Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00142)

Leon (or maybe I'll just refer to you with 
"L," seeing as your sign-off name keeps 
changing these days...), before I might get 
you even more ... whatever, would you believe 
that, for a start, I'd like to sort of take 
my hat off in response to your description 
about your efforts during ww2 ... ? My mind 
tended to boggle reading that post from you.

:-) See, I didn't even scratch my head, for 
a change! I didn't even say "speculatively!" 
Not that I can particularly identify with 
those kinds of war time experiences from 
first hand, seeing as all that was before my 
time. That's one of the posts I'm saving on 
a CD so I might quote from it, if I may, 
whenever ...

Leon wrote: <<Are your sure? Or, is that 
another speculation? >>

Excellent comment, seems to me, L, in that 
"speculation" might do with some defining ... 
So, speculatively speaking, as I tend to see 
it, speculation to me seems like a somewhat 
more honest way of saying "thinking 
more-specifically" (strange as it may seem?), 
although "thinking," of course, might do with 
some "more specific" defining, as well, 
especially as per whatever "intended/ 
contextual" sense ... But since we all tend 
to think somewhat differently, (especially 
about esotericy things, apparently) I think 
I'll leave that kind of defining alone, for 
now (you might be glad to know?): Seems I 
have already, in general, per my past 
perfomance on these lists, used too many 
qualifiers and gone on too many tangents, as 
it is, apparently, (as per ...), so ... Not 
that that wasn't a circular answer, 
admittedly, but ... what can I say ... Sorry. 
It's tough trying to stay on this 
"speculative middle way" of mine without ... 
whatever. ^:-/ Sorry.

<<When we talk about the fundamental "nature" 
of "who we are" (our real self or
higher ego) "reincarnation," "manvantara," 
"karma," etc. -- we are considering 
"esoteric" things or ideas that are 
essentially, absolute -- since they are
immutable aspects of universal evolution 
based on fundamental Law (ref: 2nd
fundamental principle). Therefore, such 
"absolutes" cannot "tend to vary" or be
subject to change over periods of time (other 
than the change of state or cyclic phenomena 
of the illusory conditioned reality they 
experience as they manifest out of their 
unconditioned reality or noumena). In other 
words, these ideas are the fundamental basis 
of theosophy that must precede any discussion 
relegated to the metaphysics of their 
manifestation. I hope this ends the 
confusion of conflating absolute or esoteric 
absolute realities with the exoteric 
explanation of their illusory change of 
condition. I suppose that is what you mean 
by agreeing "in a sense." >>>

Yes, I tend to agree that there is that 
"essentially absolute" aspect/appearance, (at 
least in terms of a certain kind of apparent 
"absolute" sense), to such as you describe. 
I meant to say that the more mundane "self" 
nature does, I suspect, tend to change "more 
obviously over time," much as we all tend to 
acknowledge self-changes as we get older. Not 
that I'm saying you're any older than you 
are,L! 39, maybe ...? ^:-)

<<Theories are not labels.>>

I tend to see theories as "labels, in a 
sense," in broader terms, in certain contexts.

<<And, if such theories are valid as such,
they must deal with concepts that can be 
argued, falsified or proven either
scientifically or logically.>>

"Agreed" within whatever parameters one has 
opted for per whatever conditions/dependent 
arisings, karma. But I was under the 
impression that there might be some aspect of 
Theosophics that might tend to promote a 
b/Broader view as by way of such as 
"transcending karma" (which seems, to me, to 
be a reference to some form of transcending 
of "essential duality"---where the quotes 
refer [among other things ...] to the 
essentially interpretive---and possibly 
confusing?--- aspect of such labeling).

