Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

No offense taken fellas,

I am very familiar with forums.

Zeth, what you are suggesting I need to do is exactly what you are not doing yourself. You suggest that my mind is closed by the assumptions I make , and yet you have no interest whatsoever in considering anything that I have to say. Aren't you being as closed minded as you say I am by simply casting aside what I theorize?

And Boag,

Been born again, will never go down that path again, there is more confusion there than there is to be found in both of your lobes. lol
Have you been getting up too early saturday mornings and watching the cartoons again? I haven't seen any live hamburgers around my town, at least not after they leave the farmers field.

Evolutionary biology and even Darwin both have the same problem. They only go back to the point of the animal's origin. Those theeories address creation as though it just simply existed from out of nothingness and was always there. To my logic that is ridiculous.

What needs to be boosted is your viewing distance Boagie. You are doing the same thing that many biology students do. Only looking so far and not seeing the big picture.

Yes, life exists on earth, no question, but where did it come from? Someone here is suggesting that it is merely genes being transferred from parent to child.

Is there a living gene out there somewhere that I am unaware of. maybe it is with that hamburger you were talking about. One of these days I will walk into a MacDonalds and see a hamburger and a gene sitting at a table having some fries, and having a hard time keeping them from jumping out of their little box.

Life is here, but where did it come from before it first came here.

Speaking of intellectual growth, I have a feeling that sometimes I am just being prodded into certain positions because I am almost certain that you understood perfectly the things I was saying.

Pathfinder,

Have you never read in evolutionary biology on the speculatons about the first self -replicating molecule, or read of the fact that space is simply abundant with the building blocks of life. The main contention here seems to be your belief that life without a body is reasonable.
That life is a process I have no problem with, and that process builds bodies, is there something more elemental than the body within said body, I have no doubt there is. You are in fact not one organism, one life, but a multicellular organism, a community of organisms, through a process of coevolution and/or a relational process this compound of life becomes what you are. You simply give us nothing for your contention that life is possiable without a body, it simpy is not a resonable proclamation on your part.

What you keep referring to as life is the suit that I have on Boagie.

is your pyjamas what you consider your life? Is this how you define a person, by the clothing they wear or the car they drive or the house they live in?

I am not a multicellular organism, my physical body might be. I am a human using this organism to interact with the environment I exist in.

What you define as my life I define as my body.

So to continue to say that space is simply abundant with life, and then refuse to answer to someone who asks where that all comes from is placing you in the position to defend what you state.

I suggest that space is abundant with life, but that it had to originate from somehwere first. unless you are willing to suggest that space has just always been there and has no origin.

As i said earlier, you are just not thinking far enough. where did this 'first self -replicating molecule' originate? Where did these 'building blocks of life' originate?

Does your peant butter jar also just fill up with an abundance of peanut butter? Is there any chance that I can borrow your beer cooler ?

My contention of life without a body is that the 'body' or cell or whatever you want to go back to for conception, was simply not alive until that spontaneous conception took place. So where did this mysterious force that spontaneously entered that cell come from?

Whatever realm, universe, place, box, space, peanut butter jar, etc. etc. contained that spontaneous life force, before it entered the cell and began the life of that body, is obviously the place , realm, shall I go on, that evades your understanding.

For there to be life there must be a place where life resides before it becomes alive in something. Whatever that mysterious place or realm is, is where we will find the truth about all of this discussion. However until one is really willing to consider the true depth of this thinking they will continue to refuse to look back far enough and continue to ask the peanut butter jar questions, just expecting their jar to be filled and never really wondering where it comes from.

One could learn a great deal about origins by taking a little trip to the peanut factory.

Pathfinder,

Because we do not understand does not give us the right to make unsubstanciated proclamations, that the source of life is probably chemistry, a reactionary process which then establishes the relations that create, seem almost inescapable does not. The elemental principles involved are not themselves life but chemistry. You have this strong desire for this life without a body to be true, I suggest there is another desire or motive behind this, a quest for immortality perhaps, a religious foundation desired, what?

Pathfinder:

The idea of a life force seems to imply a 'law of conservation' of life, similar to that of mass and energy. I have two questions:

1. Do you regard the life force as a single, collective entity - a kind of 'sea' which gives rise to the 'rivers' of individual lives? Or do you believe there is a separate life force for each 'self', each first-personal viewpoint (mine, for example), that endures through infinitely many reincarnations? In other words, do you think our 'inner selves' remain individuated after our deaths, or do they return to the melting pot of 'the' life force?

