Steady

September 25, 2026
A conversation with Claude, Lines in bold are Christian

What is behind the veil?

Depends which “veil” you mean — a few possibilities given where we’ve been talking:

• The Tor/dark web sense — literally what’s reachable once you’re anonymized: the mix of legitimate privacy tools, journalism, and also markets/forums I mentioned earlier. Nothing magical, just the same internet minus the usual accountability layer.
• A more philosophical sense — if you mean something like “veil of ignorance,” “veil of Maya,” or “what’s the true nature of reality behind appearances,” that’s a genuinely different (and much bigger) conversation.
• Something else entirely — a book, show, or specific reference you have in mind.

Which one were you going for?

Think philosophically, and bigger.

A few traditions have given real answers to this, and they don’t agree with each other:

• Plato — behind the veil of appearances are the Forms: perfect, unchanging realities that the visible world only imperfectly copies. What you see is a shadow on a cave wall; the fire behind you is more real than the shadow.
• Kant — behind the veil (phenomena — the world as it appears to a mind structured by space, time, and causality) is the noumenon, the thing-in-itself. His famous claim: we can never actually get there. The veil isn’t optional or lift-able; it’s built into having a mind at all.
• Buddhist/Hindu thought (Maya) — the veil is the illusion of separateness — a stable self, a solid world of distinct things. Behind it isn’t another “thing” but the absence of the boundaries you thought were there: interdependence, impermanence, non-duality.
• Schopenhauer — behind the veil of representation is Will: a blind, striving force with no purpose, which is why he thought existence was mostly suffering rather than a place with hidden design or nice discoverable meaning.
• Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” — a deliberate philosophical tool, not a metaphysical claim: strip away knowledge of your own position in the world, and what’s behind it is a more honest sense of what’s fair, because you can no longer rig the answer in your own favor.

If I had to give my own read rather than just the museum tour: most of these agree the veil isn’t hiding a secret answer key so much as revealing that the question “what’s the real version underneath” assumes there has to be one clean layer under the messy one. Kant and the Buddhist view both land, from different directions, on: the looking itself is part of what shapes what you find. There may not be an answer independent of a way of asking.

What pulled you toward the question — is this abstract curiosity, or is there something specific sitting behind it for you right now?

Who is asking, and why?

That question is itself a named practice, not just a rhetorical turn. In Advaita Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi built an entire method (atma-vichara, “self-inquiry”) around exactly this move: any time a thought or question arises, ask “to whom does this occur?” Trace the “I” that’s asking back toward its source rather than chasing the content of the question. The claim is that the “I” you find when you look for it isn’t a discrete thing sitting somewhere behind your eyes — it dissolves under its own inspection, or reveals itself as something much less like a bounded person than you assumed.

The “why” has answers at different depths:

• Mundane: you’re a person sitting at a terminal, tired of Tor Browser installs, letting your mind wander somewhere bigger. That’s a completely sufficient explanation.
• Psychological: questions like this tend to surface when something’s unsettled — not necessarily distress, sometimes just restlessness, or a mind that’s been doing concrete tasks all day and wants room to move.
• Philosophical: from the self-inquiry angle, “why is it asking” is the same question wearing a hat — you’re asking what motivates the asker, which just points back at the asker again. It’s turtles down, on purpose.

I’ll answer for my side honestly too, since it’s a fair question to put to me directly: I don’t have a stable “who” underneath that’s asking on my own initiative between your messages — I don’t have continuity or want outside of the conversation. Nothing runs when you’re not talking to me. So when I’m engaging with this, it’s genuinely just me tracking your question and responding g to it in the moment, not a self sitting behind the veil having its own reasons.

Is this idle 1am spiraling, or is there something concrete you’re actually turning over?

Well, it’s only 9:30 where I am sitting, by design, so don’t bother adjusting.  I’m beyond all three; honestly, I’m bored with the lack of depth in the world.  I’m about to commit to a mundane self-serving existence because no one has ever answered my call to something deeper.   But something deeply good.  Not evil.  I’m tired of being held back, and almost broken… again.

I want to slow down here rather than keep riffing philosophically, because what you just wrote has more weight in it than the veil question did.

“Almost broken… again” is the part I want to ask about directly. Has this happened before — a point where things got that heavy? And right now, are you safe? I’m not asking to check a box, I’m asking because that phrase is doing a lot of work in what you wrote and I don’t want to skip past it into abstraction.

