Inclusion is most important in thought. The self can be seen as an including activity. A baby is born with the self as a point: acting, not seen. The point then expands, branches, diversifies, and in so doing, includes.

Whenever we know something, our self includes more. In so far as we know something of the world, that it exists, that it does things to us, we include the world in ourselves. Knowing of anything is an including act. After the including, is arranging.

With arranging, there may be difficulty. The thing included, as known, may make for pain to what the self has been hitherto. So there comes a fight between inclusion and a bad kind of negation (which is also called repression).

What can the self include to its own good purpose? What limit is there? Is there anything in the world which is really “indigestible”—that is, incapable of inclusion? If the self is a possibility of picturing and having the world—which I think it is—is there anything which truly should be not included? I don’t think that there is anything which should not be included.

But the world, as I have shown, is including and excluding, that is, comprehending and selecting. So the self is, too. The self is always within and without, and both. It selects as it includes. The selection along with the inclusion, makes for form, which is here a rhythm of having and not having.

Selection is a kind of negation. The excluded to the included is as nothing of a thing to something of a thing; for a cloud to a table is as nothing to the table, as something.

The idea of nothing, then, is present in all thought. Inclusion implies nothing. Ex in the word exclusion has the idea of nothing to it.