I won't deny,it's a very interesting,complex and subtle concept.I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it.The state described reminds of a child.Developmental psychology has been on my mind for some time and a child exhibits similar traits in terms of thinking,reasoning and concepts.A state of awareness but not consciousness.

I agree with the superconsciousness part and fear.I would describe it as a state of watching yourself observing yet still acting.

I need to think about Jaynes more before I can ask on the conflict and 'life'.

@Muriel asked me in another thread if we could discuss the Church. The thread disappeared before I could respond. Here is my take:

[I believe] the institution we call the Church is a delivery template that we use to convey the set of beliefs we collectively call religion, spirituality, faith etc. As with all man made templates, it is imperfect and prone to manipulation.

But the greatest problem comes when we confuse the template for the content, the wrapper for the gift. History and recent events, including in Kenya, show that we have indeed done this. Thus there is a growing movement away from the Church, yet still retaining a commitment to spiritual objectives.

I also think we should stop overloading this template with our high expectations. For instance, the Church is not meant to take us to heaven, no matter what your Pastor may say.

Putting responsibility for our life here, or hereafter, on another is a cop out.

I shan't... Lakini kwanini mnarudishiana maneno hapo juu?

@Muriel, it was on a light note that i provoked @captain. If you saw it too, take it easy and just smile it away. I doubt it requires this much energy

Taken in context this is such a beautiful dance - the language - the expressions, oh! the class!

Captain, mmmwah. I hope we will wow team #kusomatukona some other time.

Danas, thank you for the brief interlude.

Admin, for some reason i cant sign in as i usually do with google. I am missing my appointments with brother Tycho, friends Symbols, Wakanyungi and others. I cant meet and discuss with them satisfartorily through the phone.

Is that not the point I am also making. Twice in a row he did things his own way. And the response he got that he was seeking was 'Well done, Cain!' Right? No. Twice he was wrong.

Next ,,,,,,

How does that conflict arise in God?

Reminds me of Moses

The church, who are they?

Without going into doctrine, for the religiously uninclined, there has to be some way to have a rough idea who they are.

Of the many distinguishing characters lets take just one - persecution. From contemporary sources.

This is not the 'persecution' a certain prominent wazuan yelps if and when he is told to shut his mouth after saying reprehensible things. It is the sword, flame, captivity and spoil as defined in Daniel 11:33.

The first church started with some 12 as follows:

a) this first batch of 12 or so died violent deaths at the hands of Jews in the initial century or so.
b) the second batch of unknown number died violent deaths at the hands of Romans in the amphitheaters etc in the following centuries or so.
c) the next batch of unknown number died violent deaths at the hands of 'Christians' in the mountains of Europe for next thousand centuries or so till they fled to America etc.

Granted this sword, flame, captivity and spoil has seemed to lull in this current day and age. So how can it be a distinguishing character of this true church in this day and age? Only one way to find out - watching it if and when it starts again. This is not the best vantage point to know them today as it is only observable after the fact but it is the best for the religiously uninclined all things considered.

Those on whom it falls will be the church hence your description or understanding of 'the church' will not fit the church. This is the whole point of my discourse. Pardon the round-about way I have gone to make it.

History is fascinating. It is the only way to know these things not telecasts and miracles and opulence of today.

Please make no assumptions, the woes of an individual hiding behind a 'christian' cloak due to his own mistakes such as letting his pants down or being 'a busy body in other men's matters' constitutes no persecution. This is adequately described in 1 Peter 4:15. Hence cannot be used to say 'persecution' hence 'the church'.

I was listening to Pastor M of Mavuno the other day, during the hotpants-gate affair, and he said something that stayed with me. That Jesus did not actually start the Church, at least as we know it to day. Although what he was thinking when chose the first 12 defeats me then.

I have also read that the apostle who did the most to create a structure for propagating the Christian dogma was St Paul, and he based it on the Roman worship system (the only model they had).

Thus we inherited a semi political edifice that has been subject to all sorts of misuse. A far cry from the 'structure-light' Budhism, for instance, which has resisted moving away from a spiritual focus over many millenia.

If we viewed the Church as a political creation, I think this would help solve many of the problems we have about it, and maybe about God. For one we would stop expecting it to be perfect. When pastors play lose with their members money, women etc, we would not react as if they have commuted murder. After all Politicians do exactly that and we shrug and move on.

Then to your point about persecution; this has always been a tool of power competition, of politics in other words. Is it any wonder that the Christian Church took to so well? And it worked. If you recall the early days the Pope was a secular Emperor as much as a religious one.

Finally we would stop believing that these polit...er, pastors, are our link to God or that they can somehow get us to heaven. We would not deify them, any more than we do our MP's or Governors.

I also think a reconstruction of the Church, if that is a desirable end, would be easier if we took Good out of the equation. He has nothing to do with the mess that is the Church.