I don't think it is a matter of liking the connection but grasping the connection. There isn't much to grasping it really...everything is made from the same stuff on a very simple level of understanding physics: an amazing form of energy that bifurcated right at that first moment of emergence into the lineage to all things from the origin of a singular nothingness.
I propose that the complete connection between the two are they are the same but on vastly differing scales: on the one hand, there is a singular nothingness that was unique, unformed, and of no consequence because it was incomparable; on the other hand, the full extent of space and time having exhausted all permutations of existing things will have all energy and matter broken down to their constituent parts, and diluted out to but waste products amid an expanse of equilibrium that is one side of a vacuum...one is quite infinitesimal and the other quite infinite, and yet one was uncreated and the other became all-creation.
The middle ground between the two is the plane of existence where we appreciate individual things that can group together and become units of being composed of separate things to make a whole...from a quanta to a galaxy and everything in-between...especially something with a brain and mind that can appreciate what it is amidst such a wonder of the Universe and all it holds. NO matter how much we may grasp of being alive, just that we are a wholly separate unit of being surrounded by so much is the truth...what we perceive ourselves to be is so separate from what it is.
I can think, much like everyone else, and we all have our perception of not just who we are but what existence is. A hermit distances themself from the greater part of interaction with existence and settles into a mean life, while a leader of a nation becomes responsible for not just the people of his country but the future being composed from the past, and in many ways dependent upon beneficial connections with other nations. Each has a goal; each has the skills to achieve that goal; each has the ingredients from which to orchestrate that goal. But is it sheer determination to succeed that means the difference between success or failure? Or is it something wholly other...
History is filled with all manner of examples of success and failure, and for the most part, some kind of 'divine intervention' shows up again and again as being the responsible party for success. If a man is said to be connected to the divine essence of Life, then who said that? Why didn't they just say "That one knew where he came from and where he was going, and nothing could stop what was meant to be."
Here we are...alive amid our surroundings...and either we can ignore our own power to live our life and place the blame of providence or poison upon an unseen force, or we can grasp that superstition is the only thing limiting our potential for being at one with this vast existence.
Well, superstition and how we 'look' at something...how we project some part of ourself upon our surroundings...how we perceive either greatness or disgust or equality on something we are judging. We don't have to accept the interconnection of all things based upon their foundations; we can certainly ignore as much as we want to...but I'll certainly laugh at someone who says I don't know them, just as much as they try to tell me I can't know a rock or a cloud or a beam of light: I can know them; I have several senses to use to know them; and certainly I have a mind that can both empathize and enfold...I can sift stuff...and what matters sticks...I am an accumulation of matters, just like everyone and everything else.
As another way of putting the same thing over and over again: what matters to you? Being whole, or being a little part of something bigger, or being right in the middle and enjoying the best of both worlds as your own world makes its own course between the two, being fed by the two, and destined to eventually join both at the very same time once your journey is over...