Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00834)

I think I have permission to quote Somebody as long as I 
don't mention that author's name, so: 

<<Incidentally the distinction between phenomena 
(experience) and the noumena (objectibe reality) is not 
something discovered by me. It has been written about 
by philosophers in the west since the seventeenth century 
and is generally accepted by scientists today. It is also 
fundamental to Blavatsky's SD. although I have yet to 
meet a Theosophist who understands what she says about 
it.>>

Uh, I hope I'm not interrupting this list's meditation 
session, or anything. 

I write because it occurred to me that 
"objective/subjective" might be seen in terms of 
"matter/mental," or even, by extension, as 
"matter/mental/spirit," maybe. . . So if "noumena" (in 
terms of such as "intended reference to whatever might 
be the ground from which we establish our every-day 
reality," say . . .) is seen as "related to spirit," ("spirit" in 
terms of such as "intended reference to whatever might 
be the ground from which we establish our every-day 
transcendent reality," say . . .), then . . . one might 
speculate/theorize/t/Theosophize about the senses in 
which such as "objective reality" might be seen . . . 

If "objective reality" is seen in terms of "being 
noumenal," (as per Theosophy, say?), isn't that kind of 
statement comparable to such as: "matter and spirit are 
the same" . . . If so, if "matter and spirit" are "seen as the 
same," (as per Theosophy [?], however that "sameness" 
might be experienced in practice), then . . . one might 
tend to assume (?) that "we" (the "people on this plane") 
are (might be) something like matter/spirit focus points, 
as if we might be the lenses, or the means of tuning in, in 
some sense, (or in some by-productive sense, maybe . . .), 
of some "Higher perspective" or "Higher Self" or 
"Atma-Buddhi" . . .

But if that's what's happening, (in part, in some sense . . 
.), one might ask how is it that we seem to have an 
"individualistic self-sense" . . . That is, could that 
"individualistic self sense" be, from an alternative 
"Higher perspective," something like a dream (or 
by-productive aspect, or the "ray" of Blavatsky . . .) from 
the point of view of that "Realer we" . . .

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Really, I was just kidding (on Theos Talk) about being brianmuehlbach
so as to get some discussions started. Really!