After writing thoroughly about my idea of cognitive recognition through the work you produce, the only question that had remained was whether or not this diluted self that exists in another person’s head should be considered a valid form of existence. That even if this is a self, a version of you, but does not hold your consciousness or is not a holistic picture of who you are, is it still “you”, is it still a valid version of you that should be remembered?
Through cognitive immortality, traces of you exist in anything that perceived you or perceived something tangentially related to you. This version of you that exists in someone else’s head is undeniably altered and transformed due to biases and internal perceptions. When does the level of transformation no longer resemble the original ‘you’ that has been perceived and interpreted over and over again?
It is understood that close friends and family have a better grasp of who you are compared to a stranger because the relationship has built enough where both parties have influenced each other’s personalities and identities. Growth has been shared to the point where the self is now defined in proximity to another, and you become a material the other party identifies themself with.
‘You’ on a holistic, whole level is a combination of external perception, actions, and internal thoughts. Assuming that the ‘you’ that exists in another person’s head is another form of non-cognitive existence, is a kind of over-humanization, especially if the other person who perceives you is a stranger. To a degree, existence in another person’s head is always going to be out of one’s own control, allowing it to be a valid form of existence is up to the person who is being perceived. Yes, there is a version of you in someone’s head, altered by projections and assumptions based on purely physical observations– but this is such a poor grasp of who you are that entertaining this specific idea that it's a valid form of self is stupid. On a closer level, the ‘you’ that exists in a family member’s head does undeniably exist, but it is up to you to determine how much it will impact you.
Even if you can never know who you truly are, the existence of a you is not the same as the existence as you. If ‘you’ is the total of physical traits, behaviors, and internal thoughts, the limited perception of you that exists in someone else’s head is not the same you that exists as a combination of projections and traits. Knowing who you are entirely is impossible, as self-interpretation is just as prone to biases and projections based on internal thoughts of morality and personal standards. This makes it not a true cognitive immortality and more so an externalized parody based on a persona you put on, it is considered a cognitive immortality as evidence of your existence, but not as it being an accurate holistic representation of yourself entirely.
To address the idea of objects created by the creator, and whether or not it is a valid form of existence as a projection of the creator’s internal thoughts, it’s important to recognize that on an artistic level the object is not the art but it is also not a false extension of the creator that made it. It is not a reflection of a complete person but a version of a person that had existed while making it, similarly to how the author isn’t the final say but a marker and version of the creator and culture who existed while writing the book. It’s important to identify that an object's role reflects the creator as a version of the self, but not the self that is currently existing in a state of constant influence and actions.
To consider it a valid form of existence, to assert that the object reflecting an internal self exists in a sense that it reflects a self that has experienced pain or joy is in another way over-humanizing. But it would be a lie to deny myself that any sadness or joy while creating an object does not hold any fingerprints of the emotion that the me has imprinted onto the object while making it. The object itself is merely a collection of physical items and processes, but it is knowing the action I have taken and the thoughts I have experienced while making it that creates a layer of cognitive weight onto the object that others will acknowledge but never fully understand. This layer is an immateriality, and it gives me relief knowing that whatever objects I make can be destroyed so the self that “exists” within the object can be destroyed alongside it, even if I know that there was never a real self to begin with.
It will take me much more time to think and articulate my thoughts on the connection between the creator and the creation, as the subject has always been emotionally charged for me.