<<Since, ABC refers to the evolution of the 
manifest universe it must be exoteric in its 
explanations, >>

I tend to agree and, in terms of what I think 
I can at least "speculate about" your ABC's, 
I tend to congratulate you, L, in a sense, to 
an extent. Did you read about my speculative 
"Theory of Immediacy" on Theosophy Study 
List? Not that it's anything like a "regular 
enough" theory, so, true enough, calling it a 
"theory" might be, to say the least, 
misleading. Basically, I was wondering if 
anybody could formulate something that starts 
with (where "I" stands for "i/Immediacy" in a 
sense that might have to be somewhat 
"transcendentally/yet exoterically defined," 
to start with): I= .....? What I have on 
TSL, after "I=", is in words that, I suspect, 
might all to generally tend to fail to convey 
much of anything I thought I might've/might 
had/have speculatively in mind. I just use 
words in my theories. At least I warned you, 
L. I seem to think kind of like when they 
say in real estate sales that "location is 
everything," except I seem to think 
interpretation is everything when it comes to 
reading worded theories, besides which, 
seeing as I'm rather "speculatively 
inclined," well ... ^:-/ ... So maybe I 
should apologize for having even as much as 
used the word "theory" in reference to ... 
whatever. Sorry ^:-(


<<The five proofs of string theory have 
already been boiled down to one proof
-- since they each saw the same thing from 
different points of view. That's
the nature of string theory's 
multidimensional mathematics before they 
added superstring and M-brane theories to it. >>

Thanks for that, L. Interesting.

M<<I tend to agree, in a sense ...>>

<<Happy to hear it. But, I wonder in what 
sense?>>

Sorry about that. Seems like a relevant 
question from you about "what sense." 
Problem here seems to be that, seeing as I'm 
trying to turn over some kind of newer leaf 
(would you believe?), I'm resisting the 
temptation these days to offer more of those 
"excessive" qualifiers that seem to have 
prevented a number of my posts from appearing 
on a certain list (among other things), so 
... ^:-/ ... Seems I'm kind of stuck between 
a rock and a hard place, in a sense ... Sorry 
about having so many problems communicating. 
At the same time, mind you, I tend to be 
grateful for the moderator of that "certain 
list" for speaking out, much like I tend to 
be grateful to you, L, for offering me 
"something more challenging" in your way.
Not that I'm particularly addicted to what I 
take for challenges, I like to think. But, 
to an extent, in a sense ... ^:-/ ...

<<I'm beginning to wonder what's on the other 
side of that leaf?>>

Excellent question in that I'm wondering, too 
...^:-/ ... One of these days, maybe ...

<<Repeating words with and without quotes 
makes very little sense to me. So, being 
totally confused about what you just said, I 
have no comment.>>

Well, that paragraph ^:-/ ... Even Gerald 
might have some trouble with that one, I 
suspect ^:-)

<<Ditto.>>

Again? ^:-/ So I better not quote those two 
paragraphs here again.

<<... I got bogged down in "mayavic logic out 
of dependent arisings" that
IS essentially simplistic/mayavistic ???) As 
far as I know, there are either
real things or unreal things. What are 
"Realer things"? >>

The following is the direct quote from my 
earlier post that, apparently, seems to have 
led to that response (at least partly?):

<<Not that I'm trying to denigrate certain
kinds of "scientific advances towards a
theory of everything." I'm just wondering if 
there are scientists or people out there who 
might "understand" something about the basics 
of dependent arisings, because I suspect that 
once a certain kind of "understanding" (note 
quotes) sets in, sort of intuitively, then, I 
suspect, the circular, never ending (mayavic) 
logic out of dependent arisings might be seen
in it's essential simplicity/mayavicity and 
might then be given a rest, for a change, in 
favor of "Realer things" that might be 
experienced once mayavic things are 
transcended.>>>

The "Realer things" was a comparative 
reference to whatever one might experience 
when having whatever kind of "more direct 
esoteric/occult" experience of, say, "planes" 
other then this 
"earthly/materialistic/dualistic/ordinary" 
one, which kinds of planes are, 
(apparently?), somewhat "less dualistic" than 
what most humans are used to, I gather ... I 
have no memory of having been "on other 
planes," so seems I'm kind of reduced to 
speculating about them. I would be glad to be 
corrected by those who have been "on" such 
planes. "Dependent arisings" is translated 
wording from Mahayanic Tibetan Buddhism, 
unless I'm mistaken, referring to the ongoing 
nature of relativity, or relative reality, or 
dualistic reality, all of which are 
references, unless I'm mistaken, to what is 
known as "Mayavic" in the Esoteric Tradition.

