Harlow: “All unconscious parts are fully aware of the entire conscious milieu.”
If awareness is something that has degrees, is “fully” just the maximum degree, or is there an upper register on the awareness scale, so that anything above N degrees of awareness can count as “fully”?
Round up seventeen different Christians who are all “fully aware” of the contents of the Bible, i.e., they have all studied it extensively, not just read it cursorily. What good does this being “fully aware” do them?
Is unconscious/conscious a binary distinction, or might it admit of degrees as well?
Doesn’t the conscious milieu have horizons, so that it fades off in every direction? If so, wouldn’t the word ‘entire’ be quite problematic here?
Maybe my problem here is with counting at all (?).
Cornelius Castoriadis suggests that “what there is” is more like “magma” than like a determinate set (or set of sets). He says you can mark sets within a magma, but what is left over after marking sets (however many you mark) is not a set. It’s not determinate and countable. One of the directions I’m going to try is that of a magmatic self. For lots of practical purposes, one can mark parts of the self. But however many parts you mark, what is left over is not a determinate set of parts.
Perhaps counting the parts of the self unavoidably presupposes particular purposes and awareness (whether “full” or not) attuned to and by those purposes. Without some sort of casting call, no actors will show up. If there’s a casting call, who shows up will depend on the call. Well, what if everybody shows up? Would there be an unchanging count of “everybody”?
Though I contain multitudes, perhaps I am not reducible to the multitudes I contain.