I have been struggling a lot to figure out what an interdisciplinary professional life looks like - let alone how an interdisciplinary brain functions. This reading affirmed one of my more recent suspicions: that I would do well to let myself think like a lawyer, and let myself think like an anthropologist, and then allow these two voices to exchange ideas and comments. Instead of trying to unify two ways of thinking and stuff them into the same mouthpiece, it would be productive to make room for another mouthpiece. In fact, I already have other mouthpieces (set to various volumes) that are representative of my multiple roles.
Wilson's discussion of the topographical model versus the economic model of the unsconsious mind was new to me and very helpful in thinking through how I might discuss public space in my research. The idea of something being identifiable both through coordinates (place/topography) and through qualitative register (state/economy) makes sense to me when I approach the fuzzy unconscious as something that can be relayed or interpreted through two instruments at the same time. For example, I can weigh my cat, and I can look at my cat, but my scale and my eyes/brain will return different readings that have their own utilities and contexts of import. Here I am interested in two elements of this concept: simultaneity, and importance. Simultaneity seems to ignore linear or hierarchical order, while the other is dependent on it.