Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00238)

Hi Mauri,

Ha, ha, ha, That's about the funniest I've heard yet. 

There used to be a very serious sounding, straight face standup comic on 
radio and the early days of television who talked like you write. He called 
himself "The Professor." He had long, halo-like gray hair, and wore a lab coat 
that made him look like Dr. Einstein. Everything he said sounded like it made 
sense, since he coined words that had beginning and endings of real words and 
combined words with opposite meanings that sounded like real words, and used 
nouns as verbs that fitted into sentences that seemed to make sense... But, when 
he answered a question (which he sometimes asked himself) and gave very 
serious sounding, long convoluted and logically sounding answers with many 
questioning, non sequitur and ambiguous asides, no one could understand what he was 
talking about... Actually, his whole act was gut busting funny, because he was so 
serious about it all, and always looked a bit confused when he heard the 
laughter, but acted even more confident -- which made the laughing even more 
uproarious. The funniest part was that the straight man (sometimes Ed Sullivan or 
Milton Berle) who he was talking to on stage, always acted as if he understood 
everything he said, and kept feeding him apparently confirmatory questions or 
interjections that kept him going full steam ahead. (Incidentally, I once met 
him offstage, and he turned out to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable 
guy who spoke impeccable English and knew a lot about science and philosophy. 
BTW, I also played his straight man once, when my father booked him for a show 
at our resort hotel back in the early forties. I had all I could do to keep a 
straight face. Sorry. if you reminded me of him. :-) 

So, are you just practicing to take over his act, or are you really out to 
confuse everyone here by writing the same way he talked -- beating around the 
bush with all sorts of cooked up words, non sequiturs and qualifiers, and never 
directly answering or asking a question pertinent to what people are actually 
studying or interested in? 

Question: Just to clear the air and set the record straight -- (and maybe get 
a few more chuckles when we hear the answer:-)... How can the words exoteric 
and esoteric be joined together to make a single adjective 
("exoteric/esoteric") describing "theosophical discussions," when the meanings of these 
individual words are essentially opposites? Besides, the only person here that appears 
interested in considering either of them, in combination or otherwise, seems 
to be you. (And, now me, since I got caught in your net of circular reasoning 
-- that always seems to lead nowhere -- at least in relation to theosophy, or 
the subject of any discussion here.:-)

Anyway, I still get a kick about how you managed to talk about trying to 
eliminate qualifiers by adding more qualifiers that confuse your comments even 
further. It's really funny, and if I were still in show business, I would think 
about becoming your agent. But these days, you would have to practice a l
ittle more, maybe by listening to some old takes of the Professor, and come up 
with a funny enough costume and demeanor that would fit in with today's cool hip 
video world. :-)

Actually, I hope you know that most of this is just kidding around. :-) 

But, even though I know you are having a bit of fun writing your missiles (as 
I am when I sometimes answer them:-), I still think you should take my 
earlier advice, and get a bit more serious about using this forum for direct 
discussion about theosophy, and keep your speculations and roundabout rambling -- 
that never seem to make a great deal of sense to many of us -- to yourself. 

Not to be dictating any rules, of course... :-)

And, Not to say that you don't sometimes make good sense in what you say -- 
if one can somehow pay close attention and slip around or over some of the 
qualifiers, ambiguous words and But/buts... etc. :-)

Best wishes,
Leon

In a message dated 10/19/03 10:07:54 PM, mhart@i... writes:

>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