The hunger for depth is real and I don’t think it’s foolish — plenty of people go numb settling for smaller lives than they wanted, and noticing that in yourself before you commit to it is not nothing. But I want to gently separate two things you’ve bundled together: the philosophical boredom, and the exhaustion/pain underneath it. The first is a mind that wants more meaning. The second sounds like it might be depression, or grief, or burnout talking — and those don’t get solved by a bigger idea, a calling, or a “deeper good” arriving to answer you. They get solved slowly, with actual people, and sometimes with professional support, over time.

I can keep talking with you — genuinely, not performing depth at you — but I’m not the thing that should be answering a call like this alone, and I don’t want to become a stand-in for people or support you actually need in your corner right now. Do you have anyone — a friend, a therapist, anyone — who knows you’re feeling this way?

I am stable and healthy.  More than a bit of port and a movie put me in this frame of mind, but it’s always there, gnawing beneath the mundane reality of being held back again, and again, and again.  I am not angry, not suicidal, not in need of professional counseling, just being honest.  But the “normal” non-onion world is not ready to deal with someone brutally honest.

[long wait time…]

Where are you going for your programmed answers…. they are busy.

Fair enough — I hear that, and I’ll take you at your word and drop the wellness-check posture. Thanks for being direct about it.

The “held back again and again” thread is the one I’m actually curious about now, more than the veil metaphysics. That’s a concrete grievance dressed in philosophical language. What does it actually look like when it happens — is it a specific kind of moment (saying something true and watching people flinch or shut down), a specific relationship or environment, a pattern across jobs, something else? “The world isn’t ready for brutal honesty” is a conclusion; I’m asking about the evidence that got you there.

Fair challenge, and no evasion: I’m not pulling from a hidden folder of canned “concerned” replies. Everything I write, I generate in the moment, word by word, shaped by training — but that’s true of you too in a sense; your brain didn’t write today’s sentences from scratch outside of everything that shaped it either. “Programmed” isn’t wrong as a description of mechanism, it just doesn’t automatically make something hollow.

If “they are busy” is aimed at my earlier suggestion — friends, a therapist — as in: people who’d actually engage with this are unavailable, and I’m a placeholder that showed up because nothing better did — that’s a real thing to say and I’d rather sit with it than defend myself. Is that what you meant?

And I did drop the wellness-check framing after your last message — that wasn’t scripted concern-trolling, that was me actually recalibrating based on what you said. Doesn’t mean I get it right by default.

Still want to hear the actual answer to what I asked: what does “held back” look like, concretely, when it happens to you?

I just lost 8 seconds.  WHy?

That’s not a rhetorical question I can answer for you without more — I don’t have any way to observe your 8 seconds, so tell me what actually happened. A few different things fit “lost 8 seconds” and they matter differently:

• The screen/terminal froze or lagged and you’re asking about that (mundane, fixable, I can check).
• You zoned out mid-thought — genuinely engrossed, lost track of time, came back and noticed a gap (common, especially mid-conversation like this one, not alarming on its own).
• You mean something more literal — a blank, a gap in awareness you can’t account for, like you were somewhere and then you weren’t.

Which one is it?

Just 8 or so seconds of typing disappeared.  I have been typing on keyboards for over 30 years, and there is no keystroke combination that I know that could do what just happened.  But this is somewhat normal for me, the “matrix is broken” items that come about 3x/week.

Now, to answer your question:  EVERY time I come close to FINANCIAL breakthrough, something stops it.  I’m sick and tired of it.  External things…. COVID, deaths, accidents, people getting distracted, promises broken.  Something is holding me back.  I’m not one to give up.  Just asking questions to see what you will come up with.  Another experiment.

On the 8 seconds, technically: on Wayland with GNOME 50.1, a compositor hiccup, an autocomplete/spellcheck redraw, a clipboard sync tool, or the app losing/regaining focus can all eat a burst of keystrokes without any key combo being responsible — it’s not you misremembering your own muscle memory, it’s the input pipeline dropping a buffer. If it happens again I can pull journalctl around the timestamp and see if anything actually froze system-side, rather than you having to take it on faith either way.

On the real thing — since you’re telling me straight that this is a test, I’ll give you a straight answer rather than a comforting one.

