Beyond Nothing – The Conundrum of Dualism (finally resolved)

Human consciousness is just about the last surviving mystery… a topic that often leaves even the most sophisticated thinkers tongue-tied and confused. And, as with all of the earlier mysteries, there are many who insist – and hope – that there will never be a demystification of consciousness. – Daniel Dennett from Consciousness Explained

You probably know if we looked at our body through a microscope, and if it were a sufficient strength, we would see more space than we do solid. So actually between the space is what we find the solids. And there’s more space than there is solid. So we start right out by going to the space. And that space is Spirit. And the way you deal with it in your life is your own Soul in the Spirit. And the way you translate that down to this land of reflected light will be through the unconscious, which we all are in.  – John-Roger from Loving Connects Us to the Mystical Traveler Consciousness

The idea of consciousness cannot be escaped by even the most skeptic of philosophers. No one can argue that at the very least we exist. What the nature of that existence may consist of can of course be greatly debated and discussed, but no one can legitimately claim that we are not here. This often makes for very difficult terrain to traverse particularly for philosophers who insist on either a deep skepticism, some type of tabla rasa, or nihilism. Consciousness has a slippery quality to it such that whenever one attempts to define it or locate it, the thing seems to disappear again mysteriously. Even David Hume, arguably the greatest skeptic of our modern age, admits that consciousness and personal identity exist, even as he confesses that he just cannot find it exactly.

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call “myself”, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. – David Hume from A Treatise of Human Nature (Book 1; Section VI)

David Hume cannot “catch” himself, but yet he still admits that he is there. He realizes that he is at least bound to the eventual fact of being. For were he to attempt to argue that he was not there, he would be immediately contradicting himself through the unavoidable statement of self which is required for him to make such a declaration. To say “I am not here” or “I do not exist” is to still admit the I as the subject and so is ultimately self-defeating. Clearly we exist. But beyond this admission Hume is quick to remove all that he can by stating he knows not what it may be or where it may be located.

This undeniable concept of consciousness was first explicated by Rene Descartes in his “Meditations on First Philosophy” where he sought to prove to himself his own existence and then the existence of God. His conclusions and the process of his meditations had wide-ranging ramifications as they sparked the age of science, the formal use of reason, and the modern sense of self which is still present today. To quote Descartes from his Meditations regarding one conclusion he eventually arrives at:

I am a thinking thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few objects, and is ignorant of many,– who loves, hates, wills, refuses, who imagines likewise, and perceives; for, as I before remarked, although the things which I perceive or imagine are perhaps nothing at all apart from me and in themselves, I am nevertheless assured that those modes of consciousness which I call perceptions and imaginations, in as far only as they are modes of consciousness, exist in me. And in the little I have said I think I have summed up all that I really know, or at least all that up to this time I was aware I knew. – Rene Descartes from Meditation on First Philosophy (Book III)

That may have been all that Descartes knew, but it was certainly more than enough for the next number of centuries in Western Civilization. Descartes found consciousness and at least to some extent was able to pinpoint it albeit subjectively within himself. Whether what he thought or perceived was right or wrong, accurate or false, an illusion or real, he was still aware that he was thinking it, and it was that awareness which revealed to him his own existence, his consciousness. It is from this foundation that a new subjective sense of self could form in the mind of man, and once that sense of self existed then personal agency, liberty, freedom, and subjectivity could establish themselves. These revelations become the framework even for an empiricist like John Locke who largely disagrees with Descartes and the ideas of rationalism, to still nevertheless defend the rights of man, the rights of individual liberties, and it was those revolutionary concepts which fueled the American Revolution and establish the great American project which so significantly and positively transformed the world as we know it. John Locke admits that consciousness does exist albeit in his view it exists through memory. So although he disagrees largely with Descartes, he cannot disagree or disregard the conclusion of Descartes’ Meditations that consciousness does in fact exist. As a side-note this Cartesian concept of the self also extends two centuries later into Romanticism and the literary movement extolled by William Wordsworth, which transformed the entire 19th century and still forms the basis of our literary sense of self today. But these themes and trends through the centuries are not the focus of my discussion here, rather it is simply to show just how meaningful and profound Descartes’ impact was upon Western Civilization. The fact that Descartes’ articulation of consciousness is accepted even by the most ardent skeptic such as David Hume proves conclusively that consciousness, if nothing else, is true and real and certainly here to stay.

