817. But fortunately the living being will not go on living with a merely "relative" perception of itself. Thanks to the sense of its I, or the "blind spot" in its sense of its own life, which will always exist behind absolutely every thought or idea, the being cannot rest until its desire to "weigh" and "measure" and determine the "age", "speed" or "movement" of the I itself has also been satisfied. But here, as the reader already knows, the extraordinary thing happens that the "blind spot" or the I, due to the fact that it does not exist as a reaction of two movements touching each other, can neither be "seen" nor "sensed". But in that case, neither can any acknowledgment of it be dependent on an "eye that sees". Either the being does not perceive it at all, and it is then in essence an "X", or if it does perceive it, it will be, as we have already seen in "Livets Bog", a "blind spot", and so will in essence also be equal to "X". Its analysis can be nothing other than an "X", but an "X" that cannot be obliterated. It will therefore always exist as "something that is". And here the being is faced with a view that is in no way whatsoever "relative". But even before this "something" was understood as being an "X" that cannot be obliterated, its existence had nevertheless, in one area, already firmly entered into the being's day-consciousness acknowledgment. This area consists, as we have already noted, of what lies right in the "focal point" of its sensory faculty. Here it, in a way, understands this "X" or this nameless "something". That the being will not accept that a house or a suit of clothes can come about without respectively a builder or a tailor is due solely to the fact that in this area it can see clearly that a "will-directing originator" is an absolute necessity behind the creation of these phenomena. It sees the same essential originator behind all phenomena that it acknowledges as having been produced by fellow beings. The fact that it expresses its "cosmic" experience or acknowledgment as something "relative" does not alter the "cosmic" identity or nature of the acknowledgment itself. In describing the builder and the tailor, that is to say the "will-directing originators" behind the house and the suit of clothes, as "human beings", the individual is fully aware that this description does not fully cover its acknowledgment, since the question still remains: what is a human being, or what is a living being? Here the being's "cosmic" sight has once again slipped out of the "focal point" of its sensory faculty and has become indistinct; it has become "relative".