Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00205)

K. Paul Johnson wrote:

>Two people have accused me of making ad hominem attacks on
>Daniel Caldwell, as a result of my stating that a rigid belief
>system motivated his attacks on my work.  The argument is that
>I should respond in substantive detail to his attacks on my
>work.  In fact I have done so at great length, and said so in
>the post in question.  That it has not appeared on Dr. Lane's
>website weeks after my sending it is due to technical delays,
>not reluctance on my part.  What I said, and readers of the
>reply will be able to confirm, is that analysis of Mr.
>Caldwell's arguments shows a rigid belief system to underly
>them.  That is enough said on the matter.  When the response
>is available the evidence on this score will be seen to be
>quite abundant.

<A whole section is deleted here......>

>Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common?
>A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure or
>maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the acknowledgments of
>my last book, received free copies of both of them, and have
>become implacable enemies for reasons that I think have more to
>do with their belief systems than with me. 
>
>There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give
>abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say
>"You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further*
>attack you.  


Daniel Caldwell replies:

Notice how Johnson refers to me, JHE and John Algeo:

"implacable enemies"  ......." people who give
abundant evidence of enmity"  and in his reference to
my critique Johnson refers to "my attacks" on his books.  He appears
to be the one who wants to create an "us versus them" situation.

I don't consider myself Johnson's enemy but he must consider
me" his" enemy.  I have nothing against Johnson personally but I
do question some of his research and his conclusions on the
two Masters M and KH.  Yes, I have been upfront in my criticisms
and I have been frank and honest in my opinions on some of his
research.  Yes, I believe some of his research has been less than
accurate, etc. but I have also criticized the research of other 
Theosophical writers such as Jean Overton Fuller, Boris de Zirkoff, 
Geoffrey Barborka, etc.  Johnson even wrote to me in 1993 and said he
appreciated my razor blade critique of some of Fuller's research on
HPB.

I wouldn't mind being Johnson's friend but IF to be his friend, I had
to be all nice smiles and refrain from telling him what I honestly thought of
some of his research and conclusions, then it would probably be better
not to be his friend.   I don't always agree with what John Crocker writes
on Theos-l but I do admire his frank outspoken way of writing.  I wonder
how Johnson would react if he and Crocker ever got on opposite sides
of an issue and in a heated argument?  :  )  

Yes, I do have beliefs, doesn't Johnson?  But I think  the attentive
reader of my critique will see issues that have nothing to do with
me personally or with Johnson personally.  The issues are bigger than
both of us and will still be around when  we are both dead.  Erase
Caldwell and Johnson from the equation and look at Johnson's CONJECTURES
on M and KH and the ARGUMENTS in my critique.  Does it really matter who
came up with these hypotheses on M and KH?  Does it really matter who
wrote the critique on Johnson's hypotheses?  The seeker of truth, the
dispassioned scholar, etc. will look at the issues and forget the two
people who wrote the material.  

I will see how Johnson responds to my critique but I do believe that
all this reference to my "rigid" belief system is a smokescreen to
distract from the real issues involved.  Why has Johnson decided not
to deal exclusively with the issues raised  but to also muddle around with
my supposed "rigid" adherence to some belief system?

I bet Johnson would cry "foul" if someone was to attack his books and also
attempt to psychoanlyze his personality, his belief system, etc.?
On alt.religion.eckankar, Johnson has even defended Dr. David Lane from
personal attacks when certain Eckists has tried to distract the argument from
the evidence, etc. concerning Paul Twitchell  and focus the spotlight on Lane.

But you know, I am not so thin-skinned and I can take the heat.  Let Johnson
anaylze and psychoanlyze my belief system all he wants, the real issues
will not be so easily done away with or obscured.