Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00247)

Hi, Alan:

Thanks for the comments. My corrections below.

Alan: "However the unsupported assertion that "this is
true" states the conclusion in advance. A cheap
rhetorical trick.

Would it be less cheap and more expensive if I had
stated what I was trying to show after giving the
evidence? My grammar teacher used to tell us: tell'em
what you're going to say, say it, and then tell 'em
what you said. I was just following my old grammar
teacher there, Alan. A wise old lady, that one.

Alan: "Beyond Belief! The mere act of
colocating something connects it to ... well
whatever you wish if you would pursue this false line
of logic.

Not quite. I broke down the description into a series
of atomic components, then addressed each one in turn.
Only one organization fits on every point.

Alan: "Stating something and inferring - without, let
it be emphasised, NO causal connection - that that
which HPB skirted around is identical to your
"revelation" (no deduction here)

You need to rewrite that sentence. It does not make
any sense. What, pray tell, does the phrase "without,
let it be emphasised, NO causal connection" mean? 
That is a double negative, you know. Are you saying
there was a causal connection, and if so between what
and what?

Alan: "Nonetheless we at least know that you believe
Randolph's crew to be "most powerful" since that is
how you make the identifying link. There is no
evidence to show it was the "oldest".

Blavatsky did not say that Randolph was either old or
powerful, but that he claimed a connection with
Eastern brotherhoods that were, and this statement is
true. He did make that claim.

Alan: "Memory is no excuse for illogic. If your point
is so vague and speculative, why advance it at all?

I missed something somewhere. I remember from reading
Eulis years ago that Randolph tried unsuccessfully to
establish a branch in San Francisco. How is that
illogical?

Alan: "Again a feeble memory advanced as vital proof.
However the groups who have claimed Rosicrucian roots
are legion, why not choose any one of them?

The statement was made by Randolph in his RAVELETTE
and quoted by Waite in his BROTHERHOOD OF THE ROSY
CROSS. I have read both of those. There was only one
organization in the US in that time period whuch
claimed a Rosicrucian basis, and this one did not have
it, as its founder asserted. Randolph's group fits
Blavatsky's description on every point, and no other
does.

Alan: "Puhleeze! Suppose you could link Blavatsky with
every selfimprovement course ever offered,
never mind any philosophy or religion of
perfectibilism? There is no link. Two groups could
urge their people to "TRY" but one might "TRY" for
something completely different from the other.

Sorry, but the motto "TRY" stated as a single word and
not as a part of a phrase was unique to Randolph until
Blavatsky started attributing it to her Brotherhood of
Luxor, which was clearly a code name for his
"Rosicrucian Brotherhood.".

Alan: "In case you might be wrong, its always a good
plan to credit someone else with the insights youve
just laid out as incontrovertribly suggestive of proof
of your point. In this case it appears to be just
false modesty.

It is a fact that to my knowledge Deveney was the
first person in modern times to state this insight. 
That is a fact and that is what I said. So you are
critizing a statement of fact. Can you name someone
else who did it before him?

Alan: "Making the figurative literal plumbs the depths
of an already impoverished "logic".

A figurative reference to a mirror is suggestive if
the mirror is described as "concave," since concave
mirrors were the peculiar preoccupation of Randolph
admirers. I dare say you do not use a concave mirror
to shave.

Alan: "The key phrase here is "I believe" It is hard
to accept a statement of belief as a premise in
support of your conclusions.

I could not find the phrase "I believe" anywhere. 
What I said was, "I do not believe it was intended as
mere poetic fancy." That was a reference to a
statement by Gerald Schueler that Blavatsky's comments
are poetic fancies and cannot be taken literally or
even seriously, as he stated in an earlier email. I
disagree with his statement that Blavatsky's claims
cannot be taken seriously. My statement that I
disagree is a statement of fact.

Alan: "The mirror of the astral light is surely
figurative

Not necessarily. In her TRANSACTIONS Blavatsky
suggests that the "astral light" can be collected by
will power in a tin cup, which is then used as a
gazing mirror for purposes of producing visions. That
connects the "astral light" with mirror gazing. That
is what I was referring to with what you will agree is
impeccable and incontrovertible logic. Sorry to
shatter your rejoinder.

Alan: "Surely you don't believe the soul can be
directly observed through the eye?

I did not say that, but now that you mention it, sure,
why not?

Alan: "Can we say with confidence and authority that
Randolph's and these mirrors were produced by
identical method? Of course we do not know how the
mirrors referred to immediately above were made.

