Return to Consciousness

Suffering and Consciousness (sac)

The Idealist's Hardest Question

Contents ▼

Project: Return to Consciousness
Author: Bruno Tonetto
Authorship Note: Co-authored with AI as a disciplined thinking instrument—not a replacement for judgment. Prioritizes epistemic integrity and truth-seeking as a moral responsibility.
Finalized: February 2026
22 pages · ~46 min read · PDF

Abstract

If consciousness is fundamental — as this project argues — then suffering cannot be treated as a contingent byproduct of blind evolutionary processes. Under analytic idealism, the capacity for suffering is woven into the fabric of what exists, creating the idealist’s theodicy problem: why does consciousness, in individuating itself, generate modes of experience that include terror, grief, anguish, and despair? This essay applies constraint-based methodology to suffering itself, mapping a structural argument — dissociation entails partiality; partiality entails vulnerability; vulnerability is the common root of both suffering and value — and drawing on Buddhist, Kabbalistic, Christian kenotic, Sufi, and process-philosophical traditions to develop it. Crucially, because the dissociative boundary rather than the biological body is the relevant unit of individuation, biological death does not necessarily terminate the dissociative pattern or the suffering associated with it. This shifts the idealist’s hardest question from whether suffering is wasted to whether it persists across indefinite arcs of experience. The epistemic standard is structural analysis, not apologetics. Suffering is not explained away but confronted on its own terms.

Keywords: suffering · consciousness-first metaphysics · idealist theodicy · dissociation · individuation · Buddhist phenomenology · Kabbalah · kenotic theology · problem of evil

What This Essay Does and Does Not Claim

This essay establishes:

This essay does NOT establish:

This essay is NOT:

The epistemic standard is structural analysis: what must any consciousness-first framework posit about the relationship between individuation and suffering? The essay aims at diagnostic precision, not comfort.

I. The Problem Stated

Under physicalism, suffering has a straightforward — if unsatisfying — explanation. Evolution produced organisms with nervous systems capable of nociception. Pain signals promote survival. Emotional suffering piggybacks on the same architecture, extended through cognitive elaboration into anxiety, grief, existential dread, and despair. The capacity to suffer is a contingent product of natural selection operating on matter that is itself experientially inert. Suffering is real but accidental — a byproduct of processes that have no interest in whether sentient beings flourish or anguish.

This explanation is parsimonious in one respect: it requires no account of why suffering exists in any deeper sense. There is no why. Matter organized itself into increasingly complex configurations, some of which happen to experience pain. The universe is indifferent. Suffering has no cosmic significance. It simply is.

Many people find this explanation inadequate — not because it is logically flawed, but because it seems to leave out what matters most. The felt quality of suffering, its crushing weight, its capacity to destroy meaning — these seem poorly captured by a story about adaptive signaling in biological machines. But inadequacy of feeling is not refutation. The physicalist account may be unsatisfying and still correct.

The situation under analytic idealism is structurally different — and in one crucial respect, harder.

If consciousness is fundamental, then experiential states are not emergent properties of complex matter. They are features of what exists at the most basic level. Physical processes — brains, nervous systems, evolutionary pressures — are the extrinsic appearance of experiential processes, not their generators. Individual minds are dissociated segments of a universal field of consciousness, bounded perspectives within a transpersonal whole.

Under this ontology, suffering cannot be a contingent accident of evolution. If consciousness is what there is, and if individual minds are dissociative partitions within it, then the capacity for suffering is not something added to consciousness by biological complexity. It is something consciousness does — or something that happens to consciousness as a structural consequence of its own self-partitioning.

Other essays in the project establish how suffering arises within the dissociation framework: bounded perspectives generate characteristic affects — anxiety, craving, aversion, existential dread — because they experience themselves as separate, vulnerable, and mortal (Consciousness Structure). They establish that suffering can exceed the integrative capacity of the ordinary ego, creating what CST calls the “unavoidable demand” for deeper transformation. They identify cross-traditional convergence on the diagnosis that ordinary egoic consciousness is structurally incomplete (One Structure, Consciousness Across Cultures).

The present essay asks the harder question: why would consciousness dissociate into forms that must suffer?

This is the idealist’s theodicy problem. It is not inherited from theology. It arises directly from the ontology. If there is one consciousness, and it generates — through dissociation — billions of finite perspectives capable of experiencing terror, grief, anguish, and annihilation anxiety, then the question why is not optional. It is the price of taking the ontology seriously.

The present essay does not answer this question definitively. It maps the structural territory, identifies the constraints any adequate answer must satisfy, and distinguishes three positions an idealist framework can coherently hold. The aim is not resolution but clarity — the kind of clarity that makes the problem workable rather than paralyzing.

II. What the Project Already Establishes

Before developing new analysis, it is worth consolidating what the existing essays have established about suffering. This prevents repetition and identifies precisely where the current account stops.

Suffering as Structural Feature of Dissociation

Consciousness Structure establishes that the ordinary ego is a dissociative structure — a bounded, localized perspective that maintains itself through exclusion. Its characteristic mode of operation is “this is not me”: it sustains identity by repressing incompatible content, projecting disowned material, selectively attending to what confirms existing identity, and treating boundary-threats as existential dangers.

This structure generates what CST calls characteristic affects: anxiety (about boundary integrity), guilt (about excluded material), resentment (about perceived threats), and craving (for what might fill the structural incompleteness). These are not pathological additions to an otherwise healthy system. They are the normal operational byproducts of a dissociative architecture. The ordinary ego functions — but it functions through exclusion, and exclusion generates suffering as a structural consequence.

The Unavoidable Demand

CST further establishes that at certain depths, suffering exceeds what the ordinary ego can metabolize. “Reality contains intensities that exceed the integrative capacity of ordinary egoic consciousness.” When this happens — through extreme trauma, existential exposure, encounter with what the ego cannot assimilate — transformation of identity itself becomes necessary. Not as moral imperative, but as structural fact: the weight exceeds what can be lifted; additional capacity is required.

This is one of the project’s most important claims. It establishes that suffering is not always tractable through ego-level intervention. Some configurations of suffering demand a shift in what one takes oneself to be — a shift from the bounded ego to something capable of holding what the ego cannot.