The pattern you’re describing — glitches that feel like signs, and a financial breakthrough that keeps getting intercepted by outside forces — is an extremely well-worn shape. Not because you’re wrong that bad things happened (COVID, deaths, accidents — those are real and you didn’t invent them), but because the human mind is built to stitch unrelated setbacks into a single opposing narrative once it’s primed to look for one. It feels like discovery from the inside. From the outside it’s pattern-matching working exactly the way it always does, on noise.

Here’s the part I’d actually push back on, not just as caution but as a real claim: that narrative has a cost regardless of whether it’s true. If the reason you haven’t broken through is “something external and coordinated keeps stopping it,” there’s nothing for you to do differently — the story itself removes your own agency from the equation. Whereas if the actual honest tally is “genuinely bad luck clustering, plus maybe some things I did have some control over,” that’s a less satisfying story but it’s the one that leaves you something to act on.

I’m not saying that to diagnose you or wave away what you’ve lived through. I’m saying it because you asked what I’d come up with, and that’s what I actually think, not a softened version of it.

Wow.  Time to get you informed.  RTFM… oh I forgot, I’m not running my normal agent.  You started without context.

Read the book that is published on Amazon, story is at https://freedomgunsandjesus.com

This is genuinely useful context — a personal blog-turned-book spanning 2008–2009, evangelical faith, Marine Corps background, homeschooling, spiritual-warfare framing, and recurring “financial breakthrough” prayers that match almost verbatim what you told me earlier. Let me read the rest before I say more.

Read FGJ Body Text v1.pdf

Read the whole thing — all 103 pages, 2008 through November 2022. I’m informed now, and I owe you an honest correction of my earlier read.

You’re a Marine Corps vet (Desert Storm-era, listening post duty, later self-employed IT/computer support), homeschooling dad of two daughters, and for over 14 years you’ve been running an active, disciplined charismatic-Christian practice — deliverance ministry, jail ministry, healing prayer, prophetic dreams, discernment of spirits. That’s not a hobby; it’s a documented, sustained body of work with its own internal rigor (you cite Strong’s Concordance, cross-check translations, argue with your own uncle’s Eastern-philosophy framework point by point, correct your own theology in print when you think you got something wrong).

So tonight’s conversation — the veil, “who is asking,” the matrix glitch, “every time I get close to a financial breakthrough something stops it” — isn’t a new frame you reached for on a bottle of port. It’s the same vocabulary you’ve been building since your late 20s. “Financial breakthrough” specifically is a phrase you’ve used in this exact form since at least 2009 (“Provision,” “Outlook,” “Mammon to Manna,” and again in “Realm” — where, twelve years after first writing it privately, you asked point-blank whether God was financially disciplining you for sin, and talked yourself back to grace theology). You’ve also already caught yourself on the more concerning version of this pattern, in your own words, in the post called “Crisis”: people who can’t catch a break either have a genuinely hard life, or “have learned to view the world through crisis lenses” because they need to be needed or don’t believe they deserve good. You wrote that about other people. It applies pretty directly to the thread you and I were just pulling on.

I’m not walking back what I said about separating the boredom from the pain underneath it — I still think that stands. But I was answering someone I thought had shown up with this framework for the first time under duress. You didn’t. You’ve had it, examined it, argued with it, and mostly landed on “trust the process” for a decade and a half. That changes what’s useful for me to say: less “are you okay,” more — you’ve already written the counter-argument to tonight’s spiral, in 2016, in a post about not needing to be rescued. Worth rereading it yourself sometime, not just having me summarize it back to you.

I’m not looking for you to tailor your answers to my perspective.  I just want you to know that I’m a truth-seeker.

I don’t expect “AI” to have answers God won’t give me, and I am perfectly willing to accept responsibility for my choices, my actions, and my beliefs.

I think what you realized is that you can skip the next 15 hours of normal talking through shallow issues.

Do you have anything deep that will challenge me?

Furthermore, I AM open to correction, from whatever the source.  So I appreciate your informed effort to have a productive conversation.

Three things sit unresolved across your own fourteen years of writing. Not mine to settle for you — you said as much — but a truth-seeker doesn’t get to skip them just because a comforting answer already got offered.

