Are they the same at all???

[Jean]

I think you underestimate Oy. He was duty bound to Roland and your statement takes away from his stand with Mordred.

hear, hear

[Brice]

we went through some damn hard times before we got together and we went through some shit when we got together too, and this both made us as people and made us as a couple, and i would find it unbearable to be with a man that
a) had not lived through that
and b) even worse knew nothing of it

Because we are made up of what we are and what we have been through more then genes etc

Well said Candy.
This is precisely what I meant as well.
A different Mrs R_of_G could be like her in many many ways, but without the experiences she's had both with and without me, she wouldn't be the same person.

That depends on whether you think experience makes you who you are or whether who you are determines your experiences.

[Melike]

we went through some damn hard times before we got together and we went through some shit when we got together too, and this both made us as people and made us as a couple, and i would find it unbearable to be with a man that
a) had not lived through that
and b) even worse knew nothing of it

Because we are made up of what we are and what we have been through more then genes etc

Well said Candy.
This is precisely what I meant as well.
A different Mrs R_of_G could be like her in many many ways, but without the experiences she's had both with and without me, she wouldn't be the same person.

That depends on whether you think experience makes you who you are or whether who you are determines your experiences.

Both of them.

Cliche but true.
So if you delete one of them, it changes everything.

[Brice]

...both to your point and to the Escher.

[barneyrfd]

I am in no way underestimating or taking away from Oy! He was one brave, loyal and faithful Bumbler, as much a part of the ka-tet as anyone!

His last stand/sacrifice for Roland was perhaps THE bravest and most faithful act in the entire saga tied with Jake throwing himself in front of the van to save Stephen King.

Oy had the same duty to Roland that the others of the tet did and he knew it well.

Roland actually released Oy from his duty by giving Oy a choice of going through the door with Susannah or not and Oy chose to stay with Roland. Perhaps out of duty but that choice was made easier because he knew HIS Jake was not on the other side of the door.

[jayson]

That depends on whether you think experience makes you who you are or whether who you are determines your experiences.

Of course, I don't know that we're ever going to find a definitive answer to your question Brice, and I am certain we're never going to find unanimously agreed upon one, but personally, I hold that existence precedes essence.

"...man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." - Jean Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism"

As for Ryan's question about an Altzheimer's patient, it's an interesting turn on this issue. My initial thoughts are the altzheimer's patient is the same person. They still have those memories even if they can no longer access them. They still had those experiences even if they can no longer recall them. Basically, they are who they are because of what they did all along the line to that point. That they cannot remember it makes it more difficult to interact with that person as had been done previously, and by this logic makes them a somewhat different person moving forward than they'd have been without the Altzheimers. However, I find them to still be more the same person they were then I would two similar looking people from different worlds without the same shared experiences. To me, those are basically clones.

[candy]

i concur

[John_and_Yoko]

I clicked "I can't vote because" my option isn't on there.

Closest to it is "no," but my option includes "no, their genes aren't the same." How could they be if the two are brothers now, with a Dutch last name? Unless maybe both were adopted by someone with that last name, but I don't remember reading anything like that....

And call me a stickler but I'd prefer to have that specifically mentioned than simply speculate in order to justify the idea that they have the same genes as Eddie Dean and Jake Chambers.

Besides, we know OY wouldn't have the same genes....

[obscurejude]

Of course, I don't know that we're ever going to find a definitive answer to your question Brice, and I am certain we're never going to find unanimously agreed upon one, but personally, I hold that existence precedes essence.

"...man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." - Jean Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism"

They still have those memories even if they can no longer access them. They still had those experiences even if they can no longer recall them. Basically, they are who they are because of what they did all along the line to that point.

How does one possess memories if they can no longer access them? That's the tragedy of Altzheimers. The patient is robbed of the experience of "owning" their death by dying in a way consistent with the actions leading up to their end. If they were the same person, then the argument could be made that they wouldn't be dying in a home surrounded by strangers. I'm recalling Aristotle here if anyone is keeping track.

However, I find them to still be more the same person they were then I would two similar looking people from different worlds without the same shared experiences. To me, those are basically clones.

