<p>The concept of the I that is present in the scholarly and mundane consciousness is inwardly paradoxical, as it contains the risk of regression to &ldquo;bad infinity&rdquo;. Thus, &ldquo;I see an object&rdquo; obviously creates in me the image of the object; by implication, &ldquo;someone&rdquo; inside me sees the image of the perceived object and, consequently, an image of the image, which has just arisen, emerges then; this new image further transforms into an object of internal perception, and so on and so forth, &ldquo;to infinity&rdquo;. The same logic of regression into bad infinity applies to the individual&rsquo;s experiences and aspirations regressing into the far reaches of the Transcendental I. An alternative to such an understanding forms a viewpoint on the I as a dynamic whole in the unity of its four modes, &ldquo;the Existential I&rdquo;, &ldquo;the Phenomenological I&rdquo;, &ldquo;the Presuming I&rdquo;, and the &ldquo;Self-valuable I&rdquo;. The assumed fact that initially there is &ldquo;someone&rdquo; &ldquo;in me&rdquo;, as part of the Phenomenological I, that &ldquo;feels&rdquo;, &ldquo;looks&rdquo;, &ldquo;acts&rdquo; and &ldquo;experiences&rdquo;, is revised. It is surmised that the assumed (imaginary) I becomes real (acquires agency) through the mediation of the individual&rsquo;s contacts with his or her environment. The four modes of the I are generated through the individual&rsquo;s activity manifested in various ways (search, imitation, purposeful activity and supra-adaptive activity). The involvement of the I in the culture and activity discourse enables the unified interpretation of concepts that are present in philosophical and psychological systems that are significantly different in their premises.</p>