Not a problem because I was not trying to say anything
about how they were made, merely to point out that
Blavatsky was interested in mirror gazing, which she
was.

Alan: "Suggests? How about I "suggest" the above
speculation suggests nothing except the fanciful
musing of a suggester.

Suggest what you will, I will be a suggester and you a
jester. The audience is laughing at your jests, Alan.
A jester you are. Jest away.

Alan: "Such vagueness cannot be taken seriously.

An impoverished argument, yours! If Blavatsky came to
NY in 1874, which she did, and Eandolph shot his
brains out in 1875, which he did, then it can be taken
seriously that her association with him personally
could only have been brief, unless you want to assert
a post mortem acquaintance. Some of Radolph's
disciples claimed to have been chit chatting with him
from beyond the grave, but if their claims are
correct, his writing style changed considerably while
passing over, and was relieved of its pre mortem
intellectual content.

Alan: "Not sure Im with you on this one. ... But then
a changed tune, in the way you use it, suggests a
reversal. And I'm not sure that can be shown.

If you are not sure then you have not read Olcott's
OLD DIARY LEAVES, because he is the one who says she
taught reincarnation after going to India and not
before. If you wish to reject Olcott's statements,
then enlighten us why he is wrong and you are right. 
Thus far no one has been willing to address this
evidence.

Alan: "HPB was no lady

Mere opinion on your part. I have to apply your own
phrases to that statement: "Impoverished argument. No
sober or sensible person could take that seriously." -
originally stated by Alan.

Alan: "Of course she makes numerous references to God.

Thanks for telling me I am right.

Alan: "Within the limits of the language she elevated
the concept "God" to mean 'That' which is beyond the
God of our religions. Take a break.

English is not that limited a language. Hegel would
have used the word Absolute. Von Hartmann would have
said Unconscious. If U don't like English or speak it
well, Sankara would have said Parabrahman, which
literally means "beyond God." None of these words
refer to God as posited by the Pentecostals.

Alan: "Mere experience without any heart is also of
limited value."

Mere experience is always more valuable than no
experience at all, methinks, whether acquired with or
without heart. Rejecting experience altogether does
not get mysteriously sanctified by saying to the world
that you have "heart".

Alan: "UnConcious distortion of facts is unfortunate,
concious distortion even more so.

So what are you saying? Are you trashing Sylvia
Cranston's book? If so, I think we should leave
Sylvia alone. Stop trashing Sylvia, Alan.

Alan: "If you are to press your point of view, at
least employ a little logic

If you are going to criticize my point of view, then
you should also employ some logic. There is still
time. I congratulate you, though, on at least
addressing the issues. Thus far all we have seen from
others is distractions of various kinds and a lot of
irrelevant fustian.

