Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00531)

K. Paul Johnson wrote:

> >
> > From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@netfeed.com>
> >
> > Paul, my issue concerned fairness, not authenticity.  Dan raised the
> > issue concerning authenticity of that particular letter, and I never
> > disputed it.  I can send you the discussion string if you still don't
> > have it.
>
> But Jerry, as you say below, your issue was that I was being
> *unfair* to use evidence the *authenticity* of which was "in
> dispute."  Dan didn't *raise* the authenticity issue, you did.  Dan
> instead pointed out the irrelevancy of the fairness issue by
> showing that the authenticity issue was not in fact an issue at
> all.  Thus, he *settled* it.
>

No Paul, Dan pointed out that my fairness issue did not apply to that letter
because its authenticity was not in dispute.  I stood corrected and apologized to
you both.  My issue was fairness, Dan's concerned authenticity.

> >
> > Sorry Paul, but this is not the case with me, nor do I think it fair to
> > assume that it is generally true either.
>
> Generally true of whom?  Total silence greeted my posting of
> several relevant quotes, after I'd been more or less challenged
> to provide evidence on the issue.  Dallas at least was making
> some very accusing statements, but then seems to have ignored the
> evidence he challenged me to post.
>

Generally true of those whom you accused.  I have already declined to enter this
debate for reasons that I have already given.  You might have noticed that my
participation on any of these discussion lists has been very little of late.  It is
not for lack of interest, but of time.  Also, I have come to seriously question
whether it is possible to come to resolutions on these subjects through email
discussions.  I'm sure that you and Dallas have both raised some wonderful points.
I really haven't had time to even follow the discussion, but I'll bet that if I
were to look back upon it, I'm sure that I  will find a lot of talking past each
other.  This is what typically occurs.

>  Further, the supposed
> > unwillingness of those who disagree with you to go "outside of the
> > conceptual universe which these folks live" may be more or less true,
> > however, I suspect that the same problem may also apply to the accuser.
>
> I went completely outside my own conceptual universe re: HPB while
> writing those books, and then again in the wake of their
> reception.  There are surely areas on which I do have a fixed
> belief system, but HPB and Theosophy are obviously not among
> them.
>

And now you are in another conceptual universe.  Its a human thing.  Unless, of
course, you are claiming to have perfect objectivity, in which case, it is entirely
your correspondent's fault that they can't see your "correct" point of view because
they are lost in their "incorrect views,"  while you understand theirs perfectly.

> >
> > Dan, the issue I raised concerned *fairness,* not forgery.  To repeat may
> > self again: if disputed evidence is being offered, then it is a manner of
> > fairness that the fact of its disputation be acknowledged.  Since, as you
> > ably pointed out, the authenticity of this particular letter is not in
> > dispute, then obviously my *issue of fairness* does not apply to this
> > letter.
> Thus, as you say here, your issue of fairness was entirely
> dependent on the issue of authenticity, right?
>

No, my issue of fairness stands alone.  Though it did not apply to the letter in
question, the issue remains valid as a principle.

> > of semantics, so I generally find it more productive just to listen.  Rather
> > than asking Paul for a clarification concerning his premises regarding this
> > letter,  I instead raised a far more basic  question: exactly what is an
> > "untruth?"  If untruth means not telling the truth at all times, then HPB
> > lied by omission the day she failed to speak up when someone walked into her
> > home wearing an ugly hat.  As I commented earlier (and I believe Paul
> > expressed agreement), I'm far more interested in HPB's reasons for what she
> > says and doesn't say, than whether or not her words or writings meet
> > someone's standard of truth or "untruth" (whatever that is).  When the
> > discussion gets around to addressing this question, then let me know and
> > I'll join in.
>
> Well, that was the gist of all those quotes I posted that no one
> chose to respond to.  1) HPB tells Sinnett she lied in denying
> sympathy for the idea of Russian invasion of India.  2) HPB
> expresses great sympathy for the idea to Charles Johnston (or in
> his presence, at least.)  3) Master M. in a letter says that HPB
> is obliged to mislead people, due to the fact that the
> international activities of her Masters are highly sensitive.
> All of these go to show, not that I'm making mere "allegations"
> about her untruthfulness, but that she and M. are making frank
> admissions about same, and suggesting that the motives involved
> political allegiances in the Anglo-Russian Great Game.
>

You have raised examples here, but have not approached my question, which in turn
raises many other  questions: what was the intent behind these statements?; what
were the circumstances?; were these statements based upon principle or
situational?; what principle was being protected or denied? etc.  Regarding
"allegations," in my part of the universe, your above examples raise the allegation
that she lied.  A conviction requires interpretation of those examples.  What may
be self evident in your universe, may be impossible in Dallas' or Dan's.   Who
lives in the true universe is another matter.

> I agree with you 100% that the fact of less-than-total
> truthfulness should be assumed, and the real question is why HPB
> would shade things different ways with different audiences.
> There are many levels at which this could be explored.
>

This is more or less the direction of the discussion that I said that I would join
in on.

jhe