Context is important here. Saying I ‘know’ these selves does not imply I have complete knowledge of them, or perhaps ‘it’, depending.

It’s absolutely possible that these, and any perceived selves, are refractions of a single self, who knows (as I’m sure you’re aware, many would make the claim that the entire Universe is the refraction of a single self).

It’s also a very common report in the literature of meditation that there’s a “witness” that stands apart from the more egoic, stream-of-consciousness, however-you-want-to-define-it self. This could just be a pivot, a different orientation of the same subjectivity, but it’s an interesting point. What’s your take on the “witness” idea in meditation? I think Krishnamurti described it as abiding in choice-less awareness, or something spooky like that.

That still doesn’t do away with the discrepancies that exist, such as the idea of you I have in my mind, and your idea of you in yours. Whether these discrepancies are ultimately superficial or not doesn’t do away with their friction. David Foster Wallace is a great exponent of the afflictions of such ‘mismatches’, as in his story, Good Old Neon.

Have you read Borges’ short piece, “Borges and I”? My writing here was largely a riff off his idea, and I usually make it a matter of principle never to disagree with Borges.

As always, thanks for your engagement.