Steve

--- alwilli <alwilli@iafrica.com> wrote:
> Hello Steve,
> Saturday, January 05, 2002, you wrote:
> 
> > Here is the main quote in Isis which establishes a
> > connection between Blavatsky and Randolph:
> 
> > "In the United States, a mystical fraternity now
> > exists, which claims an intimate relationship with
> one
> > of the oldest and most powerful of Eastern
> > Brotherhoods. It is known as the Brotherhood of
> Luxor,
> > and its faithful members have the custody of very
> > important secrets of science. Its ramifications
> extend
> > widely throughout the great Republic of the West.
> > Though this brotherhood has been long and hard at
> > work, the secret of its existence has been
> jealously
> > guarded. Mackenzie describes it as having "a
> > Rosicrucian basis, and numbering many members"
> ("Royal
> > Masonic Cyclopaedia," p. 461). But, in this, the
> > author is mistaken; it has no Rosicrucian basis.
> The
> > name Luxor is primarily derived from the ancient
> > Beloochistan city of Looksur, which lies between
> Bela
> > and Kedgee, and also gave its name to the Egyptian
> > city." (Isis 2.308)
> 
> Taken by itself, this passage in no way admits of
> anything you would claim
> it does. You set it up as self-evident. But their is
> no logical basis, even
> a clever illogical basis, for your claim. Below you
> sin even more egregiously
> against logic.
> 
> > She admitted elsewhere that the real name of this
> > fraternity was not "The Brotherhood of Luxor" but
> did
> > not give the real name. As J.P. Deveney points
> out,
> > it was P.B.Randolph's "Rosicrucian Brotherhood." 
> That
> > this is true can be seen from the following
> > statements:
> 
> As above. However the unsupported assertion that
> "this is true" states the
> conclusion in advance. A cheap rhetorical trick.
> 
> > (1) Situated "in the United States." Randolph's
> > "Rosicrucian Brotherhood," was centered in Boston,
> > Massachusetts.
> 
> Beyond Belief! The mere act of co-locating something
> connects it to ... well
> whatever you wish if you would pursue this false
> line of logic.
> 
> > (2) "Now exists" (in 1877).
> 
> Not only the same geographical location, the same
> century! What conspiracies
> we could uncover using the same method!
> 
> > (3) "Claims an intimate relationship with one of
> the
> > oldest and most powerful of Eastern Brotherhoods."
> 
> > Randolph claimed to have studied in India;
> Brigitte
> > says the claim was bogus, but if that is true, the
> > fault is with Randolph and not Blavatsky.
> 
> Stating something and inferring - without, let it be
> emphasised, NO causal
> connection - that that which HPB skirted around is
> identical to your
> "revelation" (no deduction here) that it was
> Randolph's outfit she referred
> to because that was the only "Eastern Brotherhood"
> you could pin down to
> that time. Have you ever considered that she
> referred to an altogether
> more secretive group that you missed in your
> research? I doubt it.
> Nonetheless we at least know that you believe
> Randolph's crew to be "most
> powerful" since that is how you make the identifying
> link. There is no
> evidence to show it was the "oldest".
> 
> > (4) "Its ramifications extend widely throughout
> the
> > great Republic of the West," albeit not as widely
> as
> > its organizers might have liked. If memory serves
> me
> > well, Randolph did try to establish a group in San
> > Francisco, which is on the other side of the
> continent
> > from Boston.
> 
> Memory is no excuse for illogic. If your point is so
> vague and speculative,
> why advance it at all?
> 
> > (4) "This brotherhood has been long and hard at
> work,"
> > as of 1877. As Brigitte pointed out, Randolph's
> books
> > were coming out as early as 1862 or even earlier.
> 
> A more tenuous linkage would be hard to make.
> 
> > (5) "The secret of its existence has been
> jealously
> > guarded," even though Randolph and co. might have
> > preferred it be better known. He was not a good
> > promoter.
> 
> Here you already believe you have proved your point.
> To answer the question
> how, if it was secret, can it so easily be
> discerned, you offer this weak
> explanation. No sound and sober person should
> swallow such chaff.
> 
> > (6) "It has no Rosicrucian basis." Despite using
> the
> > name, Randolph admitted in his RAVALETTE that
> > "everything I have given out as Rosicrucian
> originated
> > in my own soul." (this quote from memory.)
> 
> Again a feeble memory advanced as vital proof.
> However the groups who have
> claimed Rosicrucian roots are legion, why not choose
> any one of them?
> 
> > (7) The documents Blavatsky claimed to have gotten
> > from them constantly urged the recipient to TRY,
> which
> > was Randolph's motto.
> 
> Puhleeze! Suppose you could link Blavatsky with
> every self-improvement
> course ever offered, never mind any philosophy or
> religion of
> perfectibilism? There is no link. Two groups could
> urge their people to
> "TRY" but one might "TRY" for something completely
> different from the other.
> 
> > The credit for this insight must go to Deveney. I
> > should have figured that one out myself, but
> confess
> > to having had an "Aha!" experience when I read
> > Deveney's book. It is notable that when Chintamon
> et
> > al started "The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor"
> they
> > based it on Randolph's stuff. So others probably
> > figured it out before Deveney.
> 
> In case you might be wrong, its always a good plan
> to credit someone else
> with the insights youve just laid out as
> incontrovertribly suggestive of
> proof of your point. In this case it appears to be
> just false modesty.
> 
> > In Isis she refers to the mystical experience as
> "that
> > image of blinding light that he sees reflected in
> the
> > concave mirror of his own soul" Isis 1.xviii
> 
> > One does not tend to buy concave mirrors in the
> > furniture store. Randolph had these specially
> made
> > for mirror gazing purposes.
> 
> Making the figurative literal plumbs the depths of
> an already impoverished
> "logic".
> 
> > Searching elsewhere int he same book we find
> > references to:
> 
> > "the eternal mirror of the astral ether" (2.60)
> 
> > "the mirror of astral light. Isis 2.115
> 
> > "the mirror of Astral light. (Isis, Vol. I, p.
> 352.)
> 
> > That is suggestive in terms of the statement I
> quoted
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/