Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00720)

Mar 30 2005

Re: Who questions or "speculates?" 

Dear Mauri:

Apart from being a person using the name "Mauri" what capacities does
"Mauri" actually possess?



It's a good idea to doubt one's existence and the probable existence of
everything else, also to speculate endlessly. But where is there any
approach to a usable destination? 

Have you discovered any good rules subsisting for speculation, as a useful
set of tools to use regularly and recurrently to discover facts, truths,
wisdom concerning anything? Can any kind of "stability" arise from
instability?" Or, do they necessarily co-exist? And, if so, what
establishes a bridge between them? Is such a "bridge" necessary? What is
its best use?

Or do we desire really to remain in a chaotic morass of endless uncertainty?
If so, who are "we?"  

Why do we prefer "chaos" to "cosmos?"  

Is "uncertainty" useful and actual?


But as I have said before, if we are just circling and dealing with shadows
and myths, then we might as well go the whole distance and see what happens
if we stop eating, drinking and breathing so as to see what may happen to
our so far organized life in a body we call our own, and see of we can
continue such individual life on mere speculations -- as discorporate minds
studded with question marks.  

Apparently there are several levels of "reality" but if we start (and we all
have to) at some level of partial "reality" (or "truth") we will immediately
enter into conflict with all the rest of the partial realities, and leave
the ultimate REALITY undiscovered -- but still an essential to any
partiality. A kind of necessary background to any objective being,
subjective being, or singularity of existence, or as a "speculator?" 

Something more permanent than any "observer" seems to be essential or the
observer (in its state of self-reality) would not be able to realise its own
limitations even in potential, possibility or probability. For instance,
how does the Gulf Stream differentiate itself from the Atlantic Ocean? How
and why was such a current commenced and perpetuated? When did it start and
when will it end? 

If things and conditions exist, are they not the result of antecedent
causes?


I would also try to state it this way:

Where does an "observer" come from?

Where does it reside?

What are its relations with any other, or a whole host of other "observers"
or "differences," or fields and objects of observation, be they material,
or emotions, or thoughts, or speculations ?

Is it undiscoverable, discoverable or non-existent (if the last, then who,
or what asks questions, and why?).

Is it possible to organize all this or is it to forever remain messy?

Best wishes,


Dallas

================================
 
-----Original Message-----

From: Mauri 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:38 AM
To: 
Subject: Re passing through student and seeker modes



I'm speculating that sense and truths 
and reality might be seen (in some 
cases, if not very generally ...) as 
having a relational/interpretive aspect 
or "apparent basis" per whatever 
"karmic/interpretive influence/tendency" 
("selective" quotes per interpretive 
variability), so that one person's 
sense, truth or reality could be 
another's whatever, basically, or "in a 
sense"... (except maybe where more 
stability might be somewhat generally 
desired by way of "broader terms" as per 
worldviews, eg, where "sense making" 
and "mutual agreements" might be seen to 
"facilitate coping" in terms of "life in 
general" ...).

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS in keeping with my attempts to turn 
over a newer leaf, I first wrote the 
preceding with no quotes in it at all, 
but then, while rereading that paragraph 
my "sense making" ("apparently"...) sort 
of suggested I put them in there as a 
way of attempting to suggest (at least 
"selectively") something or other about 
what I tend to see ("apparently"...) as 
a kind of "basically interpretive nature 
of things in general," but where "some 
things" might be "selected" or 
interpreted as having a "too obviously 
interpretive/Mayavic aspect in terms 
of r/Reality," and so might be "better 
off" in quotes, at least ... or "at 
least," no matter how oddly "selective" 
they might appear to be. 


Alternatively, I guess I could put everything in 
quotes (short of using no quotes at all, 
like they might do in Tibet, apparently 
...), but then I really don't see how I 
could attempt to be "more specific" that 
way about "intended meaning re 
'keyishness of interpretive aspects'" in 
certain kinds of contexts (as "per 
Theosophical modeling," eg ...). Not 
convinced? How about the use of quotes 
as reminders to "read between some 
lines," maybe (if "exoteric versions" 
are not seen to be in short supply 
during one's Theosophical studies 
...)... ?

===================================

DTB	I don't see what the method of presentation of words has to do with
the ideas behind and within them.

===================================