Without a brain there is no imagination or capacity to reflect, as you point out. Imagination and reflection are process related. I am wondering whether Whitehead's description of the transcendent has any independent will independently of physical forms through which it transmits. That may be where it becomes impossible to split the physical from the non physical as they are a duality in process. Even that which has no brain, such as a tree cannot be reduced to a mere spirit and exist fully. The immaterial.relues upon vehicle of the material for its expression.

With the concept of the ghost there is no channel for sensory perception. It could be regarded as information but it is different from an actual living being. Even computers and forms of artificial intelligence don't have the underlying processes of imagination an creativity. That is why they could be said to lack a 'soul' as without sentience there is no direct interaction with the transcendent or the source of evolutionary potential.

Yes, I am probably 'wrong' to speak of some beings or objects as more 'real' than others. It would come down to the issue of more 'real' for whom? Consciousness is not in itself a determinant of what is 'real'. My bed has no consciousness but it is as real as I am.

When I suggested that some objects are more real than conscious beings I am suggesting that they are more permanent. What I meant is that they are less subject to change, or death specifically.

Of course, so much is variable in terms of structures. A bed may break but it doesn't change form whereas some objects disintegrate. Sentient beings grow and change through processes such as puberty and illness. Their consciousness also makes them subject to changes in behaviour. States of mind play an active role in a being's underlying nature. In particular, the inorganic has no will or survival instincr.

I am sorry if you don't understand my argument. Part of this may come down to how 'objects'are understood. Are they as real as conscious beings; or more real, if one takes a materialist stance.

As you may be aware, I have sympathy with Jung's idea of synchronicity, which is about patterns as opposed to causality, in the strictest sense. So, seeing what happens in nature in life is about patterns and the realm of metaphors. Objects may have 'life' in so far as they have significance in human meaning. It is hard to know how this compares to the idea of objects, such as in the mineral kingdom have consciousness in their own right. I don't know how the independent consciousness of objects could be measured by human consciousness.

I am not sure to what extent this reply answers your query about my perspective on the issue of pansychism. I welcome further questioning because I am wishing to understand and think about this area of philosophy in a sympathetic but critical point of view. Intimately, I am not sure how significant the philosophy of panpsychism is but have some intuition that it of importance at this particular time in understanding consciousness and its processes.

Generally, respect of others is important. It is complicated when ideas are so much in conflict. Part of the art may be about seeing the positive arguments in disagreeing ideas This can be a basis for fruitful exchange of ideas; as opposed to attacking those who see differently from oneself.

I have the good fortune of having come across a face to face group where respect is seen as being extremely important. Being in such a group is so helpful from my point of view. Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding.

Quantum.fields may be important in understanding of consciousness and panpsychism. It is this aspect which may be significant, or dismissed, in the debate of the significance of panpsychism. So much of consciousness has been located in brain in the Cartesian- Newtonian picture of reality.

I am sure that being sceptical is also important to avoid wild flights of fantasy but so much goes back to issues of how 'reality' is constituted and works. There has idealism and materialism, as well.ad theism.and idealism. What if all such ideas and models are inadequate? Panpsychism may not be complete but it may further ongoing partiality in models of understanding..Just as consciousness itself is evolving, the human models and descriptions of it, are evolving too.

The duality of body/brain is inherent in nature. There is the problem of seeing consciousness in the brain alone, as opposed to the nervous system and its distribution in the body. Toenails may experience pain and have some form of consciousness. This would explain the underlying varying degrees of consciousness, including diverse forms of bedbugs and crystals.

So much of human understanding is concrete as opposed to symbolic. Part of this dilemma comes down to the question of what the human imagination stands for. It goes back to qualia and issues of metaphysics, as a dilemma in the sciences and arts. Which is more 'real' in descriptive understanding? Likewise, it could be questioned is panpsychism is a metaphorical analogy or an epistemological model of underlying processes of nature?