2. Where do you draw the line between living and non-living things? Are viruses alive? And what about crystals? There seems to be a grey area.

Personally, I am agnostic about the existence of a life force.

There is no doubt about experiences that have condtioned my thinking.

But have i learned from those experiences? Have I advanced in intellect and spirituality through the experiencing. That is what evolution is all about.

You say that ignorance "does not give us the right to make unsubstanciated proclamations", and then you say that "the source of life is probably chemistry",

You cannot have your cake and eat it too Boag. Which is it going to be.

My conclusions are not based on any strong desire at all, rather the exact opposite. As much as I would have liked to have found a merciful almighty God in my quest, I have been forced to accept the logic of my thoughts and experiences. Which have not led me to conclude that there is such a God. So you see what I went looking for I found the exact opposite of, whether I like it or not.

My only desire is to learn truth and to enhance what I am.

I am fully aware of what I am and do not fit into the definitions of what any language would like to label me.

I realize that we do not see ourselves the way that others perceive us, but I am also aware of my inner self, that we all know, and yet some refuse to accept it. So whateber anyone else sees when they look at me, whateber they think about my personality or character, their perceptions do not create what I am. I am what I am. And I make the choices and decisions that make me what I become.

There is no biology or quantum physics that can take that away from me because it is all theory and conjecture based upon facts of the moment, disabled and changed forever the second they are proven wrong.

I am what I am, and no force in the universe is going to alter that, and certainly not this physical body that I wear. It affects me, but it does not control me.

There is a force of life inside of me that makes me who and what I am that is not affected by the physical. We all know this everytime we sacrifice for a loved one. Anyone who has held a lifeless blue body in their arms, staring at you through unseeing eyes, without breath, without self, and then witness that corpse return to the living, and begin to breathe again and look at you, will know the miracle of the life force that comes and goes. It is not in the genes, or the ever filling peanut butter jar, it is from a place of mystery that we know nothing about other than the fact that it exists.

Pathfinder,

Well your perspective seems well thought out, certainly not flippant. What do you make of this quote from the Hindu Upanishads, " The Self In One Is The Self In All." I have had the experience a number of times of the complete loss of memory, in those situtations there is indeed no identity, you simply are, your alive and it feels great, even though shaken up. I would say there is no identity to the self, you are simply that which experiences, and that in itself is sublime. Does this make any sense to you, does it sound reasonable?

Your passion speaks at least of sincerity, but I am still not getting it, this life force that you speak of is not a condition favourable to life is it. Is it a bodyless spirit awaiting a host in between incarnations? I think there is some belief of this in buddhism, but there too, I had difficult believing in their concept of reincarnation. I suspect I am not even close, is that about right?

NOVA | scienceNOW | Emergence | PBS



I don't believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive.
Joseph Campbell

On the contrary, I'm not casting it aside, I've been inquiring about it constantly. Your last post clarifies deeper how you've come to this conclusion, and I'm glad I read.



See, this just doesn't sit well with me. I see where you're coming from, I truly do, so please don't think I'm abruptly casting out this thought process - I'm not. In fact, I've pondered much of this for a while; it's practically all I do. I don't see our perception of the world - a staring of a lifeless blue body, another being looking at us, sacrificing, really mattering in the scheme of things. This is all a cycle, a cycle of life. We live, we die, and many more will live and die. It is only within our emotions do we seek this profound meaning for our existence. Do you think ants ponder their existence much the same way?

I just don't see this objective meaning that you apply to the human existence. If we are to say that there is this "life force" within yourself, do you not extrapolate this out to all conscious creatures? Surely if there is a "life force" that transcends the physical, it can't just be in us humans, right? That seems a bit pretentious and egotistical in my opinion. I assume you believe in something similar to Jainism - a "life force" within all of life? I'd really like if you elaborated on this. Thanks.

To Boagie,

I had struggled with that which you are talking about for many years.

I have a friend who suffered a head injury and lost a portion of his memory covering a particular span of years.

What I do know about his case and have heard also from other studies, is that touching base with things that would be familiar with those lost times can restore some degree of those memories.

When Bruce came home to visit this summer, to me it was the same old Bruce, nothing had changed from my perception. But from his view he could not recall some of the things I had tried to remind him about. Names, places.

But after spending a week here and travelling to some of the old homestead haunts, he began to remember some events and people.

