Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01124)

Alexis writes:

>So Alexis is "bashing Eldon"! And what may I ask is to be made of Eldon's
>charges and assertions that paranormality is pathology? To claim that
>psychic experienced is pathology based or psychotic is a direct "bash" of a
>number of people on this list, myself certainly included. Is not making a
>strong statement that "psychic = psychotic" a personal attack on everyone
>who has discussed being psychic? But to take Eldon to task for this is
>"Eldon Bashing"? When Eldon accuses people, and I am hardly the only one, of
>"Theosophy Bashing" when we point out the racist overtones in the "Racial
>hypotheses" of Core Theosophy" that is NOT "bashing". Oh come on Daniel,
>what's "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Eldon wraps his
>"bashing" in all kinds of rhetoric but it's "bashing" all the same. I don't
>have to show us the irrationality of Eldon's notions, he does an excellent
>job all by himself. But I do have to expose what I see as the inherent
>ill-will in his position and the absolutely unacceptable nature of racism in
>any form no matter what rhetoric it's wrapped in.

Daniel's response to Alexis:

Alexis,

I also have had many psychic experiences.  A few of which I have posted on
Theos-l.  Maybe Eldon would put me in the same category with the rest
of you!  IF Eldon naively equates the psychic with the psychotic, then he
is simply wrong!  Now I don't believe that is his opinion but if it is, then
I for one would not agree with him.

I am not afraid of the psychic.  I have had a good number of psychic
experiences and have sometimes gained valuable insights and knowledge
from those experiences.  I have also studied psychism for 25 years.  And, yes,
I have had some Theosophists express their dismay to me that I would waste
my time on such endeavors.  Now I have no idea if Eldon would be displeased
with my involvement with the psychic.  Actually I have only a vague idea of
where
Eldon and JRC stand on this issue.  Neither one, in my opinion, has ever written
in great enough detail and with concrete examples to really show their
respective positions.
I just get the impression that they are at the opposite ends of the spectrum!!


Alexis writes:

>Frankly when eldon makes it clear that as far as he's concerned the only
>person on this list who truly "understands" the deeper aspects of theosophy
>is Eldon B. Tucker then it's a direct assault on the intelligence and
>understanding of everyone on this board who may have th temerity to disagree
>with him. I am attacking his ideas, and his attitude but that, to grown ups,
>is not a personal attack on him. I am attacking Eldon's words not Eldon
>himself, That is almost exactly what Eldon does to me except I am not a
>"spin doctor" and he is. The only difference is that I have never called him
>names, and if calling a person a "theosophy Basher" or a "Psychotic" isn't
>calling names, then I don't know what is!
>
>Now I would also like to know where YOU got the idea that forcefully
>disagreeing with someone's attitude is "bashing"? For in that case, what did
>you just do to me?

Alexis, when you say:  "I am attacking Eldon's words not Eldon himself",
I would ask you to please go back and reread your original post.  As far
as I can see, you are directly attacking Eldon, the person.  If Eldon did
such a thing on Theos-l to you, I would have to say that he too was guilty of
bashing you.  Rip his ideas apart.  But please don't use the ugly words
you did in your post to describe Eldon.  Of course, you will have to decide
what is the right thing to do.


Alexis writes:

>Now, as to that last line of yours. What is it Daniel? A scare tactic, a
>threat that if I don't "shut-up", the oh so important Blavatsky Foundation
>will get me kicked off the list? Now if that's not bashing what is?
>
>The fact is Daniel, you personally don't like most of the things I have to
>say, and so you'd do just about anything to shut me up, and you've decided
>that this is exactly the correct ploy.

Alexis, Alexis, Alexis.........

First of all, I have from time to time really enjoyed some of your posts.
And as I have said before, you have contributed some very  interesting if
controversial ideas.  Ideas that I may not always agree with, but ideas
that may get people to think....really think and ponder through the issues.
And I guess we should try to be more tolerant of some of your ways, but
your post on Eldon was (in my opinion) quite uncalled for.

You write of Eldon:  " You are arrogant and presumptuous....."

Well, IF what you write of Eldon is true, that does not necessarily
invalidate his
ideas.    His ideas on psychism and root races may still be true in spite of his
supposed "arrogance and presumptuousness".  It seems that you are
shooting the "messenger" instead of the "message."

Seems that you are engaging in an "ad hominem" attack on Eldon.  My
dictionary defines
that phrase as "Marked by an attack on an opponent's  CHARACTER rather than
by an answer to his CONTENTIONS."

Would you like for someone on Theos-l to write that you are "arrogant and
presumptuous"?
What constructive purpose would it serve?

NO, NO, NO, NO.  I do not want you off Theos-l.  That would indeed be
censorship.

When you write:  " What is it Daniel? A scare tactic, a
>threat that if I don't "shut-up", the oh so important Blavatsky Foundation
>will get me kicked off the list? Now if that's not bashing what is?", what
constructive
purpose does this serve?

Neither I nor the Blavatsky Foundation has the power to pull your plug.  And
personally I
would greatly  hesitate to do so, even if I had such power.  IF I was in
John Mead's shoes, I
might beg everyone to be more civil and try to be a  little more thoughtful
of others.  Can't we
all try to do that?

Furthermore, why characterize the Blavatsky
Foundation with the phrase "the oh so important"?    What are you trying to
accomplish with
such phraseology?

Don't we have better things to do than engage in cat fights on Theos-l?

I would call upon ALL OF US to  have a little more civility with each other.
And would hope that
John Mead would also post such a reminder.

At the same time, I honestly say to you Alexis and you, too, JRC, rip
Eldon's ideas apart if you can.
Take his ideas to task.  Show with rationality, logic and commonsense the
flaws in his arguments.
I would hope that no one on Theos-l would object to that!  And I would hope
that, in turn, Eldon could and
would rebut your arguments.  That is what discussion and debate is all
about......

Daniel