Existential perspectives on sleep

[Burning ghost]

I still don't get it. I have no idea why racism or violence should be applied to states of dreamless sleep. It makes no sense and looks misguided.

I can say that dreamless sleep, the unconscious, is very much in line with our primordial nature and animalistic tendencies. Racism is just simply a repercussion of fear of the unknown which has been used in many other areas not exclusive to racism in order to gain political and social control. Is slavery deep in the mind set of western civilization? Given its history it is still there for sure.

If we are looking at humanity as a whole and relating this to sleep it is a myopic view of the human race. On a global scale the unconscious relates to animalistic fear and reference to our past "savage" lives (probably better to say our lives closer to nature and primal instincts). This is because these contents are often puzzling and have control over our sense of "I" threatening our very sense of self.

[Burning ghost]

My perspective is pretty much Jungian when it comes to the unconscious. I don't think we have inbuilt racism and that it is certainly a partial social construct founded on animalistic fears probably relating to wolf pack behaviour. That is a bit darwinian for me though.

I am not disagreeing nor agreeing with what you are saying. I just don't see how it is relevant to humanity as a whole away from the caucasian western attitudes plagued by a recent history of slavery.

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Do you want to talk about racism and it's relationship to sleep or not? On the one hand, you claim such a line of thought is bizarre and "should" not be applied, but for the past two posts, that is exactly what you are doing..

Part of the reason you are unable to understand me is you are using the work of Jung. Carl Jung's view of the unconscious is the most abbreviated among all the psychoanalysts with respect to death (which, in my previous posts, I liken to dreamless sleep). I suggest you look into the work of Otto Rank or Norman Brown or Ernest Becker - who have more robust theories of the unconscious regarding death and the implications for dreamless sleep

-- Updated June 23rd, 2016, 11:39 pm to add the following --

Recall that Jung parted ways with Freud because he thought he was putting too much emphasis on sexuality and darkness.

[Burning ghost]

I'll have a look. Can you point me towards anything specific? Pdf?

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

1. Here is a scholarly article on dreamless sleep from a Heideggerian perspective by Corey Anton. After reading it, my discussion of race will not seem so foreign.

http://www.academia.edu/183202/Dreamles ... Exposition

2. "The Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker, 1974. One of my favorite books - it completely recasts Freudian analysis. This won a Pulitzer Prize.

3. "Life Over Death" by Norman Brown, 1968. Also recasts psychoanalysis and the view of the unconscious

[Sy Borg]

http://www.academia.edu/183202/Dreamles ... Exposition

Very interesting! I did not see any racial reference on first scan but some fascinating observations, such as:

A single and common world belongs to the awake, but each of the sleeping turns to [their] own world ...

[Belinda]

Right, ZoneofNonBeing, I am getting "upset".You have again accused me of something that I consider to be bad and which is untrue of me.

You wrote:

Taoism does not apply to the black men in America who are being shot down every 28 hours. The only "Way" black folks have ever heard is when the prison warden says "right this WAY" into solitary confinement or the lethal injection chamber. Taoism is woefully inconsistent with present conditions. While I respect the premises and its goals - that is all it is: a set of goals. We need to discuss the actual problem - not where we need to be. You are overlooking the problem, and thus, making the problem worse. Taoism does not apply to the black men in America who are being shot down every 28 hours. The only "Way" black folks have ever heard is when the prison warden says "right this WAY" into solitary confinement or the lethal injection chamber. Taoism is woefully inconsistent with present conditions. While I respect the premises and its goals - that is all it is: a set of goals. We need to discuss the actual problem - not where we need to be. You are overlooking the problem, and thus, making the problem worse. Your rejection of international solidarity between Americans and Africans would be rejected even by Taoists. All borders are considered fiat in Eastern philosophy. The international solidarity between Americans and Africans is a set toward oneness. Your rejection of this demonstrates a lack of understanding of both socialism and Taoism.