Its curious that some people may consider that his identity is somehow bonded to the brain in his head and the health of that organ. Does this mean that if he had not been able to recall that he would not have been the person he was, and that would mean that if he did recall anything that he would continue to be the person that he was. this is not logical. It suggests that a person is merely who they are based upon their brains recall ability. That is where the skeptics of reincarnation go astray. They claim that it should not be considered as credible simply because a person cannot recall their past life. Recall is not what makes us who we are.

Why not identify a person by whatever the length of their arms are? Or what color their skin is? Why choose the brain as the characteristic that defines who they are? The reason one does that is because we recognize that the brain has something to do with cognizance and awareness. But it does not make you who you are.

A retarded person is not a person who is retarded because that is who they are based upon the state of their brain. They are a person who has a brain disorder. They are a human just like anyone of us, but by your definition of identity, using the body and its brain function as the source of a person's identity, that person is simply a retard. The same with the person who loses their memory. the brain disorder does not eliminate their identity.

memories may be unrecallable, and many things which were once familiar may be strange , but they are still the same person. I agree to an extent that it is our experiences that make us who we are Boag, but to that I would add that the brains inability to recall those experiences doesn't mean they did not happen.

I have had a couple of times in my life where a night of drunkeness left me unable to recall the night before. Does that mean I am no longer the same person that I was the night before? Of course not.

This bodyless spirit awaiting a body is simply part of the great mystery that is playing itself out in creation. Is this an unfavorable condition to life? It is no more or less unfavorable to life than the ateroid that comes ripping through space to land in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean. I personally do not see a whole lot in this creation that would be considered favorable to life to be honest with you.

Buddhism, Hinduism, and any ism that speaks of the one mind, the one creation and the oneness of life all propose that creation is simply a matter of evolution and that we are all a part of creation evolving itself. Some suggest that as we evolve we actually become endowed with god like abilities ourselves. Others avoid that sort of grandeur by merely suggesting that we are all bound together in one mind working to create and evolve.

Personally I have studied some of these teachings and find that although I cannot deny the possibility of the human evolving to godhood, I simply do not see enough credible evidence of this to warrant attention. Not that I am looking for actual factual evidence, but I do like to see some logical reason to begin to consider something for study.

The tibetans believe that there is a place called Shambala where those who have reached a higher state of enlightenment go to partake in a brotherhood of enlightened ones, who all gather together to help make the world a better place for mankind.

Very spiritually humanitarian. But there would have to be some reason beyond the teachings of their tradition for me to delve into that study.

Zeth,

I cannot determine what you mean by "It is only within our emotions do we seek this profound meaning for our existence".

I do not want to speculate on that until I am sure what you mean by it. please elaborate further.

With regard to the uniquity of the human over other creatures; yes I most definitely believe that the human holds a place in creation that is set apart from other creatures. I do not see this as egotistical because I am not claiming that this is so because of anything that I have doen or because of anything that mankind has been able to accomplish. It is part of the mystery to which we only see the results and not the answers.

I have written my thoughts down about this in a recent blog so if you would not mind my pasting a bit I could elaborate on this in more detail here. Bear in mind though that my useage of the word god and creator do not suggest anything like the common usage of those terms. My blog clearly lays out my thoughts on what I think about a creator, but that is not seen in this particular piece. I do not know what the creator is or how to define what it may be. It is a complete mystery.



The complexity and the characteristics of the human design tend to suggest that great input and intimacy was exacted with great detail upon creating man, meaning that 'whatever' created the human put a concerted effort into making us more than just a material aspect of nature. Humans are unique in creation, which suggests that the 'Creator' has something different in mind for us than being merely a part of the natural surroundings. Why go through the extra effort of such complex design with regard to identity, character, and emotion? It is illogical to think that such effort would be for no reason.

As a part of creation the human obviously holds a place of some higher regard. What that is we do not yet know. But it is plain to see. The simple fact that, of all life on this planet, the human stands so uniquely separate, is certain credible evidence of a Creator's extra attention.

Now, having acknowledged that the human must hold some unique place in creation that somehow relates to the 'Creator', what does this suggest with regard to expectation from this Creator? Is the thing created owed anything? Does the Creator have any responsibility toward its creations? If we judge the Creator by the character and morality of our own design, assuming that the Creator bears similar qualities and characteristics, one would think that the Creator at least owed us protection from the ravages of nature. But it does not seem to be the case. So, from this, we must conclude that, although we are designed with specific characteristics that include honor, love and compassion, this does not mean that the Creator must also be similarly endowed, and does not seem to be by all accounts.