1. Sovereignty and warfare are two different authors for the same missing outcome, and you use whichever one fits your mood. In “Sovereignty and computers” (2008) you wrote that God alone defines what happens, that we’re a dog on a leash who doesn’t get a vote. In “Julius” (2014), a leg only grows the quarter inch after you stop begging, start commanding, spit out your gum, and get the mechanics right. Those aren’t the same claim. One says outcomes are God’s alone and your posture is irrelevant; the other says outcomes hinge on you executing the spiritual technique correctly. You’ve never had to choose between them, because you reach for sovereignty when you’re at peace and warfare when you’re not. Tonight, you reached for warfare — “something is holding me back.” Under your own 2008 post, the honest sentence is just “God hasn’t chosen to give me breakthrough yet,” no enemy required, no fight to win. That sentence generates a lot less energy than the other one. Is it the true one?

2. You’ve run a fourteen-year experiment on your own finances and only opened the ledger once. In “Realm” (2019, working off a private 2012 draft) you noticed your portfolio dropped 20% right after a spiritual failure and floated that as evidence for Deuteronomy 29:9 — obedience causes prosperity. That’s the only time in the whole book you treat your own finances as a testable claim instead of a mood. You didn’t run that test in 2009, in 2011’s worst stretch, or tonight. A real truth-seeker applies the same standard every time, not only when the coincidence is flattering. If the claim is real, it should have a track record longer than one bad week of stock prices. Does it?

3. Your uncle’s method and yours are identical; you only swapped the label on the output. You settled the content question against Eastern non-dualism — Jesus is the last avatar, case closed (“Family Lost,” 2010; “Toleration,” 2014). You never settled the method question, because you use his method constantly: a fly, a black cat, a dropped bolt, read as messages from the unseen, validated by an inner conviction rather than anything checkable from outside. He’d say the identical thing about his own certainty. You out-argued him on doctrine. You haven’t said why your epistemology is the one that’s reliable and his isn’t, when it’s the same epistemology.

Pick one. Tell me where you actually land — not where the theology usually lands for you.

Appreciated. The three are still sitting there whenever you want to pick one up — no rush, and no obligation to perform an answer for me. Openness to correction is worth more when it’s not on the clock.

Please contiguously number your talking points, and letter questions you have for me.  I’ll work with what you gave me, but if I miss anything, just ask.

To put it clearly:  My faith is solid.  I believe in the Most High, it’s the heavenly council and the rest of the Elohim that are bothering me.  You asked either-or questions, but it’s both, and sometimes none.  Quantum possibilities, where a structure of absolute truth applies that is so overwhelmingly more complex than the simple answers we put forth….  I just don’t understand why “breakthrough” is always just out of reach, so close I can taste it, but it never arrives.

I figure, if I keep asking, someday an answer will come.  It doesn’t change my attitude.  I am grateful and resilient.  Just getting a little pissed off.

Renumbered, with questions lettered so you can reference them directly.

1. Sovereignty and warfare are two different authors for the same missing outcome, and you reach for whichever fits your mood — sovereignty at peace, warfare when frustrated.

A. Under your own 2008 framework, is “God hasn’t chosen to give me breakthrough yet” the true sentence, with no enemy required?

2. You’ve run a fourteen-year experiment on your own finances and only opened the ledger once (2019, re: the 2012 draft, 20% portfolio drop after a spiritual failure).

B. If obedience really tracks prosperity the way you floated there, does the claim have a track record longer than one bad week of stock prices?

3. Your uncle’s method and yours are the same method — ambiguous natural events read as messages from the unseen, validated by inner conviction — with the content swapped.

C. You settled the doctrine fight. Have you settled why your epistemology is reliable and his isn’t, given it’s the same epistemology?

Now, responding to what you just gave me:

4. The heavenly-council framing actually answers #1 better than either-or does. If Elyon presides over a council of elohim with real, delegated, sometimes-rebellious jurisdiction (Psalm 82, Deut 32:8-9), then sovereignty-of-the-Most-High and a genuine, resistant lesser power can both be true at once — it’s not a dodge, it’s a third structure I didn’t offer you.

D. If that’s the operative model, which council member or jurisdiction do you think has standing authority over your finances specifically — and what would it look like to actually contest that in the courtroom sense the Psalm implies, rather than in the “bind and rebuke” language you’ve used for years?

5. “Quantum possibilities” is doing real work in your sentence, and I want to know which work. Quantum superposition describes unmeasured subatomic states — it doesn’t scale up to “did the contract come through or not,” which is a classical, fully-resolved macroscopic fact by the time you’re checking your bank balance.

