The Existence: All I know, only I know...

the article is also on the philpapers

In 1995, as a student of psychology, I was drinking jasmine tea and writing a philosophical essay entitled 'Existence' (kind of master thesis). From the analysis of the process of self-consciousness, I concluded: 
"All I know, only I know", because if YOU know 'what I know', only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know'', and if you know that 'only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know''', only I know that... etc 
At every moment, I know something more (I know that YOU know), or something less (I don't know that YOU know that I know) - than YOU. The consciousness is thus indivisible implying the permanent 'existential solitude' at the very bottom of each existence.
The meaning of 'existential solitude' can be surprising. To illustrate, if there are more people (you, he, she, they...) the combination of 'who knows what', and 'who knows 'who knows what'' vastly rises at every moment (and as time goes by) implying 'existential divergence' driving each existence further from each other. In contrast, avoiding society minimizes set of 'who knows what' implying 'existential convergence' moving the existence closer to other existences.
I also analysed paranoia (schizophrenia) via replacing 'YOU' with THEY:
If I am realizing 'THEY spy ME', I know it. But do THEY know it? If yes, THEY know something more than ME, if not I know something more than THEY. Thus THEY never know, what I know (regardless of their technology).
Replacement 'YOU' by GOD gives a theological example: GOD (whether it exists or not) everything knows, but I know that GOD everything knows, and if GOD knows that I know that GOD everything knows, I know that, etc. 
Mathematically (using kind of calculus) I turned 'All I know only I know' to a recursive contradiction, formally identical to Ancient Greek paradox of liar (is lying liar lying?) or Zeno (before you reach point B you must pass its half distance, its half distance, etc so point B is unreachable), Russell's paradox in 1901 (does 'set of all sets excluding itself' contain itself?), or some models of game theory.
According to 'All I know only I know' Descartes's 'I think therefore I am' (1644), sounds: only I know that 'I think therefore I am'. But as I am realizing: 'I know that 'I think therefore I am'', I can realize that I am thinking. 'I think' and 'I know' are thus mutually exclusive or rather synonyms (Wittgenstein's language game), and so 'I think therefore I am' could be too: 'I know therefore I am'.

OBLIVION
If a talent can't be prevented from its manifestation, it's interpreted as a result of an excessive effort due to the 'inferiority complex': 'We could do better, if we want, but we are busy by life' (what a joke...). It must be at the expense of something. The last chance is to isolate, to claim: U r 'asocial', 'oversensitive', 'fill in anything negative'... Sure, it's more complicated, the exclusion doesn't need to indicate a genius, and many talents earned their statuses. Or: everything is relative, life isn't about that, it's more evolutionAAry...
Anyhow, we decide what's life about, not you. We r good, and whatever u do, u r bad... Denying you with 'so much fun' attitude, hallucinating about 'love', 'friendship', 'significance'. And when the time comes - crying (under the pillow), but never because of you, never on your behalf. nEver evEr...

Related links:
Convergence and divergence of economics (15.9.2004) - I applied 'existencial divergence' to economics via dependence of asset pricing and causality on expectations of future prices, and expectations of expectations (of others) of future prices... The more actors the more possibilities of 'who can know what', which leads to divergence / crisis, i.e. impossibility to determine the asset prices and causality (what causes what). And the longer the analysis (of prices) is lasting, the higher impreciseness of the analysis. 

God knows that I know that God everything knows (14.02.2002) - I applied 'existencial solitude' to analysis of the economic value - determined by so called marginal utility, when the value of the thing diminishes by its owned quantity: 'the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units'. In contrast the motivation of 'collector' can be opposite - the value of the missing thing (from the collection) can be higher (or at least not less) than the things already in the collection... And the motivation of the collector can outweigh the marginal utility...