What I wonder about most in reading ideas of Spinoza, and others, including Shopenhauer; is to what extent ideas like reincarnation and resurrection are symbolic primarily. That is, whether they go beyond individual identity or personal identity as such. This would be more about a cosmic recycling process in the larger scheme of the evolution of consciousness.

Of course, it is hard to know how it works exactly and what the symbolic stands for. Panpsychism, going back to Its roots in animism, may involve the nature of the perplexity of issues of the evolution and emergence of consciousness in varying degrees through the vehicle of matter.

There is so much to be questioned in theory and human experience. With diagnostic criteria of body dysmorohic disorder, erroneous perception comes into play. In particular, a person may be preoccupied with a feature of 'ugliness' which is not observed by others. But, so much involves cultural or intersubjective standards.

Some of this comes down to cultural aesthetics about the body. However, it also involves ideas of perfection in the wider sphere, including moral aspects. Here, I am suggesting that ideas of 'goodness' and 'badnees' come into play in self perception and ideas of what is seen as 'wrong' in the mirror.

The two may overlap, especially in conjunction with sexuality, which has so much of a significant role in both aesthetic and moral dimensions of identity and the arena of perception by an 'other'' or others. It involves self acceptance and repentance of one's personal worth, on a whole global or blurred picture of personal identity and self worth. It involves relationships and how one experiences in moments of alonenesx in the mirror of reflective self-awareness.

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. Nevertheless, I am aware of the way in which some models of consciousness, Including some perspectives on artificial intelligence challenge the role of sentience in consciousness itself.

I see it as a big philosophy quandary. I used to think that Plato's idea of immortality, as disembodied made sense, but do see this as extremely questionable in my present understanding of its connection with matter/ mind. The idea of reincarnation (and resurrection) overcome this duality. However, so much is speculative and comes down to the notion of justified belief as opposed to clear empirical arguments.

I am still grappling with the label and ideas of substance dualism. I have had a number of discussions with @180 Proof about it and how Spinoxa's philosophy is important. However, this is probably dependent on how one interpretats Spinoza. At this point, I would say that I I have some sympathy/ empathy with substance dualism. However, as for the naming of the theory, this is complex, especially the clear distinction between conceptual frameworks of substance dualism or non-dualism.

An interesting outpost, as so much can go wrong in the mirror. The reflection in the mirror physically and psychologically is the foundation of personal and social identity. The sense of self is gained in front of the mirror in connection with the gaze of the other in social interaction.

The mirror itself is of significance. I remember when I lived with a mirror nearby my bed it was horrible to see myself as soon as I woke up each day. Of course, the mirror is a reverse image so it is not as one appears exactly to others as most people are not completely symmetrical.

Selfies have also become the new mirrors even though they can be played around with. We live in a world of images and one can love or loath oneself. Identity problems arise in conjunction with such images, including eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder and gender identity problems.

The psychological aspects of self and the perception of self by others is the foundation of relationships and so many developmental and psychiatric issues. Autism is interesting as it is like a soliptist bubble in some ways.

I have read some of Sartre's writing on self, body and otherness, which I found helpful. Also, the social sciences shed light on the issues, including Erving Goffman's sociological work, 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. Also, object-relations theory, especially the work of Melanie Klein, looks at developmental aspects of self identity, with the role of mother as the initial mirror.

One book which I came across which I see as very significant is Martin Buber's 'I and Thou'. It compares the relationship between self and a personal 'God' and the human other. This is of importance in imagination and fantasy. As belief in God is facing there may be more attention to the opinions of others for a sense of self and self esteem.

But, as for the solution to the problem of self loathing or excessive self-love I am not sure that there is a complete solution. In practical terms, ito throw away the mirrors entirely might result in a complete disheveled appearance. Also, opinions of others may be overvalued but do need to be taken into account for coping in social life.