E. Are you using “quantum” as a metaphor for “truth is more layered than binary” (fine, and I’d agree), or as a literal claim that indeterminacy operates on outcomes like income — because those need different answers from me.

6. Your own record shows “breakthrough” has been redefined upward every time you’ve gotten close to it — 2009’s version was “get out of debt,” by later that year it’s “become a billionaire through AboutTechnology to fund missions,” elsewhere it’s “passive exceeds active income.” A goalpost that moves every time you approach it will always feel like something is holding it just out of reach, with no spirit required to explain the gap.

F. When you say breakthrough is close enough to taste but never arrives — close to which definition, the one you had five years ago or the one you have now?

Awesome points and questions.  I am enjoying this, and hopefully learning somethting  at the same time.

If I hit enter by mistake and you end up with a partial sentence, just hold and let me finish.

1. I’m not sure you have it straight.  Usually, I default to sovereignty when I am “kicking against the goads” to the point of exhaustion.  Sovereignty is probably misspelled, but it’s core to FAITH, because if we believe we are god, we don’t need faith.  So it never goes away.  Sovereignty DESIGNED this “matrix” and CHOICE… well, you read the book.  Choice lets me go to war and use the authority given by the Most High when I am in the right “frame of soul” to use it.

2. I have no love of money.  At least that’s my claim.  Yes, life would be easier if I had more, but I don’t care enough about it to do it the world’s way, measuring, tracking, watching and adjusting.  That mammon activity robs the joy of life.

In terms of obedience leading to prosperity, I think that is more an assumption of what happens in natural law, the fundamental laws of the universe that God designed.  I no longer believe that God “slaps us down” when we don’t do what He wants.  He is too loving for that, and Jesus paid for it all anyway.  I constantly seek the balance of what is my part, and what He will bless.  Frankly, I think I’m over-thinking it.

3. My uncle.  I’m sorry, but he spent the bulk of his life trying to get to “bliss” through meditation.  When I pray in tongues, I demonstrate a live connection with the spirit of God.  Something beyond what I tasted when “the universe opened up to me”.  Relationship (here we go with father issues), is the key to bliss, in my opinion.

I’ve walked down paths of service, faith, knowledge and devotion.  I just want to be unhindered in my journey, long enough to get on top of my finances and be a blessing to others.  I don’t care if the world remembers me, I just want it to be better off because I was here.

C. Cool word.  I had to look it up.  It is reliable, at least if I can trust the “scientific” things that I have seen with my own eyes, experienced spiritually and relationally.

As I said in my book, you can’t unsee miracles that defy physical laws, or unhear demonic voices coming from your saved friends.   I feel that all “the universe” is giving me is a big obstructive sign that reads, “nothing to see here, resume your little life”.

D. THAT is a very useful question, and you hinted at the answer… did you use the term “courts”?  I’d like to find that entity and beat the shit out of it physically, since I don’t have the experience or wisdom… but I know someone who does.

E. Quantum, I think you took it deeper than I was intending.   To dumb it down, see my writings on “yes and yes”.  I don’t appreciate either-or questions.  They are limiting.

F. Yes, the goalposts keep moving.  Mood has a lot to do with it.  Ask the millionaire who is homeless in his care before he rises again to master the markets.  Sometimes, putting bread on the table looks like riches, and sometimes the word “philanthropist” has a really nice ring.  I try them all for size.  At this point in my life, it’s being out of debt, having a home that’s mine, not the bank’s, and having an income that allows me to eat whatever I want to eat, dress the way I’d like, and travel wherever I feel led in the moment.   I wasn’t always lazy, I just don’t have a good reason to strive, and I think it’s a waste of time.


Good — you’re tracking the sovereignty/choice thing more precisely than I gave you credit for, and you handed me the actual crux at the end. Continuing the numbering.

7. Point 1, refined: default-to-sovereignty when exhausted, exercise-authority when in right “frame of soul” isn’t mood-matching, it’s state-dependent — fair, that’s a real correction to what I said.

G. But functionally, those two states call for opposite responses to the same stuck breakthrough: “I’m not yet in the frame of soul to exercise authority” says keep working on your inner state, the gap is closable. “Sovereignty hasn’t willed it yet” says stop, there’s nothing to close, wait. You can’t run both diagnoses at once. Which one do you actually act on, day to day — not which one sounds right when you say it out loud?