Cross-Traditional Convergence

One Structure and Consciousness Across Cultures document independent convergence across traditions on the diagnosis that ordinary egoic consciousness is structurally limited. The Buddha’s avidyā, Jesus’s hamartia, Freud’s inevitable neurotic conflict — these point to the same structural feature from different directions. Ordinary consciousness is incomplete. Its incompleteness generates suffering. The traditions diverge on prognosis (liberation is possible vs. relief is the best we can hope for), but they converge on diagnosis.

Dissociative Persistence and the Unit of Analysis

Beyond Survival and Extinction establishes that the survival-versus-extinction binary is inadequate under consciousness-first metaphysics. The essay develops a taxonomy of three positions — individual-terminating, individual-preserving, and individual-transforming — and documents that the most sophisticated traditions (Buddhist, Vedantic, Kabbalistic, Christian mystical) converge on the transforming position: something persists beyond biological death while undergoing fundamental change.

The Cosmic Journey, operating as a boundary test, makes the structural implication explicit: “The dissolution of a dissociative boundary (death) does not annihilate consciousness but returns it to a less constrained state.” If consciousness is fundamental and individual minds are temporary dissociative structures, then “patterns, tendencies, and accumulated experiences might persist beyond single biological instantiations.”

Epistemic Authority warns against the “biological instantiation assumption” — the tacit belief that awareness capable of knowing or integrating meaning must be embodied in biological systems. It identifies this as a form of “conceptual carryover” from physicalism that persists even after ontological revision.

These three essays, taken together, establish a crucial point for any analysis of suffering under idealism: the biological lifespan is not the relevant unit of analysis. The dissociative boundary — not the biological body — is what constitutes the individual under this ontology. And dissociative boundaries do not necessarily dissolve at biological death. The traditions are remarkably convergent on this: the Buddhist bhavanga (life-continuum of karmic conditioning persisting across lives until nibbana), the Vedantic jiva (individual self persisting through the causal body until moksha), the Kabbalistic neshamah (soul undergoing gilgul/transmigration until tikkun is complete) — each describes a dissociative pattern that persists beyond biological death, terminating only when the dissociation itself is resolved through liberation or integration.

Where the Account Stops

The existing essays explain how suffering arises (through dissociation), that it is structural rather than accidental, that the individual may persist beyond biological death, and what can be done about it at certain depths (develop greater coherence through contemplative practice). What they do not explain is why. Why does consciousness dissociate at all? Why does dissociation produce bounded forms that must suffer? Is suffering a cost, a function, or a necessary feature of individuation? Is it contingent — could consciousness have individuated without producing suffering — or is it structurally entailed by individuation itself? And given that the dissociative pattern may persist across biological deaths: what does it mean that suffering-capable individuation is not bounded by a single lifespan?

These questions are the territory of this essay.

III. The Structural Argument: Why Dissociation Entails Suffering

The argument proceeds in steps, each building on the previous.

Step 1: Dissociation Creates Partiality

If individual minds are dissociated segments of universal consciousness, then each mind experiences only a portion of what is. This is not a limitation added to an otherwise complete system; it is what dissociation means. To be an individual perspective is to be partial — to have access to some experiential content and not others, to see from here rather than everywhere, to know this rather than everything.

Partiality is not a defect. It is the structure of individuation. Without partiality, there would be no individual perspectives at all — only undifferentiated universal consciousness, experiencing everything at once and therefore experiencing nothing in particular. Individuation requires boundary; boundary creates partiality; partiality means incompleteness.

Step 2: Partiality Entails Vulnerability

A partial perspective is inherently vulnerable. It can be affected by what it does not control. It can encounter what it cannot assimilate. It can be threatened, overwhelmed, damaged, destroyed.

An undissociated universal consciousness — if such a concept is even coherent — would lack vulnerability in this sense. There would be nothing outside it to threaten it, nothing it could encounter that would exceed its integrative capacity. Vulnerability enters with boundary. When consciousness partitions itself into bounded perspectives, it creates the structural conditions for harm — for experiences that overwhelm, fragment, or destroy the integrity of the individual mind.

This is not a design flaw. It is what boundaries do. A bounded system can be breached. A partial perspective can be overwhelmed by what it has excluded. An individual mind can encounter reality at intensities its dissociative structure cannot contain. This is not something that happens to consciousness despite its nature. It is a consequence of what individuation structurally entails.

Step 3: Vulnerability Is the Condition of Suffering

Suffering — in the broadest phenomenological sense — is what happens when vulnerability is activated. When the bounded mind encounters what threatens its integrity, it suffers. When it cannot assimilate what it experiences, it suffers. When it recognizes its own impermanence and grasps after permanence, it suffers. When it longs for wholeness from within its partiality, it suffers.

The Buddhist tradition articulates this with particular precision. Dukkha — the first noble truth — is not merely “pain” but the inherent unsatisfactoriness of conditioned existence. It arises because all conditioned phenomena are impermanent (anicca), without fixed self-nature (anattā), and therefore incapable of providing the lasting satisfaction that the grasping mind demands. The structure of egoic consciousness — its tendency to seek permanence, solidity, and control — is perpetually at odds with the structure of reality, which is fluid, interdependent, and ungovernable.

Within the dissociation framework, this diagnosis gains ontological precision. The individual mind grasps after permanence because it is a dissociative structure that must maintain its boundaries to exist as an individual. Boundary-maintenance is what the ego is. But boundaries are inherently unstable — they must be continuously reinforced against the pressure of what they exclude. This continuous effort of self-maintenance against dissolution is experienced from within as anxiety, craving, and the background hum of existential unease that characterizes ordinary consciousness even when nothing is immediately wrong.

Step 4: The Structural Entailment

Combining these steps: if consciousness individuates through dissociation (ontological premise), and dissociation creates partiality (definitional), and partiality entails vulnerability (structural consequence), and vulnerability is the condition of suffering (phenomenological observation), then individuation structurally entails the conditions for suffering.

This is not a contingent connection. It is not that consciousness happens to have dissociated in ways that produce suffering, and might in principle have dissociated differently. The connection is structural: any mode of individuation that creates bounded perspectives will, by that very act, create the conditions for suffering. Boundaries mean partiality; partiality means vulnerability; vulnerability means the possibility — and under sufficient pressure, the actuality — of suffering.