<<That's what we have been saying all along 
about models that try to explain
"theosophy" in simpler, scientifically 
oriented language and images that make it
easier for people to understand who get 
bogged down in the complexities of the SD's 
metaphysics. How else can we transcend 
remnants of karma if we don't understand its 
fundamental roots? HPB wasn't talking to 
people who already know and understand the 
fundamental causes of reincarnation and karma 
and how they relate to their present 
conditions of life. Neither am I when I 
present a model that clarifies the 
metaphysics behind those concepts. >>>

I tend to agree and congratulate you, L, if 
speculatively, especially as you point out 
about superstring/M-brane as a kind of 
successor, qualifier (apparently?) of the 
five earlier superstring variables or 
"proofs," and especially if your ABC's might 
tally with such as that "Universe as a 
Hologram" article per:

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html
http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html
http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html
http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm#Time
http://twm.co.nz/Noetic_Sci.html#noetic
http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html#neurophysiologist
http://twm.co.nz/pribram.htm
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#David
http://twm.co.nz/kwilb_eyspir.html#maya
http://twm.co.nz/shel_morfields.htm#Rupert
http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm#Perception
http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm#Fabric%20of
http://twm.co.nz/ISSS_synchr.html

I have yet to see what's in the sites 
following the first site on that list.

<<But, I don't think it's so good to confuse 
others -- (who may think you know what you 
are talking about since your writing is so 
convoluted and full of authentic sounding 
jargon) -- with "speculations with lots of 
reservations" that never come to any useful 
conclusions pertinent to what they are 
studying or interested in knowing. >>>

^:-/ ... I hope that symbol isn't too 
"authentic sounding." And maybe I ought to 
use the word "speculatively" more often ... 
^:-/ ... Of course that's my symbol for a 
confused, speculative guy who thought he 
might've had something relevant enough to 
say, but wound up more or less scratching his 
head, instead. L, are you telling me that 
I'm "authentic sounding" and "speculative" 
all at the same time, or ...
^:-/ ... And if you could tell me which parts 
you suspect might be regarded by whoever as 
too "authentic sounding," from your 
perspective, then maybe I could fix it so 
that kind of thing doesn't happen too often 
again? Any helpfull comments from those who 
tangentially think I'm "authentic sounding" 
would be speculatively appreciated by me.

<<All that does is get them spinning in the 
opposite direction and crashing into 
themselves. (That is, if they are dumb enough 
to take what you say seriously
in the first place.) >>

I think maybe I already kind of might've sort 
of speculatively responded to something like 
that, maybe, unless ... ^:-/ I hope that 
sentence wasn't too "authentic sounding" or 
anything ... ^:-/ ...

M<<I suspect that what we "ordinarily" think 
of as "karma" doesn't "work that way, 
exactly," in the sense that, as I see it, 
"proving" is "karmic," and "karma" is 
"essentially circular," so ... ^:-/ ... so I 
tend to suspect that you, L, might be barking 
up the wrong tree, in a sense, to an extent, 
maybe, whenever you look for proof "beyond a 
shadow of a doubt," unless you're "knowingly" 
restricting such proof making to the realm of 
dependent arisings---where all such shadows
> and proofs have their mayavic reality.>>
<<The above statement is a perfect example of 
this circular illogic -- so I don't know why 
I am even bothering to comment on any of 
it.:-) Guess i have nothing better to do 
tonight -- and the TV movies are all old hat. >>

Same here about the old hat TV movies, and 
it's kind of late here, too, so ... yawn, 
maybe I'll get back to this tomorrow ...

This is "tomorrow" ... Well, in this case 
those quotes are meant to refer to my 
impression that "this is today, actually, 
but, from the perspective of yesterday, this 
is 'tomorrow' " Of course there's so many 
different senses in which quotes could be 
meant in, and if one fails to get across 
enough about the intended senses of one's 
quotes, well ... ^:-/ ... So, in my case, 
what with my "excessive" qualifiers, tangents 
and what not, gee ... ^:-/ ... But at least 
I'm trying to turn over some kind of newer 
leaf, eh, L?