They have the shared experiences of the dreams. The alternate Eddie was even getting worried that he was going crazy because of their persistence. Again, I re iterate, this isn't a question about Susannah's free will. If the Tower represents the axis, then one must assume that if it wants them to be together there must be more to it than cloning and the bleak hope that some circumstantial goodness will ensue because they made it work in some alternate universe before. Dreams are important within the context of the series and illustrate providence even in the midst of a world moving on. I don't understand why nobody thinks its significant.

[candy]

They have the shared experiences of the dreams. The alternate Eddie was even getting worried that he was going crazy because of their persistence. Again, I re iterate, this isn't a question about Susannah's free will. If the Tower represents the axis, then one must assume that if it wants them to be together there must be more to it than cloning and the bleak hope that some circumstantial goodness will ensue because they made it work in some alternate universe before. Dreams are important within the context of the series and illustrate providence even in the midst of a world moving on. I don't understand why nobody thinks its significant.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

first
now -
its not that i dont think its significant, and i agree that the future of eddie and suzannah is what the tower wants, whether as a reward for suzzanah helping to save it or because its part of the towers plan, and i agree that they will make it work, because of the dreams new eddie and new jake(to be known as NE and NJ) where waiting for suzannah and knew her when she appeared. suzannah begins to forget the whole mid world adventure and they all live happily ever after.

all the above is fine .............. but (didnt you just know there was a but coming) i still say NE and NJ are not the same people as gunlinger eddie and gun slinger jake. i take nothing away from suzannah wanting to live a normal life with a version of her beloved.

but thats all they are versions of Eddie and Jake, not the gunslingers that she knew and loved

- and original candy cant get multi quote thing to work - sorry

[obscurejude]

Though the choices for the poll remain yes or no, Letti adds in the title "at all." That' s part of where I'm coming from, and for the record, I voted "no."

Honestly Candy, I think me and Jayson (R of G) were sort of arguing some side points as well as you and I in regards to Susannah choices in the matter. Some of the lines of logic that I've expressed can also be found in Jayson's thread concerning why Susannah's ending was so different from the rest of the tet.

Its all interesting, but I must insist on stopping for the moment because its very late and I must retire.

Thank you for the conversation, though.

[Brice]

That depends on whether you think experience makes you who you are or whether who you are determines your experiences.

Of course, I don't know that we're ever going to find a definitive answer to your question Brice, and I am certain we're never going to find unanimously agreed upon one, but personally, I hold that existence precedes essence.

"...man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." - Jean Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism"

I think they're simultaneous. Anyhow, the fact that the question has no definitive answer was my point in itself though. Basically what I am getting at is it's a choice between (after the one you love is gone) having the memories and not having the memories, but having that astronomical chance that it is the same person in that other world. I think as I see it now, well maybe Susannah's choice wasn't a very easy one

[pathoftheturtle]

... We are slaves who masquerade as freely autonomous. ... If you want to "freely" choose to be a king or prince you're inhibited by the fact you aren't royal blood etc... Claiming that Susannah had free will is overlooking the humongous contingencies at work within everything leading up to that decision.

Well, in that case you could conceivably build up an army of conquest and start your own country, but I do understand your point. If we define "free will" as absolute power, then I think it's obvious that no human has it. From a higher perspective, her freedom could be part and parcel in her relationship to all of those contingencies.

...the future of eddie and suzannah is what the tower wants, whether as a reward for suzzanah helping to save it or because its part of the towers plan...

Or both.

...new eddie and new jake(to be known as NE and NJ) ...

Good idea! I think I'll start to use those abbreviations, too.

Let's try this: Is Roland the same at all?
Is the Roland that we see in the desert on the last page the same man that we'd been reading about through the rest of the series? He has lost his memories, and a detail of his past has changed -- he picked up the horn. Does this make him an entirely different person?
If not, then what if two things had changed... imagine if he then had the horn and also he had lost his grow bag. Does that make him someone else?
If not, what if it were three changes?
Five?
Twenty-Five? At what point exactly does he stop being Roland?

[obscurejude]

Excellent proposition Mike.

I think that's at the heart of this debate, but I'm going to think about it some more before answering in detail.

[jayson]

Let's try this: Is Roland the same at all?
Is the Roland that we see in the desert on the last page the same man that we'd been reading about through the rest of the series? He has lost his memories, and a detail of his past has changed -- he picked up the horn. Does this make him an entirely different person?
If not, then what if two things had changed... imagine if he then had the horn and also he had lost his grow bag. Does that make him someone else?
If not, what if it were three changes?
Five?
Twenty-Five? At what point exactly does he stop being Roland?

