The For-itself necessarily exists in three ekstatic dimensions of not-being itself.

Evidence

But what is the meaning of these multiple dimensions or quasi-multiples of the For-itself? They are various relations to its being. When something simply is what it is, it has only one way of being its being. But the moment that something is no longer its being, then various ways of being it while not being it arise simultaneously. The For-itself—if we stick to the primary ekstases (those which both indicate the original meaning of the nihilation and represent the least nihilation)—can and must at the same time fulfill these three requirements: (1) to not-be what it is, (2) to be what it is not, (3) to be what it is not and to not-be what it is—within the unity of a perpetual referring. Here we are dealing with three ekstatic dimensions; the meaning of the ekstasis is distance from self. It is impossible to conceive of a consciousness which would not exist in these three dimensions. And if the cogito discovers one of them first, that does not mean that this dimension is first but only that it is most easily disclosed. But by itself alone it is unselbständig and it immediately allows the other dimensions to be seen. The For-itself is a being which must simultaneously exist in all its dimensions. Here distance, conceived as distance from the self, is nothing real, nothing which is in a general way as in-itself; it is simply the nothing, the nothingness which “is made-to-be” as separation. Each dimension is the For-itself’s way of projecting itself vainly toward the Self, of being what it is beyond a nothingness, a different way of being this fall of being, this frustration of being which the For-itself has to be. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 474

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ekstasis as distance-from-self and enumerates the three primary ekstatic dimensions (not-be what it is, be what it is not, and the synthesis) that any consciousness must inhabit.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that a being which is its own nothingness must exist simultaneously in all three dimensions — each being a vain projection toward the Self — is a genuinely dense, paradigm-level move: consciousness’s very structure is a perpetual frustrated self-reference across an irreducible distance that is nothingness itself.
• XREF: connects to: The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 604; The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1432; The For-itself is a particular privation, not a general Nothingness. (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension #expands (0.92) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 604
• The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself #expands (0.88) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432
• The possible is a real lack the For-itself projects beyond itself. #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 387
• The For-itself is a particular privation, not a general Nothingness. #qualifies (0.80)