Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00302)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "blavatskyarchives" <blavatskyarchives@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> it is really sad to find you using the same "ad hominem" tactic 
> against me as Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer used about one 
> year ago against Brigitte Muehlegger and you.
> 
No one is saying that the quality of your historical arguments can be 
dismissed for any reason at all. No one is advising people that you 
are to be ignored as an author, or saying that your writings are 
worthless. So when you talk about tactical parallels I don't agree. 
Several people have talked about the obsessive and destructive focus 
you have shown for years now re: my books, and my remarks were an 
attempt to explain why you've gone on so intensely, attacking one 
author for years while ignoring or praising almost all others in the 
field. Quite a few people, quite a few times, have suggested or come 
right out and said there was something unbalanced about your behavior 
in response to my books, and the subject has been recently raised 
again.
> 
> From what you write, I see that you have no understanding 
whatsoever 
> concerning my motives, actions, etc.

For eight years now, I've been trying to figure them out and you have 
not offered a single word of honest explanation to me or anyone on 
various lists who has wondered why you have carried on the way you 
have about my work. You refuse to offer me or anyone else a basis 
for understanding why you've done what you've done, but your behavior 
provides clues. I try to understand them, and others have done the 
same. Any hypothesis that is offered, you deny. Of course this 
eight year obsession couldn't possibly have anything to do with your 
belief system about HPB, because you won't admit to having one :)
> 
> What you say is basically downright silly and sounds almost 
> delusional. Believe it if it somehow comforts you.
> 
What comfort is there, really, in knowing why someone does the things 
you've done? The only comfort is that others share my horror at the 
relentlessness of it. Talk about tactics! The fact that I have been 
aghast at your obsessive attacks is taken by you as proof that 
there's something wrong with my mental health. Well, eight years of 
obsessive attacks makes others wonder about *yours*. But I'm not 
calling *you* crazy; when I try to figure out why you behave as you 
do, ideological factors rise to the fore. If you have anything else 
to offer, feel free.

> Look at the following four priceless gems that you wrote about me:
> 
> ". . . Daniel's worst enemies are those Theosophists that have 
> encouraged him to be a hatchet man. . . "
> 
Yep, you yourself have posted several times about all the praise you 
got for your efforts to demolish my reputation, and how some of the 
sources thereof turned on you later.

> " . . . in order to curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
> someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy. . . . "
> 
That's right, John Algeo found you very convenient in 1995, and 
websites associated with Pasadena and ULT have promoted your attacks 
on me in subsequent years. Now, did you *consciously* try to destroy 
me as a Theosophical historian in order to please others who wanted 
that outcome for reasons of perceived organizational interests?
Or did you *unconsciously* play to those interests while consciously 
telling yourself that your crusade was all about truth and fairness? 
Who knows? What is known is your institutional associations, e.g. 
who recommended your attack on me to TS members in 1995, and what 
publisher published your second edition.

> "In all sincerity I believe that what has happened here is that by 
> becoming an attack dog serving Theosophical orthodoxy, despite 
> knowing full well that he could have attacked Cranston just as 
> viciously as he did me using the same criteria, that he sold his 
> birthright for a mess of pottage."

You, Daniel, made an admission that is pretty damaging in this 
regard. That is, that you perceived Cranston's book as no better or 
worse than mine, no more fair game for attacks. And yet when two 
people asked why in the world you'd furiously attack one author for 
eight years and ignore the other one, you had no answer. If there is 
no reason *you'll admit to* for you to attack one author for years 
and ignore the other, then people (certainly including the author 
you've attacked) are going to wonder what interests are at stake 
here, what explains this disproportionate reaction on your part.
> 
> "But by acting on his *interests* (to be somebody respected in the 
> movement, to be published by TPH, and whatnot) and violating his 
> stated *principles* he has become a sectarian apologist and heretic-
> slayer, and thrown away all opportunity to be taken seriously in 
the 
> world of scholarship."
> 
> I guess you're trying to say here that I was motivated by 
> various "negative" INTERESTS to critique your books.

The question is not "what motivated Daniel to critique Paul's books" 
but rather "what motivated a furious singleminded eight-year 
obsession on Daniel's part to demolish Paul's reputation among 
Theosophical readers?" It's got to involve your interests, Daniel, 
because you yourself have admitted that your *principles* would have 
you applying equal amounts of scrutiny to the work of all authors 
about HPB, rather than furiously attacking one for years and years.

But how do you 
> really know what did or did not motivate me?

Of course not. That's your secret. But plenty of folks can connect 
the dots...

Sheer speculation it 
> would appear to be....possible, yes ....plausible, yes but is any 
of 
> it really true?
> 
> Paul, did those INTERESTS also motivate me in 1993? It was in 
> January of that year that you first wrote to me asking me for input 
> on your first self-published book. I took the time and effort to 
> write to you an 18 page letter and added appendices of relevant 
> material. What initially motivated me at that time to critique your 
> book??

All I know is that soon after the book came out, this letter and 
appendices was distributed by you as an "Open Letter to Paul Johnson" 
despite my having asked you during the correspondence that all this 
remain private. Thus, I assume that one of your initial motivations--
apart from the obvious one that I asked you to comment-- was the idea 
that you would later publish this as an attack on my book. 
> 
> Were Theosophists encouraging me at that time to be the hatchet man?
> 
You told me about the many hours of phone conversations you had with 
various people about my work. Presumably some encouraged your 
crusade, and others didn't.

> Was I trying to "curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
> someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy" when I wrote that critique?

What is at question isn't the initial writing of a critique but an 
eight-year obsession, reposting it and repeating the accusations 
contained therein. Which takes a bit more explaining than just 
writing something and leaving it at that.

snip

> 
> Even at the beginning of our correspondence in 1993 it appears that 
> you wanted to assign to me some kind of "negative" motivation 

That wasn't the beginning! The beginning was when I wrote to you in 
a friendly way to ask for some input. The beginning of a sick 
feeling about your negative motivation came when I read what you sent 
in reply. An adversarial, confrontational document full of caps and 
exclamations, that looked like sectarian polemics intended for 
publication, rather than the private letter in a normal tone that was 
expected.

Any explanation of your behavior towards me these last eight years 
would be welcomed by me and others who have noticed that it has been 
rather extreme. As long as you withhold explanations, yet admit 
that you could just as easily and with equal justification attacked 
other authors about HPB, people will wonder about your interests and 
motivations. They'll ask; and I'll give them what fragmentary and 
tentative explanations I can offer in the circumstances. Which 
you'll then dismiss, of course. But without offering any alternative 
explanation that makes more sense. See a pattern here?

Cheers,

Paul