Reply to comment

I'll be teaching the next Summer Institute, so I stopped by this morning to get a taste of how this one is going. I stayed on because I was intrigued by the story that was being told about the outputting/inputting/reafferenting brain. And I came back here this afternoon because I have a question about that story. It's a question about where we put the "I," and about what the consequences are of locating it solely in that aspect of self that we are aware of.

I understand the distinction between the modules that are the conscious and unconscious parts of our brain; I think I also understand how and why those parts might aptly be re-named the "storyteller" and "frog brain." What I really don't understand (and want to challenge) is the terminology of the "I-function." Why attribute only what is conscious to "I"? Why isn't "I" all that I do, via my body--all that my body does--in the world, whether I'm conscious of it or not? Especially if most of what I do is done unconsciously?

Is this a way of setting up some sort of morality, of saying that I'm only responsible for what I'm conscious of, what I intend to do? If so, then that story isn't very satisfying to me, doesn't acknowledge the really radical consequences of understanding the relationship of our unconscious to our behavior....