I agree with you about this limit on the scope of Taoism.
I would very much like to reduce injustice including injustice to American black people . I am aware of the injustice that you vividly describe. I saw the relevant videos. I write letters on behalf of Amnesty International. I will try to pay more attention to what you are saying. It would help if you would desist from seeming to claim that metaphors about Taoist principles and dreamless sleep are evidence of injustice to black people.

You wrote "We need to discuss the actual problem - not where we need to be. " I fully agree.

My socialist principles are general moral principles. I cannot pretend to knowledge about economics. I voted Remain in the referendum ,and I fear the rise and rise of the far Right now that the Leave voters have won. I am opposed to international borders which are an absurdity in this world where the dangers are not black, brown, white, or religious people but environmental degradation and disease which are not kept back by national borders.

Zone, I know there are accomplished American academics who are Africanists and historians, and I know that a huge number of Americans are not narrow nationalists. You should retract your accusation about me. If you think that if I seem to have posted something to the contrary you need to quote this directly , as you are making a heavy and untrue accusation against me.



ZoneofNonBeing wrote:

You are right about one thing: my commentary is too diffuse for internet discussion. Pardon my inter-disciplinary training. Western students typically learn one school of thought, and that is it. They never learn to put other schools of thought in conversation with each other - and heaven forbid, to apply them in tandem! That is what I have been doing: as I have applied existentialism, anti-capitalism, critical race theory, and a bit of post-structuralism all in the same posts. I imagine, to those who have only been trained to handle one discipline at a time, this can be very disorienting. Learning one school of thought is like a basketball player that can only dribble with one hand; or a dog that can only do one trick. Sorry for not watering myself down for you, Belinda. I made an assumption based on your signature ("socialist") - because the socialists I know are very well-versed and cross-trained in race, sex, class, and religion. I am even more sorry that this was not the case with you.

You rumbled me then True, I lack sufficient education in all the topics that you mention. I hope it's true that you know so many well-versed and well- intentioned socialists as there cannot be too many of us.
I too support interdisciplinary studies and methods.

Rather than "water down" what you write, could you perhaps select according to rigorous standards of both truth and editing? Speaking for myself I dislike watering-down, much preferring the elegant and punchy. As I said, perhaps your subject cannot be edited; I would not know if that is possible for you, or for anyone.

Here is quite a lucid little overview of ascribed and achieved status:-

http://sociology.about.com/b/2011/03/25 ... status.htm

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Hello Greta: You are correct: there is no direct racial reference in the article. But this is only true if we simply scan the article and set it aside. If we are being rigorous and tracking down the references, we find that racism is implied. For example, throughout this article there are references to Ernest Becker - specifically, his work on "The Denial of Death" and "Escape From Evil." In these texts, Becker makes the argument that humans embark upon a causa sui project: the idea that we are self-causing and disconnected from others (see page 196 of article). Anton applies Becker to make the argument that the denial of dreamless sleep is a causa sui project. Becker also argues that racism, sexism, and classism, are causa sui projects (i.e. white denies black, man denies woman, bourgeois denies proletariat). Thus, I made the connection between dreamless sleep and racism. Think of it as a syllogism (if A=B, and B=C, then A=C). There seems to be a rejection of dreamless sleep and race, which would be A=C - an understandable reaction, but also misplaced in light of the archive.

The connection between race and sleep is also not foreign in light of political activism. In the United States, people are indoctrinated to pursue the "American Dream": the marriage, the house with the picket fence, the children, the car, the dog, the steady job, etc. However, non-whites are largely unable to obtain this Dream. Towering Civil Rights activists have re-framed the idea of a "dream" by applying it to race. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr gave the famous speech "I Have a Dream" - where he discussed a racial utopia where all races can be "free at last". During that same time period, Minister Malcolm X made the argument that "black people have not seen any American Dream, they have only witnessed the American nightmare." In light of these well-known examples, the idea of dreaming is already racialized. My connection was nothing new.

