Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00389)

It's like this, I think/speculate (and since my "I think" is an
indication of my "uncertainty" which 
"uncertainty" in turn is "another" "I think" which in 
turn is an indication of my "uncertainty" which in turn 
is "another" "I think" which in turn . . . ) . . . well, anyway, "I
think/speculate" (I think, therefore I think, I think---hmm), not that I
"really know" even 
who/what "I" is, more specifically, other than than 
that "there would seem to be an awareness that would 
seem to have an interpretive 'I'-ness attached to it," 
and so "I think that":

"Humans" (whatever they are "more fundamentally in 
esoteric terms") have created a "continuum" of 
inseparable components" (lock, stock, and barrel), of 
what they call "reality," that's partly visible/known 
(exoteric), and partly invisible/not-known (esoteric): 
And people like HPB/Masters, who offer ("offer" at 
least in basic/interpretive/worldview terms: which 
means that their "reality and terms" in any particular 
systemic/worldview terms is "mayavic" except as 
interpretively found to be meaningfully relating to 
their adopted worldview) who offer "traditional" and 
"esoteric" and "o/Occult" and "t/Theosohical" 
explanations about such as Globes, Rounds, Races, 
Hierarchies, etc., are "really" offering 
interpretive/exoteric extensions and elements of the 
same lock-stock-and-barrel, inseparable, interpretive, "mayavic" (ie,
"evaluative") collection of parts that, in its inseparateness, might be
seen as a continuum, in a sense . . . 

BUT, while they're offering those exoteric, 
interpretive extensions, some of them might "know" 
or "suspect" that a more "fundamental/esoteric 
reality" is simultaneously making the "mayvic" 
less-fundamental/more-interpretive reality "possible" 
(if only in creative/interpretive/evaluative terms) . . . And so what is
the"more fundamental" reality that,
"I tend to suspect," makes various "more-interpretive 
realities" (say?) "possible" . . . "I wonder"---(". . . ") "Hmm."

I suspect that the human tendency is to call that 
reductive/evaluative and significantly "more 
apparently fundamental reality" by names such as 
God, Deity . . . but then, as long as that reality is 
"reductive," even if presumably reductive in 
"esoteric terms" (if that's possible, whatever that 
"really means"), is that reality also "more-fundanental"-enough so that
it can consistently 
go on supporting offshoots ("rays"?) of itself? 
Apparently so, I think/suspect, as per my speculative 
suspicions. "Tsk," in a sense, but not really, maybe . . . 

As for my "drowning" . . . well, only in interpretive,
evaluative, and "highly conditional" terms (eh--about 
which I'm not disclosing anything "more specific" 
"necessarily"!), I think I think, therefore "I think." 
And so I can just as easily say that I'm not drowning: 
I'm not drowning. But my interpretive mindfulness 
may occasionally prod me on as IF I were "sort of" 
"drowning" in some way. Got it? BUT since I'm not 
even saying what "I mean" by "sort of," I'm not really 
giving any kind of "real enough" licence to "get 
it," either, "really!" Which is another way of saying 
that I create my "reality" as I go along, for "better or worse." "I
think."

Speculatively,
Mauri