Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01157)

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
>
> I'd wonder here what Alexis' motivation is in continuing
> to do this? I'll leave it to him to explain, since I
> won't take JRC's tactic and tell Alexis what his motivations
> are ...
	Don't even try it Eldon. My "tactic" was adopted after
you had done it to me for a considerable period of time. In fact your
*norm* in responding to me in past times has been to re-state what I
said, often distorting it substantially, speculate as to my motives
for saying it, and then answer those alledged motives. I can (and
in the past have) give you innumerable examples of this ... but I
`spect the list is quite tired of this. And the last time I wrote
you at length about this very thing, with examples, you ignored it.
But complaining about my "tactic" is nothing other than throwing
rocks at your image in a mirror.

> JRC steps in to support Alexis in his latest wave of
> criticisms. JRC brings up my mark about "chasing phantoms of
> the psychic" and repeats Alexis' former charge that I was
> trying to start another argument. That remark was taken out
> of context, and I had already clarified it to Alexis. (I was
> both discounting paranormal powers and intellectual study as
> paling by comparison to the importance of the Path.) Again
> I see an intent to continue to misrepresent things that have
> been previously clarified.
	That one remark was probably taken out of context because
it did not exist in isolation, but as only the most current of
an almost continuous stream of remarks that *in* context
not only denigrated the "psychic", but implied that anyone even
interested in it was not yet following the "true" path.
	While you can continue to voice your position on the
"psychic" - you can hardly continue to claim innocence ... that
you had no idea that using words like "chasing the phantoms of
the psychic" would be anything other than inflammatory. In your
continual attempts to raise the issue, and your continual
assertions that what many consider a valid realm of *service* is
a "lower" thing, *I* see an almost delibrate intent to keep
stirring up angry discourses.

> And JRC also wants to tell the world of my "condescension
> and low intent". Presuming low motives of others, and
> asserting to the world that they hold such -- this seems
> to be a strong personal attack.
	Again a mirror: I can almost off the top of my head
give you a dozen examples from just the last few months in
which you asserted *my* motives for holding a position, and
reduced them to purely low and personal causes (let me see,
why do I get "angry" at your statements? Oh yes, because
I am writing to get personal praise, and you are the only
one bravely standing up for "higher" things and hence
stopping me from getting the praise I so desire.) Continue to
do it if you wish. The favor will continue to be returned.
Stop it, and so will I.

> As to personalities, I'll generally pass over stray, nasty
> comments if they are only directed at me, and if there is
> nothing needing defense but my personal ego. But when the
> doctrines of Theosophy themselves are being bashed, then I
> feel it necessary to speak up. And this is where I've
> incurred the wrath of Alexis and JRC!
	Again Eldon stands alone in the wilderness - not
standing up for himself, but for the "doctrines" of Theosophy.
Of course, as usual, I might say that what Eldon is standing
up for is *his personal perception* of those "doctrines" ...
and that one of the most dangerous potential delusions of the
intellect is to identify one's own conception of a philosophy
with the philosophy itself. But of course, when I say such a
thing it is merely my "wrath", while when Eldon speaks of the
delusions of the "psychic", it is an impersonal ego-less
statement. Interesting.

> When someone boldly asserts that Theosophy teaches
> racism with the intent of putting down people of inferior
> races -- this cannot pass without comment! It may piss
> off some people, but that's only because they are unwilling
> to give up their dark prejudices against the philosophy
> and admit that it may be based upon high-minded spirituality.
	How come when people make their own assertions it is
always because of personal motives - their "wrath", or because
they are "pissed off" ... while when you assert things its
always portrayed as ego-free statements on behalf of "Theosophy"?
Could it be that *you're* "pissed off" at people's assertions?
And that it is not the "dark prejudices" of anyone speaking
in opposion, but (for instance) the fact that HPB *had a
personality*, and that personality could very well *have* had
prejudices that colored the presentation of "races"? That
Theosophy might actually have a *shadow* that some Theosophists
feel needs to be *dealt with openly*?
							-JRC