Is the eternal I behind stones, plants and animals exactly of the same type and age as the highly developed human being's eternal I? Is the eternal I of the mentally retarded person just as old and just as developed as the eternal I of the expert connoisseur of the art of living?

As is evident from "Livets Bog" (The Book of Life), the eternal I behind every living being and behind the universe is a phenomenon which exists without having any other analysis than precisely this: that it exists. The only thing one can therefore say about this I is that it constitutes "Something which is". As this Something is the very thing which experiences' and creates in existence, it cannot in itself be identical with this experience and creation. This can only be a phenomenon which is connected to this I, but it cannot be this I in its own true nature. We therefore stand before an unshakable analysis of the living being, namely this: that it constitutes two realities - "the Creator" and "the Creation". That "the Creator", which means the eternal I, must have existed before the creation existed, is a matter of course. But since the eternal I could thus exist before the creation came into existence, its existence, in its own true nature, is not dependent upon this creation. That it can therefore just as well exist after the termination of the creation as before its coming into existence here becomes evident as likewise a matter of course. But through this, the eternal I here becomes revealed as something which, in its own true nature, exists supremely or quite independently of the creation. As the eternal I cannot therefore be created but nonetheless exists, it can never have begun, just as it will never be able to cease. It can only exist. But an existence which has neither beginning nor end can only be eternal. It therefore here becomes obvious that the I is something eternal. This eternal Something is thus beyond time and space. By not being subject to any beginning or end, it survives everything which has a beginning and an end, which means all created phenomena. None of these can therefore in any way whatsoever be an analysis of the eternal I. If one says about this I that it is a plant, an animal or a human being, or that it is clever, it is unsightly, it is divine or the like, none of these analyses could be an analysis of the eternal Something or the I, for they will each be only an expression for something the eternal I has temporarily produced or created, and which is therefore perishable, something which will sooner or later come to an end without the I coming to an end. This will still exist but it must, by virtue of its all-surviving, eternal existence, in its own true nature, be nameless, since everything we want to call it or with which we want to make it identical, will be survived by the I. It is this, its existence outside what is perishable, which is its true analysis. This must therefore, in the nature of things, be nameless. The I has therefore no other analysis besides this one: that it constitutes "Something which is". And it is, by virtue of this, its nameless existence, that it, in "Livets Bog", has been called X1.