sleep so often and could conjecture a function for those hours in which my self gave itself the conditions for performing some functions which need that state and no other. In order to understand sleep it was necessary to not give to the waking state the exclusive significance I had at first given it. Also, since I had denied sleep a significance equal to that of the waking state, I could only progress if I integrated both into a new entity in which each had its own relative significance. The convincing feature in my understanding of sleep came from that organic integration of both (sleep and the waking state) into a new wider entity which could become one or the other under certain circumstances and at the same time illumined both. Sleep needed the waking state to become itself, and vice versa. Consequently many old observations gained their status as truths, many new findings resulted from this integration which became for me the true frame of reference of human living and of life in general. Today, I ask myself why I postponed looking at death in a similar manner for so many years (at least 10), since I myself would ask participants in my seminars on sleep: â€œDo you die when you fall asleep?â€? â€” linking two unknowns to extract the reality of one, that of sleep, while leaving death untouched. Today, I can only say that I did not then pursue the connection between sleep and death and that I do not as yet know why. Perhaps it was the difficulty of constructing a succession of lives as well knit together as the succession of day and night are when
"Is there any hope that we may ever know what death is? Since it is a problem of knowing, we need to find the epistemological devices that w...