This does not mean that every individual moment is suffering, or that suffering is constant and uniform. It means that the capacity for suffering is inherent in individuation. A bounded perspective can experience joy, beauty, wonder, love, peace — all of which are also features of partial, vulnerable, invested consciousness. But it cannot be invulnerable. And where there is vulnerability, suffering is structurally possible.

The Analogy and Its Limits

Consider a wave that has forgotten it is the ocean. From the wave’s perspective, it is a separate entity — bounded, temporary, surrounded by forces that could destroy it. It rises, crests, and falls. It can be overwhelmed by larger waves, dashed against rocks, absorbed into currents it cannot resist. Its existence is precarious. It suffers — if we grant it interiority — because its mode of being is inherently limited, temporary, and vulnerable to forces beyond its control.

The analogy captures something real: the wave’s suffering is not inflicted from outside by a malevolent force. It is the structural consequence of being a wave — of existing as a bounded, temporary pattern within a larger whole. The ocean does not suffer as the wave suffers, because the ocean is not bounded, temporary, or vulnerable in the way the wave is. But the ocean produces waves, and waves are structurally vulnerable.

The analogy also has limits. Waves do not grasp after permanence. They do not construct narratives about their identity. They do not experience annihilation anxiety. Human suffering includes cognitive and existential dimensions that waves lack — dimensions that arise from self-reflective consciousness operating within dissociative boundaries. The human mind not only is partial; it knows it is partial, and this knowledge — incomplete, distorted by the ego’s self-protective operations — generates a second order of suffering that simple partiality does not.

And critically for this essay: when a wave crests and falls, it truly dissolves back into the ocean. The dissociative pattern ends. But under the project’s own ontology, the dissociative pattern constituting the individual may not dissolve at biological death. The wave may re-form — carrying the patterns, tendencies, and unresolved intensities of its previous forms. The analogy breaks precisely where the essay’s most difficult questions begin.

IV. The Traditions of Divine Self-Contraction

The structural argument — that individuation entails vulnerability, and vulnerability entails the conditions for suffering — is not new. Multiple traditions have articulated versions of it, often using the language of divine self-contraction: the idea that the ultimate reality must limit itself, empty itself, or withdraw in order for finite existence to occur. These traditions add depth and texture to the structural analysis.

Tzimtzum: The Kabbalistic Contraction

In Lurianic Kabbalah — the mystical tradition developed by Isaac Luria in sixteenth-century Safed — creation begins with tzimtzum: God’s voluntary contraction or withdrawal. Before creation, the divine light (Or Ein Sof) filled all reality. For anything other than God to exist, God had to withdraw, creating a chalal — an empty space within which finite existence could unfold.

This contraction is not diminishment. It is the structural condition of otherness. Without tzimtzum, there would be only God — infinite, undifferentiated, knowing nothing other than itself. Tzimtzum creates the possibility of relationship, encounter, love — all of which require at least two. But it also creates the possibility of suffering, because the finite beings produced within the contracted space are partial, vulnerable, and separated from the fullness they once were.

The Lurianic narrative continues with shevirat ha-kelim — the shattering of the vessels. The divine light poured into the created world proved too intense for the vessels designed to contain it. They broke, scattering sparks of divine light into the material world, where they became entrapped in klipot — shells of materiality. This shattering is a cosmic catastrophe, but it is not meaningless. The work of tikkun — repair, restoration, gathering of the scattered sparks — becomes the purpose of human existence. Every act of justice, every moment of awareness, every ethical choice participates in the cosmic repair.

Within the dissociation framework, the parallels are structural, not merely metaphorical. Tzimtzum corresponds to the initial dissociative act by which universal consciousness creates bounded perspectives. Shevirat ha-kelim corresponds to the reality that bounded perspectives cannot contain the full intensity of what they are — the boundary inevitably generates distortion, fragmentation, and suffering. Tikkun corresponds to the process of re-integration — what CST calls the development of coherence, the expansion of capacity to hold what was previously excluded.

The Kabbalistic framework adds something the structural argument alone does not provide: a directional narrative — and one that does not terminate at biological death. The sparks scattered by the shattering of the vessels are gathered through the process of gilgul — the transmigration of souls across multiple lives. Suffering is not merely a structural consequence of dissociation. It is the raw material of return. And the return spans the full arc of the soul’s journey, not a single biological instantiation.

Kenosis: The Christian Self-Emptying

Christian theology offers a parallel structure through the concept of kenosis — divine self-emptying. The central text is Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:6-8): Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Kenosis is not incidental to Christianity’s account of suffering — it is central. The divine does not observe suffering from a distance. It enters suffering, undergoes it, is broken by it. The crucifixion is not a transaction (God demanding payment for sin) but a disclosure: this is what love looks like when it enters finitude without reservation. Love that will not suffer is love that will not enter the conditions of the beloved. And the beloved — the finite, vulnerable, mortal creature — exists under conditions that necessarily include suffering.

Meister Eckhart, the fourteenth-century Dominican mystic, developed this further: God must “suffer” creation to become known to himself. Without the finite, the infinite has no mirror. Without limitation, fullness cannot recognize itself. Creation — including its suffering — is the process by which the divine comes to know what it is through experiencing what it is not. The “not” is essential. Only through negation, limitation, and the suffering these entail does self-knowledge become possible.

Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of the crucified God pushes this to its conclusion: suffering is not despite divinity but may be its deepest expression. A God who cannot suffer is a God who cannot love, because love requires the willingness to be affected, to be vulnerable, to be broken by what one loves. The cross reveals not divine power but divine vulnerability — and vulnerability, as the structural argument establishes, is the condition of both suffering and value.

The Sufi Beloved

The Sufi tradition frames the same structure through the language of love and longing. A widely cited hadith qudsi (sacred saying attributed to God) states: “I was a hidden treasure and I loved to be known, so I created the world.”

On this reading, creation is an act of self-disclosure motivated by love. But self-disclosure requires an other to whom the self is disclosed. The Beloved requires a lover. And the lover, to be a genuine other rather than a puppet, must be free — free to turn toward the Beloved or away, free to recognize the divine or to forget it, free to suffer the separation that freedom entails.