Also: my writing contends that blacks have a more intimate relation to death. Corey Anton argues that humans are beings-toward-death and beings-toward-sleep, and that through sleep we gain a deeper understanding of death. My connection of race and sleep was, once again, the fulfillment of an implied syllogism. But yes, Greta: there are many rich excerpts from that article! I am particularly interested in the section that contends that dreamless sleep gives us a clue about our relationship to the world.

Hello Belinda:

Zone, I know there are accomplished American academics who are Africanists and historians, and I know that a huge number of Americans are not narrow nationalists. You should retract your accusation about me. If you think that if I seem to have posted something to the contrary you need to quote this directly , as you are making a heavy and untrue accusation against me.

You are right. Upon further review, my commentary was unwarranted and based more on emotion than rationality. I retract my statements about you on this topic - with due apologies.

It would help if you would desist from seeming to claim that metaphors about Taoist principles and dreamless sleep are evidence of injustice to black people.

Sure! Absolutely! I will desist from making such claims only if you are willing to admit that "metaphors" are not simply passive figures of speech. The Bible is filled with metaphors and symbols. My point is: these metaphors and symbols are not used to oppress all social groups equally. For example, the story of Ham in the Old Testament (which says that the son of Noah was cursed with darkness) was a metaphor that was applied to Africans as a justification for slavery. The Abrahamic metaphor of "The Light versus The Dark" has been applied by Christians, Jews, and Muslims for thousands of years to justify war and conquest. So I am not being reductive. I am not being crude. Metaphors are not just abstract images that are written down and that is the end of the matter. Metaphors are interpreted by living people who take them seriously. Metaphors can be, as they have been, used for agendas that are good or evil. Not all metaphors are; and that was never my position. I am just saying that some metaphors are. The fact that they are metaphors doesn't make their application (whether an "accurate" reading or an "inaccurate" reading - as these are highly subjective) any less bloody.

Rather than "water down" what you write, could you perhaps select according to rigorous standards of both truth and editing? Speaking for myself I dislike watering-down, much preferring the elegant and punchy. As I said, perhaps your subject cannot be edited; I would not know if that is possible for you, or for anyone.

What is truth? Is truth universal and objective - or is it particular and subjective? What are the dangers of viewing "truth" as stable so as to pin it down in a "rigorous standard"? Who are the authors of these "rigorous standards" of truth? What are their agendas and backgrounds? Are these "rigorous standards" of truth precisely that which we need to challenge to fight for freedom, justice, and equality? Can people challenge these "rigorous standards" of truth without being cast aside as a psychobabbler? What of a philosophy forum when being outside of "rigorous standards" of truth is discouraged?

A recent interest of mine is the way books are categorized at the library. When books are cataloged near others, a message is sent that these topics are related. When books are not cataloged near each other, a message is sent that these topics are not related. This is a subtle form of hegemony that attempts to control the way we order reality. Who gets to decide this? What is their agenda and background? (in the United States - it is the Library of Congress; hence, the government). The "sleep" section is not near the "race" section - but that does not mean the two topics cannot inform each other. So, in a sense, Belinda - your question/request is based on a problematic premise. Are you familiar with the work of Jacques Derrida and the notion of "deconstruction"? Are you familiar with gender studies and the methodology of "queering" a topic? If you are, you will see that is what I do, at times, in my writing: disorient the reader by putting two seemingly random topics together, in an attempt to draw attention to the fragile grounds of their worldview (thus sending the message that their worldview can always be different - an endeavor I think you would appreciate from a Taoist perspective!).

-- Updated June 24th, 2016, 9:55 am to add the following --

PS - thanks, Belinda, for the link clarifying!