Given the millions of people who have suffered disease, famine, abuse and emotional torment, one must conclude that God does not burden itself with any sense of duty towards our protection. Intervention may happen sporadically, but we have no conclusive evidence of that. What we do have is the results of what non-intervention brings upon us. It is obvious that the Creator does not intervene at every need. This is not meant to be a moral judgement of the Creator, merely an observation for the sake of clarity and logic.

END PASSAGE

I hope this helps to clarify where my thinking has brought me thus far with regard to the place the human holds in what you call the cycle of life. I think of existence as s forward motion with beginning and end, rather than a circular repetition.

Pathfinder,

No this sense of identity or the lack of it, is not a judgement call at all. It is simply the experience of the loss of all referances thus the loss of all orientation. It does make perfect sense to me, when we come into this world we do not have any identity whatsoever, that we gain from our context/environment, consciousness itself is dependent upon the world as object, otherwise there would be nothing to be cognizant about. So yes, in this sense we are entirely anonymous until context/enviroment defines us in a kind of reciprocal play.

Life itself is life itself, the self out of context could have no meaning, for it is the self as subject which supplies meaning to the physcial world as object. I recall clearly the experience of being without any orientatin at all, what that means too is one is free of all negative conditioning, you have no self defination, no limitations, it is briefly a freeing experience. Suddenly one piece of memory is recalled and my personal history personal reality came flooding back, it was in some sense a downer, when I realized who I was, I also realized my failings and limitations relative to the world/context. I am who I am relative to the world/context, memory is my history, my failings, my sucesses, and how I feel about those failings and sucesses condition my reactions to the world, and define my possiabilities.


Nothing exists in isolation, consider what you might, consider it in isolation and it is NOT, just as the word within a sentence is defined by its context, for in the instances that it is not, it makes no sense on its own. Identity is a highly functional illusion, what you are is a great deal more elemental, Richard Dawkins selfish genes make perfect sense to me, this is life, it is without identity, identity only becomes necessary when one has a context one must survive in, the world is a stage, and we are all actors playing roles in context, yet we are something much much more elemental. Perhaps Schopenhauers will as representation. No, identity is a fraud, it is object dependent as surely as apparent reality is the relation between subject and object. Desire, pain and pleasure in the context of the physical world defines you as an identity, but again, we are a much much more elemental essence.

Than it appears that we must agree to disagree Boagie.

But I would ask you one final question on the matter.

If you have no identity or inner self, other than your physical organic functions, than why do you seem to care?

pathfinder,

I am reminded of Heidegger's defination of being, which amounted to care, care about one's own possiabilities. This to is linked to the sense of fear, for I believe all fear is in its essence the fear of death, it is the only fear found in nature and it is built into every organism. Life is a struggle is it not, and any organism that can fear for its life, is self aware. You are a multicellular organism, do you not think there is something much more elemental than personal identity? That would I should think be the most apparent reality, personal identity. I believe the reality is deeper than that. There definitely is a life force I do not deny that, that is why sexuality, procreation is so all powerful, do you not think that indicates something more elemental directing as an imperative your behaviours. Sexuality itself is involuntary, your will is usurped. Oh well, I still do not have an understanding where this life force you speak of that is not embodied could possiably be imagine, even things of the imagination must have a context. It has been though, a delightful conversation, thank you pathfinder!!!

Back at ya!

Need more characters to make a post lol

Boagie stated it well, and I share the same sentiments: "Life itself is life itself, the self out of context could have no meaning, for it is the self as subject which supplies meaning to the physical world as object". This consciousness we share and the emotions we feel allow us to attach profound meaning to our existence. Without our judgment, meaning is not applied. The universe just is. I tend to think humans over-mystify their existence.

I feel this is where we predominantly disagree. I believe humans are unique, but not special. Though we have a developed frontal lobe, I don't feel that this makes us "The leaders of the world". What if we were to discover, sometime in the near future, other intelligent life in the universe that had an understanding even greater than ours. Do you feel your views would change?

Humoring the possiblity that an intelligent, greater being does exist that created all of this, I find this conclusion to be an oversimplification. You are not taking into account the very many notions of "God" (This is just a placeholder word for intelligent design) throughout many different cultures. For those that don't necessarily believe in the benevolent stigma you apply, it is perfectly reasonable why "God" has not protected is. Perhaps "God" does not perceive the 'good and 'evil' spectrum that we've constructed. I don't think death is 'evil', it's simply a part of this cycle. The universe just is - this tragedy you speak is really not tragedy at all, it just is. It's only tragedy when, through human foibles, we apply this meaning.

