A difficult concept to grasp : the plurality of life. You see, we make a mammoth assumption when we regard others as having the same quality of being as ourselves. It is only through our identification of our external manifestation with that of another human being that we come to the conclusion that this 'other' being possesses a similar inner experience of existence to our own. After all, we are not able to actually experience their existence as well as our own in order to confirm that they really exist as experiencing and feeling entities. But, since these beings exhibit similar behavioural properties to our own, in our minds we endow them with those feelings which we come to associate with the same behavioural properties we observe in ourselves.

So life is plural? Yet, there nevertheless seems to be something philosophically pure and ideal about a singularity. Contemplating The Unity seems to be a central theme of many eastern philosophies. It is not at all surprising since, at a very basic level, the very stuff of our complex physical being originated from merely one undifferentiated cell. Though the complexity of life represents a departure from singularity through diversification, it is those very 'higher' life forms which have arisen through leaving The Unity which now strive through religion and philosophy to return in mind to that very state.

Consider now, for instance, that life were to be singular. With this as our starting point, how do we explain the simultaneous presence of numerous beings of similar external appearance? If life were to be a continuum as is suggested in theories such as reincarnation, then one spirit may sail along a strand of life made up of an indefinite number of human lives. But are there nevertheless a myriad spirits sailing along different strands, all present in a common reality at the same time? Or can one take things a step further even, to argue that the entirety of life, with every single element of life which has ever existed and ever will exist, belongs to only one single strand? That life is an absolute continuum and that somehow each presently existing 'life' occupies a tiny splice along that giant strand? It would be too simplistic to suggest that the nature of the continuum of life should be linear in the sense in which we understand time to be.

Suppose then that we are all one and the same, that one life at different points in its progression, co-existing at the same point in 'time' (Indeed, time as we understand it would in this context become pretty much a useless concept). Take two supposedly irreconcilably different personalities existing at the same moment, apparently unrelated yet, through this 'life continuum', the one eventually leads into the other, perhaps passing through a gradual progression of lives in the process.

Confronted as we are with this rather awkward conundrum, it becomes necessary to address it with an analogy. This is where the ball of yarn comes in..........a tangled ball of yarn. One continuous thread yet so intricately and unpredictably intertwined that many vastly differing positions on that long thread may chance to fall right next door to one another. Just slice that ball in two to see how many totally different positions on that strand will exist within the same plane. With this particular analogy we are clearly attempting to explain a four-dimensional object (our universe through time) in terms of a three-dimensional object (our ball of yarn). Let's take this analogy a step further to suggest a link between macro and micro : between this all-encompassing strand of life and , at a very basic level, a simple DNA strand. Although the DNA strand is but a minuscule element of the entire 'strand of life' , perhaps in some perfect mathematical manner a pattern exhibited on this level might recur through all other levels including the highest level. In other words, perhaps that 'tangled' ball of yarn is not quite as randomly tangled as we might have thought. In much the same way as a DNA strand recoils upon itself in a highly structured manner, perhaps there is a principle involved in the rolling up of this ball of yarn which we are unaware of. For reasons of space efficiency the DNA strand folds in on itself several times according to its helix pattern so as to store the largest volume of genetic information in the smallest possible three-dimensional space. Perhaps then, in a similar manner, the 'strand of life' has folded in on itself so as to contain the largest length of life within the smallest possible four-dimensional space.

At this stage, allow me to introduce another concept. It is far from being a new idea that time be regarded as the fourth dimension. As a film is made up of a series of two-dimensional frames, so our four-dimensional universe is made up of a series of three-dimensional frames of which we, in the present, are but one.........the one presently being projected onto the screen. Now, if we lower everything by one level so as to put things into a context which we can understand, we may then compare our four-dimensional universe to a three-dimensional ball of yarn, and the three-dimensional frame in which we exist (which we term the present) to a two-dimensional section through that ball of yarn. The use of this being? Well, in this way we can show how more than one segment of the strand of life can exist simultaneously. And, what's more, we can extend this analogy even further to suggest that the two poles of the ball of yarn represent both the beginning and end of life in this system. As a film projector spinning its reels with its lens sweeping steadily through the sequence of frames, so the present, like a two-dimensional section, sweeps through this three-dimensional ball of yarn. As it begins its sweep from the one pole, life is singular but steadily, approaching the middle of the ball, life gradually proliferates and becomes plural. Then, as the sweep passes the middle point and continues in the direction of the other pole, so life once again converges and returns to its original unity.

