Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00349)

Eldon:

If you have Rich's current e-mail address, may I
suggest writing him and inviting him to join our list?
He is far and away the most intelligent and learned
of all the Theosophists, and to my mind also the most
interesting. He dropped off one of the other lists
some time ago because the Fundamentalists accused him
of leading a conspiracy to destroy Theosophy, of being
"a sexually perverted black magician," and all sorts
of truly hilarious "charges." Some Fundamentalists,
noticing correctly that he was not as ignorant as they
were (or they as learned as he) called him "arrogant."
I thought it was hysterically funny, but Rich became
highly peeved and left, much to the detriment of all
future discussions.

Incidentally, in response to your post about
"absolutism," I remain stubbornly convinced that it
was the Fundamentalists who drove him away who were
wrong, and not Rich. Call me an "absolutist" if you
will, but I value learning and intelligence over
ignorance, stupidity, and obscurantism any day. Rich
has a great deal to contribute. But then values
cannot be defended rationally, being as they are
formed prior to the development of rational thought. 
If he ever decides to rejoin us, we will all benefit
from his knowledge. If he shows up again on some
other list, pls let me know so I can lurk there.

Steve

--- Eldon B Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com> wrote:
> 
> >Daniel:
> >"Are you referring to his draft version available
> at Blavatsky Net?"
> 
> >Brigitte:
> >No that would never qualify as a thesis at UC
> Berkeley, that was
> >simple an appologetic introduction to the work he
> wanted to start,
> >and was written during the time he was on the
> Theosophical mailing
> >list, once he started his research in earnest, he
> dissapeared from
> >the lists becouse he felt attacked by
> fundamentalists soon afther his
> >first introduction was put on.
> 
> Here's an extract from one of Richard's messages to
> theos-talk
> relating to the current discussion. The message is
> dated 01/18/1999
> and is entitled "Re: Defense of HPB".
> 
> <http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/tt06881.html>
> 
> His online messages, from theos-talk before it moved
> to
> Yahoo Groups, can be found indexed at:
> 
> 
> <http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/author33.html>.
> 
> (Note that there is a gap from when the list
> archives got converted
> to html and when the list moved to Yahoo Groups.
> It'll take several
> dozen hours to do, and I'm not sure if I'll have
> time in the near
> future to devote to the effort.)
> 
> -- Eldon
> 
> ---- extract from Rich's message:
> 
> Furthermore, there is a *HUGE* difference between
> stating (factually, with
> abundant "proofs") that HPB may have spelled a word
> wrongly, or mistaken one
> name with another -- and criticizing HPB's life
> work. As part of my
> schoolwork, and as part of my exploration and
> verification of Theosophy, such
> anomalies emerge from time to time. And I do think
> it's important to share
> with others such things, so that we may all ponder
> their significance.
> 
> On the other hand, there ARE those who seek to
> undermine HPB. Such people
> impugn her credibility, deny the existence of her
> Teachers, attack HPB's
> intellect, chastity, or background. Some people
> will attempt to misprepresent
> her, and then attempt to show how silly Theosophy is
> by killing that "straw
> man." On all of these counts, I stand with Dallas
> and state that we should
> instantly come to HPB's defense. We cannot stand
> idly by while our Teacher,
> or her Teachers, are pulled down, and the wisdom
> tradition is dismantled.
> 
> But it is quite another thing to disallow any
> investigation and <gasp>
> correction of HPB's statements on x, y, or z. If
> list members plan to
> regularly oppose discussion on such topics, I will
> have to systematically
> ignore them. This would be sad, in light of the
> goal of brotherhood. It
> would be nice to have everyone included in a
> discussion. But obstructionism
> is directly opposed to the spirit of free inquiry
> and discussion, and it
> shouldn't be tolerated. Nor do I think discussion
> should come to a grinding
> halt every time someone posts an
> "anti-investigation" message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com