Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01135)

At 12:37 AM 5/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>cut<<<<<<
>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.

Daniel: Eldon clearly does so, he made it clear in several postings starting
with his first posting of the magazine article equating Schizophrenia and
psycic experiences. This is not my "take" on his words alone but almost
everyone else who identifies with things psychic.
>
>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!!

They certainly are at opposite ends of the spectrum! I have a serious
question. You say you have studied psychism, o.k. but from what direction?
Your comments that you have had a "good number of psychic experiences" would
seem to imply that it is from the "inside" rather than from the outside. Now
a great many "parapsychologists do study "psychism" from the outside, like a
scientist studies "bugs", and I'm sure that after 25 years you know that
doesn't work. But I am sure also that you will admit that it is quite simple
to take El don's insinuations personally and to become annoyed with them.
>
>
>
>
>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.

But I have re-read my words Daniel, thanks to you< and Bee, and Doss, and
Rudy Don, and even my friend JRC, I've had ample opportunity to do so, more
than ample. And I have to tell you that I still cannot see where I attacked
him as a person. I am beginning to be afraid that you and I have far
different definitions on what constitutes a personal attack.
>
>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.

Daniel, think about your words. You said Alexis has done something
unacceptable, in fact you made a great deal of fuss about it, and then asked
John Mead to "do something about it". I am not the only person who
immediately assumed you meant "get this guy of the list".
>
>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....."

Dan: Did you see the context in which those terms were used? I think they
were appropriate, and I still think they are appropriate. It arose out of El
don's implication to Alan Bain that he didn't really understand Theosophy.
Now, in my view for anyone to say that to anyone is arrogant and
presumptuous! Especially for it to be said to am eminent scholar and
theologian like alan Bain. I've read Alan's work on the Nazarenes and other
religious works and they are absolutely brilliant.I have never seen anything
out of El don's word processor that comes anywhere near it. He is dreadfully
presumptuous, and dreadfully arrogant in his self-perceived wisdom. And that
is simply my opinion of him. Bashing is quite something else, now, if I'd
implied he was "crazy" that would be bashing.
>
>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."

As you know, I am anything but a traditionalist or literalist theosophist.
Many of my ideas are shared with very few. One of my strongest opinions is
that the "Root Races" os presented in the Secret Doctrine are a inherently
false doctrine and are socially incredibly harmful. As to his ideas vis a
vis psychism the are clearly contrary to not simply the third object of the
Theosophical Society but to the freedom of the society resolution. The
anti-psychic stuff is simply E.S. dogma and it's because they are terrified
of competition. Now as to my "shooting the messenger" he's no messenger,
he's just a parrot for the orthodoxy. I am carrying a message that's new to
him and it's me that's getting shot.
>
>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."

But you see Daniel, that is entirely a matter of opinion. I do not, and did
not, think I was attacking his character only his words and actions, which I
have every right to attack. As I see it, if I had indulged in a "character"
attack I'd have been required to charge him with dishonesty, or some other
ethical or moral offense. That is a character attack.  It was, despite your
obvious perceptions to the contrary, only his contentions I attacked and not
eldon himself.
>
>Would you like for someone on Theos-l to write that you are "arrogant and
>presumptuous"?

Oh but I AM arrogant, I was born arrogant in a family that is more than just
slightly famous for it's arrogance, Yelena Blavatskaya was just as arrogant
for the same reasons, and I will remain arrogant till I go for a new body.
But I am not presumptuous. Socially it is impossible, and intellectually
that is not a thing with which I can be charged, so if anyone wishes to say
so it wouldn't bother me in the least.

>
>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?

What constructive purpose? Well, for one thing it let's you know how your
words and actions are coming across tome. Is that not a constructive
purpose? If I didn't tell you how would you know?
>
>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?

Because as I have told you in two separate and private messages to which you
saw fit not to reply. I find your use of the term "Blavatsky Foundation"
where all of the rest of us use our names, as pretentious. The use of the
name "Blavatsky Foundation" implies official standing and you have none at
all. What it accomplishes is it makes an attack by you a kind of official
statement. And that is why I have taken to "poking fun" at what I consider
at least a pomposity. You get really annoyed when I draw myself up and sign
my name with just one of my titles, I find it annoying that Daniel Caldwell
isn't satisfied with being just plain Dan and signs himself "The Blavatsky
Foundation". That would be equally pretentious of me if I changed my signing
to "Blavatsky's Cousin". See what I mean? I hope so.
>
>Don't we have better things to do than engage in cat fights on Theos-l?

Oh we do, we do!
>
>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......

B
Why Daniel I would be happy to agree to that, but i would suggest to you
that it would be more fair if there was less of a double standard on this
board. Every time Eldon says something that I or another takes exception to,
you find ways to alibi him. I would be far happier about your neutrality if
occasionally you'd take Eldon to task for "Alexis bashing". For instance,
tonight he took a totally gratuitous "bash" at Royalty, and that could only
have been directed at me for it was not otherwise cogent to his subject. How
about it Dan? What's sauce for th goose should definitely be sauce for the
Gander! I must wonder why I am the sole object of your attentions. JRC made
several comments to Eldon that easily equal led mine, but I am the
scapegoat. Or at least that's how I see it. But I really wonder if you care
how I see it?

>
>Daniel
>
>
alexis>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>