Reply to comment

Nope, not "setting up some sort of morality", though I can see where the concern would come from. Its a "premature story telling" sort of thing. The "I-function" is a story about a particular set of observations: those that say that paralysis may involve not an inability to move but an inability of "I" to move, not an inability to respond to input but an inability of "I" to respond to input.

The existence of the "I-function" in turn raises (rather than answers) the very interesting question of what "I" actually means, and there are a variety of observations yet to be discussed that say quite clearly that "I" , as it is commonly used, includes things that are not in the "I-function". To put it differently, observations that lead to the I-function story in turn help to "unpeel an onion", to show the multiple levels of meaning inherent in the word "I" as it is generally used.

We'll get to those, and so it is a little early to be worrying about "morality" (and certainly too soon to argue that all this is "setting up some sort of morality"). On the flip side, though, the existence of the "I-function" and its relation to the unconscious does indeed raise some important questions about common understandings of "morality". Which we'll also get to.