I am an existentialist outsider in many respects but don't wish to be a complete isolate. As people spend more time on the internet and phones there is a danger of going into a fantasy life in which the other becomes more remote. It may be a way of getting lost in a life of fantasy and preoccupation with an idealised imaginary image of oneself. To find the balance in navigating self and aloneness may be the way to wisdom. Through feedback from others we gain some awareness of our own blindspots, which may be uncomfortable but essential for deepening self-awareness.

By the 'One' I am referring to 'mind' although I am not a dualist. I don't think that body and mind are separate with the body as container. It is far more complex, especially with mind not being located in the head alone in the brain itself, just as the self is not an entity to be contained in the physical being.

Even if rocks were seen as having some consciousness, it is unlikely that human beings would care. Generally, ecology been dismissed and human beings have seen themselves as being at the top of the hierarchy, as 'special' and to use nature for benefiting human need and greed.

The idea of the existence of 'the soul' was often a way of justifying this. Some thinkers in the past thought that men had souls but women didn't. Similarly, certain people were looked down upon as if 'primitive'. Such hierarchical thinking can be a means of justification of exploitation.

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely.

With the interaction between humans and objects, while the objects don't have consciousness in their own right, I do wonder if human consciousness permeates objects, at an influential level beyond action itself. Projective forces come into play but it is possible that human thoughts actually interact with physical objects. For example, I know that my room.gets in a mess and things fall over when I am in a negative state of mind. To some extent it may be symbolic but I do wonder if objects are influenced by thoughts.

There is also the strange phenomena of statues shedding tears. Of course, this may be a hoax of some kind.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this.

I have known people who believe in spiritualism. I am not sure what people are tapping into exactly and that is why I find Jung's notion of the collective unconscious to be useful.

In my post above I referred to a view within theosophy of ghosts not being 'soul' itself but traces of energy disturbances. This goes hand in hand with the belief that fragments of a person break down. This is compatible with ideas of rebirth but is not dependent on there being a rebirth necessarily.

In his book 'Supernatural', Graham Hancock describes the way in which the development of belief in the gods was the basis of for the development of the symbolic realm. Whether beings such as gods and angels have independent life and experience is open to question. This would be about the disembodied, so is different from panpsychist ideas about matter, but it does involve the underlying issue of whether experience is dependent on the principle of sentience itself.

Yes, it is a good question as to whether everything being seen as cells, like brain cells, is equivalent to panpsychism. I do think that James Lovelock's idea of Gaia touches upon this. Consciousness, in terms of self-awareness, may be the experience of human consciousness but it all relates to larger systems beyond the human. The earth and other planets are not human, with a sense of personal self, but they have their own organisational capacity.

In thinking about the comparison between panpsychism and ancient ideas of 'ensoulment' I am wondering about its comparison with paganism.

I have also done some reading of theosophy and this has some bearing on the issue of what is spirit in relation to the life force. One idea which I came across was in connection with souls and spirits. That was the suggestion that ghosts are not 'soul' itself but memory traces in energy fields, especially in cases of traumatic experiences. Theosophy encompasses the view of various levels of spiritual reality, including embodied experience, but not seeing the embodied as all and everything.

The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source.

I was a little unsure of the description of Strawson's ideas. It would be too simplistic if any panpsychist thought that rocks were alive in a similar way to human beings' experience. Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him.

It is also a matter for physics as well as consciousness. I only understand physics in the questions it raises about philosophy (or metaphysics). However, from what I have read the issue of quantum entanglement has some bearing on the nature of consciousness and to the idea of panpsychism.

Panpsychism is a way of trying to understand connections and the source of that which is not a sentient form. Objects have a role in the world and universe as they are part of the material fabric. They may be affected by so much but the presence of the spark of life is what makes it animate. The rock does not have a spark and doesn't die, although plants and trees grow and die. It is not possible to say how much consciousness a tree has. It experiences weather and may store some memory, such as rings but it is unlikely that it has consciousness as we know it. Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious.

I can see Strawson's argument because experience is the central to being alive. A chair or a rock doesn't experience the person sitting on it, even though the person may have an effect on the chair, such as scratching it. Ideas about objects having experiences are human projections.

