Re:Essential meaning

["peter_reist" <peter_reist@...>]

Dear Rawn,

>>>It's wonderful having someone around now who can share the 
responsibility of describing essential meaning! :-) And you have done 
it so well!!! I suspect that the differences in how we describe this 
thing will benefit everyone -- those who don't understand my wording 
will surely benefit from yours and vise versa.<<<

I agree. To use a rather bad pun that is rather appropriate at this 
moment, "We're both two voices trying to explain the totality of 
essential meaning." 

Being that essential meaning is something that can not be explained 
in words, due to the intrinsic nature that essential meaning is 
something that has to be percieved and experienced, we're both just 
lending our own interpritation, our own voice of essential meaning to 
try to explain it. 

Your coming from a pure Hermetic perspective, whereas I come from a 
perspective that mixes the modern understanding of psychology and 
neurophysiology with Hermetics and meditation.

While you did previously state that using the split brain theory will 
only get me so far, I do believe that it is a good starting point for 
further progress along the path. I mean, unlike those that followed 
the Hermetic path before us did not have modern science to help, and 
hinder, their progression along the path. I have this extra set of 
knowledge that science has provided, so I might as well use it. I 
just don't have to become locked into the rigid perspective 
of, "There is only the flesh" that behavioural psychology seems to be 
caught up in.

Love and Live well,
Peter Reist