In his notion of being or consciousness it was taken for granted that the ground of this being or knowing is within itself, that the foundation of what appeared as his reality was located in the deepest region of himself, of the me, and that the empirical or functional self is what it is through its derivation from the absolute self, or rather that any such absoluteness was an emanation from its very selfness. All of which is to say that he was peculiarly blind to the intuition of a transcendent ground, to the notion of his being as the creation of a creator. He was willing to sacrifice anything in the way of content, or consciousness as content, in favour of something like the place or the frame of possibility in which such a consciousness arises, and which he identified as self. While the experience of the infinitely vexing relations of self and other were consistent with this view, the experience of a God, breaking in, as He did for Job, was not. But he also knew this to be a superficial view, a hasty confusion of levels of experience, the paper currency of thought, or else true as intuition while untested at the level to which it referred.