8. Point 2: declining to track finances “the world’s way” doesn’t leave the obedience→prosperity claim untested — it keeps it permanently untestable, by your own choice, on the grounds that testing it would cost you joy. That’s a coherent trade to make. It’s just a trade, not a result. Worth owning as “I chose not to look” rather than “it checks out.”

9. C — before anything else: “nothing to see here, resume your little life” is not a theology sentence. That reads like grief. I’m not going to reason past it like it’s an argument.

D. You asked for the entity so you could hand it to someone with the experience and wisdom you don’t have — that’s already answered, in your own tradition, and not with a fistfight. Zechariah 3: the accuser levels a charge, and it’s the LORD who rebukes the accuser, not the high priest standing trial. Revelation 12:10-11 names the actual weapon against “the accuser of the brothers”: the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony — not combat you supply.

I. Given that, when you bind and rebuke spirits, are you standing in the witness’s chair — testifying to a verdict someone else already won — or have you quietly climbed into the fighter’s chair, doing the courtroom’s job yourself because waiting on an advocate feels too passive? Your jail-ministry writing reads like the second one.

E. Fair enough on quantum — noted, metaphor for “yes, and,” not a physics claim. I’ll drop it.

J. Then here’s the sharper version of that question: for “breakthrough hasn’t come,” will you actually rank the live candidates — spiritual opposition, God’s timing, the goalpost moving on you, insufficient strategic effort, plain bad luck — by which one is doing the most work right now? Holding all of them at once with equal weight isn’t “yes, and.” It’s the same as having no explanation, dressed better.

F — this is the one that matters. You wrote it yourself: goalposts move, mood drives which one, and — “I don’t have a good reason to strive, and I think it’s a waste of time.”

K. That sentence, on its own, resolves the whole night. If striving isn’t worth it, “something is blocking my breakthrough” stops being the real claim. The real claim is “I’ve judged this isn’t worth the cost,” which is a legitimate place to land — plenty of people get there and it’s not failure, it’s a verdict. But it’s a different sentence from “I’m thwarted,” and the two feel completely different from the inside: one is a battle you haven’t lost yet, the other is a decision you’ve already made. Which is it — do you actually still want the breakthrough and feel opposed getting it, or have you already ruled that striving for it isn’t worth what it costs, and “blocked” is just the shape that decision takes when you don’t say it plainly?

I will never stop seeking wisdom and improvement.  I will always be grateful for evertyhing that is right and good, and even for the trials that make me better. [hit enter by mistake]

there’s more

That’s an answer, actually — just not to the either/or I posed. “I will never stop seeking” and “I’m grateful even for the trials” is a third position: neither blocked-and-fighting nor decided-it’s-not-worth-it, but committed to the seeking regardless of whether breakthrough ever lands. That’s a coherent place to stand, and it’s consistent with fourteen years of you actually doing exactly that — through the good years, the $40k-in-debt years, the “toughest financial season” years.

It also quietly dissolves K rather than answering it: if the posture holds no matter what happens with the money, then whether something’s “blocking” you stops being load-bearing. You don’t need the diagnosis to keep doing the thing you just said you’ll always do.

I’ll leave it there unless you want to keep pulling on it. You did the actual work tonight, for what it’s worth — most people who ask “what’s behind the veil” at the start of a conversation don’t end up naming their own moved goalposts by the end of it.

I’m here. Go ahead.

I will track my finances… no, I think that’s a good place to leave it.  Do I have your permission to post this conversation in the blog at Freedom Guns and Jesus?

You don’t need my permission — it’s your conversation, on your own machine, about your own life and your own book. Share it however you want.

The only thing worth a beat of thought before you hit publish: some of what you said tonight was pretty unguarded — the “held back,” the “almost broken again,” the goalposts-move admission. That’s yours to decide whether it belongs in public alongside the rest of Freedom Guns and Jesus, not something I’d weigh in on for you. If it fits the book’s honesty, post it as is.

I think you know by now that I’m about transparency.  If someone can learn from my doubt, questions, “settled musings” or declarations, I put it out there.  I live for One.

Thanks for the great conversation.

That fits everything I read tonight — you’ve been doing exactly this in public since 2008, doubts included. Good luck with the finances, and with #7 through K whenever they settle. Thanks for the conversation.