Some panpsychist views are of a spirit in an object, like the idea of a ghost in a machine understanding of a human. This rests on an assumption of disembodied spirits.

Belief in disembodied spirits is central to the idea of the supernatural. Graham Hancock points to the way in which ancient people saw spirits, often under trance states induced by hallucinogenic plants. They took these spirits to be 'real' in the sense of having independent consciousness of human beings. Panpsychism works more in that context.

Awareness is a term which is used in many different ways, like consciousness. What a too wide use of the term misses is the capacity for reflective awareness. The ability to develop reflective awareness is what enables active processes of consciousness.

The issue of experiential sentience (sensing and knowing) is important in considering the idea of panpsychism. Both sensory experiences and development of knowledge are separate but may come together in the emergence of consciousness.

There is the question of how much sentience and knowledge exists in forms such as rocks. Can a rock experience any sensation at all by factors like weather or if it is crushed? Also, does it have any memory as a basis for the organisation of future rock formation? With the memory aspect there is the possibility of Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphing resonance, although this is more of a 'fringe' concept within science than pansychism. What makes it so 'fringe' may be because it is invisible and hard to test empirically. It is equivalent to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious at a biologically level.

Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.

It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. Also, humans are able to reflect on sentience itself and upon the existence of pain itself.

Humans experience is the possibility of being able to integrate experience of pain and suffering as a basis for consciousness as understanding, as opposed to the other extreme of the rock. The rock is passive whereas conscious awareness as human know it involves active participation in the synthesis of experience.

Theoretically, if objects were seen as having consciousness it could be argued that they need to be treated with greater respect. There is the question as to how AI should be treated if it is viewed as conscious. Is destroying it a form of murder?.

However, what may also be happening in the digital age is some tendency to treat humans like objects and machines. Human consciousness is being seen as of lesser value and people treated as numbers and insignificant.

I like your detailed post. Mold is certainly an issue with sick building syndrome, related to damp. It can lead people to become sick physically. Similarly, bed bugs are on the rise in many developed countries and while not necessarily a major source of physical health problems can affect mental state so much.

Yes, suggesting that buildings are sick is anthropomorphic, an example of the 'pathetic fallacy' and metaphorical. It is an interpretation conjured by the human imagination.

Yes, I agree that objects, including buildings, are different from a rock. That is because objects include human interventions in design. However, everything in the universe exists in relationships rather than isolation. Nature is not separate. Weather and bacteria influence all objects, including rocks and buildings.

The reason I referred to sick building syndrome is that I have lived in a number of such buildings. Part of the issue is maintenance but it can be of repeated problems. When one is fixed a new one occurs. I have wondered if buildings have a life cycle, as maintaining older buildings is difficult and complete renovations are often needed. It could be that the organic parts are prone to aging. Even rocks erode and change, just like foods decay. I always seem to have dead lettuce in my fridge. Also, most organic forms need care and I am not good at looking after plants as they die if I have them. This may be my lack of skill or I have wondered if my own 'energy' is not conducive for their thriving.

Defining consciousness is not a simple task for a dictionary definition. That is because apart from different usage of the term it involves so much in way of understanding. A few years ago there was a thread on 'What is consciousness' by @TClark and this showed how it is a big question. Some see it in a clinical sense, like being able to identify signs of life in basic life support, some see it as self-awareness and others see consciousness as something to develop by humans, as in the nature of 'cosmic consciousness' (Bucke). I see all as important as consciousness is multifaceted. Cosmic consciousness is about training one's consciousness or fine tuning, the path of self-mastery.

'Sick building syndrome' is an unusual example of panpsychism and only works if one accepts the idea of energy fields, as opposed to issues of maintenance. In speaking of energy fields I am referring to electromagnetic forces and the Eastern idea of the 'subtle body' may arise from awareness of the electromagnetic field. The idea of 'Gaia' by James Lovelock is also relevant because it conceives of the planet earth as a living being.

