I matter, that I am not nothing. — Antony Nickles

I'd phrase it as "I am saying nothing", by which "saying" I intend to get across something beyond syllables, as in telling that person "I'm going to faint!", as a warning to be attended to or looked at.

which I am saying these other authors take up as what we must assert and express into the world--in a way that is not self interest, but takes ownership ("possesses") of what we want our interests to be in the world (Wittgenstein will call this our "real need"), that we own (up to) them (living our shared criteria for judgment, or averse to them; extending them, revolutionizing our lives). — Antony Nickles

Sure, he is aiming at that ownership status, as it were. Funnily enough, in his Appendix to the Treatise, he recognized that his entire system essentially collapses, when he says "my hopes vanish", when discussing the problem of not being able to find a self and not being able to find a real (as opposed to imagined) continuity in objects.

He is admitting, implicitly, that he is using in his system, more than should be allowed, under his system, namely assuming the self is unified and that objects have a real connection, despite not being able to prove it.

Extremely interesting passages often ignored. But it gets at a very important part of the issue, but it does leave the social aspect - which is crucial - outside, so, perhaps not entirely relevant to the discussion.

Or infinity. We can't fathom it, but it's always there lurking in the contours of thought. When I think of the self I seem to fall into thinking of it as the primal dividing line: between me and not-me. All other division seem to follow, me and the perceived, the real and the not-real, the good and the bad, something and nothing, etc. — frank

Yes, there are these kinds of intuitions, such as this is not me, or that is X not Y. Infinity too, is something we extrapolate to, without really understanding it much.

Curiously, something as murky as the self, is crucial for things like criminal law, which depend on such notions. Also, our moral intuitions come into play, in terms of, if John hit Bob, if John is provably sleepwalking, we can't blame him for such an act. But if he merely angry, then we do penalize him, etc.

It's a dense and informative OP, as expected from you. I am however a little perplexed by what the main point is, are you suggesting that the self exists only when we make propositions to others or that if we are alone, and we say we exist, we are not saying anything informative?

It's a very hard topic, hence the lack of progress for thousands of years. And there are many ways to confront the topic, one attempted solution is Descartes' and his argument that he cannot doubt that "he" is thinking, whatever "he" is.

We could also see the matter in the way you quoted Wittgenstein, which suggests that it is in the process of thinking and making attributions to others that we come to life.

We could also take Hume's approach, which allegedly echoes Buddhism, when he famously said:

"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception."

Now, as has been commented on by several figures, he appears to deny or minimize something, he cannot help use: namely the "I". What is this referring to?

It could be that this is one of those problems in which our folk-intuition cannot do without, but which we cannot uncover through the most strenuous of efforts. Something can be an actual phenomenon, which we cannot delve into, nor explain, as I think is also the case of free will.

But I could be misreading you.