Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00176)

John, your latest post about UFO/visitor 
topics seems to be basically compatible with 
my speculations, apparently, unless I'm not 
taking something into account that I couldn't 
figure out, overlooked, or ... I might read 
your post again and maybe find something else 
in it.

Here's some speculation, next, that I have 
trouble wording "sensibly enough."

What if one had to go from a to g, and what 
if one's route/means of getting between those 
two points were by way of a to b to c to d to 
e to f to g (ie, at least in terms of one's 
anticipated route in terms of one's 
current/apparent worldview); but what if 
one's definition of one's "accustomed route" 
were found to be (at some point) essential 
subservient to what might be called "karma," 
say, (as from a "Higher" perspective?) and 
what if there were, say, a "Higher" 
perspective that were found to transcend 
one's memory of one's accustomed route and 
worldview ("transcend" as per whatever 
"karmic effect," say ...); so that, while one 
might "verifiably" (ie, by way of whatever 
"accustomed worldview/logic") "appear" to be 
taking one's route as by way of a "logical 
enough/reassuring" path of a,b,c,d,e,f,g, 
what if the definition of "accustomed 
worldview" were, in essence, not edged in 
stone at all, but wholly plastic, in keeping 
with whatever "karmic dimensions" there might 
be that might, per whatever "karmic 
effects," affect one's "realer" path (that 
might be visible only from a "Higher" 
perspective?)... so that, in other words, 
what if one's definition of any particular 
route, perception, definition, worldview, 
Theosophy, speculation, etc, etc, were, in 
"reality," far more i/Immediate in terms of 
"karmic effects" than might be "customarily 
apparent" per whatever "lower" 
("ordinary/customary") worldview ...

In other words, I'm wondering if one's path 
from a to g might only "appear" to be 
"logical" because of one's "accustomed 
worldview," but what if there were a broader 
perspective, or "Higher" perstpective, say, 
that were to show that, in essence, all of 
one's paths, thoughts, activities are 
essentially plastic in terms of not being 
slaves to anything but "newer-and-newer" or 
"current karma" in the sense that "memories" 
of "logical" and "accustomed" paths might be 
discovered to be no more than "logical 
results" of whatever worldview one is 
('individually/collectively') "currently 
subscribing to" (in terms of being "karmic 
with," as it were); so that, while one's 
"logical" routes may be "remembered" well 
enough, what if such memories were discovered 
to be no more than essentially plastic, 
highly current "sense makings" (per whatever 
individual/collective "worldview" that might 
SEEM "stable enough, generally speaking") 
rather than representative of anything 
"Realer" from a "Higher" perspective: 
meaning (in "what if" terms) that, in effect, 
while one might be thinking in terms going by 
way of: a,b,c,d,e,f,g, one's Broader 
perspective might, instead, eg, show that one 
might be "really" going by way of, eg: 
c,d,a,e,f b,g, or whatever route that may 
"apprear to be logical" to, in effect, one's 
"lower" perspective ...

Of course I don't know if any of that made 
any kind of "sense" to anybody from any kind 
of perspective. Sorry about the confusing, 
redundant, etc, wording. Anyway, I think I 
was trying to "make sense" out of "apparent 
anomolies." But of if one's anomolies insist 
on being anomolies, well ... ^:-/ ...

Speculatively,
Mauri