I tend to think that if there is an intelligent design behind all of this, it most definitely doesn't reason as we do. It doesn't judge, it doesn't apply this profound emotion. It doesn't even 'live' through a culmination of sequential events to even logically conclude as we do. It created us, just as it created the rock, just as it created many different species. It just is, and so are we... at least for a little while.

To say that we don't have any identity isn't what I was trying to articulate. We most definitely do have identity; We have social identity (Mike, Joe, etc.), biological identity (human), and so on. However, I don't feel 'we' have any objective identity, anything that trascends this life.

Lastly, I'm content if you'd like to agree to disagree, however, I really didn't want this discussion to provoke great contention. I'm interested in your views, and while I don't necessarily agree with your views, I'd still like to converse about it. The beautiful thing about this forum is that there are those here mature enough to not make this a pissing contest. With that said, I see integrity in your character, and I'd like to continue sharing thoughts if you'd like.

There is much credibility in what you are proposing about identity not being transcendant. It will require more thought in order for me to figure out how to address it in words that do not just restate what has already been said, but I feel that I am also learning here so I will continue as long as it does not become a dead end.

If I recall correctly, you are of the mind that emotional feeling is a biological stimulus, a chemical reaction of sorts. Correct me if I am wrong.

So let me try to understand how you think given what you have told me.

You believe that there is no origin to life, that it has existed for all time and was always there somehwere. And by somewhere I have to assume you mean in some form capable of containing life which just continued to pass it on genetically.

Which therefore also means that you would have to conclude that the place for these life carrying forms must ahve also exited for all time without beginning. Hense a universe without origin.

So as you see, it can be confusing for those of us who think the way I do, when you say that it is illogical to conceive of a life outside of the body, as though something extra-physical could not possibly exist, and than turn around surmise that everything that you do accept as logical just IS.

I am really not sure how we can further discuss the actual manifestation of emotion in the human being without acknowledging a uniqueness to that ability that transcends the rest of earth's creatires. I know that dogs and cats show a sort of emotional reaction, but to compare that to the deeply heart wrenching emotion that humans know belittles the characteristic of it.

Boag brought up the aspect of sexuality. Now I am sure that you will not equate the nature of human sex to be purely animalistic without emotion. Not if your partner reads these posts anyway,lol. Yes, to some people sex can be just the act. But that does not take away from the loving aspect of it between two lovers sharing an experience that transcends the physical aspect of it. You would say that the feelings are simply chemical reactions taking place during the act. But you would deny the feelings of love that seem to come from the heart that exist when two people are in love. You would then also deny the longing for each other when they are apart as a chermical reaction of some sort. You would also deny the great anguish and torment that one of them would feel when the other has died as mere chemical reaction taking place in the body.

Please do not let me put words in your mouth Zeth. Correct me when I am wrong, I am merely trying to suppose how you think based upon what I think you have told us so far.

You said that there is no meaning in life unless it is created through our own judgement. I would agree with that however; does that not support what I have been saying about the inner self using a spiritual judgement to evolve itself? Are you suggesting that judgement is made by some chemical process? That falling in love is not a personal thing but a chemical reaction? That knowing that it is wrong to abuse a child is mere mixture of chemicals taking place in the brain?

Meaning is given through our own personal judgement of what we are faced with in life and how we feel about those experiences. If it was chemically induced we would all react the same way, all of us having basically the same physical makeup. But of course you are aware that there are many humans who do not share the same judgements as you do. So if every organ is the same as every other human, if the brain is the same, and the working of the whole nervous sytem the same, than what is it that is different about the way you judge something, and the way that someone else would?

That difference is identity and personal character! And I do not think it is just another bodily function.

It is this acknowledgment that causes me to think that the human is unique, I would not use the term special, because I do not see it that way. I see it as being designed differently for a specific reason. Just like a Porsche is designed differently from the Beetle. What that reason is remains a mystery, but just because it is a mystery does not mean it cannot be so.

You are right though about the human tending to make everything mystical. I guess that is a natuiral evolution of living in a world filled with so much mystery. But to de-mystify it to the point where you simply deny the mysteries is going too far in the opposite direction dont you think? We agree that the origin of the universe is a mystery unless you have the answer. We agree that what possibilities may exist out there in the far reaches remain a mystery, unless you have been for a ride that I want to go on with you the next time.