[Belinda]

ZoneofNonBeing wrote:

Sure! Absolutely! I will desist from making such claims only if you are willing to admit that "metaphors" are not simply passive figures of speech. The Bible is filled with metaphors and symbols. My point is: these metaphors and symbols are not used to oppress all social groups equally. For example, the story of Ham in the Old Testament (which says that the son of Noah was cursed with darkness) was a metaphor that was applied to Africans as a justification for slavery. The Abrahamic metaphor of "The Light versus The Dark" has been applied by Christians, Jews, and Muslims for thousands of years to justify war and conquest. So I am not being reductive. I am not being crude. Metaphors are not just abstract images that are written down and that is the end of the matter. Metaphors are interpreted by living people who take them seriously. Metaphors can be, as they have been, used for agendas that are good or evil. Not all metaphors are; and that was never my position. I am just saying that some metaphors are. The fact that they are metaphors doesn't make their application (whether an "accurate" reading or an "inaccurate" reading - as these are highly subjective) any less bloody.

I admit that metaphors do influence thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and social behaviours.
I note the example of Ham which you quote and which I had not known. I accept most of the above paragraph from you. The exception being that I'd rather omit ancient Chinese imagery from such as Lao Tsu. I personally appreciate some of the imagery but I take my appreciation tentatively as it's so far from my native imagery. Retain metaphors about dreams and sleep if you will and I'll go along.

This black -white-light-dark topic is new to me for the most part although I have heard about Gypsies in past times being demonised as one example of dark people who were to be considered dangerous, unclean and so on. I can think of a lot of other dark beings that were to be thought of as bad for instance "The Dark Lord" in "The Lord of the Rings". I

I'm not entirely convinced until I see a preponderance of references to dark, night, black, which are unkind, over references to light, day, white which are kind.Maybe I am still missing the point which you strive to make. Perhaps the title "Existential Perspectives on Sleep" doesn't encapsulate your thesis.

We are all aware of political correctness and the laws which enforce political correctness. I'm not going to claim that political correctness is sufficient or other than a crude measure aimed at controlling bad metaphors. The reason I chose 'socialist' at the end of all my posts is that not only is the description true of me , a minor consideration, but I had heard that many were spooked by the very word, and I hope that simple repetition devoid of preaching or lecturing has a desentitising effect.

Your remarks on the nature of truth in reportage and historiography is interesting. If you are saying that there is no absolute truth, I do of course agree. We do however approach truth more closely when we aim to be disinterested and insightful as to purported facts. Social scientists and historiographers have methods for maximising disinterest and factual exactitude. However all are human beings and interpretation of the facts and the evidence affect the bias of the report and the historiography.This does not matter too much when the readers are aware of the presence of interpretation as they can and should read alternative interpretations. There is secure enough agreement about methodology.

ZoneofNonBeing wrote:

So, in a sense, Belinda - your question/request is based on a problematic premise. Are you familiar with the work of Jacques Derrida and the notion of "deconstruction"? Are you familiar with gender studies and the methodology of "queering" a topic? If you are, you will see that is what I do, at times, in my writing: disorient the reader by putting two seemingly random topics together, in an attempt to draw attention to the fragile grounds of their worldview (thus sending the message that their worldview can always be different - an endeavor I think you would appreciate from a Taoist perspective!).

Derrida: I have barely skimmed. Deconstruction, likewise but a little better and I'd like to learn more.

I have no idea what "queering a topic" is. I do actually find your writing confusing when you juxtapose the extremely broad sweeping picture from LaoTzu beside particular western images about sleep and dreaming. I have learned more about what you mean from your succinct observations on the crystallisation of interpersonal attitudes by the persistence of metaphors, in particular the story of Ham in the Bible. I do want to see others' perspectives.

I trust you agree that it's obvious that everybody likes to have their own ideas confirmed, and that alternative perspectives are harder work. Do you mean to say that you deliberately confuse in order to shake up readers' ideas? Isn't art better for disturbing fixed ideas via poetry, theatre, or pictures?

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Retain metaphors about dreams and sleep if you will and I'll go along.

