Consciousness and its affect are one indivisible being, not substance plus quality

Evidence

Conversely, as I showed earlier, we must avoid defining pleasure by the consciousness which I have of it. This would be to fall into an idealism of consciousness which would bring us by indirect means to the primacy of knowledge. Pleasure must not disappear behind its own self-consciousness; it is not a representation, it is a concrete event, full and absolute. It is no more a quality of self-consciousness than self-consciousness is a quality of pleasure. There is no more first a consciousness which receives subsequently the affect “pleasure” like water which one stains, than there is first a pleasure (unconscious or psychological) which receives subsequently the quality of “conscious” like a pencil of light rays. There is an indivisible, indissoluble being—definitely not a substance supporting its qualities like particles of being, but a being which is existence through and through. Pleasure is the being of self-consciousness and this self-consciousness is the law of being of pleasure. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 136

Categorization

• XREF: Directly sets up Beauvoir’s ethics of ambiguity — the indivisible being of consciousness grounds her refusal of both idealism and naive materialism. Core backdrop material for the reader’s stated purpose. — connects to: Consciousness is a temporary fold in being, not separate from it — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 739; Coenesthesia is the affective, non-thetic texture of consciousness that projects surpass — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 876
• DEFINE: Defines the for-itself as existence-through-and-through: no separate subject that receives qualities, no separate quality added to a subject.

Broader Connections

• Consciousness is a temporary fold in being, not separate from it #complicates (0.78) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 739