Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00036)

Here's my "somewhat broader and detached" (as opposed 
to "somewhat logically speculative" . . . ?) manner of 
expressing myself:

The word "logic" might've popped up a few times on this 
list, recently . . Apparently we all individually evaluate 
what seem to us to be our "logical" thoughts, processes, 
(even "logical feelings," in some sense?). Apparently, we 
occasionally "disagree" about some things in some "logic 
related" manner . . . I suppose that experiencing various 
"logical" aspects of "disagreeing/agreeing" is part of 
being "human" at the current level. Well, whatever that 
"human" might "logically" mean to us "individually." So . . 
.

But if the disagreements seem extreme, then is that 
necessarily an indication that no kind of meaningful and 
constructive enough exchange of information is possible in 
any way . . . I suspect that, even then, on some level, 
there might be a possibility of some kind of meaningful 
and constructive enough exchange of something: It may 
not amount to muich by some mainstream standards, 
but/"but" . . .

For example, if we (some of us?) disagree with a "close 
family member," say, do we necessarily say so, or do we 
try to see into a particular issue from another person's 
"possible perspective," and then try to respond in keeping 
with our speculations about how we might be "more 
applicable" or "diplomatic" in the matter, given the 
apparent difficulty of the situation; although . . . Not that 
there are no "apparent enough" brick walls: After all, this 
seems to be (is?) a "dualistic" world as per our mainstream 
worldview . . . (Talking about "close family members": If 
Theosophy would have it that we're all "brothers," I 
wonder how the "sisters" might feel about that . . . )

And (apparently?) the kind of world we're in 
("karmic/dualistic") on the whole tends to present us with 
plenty of "real enough" challenges? So I wonder if those 
"realistic" kinds of challenges might be in keeping with 
both our conscious and "sub conscious" notions about 
such as "karma," "manas," "reality," etc . . . That is, how 
could our "real" be "real enough" for us if it weren't 
"challenging enough" for us in some apparently "relevant 
enough" or "pressing enough" (or "karmic enough") sense 
. . . And so we have "karmic/relevant/logical" exchanges 
between people while disagreeing, agreeing, 
compromising, or whatever, in whatever sense . . .

If we regard "karma" as "real enough" how can we not 
have various kinds of "karmic" exchanges and 
experiences. But let's say IF our perception were to 
suggest to us that things are not challenging enough for us 
(not "karmic enough," in a sense), then wouldn't some of 
us complain about that, or get frustrated about that kind of 
situation in some way, much like some rich people, or 
people with "time on their hands," who might react 
adversely to their boredom . . .

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS I wonder if the possession of worldly riches (in 
whatever comparative terms) might tend to often, in many 
cases, indicate a predominance of karmic involvements, 
or "karmic riches," in a sense (which "riches," in turn, 
would of course play out in various ways) . . .