I have suggested that the Fourth Gospel tells us that the Holy Ghost is the ascended Jesus Christ; so whenever we talk about the Holy Ghost we are actually talking about Jesus.
Is this helpful? very, very much so - I would say. Instead of a nebulous (because bodiless, unpersonal) spirit-being; we are offered guidance and consolation from the actual person of Jesus - which fits with John 16:7 "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
Why would it be expedient for the disciples (and everyone else, presumably) if Jesus goes away (that is dies, resurrects, ascends to Heaven) if the person of Jesus - someone we might love as one individual loves another - was replaced by a nebulous ghost spirit for whom love can only be an abstraction?
As an example, we might consider the comic but Christian character of Don Camillo; a fictional Italian priest who has two-way conversations with Jesus on a crucifix in his Church - and this Jesus is a very distinct, humorous, character (and an exemplar of tough-love).
In these stories, it seems to me that Jesus is replacing, fusing-with, and thereby rendering unnecessary, the Holy Ghost as some kind of separate aspect of deity.
Of course any such conversation as Camillo's with Christ is not a literal communion with Jesus, since it is subject to all our limitations of understanding and motivation, as well as the inevitable ambiguities of language.
Nonetheless, insofar as it is underpinned by direct communion; then this is exactly how Jesus can be or become a real-reality in the lives of Christians: the apprehension of a real personage with who we have present contact.
