Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00006)

 This is certainly an experience for me. I confess that I don't know how
to add my name after my internet address, but it must not be hard, and so I
will try to figure it out. As I said earlier, the omission was not
intentional, but the result of my ignorance.
 In reading over this overwhelming postings this morning, I was struck by
the fact that you guys seem to take alternatve or opposing viewpoints so
personally.
 Let me confess my personal bias: I don't particularly care about the
ultimate truth or falsity of Johnson's writings at the moment. That was not
the issue to me. I personally believe that we must each find our own version
of the truth, and divergent views aid us all in that endeavor. Paul
Johnson's book, regardless of what I personally think of its conclusions,
needs to be examined and debated like any other piece of scholarship. An
example would be the controversy in biblical scholarship between the
"minimalists", who may be said to find in the Bible a minimal amount of
actual history (to grossly oversimplify the issue) and the other camps.
 In that regard, the controversy over the accuracy of Mr. Johnson's data
and conclusions (and those of other divergent views as well,) is both healthy
and normal. Such controversy is considered necessary in the scientific and
historical disciplines, as well as the field of law, with which I am very
familiar, to test the worth of a writer's offering.
 My problem with Mr. Johnson is that he seems to take normal criticism so
personally. This causes two problems for me: first, the sense that I get is
that he takes the criticism of certain persons who seem to be pointing out
errors in his methods as an attack upon himself personally rather than a
legitimate inquiry into his research methods and conclusions. The latter are
always fair grounds for inquiry, while the former should not be. Why cannot
he not remove his personality from the debate about the nature of the
Masters.
 Second, and this was the reason for my response, he has taken what I
consider the normal criticism of an academic work, and turned it into a
divisive issue to further undermine and split the Theosophical movement.
 This is what troubles me. It seems that in taking criticism of his
conclusions so personally, Mr. Johnson and others have responded by alleging
that his critics are Theosophical hypocrits and Theosophical Fundamentalists.
 This "ad hominum" argument is ultimately distructive to the essential unity
of the Theosophical movement, and its concept of brotherhood.
then touting the open and uncritical acceptance of ARE (which doesn't have a
dog in this fight) as a better and more "spiritual" group - calls into
question one's committment to Theosophy. By the way, having belonged to
ARE, I suspect that if Mr. Johnson wrote a book critical of the fundamental
assumptions about Edgar Cayce, he would once again draw strong criticism from
members of that group as well. Where would he go then?
 I am running out of time, My basic point is that one who undertakes to
publish divergent views of "accepted teachings" should be realistic about the
examination and criticism of his research and conclusions that he will
undertake, and be prepared to defend his conclusions in light of that
criticism. Mr. Johnson's protests that the issue is that people oppose his
right to do this research. If this is so, then I would agree with him that
such a position is so patently absurd and anti-Theosophical that it can be
dismissed without further comment. - and it should have been handled that
way. I suspect that Mr. Johnson's personal feelings are at stake, not an
issue of academic freedom. Given this, to counterattack that
non-acceptance of his conclusions by attempting to split the movement further
with personal attacks upon his critics is very harmful to the movement - and
this must be opposed in the name of freedom of inquiry and brotherhood!
 I am out of time.
 Proudly signed, Brant Jackson