However just as Descartes’ discovery of consciousness had such a long-lasting impact, he also created a significant problem in relation to consciousness, one that also exists still to this day and has not as of yet been resolved. Namely what exactly is consciousness, where is it, and how does it interact with our bodies? These questions are far more technical and specific in nature rather than the more general awareness that consciousness exists. The unfortunate problem for Descartes is that although he made profound progress in discovering consciousness, he also made rather large blunders and faux pas attempting to answer these more specific and dynamic questions about how consciousness works which still haunt us today. It is these blunders and missteps which I’d like to address and seek a final resolution.

In short Descartes attempted to isolate or reduce consciousness to a material location, creating what is known as mind-body dualism. There is the mind we now know of, and there is the body which we also know of. How do the two connect and work together? In Descartes’ theory the brain and in particular the pineal gland played an important role in mediating between the mind and the body, however most unfortunately for him the positions and claims he made did not stand up to the test of science both today as well as in his own time. Not to mention the fact that philosophically mind-body dualism is actually quite difficult to resolve and simply identifying a particular neurological region or brain function for consciousness to “work through” begs more questions than answers. Even today we find this issue prevalent in neuroscience and the quest for consciousness. Pick any area of the brain – no one spot can be said to “house” consciousness. Eventually the dilemma of mind-body dualism really reduces down to how can an immaterial substance, that is mind or consciousness, influence and be influenced by a material substance, that is the brain and body? How could that ever be possible? What mechanism can be both immaterial and material and be proven through rational, logical, even scientific experiment? What kind of substance could be both immaterial and material?

It is clear to me that the path Descartes took, as well as many others since, was certainly incorrect for the simple reason that it was materially based. This flaw has only become more pronounced over the centuries as we have significantly advanced in our understanding of the brain and its various functions. Even today as we now know so much more about the nature and intricacies of our brain, the fact remains that we simply have not “found” consciousness sitting in our heads somewhere as though it were an organ or physically demarcated location. In fact all the neurological studies and understandings seem to point to something much more akin to David Hume’s perspective that there is an influx of sensations and impressions which the brain processes throughout itself and that various different areas of the brain perform various different functions, but there really isn’t a “center” of the brain by which all brain activity revolves around. It is more a vast neural network that doesn’t appear to have a major hierarchy to itself. So the idea of “finding consciousness” in the material brain is to my estimation a dead end altogether. If that is the case then where does that leave us exactly in regards to resolving mind-body dualism? Well let us look again at our options and analyze the possibilities before us.

We have established that consciousness is certainly an immaterial substance or being. We know that it is within us and frames our entire reference of being. We also know that it cannot interact directly or materially with our brain or body, for all of those interactions would themselves continue to be material and therefore not immaterial and therefore not actually related to consciousness at all. This leaves only one option left – consciousness must interact immaterially with our body and brain. But how can consciousness interact immaterially with our material form? The answer is that most of our material world is in fact already immaterial. Now what do I mean by this? Scientifically we know that our material world is made up of atoms. This applies to all of creation, and every scientist agrees. We also know for a fact that well up to 99% of an atom is actually empty space, that is to say it is largely immaterial. So although each atom is made up of a proton, neutron, electron, and so on, the totality of the atom itself includes empty space as a part of its very material make-up. Not only this but physicists have proven that approximately 96% of the entire universe is made up of nothingness, leaving only 4% of creation to account for all that we know and can measure. Although it is true that through the interaction and displacement of electrons between atoms we have basic chemistry and particle physics, but much if not all of the science we know and study really only focuses on that small 1% – 4% or less portion of the atom and universe, namely the material or visible aspect of creation. This is of course for good reason, for it is much more difficult to analyze empty space since seemingly “nothing” is going on there. Furthermore so much amazing activity is occurring in that materialized 1% – 4% of creation which we can measure, experiment on, and frankly base nearly all of our life experience on. So it is no surprise or condemnation that our attention is almost 100% invested in that minuscule 4% of the atomic, chemical, and physical world. All that being said, it is certainly humbling to admit that our empirical sciences, as great and wonderful as they are, really are not studying the vast, vast majority of creation, the immaterial nothingness which is empty atomic space. It is incredible to consider just how amazing and splendid that minor 4% material aspect of creation is – the stars, planets, insects, mountains, oceans, and living bodies – all of which we can see, hear, touch, and measure in any way – it all amounts to so very little of creation!