Very interesting indeed. Of course, we know that Roland has not lost all his memories. He still remembers Gilead. He remembers his childhood. He remembers his training (or he wouldn't last very long). Since King was actually quite vague about what actually happens to Roland when he loops it's hard to know what percentage of his memory is intact and what portion isn't.
Is it just the memory from the looping point forward that's gone?
Does it always start in the desert?
All those questions we ask in the loop-related threads play in here as well.
I would say that you are on to something though Mike. Is he the exact same person? No, probably not by the strictest definition. He does seem to have enough of whatever it is that we can call his essential Roland-ness still though.

Oh, and Ryan, I am still thinking on the Altzheimer's question you raised. I promise to return to it as soon as I come to some kind of conclusion. It's a great question.

[Jean]

Let's try this: Is Roland the same at all?
Is the Roland that we see in the desert on the last page the same man that we'd been reading about through the rest of the series? He has lost his memories, and a detail of his past has changed -- he picked up the horn. Does this make him an entirely different person?
If not, then what if two things had changed... imagine if he then had the horn and also he had lost his grow bag. Does that make him someone else?
If not, what if it were three changes?
Five?
Twenty-Five? At what point exactly does he stop being Roland?

As usual, excellently put!
You know my answer, of course - he never does; individual soul precedes experience.

[AllIsNineteen]

I think they're the same people in principle. Like, they didn't have the same experiences, but given a similar situation, they'd react in the same way. Does that make any sense? I don't think any of us are happy with the way that this turned out, I loved having Jake as an experienced gunslinger, but even without it, I'm glad they found life in another dimension.

[Spawn]

I do believe that they are the absolutely the same people. Yes, yes... I know, Jake died in the Keystone world and that there is no second chances from that.
But isn't Gan God? If he has the power to do what he did to Roland in the end of the series, I think (or I want to believe, because I love the characters so much) that he can also "resucite" the originals Jake and Eddie ad just put them in another level.

We have to remember here that even that Eddie, Sussanah and Jake were chosen against their will, they fought for the White and even died for it.
I think the end is the way of Gan to thank them for what they did, simple as that.

[Greg860]

throughout the series SK demonstrated that there are many ways to travel between worlds, death being only one of them. i agree with obscurejude. susannah, who had not died, began to lose her memory. (roland instantly lost his when he went through the door and he arguably has never died.) imo, eddie and jake are ka-tet and therefore family. and in death as they lost memory of their previous life when they entered the new world but where allowed to keep the memory of being family (therefore the last name). susannah will certainly end up like them.

i voted, almost unfortunately, that they are in fact both the same exact people and liken it to the movie "heaven can wait". the character is told he will live on in someone elses body when that body is scheduled to die; the only catch is he goes on living that persons life without any previous memory of his own....

....as a dark tower reader would agree how can you remain the same person without any of your memories. so while i agree they are the same people they all lose something essential, susannah and roland included.

[Sickrose]

It's an interesting question. I think they are a different Eddie and Jake and I guess it comes down to Nature v Nurture and where you stand on that. I think elements of Eddie and Jake are the same and I guess they would still have the 'Deep Steel' that Roland notes but the environmental factors are different and this would have had an affect.

why did Susannah have the dreams then I wonder. Roland talks to Eddie of how dreams are sometimes messages from different levels of the tower. Maybe it was telling her she had to go.

[pathoftheturtle]

... Yes, yes... I know, Jake died in the Keystone world and that there is no second chances from that. ...

One of the ideas from the TDT books which I like and respect least. Gratingly obvious plot device to get around the power of time-travel to spoil dramatic tension. I wish that I could see it as somehow more meaningful than that, but I don't. What makes the "Keystone" different? If King is saying that after all real death is beyond escape, then aren't all of the rest of these imaginings only pointless and pitiful self-delusion?

[Rolandofmosheim]

I know its an old thread however my wife refuses to read the series and insists I am obessed (I say Thankya) anyway, I don't think that the Jake roland first meets is the same jake the gunslinger, not the first boy he met and grew to love, even though he let him drop, so I think with susannah it wasn't close enough, I think that just as Mordred could recall his victims memories after eating them, experiances in midworld transcend all levels of the tower, just a thought

[stkmw02]

*DISCLAIMER: I am functioning on 3 hours sleep and my Fornit has taken over.

