There are two basic attributive models of descriptive method  in approaching the issue of consciousness: rationally-logical aspect of conscious act , or what is characterized as conscious and interpreted as both rational and logical, and the other one , which considers the consciousness  as a general algorithm of emotionally-intuitive  behavioral  process , experience and cumulative perception of the outer world. As for this, psychoanalytic  method and certain models of modern and postmodern philosophy at the end of the nineteenth century  make a special digression . Probably the most surprising thing for traditionalists appeared to be psychoanalysis: consciousness withdraws from the throne  giving space to the unconscious . Installing the transcendental idealism and  defining the subject as creator of the world, flawless Kant has done the same as psychoanalysts in relation  between conscious and unconscious.It is quite clear to experienced interpreter  that, on the grounds of structure, these variations are purely formal, as the relation between conscious  and unconscious stayed the same. Interaction between these two basic psychological  domains is based on mutual  two –way communication;depending on theoretical concept,some of these domains(conscious or unconscious) pretends to be the basic one.

Mistaken conceptual notions of any theory result from many reasons , but  equality among these concepts –consciousness, selfhood, subject, memory-is one of the essentials.

Perceptual contents equality might be complemented to conscious domain form, but neeeden’t be structurally filled or semantically marked by entity of selfhood. By selfhood we understand an  experience identity, mutually identical  with  intensity and formal definition, subjectively, formed into personal experience. Opposite to this, any form of introspective experience, in the shape of I-form, needn’t be generated and supported by the conscious .Previous relations examination showed that philosophers didn’t pay much attention to the aspect of memory, at least in synthetic examining  conscious and selfhood.

Previous examination,which referred to entity-totality relation, shows that ,formally accessed ,memory is considered as general domain negative, in relation with itself.In short ,referring to itself, memory is impracticable.. In previous part of examination,which considers the relation between entity and totality, it is obvious that memory, formally accessed, represents general conscious domain negative,in relation with its own `setting`.

Intention of further examination is to represent the structure of memory as variable phenomena within itself.Defining the memory as consciousness  negative would  be a conceptual mistake,which would lead to conclusion that   memory and conscious domain have similar features .In short, consciousness is to be defined as translated memory  projection , like reflection in the mirror ,and  in reverse. If it’s possible to presume certain form of  partial nature of global memory note ,a logic result out of this memory entity imaginary setting would be each coded  neuron. Although it is possible to imagine a ten billion neuron physical structure which ,according to its  own quantity of information,makes to general sum what we conditionally define as memory identity. Final product of this projection would be  an image of memory  as  coded neurons, its own constituents, collection.

The most usual projection imposes an image on decoding  each neuron notification and accepting the information. Due to this,  not only that our own cathegory imposes  on conclusion that each  information note of our memory is  immediately present , but also on its later reproduction. Extremely problematic  seems to be the very moment of translating  the note and decoding the information .The original problem has its roots in assumption of data storage into the memory -usual generalization  implicates  presence of all data ever received, as it points out to subconscious scope of the memory base. If the aspect of general memory frame is in the domain, which is not clearly defined as subconscious, memory shall, essentially, be an absolute opponent to its conscious part. Reflected note, data decoded into the conscious, in no case is it identical to the unreflected  in unconscious memory base. Other problem is the act of transating itself.. In what way is it possible to translate meaning of something  If its literal sense excels the  general perception domain  .Regarding the basic note being  beyond range  of our reflection, every form of its interpretation  represents exclusively own reflection compromise. Obvious  example is relation of data that we ,conditionally, process while dreaming. Dream reflection structure   makes an impression that our selfconscious is present while dreaming. Nevertheless, problem is caused by the fact that the impression of selfreflection   could only be in possession  during the moment of translating information defined by dream. In order to simplify, content of dream exists only in presence of selfreflection, the conscious domain. Own perception,or mental self-deceit, comes out of the impression that selfreflection is being present even during dreaming. Assuming that content of dream exists only if content image is present, in that case “the true memory” of dream content (whatever it represents) during the very dreaming isn’t possible. Selfreflection, according to its own structure and essence , generates the content of dream itself, which isn’t possible on  the level of unconscious. Materialists would formulate it on the grounds of existence and non-existence.I n order to make a precise genealogy ,these terms will not be used .Reader might notice that if we define dream as reflective   translation illusion, out of the content range it couldn’t be possible to talk about the very content. In analyzing  this problem it comes to conclusive evidence that  analytical process  infinitely  results in reproducing itself. In a word, subject of analyzing becomes subject of examination. As for it,any form of its  superficial image comes out of examination process ultimately. A dream is  own, reversible , Uroboros ; its  content  is just a projection of mind being unable  to give a meaning  to its own determination,t o the unconscious