Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tt00006)

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.
>
> 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.