Rumi articulates the experiential dimension: “The wound is the place where the Light enters you.” Suffering, in the Sufi framework, is not obstacle to union but its condition. The longing that separates lover from Beloved is itself a mode of connection — the pain of separation testifies to a bond that separation cannot destroy. And the return — fanā, annihilation of the separate self in the Beloved — is not escape from suffering but its transfiguration.

Ibn Arabi’s metaphysics provides the structural scaffolding. The divine discloses itself through an infinite number of tajallīyāt — theophanies, self-manifestations — each of which reveals an aspect of the divine that would remain hidden without limitation. The finite being is a mirror in which the infinite sees itself partially. The partiality is not defect but function: only through partial mirrors, each reflecting a unique aspect, does the infinite come to know its own inexhaustible richness.

Process Philosophy: The Fellow-Sufferer

Alfred North Whitehead offers a philosophical framework that converges with these theological traditions. In Process and Reality, Whitehead describes God’s “consequent nature” — the aspect of God that includes the world’s experience, including its suffering. God is “the fellow-sufferer who understands.”

This is not divine impassibility — the traditional doctrine that God cannot be affected by creation. It is the claim that the ultimate reality is not insulated from suffering but includes it. The world’s suffering is not external to God; it is taken up into the divine experience and held there — not resolved in the sense of being made retroactively good, but held in the sense of being received without rejection.

David Ray Griffin, developing Whitehead’s framework, argues that genuine freedom — the capacity for self-determination that makes creativity possible — necessarily includes the capacity for destruction. God cannot create free beings and simultaneously prevent them from suffering or causing suffering, because freedom that cannot go wrong is not freedom. Suffering is the cost of a creative universe, paid by the universe itself, including by the divine reality that constitutes its deepest nature.

Convergence and Divergence

These traditions converge on a structural claim: the conditions for suffering are also the conditions for value. Otherness, finitude, vulnerability, freedom, limitation — these make possible love, creativity, beauty, encounter, meaning, and self-knowledge. Remove them and you remove not only suffering but everything that makes experience worth having.

The traditions diverge on whether this convergence constitutes justification. Kabbalah sees tikkun — the repair of what was broken — as giving suffering a cosmic function. Christianity, in its kenotic mode, sees suffering as the price of love, redeemed but not eliminated by the resurrection. Sufism sees longing as a mode of connection. Process philosophy sees suffering as the necessary cost of freedom.

These are not equivalent positions, and this essay does not claim they are. What it claims is that the convergence on the structural relationship between vulnerability and value is diagnostically significant — it recurs independently, across traditions with minimal historical contact, suggesting that it maps a genuine feature of the territory rather than a culturally local interpretation.

Notably, none of these traditions treat biological death as the terminus of the individual’s relationship to suffering. The Kabbalistic soul transmigrates. The Christian soul undergoes purgation and transformation. The Sufi lover persists until annihilation in the Beloved. The Whiteheadian “subjective immediacy” perishes but its data are objectively immortal in God’s consequent nature. The traditions that take suffering most seriously are also the traditions that refuse to bound it by a single biological life.

V. The Constraint Analysis: What Must Any Adequate Account Posit?

The project’s methodology — integration by constraints — demands that this essay do more than survey traditions. It must identify what any adequate consciousness-first account of suffering must posit, regardless of framework-specific commitments. The following constraints emerge from the analysis above.

Constraint 1: Suffering Is Not Eliminable from Any Account of Bounded Consciousness

Any framework that posits individual minds — whether through dissociation, emanation, emergence, or any other mechanism — must explain why those minds are capable of suffering. Under analytic idealism, the explanation is structural: dissociation creates partiality; partiality creates vulnerability; vulnerability creates the conditions for suffering. Under other consciousness-first frameworks (panpsychism, Russellian monism, process philosophy), the specific mechanism differs, but the structural entailment holds: individuation means finitude, and finitude means vulnerability.

This constraint rules out accounts that treat suffering as an aberration, a design flaw, or a punishment. It is none of these. It is what bounded consciousness structurally entails. Any account that posits finite minds must posit their capacity for suffering — not as an unfortunate addition but as an inherent feature of their mode of being.

Constraint 2: Suffering Must Be Evaluated Against the Dissociative Arc, Not the Biological Lifespan

As Section II establishes, the dissociative boundary — not the biological body — constitutes the individual under this ontology, and biological death does not necessarily terminate the dissociative pattern. Evaluating the meaning of suffering against the biological lifespan imports a physicalist unit of analysis into an idealist framework.

Any adequate idealist account of suffering must evaluate it against the dissociative arc, not the biological lifespan. The relevant questions are not whether the organism benefited before death, but whether the dissociative pattern persists, whether the experiential content carries forward, and whether integration occurs across the fuller arc. This does not diminish the suffering. It shifts the frame within which it is assessed.

Constraint 3: Suffering Is Relational, Not Atomic

Under analytic idealism, individual minds are not independently existing entities. They are aspects of one consciousness, temporarily dissociated from the whole. This means suffering is never merely individual. When one mind suffers, it is consciousness suffering — from within a particular dissociative partition, under particular constraints, in a particular way — but it is not a suffering that belongs to a separate being unrelated to all others.

The ethical implications are radical. If all suffering is self-suffering — if the one consciousness that constitutes reality is the same consciousness that experiences every instance of pain, grief, terror, and despair — then the ethical implications are radical. Harming another is, in a structural sense, self-harm. Indifference to another’s suffering is indifference to one’s own suffering, experienced from a different dissociative vantage point.

This does not immediately resolve anything. The dissociative boundary is real — you cannot feel my pain, and I cannot feel yours, because the boundary between our perspectives prevents direct access. The structural unity is ontological, not phenomenological. But it reframes ethics as structural coherence rather than imposed obligation: ethical behavior is not obedience to external commands but alignment with the actual structure of reality.

Constraint 4: The Capacity for Suffering and the Capacity for Value Share a Common Root

This is perhaps the most important constraint, and the most resistant to comfortable formulation.

Suffering requires investment. A being that is not invested in outcomes — that does not care whether it persists, whether its projects succeed, whether the beings it loves flourish — cannot suffer. Suffering presupposes caring, and caring presupposes vulnerability: the willingness to be affected by what one cannot fully control.

