"Murders of Crows in the stars" | Analysis of opposite self-awareness and the conflict and collision between them

Being became man and for the latter to be essence, consciousness must be present;

Consciousness, that is, knowledge of oneself, self-awareness: The awareness on the theoretical level that the subject has of his being. 

According to Hagel's thought, to which this piece of writing is linked by adding unnecessary reflections, a self-awareness is an individual, independently single, since it is the only one to have knowledge of itself. This would also mean that an individual's reflections given by third parties are just impressions, not interpretations.

However, being unique, it will see in the reflection of a second self-awareness not a subject but an object.

Based on this, I would begin to expose a further concept, a relationship between two individuals;

The man is a beast that seems to move in a herd and if loneliness is therefore unacceptable, one of the two individuals looks for the other.

It is in common jargon to use an expression that conveys that they complement each other to be whole - and this is where I would pause the discussion. I will start from the assumption that the first man, for the sake of the concept subject to our eyes, has by psychological necessity sought and then found the second, an object to him and our eyes to him; Once the relationship has been established, the subject discharges, partially or completely, his boulder or rather weight and, what we call an object and yet which is itself subject, does the same. Although this process is most of the time involuntary, the fact remains that if the two weights correspond, both individuals gain nothing, since we are looking for a liberation, but since the latter is impossible, we are looking for the lighter boulder. Assuming that the two men are not in fact opposites, self-awareness will overlap furiously to establish a king and a servant, this leads to a lighter weight for the king, the mere presence of the servant and his actions, and greater for the servant, submission to the king and the weight of his words.

So returning to the common expression, I find that the latter has no meaning or context, since the opposite of it is inconceivable; Furthermore, the two men do not complement each other, but use each other unconsciously.

In the case of the king and servant it is no longer unconscious, so it is considered by the viewer to be an unhealthy relationship, therefore erroneous.

However, it is possible to achieve a balanced harmony between two consciences;

Since the superposition process is involuntary, both individuals do not distinguish when the latter occurs.