With all of this in mind, instead of trying to make immaterial consciousness into some material form, it is actually more sensible scientifically and philosophically to consider how an immaterial consciousness can interact with the massive immaterial aspect that is known and proven to already exist within all materiality. What then does that mean exactly for consciousness? Well in short it means that our consciousness resides within the nothing that is our physical creation, the empty atomic space that is the cosmos. This means that our consciousness, from the atomic nothingness, is directly interacting with the materialized aspect of the atom, the proton, neutron, electron, and so on, which in turn is precisely what makes up all of the known universe including our brains and bodies. We then are beings residing in and ushering forth out of the nothing in this material, physical cosmos and universe. These ideas immediately lead one to question the nature of the cosmos and the origins of the physical universe – we will address these fascinating ideas later on. For now let us content ourselves with consciousness residing in atomic space, which is in large part our entire cosmos.

One mysterious aspect of consciousness, along with many other known scientific phenomena, is that we just do not know from where it originates. Modern science and empiricism is wonderful at describing the relations, chain reactions, and measurements of nearly everything in the known universe, but the ultimate origins of the most fundamental aspects of life and creation are still largely mysteries, unknown to anyone. Surely if such origins were physical, material in nature we would have discovered them by now. Perhaps the reason they still remain unsolved is because the ultimate origins lie in the immaterial aspect of this very physical universe. Perhaps we come from such a place as well. Perhaps even now, as I read and write these very words, I am residing deep within the nothingness, reaching out to my own physical being, through the immaterial space of those atoms that make up my physical being, and attempting in some small way to articulate that which my consciousness perceives. Now if consciousness itself does in fact reside in nothingness, can we prove that in some way? Can we measure it? What implications does such a notion carry?

Theoretical physicist and staunch atheist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called “A Universe From Nothing.” In it he explains many interesting aspects of particle physics and the nature of the universe and cosmos. Of course I am no physicist, but suffice it to say that he and many other colleagues over the years have actually been able to measure empty space and have discovered that it does in fact have an energy signature and actually appears to account for nearly 70% of the total energy of the universe. This has otherwise been termed as “dark energy.” Much is still not known about “dark energy,” but based on our calculations we do know that it exists and it is real and is directly related to the current acceleration of the universe. Very likely it is tied somehow to the origin of the universe as well as the ultimate “fate” of the universe. Those larger universal issues I’d like to address in a separate post or chapter. But for now I’d like to anticipate possible conclusions one might make regarding consciousness and dark energy. I suspect that in time we will discover more about the nature of dark energy and empty space at large in the universe. And so in advance of those discoveries, I’d like to state that whatever measurements we can make, those measurements are NOT related to consciousness as I describe it here. To make such a claim would in my view be no different than Descartes’ material faux pas with the pineal gland and the brain. When I say our consciousness resides in the immaterial creation, namely all of atomic and therefore cosmic space, I am referring precisely and specifically to that aspect of creation which is by its very nature immeasurable and unidentifiable. It is everywhere and in all things and yet it is also nowhere and nothing. By measuring material creation you can never find it; its origins dissolve away before our very eyes, and yet their impact and influence is more than measurable. This is our residence. This is the space we actually occupy. This is the land and domain of our consciousness – our being – and that is precisely why when Descartes in his Meditations continued to doubt and strip away all that he knew, all that he could sense, all that he thought, he eventually came upon one reality, one truth, namely the inescapable and unavoidable presence of him thinking, him being. Scientifically as we strip away and comb through all the material realities and measurable influences in our brains and in all of creation, we eventually find ourselves staring into nothing. We are looking right at ourselves, and often don’t even realize it. Our eyes holding fast upon an emptiness that wraps all around us; we look back upon ourselves through ourselves into our very core, truth, and being. Humanity, through the sacred material construction of our body and brain, is somehow equipped enough by our unique chemical arrangement of elements, to perceive into ourselves, the great nothing that is the source of everything, present everywhere, and beyond time and space. We are literally nothing as we simply be whoever we are in this world. No matter what we do with that small fraction of a percentage that is the visible creation, we are always still and present in the nothing, gargantuan and yet silent, piercing and yet completely unknown. There is a seamless, graceful unity and blending of creation – the immaterial with the material. The mind and body are finally resolved and one.

