Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00155)

SUBJECT: Bruce F. MacDonald on the "History of Theosophy" 
website and Paul Johnson's remarks

[Fri, 30 Mar 2001]

Daniel,
I am not a "Theosophist" but am someone who has explored many 
religions and systems, have lived in many parts of the world and have done

research on the history of colonialism. I have read over some of the 
articles in the web site [ "History of Theosophy": http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a7502210/
]you mention below and find that they are not terribly "historic," and I
am not objecting on the basis of being offended by any of the things claimed
there.

Much of what is written there is unsupported claims, coincidences,

by-the-way references to bits and snippets of letters and documents. There

is an awful lot of assumed conclusion under the supposed arguments. So,
in 
talking about race, for instance, the writer seems to think it is 
sufficient to make sweeping statements about racial and nationalist 
theories and movements in Europe and elsewhere and to put these things 
BESIDE what HPB says, and to ASSUME that there is some kind of causal 
relationship between them. There are claims that HPB was "influenced" by

particular movements, without any evidence to support such 
assumptions. And when other people have adopted HPB's ideas to support 
their twisted notions, there is an assumption that HPB somehow CAUSED this

to happen. And so on. The arguments all seem to reflect a lot of reading

and knowledge, but without a real sense of how legitimate arguments work

logically. So any "conclusions" which are drawn do not have a logical base

to support them. They are all conjecture, backed up with more conjecture.

I have selected just one short paragraph below to illustrate what

I mean, but this one could be multiplied with almost every paragraph I read

in the site:

The "article" your email refers to says the following:

"In the case of the true history of HPB and the Masters what 
astonishes me in the discussion between some of the ortodox theosophists

above versus the research by Paul Johnson is why would some Theosophical

historians believe without any questioning (no parapsychological or other

scientific research even has remotely ever been able to confirm these) 
superstitious notions like that Blavatsky's "Mahatmas" would be able to

appear or disappear at will in various places, and the same for the 
appearance or disappearance of physical objects like letters and so on.
The 
obvious answer is that this has nothing to do with their being historians

and everything to do with their being Theosophists. The burden of proof,

from their mindset, is always on anyone who would doubt or contradict 
Blavatsky or her close associates on such matters."
[ http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a7502210/blavresearch.html ]

I'll take this a little at a time:

"In the case of the true history of HPB and the Masters . . ."

It would seem to me from a historic perspective that one cannot

ever claim to have a "true history of HPB and the Masters," and any 
historian in the present should know that. There is always bias, and the

historian, including those writing for the website on which this appears,

should be aware of that. They are not presenting "truth" but an 
interpretation of data, and they need to present it clearly, logically and

fully, not with innuendo and assumption.

Next part of the sentence:

"what astonishes me in the discussion between some of the ortodox

theosophists above versus the research by Paul Johnson is why would some

Theosophical historians believe without any questioning (no 
parapsychological or other scientific research even has remotely ever been

able to confirm these) superstitious notions like that Blavatsky's 
"Mahatmas" would be able to appear or disappear at will in various places,

and the same for the appearance or disappearance of physical objects like

letters and so on."

There are a number of fundamental logical fallacies in this 
paragraph. First it is very subtle in contrasting what it calls the 
"discussion" of the thosophists and the "research" of Paul Johnson. This

attempt to persuade through emotional innuendo is a basic fallacy. It 
assumes at the first that Theosophists do not do research and that Johnson

is somehow superior because he does research. Actually, it is the nature

of the arguments and how the researcher (Theosophist or Johnson) uses the

results of the research that are important. Theosophists do a great deal

of research as well, so the contrast is false.

Next this passage sets up a "straw man" (a concept from logic 
which assumes an opponent where there is none, so that the person attacking

the straw man need not argue logically). Thus the straw man here is 
"ortodox [sic] theosohpists [sic]." (I was amazed by the number of basic

grammatical and spelling errors on the site.) These Theosophists are the

villains who are going to be discredited.

Then the paragraph, before it presents any evidence, assumes that

the belief that Mahatmas can appear and disappear is 
"superstition." Again, this is a logical fallacy of ridicule of the 
opponent before evidence is presented, to try to sway the emotion of the

hearer. This is another logical fallacy, that of ridicule, rather than 
argument. In fact, the claim is patently wrong. There ARE accounts in 
parapsychological literature of these appearings and disappearings. There

are a number of well supported accounts of "translocation," for instance,

of a number of historical personages as well as the teleportation of 
objects (the Russians did a number of these experiments), the appearing
and 
disappearing of objects, especially in cases of poltergeists. And much 
more similar evidence in the parapsychological literature. So the assumed

ridicule in the term "supersition," has no logical backing for it, and is

in fact contradicted by the research of many scientists working in the area.

The next sentence:

"The obvious answer is that this has nothing to do with their 
being historians and everything to do with their being Theosophists. The

burden of proof, from their mindset, is always on anyone who would doubt
or 
contradict Blavatsky or her close associates on such matters."

Here again is another logical fallacy. This is an "ad hominum"

argument. That is, the argument is that because these people are 
Theosophists they cannot see clearly. That kind of argument is the same
as 
saying, "Because this person is white/black/Chinese/Aboriginal they cannot

argue their position clearly." That is obviously a fallacy. Again, this

is an attack on a group of people, trying to discredit them, without 
presenting any evidence to the effect that they are in fact blinded by 
their bias. The early part of this "article" tries to identify the 
Theosophists as rabid fundamentalists, thus discrediting them and their

arguments further. However, the arguments there are equally as fallacious.

As well, the burden of proof IS always on anyone who wants to make

an argument or present a position. Proof is not just innuendo or 
assumption or loose association of ideas. Proof has to present evidence

logically in such a way as to demonstrate that an argument is valid and

that the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusions.

I must say that logically and historically, what I have read on

the "History of Theosophy" website, is not convincing at all, and leads
me 
to think that it is not making much of a contribution to the discussion
and 
that Paul Johnson needs to work on his logic before assuming that his 
supposed arguments support anything at all. Perhaps I just read the wrong

things, but it hasn't been helpful, and has been full of all sorts of 
logical fallacies, bias and innuendo, and I think readers should be aware

of this error in the way Johnson tends to present his "conclusions." They

are not logically consistent at all, and so do not present anything which

counters the current interpretations.

Peace, Bruce MacD 
[Bruce F. MacDonald] 

---------------------------------------
Daniel H. Caldwell
info@blavatskyarchives.com
---------------------------------------
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com
Publishes rare & hard-to-find source 
documents on Madame H.P. Blavatsky.
---------------------------------------
SELECTED THEOSOPHICAL BOOKS FOR SALE
http://blavatsky.cc
---------------------------------------
ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY
http://blavatskyarchives.com/esotericworld.htm
This new book contains a unique collection of 
rare reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky's life.
---------------------------------------
Theosophyonthe.NET
http://theosophyonthe.net
Easy Net Access to the Classics of Theosophy
---------------------------------------
You can always access our main site 
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES by simply typing 
into the URL address bar the following 
6 characters: hpb.cc