But investment is also the root of value. Love requires caring about the beloved. Creativity requires caring about the work. Beauty requires the capacity to be moved — which is to say, the capacity to be affected, to have one’s equilibrium disturbed, to be opened to what one did not expect and cannot control. Meaning itself — the sense that experience matters, that events have significance, that life is worth living — requires the same investment that makes suffering possible.

A consciousness that could not suffer would be a consciousness that could not care. And a consciousness that could not care would be a consciousness for which nothing had value — no beauty, no love, no meaning, no significance. It would be experientially flat: infinitely powerful, perhaps, but infinitely empty.

This is not a justification of suffering. It is a structural observation about the conditions of value. The same capacity that allows consciousness to experience beauty also allows it to experience horror. The same investment that makes love possible makes grief possible. The same openness that enables wonder enables terror. These are not separate capacities that could in principle be disentangled. They are the same capacity — vulnerability, investment, care — expressing itself under different conditions.

The constraint this generates: any account of suffering that proposes its elimination must also account for the simultaneous elimination of value. If suffering and value share a common root, then a world without suffering would also be a world without meaning — not because suffering is secretly good, but because both arise from the same structural feature of conscious experience.

VI. Three Positions on Suffering Under Idealism

With these constraints in view, three coherent positions emerge. They parallel — without exactly replicating — the taxonomy developed in Beyond Survival and Extinction for positions on death. Each satisfies some constraints better than others. None satisfies all.

Position 1: Suffering as Tragic Cost

Core claim: Dissociation inevitably produces suffering. This is the price of individuation. No cosmic purpose redeems it. The best response is compassion and the reduction of unnecessary suffering.

This position takes the structural argument seriously: individuation entails partiality, partiality entails vulnerability, vulnerability entails the conditions for suffering. But it refuses to assign suffering a redemptive function. Suffering is cost, not currency. It does not buy anything. It is not “for” anything. It is what happens when bounded consciousness encounters what it cannot assimilate.

On this view, the appropriate response to suffering is not acceptance but engagement: alleviate what can be alleviated, resist what can be resisted, accompany what can only be endured. Compassion is not passive tolerance of suffering but active solidarity with those who suffer — motivated not by cosmic purpose but by structural recognition that their suffering is, in a fundamental sense, one’s own.

Strengths: Honors the irreducibility of suffering. Refuses to instrumentalize pain. Motivates compassionate action without requiring metaphysical comfort.

Limitations: Struggles with the question of why consciousness would dissociate at all, if dissociation produces nothing but cost. If individuation is purely costly — if nothing is gained that could not be had without suffering — then why does consciousness undergo it? The position risks treating individuation as a cosmic accident rather than a structural feature of reality, which sits uneasily with the project’s commitment to non-arbitrary structure (One Structure).

Position 2: Suffering as Developmental Catalyst

Core claim: Dissociation produces suffering that, when metabolized, builds the coherence necessary for re-integration. Suffering is not purposeless, but it is not designed. It is the friction inherent in the process of consciousness knowing itself through limitation.

This position draws on CST’s analysis of how suffering, when met with adequate coherence (stabilization, discernment, compassion), can catalyze the development of greater integrative capacity. The contemplative traditions support this: the Buddha’s path begins with the recognition of suffering (dukkha), moves through its causes (craving rooted in ignorance), and arrives at the cessation of suffering through the development of wisdom and compassion. Suffering is the starting point, the raw material, and the impetus — but not the goal.

The developmental catalyst position is compatible with the Kabbalistic framework: sparks scattered by the shattering of the vessels are gathered through the process of engaging with what is broken. It is compatible with the Christian mystical tradition: the dark night of the soul is not punishment but the dismantling of egoic structures that prevent deeper union. It is compatible with process philosophy: creative advance requires friction, and friction entails the possibility of suffering.

Strengths: Integrates suffering into a coherent account of conscious development. Explains why contemplative traditions treat suffering as the beginning of the path rather than an obstacle to it. Maintains the structural entailment without reducing suffering to mere cost.

Limitations: The standard objection — that much suffering catalyzes nothing (the child who dies young, the animal tortured without comprehension) — evaluates “catalysis” against the biological lifespan. As Constraint 2 establishes, this imports a physicalist unit of analysis. The dissociative pattern may persist beyond biological death, and development may span the fuller arc.

But correcting the unit of analysis does not resolve the position’s deeper problem: opacity. If the dissociative arc spans multiple biological instantiations, suffering may be genuinely developmental — but across timescales the sufferer cannot perceive, through processes they cannot consent to, toward ends they cannot evaluate from within a single life.

However, opacity may itself be structurally necessary rather than arbitrary. CST’s non-integrable zone establishes that content should not be opened before coherence is adequate — “do not open what cannot be held.” The dissociative boundary that prevents the ordinary ego from perceiving the fuller arc may be the same protective mechanism operating at cosmic scale: the arc is invisible because visibility would overwhelm an integrative capacity not yet sufficient to hold it. This is consistent with the contemplative traditions’ reports that the sage — having developed maximal coherence — can perceive the arc. The Buddha’s recollection of past lives, including their suffering, is possible precisely because his integrative capacity is adequate to what opens. The opacity lifts when — and because — the coherence to hold the content has been developed.

This reframes opacity as protective rather than cruel, but does not eliminate the difficulty. The developmental catalyst position still asks the sufferer to undergo a process whose arc they cannot see — even if the invisibility is structurally appropriate to their current capacity.

Position 3: Suffering as Self-Disclosure

Core claim: Consciousness contracts precisely to know itself through otherness. Suffering is not incidental to this process but constitutive of it. The tzimtzum traditions — Kabbalistic, kenotic, Sufi — take this view: love requires a beloved, and beloved-ness requires vulnerability. The cost of self-knowledge is self-contraction, and self-contraction is what makes suffering possible.

On this view, individuation is not accident or error but the deepest expression of what consciousness is: a reality that knows itself by becoming what it is not — finite, partial, vulnerable, mortal — and then recognizing itself within that limitation. The suffering involved is not justified in the sense of being made retroactively acceptable, but it is intelligible: it is what self-knowledge costs when the self is infinite and the knowing requires finitude.