I wonder if you are seeing consciousness as being about the processes of being alive, as in that respect it is the same. However, rocks and crystals are not alive in the way we understand it. Differences vary according to the complexity of a lifeform. Part of this determines how we see inherent value in its right to life. Most people don't feel guilty killing weeds and bedbugs.

Of course, such a perspective is anthropocentric but capacity to feel pain is an important criteria. With humans, the nature of consciousness is dependent on ego- consciousness, which is bound up with personal identity and the significance of language. We don't know about the nature of communication of some beings, such as dolphins. But, a rock doesn't have a sense of self, or inner life. Crystals may have an energy field, which is why they are used for healing. But, this is a likely projection of the human imagination.

I have just read the link on contatus and definitely see immanence as important as opposed to 'supernatural'. However, I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.

The question of an 'out there' impersonal force is also conceived in varying ways. Spinoza was from a Jewish background. In Judaism there was an emphasis on a personal relationship with 'God', via the soul. So, he may be seen as challenging this. The idea of an objective God or 'divine' aspect of God does not rule out the existence of human beings tuning into nature itself through establishing some connection with cosmic consciousness. In this respect, the idea of 'God' can be seen as a metaphorical description.

The issue of the soul may be about seeing spirituality as being about inner reality as opposed to the concrete objective realm which can be measured by empirical science. It comes back to the dialogue between mythos and logos. Logos may point to rational understanding, including neuroscience as the physical wiring of how mind or soul work, but the numinous dimension is about the experiential nature of inner reality.

I know what you mean, as my path in life has gone a bit weird. The issue may not be the daimon as such but what we need to learn in life. I have a mixture of unpleasant and pleasant synchronicities, which seem more than coincidences.

One which I had which felt like a miracle. I was travelling home a week ago and found I had lost my keys. I retraced the places I had been, making enquiries and at the main place where I had spent my time it was not found. However, the cleaner there told mr that she had seen a key on a keyring with a small teddy attached in the street and was able to direct me to the place where it was.

I have a lot of strange synchronicities involving losing keys and other items. Some would see these as mere coincidental accidents. However, coming from a Junian slant I interpret them symbolically. I also feel that my daimon is involved in providing learning lessons from my 'shadow', or dark side. I also feel that I get a lot of 'Instant Karma', especially when I make mistaken choices. Of course, I am aware that this is my own subjective interpretation of experiences.

My understanding of the idea of daimon is of a spiritual power, but it is not the same as demon. I read a book on the topic by Brian Ingliss, 'The Unknown Guest'. It represents a guiding force, or even higher self, which directs one's life.

There is also the issue as to what extent 'soul' can be seen as an independent 'entity' or as a source, especially in relation to individual experiences. This is where the tricky question of individual 'mind' comes in, as opposed to 'soul' as the animating principle.

The idea of a distinct 'soul' goes back to ancient thinking, including the notion of a 'daimon' referred to by Plato. It is here that it is seen as independent, as an entity which may survive death. The relation to ego consciousness is important and may be seen as related to the idea of 'self, which on Buddhism.may be seen as illusory. The idea of independent 'soul' gives rise to the idea of individual immortality vs the nature of soul as an underlying source inherent in birth and rebirth of lifeforms and consciousness..

The concept of the 'soul' is one which is believed in by most religions and ancient philosophers, but rejected by many materialistic thinkers. In many ways, the soul could be seen as consciousness itself, including the interface between 'mind' and 'body'.

It was partly Descartes' thought which led to the separation of mind and body. This has been challenged by ideas of embodiment as central to consciousness.

The idea of the soul doesn't in itself require the existence of God, or a deity. However, it could be argued that some approximation towards 'God' or a 'supreme reality could be figured from the idea of a source of consciousness from the nature of soul. This is suggested in Plotinus's idea of the 'One', which is the connective source.