There is of course more to speak on this powerful subject. What then is consciousness exactly? Is there a human consciousness versus an animal or vegetable or mineral consciousness? Do all things then have consciousness as we do, since all atoms and the entire cosmos has empty space and nothingness? These questions, as you may realize already, lead us to larger questions beyond just consciousness and begin to address the relationships and diversity of creation as well as the ultimate nature of being itself. And to address those wonderful areas we shall need another post, a fresh start, and a new blank slate to give them their proper dues. All in good time.

I realize that many may hold issue with the claims I am promoting here. They may say it is preposterous and ridiculous or impossible to consider that consciousness is in the nothing, the empty space of all creation. So in response to these legitimate claims let me take a step back and re-state what we already know. We know that consciousness exists and that it affects our physical bodies, and that our bodies and sensations can affect our consciousness. We also know that there are neurological patterns and functions that we track and measure and can describe many of these aspects of consciousness, however none of them can identify a genuine “seat” of the self or the soul if you will. Unlike what Descartes thought, there is not an organ or material object sitting back inside our heads somewhere “viewing” all the activity going on before us in our lives. The Cartesian theater simply does not exist. And so instead of promoting such a Cartesian paradigm towards the mind-body relationship, I am proposing to flip the dualism model inside-out and claim that yes consciousness is indeed immaterial while also stating the scientific fact that nearly all of creation, atomically and cosmically speaking, is also largely immaterial. So rather than attempting to make the immaterial substance of consciousness somehow material, I am suggesting that instead we make our material substance of body and form largely immaterial, which we scientifically already know is true. The lock and key mechanism of mind-body dualism which we have been desperately searching for over centuries, has finally been resolved. Immateriality conjoins with materiality through the known immateriality of materiality itself.

Interestingly, we already have prominent philosophers and scientists today verifying and claiming rather effectively that the Cartesian approach to consciousness is flawed from the start. And it is in this respect that I agree with someone like Dan Dennett, a contemporary philosopher who specializes in these very issues of consciousness. However like Hume, Dennett is happy to proclaim that consciousness is simply the amalgamation of all these various neurological functions in our brains, and is able to provide numerous interesting but perhaps somewhat trivial examples of how the brain and perception can be easily misled, confused, and tricked. For Dennett there is simply no need for some individualized form of “consciousness.” The sense we all have of “ourselves” is really an illusion and doesn’t actually correlate to anything beyond a trick our brains play upon us. I do admit that this position, more than any other, is the best argument against what I am proclaiming. However there are two main problems I see with this position – one is particular and one is metaphysical. The particular objection lies in the fact that something must be organizing or amalgamating our consciousness together as Dennett claims – and so what is that? Dennett may wish to state that it is simply the brain itself, however the brain is also that which performs the various functions themselves, and so if we are to claim a particular area such as the pre-frontal or parietal cortexes, then we are essentially claiming that a physical area of the brain is in fact the “seat” of the self which brings us back to the mind-body dilemma that Descartes found himself entangled in only now instead of the pineal gland it is some other area of the cortex. If on the other hand the claim is that there is not any real center or seat of self then we are still leaving unanswered the particular mind-body dilemma of how is consciousness working exactly upon us and vice-versa if we are in fact nowhere to be found at all. And if we are nowhere to be found then a host of metaphysical ramifications which are quite significant and fundamentally alter the meaning, value, and use of existence altogether. For example if there is no actual “self” then how can one be held responsible for anything? And if there is no actual self then what is the purpose of your life and existence? And if there is no actual self why is “the self” still one of the most basic and indisputable claims nearly all philosophers since Descartes have agreed upon? To remove the self completely is to fundamentally reverse and stand against not just everyone’s most basic senses but also hundreds of years of philosophical thought discovery. Even the basic tenets of evolution and modern science seem to lose meaning if there is no self which we are actually desperately seeking to preserve. Why would evolution form within our brains, let alone seek to preserve at nearly all costs, a neurological illusion or magician’s trick? We just cannot seem to get away from the fact that, illusion or not, we are someone and we consistently view ourselves as someone and know ourselves to be someone. We must exist somewhere and that somewhere must be more than a random collection of disparate electric circuits over grey matter in our heads for again we find ourselves right back in the mind-body dualism dilemma. Are we neural electricity? To fully materialize our being and then spread that material across the various brain functions without some cohesiveness is to immediately lose the very purpose and meaning to all of life. But even more than that if we are only being deceived by our brains, the larger question still remains unanswered which is “What are we exactly? What is consciousness?” Is it really just electricity in our heads that produces an illusion of self? If so why do we not find consciousness in other electrical currents? What makes one electric current any more special than another? And furthermore if consciousness is simply an amalgamation of material chemistry and electricity then can we not “create” consciousness artificially ourselves? Where exactly is all of this leading?