Well, from a psychoanalytic perspective: dreams are metaphors. Recall that Freud argued that there is a "manifest" message and a "latent" message to a dream. The manifest message is the symbols we witness; the latent message is the meaning behind the symbols we witness. He argues that there is a battlefield in the mind: where society becomes the superego which forces us to repress the animal-like desires of the id. The ego becomes the referee - creating a dream made of symbols that is agreeable to both the superego and the id. Hence, I would not separate metaphors from dreams, as the two are intertwined.

Additionally, I believe anyone and anything should be open to critique. Nothing is sacred or immune.

I'm not entirely convinced until I see a preponderance of references to dark, night, black, which are unkind, over references to light, day, white which are kind.

If I supply a few references, are you going to engage them? I have supplied you with a few references in my previous posts (statistical evidence), and you have not engaged them. Nonetheless - I will supply one reference (if you engage this, I promise, I will supply others) who discuss these connections a bit further. The first is from a cultural theorist by the name of Sylvia Wynter. The PDF from the Brown University website is available here: https://www.brown.edu/academics/south-a ... Winter.pdf

Your remarks on the nature of truth in reportage and historiography is interesting. If you are saying that there is no absolute truth, I do of course agree. We do however approach truth more closely when we aim to be disinterested and insightful as to purported facts. Social scientists and historiographers have methods for maximising disinterest and factual exactitude. However all are human beings and interpretation of the facts and the evidence affect the bias of the report and the historiography.This does not matter too much when the readers are aware of the presence of interpretation as they can and should read alternative interpretations. There is secure enough agreement about methodology.

Please allow me to repeat this: we approach truth when we aim to be disinterested and insightful as to purported facts. My agreement with this statement resides in its acknowledgment that truth is a journey, not a fixed location. All we can do is approach truth, aim for truth, and have purported facts. That being stated, Nietzsche is correct in his assertion that "there are no facts (per se), there are only interpretations". Nietzsche also said (paraphrasing) "you have your way, I have my way - as to the right way, it does not exist".

In certain scientific circles, there is secure enough agreement about methodology. But not philosophical circles! I think you and I can agree that life is fluid (better yet: we make it stable through social oppression, but it should be fluid. The only foundation/ontology to humanity should be an anti-foundation/ontology). What are the assumptions of "methodology"? Are stability and fixity the preconditions for methodology? If so, is it the case that the best method is a suspension of method? (Lewis Gordon makes that argument here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/218618vj)

[Sy Borg]

Okay, we have established on old white mythology pertaining the darkness and light. Noted.

Could we please now move away from race? Thank you.

[Burning ghost]

Greta -

You say in the OP that the self is only present in symbolic form in dreams.

I think this is only partially the case (even though I personally find this as a misuse of self - either way I think I get the gist!) and we are talking about a sliding scale.

In a dream I know the dream because of my sense of self. When I am in dreamless sleep there self is dormant. In dream state what is apparent is that there are symbolic markers of unconscious machinations.

I should point out I use the term "unconscious" to describe the ever present machinations of my brain. The unconscious in this sense is never absent and is only known indirectly when we consciously recognise our actions and thoughts as occuring as if from nowhere. In dream states our unconscious "contents" are more apparent because our sensory system is not receptive (to any large extend) external input. I could go into memory storage and motor learning that happens in sleep and how these processes may appear to us in dream states, but that is not the purpose of this thread.

So I have made a distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness. The unconscious is always there. The apparent dominion of consciousness seems to rule over the unconscious mind. We consider, reflect, have awareness, and hold things in our attention among other such worded directedness towards the world (note this is no different in dream states or waking states). What we can say is different is our awareness of free formed "fantasies" after the fact. In a dream I never dream of being awake I can only, if lucid, realise that I am in fact in a dream state and push aside, or take control, of the fantasies. In waking states I remember things happening not view them as separate from immediate existence.