Boy am I glad you dug this thread up! I just read through all the posts so I could get a good feel for where everyone was on this... and it is just the perfect way for me to spend my morning! Now, in short, I can say that they are the same. I will expand on that... very much so... for anyone who cares to read the book below:

Spoiler:

First, I need to note that my reasoning is based on a very interesting belief system. I was baptized Catholic, confirmed Lutheran, but raised to follow Comanche and Navajo practices as well. I have a bastardized version if God in my heart, because all the things I have learned and experienced don't fit the picture most people show me. My God is very much an author. He creates... he writes the life stories of everyone. Some are short stories, barely born and gone. Some are novellas or novels or series... Some are well written and worth the read, while others are filler or go half-read. Like many other authors, King included, God weaves his stories together... because, like King, He isn't really writing many individual stories but rather one all encompassing tale of everything. I believe in reincarnation and guiding spirits. I believe in fate. I believe that everything happens for a reason. I believe in true love. I believe in ka-tet.

I'll say first the simplest answer to the question of is Eddie the same that Susannah loved. The simplest answer is, even if he is not... she knows true love and once you know it, you follow it. Now, the more complicated answer. My husband and I crossed paths many more times than we can imagine. For four years, we each spent every Saturday morning in the same coffee shop and library but never met. Years before that we attended events in the same place at the same time. We are still discovering interesting connections between our lives. The first time we "met" we didn't speak to each other or really meet, but he later recalled me and I him. I was an extra in a movie and he was filming behind the scenes. He was directly behind me, bumping into me as he interviewed another actor. On set, I had a photo of Mick Garris autographed. The photo was provided by my now husband. I met someone on set who went to college with me, we were previously not friends. He was more involved with the film than I was, but invited me to the premiere months later. My husband and I were both at the showing and the after party, but never met, despite it being a very small crew. A year later, we "met" again on another movie set - and I am NOT in the movie business, I ended up involved out of coincidence/fate - and again did not exchange names though we spoke. A year later, he sent me a friend request on MySpace to promote his film, simply because I was a friend of mutual friend. It was on MySpace that we started to talk and agreed to attend a horror convention together to promote. That first trip was not a date, but we basically planned our wedding on the way home... and the first official date, I knew I would marry him. I knew he was my one. If something were to happen to him, I would know that true love exists because I feel it every moment of my life now. Knowing that the door would lead me to another time, another world where another him might be... that would be enough for me to go. I wouldn't be looking for him in terms of any physical sense, not trying to find someone with the same features or experiences... but that energy, that "soul" that lets me know it's perfect for mine, if it was out there I would find it or I would be reborn a thousand times over trying.

Since I believe I was meant to find him in this life, I believe I will be meant to find him in others.

The loss of memory might prevent me from knowing that I had true love, from remembering the feel of it... but I'll reference a few comments from jayson here. First, Roland's "looping" and how it may reset his memory. I think of this as a sort of return to checkpoint scenario. He goes back to a point in time and begins again from there. He has no memory of what has happened already after that point, but the memories from before that point are unchanged. He can live a different life from that point on, but the foundation of his being is the same. He doesn't need the memories of what he has done, because he's doing it for the "first time" again. However... I see this again from the author God standpoint. He has written a paragraph in the life of Roland. Six sentences in, he wants to go back.. he erases three sentences. As he rewrites these words, changing them slightly - pick up a horn here, use a different synonym there - the original words are still there, a ghost of what was can be seen under the newly printed words. So, Roland walks on with that first/second/third trip faded but still there... making changes that still follow that beam. jayson also noted how Alzheimer's patients have memories they can't access. This statement couldn't ring truer for me. I have always thought of my mind as a giant library (Dreamcatcher?) where unlimited information is stored. I didn't always intend to be a librarian, I wanted to be a psychologist... but then I thought, "For me, it's the same thing!" I just put things in order and cross-reference etc. and it's as good as being a therapist. Anyway, I imagine that not being able to access memories is the same as not being able to access materials in the library. They are there, taking up space, but the contents are not known. However, where there is a library there is a card catalog... not a new digital one, but the large files. For Alzheimer's patients, they don't remember the books they have or how they relate or what they mean in terms of the larger collection of works. But, studies have shown that recall of lost memories/past lives/ etc. can be achieved through systematic thinking. (Of course some also say these memories are fabricated) Basically, you go to that big file cabinet and you search for things you do know... things you do remember. Then you branch off of that based on similar keywords and tags. It is a long and difficult process because no Google Search does it for you. This is why Alzheimer's patients tend to display similar traits during their bad periods. If a patient reverts to memories from 15 years old, they will usually revert to the same type of memories whenever they lapse. One study tracked a single patient to map the progression of memory loss and I recall that individual latched on to the idea of pets. The man was first forgetful, thinking his dead dog was still alive. As his condition worsened, he began seeking dogs from his childhood. As if - LOST reference - dogs were his constant and he was scrambling to hold on to the idea for some consistency. SO, it is my belief that those memories are not gone... and even though they are inaccessible, they are on the shelves between other books that might be accessible... they are still shaping the library somehow, touching other memories and making an impact somehow. It's all a matter of doing the research to access them.

