Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00124)

samblo@cs.com wrote:
<<Mauri, Stop! I'm trying to quit! My 
sides are hurting too much! Lol! 
"multiperspectivalistisistic" John>>>

Sorry, John, it seemed like a perfectly 
good word, sort of. Not that I can 
pronounce it, but ... Anyway, to get 
back to that multiper topic (re your 
other letter, John, and Paul's letter), 
seems to me that the Theosophical 
Movement has been sort of eating its 
cake and keeping it in the fridge or 
freezer at the same time, in that, in a 
sense, as I tend to see it, while there 
might be whatever kinds of 
interpretations out there about ES or 
esotericy interpretations in general 
(I'm thinking there might be some keyish 
aspects of Theosophy involved per ES, in 
some ways or senses) , at the same time 
the Movement, per it's "b/Broader" 
objectives, would seem to be saying, in 
a sense, as I tend to see it , that one 
need only have, first, "good-enough 
basic" intentions (more about that 
"sense" shortly) in order to become a 
Theosophist, basically, (and not just a 
"student of Theosophy"), as if such 
"basic good-enough" (to be a 
Theosophist) could be somehow "good 
enough" if it could be somehow 
Theosophically translated or modeled 
(ie, in significant contrast to modeling 
by way of direct experiences of "higher 
planes," seems to me) into a behaviour 
and language that would be seen to at 
least have the potential of creating 
"brotherhood" among other things (to use 
a somewhat 19th century term), and 
somehow Theosophically translated into 
some kind of "collective wisdom" or some 
kind of "collective sense of wisdom," 
(per whatever "Theosophic" perspective, 
as if that name, alone, made some 
difference) that might be (at least 
potentially ...) appreciated sort of 
multiperspectivilistically. (Thanks, 
Paul, for that interesting word.)

I guess I'm saying that some student's 
of Theosophy might tend to sort of 
"intuitively know," for a start, 
something or other about the kind of 
differences in people that might tend to 
have some effect on how Theosophy might 
be perceived collectively vs. 
individually, or just individually, and 
so might tend to voice their opinions 
(as in Paul's case, as in my case, as in 
so many cases), thought the "voicing," 
itself, might come out, in turn, in 
various ways, needing more 
interpretation, and ... Seems like a 
never-ending story ...

I'm tending to speculate about how 
Theosophical literature might be 
somewhat generally seen as portraying 
the "successes and failures" (among 
other things) of collective vs 
individual interpretations. And I 
suppose there might be a kind of 
somewhat objectified bottom line in such 
multi interpretations in keeping with 
how one might interpret broader meanings 
in whatever "more specific" senses, as 
John has just demonstrated in that other 
post of his. Thanks, John, for all 
those intermediating, conciliating 
comments---which kinds of comments might 
often enough seem applicable enough even 
without much assessing/evaluating the 
relevance of whatever "other hands" 
there may be, per whoever---"applicable" 
especially among those taking an 
interest in Theosophy, seems to me. Not 
that that kind of perceived 
applicability might not be a "good" 
thing even in its bare-boned form (and 
even without quotes, I guess ...), sort 
of basically ...

After all, in as much as reality content 
on this plane might often tend to be 
seen, interpreted as kind of varied, 
basically, in keeping with various 
interpretive contexts, seems to me that 
the Theosophical Movement might benefit 
from some efforts to find common 
denominators that might have the effect, 
or that might be seen as having the 
effect, of creating whatever "real 
enough" bridges there might be seen to 
be (in whatever "applicable" sense) 
that might at least keep us humans from 
killing each other off, more or less, 
among other things, for a while longer, 
and ... who knows ... Not to mention 
whatever other possibilities there may 
be in a "more positive" vein, even, 
maybe, as per Theosophy.

In other words, in as much as Theosophy 
is seen to offer Wisdom, and not just 
small w wisdom, how could it miss ... ! 
That is, not that "Wisdom" might not 
often tend to get defined in so many 
ways, but, as per John's comments, maybe 
there's hope by way of some approaches, 
attitudes, ways that might, at times, be 
seen to have the effect of promoting 
"some sort of Theosophical perspective" 
(that might subsequently be refined, as 
one might tend to hope, possibly, in 
some cases ...).

I seem to be under the impression that 
many students of Theosophy might tend to 
generally see themselves as somewhat 
wisely offering interpretive leeway in 
various senses. So while the outcomes 
might be seen to vary, to say the least, 
wouldn't there be or mightn't there be 
something in Theosophy that might be 
seen to have a somewhat transdending 
effect over all the usual conflicting 
opinions ... ie, I wonder if there might 
be some kind of somewhat generally 
perceived or multi-something perception 
or evaluativeness that might have some 
kind of real enough "tanscending effect" 
over typical human conflicts, but 
without having the effect of erasing or 
tending to erase some aspects (or "some 
perceived aspects," maybe) of the 
Esoteric Tradition (and thereby some 
perceived aspects of its Theosophical 
variant) off some of the maps of 
"general availability" to such (ie, not 
that the keyish aspects of such 
Traditions will ever get wiped off 
karmic maps entirely by even "worst case 
scenarios," seems to me, at least 
"exoterically speaking"). I tend to 
suspect that any kind of move to put 
Theosophy under any kind of thumb, real 
enough or imagined, might tend to 
generally have the effect of 
strengthening it in the short or long 
run, per karmic backlashing. But if 
that kind of timing is seen to be out of 
the picture "for all practical 
purposes," in whatever sense, then ...

Speculatively,
Mauri