It is interesting to note that Dennett, along with being a prominent philosopher, is also steeped in computer science and the development of artificial intelligence today. Dennett’s materially based claims could hold powerful, even potentially dangerous, metaphysical ramifications for all of humanity. Nevertheless if he’s correct then we must deal with those realities as such, but if he’s incorrect then we must prove it accordingly in order to avoid any possible Frankenstein-like catastrophes. I firmly contend that consciousness is an organic, natural, irreducible aspect of creation which cannot be replicated or artificially formed through any confluence of material chemistry. It is the foundation of being, and by its nature is immaterial, and therefore impossible to manipulate. To claim anything less opens the doorway for humans to “play God” with being itself, and to attempt, futile or not, to inorganically or artificially render consciousness itself. Such a venture would certainly end in failure if not utter disaster. Existence cannot be created. Similar to the development of the atomic bomb, the possibility of fabricating consciousness itself would produce at best strange abnormalities that offer no real value to creation. We would be left with the equivalent of nuclear waste only in the medium of being itself. At worst such experiments could result in true, absolute horrors the likes of which mankind has yet to even imagine.

In such a dire light how does my claim that we are the immaterial portion of sub-atomic and cosmic space resolve anything any better than Dennett’s more materialized propositions? Firstly to finally resolve mind-body dualism through the immaterial aspect of materiality is actually more in line with Dennett’s larger theories and ideas than his own suggestion of a neural illusion. If our consciousness is in fact residing in empty space as I claim then Dennett is still correct in thinking that consciousness is non-localized, however instead of limiting that non-locality to neural activity as he does, we are now able to expand consciousness to also include our body and all of creation for that matter. Through the transcendent nature of immateriality our consciousness can then also exist, at least theoretically, in some fascinating ways, and perhaps be connected with other bodies and forms throughout creation. Such a dynamic and expansive relationship of self makes great sense in the light of necessary human social relations, modes of human empathy and interaction, and the seemingly insatiable desire for human understanding and discovery. In all these ways the immaterial nothingness becomes a more versatile and practical mechanism for explaining and implementing not just Dennett’s suggestion that consciousness is not localized in any part of the brain, but also brings a natural and organic cohesion and clarity to nearly all human activity and behavior. We cannot “create” nothingness and therefore artificial intelligence is really precisely that – artificial, fake, and not real. Let us reside in the natural truth of being, the immaterial transcendence of consciousness, rather than subscribe to theories which bind and contain our being in any forms of limitation, materiality, or bondage. All of creation shares at least one organic commonality – a direct, natural, and intimate relationship with atomic nothingness and empty space. Promoting an immaterial consciousness grounded in atomic and cosmic space is also more plausible from the perspective of modern physics than Dennett’s claim, explicit or not, that consciousness is ultimately an array of neural electrical currents. Modern science already knows electricity quite well, and no scientist will claim or seek to defend the notion that consciousness resides in electricity. Not only this but to hang our hat upon electricity so to speak also places us right back into the mind-body dualism dilemma of material and immaterial objects interacting somehow. In contrast nothingness, empty space, appears to have much more potential in all of these regards for it holds many more strange, unusual, inexplicable, and mysterious qualities that physicists simply cannot ignore let alone explain adequately as of yet. Both the philosophical and scientific ground is certainly more fertile in the atomic and cosmic nothing. Consciousness can more conceivably reside there than anywhere else in all of the known creation.

