Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00212)

Mauri (that's me, I think) wrote: <<Yes, 
perceived/interpretive "applicablity" 
in communications and 
"life-experiencing," in whatever sense, 
is, or can be seen as, "aliveness," 
among other things, seems to me. >>

Seems to me that that word 
"applicability" could (if somewhat 
tangentially ... ^:-/) be seen in terms 
of a b/Broader definition ... or how 
about in terms of applications per 
"b/Broader" notions ... ^:-/ ... Or 
something like that ...

I seem to be thinking that much of 
"aliveness" per "the human perspective" 
might be seen/"seen" ("seen per" "basics 
re" "applicability"...) ... might be 
seen in terms of what might be called 
(if somewhat tangentially) as "its 
essential applicability:" eg, in 
Theosophy there is "karma," which might 
be seen, seems to me, in terms of 
"basic" ("partly karmic"...) notions re 
"applicability" in terms of "where we're 
at" in terms of "our understanding" in 
terms of a number of other interpretive, 
thematic versions, models, worldviews, 
Theosophies, etc, each of which, seems 
to me, could be seen to have a common, 
binding "aspect re applicability in 
terms of understanding" and in terms of 
such as "aliveness, in general" (though 
"aliveness" might be seen to have a 
somewhat b/Broader applicability, in 
general, than various "more specific" 
forms of "understandings" ...).

In other words, in as much as the human 
aspect or function of thinking or 
"understanding" is seen to bind/create 
reality content in, say, "karmic terms" 
or "per karmic influences" (with 
whatever intermediating, interpretive, 
"human" aspects re "Chaos" and "free 
will," say ...), and in as much as if 
"human nature" is seen to involve (per 
karmic/interpretive mediumship) reality 
content that would be seen, essentially, 
as "in relation to human reality," then, 
seems to me, such "relationality" or 
"linking by 
perception/interpretation/karma," could 
be seen as being "essentially 
applicable" (ie, whether we choose to 
call that kind of applicability 
"Karmic," "Mayavic," "Theosophic," or 
whatever).

I seem to suspect that what we humans 
call "seeing" might be seen to amount to 
that "seeing" or "sense of reality" 
because of the "essentially applicable" 
("karmic") "nature" (per "thinking") of 
such experiencing/seeing, as if we 
humans, in general, were bound in a way 
that "applies to us specifically," or 
bound, that is, "karmically" (isn't the 
word karma synonymous with notions about 
"what applies"...).

And so I tend to suspect that the 
Esoteric Tradition and Theosophy are 
essentially applicable features within 
"human," karmic reality, that the ET/T 
are promoting ways and means by which 
humans might transcend the nature of 
such "apparent applications" or 
"apparent reality."

In other words, if I remember correctly, 
even mainstream science seems to have 
"proved" that, at the "most sub-atomic" 
levels (ie, in "bottom-line terms," as 
it were ...), the viewer has an effect 
on the viewed. So if that "effect" were 
viewed as "applicable" re ... whatever ...

Speculatively,
Mauri