Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00314)

Steve,

It is quite interesting to see how you have dealt with my comments. 
To adequately answer all of your negative & unfounded statements 
would take more time than I have at present. 

I was planning to have at least four more parts to my commentary. 
And I think you might have been surprised with at least one of my 
comments. 

It seems fairly apparent to me that you do not want to THINK THROUGH
the various issues but instead prefer to jump to a conclusion which 
may or may not be merited by the evidence. And apparently you cannot 
tolerate anyone else who might question your conclusion and who wants 
to explore the subject in more depth than you might want to.

Also you apparently do not want to COMPARE various similar events, 
etc. in order to be in a possibly better position to judge what the 
experience under consideration might really be all about.

Unfortunately, you youself have jumped to other conclusions which 
seem questionable. This is seen in your comments on 
Wachtmeister, the pencil incident and even in the Hartmann account.

I am not expecting anyone to accept what I have written. But I do 
hope that a few interested readers - who see the necesity of thinking 
through these various issues - will do just that.

My comments were not made to evade or ignore the evidence. My points 
were not made to bring up irrelevant material. My comments simply 
illustrate some of the thinking and questions I deal with and ask 
myself as I try to sort through and grapple with the issues and 
evidence in this incident. 

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




> Thank you, Daniel, for publishing a short seminar on
> how to argue disingenuously. You have performed a
> real service for list members. Bear in mind I am
> assuming this is entirely unconscious on your part and
> not ecidence of any sort of conscious dishonesty. 
> Nonetheless, everyone needs to know how to read
> critically and evaluate arguments and evidence
> critically. My comments below for the benefit of
> readers who would like to easily spot this sort of
> thing in the future.
> 
> Daniel: "Brigitte, I am going to go over Olcott's
> February 1876 account and make a number of comments. 
> I hope that you in turn will make some replies."
> 
> Notice this doesn't say anything because there is
> nothing to reply to. I already replied to this
> account, and Brigitte indicated that she agreed, as
> did numerous other people. That fact is completely
> ignored here. See how this works, list members?
> 
> Daniel: "Brigitte, are you willing to accept that two
> REAL ADEPTS actually came to Olcott's apartment? This
> is Paul Johnson's scholarly opinion in his first SUNY
> book."
> 
> List members, notice that this completely evades the
> issue at hand, which is how the miraculous phenomena
> were produced. It also sets uo a double bind, since
> if Brigitte were to deny that these two men were
> there, she would have to say that the cigard were
> "materialized" out of thin air and levitated in space.
> 
> Daniel: "Olcott was at the Eddy farmhouse BEFORE HE
> MET MADAME BLAVATSY and observed paranormal phenomena.
> Were there drugs/fumes in the air at the Eddy
> farmhouse when Olcott was first there a month or two
> before Blavatsky ever arrived there?"
> 
> Here, list members, notice again that the real issue
> is being evaded. The real issue is not did or did not
> happen at the Eddy farmhouse but what caused
> specifically the Oootan Liatto phenomenon.
> 
> Daniel: "Brigitte, are you and Steve suggesting that
> there was some kind of drug in the cigars?"
> 
> This question has already been answered at least three
> times, and now here we have it again. Does anyone
> hear a broken record playing? List members, the point
> of this is to make it appear the question has not yet
> been answered. That then makes the supporting
> ecidence seem to go away. See how this technique
> works?
> 
> Daniel: "Olcott was a smoker of cigars even before he
> met Madame Blavatsky."
> 
> So is Daniel suggesting that his cigars were of
> Turkish origin and specially blended? And while we
> are at it, can Daniel spell out the specific date on
> which Olcott began smoking cigars and tell us exactly
> how many cigars he smoked on a specific date, and how
> this affected his family budget? List members will
> notice that those kinds of questions have been posed
> as distractions in the past.
> 
> Daniel "I see no good reason to believe that there was
> some kind of drug in the cigars. 
> 
> Notice that numerous good reasons have already been
> given several times. Notice that not a single one of
> these reasons has been acknowledged or dealt with. 
> The idea is to try to make them go away by ignoring
> them.
> 
> Daniel: "I could write a long article on various
> paranormal phenomena being accompanied by "scents" and
> "perfumes".
> 
> Notice again that "various paranormal phenomena being
> accompanied by 'scents' and 'perfumes'" are not the
> issue. What happened with specifically Ootan Liatto
> is the issue. This statement is being used as a
> distraction.
> 
> Daniel: "I myself have experienced "scents" and
> "perfumes" in relationship to a person who had
