Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00189)

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote:
> 
> >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.
	Implying, then, that I would? Of course John Algeo would never put
truth ahead of making himself look good either. In fact, it is surely the
case that absolutely no one on the Board that sued the Lodge would do so,
while all those critics of the Board's action naturally all do so. You are
either a mouthpiece of the Board, or almost hopelessly naive if you don't
believe power plays go on in the TS Offices.  

> 
> >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.  
	Oh, yes, I forgot, your definition of "honest" is "someone who
agrees with me". By that definition, you are right, I'm *terribly*
dishonest - and proudly so. In the real world outside of your own head, a
couple different organizations trust me to invest considerable amounts of
their money ... suprisingly enough because I have a reputation for a
character incapable of lying about a single cent. Poor deluded fools.

> 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?
	Hhhmmmmm, again your somewhat creative grasp of the word
"illogical". When someone makes the statement that they will take her word
over the word of someone who likes Alexis - that is, offers it as the sole
reason for his choice between two different perspectives - what *is* it
logical to conclude ... that you have some other reason or reasons that we
are all supposed to guess about? If not Alexis, then what criteria did you
use to judge "trustworthiness". You might notice that while I stated my
opinion and Willamay stated hers - I also did not ask you to take my word
for it, but invited you to examine various points of view, to examine the
archives of this list (where can be found various perspectives ... those
agreeing with mine and those arguing against it). Let me ask you, did she?
Did she point you to information that would argue against her perspective
as well as on its behalf? Or did she ridicule the thought that any
perspective other than the board position (which is what you heard from
her) even had any credence?  

> >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?  
	Oh my dear boy I'm not complaining at all! You are outright *fun*
to play with. In the statement about Alexis you most definately made a
dispareging remark about me ... not only that, but implied my character
itself, as evidenced by the terrible sin of liking another *Theosophist*,
was untrustworthy (oh, I forgot, Alexis does not come up to your standards
of what a Theosophist ought to be). But I most certainly did not complain
about it ... on the contrary, I said I'd play - respond to you in
precisely the same tone. You, who have continually accused people of
delibrately misinterpreting your words - clealy have now superimposed your
own meaning onto mine. 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?"
	I've never claimed - as you have - that all my statements are
rational ... I've done too much actual science to have as blind a belief
in logic as you do. But yes, that last sentence is "rational". You have on
a number of occaisions made strong assertions with absolutely no evidence,
seem to confuse strength of statement with validity, and have continually
used what *is* freshman logic. You want examples? You made a statement
some time ago about most women in a marriage wanting men to show
"leadership". When someone replied by saying you could not possibly know
this, you replied with a high school statistics lecture, patiently
explaining that the behaviour of a larger group could be predicted from a
sample set. At which point myself and several others, on several
different occaisions, asked to *see* your sample set - asked to see *any*
credible poll or survey done by anyone that actually *supported* your
statement. To this day you have not. You made, then, an *unsupported
statement*. This is simply one example of many. 


> >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?
	Er, once again ... precisely where did I say you were doing
anything wrong? I was simply stating that while the post was presenting
itself as though you were presenting the conclusion of an investigation
into the Boston situation, it did not seem as though your real intent was
to do an actual investigation, but rather simply to take a shot at me. I
did not say you shouldn't - and while I meant what I said about spiritual
allies ... unfortunately you simply don't fit the bill, as your particular
opinions of me simply don't matter. I fight real battles in my life, those
I care about, and those matter ... but you are just an intellectual infant
its fun to play with now and then - and you've been helpful in that you've
allowed re-introduction of a topic - the Boston Lodge - that I think it is
good to remind people of now and then .... most of the rest of the Society
knew *nothing* about the situation, or even that there was a situation to
know about ... and HQ certainly didn't (and still doesn't) want it to be a
topic in the Society. I would invite you to continue this conversation for
awhile. 
	It may or may not occured to you that whether or not *you* become
convinced of anything, whether you call me a "hypocrite", or a "liar", or
"untheosophical", or whether you believe the behaviour of HQ was perfectly
innocent makes little difference to me, as I am not writing to you anyway.
Now and then newcomers enter the list - in fact the list has lately grown
- and I personally, for what *I* consider to be the good of Theosophy,
believe those who are interested should become aware of the boston
situation, the considerable discussions concerning it that went on on this
list, and what many besides me consider to be highly questionable
behaviour on the part of HQ ... the same HQ that has made sure that other
than those directly involved, and the people on this list, virtually no
one in the TS is even aware that HQ brought legal action against an old
and large Lodge. And in fact if the entire TS *had* heard all sides of the
discussion - had seen what was discussed on this list, the Bylaw vote
might have been much different.
	So go ahead and take all the shots you want ... not only won't I
complain, I'll invite you to do so! But no matter what you do there are
probably now a few newcomers who, as was the case with me, knew nothing
about the Boston situation and now understand something significant
happened, that may read the archives even if you didn't, who may try to
fully investigate the situation even if you don't. This, I think, is
*good* ... what was that motto about "truth" or something ...?  And the
little attacks just make the reading more interesting.
	But you rather overestimate the importance of your opinion of me
if you believe they matter personally. I've been involved in issues
dealing with both state and federal politics, and *those* boys and girls
know how to play hard ball ... your little sniping barely even appears on
my radar screen, save as a means of furthering my purposes.