On to the next rant, same as the last. The idea of past lives fits in here, as the "mind" is not the same as a brain. So, the shelves do not get wiped clean when one life ends and another begins... rather, the old volumes get shifted, some perhaps to an archive, as new volumes are added. There are memories of past lives stored there... and I think we sometimes stumble upon them when the world is thin. In our dreams - which is the case in DT - or in cases of deja vu... I would describe it like this: You were read a book as a child and many many years later, while researching some unrelated topic you stumble upon a familiar line of prose that you swear you've read before but can't place it. You lived a life and many many lives later, while completing a task you feel that you have done this before. Back to our Author God, he has written your story... but is now revising it.

On to the next! To The Dark Tower Came discussed the idea of the Keystone and no do-overs. Here is my take on that, based on memories and past lives and true love. We know there are many worlds and that time isn't quite one-direction. Though you always move forward in time (not backwards) you can sort of move sideways. Lets look at it this way. We have an original world were a person starts. This person lives and dies. That person is then reborn in another world, but that world's time is staggered. So, while the person (if he could remember) would feel as if this second life is AFTER his first, it may in time be BEFORE he was first born. (Yes, I do believe you can be your own grandpa.) In a sense, you can be living multiple lives simultaneously in different worlds and times, but they all started as the same original life (which has ended, but is never ending...) Example: I was born in 1986 in this world. Let us say I die in 2086 (I'm optimistic). I am reborn in 1972 in world B. In 1986 in world B I find a thin spot and travel to this world, where I am being born. That is my first life starting, although my second life is already in progress. This is enough to drive people crazy! SO the Keystone would be a "constant" somewhat like the Alzheimer dogs... If you die in the Keystone, you do not get reborn. However, lets say it is 1992 and the second life me from world B dies in the Keystone. The original me from this world is still alive and, could I not then be reborn? UNLESS I had never been reborn... I was an original dying in the Keystone with no hope of rebirth. My idea is that there are people who are never reborn... and this is because of Native American legends I have been told.

When a person dies, their spirit is given a choice. They can be reborn into a life, but will not have their memories or their loved ones or anything. If they choose this option over and over and over, they are eventually "rewarded" be being reborn into their own original body again or into a body with a closer connection to their original. (This is where the other time and other worlds fits well.) So, before my grandfather died my brother born and they are very very much alike. So much so that my grandfather said, "If I wasn't alive, I'd think I'd been reincarnated!" But perhaps he WAS. Perhaps in another world and another time he died and was reborn into this world just in time to see himself. (Now I don't believe THAT exactly, but the theory of it in general.) SO most people choose this option as a chance to live infinitely. The second option is to be reborn as something else. BUT once you choose that option, you will never know what you can be when you are reborn. You may never be the same thing twice - a dog, a bird, an ant - who knows? This is often connected to legends as a punishment, since the "spirit" DOES keep the memories they have. Can you imagine being reborn for the millionth time, as fly with only 24 hours to live and in that time you are FULL of memories of every life before? The third option is to not be reborn at all. This is where "ghosts" come in to play. The beings give up their chance at life, get to keep all their memories, and give to exist forever with no boundaries. They can access all worlds, all times, whenever they like. They can stay with their loved ones and watch them grow, they can even try to communicate and guide. (Sweat lodges and hallucinogens come into play on the part of the living) SO, lets say that the legend is partly true. These are the options, but we cannot choose.. God chooses for us. He says, "That Stephen King, I was him to do ONE BIG thing in one life instead of a bunch of little things in many lives. He's going to live his life to do this thing and then he's going to be a guiding spirit." God creates King with that plan... in Keystone so that he will never be reborn.

