Going over this thread for the second time, I am finding it to be an astoundingly beautiful thread.

Peter T. and Lox, I'm wondering if the difference between what the two of you are saying lies in your definitions of the word "self".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I get is that what Peter T. is talking about has more to do with "doing", and what Lox is talking about has more to do with just "being".

In other words, Peter T's concept of what the "self" is, is inextricably tied to what one "does". Whereas, Lox's definition of "self", is independent of what one does, and just "is". Am I even close?

Thanks. You guys are great!

Carol