I really don't like to suppose that there is an evil in the world, I have to agree with you there. man is responsible for what he becomes and the choices he makes. But there is an aspect to creation that is unfavorable to life that cannot be overlooked. You suggest that this is just the way it is. That is life, shiat happens. And I agree with that outlook, however that does not mean that life becomes an inconsequential part of that creation. I adamantly disagree with the thinking that the human is no different than a rock or a plant. That is of course the Great Spirit, East Indian oneness religion. Existence is just what it is and taking place in the here and now regardless of anything that is said about it. That thinking does not disclude the unique place that man has within that natural taking place of creation.

I must admit to being made to think hard about what you and Boag say about identity being continued throughout incarnations though. That has been a sticking point for me as well and requires further consideration as to how to put it into words.

I am aware of my SELF, and my identity is intact, but how to convey that to you with regard to transcendancy will take a little more thought.

Looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Sincerely
Pathfinder

Pathfinder,

I was going to ignore this response, but after I read it a little more I just can't help but respond.

We are coming to understand the origin of life on earth more and more everyday. Haven't you heard about the discoveries in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chance of their being an afterlife is nowhere near the same as the chances of their being life in the first place. For one thing, we know that life (organic matter) exists. We know nothing of an afterlife, especially seeing that none of us are even dead, and none of my relatives have come back and told me that there was an afterlife. I'm sorry, but your argument is not simple logic, it's bad logic!

No offense, but you seem to have a lack of knowledge or understanding in the natural sciences, and that leads you to say that whatever brought me to life (my mother and father doing the nasty, or abiogenesis) can bring me to life when my biological make up decays. That is one of the most pseudo-scientific statements I have ever heard.

There is no preconditioning that led me to disbelieve in the afterlife. I grew up believing in it just like most people did. I had a number of close family members die in a relatively short span of time when I was very young. It wasn't until I grew up that I started to disbelieve in the afterlife. I'm always open to the possibility, but as I've said before, I have no evidential reason to believe in an afterlife, and my reason tells me that if I do believe in it it is just because of wishful thinking, and that is never my reason for believing in anything.

The better question is - what has led you to believe that it is possible? As in most cases, it is likely to be fear of death, wishful thinking and social conditioning that has led you to believe in an afterlife. People who say that they can't imagine there not being a continuation of life after death are suffering from the lack of trying to imagine it. You were absent from the universe for billions of years before you were born, so you can't tell me that you can't imagine there not being an end to life (personal non-existence).

Hi Hueman,

Of course you know that it probably my lack of scientific knowledge that does not bar me from understanding the humanitarian aspects of reality, which is where all true wisdom is found. Intelligence is not necessarily the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

I am assuming that you have also never had any relatives come from your past to tell you the truth of the past and yet you accept that there is a past.

Zeth,

I have been thinking a great deal about our discussion.

Once again I find myself up at 3AM sitting on the bed writing notes down on paper in the dark. Thoughts flood my quiet mind making it impossible to sleep, and light up the darkness so much that I must gather them or they become a confused jumble. Focus! Its like the difference between lighting a room with the ceiling light or focusing a flashlight into the room. If I just used the ceiling light it just overwhelms the room of my mind. But if I use the flashlight I can aim it at specific thoughts and make sense of them.

What we have discussed has brought about some further profound thoughts and I am busy gathering them at this time.

I will continue our discussion shortly when I am relieved of this burden.

I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, although I know that it does. But believe me, if you were my wife you would understand the process that I have been going through has nothing to do with ego. My life has been a shambles for years because of this continuous bombardment of thought invading every waking hour, and the ones that I should be resting as well. I have been told often that I think too much. I have been through one marriage because of it, and I am sure my second finds it at least unnerving. She is a devout catholic and I try to respect her desire to be faithful to her beliefs and remain very quiet about my own revelations. But my torment is obvious to her I am sure. So be sure that I am not one who thinks highly of himself. What I am going through is as disturbing as it is revealing.

Path,

It doesn't sound arrogant in the least, and I'm currently also processing some thoughts in order to respond to your latest postings. I'll make this posting some time later today.

Don't feel rushed. Remember, this is a learning process for all of us, even those that are just reading this material. This process of enlightenment never stops - it is a journey that we all share. And this process is made possible by respectful, sincere, open-minds such as yours. Thanks for your consideration.

Be well,

Zeth