> "paranormal" experiences happening to him."
> 
> So Daniel visits spirit mediums and some of them use
> too much after shave. What does that have to do with
> the issue at hand, which is Olcott's 1876 experience? 
> This technique attenpts to confuse the reader by
> introducing irrelevant items into evidence.
> 
> Daniel: "Hundreds of other examples could be given."
> 
> Please don't. Only one example need be given, and
> that is the story of what happened with Ootan Liatto.
> 
> Daniel: "In regards to "the production of flowers",
> you and Steve may conclude that these flowers HAD TO
> BE "hallucinations" produced by drugs, but if one does
> a COMPARATIVE study of other phenomena produced by
> Blavatsky and expands one's study to also include the
> phenomena of Spirtualism as well as the experiences of
> ordinary people who have had paranormal experiences, I
> find many parallel accounts of similar manifestations
> that had nothing to do with drugs and that also appear
> to be "objective" in the sense that several people saw
> the same phenomenon."
> 
> That gamely ignores the fact that there were numerous
> items of ecidence of a botanical component in the
> Ootan Liatto story, and in other Olcott stories, and
> in the writings of Blavatsky. Notice that none of
> this is acknowledged or dealt with.
> 
> Daniel: "D.D. Home (whom you already have put on the
> witness stand) was apparently able to produce
> "manifestations" comparable to "the production of
> flowers".
> 
> DD Home was a small time crook and an enemy of
> Theosophy. He admitted himself in his LIGHTS AND
> SHADOWS OF SPIRITUALISM that most spiritualistic
> phenomena (i.e., the sort of thing he specialized in)
> were fakes and described how they were done. Even if
> he could materialize flowers out of thin air, that
> would have no bearing on Olcott's 1876 experience
> because HOME WAS NOT THERE.
> 
> The techniques illustrated here consist of (1) quoting
> irrelevant facts, (2) selectively ignoring evidence,
> (3) trying to make evidence go away by asking certain
> kinds of questions which are framed to make it appear
> the evidence does not exist, (4) using various sorts
> of distractions and diversions, and (5) bringing in
> witnesses who cannot give evidence to the issue at
> hand. There are numerous other techniques which are
> used by others, but this short seminar is an excellent
> example. This kind of thing is used all the time in
> the news media, in political rhetoric, and in
> theological argument. To learn how to deal with this,
> the reader will do well to ignore the content of what
> is being said and focus on the diversionary techniques
> being used. Even though the content changes from
> context to context, the basic techniques remain the
> same. Learn to spot the techniques and you can learn
> to easily tell when you are being had. This sort of
> thing should be taught in school, but politicians, who
> use this sort of thing every day, have come down
> firmly against people being formally educated in
> critical thinking. If disciplined thinking became
> widespread, they would either have to declare an end
> to democracy, or we would throw the rascals out. 
> Since they control the schools, they also control the
> curriculum. So you have to teach yourself.
> 
> Disciplined reasoning is not instinctive and only
> becomes possible with training. Fictitious constructs
> such as "IQ" or "intelliigence" which have no
> scientific basis have nothing to do with it. It is
> all training. For that reason people who are
> scrupulously honest and very intelligent (if there is
> such a thing) and untrained in disciplined analysis
> will resort to such techniques unconsciously. It is
> therefore desirable to be able to spot these methods
> when you use them to kid yourself. Historical and
> philosophical problems can only be resolved with
> disciplined reasoning.
> 
> I stand by my original analysis of the Ootan Liatto
> pgenomenon. Apparently, since nobody seems willing to
> show why I am wrong, others do as well.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > Brigitte wrote in part:
> > 
> > > Wouldn't you say now that indeed Olcott's
> > description probably 
> > > indicates a drug influence ? Or if not, what
> > proof can you cite 
> > that 
> > > it isn't ?
> > > In the opinion of others on this list it is, as
> > Steve said, we see 
> > > evidence of herbs burning, herbs contained within
> > a lacquered case 
> > > which was held to Olcott's nose, visual
> > hallucinations, tactile
> > > hallucinations (the room was wet), profuse
> > sweating,time 
> > distortion, 
> > > loss of consciousness, cognitive impairment, and
> > stupefaction. Can 
> > > any reasonable person read this story and believe
> > that there were no
> > > botanical products involved in this wonder? 
> > > Especially interesting is that these drugs are the
> > means of "the 
> > > production of flowers as the adepts do it." That
> > clearly indicates 
> > > that they used these substances to produce visual
> > hallucinations and
> > > presumably insights. . . . can we agree now that
> > the . . . 
> > > descripton of Olcott contains indications 
> > > of drug influence ? 
> > 
> > Brigitte, I am going to go over Olcott's February
> > 1876 account and 
