Is There A Mistake In This?

A single point of consciousness would have no real concept of itself as distinct, until it became aware of another.
With the introduction of the other, it would now have a limited awareness of:

Other
Between (whatever is between Other and it)
Away from other
Toward other.

Less certainly, there is beyond other- not always verifiable- and beyond self. Beyond self is derived from the same orientation as 'away from other' and therefore can be experienced by self, whereas 'beyond other' is an assumption that space/time exists beyond other.

A perfectly reasonable assumption within the material world, but not directly experienced.

It requires an addition of a third to fully develop our orientations: up, down, left, right, back, forward. The process is scalable in nature: we use various parts of our bodies in relation to each other in order to determine our personal orientation in space, as well as using the positions of various other bodies (friends, planets, coffee table) to determine where exactly we are at whatever scale we are thinking about.

With three:

It's important to understand the orientations do not initially have the semantic content we currently associate with them. They are simple combinations of the positions of self, other, and third. There's away from all, there's toward all; there are various combinations of away from one and toward another.

Between can be bounded by three.
One of the three can be 'between' the other two, creating a situation in which beyond the other (or another) is known by virtue of direct perception of one beyond another.

Yes, it is odd, but is it accurate?
In so far as it goes anyway...