that "bundle of ideas" become broken
into as many wholly independent fragments as there are intervals
between our sleepings? Or rather is not each fragment a whole in
itself, and is not the idea of self-continuity from day to day and
from week to week a self-delusion? How can it be otherwise if
consciousness constitutes existence? For after the consciousness has
ceased and "the bundle of ideas," which constitutes the individuality
of that day, has therefore gone absolutely out of existence, it is
impossible that the old bundle shall be resurrected by a new
consciousness. Only a new bundle can be the product of a new
consciousness. Evidently there is trouble somewhere. But let us pass
on.

"The 'I' has for its very law of existence self-consciousness." Is
not "self-consciousness" here identified with "consciousness" in the
preceding sentence? The very existence of the mind, the "I," is
ascribed to each in turn. Is there, then, no difference between
consciousness and self-consciousness? Finally, personality is stated
to be "the effect it [the "I"] produces on the self-consciousness of
others." I confess I gain no clear idea from this statement. But
whatever else it may mean, this is clear, that personality is not a
quality or characteristic of the "I," but only some effect which the
"I" produces on the consciousness of another. Is it a quality, then,
of the other person? And does impersonality mean the lack of such an
effect? But does not this introduce us to new confusion? When a human
being is wholly absorbed in an altruistic act, for instance, wholly
forgetful of self, he is, according to a preceding paragraph, quite
impersonal; yet, according to the definition before us, he cannot be
impersonal, for he is producing most lively effects on the
consciousness of the poor human being he is befriending; in his
altruistic deed he is strongly personal, yet not he, for personality
does not belong to the person acting, but somehow to the person
affected. How strange that the personality of a person is not his own
characteristic but another's!

But still more confusing is the definition when we recall that if the
benevolent man is wholly unconscious of self, and is thinking only of
the one whom he is helping, then he himself is no longer existing. But
in that case how can he help the poor man or even continue to think of
him? Perfect altruism is self-annihilation! Knowledge of itself by the
mind is that which constitutes it!