Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00520)

December 25, 2001


Dear Mauri:


What is a starting point?

Is it material? Or is their underlying a form no matter how small an
electro-magnetic pattern?

Is that Reality?

But what is the creator for the Field?

Is it an idea -- perhaps on some other plane ?

And if there is possibly other planes -- a higher mathematics and physics
speculate about, what is their CAUSE ?

You have 2 realities. The reality of the “here and now” which fits in the
situation. And you have the reality of possible, potential CAUSE And that
cannot be determined or fixed in any of our terms and dimensions?

Is the PARADOX real?

Best wishes for an interesting coming change of seasons.

Speculation:

1. A man with a view,

2. a view that includes the Man

3. Are man and view real?

4. who wants to know?

5. Who cares?


As always,

Dallas

====================




-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 2:24 PM
To:
Subject: re: Comments THEOSOPHICAL CREATION IN BRIEF OUTLINE


I wonder if "reality" is "really" an individual/collective "worldview" (in
karmic/interpretive terms) that in its (interpretive) "essence" has no
"universal" or "firm" relationship with (interpretive) "solidity/law" other
than as expressed within interpretive/karmic parameters . . .
So that "scientific" attempts to find laws and formulas with which to
"define reality" or "truth" or their aspects would really be no more than
collective/individual, dualistic, interpretive, manasic/karmic versions of
"possible reality," in "essence" . . .
Meaning that "logical science" can, at best, in effect, chase its own
dualistic/logical tail throughout eternity . . .
How else would we have "real-enough," and "meaningful-enough" morals,
ethics, creativity, learning experiences within the "possibilities" of "free
will" . . .
Mark wrote:
<<<<"we" (re: Monads) have all been elementals, minerals, vegetables,
humans, superhumans, logoii, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, Divinities, etc, again
and again, innumerable times over in the "spaces of space" and the "times of
time?" >>>>>
Yes, but those definitions of "how we were" and "might be" are all
interlocked parts in keeping with our individual/collective worldview . . .
and so, as such, don't necessarily mean anything more "particularly
siginificant" than the meaning of a cog in a system of various cogs and
wheels . . . And, yet, we're "free" to assign whatever significance we
desire to . . . to whatever . . . Which is as it "should be" . . .
That is, the parts of any "established worldview" are (obviously?) necessary
for its maintenance . . . So (obviously?) the "esoteric significance"
"transcending" those parts is what Theosophy is all about, basically . . .
The rehashing of the parts in various cloaks could go on indefinitely . . .
but that rehashing process, itself, might "help," might be "inspirational"
and lead to something "more meaningful" and "more realistic" . . . maybe . .
. And so we have "Theosophy," for example, as we know of it . . .
Speculatively,
Mauri



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]