Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00127)

Friday 6:34 pm  Tucson, AZ

Wow! And I thought it was a hot day in Tucson today! [Please
don't use exclamation points.]

I sign on to my e-mail tonight and all I see are FLAMES.  [Please
don't use CAPS!]

Now I think I understand what they mean by "clique" mentality.
Do I sense a kind of "censorship"?

Yes, I will post part II of my critique on Paul Johnson's books
on Theos- Roots so as to pacify those members of Theos-l who find
such postings "boring", etc., etc.

But with this posting it will go to Theos-l whether anyone reads
it or not.

Please note (if anyone out there is interested enough to read
this):

Whether my posting on THE MASTERS REVEALED was tinged by
"personal" feeling on my part or not, I did deal with certain
"issues" concerning parts of Paul's "thesis" (of course he
doesn't have one) but instead of not responding at all to my
posting or instead focusing on the intellectual issues mentioned
in my posting, Paul focuses on the personal and the emotional.

I really didn't care if P.J.  responded or not.  I was simply
following up on my promise to review his book.  And when I gave
comments months ago on Theos-l (believe or not...) I recieved
about a dozen private e-mail messages from members telling me
that they appreciated the information.  [Did they all belong to
Theos-roots? ???]

Paul J writes: "Free and open discussion is wonderful.  Attacks
that escalate with every attempt at defense only poison the
atmosphere here."

Attacks? Attacks on Paul Johnson as a human being? or "attacks"
[I prefer the word "criticisms"] of P.J.'s "persuasive case."
Rereading my posting I believe I focused on issues and if I
criticized P.J.  "ideas" or "methods" could it not be of P.J.  as
an "author" not as a "human being"?

Paul J says: "I've devoted many hours to responding to your
complaints, by mail, on theos-l, by e-mail.  Clearly, none of
those responses carried any weight with you at all."

Actually, IF my memory serves me, seldom have you ever responded
to the "issues" (historical that is) that I have addressed.
Repeatedly you have gone to the emotional level and focussed on
your "martyrdom." Is this a distraction: "don't deal with the
issues; distract and get the discussion to the emotional,
personal level."

If I remember correctly, I posted messages on Theos-l back in
Jan.  and Feb, 1995 in which I said good things about your book,
and even pointed out chapters that I thought were well done and
contained very interesting, thought provoking material.  And I
believe that at that time I even said that I was glad you had
written your books and that I had found much good for thought in
them and had even learned a great deal.  On those occasions, you
were all smiles.

If you look up to David Christopher Lane as a good scholar (which
he definitely is), then I suggest that you learn from him how to
"thicken your hide." Methinks you are too thinskinned! God! David
Lane whom I know has been totally harassed as a result of his
criticisms and books on Eckankar and John Rogers.  His house has
been broken in! He now keeps his home phone number a total
secret.  He has received even threatening letters and phone calls
from certain followers of the two above mentioned groups/gurus.
Yes, he has been flamed dozens of times even on the Internet on
the Eckankar discussion group by the "clique mentality", the
"mob" mentality of the vocal minority and yet as far as I know he
has not put on a show of his "martydom", in fact, he has had a
very good sense of humor about the whole thing, and when he had
responded, it has been to deal with the issues (intellectual,
historical) dealing with what he has writen about Eckaankar and
John Rogers.  He has defended his research, not by crying foul,
but by showing through reason, logic, etc, that his thesis was
right on the mark.  This paragraph is for P.J.

I have found his views on these controversail subjects refreshing
and englightening and if I ever have to disagree with him, I feel
confident that instead of "crying foul", he will deal with the
intellectual issues involved and we will continue to be good
friends.

Please, P.J., meditate on the rhino, and I don't mean Rhino
Records!

If you are not willing to discuss in a free and open way my
criticisms ( apparently they are not valid to you) on theos-l, I
do hope that Dr.  Santucci will give you considerable space in
THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY where you can discuss in a free and open way
the criticism of your thesis as found in the review of your THE
MASTERS REVEALED to soon appear in that forum.

One more comment (well maybe 2 or 3 more!):

This is a totally honest comment: I would really like to see you
explain your thesis in light on my criticisms.  As far as I know,
in all of our exhanges, you have never directly dealt (on an
intellectual level) with my basic objections to your thesis
concerning M.  and K.H.  On an intellectual level (scholarly
level) I would really love to see you "defend" (in the best sense
of the word) your thesis.  I actually believe I would learn
something new, and you might learn something new, and other
interested parties on THEOS-ROOTS (please note this specific
forum, oh sensitive readers) might learn something new (isn't
that part of what education is all about?).

I now bow to that vocal minority on Theos-l and will confine my
P.J.  remarks in the future to Theos-roots.  I hope that in the
future I do not rouse the fury of the crowd in any other remarks
I may make on any other taboo or boring or irrelevant or ?
subject.

Right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof?.....with
exceptions of course!

But mind your P's and Q's, also no CAPS, no ! points, no
"stuff"......Such a free and open theos network! [I said no
exclamation points!]

Daniel

P.S.:  Hey, Jerry H-E, how's the north pole?