But now we are faced with another perplexing question. If we are all of us the same strand of life all rolled up into one, then what mechanism is involved in causing an outstretched strand to collapse in on itself, thus becoming a compact ball? In order for a DNA strand to collapse into its familiar shape, there must be a complex dynamic of both forces of attraction and repulsion present between each segment on that strand and an entire complement of other segments scattered broadly around that single segment. Perhaps then the emotional bonds which exist between human beings are analogous to those bonds existing within a DNA strand. In other words, it is a debatable point whether human spirits form bonds with one another through residing in a plural-life system which forces interaction, or whether the plural-life system has come about through the desire of different segments along a single strand of life to bond with one another and so bring them into closer proximity to one another.

If you consider, hypothetically, an infinitely narrow, straight line drawn across a sheet of paper, one is effectively using a two-dimensional plane in order to represent what is merely a one-dimensional object. Rather a waste of a dimension, or what? Now, perhaps if that same length of line were to be coiled up into a spiral, it would represent a much more efficient use of that two-dimensional sheet of paper. So, does life not in a similar manner make the most efficient possible use of four-dimensional space by coiling up into some sort of compact structure, be it a spiral, a helix or a ball of yarn? If you were to take a section through a sheet of paper with just a straight line drawn upon it, that section would contain one single point. But, if on the other hand that sheet of paper had a spiral drawn upon it, the section might then contain several points. Now, if the strand of life were to be stretched out taught between two points in time, then a section through time taken between those two points would reveal one single point on that strand. But on the other hand, if the strand of life were to be coiled into some structure, then a similar section might reveal a series of points in life's progression - a plurality of life.

Earlier on, with a section sweeping through a ball of yarn, we attempted to explain how life might go through a cycle, alternating between singularity and plurality. Another way of dealing with this phenomenon however, which may indeed be more correct, would be to look a little deeper into our comparison between the macro strand of life and a micro DNA strand. The latter being something concrete which we can substantiate while the former being merely the subject of hypothesis, it seems a healthy line of thought to pursue. During cell division, the DNA strand undergoes marked structural changes, unravelling into its extended form in order for gene replication to occur and then, once cell division is complete, returning to its condensed state in the nuclei of the two new cells thus formed. A perpetual cycle (as indispensable to life as breathing or the beating of a heart), perhaps a similar process, equally as indispensable, is active on a much larger scale. To explain therefore why, at some stages in our universe's development, life may exist in a sparse, almost singular state while at other stages existing in a much more abundant state, we should view the strand of life as going through cyclic phases of coiling and uncoiling in much the same way as occurs in one minute living cell. To be honest, I have always considered it rather an absurd notion that the universe in which we exist be regarded as an absolute totality - that, like those components of it, it may not itself in turn be a component of something on a level far higher than we may comprehend.

It is for this reason that I do not have any difficulty with comparing our entire living universe to one living cell. Indeed, I believe there is much one can gleam from such a comparison. In perfect mathematical structures one often finds that the tiniest element on a very low level might reflect properties present on much higher levels.

We are all lives that have ever been and ever shall be? Was I Hitler? Was I Mother Theresa? Was I Jesus? Was I a million and one rather average people. Have I experienced the suffering of victims of torture? Shall I? Shall I experience the ecstasy of the most unimaginably contented and fulfilled life since the beginning of time? Clearly, applying what is merely a philosophical concept in this manner is a pointless exercise.

If reincarnation or some form of life continuum were to be the way of things, then one of the most predictable questions people will ask is "Why is it that we are unable to recall these past lives?" It has been roughly two months now since I became an uncle for the first time. And in that time, confronted with the raw profundity of new life, I have been surprised by how bizarre the life of a baby is and how unable I am to grasp the fact that I was once a baby myself. Yes, I was once a baby. Yet I cannot come to terms with this reality. And this is just in this one life, only twenty odd years ago. If I am so unable to recall something which most would not hesitate to agree was a part of my existence, how much more so would I not be unable to recall events from previous existences?

It seems there is unfortunately an element of determinism intrinsic to this whole model of understanding life. In conclusion though, I believe that life is a dialogue with the self, and the physical reality in which we exist is the language of that dialogue.