> >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."
	No, it was not my prejudice, it was your words. The Board of the
TS was charged with behaving in a particular way. You said you doubted it
was the case ... and then went and asked a person that, whether
trustworthy or not, could be depended upon to give you one point of view -
the point of view of the Board. You asked no one else, including even one
person the Board (Willamay included) charged with threatening to "take
over" TS assets. In your own words you stated that you doubted the Board
had done what they had been accused of, and by your own words told us that
you went to Willamay, and quite naturally were confirmed in your belief.
To point out that, by your own statements, you did not even bother to
gather anywhere close to enough information to come to *any* conclusion
one way or another, but nonetheless not only came to a conclusion, but
concluded the identical thing that you said you believed before your
"investigation"  is not a "projection". For you to believe I was 
prejudiced against any conclusion you would come to, might be. 

> 
> >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?
	Certainly, except this example varies considerably from the
current situation. Let's make it a bit more accurate - let's say that the
argument was not taking place in abstract space, let's say that the two
members were part of an organization of professional biologists. That
considerable amounts of the organization's moneys were involved in the
dispute. That the one in whom you have "the most faith" also happened to
be a member of the ruling Board of the Society, a Board that, without
consulting or even informing its membership decided on behalf of the whole
organization to declare that the mantids don't eat their mates - and
shortly thereafter passed a Bylaw that permits it to decide any other such
arguments in the future - again without informing or consulting with the
membership. Of course it also must be asked whether, given *this*
situation, not only whether I would take one person's word over the
other's, but whether I would go further ... and not only come to a
conclusion I already stated I didn't care enough about to even pretend to
do an actual investigation, but then take that conclusion and state it
publically ... clearly coming down on one side of the issue. 
	What your opinion is of me hardly matters - but what you have also
done, not in accepting Willamay's explanation but in publically saying her
point of view is correct, is also slammed those Theosophists who were
*accused* by HQ, for the purposes of its activities, of threatening to
sieze property for their own personal gain. These are people you do not
even know, did not bother to question, and a couple of whom came on this
list to vehemently deny any such intentions - some of whom were deeply
committed Theosophists, and every bit as "trustworthy" as Willamay Pym.
Of *course* the Board members feel they did nothing wrong - feel they were
justified in their actions ... but the people they accused also feel they
did nothing wrong, were being wrongly accused, and did *not* feel that HQ
was justified in siezing control of assets. It would seem as though if you
really didn't care enough to do an adequate investigation, you would have
just kept your mouth shut - but *if* you were going to take one side of
the situation, a side that justified its actions by *accusing* other
Theosophists of bad intentions - that you at least owed those others the
effort of hearing their side.  

> 
> >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.
	Before you speak another word about your "conclusions" I would
*really* hope that you would. If you don't care about it enough to do so,
I hope you remain silent - because for some of your brother and sister
Theosophists, it is *very* important ... their characters and intentions
were accused by HQ, and some of them are still deeply and personally
wounded from the situation. 

> 
> >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.
	Then, as you implied, because Willamay said it wasn't so, it
_must_ not be. 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."  
	This may be another one of your "projections". You discredited
yourself in my eyes after your third post - and I consider it quite an
honorable distinction to be one of those many you consider to be
"hypocrites". You can hardly make me "livid" - in fact you usually make me
laugh. But where is the "hypocrisy" here? You have just implied that
people you don't even know, whose points of view you did not even bother
to hear, are *guilty*. This, then, is your definition of acting
"theosophically"? I'm quite *proud* not to be your "kind" of 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.
	Perhaps you could get Willamay to come clean about the entire
money trail in the situation. Certainly those who have attempted to
investigate it - including lawyers and accountants fully capable of
understanding financial information - have been met with quite a brick
wall. 

> 
> >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.
	His skills almost equal yours.

> 
> >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.
	Ah yes, the "liar, liar, pants on fire" claim - I remember that
from grade school - I almost thought you were going to get through an
entire post without using it. How disappointing that would have been. How
do you even get through your days with so many people so constantly
mischaracterizing and lying about you? 
> 
> >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?
> 
Yes! In fact behind the scenes there are discussions going on between a
number of past and present Theosophists whom - being left no choice -
have begun to plan the means by which to remove the current little ruling
faction from power, as the objective evidence is that both in terms of
finance and membership the TS, under its current leadership, is in a
downward slide. Of course, since you have no problem with HQ using its
authority to further its perspective, you will also be "open-minded"
enough to see that authority used to further a perspective that you may
not as fully agree with, won't you?
								-JRC