The process of sleep is a disassociation from existing. Basically in dreamless sleep there is only unconscious "happening", unruled and unseen by any conscious state. We are, the "I", not conducting our bodies. The "we", in a broader sense lacking conscious/unconscious distinction, is undying whilst the "I" forever ephemeral and moving from life to death (being to non-being).

As "I" my take on the unconscious is purely second hand in nature yet also integral to the founding of the self. I exist because I know of not existing. If I did not know of not existing then I would never say that I exist. So the "I" exists because of the "other" (unconscious). I say "know" because we are given a sense of duration, or rather a lacking of sense of duration, during the dreamless sleep in which the "I" no longer exists.

What ia probably less apparent in everyday life (the life world) is that where I am sitting right now I am surrounded "invisibly" by unconscious "contents". Meaning that I know I am on Earth yet I do not readily appreciate this fact nor do I need to. I do not need to consciously attend to my glass of ice coffee as "ice coffee" I simply accept its givenness and drink it. I am partially led in the life world by unconscious "contents". I am trying to hold back from going into phenomenology here so I'll leave it at that.

Back to dreamless sleep. I think maybe zone is suggesting that our "null" state is dreamless sleep and that this is related to death as a complete absense and that this idea of absense gives us the opportunity to reframe our perspective (to be ethically, emotionally, rationally, or whateverly "reborn"). I may be worng here and if so it is a reasonable thought if you wish to consider it.

My view is that dreamless sleep and death are related simply as the "I" views them. As states of control or no control, of absense of control and end of control. What is bizzare and is probably the very heart of the OP is that we fear loss of control, but fear the end of control more. It does seem a little contrary to logically differentiate the absense of something from the ending of it and this is due to how we are given to the life world, how we find ourselves in the life world and how we cope with the life world. I don't think there is a difference between "ending" or "absense" if the unconscious could "appreciate" them. We appreciate the difference because we make the distinction of doing so. By distinguishing this from that we have being. Once we have the "we" we grasp at the antithesis of "being".

Apologies if this is not precise enough. I hope you get the gist though.

[ZoneOfNonBeing]

Excellent post, BG! I agree wholeheartedly.

I have nothing to add except an echo - you have summarized my position on the matter with respect to a "rebirth". We all awaken having been undifferentiated (in a state of oneness). The "I" we identify with is in bad faith. Dreamless sleep is simply a reminder, from a Sartrean perspective, that we can act in good faith.

[Burning ghost]

What is of most interest to me in general is the unconscious. I cannot known it directly only feel around it and grasp at its possible "intent" (for want of a better word). The communcation between conscious and unconscious processes is imminently blind to us. The consciousness assumes control whilst the very idea of control in relation to the unconscious is beyond conscious comprehension by definition.

I like Jung because in his use of archetypes we are exposed to what is commonly human and undifferentiated from each other and by doing so we understand our own sense of indentity by knowing of something that shows we have a sameness. It both enforces our sense of "I" and challenges it. As always what gives us the idea of something has to be its opposite and its unity in opposition.

For myself when I read the Tao Te Ching I see this written on every page. For me everything we do involves this persistant exposure of opposites and their claim over how we judge our lives. From reading passages in the Tao Te Ching I strange can of meaningful meaningless can be found. We are nulled and find freedom from ourselves. False freedom or not it is persuasive in how it directs our attention/inattention.

[Sy Borg]

You say in the OP that the self is only present in symbolic form in dreams. I think this is only partially the case (even though I personally find this as a misuse of self - either way I think I get the gist!) and we are talking about a sliding scale.

In a dream I know the dream because of my sense of self. When I am in dreamless sleep there self is dormant. In dream state what is apparent is that there are symbolic markers of unconscious machinations.

Yes, the self is dormant during deep sleep. Yet dormancy refers to inactivity rather than absence. When in deep sleep, the self still exists in informational - or potential form - like DNA awaiting energetic input. This harks to your comment about unconsciousness - the self exists in an unconscious state until it is reactivated by the re-emergence of wakeful consciousness. In this scenario, waking is poetically akin to bobbing back to the surface after having fallen into the ocean.

