Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00404)

I think you're nuts. But, who am I -- (even though Descarte said, "Cogito 
ergo sum" - "I think, therefore I am")? Does that make sense? But, then, 
you may be interpretively right... Speculatively, or uncertainly, that is. 
It seems that Maya can play tricks on all of us. BUt, who's she? </:-)> 

In a message dated 03/22/02 2:09:37 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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