DrZ, you started the present dialogue as follows,

Jacob, you've gone a mile or two beyond my original thought; however there are many parallels between your interpretation of my first, admittedly poorly written post, and the ideas I was actually trying to get at. You wrote,

"Perhaps you meant to say something like, 'A THEORY that might explain the evolution of self-consciousness, starting from the hypothesis that it appeared with H. sapiens, or --obversely perhaps-- H. sapiens started when self-consciousness made its appearance.'"

Although your words add an interesting layer to my original thought, what I wished to express was a kind of evolution in the thought processes of any given individual. To test our premises: I take "consciousness" to mean awareness, but without awareness of consciousness...

DrZ, you are apparently referring to a "meta-consciousness," i.e. the capability of thinking about consciousness, which most likely appeared much later in evolution, together with meta-thinking. The META function characterizes H. sapiens. You continued,

I take self-consciousness to mean consciousness coupled with an awareness of consciousness.

Self-consciousness is the realization that one exists, which must have appeared simultaneously with other-consciousness...

.... I would, however, argue that a third layer of consciousness is (at least occasionally) attainable for humans: consciousness of the self-conscious --the humor of a mind acknowledging the distance between its theories and the reality they are meant to reflect (absurdity, as defined by Camus), and yet still continuing to create and expand upon these theories out of the sheer joy found in the enterprise.

I wouldn't consider such situation as a third layer of consciousness. Apart from the realization of being intensely self-conscious and modestly other-conscious, the 'humor' of the person whose mind you describe is his manner of being: having the need to express his thoughts in writing, thoroughly enjoying the fulfillment of the enterprise, yet realizing that his thoughts are not based on scientific realities. This person enjoys himself and can attract readership when there is coherence and a story. But, will his readers, besides enjoyment, advance their own minds in a realistic direction toward the understanding of the world? Our dialogue continued,

"If I am right, DrZ, then your phrase might be edited as follows: "A given Christian may reach a point in his adolescent or adult life, when he starts to suspect that he has been guided by religious beliefs --and its correlates-- that are not necessarily true. And that such beliefs are based on dogma accepted and inculcated by his mentors, who perhaps are not possessors of the scientific method he considers as the enlightened one."

Jacob, the Christian in your example indeed serves as an illustration of one type of manifestation of this kind of an evolution in the thought process, however I think the same kind of realization could just as easily come to the scientist, the philosopher, or the non-religious working man. Indeed, I would tend to say that although the Christian's doubt may be a symptom of a newly developing level of consciousness, the same could just as readily point to some other genetically acquired behavior, such as waywardness of spirit.

I said Christian because that was your specification in the example you offered. Any person can change his way of understanding the world, as long as he is able to overcome the existential anxiety of cognitive dissonance. He then achieves not a new level of consciousness, but a drastically different way of reasoning. The dialogue continued,

"DrZ, if you do not question my words, I will proceed on the possible shaping of your suggested symbolic, actually metaphoric, and --ironically, so to say-- allegoric interpretation of Jesus' death and resurrection. These themes have played a very important role in H. sapiens culture, and one could confidently say that they are very important constituents of the archetypes that conform the Collective Unconscious. It could be even pointed out that such archetypes were added once self-consciousness was present."

Jacob, my approach to the Biblical texts has always been allegorical --it never occurred to me to read them as I would a factual history. To that extent, then, my religious feelings (beliefs) have developed on a completely different level than that of those who would call themselves Christian. I would be incapable, personally, of having a moment of doubt based on the dogma of Organized Christianity, in as much as I've never recognized the proposed foundation as such.

While I failed to make my meaning clear in my original post, I believe that what you say correlates with the line of my thinking, which I hope I have been able to clarify somewhat. In other words, that the death of Jesus is representative of an individual acknowledging that his paradigms lack foundation...

DrZ, the description of Jesus' death can not be said to be 'representative.' You meant 'symbolic.' I believe that the description is based on Jesus' factual reality. One could certainly be drawn to ascribe the enormous appeal of the event itself, not as just a religiously induced emotion, but to its archetypal connection.
I would choose to say that its appeal to Christians is very much determined by the context in which it is painted. A death is not impressive per se, but by the whole manner it occurs or is described. The depiction of Jesus' death is a beautiful story. Anne Frank's death from typhus, suffering fever, diarrhea and vomiting in the stinking conditions of the Nazi camp would cause revulsion if described realistically. The appeal of her story is universal, because the story is universal, but her death is mentioned as a mere expected fact. Archetypal connections, you say... Certainly, because they tinge all our emotions. Your exposition continued,

...--a doubt of the spirit if you will-- and that the rebirth of Christ represents that same individual (and now, for the first time, one really does have freewill) continuing to create and develop theories but with a newfound understanding of their subjectivity (even analytical thinking is creative, though we do not call it that) --he rises above what has been handed down to him (the father, Oedipus story) and now instead of accepting the myths, he creates them (with the help of the 'mother,' that is, the nature of the world around him).

"Spirit": A word to be eschewed in D-SP vocabulary, unless clearly understood in the context. You are actually referring to Cartesian doubt.
"Free will": The 'spirit' of D-SP is to further the emergence of free will. D-SP knows what free will is, no Agustinian musings, clear scientifically-DETERMINED definitions, with the mathematical concept of LIMITS as the 'horizon event' of its frontiers.

What you write about the 'rebirth' is clear and precisely described. But a rebirth not in the premortal form. Yet to attain a further dimension, you could add: "How we interpret, and what and how we write, reflect our own conscious, our own normal unconscious, our own neurotic unconscious, and the inherited Collective Unconscious, the archetypes.

In conclusion, Jacob, while I do not question your words and would very much like to see you proceed on the possible "shaping of my suggested symbolic, actually metaphoric, and --ironically, so to say-- allegoric interpretation of Jesus' death and resurrection," I do think there was an additional layer to what I had originally intended.
Again, I hope this clarifies my point of view. This topic has spent much time dancing around in my head, but until now I have never attempted the organization required for this kind of discourse. As always, I look forward to your reply.

And I say that you have clarified much of what tickles your mind, and that asking me to comment has tickled mine. Aren't we having fun thinking and writing? Your thoughts will become more and more organized as you put them in writing, with a good measure of editing.

"One day Homo erectus sat down to write. As he finished his task, he realized what he had just done, and exclaimed, overwhelmed, 'Eureka, I am now Homo sapiens!'
Since then, he did not cease writing his inchoate thoughts, becoming in this way more and more sapiens."