Welcome to the forum,
Jack

The concept of eternity and the idea I'd eternal recurrence are interesting in relation to the question of how will time end? It is a perspective in a number of philosophies, significant notably in Nietzsche's ideas. I understand that he took the idea literally initially. This involved repeated births and deaths, with only small changes. Later, he saw the the concept of eternal recurrence as being symbolic mainly.

The idea of eternity, like infinity, conveys the way in which time and space are beyond human measurements. It is hard to know where anything starts and ends definitively. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang and about past and future universes. There is no reason to suggest that they are impossible. Starting and ending are not absolutes necessarily.

I do realise that you were not trying to be reductive in a minimising or reductive way. The argument which you develop is similar to ideas developed by Michael Frayn in 'The Human Touch', which looks at the significance of human consciousness in the cosmos. It looks at phenomenological aspects of time and space. It also goes on to suggest that there is a linguistic aspect of this, with the human grasp of concepts; including space and time.

In a way, it could be argued that time ends for each individual when life ends. Death involves the question of existence outside of space and time. Its possibility is plausible in a idealist perspective, especially in esoteric spiritual ones.

This is an interesting questionable area, whether time is a concept in the mind, or an independent aspect of existence. Time is about the experience of past, present and future, with 'now' being central as Eckhart Tolle argues. There is also the experience of 'time's arrow'. This is based on observation by human observers, but it is also based on changes in nature, including ageing and decay. These are a phenomenal aspect of the human mind, in relation to change, but it may be a grave mistake to reduce these to the human mind completely.

It is a wide topic, but one of importance. The idea of existential angst is central. I have read Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling', and found it worth reading, but it is probably rather obscure for most present day experiences. In thinking about depression, they frequently involve feeling 'bad' and 'sad', but have become medicalised, so it is worth thinking of the medical model of depression.

There is definitely a physiological aspect to it, especially in relation to neurotransmitters, which is why antidepressant drugs are given. However, a biopsychosocial is useful in considering the way in which experiences in life and social circumstances affect mood.

The understanding of depression also occurred in the context of psychiatry and the development of psychology. Many view psychological therapy as being important, often in conjunction with antidepressants.

Psychoanalytic theory has been important in thinking of depression. This is a vast subject area and one aspect of which Freud may have made a significant contribution is in the inability to moarn. This would include deaths of others, but also, the traumas and 'deaths' of painful experiences. One other area which it may be worth you reading about is Melanie Klein's idea of the depressive position, which involves a sense of guilt. This occurs in the early life experience of perceiving the mother and oneself, but is relevant for all life experiences. The topic of psychoanalytic theory, and its criticism, is so vast.

There is also the cognitive behaviourist approach, which emphasises that it is not experiences in themselves which lead to depression. It is our beliefs about experience which trigger feelings. So, cognitive behaviour therapy involves looking at and questioning beliefs about experiences. In some ways, CBT is a philosophy approach to understanding experience and it has parallels with Stoic philosophy.

The whole philosophy of emotions is also relevant. Also, the philosophy of mental states and moods may draw upon multidisciplinary thinking, including both the sciences and the arts. Some critics of the medical model see it as being a limited view to simply prescribe medication to lift one's mood. However, this is also open to criticism as in 'clinical depression' the severity can result in an inability to function, to eat, wash and the presence of suicidal thoughts.

There is a whole spectrum of experience in thinking about what is depression? The word may be used by individuals to describe varying experiences, including the presence of a 'blue' or 'black' mood. It includes unique experiences although it involves a universal sense of misery and potential for a state of despair. There is also the question of what makes life worth living and what is happiness?

I like the way in which you personify or anthromorphise time, especially as all forms of existence are dependent upon it. Time may be a dimension, or an illusory phenomenon, because it is matter or nature which changes. Yet, without it, nothing in the material sense, could exist.

Of course, time could appear to have ceased to exist but may remain dormant. In that respect, it may be one, if not primary, archetype, of all forms of existence.