The subject-object dualism seems inescapable, ingrained in our science, our language, and our way of thinking about the world. Some would even go so far as to say it "created" our world. Biocentrism (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science//) postulates that living things give time and space their meaning. In this theory, time and space do not exist except as the tools of the living organism. If this is true, then it begs the question: why did living organisms "create" time and space? Why did a bit of the universe suddenly become categorically separated from the rest of the universe? Why am I, the subject, capable of interpreting the objectivity that is the world around me? How did this framework of experience get started? I'm not looking for a history of consciousness. I'm looking for the "why" of consciousness. Maybe its a futile question. I'm very confused about it all, but I think that somehow our assumption about the universe and ourselves is fundamentally wrong. Take an example from brain science: There is a region in the brain, called the posterior superior parietal lobe, that controls spatial distinctions and navigation. This region of the brain normally works by creating a map of "you" distinct from all that which is "not you." However, when deprived of sensory stimuli, it cannot create that map. This results in an experience of expansion of the self, a merging of oneself with all that the mind can imagine. (See Why God Won't Go Away, by Andrew Newberg M.D., et al.) Such mystical experiences suggest that there is another way of conceptualizing the universe beside the standard self-other model. If one follows the philosophy of biocentrism, it doesn't make sense that the self-other model should predominate. After all, if space and time have no objective existence, why should it be more adaptive to live within artificial parameters? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to see life the way it "really" is, without time or space? Or is some framework, even if wrong, absolutely necessary? If so, why? Its not even certain that the subject-object duality is necessary. Congradulations on making it thus far. Any thoughts/ideas would be appreciated.