Consider this question: subjectively, are we all completely identical in deep sleep? Are our "oblivions" as equal as we assume? Are there subtleties of the unconscious that we don't consider because unconsciousness is so "small" compared to the highly aware analytical states we use to consider it? Humans have a history of dismissing as nonexistent that which is considered insignificant.

I should point out I use the term "unconscious" to describe the ever present machinations of my brain. The unconscious in this sense is never absent and is only known indirectly when we consciously recognise our actions and thoughts as occuring as if from nowhere. In dream states our unconscious "contents" are more apparent because our sensory system is not receptive (to any large extend) external input. I could go into memory storage and motor learning that happens in sleep and how these processes may appear to us in dream states, but that is not the purpose of this thread.

Based on your observation, as with sleep, "mental downtime" activities like meditation and deep "Zen" immersion are enjoyed when we feel safe enough to "switch off" our senses. Without the "noise" of visual and aural stimuli, subtle unconscious workings becomes accessible, and thus more controllable.

So I have made a distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness. The unconscious is always there. The apparent dominion of consciousness seems to rule over the unconscious mind. We consider, reflect, have awareness, and hold things in our attention among other such worded directedness towards the world (note this is no different in dream states or waking states). What we can say is different is our awareness of free formed "fantasies" after the fact. In a dream I never dream of being awake I can only, if lucid, realise that I am in fact in a dream state and push aside, or take control, of the fantasies. In waking states I remember things happening not view them as separate from immediate existence.

Another stimulating thought. In this scenario, consciousness is emergent from the unconscious. Encephalised.

Waking and dreaming states seem more related to one another than to deep sleep, which seems comparatively alien. The dream state is the middle ground, being less conscious than waking states, resulting in regular black outs - one moment you're in a house, the next moment you're outside. The way that dreams (and movies) tend to focus on the most emotionally resonant aspects of a story while skipping uninteresting bits such as commuting and toileting is a form of data compression. The breaks between scenes in dreams could be thought of as the impingement of unconsciousness on consciousness.

Basically in dreamless sleep there is only unconscious "happening", unruled and unseen by any conscious state. We are, the "I", not conducting our bodies.

Love your work, BG. These unconscious happenings are of interest. Things are happening but we don't remember them. Things that are selected by evolution to be delegated to "lower" functions. With the enormous daily risks of wild living it's to be expected that we'd evolve to focus on big, immediate problems and dismiss the subtleties, most famously characterised by the warrior meme, the strong fighting man who ignores "trivial" pain (satirised nicely by Monty Python in The Holy Grail).

Yet these lower and subtler functions deeply affect who we are, even if we are not conscious of them. Many heart, and some liver, transplant patients have undergone changes in personality, tastes and even values that echo those of those donors. I suspect that a change in microbiome could also result in changes in personality and tastes. The questions here are "why?" and "how?".

The "we", in a broader sense lacking conscious/unconscious distinction, is undying whilst the "I" forever ephemeral and moving from life to death (being to non-being).

Here I envisage a collection of little "I"s making up the big "I" of the biosphere (or at least the world community of brained mammals), each fading away to be replaced by, failing disaster, more complex "I"s.

In a sense life appears to be one consciousness split into parts. I think we're all basically the same, just that we have different bodies and that shapes the way each entity approaches the same aim - comfort, safety, security and growth (ie. the latter including reproduction and colonisation). A Sam Harris thought experiment is relevant here. In attempting to disprove spirits he said that if he'd had the same morphology, genetics and life experiences as a criminal, then he would be a criminal. If the crim had enjoyed Sam H's genetics and life then he would be just like the latter. His point was that there's nothing special or different about him that makes him not a criminal, just his physicality and experiences.

On the other hand, some well-documented reincarnation cases give one cause to wonder.