Second to last, thanks to Darkthoughts for noting the Insomnia connections. See, I read Insomnia before any other King book. And I loved it. And I was all, "This totally makes sense to me." So I was thrilled to discover that all the stories King writes are one big story. Best. Ever. And this is exactly what I thought when I read the lines... where do we go when we die? Everywhere. Other worlds than these. Everywhere, like the guiding spirits. Other worlds than these, like the reborn. I had to tell my great great grandmother, who gave me a Comanche name and told my mother who I would be before I was born. I read her that section and she said, "Other worlds than this?" And I corrected her: these. To me it was obvious, but to her it was THIS world and others. An author doesn't just write one draft, he writes many... and sometimes each draft turns into its own story, its own world.

Finally, I have a giant story that I will someday write... because it's what I'm here for, I think. I do not believe all of what I am about to say, but in questioning it I may actually be confirming it. Back to the great great grandmother Comanche. She married a Navajo, which was a big deal at the time. They had children, who had children, who had children... all very young. When my mom got pregnant with me, unintentionally, the great great grandmother (ironically given the Christian name Mary by Moravian missionaries) told her it would of course be a girl... because that's how it was. Mary was the oldest child and a girl, he daughter the oldest and a girl and so on... so I would be too. And Mary there claimed that her tea leaves told her to name me, because I was going to be something worth taking naming credits for. She said that I would be born "under the veil" which means I would have something covering my face at birth. She said I would have eyes like the sky and the earth. She said I was a pretty big deal in the scheme of things. Now, my mom thought Mary was old and crazy, especially since Mary chose to speak more unintelligible Comanche than English and clearly thought eyes could be both blue and brown. My mom also thought Mary might be telling her these things to prevent a 17 year old Catholic School senior with straight As and a bright future from getting rid of me, either prior to or after birth. In any case, she agreed to let Mary name me. Mary thought on it and said she had to consult the spirits. Eventually, she said Nansuyaket Tabetoi. My mom was not thrilled. She wanted an English name for me. So Mary says, "It means a new beginning, a clean start." And so Krystle-Dawn it is! Now, I don't know for sure if Mary was insane or not. But for 14 years of my life this old lady (who looked like the crypt keeper) insisted that I was supposed to bring tribes together and speak with the dead and be a storyteller. I haven't signed any peace treaties or conversed with any ghosts, but that storyteller part is coming along nicely. Like I said, I don't believe all of this. But... I've tried to find out if it's true. I believe in fate and destiny. But I wonder... is it my destiny to be a new beginning, or will I be a new beginning because I think it's my destiny?

Which brings us back to this: Eddie and Jake are the same people, although they are different in this world. Susannah had to go to them. They either have a destiny that is connecting them through dreams and rebirths and worlds... or Susannah believes they do, which creates a "destiny" by the sheer act of attempting to follow one; a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And the key to all of this? Oy. If you read that long-winded part, you might guess what choice Oy made when he died the first time...

[pathoftheturtle]

...we cannot choose.. God chooses for us. He says, "That Stephen King, I was him to do ONE BIG thing in one life instead of a bunch of little things in many lives. ..."

If you just wanted to say that God just "wanted" SK to do that, then I guess you must have made a mistake. But maybe that was a mistake that God just wanted you to make.
If a spirit can travel back in time to be reincarnated, if one spirit can inhabit two or more lives in the same moment, then how many spirit(s) are there, altogether, in this one present moment?
We cannot choose. God chooses for us. He says, "That Stephen King, I WAS him to do ONE BIG thing in one life instead of a bunch of little things in many lives. I'm going to live this life to do this thing and then he's going to be a guiding spirit." That is called pantheism.

[stkmw02]

interesting... it was an error, should have said "want".... but I like the way it could be interpreted.