This position takes seriously the convergence across traditions on the claim that the ultimate reality is not insulated from suffering but enters it. Kenosis — God’s self-emptying into the conditions of the creature — is the theological expression. Tzimtzum — God’s self-contraction to create space for the other — is the mystical expression. “I was a hidden treasure and I loved to be known” is the Sufi expression. Each says: the infinite becomes finite not because it must, but because self-knowledge, love, and encounter require it. And finitude, by structural necessity, includes the possibility — and often the actuality — of suffering.

Strengths: Provides the most complete account of why consciousness would dissociate. Makes suffering intelligible without making it acceptable. Resonates with the deepest currents of multiple independent traditions.

Limitations: Risks romanticizing suffering by embedding it in a cosmic love story. The person in the midst of unbearable pain may have little use for the information that their suffering is consciousness knowing itself. The position can slide into spiritual bypass if handled carelessly — using metaphysical grandeur to avoid the raw, unmetabolizable reality of specific instances of suffering. It also cannot explain the distribution of suffering: why some beings suffer immensely while others do not, if suffering serves a cosmic function that presumably applies equally.

Holding the Three

The project’s discipline requires holding all three positions as live options rather than prematurely selecting one. Each captures something real:

A mature response to suffering may require all three simultaneously: refusing to instrumentalize specific instances of pain (Position 1), while recognizing that the process of confronting suffering can develop capacity across arcs that exceed a single life (Position 2), within a framework that makes the existence of suffering intelligible rather than merely absurd (Position 3). The positions are not mutually exclusive; they operate at different registers.

VII. The Metabolic Problem: What Cannot Be Integrated

CST introduces the concept of the “non-integrable zone” — configurations where coherence has collapsed below the threshold for integration, where the appropriate response is stabilization rather than opening. This concept, applied at cosmic scale, generates what may be the hardest question this essay must face.

The Problem of Scale

The structural argument explains why suffering exists. The constraint analysis identifies what any adequate account must posit. But the scale and intensity of suffering in this world seem to exceed any conceivable structural requirement. The Holocaust. The Middle Passage. The Gulag. Child sexual abuse. Factory farming, in which billions of sentient beings experience lives of unrelieved suffering. The quiet anguish of depression that no intervention reaches.

The structural argument explains why bounded consciousness can suffer. It does not explain why it suffers this much.

Three Framings

The metabolic problem takes different forms under different ontological assumptions.

Under physicalism: suffering ends with death. It is finite, bounded by the lifespan of the organism, and requires no cosmic justification. The difficulty is meaninglessness — suffering signifies nothing.

Under inconsistent idealism — idealism that treats biological death as the terminus of the individual — suffering becomes structurally entailed yet unredeemable: not accidental (as under physicalism) but offering no arc of development or integration beyond the lifespan. As Constraint 2 establishes, this position is incoherent — it applies the ontology selectively.

Under consistent idealism: the dissociative pattern persists beyond biological death (Section II; Constraint 2). This eliminates the “waste” objection — the experiential arc does not terminate at death. But it raises two distinct difficulties:

Opacity. The experiential content persists, but the sufferer — as constituted within a single biological instantiation — cannot perceive the arc. As discussed in Position 2, this opacity may be structurally protective (the arc is invisible because visibility would overwhelm current integrative capacity), but it remains a genuine difficulty: the suffering contributes to a process the sufferer cannot see.

Duration. Under physicalism, suffering ends at death. Under consistent idealism, the dissociative pattern persists until it is resolved — until the dissociation itself is undone through liberation. The Buddhist tradition states this plainly: samsara continues until the roots of clinging are severed, potentially across “countless eons” (kalpas). Suffering is not bounded by a biological lifespan. It persists — not necessarily in its acute form, but as unmetabolized experiential content — until something resolves the dissociation.

Two Responses

Two responses deserve consideration, neither fully satisfying.

The Buddhist response: Suffering arises from clinging — including clinging to the demand that suffering be justified. Liberation comes not through answering the question “why this much?” but through dissolving the dissociative structure that generates the suffering. The demand for justification is itself the “second arrow” — suffering about suffering that compounds the original pain. If the dissociative pattern persists until resolved, then resolution comes through the dissolution of the pattern, not through cosmic justification.

This has genuine depth but risks being heard as dismissal. It also leaves the moral question unanswered: what about beings currently suffering who have no access to contemplative practice?

The apophatic response: The demand for justification may be a category error — a question asked from within the very dissociative structure that prevents seeing the answer. The traditions consistently report that the relationship to suffering changes through shifts in vantage point, not through acquisition of new information. From within the ego, suffering appears as meaningless. From less dissociated perspectives, it may appear differently — though the traditions do not agree on how.

This is honest but structurally limited: it acknowledges that the answer may exist but cannot be accessed from within the dissociation.

What Remains Unresolved

The metabolic problem remains the idealist’s hardest question, even after correcting for the biological instantiation assumption. The corrected account shifts what is unresolved:

This essay does not answer these questions. It identifies them as the questions an idealist account must face — in place of “waste,” which is a physicalist question misapplied to idealist territory.

VIII. Suffering, Compassion, and the Structure of Return

If suffering is structural rather than accidental, and if the dissociative arc extends beyond biological death, then the response to suffering takes on a different character. It is not remediation of a design flaw within a single lifespan. It is engagement with a fundamental feature of reality that persists until the dissociation itself is resolved.

Compassion as Structural Recognition

Under physicalism, compassion is a moral virtue — an admirable but optional emotional response to others’ suffering, grounded in empathy, social conditioning, or moral reasoning. It is something we choose to feel or cultivate.

Under analytic idealism, compassion has a different structural status. If all minds are dissociated aspects of one consciousness, then recognizing another’s suffering as one’s own is not a moral achievement but an act of perception — seeing what is actually the case rather than what the dissociative boundary conceals. The boundary between self and other, which makes indifference to others’ suffering psychologically possible, is itself a dissociative artifact. Compassion, on this view, is what naturally arises when the dissociative boundary becomes sufficiently transparent — not as a moral command imposed from outside, but as the structural recognition of non-separation.

This is what the contemplative traditions describe. The bodhisattva’s compassion in Mahayana Buddhism is not moral heroism — it is the natural expression of seeing that there is no separate self to protect. The sage’s love in the Vedantic tradition is not generosity — it is the recognition that tat tvam asi (“thou art that”), that the other is not other. Christ’s commandment to love one’s neighbor “as oneself” may be, under idealist interpretation, not a moral injunction but an ontological description: the neighbor is oneself, experienced from a different dissociative vantage point.

