Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00125)

On Wed, 8 Jan 97, JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote:
>
>> JRC wrote:
>> 
>> >the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million
>> >dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges
>> >for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. 

>> I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never
>> seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have
>> been involved.  If anything, new members are encouraged too much to >>say what they have to say.  I found the above statement to be incredible >>when I first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I >>thought I would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to >>which I believe it is referring.  She said that she was a member of the >>national board while it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight >>out of my repetition of the above statement.  She told me that there was a >>dispute over the property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that >>individuals would end up keeping property that belonged to the society, >>and she described the idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well >>as the idea that HQ would sue any of its lodges because they studied >>Alice Bailey, as "crazy."  It's a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's >>word for it over the word of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis >>was still around.  

>So then, to be "open-minded" you questioned someone guaranteed to give >the official party line ... 

I agree.  Willamay would never put truth ahead of making herself look good.


>and then apparently decide that because I like a
>person you've fought with, that is the foundation upon which to decide
>which person to believe. Gee ... that's pretty "rational" bucko. 

For the degree that I care about what happened with the Boston Lodge, it
was reasonable.  I believe Willamay is honest, and I have already seen how
honest you are.  It is illogical to conclude that your liking as
untheosophical a character as Alexis is the "foundation" of my trusting
Willamay more than I trust you.  Does the concept "strawman" mean anything
to you?


>You want
>to delibrately goad and disparege people? Fine ... I'll play with you. 

Now look who's complaining about being attacked, after equating any mention
by me of being attacked with selfish self-pity.  Does the word "hypocrisy"
mean anything to you?  


>You
>are sitting here on some high horse, talking almost continually down to
>people, attacking them for not responding to you "rationally", while
>offering little other than freshman logic and unsupported statements. 

If you are criticizing me for making assertions without necessarily showing
the logic behind them, what do you think of this last sentence of yours?
Would you call it "rational?"


>You want to do an *OBJECTIVE* examination of the situation? No, I don't
>think so - it appears as though you simply wanted to take a quick shot at
>me ... 

A little while ago, you were implying that there is nothing wrong with
"taking shots" at people.  Could the difference now merely be who is the
object of the "shot?"  Once you have been on this list long enough, you
will see such "shots" as serving the constructive purpose of clarifying
your thought, and you will learn to appreciate your spiritual allies.
Taking them personally only clouds your judgment.  Is asking me a question,
and then immediately answering it open-minded?


>as an *OBJECTIVE* examination would be to
>
>1. Approach the subject *assuming you did not know the answer*.

It is your prejudice that portrays me as assuming I already knew the
answer.  For all I know, Willamay could be a pathological liar.  You are
prejudicially assuming that any conclusion I come to is prejudiced.  I call
assuming that others have one's own faults "projection."


>2. To *investigate all points of view* - gathering data - conflicting
>though it might be - from *all* the relevent sources. 
>3. Form a couple of hypotheses for testing.
>4. Create tests that would confirm or disprove one or more of them.
>5. Come to a conclusion based on analysis - and assign a relative
>likelihood to the truth of the conclusion.

If one person told you that female praying mantids eat their mates after
mating, and another person said they didn't, and it didn't make a
significant difference to you, to what lengths would go to get data from
"all" the relevant sources?  Or, if you considered one source more reliable
than the other, might you simply decide that your limited desire to know
the truth about the mantids does not justify any further study, and, for
what it's worth, you will accept, on faith, the conclusion of the one in
whom you have the most faith?


>You heard a statement from me - part of a post asserting that a small
>coterie of people that run TS Headquarters enaged in certain activities -
>so naturally you "objectively investigate" the charge by asking one of the
>people at Headquarters who was involved in the situation itself if it was
>true or not. Gee I just wonder *what* that person would say? Would you
>also have investigated Watergate by asking Nixon whether he did it? 

If it mattered to me as little as what happened with the Boston Lodge
matters to me, sure.


>Maybe you should look at the archives of this list - there was an
>*extensive* discussion of the matter here ... with perspectives from all
>sides presented ... not just the HQ point of view, but also the points of
>view of a number of people personally involved on both sides of the
>battle. 

Maybe.  I want to be open-minded to all possibilities.


>It is a *fact* that the Lodge is now much smaller ...
>and that a group of people that left ... who HQ claimed were threatening
>to "sieze the assets of the Lodge" just happened to be also Alice Bailey
>afficianados. 

Then, as you implied, they must have been sued _because_ they studied Alice
Bailey.  I stand corrected.


>And one of the members of the Lodge that was one of those
>that lost to Wheaton expressed just as much suprise that anyone was
>thinking of "taking over" the assets of the Lodge ... in fact the guy was
>absolutely *livid* that such charges were being made 

O. J. was "livid" that he was charged with murder.  You seem to be "livid"
that I consider you and Alexis to be hypocrites in going by the name
"Theosophist."  


>The situation was quite
>complex ... but *HQ* instituted court proceedings ... and considerable
>moneys were spent on legal bills 

Willamay ridiculed the idea that half a million dollars were spent on legal
fees.  On that basis alone, without any further investigation (since that
is how I believe all investigations should be done, anyway), I will give
you two to one odds, on any amount you want to bet up to $10,000, that the
amount spent on legal fees was less than, oh, say, $300,000.


>You want to make slimey comments about my validity because I like Alexis?

That's the only reason, yes.  


>Perhaps you've been reading Liesel's posts - a woman with the balance and
>experience of age that Willamay has ... that has been a strong supporter
>of John Algeo in the past ... and who (since this is apparently your
>standard for judging validity) had *terrible* fights with Alexis 

I bet she started them, too.  Alexis is quite the peacemaker.


>Now let *me* see, who should I believe? A dozen different people,
>both supporters and critics of HQ, who were deeply involved in either the
>day to day unfolding of the situation itself or in attempts to pursue in
>depth investigations of it ... or a man whose idea of investigation is to
>ask one person ... who was herself part of the Board that instituted the
>action in the first place ... and accept her word at face value as being
>the truth of the entire situation? Gee, that's a close one. 

Your dishonesty in willing to blatantly mischaracterize what people say is
glaring through, yet again.  I never said that I accepted her word at face
value as being the truth of the "entire" situation.  Rather than claiming
to have "investigated" it, I have explicitly said that I hardly care about
it.  You are adding to my relative confidence in her, since I have known
her much longer than I have you, and she has never gone this far out of her
way to lie about what I said.


>On the bright
>side, your love of authority and willingness to come to a conclusion about
>a several year complex situation based on complete belief in a statement
>by one person, who could be depended upon to speak the party line, makes
>you a good candidate for TS leadership. You're exactly the sort that will
>probably be "invited" to offer your name for a board position a few years
>from now - and if some malcontent is running against you? Don't worry! A
>"speaking tour" will be  conveniently arranged that has you (in a
>delightfully fortuitious coincidence) visit most main Lodges in your
>region within a few months of the election. 

Sometimes the end justifies the means.  Are you open-minded to that
possibility?