>>13641316I'll pull on the thread of the Ego being an object for consciousness I suppose. It seems to me at least that the relation of the Ego, the "I" to the sensations and thoughts one encounters/has in consciousness is a bit like the relation of any object in the world to the world itself. One never perceives the entire world, but always understands that any given object in the world is within the context of the world, within the ideal unity of all objects. Similarly, when one experiences disgust or anger towards a particular person, upon reflection one can decide or realize that "I hate that person", they can give to each of the individual sensations the property of being an instantiation of a persistent property, the "I hate". Hatred of this sort only ever appears in reflection, one never experiences oneself as being a hateful person, but only as hating, as feeling disgust or anger which is thought of as an instantiation of a persistent object, the "I", which has the property of being hateful. The "I" in this case is one something is never conscious of head-on, because it is only ever encountered in reflection, when the objects of a previous state of consciousness are taken as being instantiations of some particular state of the "I", but when one tries to feel out the "I" in itself, beyond its instantiations in the various sensations and feelings which have been assigned to it, one tries to perceive it non-reflectively and fails in Humean fashion. The "I" or the Ego, is therefore not Transcendental in any way, it does transcend consciousness, but only because it is, just like chairs and tables, an object for consciousness rather than consciousness itself.