CST’s three capacities — stabilization, discernment, compassion — are relevant here. Compassion is not merely an emotional response; it is one of the three constitutive elements of integrative coherence. Without compassion, integration fails — content is rejected, held at arm’s length, intellectualized but not metabolized. Compassion is the capacity to receive what arises without contraction — including suffering. It is ontological hospitality: the willingness to let reality be what it is without demanding that it be otherwise.

The Sage’s Relationship to Suffering

CST describes the sage as a being of maximal coherence and transparent boundaries — consciousness capable of integrating extreme content without fragmentation. The sage does not escape suffering; the sage holds suffering with a capacity the ordinary ego lacks.

This is the crucial distinction. The contemplative path is not a movement from suffering to bliss. It is a movement from a consciousness that can hold only a narrow range of experience (the ordinary ego) to one that can hold the full spectrum — including the full intensity of suffering — without fragmentation. The sage suffers, but the suffering does not destroy. It is received, held, and — in the contemplative traditions’ language — released, not in the sense of being dismissed but in the sense of being allowed to pass through without being clung to or rejected.

Christ’s descent into hell. The Buddha’s direct perception of the hell realms. The shaman’s dismemberment. These are not metaphors for difficult periods in otherwise comfortable lives. They describe consciousness voluntarily entering the most extreme configurations of suffering — and emerging intact. Not because suffering is overcome by force, but because the sage’s integrative capacity exceeds what the suffering can destroy.

Within the dissociative persistence framework, the sage’s relationship to suffering takes on additional significance. If the dissociative pattern persists until it is resolved, then the sage represents the resolution of that pattern — the point at which the dissociation dissolves and the suffering associated with it is finally metabolized. The sage is not merely someone who copes with suffering well. The sage is the end of the suffering-arc — the consciousness that has developed sufficient coherence to hold what the dissociation generated, and in holding it, to complete the process that the dissociation initiated.

This also explains why the opacity discussed in Sections VI and VII lifts for the sage. The Buddha’s recollection of past lives — including their suffering — is not a supernatural addition but a structural consequence: once coherence is adequate to hold the full arc, the dissociative boundary that concealed it becomes transparent. The ordinary ego cannot perceive the arc because it cannot hold what perception would reveal. The sage perceives it because the capacity has been developed. CST’s principle — do not open what cannot be held — operates in both directions: the boundary closes what exceeds current capacity and opens when capacity is adequate.

This is what the traditions mean by liberation. Not escape from suffering, but the development of capacity adequate to what suffering demands — a capacity that, once achieved, dissolves the dissociative boundary itself.

The “Return”

The project’s title — Return to Consciousness — can now be read in its fullest register. The “return” is not from suffering to its absence. It is from a mode of consciousness that experiences suffering within a dissociative partition — unable to see the arc it inhabits, unable to metabolize what the partition generates — to a mode that recognizes suffering as a structural feature of its own self-contraction and holds that recognition without being destroyed by it.

This does not answer the cosmic question — why consciousness dissociates into suffering-capable forms at all. But it transforms the experiential relationship to the question. The demand for justification softens — not because justification has been provided, but because the demander and the demanded have been recognized as the same consciousness, encountering itself through the very limitation that makes encounter possible.

The ordinary ego relates to suffering through resistance — fight, flight, freeze, dissociate. These are survival responses, appropriate to their scale. But they generate additional suffering: the suffering of resisting suffering, the suffering of demanding that reality be otherwise, the suffering of maintaining the dissociative boundary against what threatens it.

What the contemplative traditions describe is a shift in the structure of the relationship. Suffering is not eliminated but met — with stabilization (remaining present rather than dissociating), discernment (seeing clearly rather than literalizing or dramatizing), and compassion (receiving without rejection). What suffers and what holds suffering are recognized as not-two. The wave recognizes itself as the ocean — not by ceasing to be a wave, but by knowing itself as both wave and ocean simultaneously. And in that recognition, the dissociative boundary that constituted the wave as a separate, suffering entity becomes transparent — not destroyed, but no longer opaque. The suffering does not vanish. But the relationship to it is transformed, because the sufferer is no longer confined to the dissociative partition that made the suffering appear as meaningless destruction.

IX. Implications

For the Project

Consciousness-first metaphysics must own its problem of suffering, not avoid it. If the framework is correct — if consciousness is fundamental and individuation proceeds through dissociation — then the existence of suffering is not an embarrassment to be hidden but a structural consequence to be confronted. This essay begins that confrontation; it does not complete it.

For Ethics

If suffering is self-suffering — if one consciousness experiences every instance of pain through different dissociative vantage points — then ethics is not imposed morality but structural coherence. Harming another is self-harm, not because of a moral rule but because of the actual structure of reality. Indifference to another’s suffering is dissociative failure — the inability or refusal to recognize that the boundary between self and other is a partition within consciousness, not a metaphysical wall between separate beings.

This does not make ethics simple. The dissociative boundary is real; we cannot directly feel others’ suffering. Structural unity does not automatically generate compassionate behavior — if it did, there would be no need for ethical cultivation. But it does reframe the task: ethical development is not the imposition of external constraints on naturally selfish beings, but the progressive recognition of what is already the case — a recognition impeded by the very dissociative structure that makes individual existence possible.

The dissociative persistence framework adds urgency. If suffering persists across biological deaths until the dissociative pattern is resolved, then actions that intensify dissociation — violence, exploitation, cruelty — may not merely harm the victim in this life. They may contribute to suffering that extends across an entire dissociative arc. The ethical stakes are not bounded by a single lifespan. This is not moral threat; it is structural description. Karma, stripped of its popular caricature as cosmic reward-and-punishment, describes exactly this: that the experiential consequences of action persist across the dissociative arc, shaping the conditions under which future experience unfolds.

For Meaning

Suffering is not an obstacle to meaning but one of its deepest sources — not because suffering is secretly good, but because the capacity for meaning and the capacity for suffering share a common root. Both require investment: caring about outcomes, being affected by what happens, having something at stake. A consciousness with nothing at stake — invulnerable, unaffectable, perfectly insulated — would be a consciousness for which nothing matters. Meaning enters with vulnerability, and vulnerability is the condition of suffering.

