"Does Consciousness Exist ?" [ William James' Essay" ]

This passage seems to discuss aspects:

The puzzle of how the one identical room can be in two places is at bottom just the puzzle of how one identical point can be on two lines. It can, if it be situated at their intersection; and similarly, if the ‘pure experience’ of the room were a place of intersection of two processes, which connected it with different groups of associates respectively, it could be counted twice over, as belonging to either group, and spoken of loosely as existing in two places, although it would remain all the time a numerically single thing.

Each ontological ego is a line.

For the thinkers I call neo-Kantian, the word consciousness to-day does no more than signalize the fact that experience is indefeasibly dualistic in structure. It means that not subject, not object, but object-plus-subject is the minimum that can actually be. The subject-object distinction meanwhile is entirely different from that between mind and matter, from that between body and soul. Souls were detachable, had separate destinies; things could happen to them. To consciousness as such nothing can happen, for, timeless itself, it is only a witness of happenings in time, in which it plays no part. It is, in a word, but the logical correlative of ‘content’ in an Experience of which the peculiarity is that fact comes to light in it, that awareness of content takes place. Consciousness as such is entirely impersonal – ‘self’ and its activities belong to the content. To say that I am self-conscious, or conscious of putting forth volition, means only that certain contents, for which ‘self’ and ‘effort of will’ are the names, are not without witness as they occur....

This neo-Kantian approach, as seen by James, is basically on the edge of outright aspectualism which does not make consciousness primary except in a minimal, formal sense --- such as the way that objects are -- by revealing themselves "in" time ("as" time?) in a flowing series of aspects. When the knowing, claim-making ego is also grasped as an especially important object, but still basically a transcendent object, then "consciousness" loses its absolute status. Or rather lets "world" (given in aspects) take priority as more logically sound. I say more "logically" sound because thinking is not (essentially ) a function of the individual. Yes, animals have their own brains, but these brains evolved to host, in our case, an ancient accumulative Conversation (norms for conceptual comportment.) I am "more We than me," and this is why you can understand this sentence.