<<(Whatever you're talking about...?)>>

Yes, whatever, and sometimes I seem to be 
talking about "whatever," in quotes, the 
difference being (well, speculatively 
speaking, of course) that ... Seems there 
might be at least two main classes of quotes 
I seem to often make use of, sort of, at 
least "intentionally" as oppposed to ... 
whatever:

1. quotes suggesting ... kind of like in 
that paragraph about "tomorrow," "yesterday 
" and ...

2. quotes meant to keyishly, or "keyishly," 
suggest that some "intended" meanings (where 
the quotes refer to the interpretive/creative 
meaning of "intended") ... that some 
"intended" meanings are meant, in whatever 
contextual sense (meanings that were, quite 
possibly, also "intended"---if somewhat 
speculatively, in some cases, maybe) ... so, 
in my posts, some "intended" meanings are 
meant, in whatever contextual sense, as 
having (or at least "appearing to have," per 
... whoever, apparently) at least two aspects 
or "intended" meanings:

1. what might be called "more like a 
mainstream" kind of meaning that, in 
comparative terms, might be referred to as 
"exoteric" ...

2. what might be called "less like a 
mainsream" kind of "intended" meaning that 
might be called, in comparative terms ... 
(well, "in comparative terms," in a sense 
....) ... I guess this is where "intended" 
meaning, in this "intended" category, might 
get into a somewhat tricky area, L, in that 
... ^:-/ ... anyway, in short, without 
getting into too many more "excessive" 
qualifiers and tangents, I think I'll just 
say that there are also (per my "speculative 
perspective," at any rate, apparently...) 
"intended" meanings in "quotes" in reference 
to (ie, at least in my posts, and I notice 
Gerald seems to have used some of those kinds 
of quotes, as well) ... in reference to ... 
well, in addition to those "more-exoteric"
quotes, as it were, there are, as I see it, 
what might be called (not that this has 
nothing to do with "personal preference," of 
course!) ... what might be called ... uh, 
yes, I was saying: what might be called a 
"more esoteric" meaning, in whatever 
"intended/contextual sense" that ... except 
that, since, apparently, there are "esoteric 
meanings" that (apparently?) are somewhat 
"more realistically" explainable only after 
one has directly, (or at least "more 
directly," one might suppose, possibly ...) 
had some kind of esoteric/occult "directful 
experience" in whatever "related context" in 
whatever "direct-enough sense," I guess ... 
so, unfortunately, if you, L, eg, want some 
kind of "exoteric enough" explanation about 
someone's "intended/esotericy explanation" 
... well, that might, often times, at best, 
come out (I suspect) with ... whatever, not 
to mention "excessive" qualifiers and 
tangents ... ^:-/ ... I tend to suspect ...

Anyway, I hope that brief explanation helped. 
If it didn't, I guess if you might, or might 
not, let me know about whatever, maybe, 
unless ... Actually, I reread that last 
paragraph, and, admittedly, it does tend to 
seem kind of ... ^:-/ ... not that my 
"intended" meaning in it isn't intact enough, 
as far as I can see. Sorry about that and, 
yes, admittedly, I need to work on turning 
over some kind of newer leaf.

<<Hopeless... I'm caught up in your 
assumptuous "karmic connections" that are
esoteric/exoteric, mayavic/unrealer, and 
maybe... Not that... I quit -- before it 
gets me too...Loony>>

Apparently that post you're referring to 
didn't go over too well. Thanks for letting 
me know about all that. I'm telling myself 
that I'm learning, and so maybe one of these 
days, I'm speculating, I might surprise you 
with some kind of newer leaf, maybe ... 
sorry, I think I just said that ... ^:-/ ... 
Not that I feel confident enough just yet to 
promise anything much in particular, though, 
unfortunately. To tell the truth, I don't 
seem to be too sure, just yet, just what 
direction my "newer leaf" might take, 
exactly, so ...

Speculatively, and with best wishes,(ie, 
without quotes, in this case),
Mauri