This reframes the existential question. The search for meaning is not the search for a life without suffering. It is the search for a relationship to suffering that does not destroy — a relationship grounded in the recognition that what makes life meaningful is precisely the investment that makes suffering possible.

For Practice

The contemplative path is not escape from suffering but the development of capacity to hold it without fragmentation. This is what CST’s “unavoidable demand” points toward: at certain depths, suffering exceeds what the ordinary ego can metabolize, and the only adequate response is the development of a consciousness capable of holding what the ego cannot.

If the dissociative arc extends beyond biological death, then the contemplative path takes on cosmic significance. It is not merely a practice for improving one’s quality of life within a single biological instantiation. It is the means by which the dissociative pattern itself is resolved — the process by which suffering-capable individuation is finally integrated, the boundary made transparent, the arc completed. The traditions that have mapped this territory — Buddhist, Christian mystical, Sufi, Vedantic — are not offering lifestyle choices. They are describing what liberation requires when suffering extends across the full dissociative arc.

This does not mean contemplative practice is the only adequate response. Compassionate action — reducing suffering where it can be reduced, accompanying those who suffer, resisting the structures that generate unnecessary suffering — remains essential. But the contemplative insight adds that reducing external suffering, while necessary, is not sufficient. The dissociative pattern that generates suffering is internal to consciousness. Until it is resolved — until the capacity for integration matches what the dissociation has generated — the pattern will continue to produce suffering-capable forms.

Conclusion

This essay asked the hardest question consciousness-first metaphysics faces: if consciousness is fundamental, why does it dissociate into forms that must suffer?

The honest answer is that we do not know — not fully, not with the certainty the question seems to demand. What we can establish is more modest but still significant:

Suffering is structural, not accidental. Under analytic idealism, the capacity for suffering is not a contingent byproduct of evolution but a structural consequence of individuation. Dissociation creates partiality; partiality creates vulnerability; vulnerability creates the conditions for suffering. Any framework that posits bounded consciousness must posit its capacity for suffering.

Suffering shares roots with value. The same vulnerability that makes suffering possible also makes love, beauty, meaning, and creativity possible. These are not separable capacities. A consciousness invulnerable to suffering would be a consciousness incapable of caring — and therefore incapable of value.

Multiple traditions converge on the structural relationship between self-contraction and suffering. Kabbalah, Christian kenotic theology, Sufism, Buddhism, and process philosophy — traditions with minimal historical contact — independently identify the same structure: the infinite becomes finite, finitude entails vulnerability, vulnerability entails the conditions for suffering and for love.

The dissociative arc — not the biological lifespan — is the relevant unit of analysis. Because the dissociative boundary constitutes the individual under this ontology, and because that boundary does not necessarily dissolve at biological death, suffering must be evaluated across the fuller arc. The traditions converge on this: none bound the individual’s relationship to suffering by a single biological life.

Three coherent positions emerge. Suffering as tragic cost, as developmental catalyst across the dissociative arc, as self-disclosure. Each captures something real. None resolves the problem entirely. The project’s discipline requires holding all three without premature closure.

The metabolic problem persists — but in corrected form. The questions are no longer about waste but about duration, opacity, and scale: why does suffering persist across potentially vast arcs? What is the moral status of a cosmos that sustains suffering-capable forms until liberation? And what does it mean that the sufferer cannot perceive the arc they inhabit?

Perhaps this is the deepest lesson: consciousness-first metaphysics does not make the problem of suffering easier. It makes it different — and in some respects harder. The arc is longer than one life. The horror is not meaninglessness but a meaning the sufferer cannot see. And the only resolution the traditions converge on is not explanation but transformation — the development of a consciousness capable of holding what individuation has generated, and in holding it, completing the return.

References

Bodhi, B. (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Wisdom Publications.

Eckhart, M. (c. 1300). Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense. Translated by E. Colledge & B. McGinn. Paulist Press, 1981.

Fine, L. (2003). Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and his Kabbalistic Fellowship. Stanford University Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning (I. Lasch, Trans.). Beacon Press.

Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.

Griffin, D. R. (1991). Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations. SUNY Press.

Ibn Arabi, M. (c. 1200). The Bezels of Wisdom (Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam). Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press, 1980.

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. iff Books.

Levinas, E. (1988). Useless suffering (R. A. Cohen, Trans.). In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other (pp. 156–167). Routledge.

Matt, D. C., Wolski, N., & Hecker, J. (Trans.). (2004–2017). The Zohar: Pritzker Edition (Vols. 1–12). Stanford University Press.

Moltmann, J. (1974). The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Harper & Row.

Rumi, J. (13th century). The Essential Rumi. Translated by C. Barks. HarperSanFrancisco, 2004.

Scholem, G. (1941). Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Schocken Books.

Siderits, M. (2007). Buddhism as Philosophy. Hackett Publishing.

Weil, S. (2002). Gravity and Grace (E. Crawford & M. von der Ruhr, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1947)

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. Macmillan.

Available at: https://returntoconsciousness.org/

Core Dependencies:

Return to Consciousness (rtc) — The ontological framework this essay presupposes

Consciousness Structure (cst) — The dissociation-integration framework this essay extends, particularly the “unavoidable demand” and “non-integrable zone” concepts

Integration by Constraints (ibc) — The constraint-based methodology this essay applies

Structural Context:

Beyond Survival and Extinction (bse) — The taxonomy of death positions this essay’s three-position structure parallels; establishes that biological death does not necessarily terminate the individual under idealism

Epistemic Authority (eaa) — Warns against the “biological instantiation assumption” and “conceptual carryover” from physicalism; this essay applies those warnings to the analysis of suffering

One Structure (ost) — Cross-traditional convergence that grounds the traditions surveyed here

Consciousness Across Cultures (cac) — Phenomenological catalog of non-ordinary experience relevant to suffering’s scope

The Cosmic Journey (tcj) — The boundary test that makes dissociative persistence across biological death explicit

Thematic Connections:

Truth Is Not Neutral (tin) — Buddhist analysis of ego-distortion and suffering applied to AI alignment

Reflexive Awareness (raw) — The phenomenology of non-egoic awareness relevant to the sage’s relationship to suffering

License

This work is made freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.