Mind or self theorises itself, necessarily and necessarily incorrectly. That is, it is a kind of process which understands causal relationships, but the causal relationships which drive it in no way resemble those models with which it understands its objects. What's more, one of the things that it does correctly understand is this mismatch; it knows it fails to understand itself and this knowledge is constitutive of its pragmatic success in understanding its objects. In other words, it prevents itself from becoming its own object even as it strives to do so, so that its objects can appear to it as its objects. So, for example, it is not that you develop a theory of mind in order to sufficiently reliably predict and interact with others, but rather when you reflect on your limited success at reliably predicting and interacting with others you call this limited success 'having a theory of mind' and you then use it to think about 'your own mind'. And of course you only do this because the terms 'mind' and 'theory' happen to be tokens already employed in your social interactions. It is by strategically inverting the relation of terms that you come up with ideas like 'consciousness' - when you look in the mirror things really are inverted. It would be more fitting to use a term like desire in which purpose is already implicit for the fundamental energy whose circulation gives rise to experience and experiencer, because the very nature of desire is its opacity; you don't know why you desire, you can't explain or understand desire in the least, but almost everything is built up out of your failed attempts to account for it.