Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00191)

re: Somebody wrote to me privately and 
kindly pointed out that my qualifiers were 
"excessive." So ... uh, here's the "new 
me," in a sense, maybe, I hope (if somewhat 
speculatively, alas):

Since, to me, Theosophic discussions seem to 
have a somewhat general tendency to revolve 
around, if not "in," what might be loosely 
termed "exoteric/esoteric," there would seem 
to be, (or is, in my case, as I see it, if 
somewhat speculatively), a general tendency 
among many participants on these lists to 
find words to express, imply, or, in effect, 
"point to," the inexpressible or "heart 
aspects" of Theosophy. Apparenlty that kind 
of effort can, at times, be seen, by some, to 
lead to what was referred to as "excessive 
qualifications" (or "qualifiers," seeing as 
my "qualifications" might be somewhat 
generally seen as rather speculative, at 
best?). In other words, as I see it, one may 
feel, (as in my case, apparently), 
that---given the obvious impossibility of 
explaining anything at all about that which 
cannot be explained---one might somehow, 
nevertheless, "to some extent" (note 
optimistic quotes), manage get around such an 
impasse, "to some extent," with the help of 
"enough of certain kinds of qualifiers," as 
it were.

But, true enough, if any and all qualifiers 
are seen in their "exoteric light," (ie, in 
their essentially dualistic "dead letter" 
terms), and if they are not used as jumping 
off points, then, obviously enough, the 
amount, nature or complexity of such 
qualifiers might be seen as all too 
non-sensical, confusing, abstract, etc. 
Which is to say that, as I see it, while the 
effect of minimizing one's qualifiers or 
jumping off points---in such as certain kinds 
of Theosophic discussions---might often tend 
to produce various forms of interpretations 
and interest in the various "occult/esoteric" 
topics of interest, I feel that there might 
be some people who might tend to question 
such interpretations as to whether they are 
in any kind of line, as they see it, with the 
"heart" of the matter, or in keeping with 
what HPB called "the soul of things;" and, 
possibly, as I see it, such questioning (as 
to quality of "heart/soul relevance," as it 
were) might tend to increase, in some cases, 
in adverse proportion to the complexity (in 
terms of "possible relevancies and wisdoms" 
at least "intentionally addressed") of 
qualifers used, not that the reverse is not 
possible, of course.

But of course there are many kinds of 
motives, evaluative tendencies, averages, 
woldviews, perspectives and karma that might 
be seen as tending to govern the various 
general directions and flavors of various 
Theosophic mediums, and so, as I seem to have 
found out, there might be a general tendency 
toward a kind of "minimizing of qualifiers," 
(in keeping with the apparent nature of a 
particular list, eg) that might be somewhat 
generally seen as "more applicable." Thanks 
[Somebody] for pointing that out. 
Unfortunately, unlike HPB and company, I have 
no pull, comparatively speaking (or, in 
other words, no pull without "enough 
qualifiers," I suspect, for better or worse), 
so ... ^:-/ ... That, of course, is my symbol 
for a confused guy who thought he might've 
had something important enough to say, but 
might've scrambled it all up in his 
qualifiers, at least for some readers, so ... 
Hmm ...

Speculatively,
Mauri