Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00013)

Nov 1st 1997

Dear Brant:

 Congratulations on a clearly stated set of principles.

 Dallas

> Date Saturday, November 01, 1997 9:12 PM
> From BJack5259@aol.com
> Subject Re:Re: Alleged "Squelching"
>
> 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.
and
> 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