.  Re: Conscience  I do get the gist of what you're saying. I'm not wholly opposed to mysticism, yet I am well aware that when it comes to rational discourse, and communicable language, it becomes a slippery thing easily misconstrued and misunderstood. This is because it is an attempt to express the heart of what is essentially a personal subjective position framed within the knowledge of being among others.  Quite a number of people have considered what "being" means. To name some obvious names, Descartes, Heidegger, Husserl, Wittgenstein, and Satre, not to mention me, you and most people who participate on this forum.  It doesn't appear we have a similar approach to this subject matter. We may be closer to each other than others here, but still, it is not apparent to how we can continue this discussion in a fruitful manner.  To start with I am not inclined to start using analogies of musical scales and/or to frame "being" as a atomized matter utterly separate from acting (I wouldn't say in a rational discourse that "doing" and "being" are different items - in terms of mysticism I can grapple more readily with that thought in an abstract and creative manner though).  In simply linguistic convention when we use a verb+ing we mean "acting"/"doing" and "being" is one such instance, so you cannot seriously expect me to accept - in a rational discussion - that "being" is completely disconnected from "doing"? If you do then I don't see where we can go from here?  If you can see some common ground we can work from let me know. Up to now I've only seen some vague hints that we can find such a place. I'm particularly interested in theological discussion tbh  