Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00501)

"One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity":  A CLARIFICATION

K. Paul Johnson writes in two recent postings:

1st posting:
>One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's
>publicity for his piece is his claim that he has prepared an
>"in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of
>Johnson."  What thesis?  There are 32 people nominated as HPB's
>Masters in TMR, and Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page
>argument to attacking my case for two of them.  So his
>"debunking" attempt is in fact focused on two hypotheses only,
>and he doesn't even state what "the thesis of Johnson"
>is.....

2nd posting:
>.....He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32, and
>nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called
>"the thesis."  That claim only appeared later.  So the number
>of Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are
>indeed a matter of fact.  The disagreement appears to be about
>what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact. (Surprise!).


Daniel Caldwell replies:

I append at the end of these comments the "publicity" statement that Johnson
refers to.
Inexplicable??  In the "publicity statement" I clearly
state:  "The subtitle reads:   'A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis
on the
Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.' "

When Johnson writes that I claim  I have prepared an "in-depth and
scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson," Johnson is mistaken
that this is MY claim.  These words in quotation marks are what the Blavatsky
Net people wrote about my paper.  I wrote in the publicity piece:

>A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web.  This copy can
>be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET
>at this URL address:

>http://www.blavatsky.org

>On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on:
>"Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky."

>In this section my paper is introduced with these words:

>"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books ---  Johnson is selling
>three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky.
>Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an
>in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson."

What thesis?  Read my subtitle which is clearly given at the beginning
of the "publicity" piece.  Nevertheless, I can see how Johnson may have
 jumped to his conclusion.

But the second paragraph of my publicity piece reads in part:
"My paper takes a serious, detailed  look at Johnson's thesis.
Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be
highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in
light of all the known testimony and evidence"

Notice that I write:  "....Johnson's conjectures on these TWO Masters...."

And when you click to the title page of my paper from
The Blavatsky Net site, the title clearly reads:  K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF
CARDS:
"A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya
and Koot Hoomi."

Johnson again tells us that his overall thesis is about 32 individuals being
nominated
as HPB's Masters.  But it is interesting to observe that both Johnson and Godwin
in their introductory foreword and introduction to THE MASTERS REVEALED
specifically mention (and highlight)  the identifications of the two Masters
Morya and Koot Hoomi.  And Johnson in his introduction even writes that he
has made a persuasive case for the identifications of these 2 Masters.

In summary, I would think that most people reading the publicity piece
carefully and
in context would understand what  "thesis" is being discussed in my paper.

"Mr. Caldwell's publicity for his piece" (as Johnson describes it) is
appended below
in full.

____________________________________________________________________

World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?"
by Daniel H. Caldwell

Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 43 page paper
titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?  The subtitle reads:
"A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical
Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi."  The paper has a two page appendix
written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc.
(1983).

My paper takes a serious, detailed  look at Johnson's thesis.
Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be
highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in
light of all the known testimony and evidence.  Primary source
documents are quoted IN DETAIL

A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web.  This copy can
be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET
at this URL address:

http://www.blavatsky.org

On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on:
"Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky."

In this section my paper is introduced with these words:

"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books ---  Johnson is selling
three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky.
Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an
in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson."

If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you
a paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS.  Please notify me by e-mail
at:  blafoun@azstarnet.com

I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be giving
access to my paper on his web page  "The Neural Surfer" at the URL
address:  http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/

My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as
K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for
dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at the
"Neural Surfer" location.

I also welcome comments on my paper.  I have received numerous
replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper.  I am also looking
forward to any comments showing fallacies in my arguments, etc.
against Johnson's thesis.  I am always open to other people's views
on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken in my views, I certainly would
like to know.  But if someone tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always
ask them to please explain their own views in detail and to go step by step
through their thinking process on the subject.  Serious consideration of
any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and analysis.  Can
we afford to ask for any thing less in a world full of such conflicting
claims and misinformation?

Daniel H. Caldwell