The general consensus today appears to be that the more a person has accumulated then the more power they to hold. Or perhaps it is that those who have more are considered to be more, somehow ‘better’ than those who have ‘less’. Whether it is money, cows, art, experiences or even Facebook friends, one thing is for certain – accumulation is a good thing. Accumulating money offers the capacity to do whatever we want to do. Accumulating art allows us to show the rest of the world just how discerning and cultured we are. Accumulating friends, real or virtual, validates our self, our existence, it says ‘I am popular, I am worth something’.

But above all of these there is one collector, one amasser, who stands apart from the rest, there is one hoarder who does not wish to be tarred with the same brush as common consumerist accumulators – and that is the collector of knowledge. Sartre studied such a person in his seminal novel ‘Nausea’. Here, he presented the reader with the ‘Autodidact’ - the man who is teaching himself everything there is to know. For this studious creature the accumulation of thoughts, ideas and facts is the ultimate achievement. Whether literary theory, scientific quandaries or the history of fine art, this accumulator is able to reel off facts, to quote texts, to remember names, to hold huge amounts of information in their mind. To seemingly know everything.

Taking this concept of Sartre’s one step further, could it be said that this is also how western culture exists? We want to know everything. We want to know the universe’s greatest secrets. And when we know everything will we somehow then become more than just flesh and blood? With the ‘death of god’ we cling to knowledge to shape us, to give us meaning, to provide us with a sense of purpose. Because if we do not have this final goal, this greedy ambition, this constant striving forward – then what are we?

And it would seem that we do not wish to stop there. Not only do we want to know everything, we thrust this way of existing onto others too. Western thinking dictates that it is knowledge and education that improve a person. We tell people in the third world that by studying, by learning, ‘they’ can have what ‘we’ have – they can accumulate like the west. But this does not happen. Western cultures can only accumulate in the way that we do precisely because other people have nothing. Yet we still sell the dream. We still promise what we cannot give. And we educate others to appease our guilt.

In 1744 the government of Virginia offered a college education to young men from the Native American Iroquois tribe; after politely declining the Iroquois people said:
"…several of our young people were formerly brought up at the colleges of the northern provinces; they were instructed in all your sciences; but when they came back to us, they were bad runners; ignorant of every means of living in the woods; unable to bear either cold or hunger; knew neither how to build a cabin, take a deer, or kill an enemy; spoke our language imperfectly; were therefore neither fit for hunters, warriors, or counsellors; they were totally good for nothing."

A point that definitely holds true to today of many within our western civilisation. The counter-argument to this is that we no longer need these hunter/ gatherer skills precisely because we are ‘civilised’ and ‘educated’. Our accumulation of knowledge is so great that we live apart from Nature; we can focus totally on improving our minds now that our basic daily needs are met and now that we have mastery over the world. We can continue to accumulate knowledge until we know all that there is to know. But, returning to Sartre’s ‘Autodidact’, there is an important quandary the author places before the character:
"Behind him, before him, there is a universe. And the day approaches when, closing the last book on the last shelf on the far left, he will say to himself: ‘And now what?’"

What will the Autodidact do once his task is complete? If it is this mission that gives the man’s life meaning, what will he do once it is over? Will he simply find something else to fill his time with? He will never need all of the knowledge accumulated, even assuming that he remembers it accurately, and when he dies it will be lost to him – so what is the point?

If this man is indicative of western culture as a whole, does this mean that we are destined to forever fill our lives, our minds, our psyches in order to constantly define and re-define ourselves? Are we just empty vessels to be filled with knowledge? Is this all that we are, individually and collectively – accumulators who move from one task to another, knowing one thing then another; collecting and hoarding until we die? Is it that the things we accumulate in life somehow mean that we can live on after death? Our collective dream appears to be one of immortality through accumulation, with no thought as to why…

Consider what would happen if we asked Sartre’s question ‘and now what?’ before we begin putting into effect those aspects of our lives that we allow to define our existence. Rather than blindly following one desire (for example, the desire to learn or to win), then another, then another, what would happen if we thought through the process of defining our existence first?

But to do nothing, to have nothing – is to be nothing. And ‘nothing’ is the antithesis of everything that western culture stands for. If somebody is a nothing, a nobody, then they are considered worthless. Their life holds no value in the eyes of our society.

So finally I return to a text that has challenged my thoughts more than anything else I have ever read. The Tao Te Ching:
"Banish learning, discard knowledge:
People will gain a hundredfold."

This concept runs throughout the 81 verses of poetry / philosophy and it is one that I have struggled with. To step away from accumulating knowledge, to let go of learning, to “Attain complete emptiness” has always seemed like a ridiculous suggestion to me. Why would a person want to be ignorant, empty, nothing?

And then a thought occurred to me.

Once we attain something, learn something, become something, we are finite. All of these things that we collect define our existence, shape who we are. Our thoughts, and therefore our ‘selves’ become limited by what we have and what we know. To exist is to die.

Alternatively, Nothing is the potential to be everything, purely by the fact that it has no definition - no beginning, middle or end. It is infinite. It exists everywhere and nowhere at once. It is limitless, without end. So, is it imaginable that by knowing ‘Nothing’, by having emptied heads and lives, that we could actually know everything – be everything? If our minds were not stuffed full of quotes, names and statistics and our lives were not overflowing with an endless accumulation of ‘stuff’, would it be possible for us to share the thoughts of trees, or hear the ponderings of ancient mountains? If we sat still enough, empty enough – could we comprehend the greatness of the entire universe as she breathes?

Perhaps the only way we will ever collectively reach this conclusion is by having everything… and on that day, when we see the end in sight, when the very last piece of knowledge is right there within our grasp, perhaps that is the point at which we will realise that, really, it’s all just Nothing…