Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00151)

At 04:17 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>First a snippet out of a conversation between Chuck and Alexis:
>
>Alexis>You know that Martin will in all likelihood take every word you
> just said totally seriously.
>
>Martin comments: no, not really. I know Chuck a little bit better
>than that (at least I think I do :))
>
>Alexis> He's Dutch (I think) [yes] and they are as entirely literal as
>any German or Slav.

First lat me apologize for inadvertently getting your name wrong, I really
thought it was Euler. I have no idea where I got the idea, but it was firmly
ensconced in my head. Now, Chuck and most of the folks on this list are
aware that I am primarily German-Russian in my genetics, and it is a long
time joke between alan, Chuck, and I about my literalness.
>
>Martin comments: a totally sweeping generalization (to imitate
>your style :)). Actually my country is oriented very much towards
>the USA. The folks here are as different from each other as in any
>country. The main flaw here is the imitation of American soap opera's.
>We shouldn't do that. The Americans have invented that and nobody
>can do that kind of stuff better than ye yankies :)

Martin: I used to live in Amsterdam and had a Dutch lover (actually two of
them), I know a lot about your country and have long considered retiring
there. I love the place so please don't think I was being negative or
derogatory in any way.
>
>
>
>
>Martin comments: of course and nobody (I hope) is doing that.

A.D.: Thank you and I can see that you're not.
>
>

>
>Martin comments: I'm not judging you at all - this seems to be a hangup
>of you. If you read my posts more carefully, you will see that I'm concerned
>what's going on on this list. And I'm not putting all the fault on your
>shoulders-see my posting Re: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis.

A.D.:

It has never been a "hang up of mine" but in the last weeks I have been the
object of such extreme negativity, and such streams of constant invective
that I have become not simply "testy" but very over sensitive.
>
>
>ALexis>I submit that it is my
>perception that the greatest motivation behind your judgemental attitude
>towards me derives from the entirely unorthodox approach I have to what
>Eldon and Daniel call the "Core Doctrines" of Theosophy, and that I believe
>is the ONLY thing that drives you.

A.D.: I have received, over the last several months so much "flak" for
precisely that reason that I am afraid that I have come to almost expect it.
Most likely you don't deserve to be the target for other peoples problems
with me, and I really didn't mean to insult you in any way.
>
>
>Martin comments: actually you're wrong in your perception. My greatest
>drive is a search for truth in these matters. Why do you think I' m discussing
>your point of view with you at length? Think about that!

A.D.: Good point and well taken! But I will have to reserve judgement
regarding your attitude to my un orthodoxy.
>
>
> Alexis>If you would go through my postings since
>I joined the board you would find that, with the exception of my "games"
>with Chuck Cosimano, the majority of my messages have been thoughtful,
>original, and entirely unorthodox.
>
>Martin comments> well, when I have the opportunity I will check out
>the archives of John Mead.

Please do.
>
>
>Alexis> But I also submit that the actual content
>of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you.
>
>
>Martin comments: well, well. I submit that projecting *your ideas *
>about the motives of others into these others is one of your flaws
>(as it probably is with all of us) :)

That remark of mine, when viewed in coolness, was uncalled for. I retract it
an apologize for it.
>
>
>
>>Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case).
>
>Alexis>Please explain the sentence above. I don't wish to misunderstand you.
>
>
>Martin comments: I wrote that sentence because I suspect that factual
>information on Leadbeater is not appreciated by many on this forum
>(and that this information triggers many angry responses).

Now what you say is entirely true. I have great difficulty in comprehending
how any one can be wildly antagonized by facts. Facts are facts, they have
nothing to do with opinions. In Leadbeater's case the things I have been
saying are based upon documented evidence, not opinions or rumors, but
strongly documented empirical evidence. The aren't at all arguable. These
things are a matter not of Theosophical History but public record. Believe
me there are far worse things alleged about Leadbeater than what I've been
talking about. So then Martin, how does one deal with the irrational? You
know, and I know, that there are people in this world who claim the
holocaust never happened, but it did, and reasonable people are not
intimidated into silence by the....what shall we call it?....."The
irrational will to disbelieve" of people who refuse to accept facts?
>
>
>Martin (prev)>The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each
>              other.
>
>Alexis> In the first place, if you had been on this list long enough to
>follow the
>whole situation, you would find that I am not entirely at fault. I have been
>accused of things that in my own estimation, I did not do.
>
>
>Martin comments> That's quite possible (would have to check that).
>
>
>Alexis> The problem with
>Liesel Deutsch originated when she violently reacted to my total disapproval
>of Charles Webster Leadbeater, my mistake was, and I freely admit it, to let
>my Russian temper get the best of me and replied in kind. When something I
>say is true, and is backed up by vast amounts of printed evidence, I do not
>accept being told that I cannot discuss the subject.
>
>
>Martin comments: I regard Liesel as a very friendly lady and a 'cyber-friend'
>but I know she won't tolerate strong disapprovals of Charles Leadbeater.
>It is understandable: loyalty to one's teacher is a strong thing , yet
>not always wise if carried to the extreme. I mean, you can be loyal to
>someone and yet disapprove of some of his/her actions.
>That distinction is something many people find very hard to swallow.
>In other words: you can condemn some act of a person,
>but, by doing so, you don't condemn the whole of the person, the whole
>of his/her character. I take it that you condemned many of his acts and
>views, but not the person Leadbeater?
>
 A.D.: Martin I have not "condemned" anything I have said I object to his
actions as a proven Child Molester. What I mainly object to there is the
fact that the man used his position of authority to misuse that authority,
in a sexual way, with young children over whom he had been given authority.
I also believe that many of his actions regarding his teaching of Theosophy
have hurt the society. The Krishnamurti debacle being the most hideously
obvious. It is also my strong belief that the theosophical movement would be
far healthier than it is today had it not been for his writings, teachings,
and actions. I can hardly condemn the man himself, he died the year before I
was born. May I suggest that you read" "The Elder Brother" by Gregory
Tillett? It will give you a clearer idea of why I feel the way I do.

>Alexis>

P.S. As to my "Russian Temper" it's actually the "Dolgorukii Family
Temper"...HPB was infamous for her angers, rages, insulting or intemperate
remarks, and her extreme sensitivity. And she was just one eighth
Dolgorukii! I'm the senior male member of the family! It really isn't "O.K."
for either of us, but it's the way we were made and people who value us have
to try to understand that there's another side to our character.