546. Here one might raise the objection that one can easily transform one illusion into another illusion. And this is true enough. But it is exactly this creation that we have just been analysing. It is just this creation that constitutes our experiences. But to transform one illusion into another would be the same as to transform "something which is not" into "something else which is not'; so what have we then? Are we not confronting here precisely the same as we mentioned before, namely, to transform "something" into "something", that is, producing an illusion? Both forms of creation are equally unreal. At this point one might object, saying that one can well create "something" that has not previously existed. One might maintain that the whole of evolution is based exactly on this, and the very fact that one can "learn" something is the same as creating "something" which did not exist previously. And the answer must be that this is quite correct – from a physical viewpoint. But this "view" is not an expression of "cosmic clear-sightedness", it is not a "cosmic analysis", i.e. – in contact with the analysis of eternity or "the Absolute".