Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00266)

Hi kpauljohnson,
Thursday, 17 January, 2002, you wrote:

> from the American Heritage Dictionary:
> contempt n. 1. Disparaging or haughty disdain, as for something base 
> and unworthy; scorn.

Actually quite a bit of the stuff masqueraded around here as sound
reasoning is beneath contempt.

If the the cock-sure "scholar-detectives" can strut about crowing
conclusions derived in turn from conclusions derived from speculations
then the monkey can take glee now and then in yanking out a few of
their tail feathers and watch them jump up and down and squawk!

> This, as a characteristic mode of communication, cannot possibly be
> theosophical; it's fundamentally incompatible with the attitude of 
> spiritual kinship that is the sine qua non of theosophy. But it sure 
> as hell IS Theosophical, that is characteristic of the Theosophical 
> organizations and their members.

And squawk they do! (Though Im not a Theosophist nor a member of
any group.)

.....

> Now, Alan, I'm addressing you directly. You have communicated that
> you see flaws in Steve's reasoning, and he has replied. Brigitte has
> replied angrily, *but asking for a reasoned argument from you*.

Actually she asked me to "give your comment to each of the points
raised in the only book on this subject (HPB/ Randolph) in the English
language, Deveney's 'P.B.Randolph' unless you have his Dr.dissertation
on the same subject", which is rather besides the point since I
objected only to Steves method of reasoning, not his subject matter
per se. But that is typical blustering, bull-dozing, brigitte. All she
really wants is a good argy-bargy so she may wax disputatious, but I
pale at the thought of engaging her, having only recently witnessed
her ferocious dispatching of the good Drs from Oceania.

> Both in communication with Steve and with Brigitte, the strongest
> impression you conveyed is one of overwhelming contempt. Contempt so
> strong that it overpowers any point you might be trying to make
> *other* than expressing negative emotion.

Perhaps you are profoundly sensitive. I only wished to convey that I
do not take her seriously. Maybe there is some contempt in that...
nontheless, I expect argumentative people to have thicker skin that
that.

> 1. How does the contempt you feel for people who doubt and question 
> HPB relate to what you feel towards HPB herself?

You've got to be kidding, Dr Freud.

> 2. How does it relate to a culture of contempt that has grown up over 
> a century, in which Theosophists have felt entitled and encouraged to 
> be extremely contemptuous towards anyone who doubts or criticizes 
> HPB, even their fellow Theosophists?

I bet you're just dying to answer this one yourself. Well, let rip.
Bear in mind though that what you assert as fact, or as an established
state of affairs, will probably be hotly disputed. (Not by me. At the
moment I have no firm position on the purported culture of contempt.)

> 3. What would the Theosophical movement be if this culture of 
> contempt didn't exist?

The answer to this one depends very much on the answer to the
preceding point. You've probably sown this one up too.

> My own theory: HPB, and the Mahatmas speaking through her, are rather 
> consistently contemptuous in their remarks about people who disagree 
> with their views. Lots of high-minded generalities about tolerance 
> and amity towards those of differing views, but when push came to 
> shove, they *shoved* HARD. And so, her followers follow suit, and 
> think they are being spiritual by being contemptuous. Cayce, on the 
> other hand, never had a bad word to say about anyone, and while his 
> followers are a contentious lot among themselves I have *never once* 
> seen the kind of contempt over historical or ideological matters that 
> I have seen Theosophists indulge in hundreds of times.

At least you state its a theory. But be sure, others here will grab it
with both hands and soon be touting it as fact.


Best regards,
Alan

mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com