Foucault's Plurality of Selves

At one point in his essay, Foucault summarizes what he calls the "characteristics of the author-function" and insists that one of these characteristics is that the author-function "does not refer purely and simply to a real individual, since it can give rise simultaneously to several selves".  It's a valid point, and could lead to some very interesting conclusions on the part of the reader, but for the confusion involving just who or what those other selves are.  I understand the basic idea of what he is saying, but when he goes into describing the categories of this phenomena of the author, the plurality of the self, I get confused.


Foucault starts his break-down explanation by using an example of an other self, which is the first-person narrative.  He points out that it is wrong to automatically equate the author with the narrator or the speaker of the story, because they are different selves.  Then, I suppose, he points out that a writer or something and the author of a piece that requires the author-function are two different things, like someone who makes a poster as opposed to someone who writes a novel.  He says "It would be just as wrong to equate the author with the real writer as to equate him with the fictitious speaker; the author-function is carried out and operates in the scission itself, in this division and distance".  Okay, so the author is the self that has written the piece that demands the author-function, the writer is the human being himself, and then we have whatever self lies in the narrative, correct?


This is where I'm not sure, because then Foucault actually begins to number these selves that can be found in "all discourses endowed with the author-function".  The first one is when "the 'I' refers to and individual without an equivalent who, in a determined place and time, completed a certain task".  Alright, is this the self that lies in the words and pages of the work be it fiction or nonfiction?  As in the narrator or the speaker?  Got it.  But then when it comes to two and three I'm completely lost.  He says, "In the second, the 'I' indicates an instance and a level of demonstration which any individual could perform provided that he accept the same system of symbols, play of axioms, and set of previous demonstration."  And the possible third self is "one that speaks to tell the work's meaning, the obstacles encountered, the results obtained, and the remaining problems."


Maybe I'm just lost, but what are the three selves in this plurality?  I feel that I am relatively correct in my idea of the first one, but what of the other two?


All quotes came from page 910 for reference.