If you accept the idea of the pre-reflexive cogito then you must regard it not as an alternative mode of consciousness but as a concomitant mode, so that ordinary consciousness would necessitate the simultaneous action of both modes. And if two, why not more than two? The analogy is musical, perhaps, in which the pre-reflective is like the bass accompaniment. This raises more questions than it solves. Could there be reflective consciousness without the pre-reflective, as you could just play the treble-clef part of a piece? If not then in what way are these modes necessarily tied together in order to produce what we acknowledge as our own consciousness? How is it that they somehow refer to the same subjective reality, but in different ways? Certain phenomena of 'altered consciousness' are less like the switching of channels than like a change in emphasis, a brightening or increase in salience of one dimension at the expense of another, and in which the newly salient one arises in the mode of having-always-been-there but not noticed before. This is supposed to explain the peculiar phenomenology of insight, the immediate recognition of truths known but not previously known to be known. And if there are such multiple modes, how far do they extend? What are the limits of insight? Surely there is no a priori answer to this, every mode having its own particular model of knowledge. And if we allow that there are different states of consciousness is this a fact about consciousness itself or about the contingent conditions of its production of self-awareness, its realisations?