[Paul]

Isn’t it remarkable Don, the traumatic loss of the child and the long and frustrating, socially denigrated attempt to recapture that mind?

I think that’s one of the main attractions of Iain’s ideas for me: both an articulation of that loss and a reminder that this self hasn’t gone anywhere but, without words, must attempt to connect to others via this wordy intermediary (who then captures the whole). In that loss I see so much of the World’s suffering (and mine). Another thing Iain has helped me with is the confirmatory idea that the RH can oversee the subversion of language to express a fluid, dynamic and evolving vision, very much as an artist can use mere pigment to evoke depth, movement and emotion. It’s a beautiful notion and one that I had thought may times but doubted.

Is this where the necessary settlement must be between the two selves?

Side note: Interesting we have a different idea of the ‘two minds’, with you favouring unknowing/ implicit vs. knowing/ explicit and me tending knowing/ implicit vs. thinking/ explicit. I could go with either tbh.