It is also fair to ask why do we have to be reduced down to anything physical at all – material or immaterial? Why can’t we each just be souls one with God and hovering somewhere, somehow over or within our bodies? Or perhaps we are like some ideal Platonic form while our mind and body are imperfect representations of that form? The reply to all of these legitimate and admittedly less scientific or verifiable claims is that if one is to subscribe to any of these positions, the mind-body dilemma is still largely unanswered. How exactly does a floating soul interact with our body? What unifies all of us together as one individualized unit that exchanges energy and sensation? Is a soul somehow material? And if so where is it? And if a soul is immaterial then how in fact does it relate or connect or influence our body? Again, as I’ve stated earlier, our consciousness must be somewhere. By de-materializing ourselves in any way we then have the impossible task of resolving all of our obviously materialized aspects of life and being. Yet on the opposite end by materializing ourselves into a particular form or collection of forms we then have the impossible task of resolving what makes that particular form or collection so fundamentally unique and distinct as to be our “consciousness.” It is in fact a true conundrum. My proposed solution takes a nod from both sides of this impossible equation and allows for a genuine bridge between the material and immaterial worlds, and not only this but is based fully in our known and fully agreed upon scientific understanding. The answer lies, and as I have shown here so far, must lie in the immaterial sub-atomic and cosmic space that consists of approximately 96% of creation. We reside within that 96% of nothingness, and it is from that emptiness that we reach out physically into the materialized atomic creation, that measly 4%, and “come alive” as it were in the body, brain, and forms we so inhabit. This is who we are, and this is what we are doing. The nothingness which we are is simultaneously located at the most distant portion of the farthest reaches of the universe while also being right here in the most intimate and closely unified aspect of every single atom that makes up our brain and body. Who we are then is both localized and generalized across the entire span of space, time, and creation, bottled up and contained right here in these individualized bodies and brains of ours – our 96% being squeezed down into this 4% of chemical and energetic materiality. Our bodies may be made of carbon, but we are in fact literally the nothing which just so happens to also be nearly everything.

The mechanism by which our consciousness interacts then with our material body is through the immaterial aspect of materiality. The reason we are so unsuccessful in discovering or explaining who we are exactly and where we are precisely is now finally answered – we are everywhere, in all things, at all times – we are the nothingness of all of creation. It is interesting to note that this conclusion can sound very similar to something most atheists or scientists would readily espouse and agree with today. In fact both Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss are saying as much in their books and lectures already, and Nietzche, as another example, also says similar things as well. We all amount to nothing. The universe will eventually die and nothing will remain. Somehow we must create meaning at least temporarily, but really it is a subjective perspective and ultimately amounts to nothing. These types of nihilistic thoughts and trends run deep in our culture, arts, and sciences today. And interestingly my position appears to embrace that nihilism and say yes, indeed, we do reside in the nothingness, and effectively who we are is nothing. We are finally at home there. But there is still more yet to who we are exactly and truly, and it is certainly not nothingness. To be clear I am not advocating nihilism or atheism, although on its surface it may appear as such. We will need to discuss these distinctions and flesh out the larger ramifications and implications of my claims regarding consciousness in further posts, and rest assured I plan to do just that. But for the time being let it suffice that I am not stating we are nothing and that there is no meaning or purpose, but rather that our consciousness resides and has a touchstone within the nothingness of all creation. It is from out of the nothing that we know ourselves to be in this material and measurable world.

So to conclude we have established that it is a fundamental reality that we exist and that consciousness exists. We have then resolved the mind-body dilemma by identifying a known physical material aspect of creation that is the seat of ourselves, namely the immaterial portion of sub-atomic and cosmic space, from which we may interact and bridge across seamlessly with the known, material aspect of ourselves. We have also negated all other possible options of where consciousness could be located including the idea that it is not located anywhere at all or in some cohesive collection. In short we have identified the location of ourselves in the nothing. There are now two avenues to pursue from this conclusion – one is the scientific understandings we have at this time regarding nothingness and the other is the metaphysical ramifications of nothingness and what this all means in regards to the nature of the universe, life, and God. As I’ve said before there is no real beginning or end to this metaphysics, each portion holds and connects to each other portion almost instinctively and naturally, and so we often find ourselves approaching one aspect as we address another. Such is the nature of all good things – we never have enough time or space for them – they fill up all things completely. Consider how you are your body, but instead of your material body, consider the largely immaterial portion of your body which also extends and is immediately and completely connected to all things beyond your own defining physical boundaries. In this way you expand throughout all bodies and all of creation immaterially. This is a living, organic, and completely natural being. Through the nothing we become one with all things. We find ourselves only by letting go of all that we are, all that we could be, and in so doing we extend ourselves beyond nothing into everything.