Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00003)

According to K. Paul Johnson:

> Subject: Daniel's crusade
> Date: 01 Nov 1995 03:45:23 GMT
> From: "K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Email from Daniel
>
> Paul Johnson
>
> Thanks for your posting "Ignoring 95%". I recieved several e-mail
> messages from people commenting on your posting. One said you were "a
> psychological basket case." Another said he was sick of your "pissing and
> moaning." Someone else said she thought you were motivated by fear since
> you were not dealing with the historical issues raised. Personally I find all
> of this somewhat boring since none of what you said in "Ignoring 95%" or what
> they said in their e-mails deal directly with the issues and criticisms raised
> by Dr. Algeo or raised by me in my various Parts.
>
> Part IV has now been posted on theos-roots. I believe that I have shown that
> you use a double standard when it comes to assessing evidence. You demand that
> your critics must use a higher standard; but you use a much lower standard
> when assessing evidence in your own books.
>
> By your own words to me: "You [Dan Caldwell]...assume the accuracy of accounts
> by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will
> only fly with a Theosophical audience", you have given the standard by which
> we in turn can judge the accounts by Olcott ACCEPTED by you as evidence that
> he met real Adepts and Masters. I believe the intelligent, interested reader
> of my Part IV will see this double standard as illustrated in *your very own
> words*!
>
> I have sent copies of Part IV to David Lane, John Cooper, Geoffrey Farthing,
> and others. It will be interesting to see their replies and comments.
>
> Part V will deal with your latest SUNY book and will deal with your attempts
> to dismiss various testimonies of meeting t
> he Masters KH and M. This analysis
> should be interesting in light of my conclusions reached in Part IV.
>
> Hopefully within 3 to 6 months, I can complete an article as well as a
> pamphlet on this same subject.
>
> Once again thank you for writing your three books. They certainly contain
> much food for thought. I have learned a great deal from my study of them.
>
> DAniel Caldwell
>
> P.S. It is unfortunate that you deal not answer publicly Jerry HE's
> criticism that you relied on secondary sources and Besant-Olcott sources
> when you wrote about the Judge Case. I hope Jerry is not under the impression
> that all librarians do not know the distinction betweeen primary and
> secondary sources. Did you read Judge's various replies to Besant and Olcott?
>
> [correction: in the first line of my p.s. it should read: "It is unfortunate
> that you *do* not answer...."]
>
> Without doing extensive research into the primary sources of the Judge Case,
> a *scholarly* approach would be to outline the controversy giving both sides
> of the controversy but not attemtping to decide who was right and who was
> wrong. But if the researcher decides to give an opinion as to whom was
> in the right or wrong {Judge was guilty; Besant was deceived, etc.) then
> the researcher has an obligation to read and study the all the relevant
> primary sources.
>
> I have just finished rereading THE THEOSOPHICAL ENLIGHTENMENT by Godwin.
> I really like the book even though I may disagree with some of Godwin's
> statements. Comparing his book to your three, I see that you are prone to
> this excessive speculation whereas Godwin keeps his speculation reined in to
> a minimum.
>