> > make a number of comments. I hope that you in turn
> > will make some 
> > replies. I will quote part of Olcott's account and
> > then comment. 
> > Quote more of Olcott's account and give further
> > comments.
> > 
> > [Although my questions will be directed towards you
> > Brigitte, I ask 
> > Steve and other interested readers for their answers
> > and comments on 
> > my questions.]
> > 
> > Henry Olcott starts off by writing:
> > 
> > "Wonder treads upon wonder. I wrote an account of my
> > [first]
> > interview with the Brother I took for a Hindoo
> > Brahmin, and was sorry
> > enough afterwards I had said a word about it, either
> > in letter or
> > lecture. [Then] I began to doubt my own senses and
> > fancy the scene
> > had all been an objective hallucination but I have
> > seen him again
> > yesterday and another man was with him.
> > 
> > "Other persons have seen this man in New York. He is
> > not a Brahmin,
> > but a swarthy Cypriote. I did not ask him before of
> > what country he
> > was.
> > 
> > "I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when
> > there came a tap at
> > the door. I said 'come in' and then entered the
> > Brother with another
> > dark skinned gentleman of about fifty with a bushy
> > gray beard and eye
> > brows.
> > 
> > Brigitte, are you willing to accept that two REAL
> > ADEPTS actually 
> > came to Olcott's apartment? This is Paul Johnson's
> > scholarly opinion 
> > in his first SUNY book. Olcott also writes that
> > other persons had 
> > see Ooton Liatto in New York.
> > 
> > Brigitte, from some of your previous remarks one
> > might assume that 
> > you believe Olcott was simply a creduous person with
> > a wild 
> > imagination. You cite Olcott's PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER
> > WORLD. From 
> > your previous comments it would appear that you were
> > willing to 
> > attribute his observations at the Eddys to his
> > "imagination" or to 
> > a "fantasy". You never gave any details about what
> > you really thought 
> > happened so it is hard to know exactly what your
> > thinking was.
> > 
> > But take note of this.
> > 
> > Olcott was at the Eddy farmhouse BEFORE HE MET
> > MADAME BLAVATSY and 
> > observed paranormal phenomena. 
> > 
> > Were there drugs/fumes in the air at the Eddy
> > farmhouse when Olcott 
> > was first there a month or two before Blavatsky ever
> > arrived there?
> > 
> > But back to the 1876 account of Ooton Liatoo.
> > 
> > These two men knock on Olcott's door and enter. 
> > 
> > Brigitte, are you willing to concede that there were
> > two living flesh 
> > and blood persons knocking on Olcott's door? Do you
> > agree or disagree 
> > with Paul Johnson's assessment that there were two
> > REAL flesh and 
> > blood persons visiting Olcott?
> > 
> > "We took cigars and chatted for a while.
> > 
> > "He said he would show me the production of flowers
> > as the adepts do
> > it. At the same time pointing to the air, fancy ---
> > the shadowy
> > outlines of flower after flower and leaf after leaf
> > grew out of
> > nothing. The room was perfectly light; in fact the
> > sun was shining
> > in. The flowers grew solid. A beautiful perfume
> > saturated the air.
> > They were suspended as the down of a thistle in the
> > air; each separate
> > from the other. Then they formed themselves into
> > bouquets and a
> > splendid large one of roses, lilies of the valley,
> > camelias, jessamine
> > and carnations floated down and placed itself in my
> > hand. Then the
> > others separated again and fell in a shower to the
> > floor. I was
> > stupefied with the manifestation.
> > 
> > Brigitte, are you and Steve suggesting that there
> > was some kind of 
> > drug in the cigars?
> > 
> > Olcott was a smoker of cigars even before he met
> > Madame Blavatsky. 
> > 
> > I see no good reason to believe that there was some
> > kind of drug in 
> > the cigars. 
> > 
> > You may respond by saying well then how did all
> > these flowers start 
> > appearing in the room? Your assumption may be that
> > Olcott would 
> > NOT have seen the flowers if he had not been
> > influenced by a drug 
> > that was in the cigars.
> > 
> > You may cite Olcott's own words:
> > 
> > "A beautiful perfume saturated the air" during the
> > appearance of the 
> > flowers.
> > 
> > Brigitte, do you consider this "perfume" as
> > evidence of a drug or is 
> > this perfume simply part of the "hallucination"
> > caused by _______ ?
> > 
> > I could write a long article on various paranormal
> > phenomena being 
> > accompanied by "scents" and "perfumes". And in all
> > these variety of 
> > phenomena I am not aware of "drugs" being involved.
> > 
> > For example, the phenomena of Stainton Moses, the
> > famous English 
> > medium, was often accompanied by "scents" and
> > "perfumes". As far as 
> > I know, drugs were not involved in these phenomena.
> > 
> > Another example. Various meditators have
> > experienced "scents" 
> > and "perfumes". 
> > 
> > I myself have experienced "scents" and "perfumes" in
> > relationship to 
> > a person who had "paranormal" experiences happening
> > to him.
> > 
> > In these instances the persons involved were not
> > taking drugs. There 
> > were no fumes of drugs in the air.
> >