Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00063)

I see that I wrote the following on Theos-Talk which was posted on 
January 8, 1997:

-------------------------------------------------


K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l:

> I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is
> motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work.
> This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of
> Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie to
> help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief
> system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his
> statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism.

Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing my
critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and KH?

Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief
system or not?

*Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and the
evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or
not.* Have I presented evidence ,etc. which shows that Johnson's
thesis is wrong? That is the question to be answered.

Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some
readers are intelligent enough to discern between those
"intrusions" and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in
my critique.

But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my belief
system. How does Johnson know what I really believe?

No doubt, I have a "belief" system. Doesn't Johnson? Doesn't
most people? If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then
please tell me more than that I am wrong. What am I not
considering? Where am I wrong in my assumptions, etc.? Win me
over with rational discussion, etc. instead of simply telling me
I have a rigid belief system.

I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where
I believe Johnson has gone astray in his research on the Masters
M. and K.H. I would think that even Dr. David Lane, who says
he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see
some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some
of the issues involved.

It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument.
Johnson seems to be saying: Distract by focusing on Caldwell;
don't deal with the issues Caldwell raised in his critique.
Isn't this similar to those Theosophists who have questioned
Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with the substance of
Johnson's arguments? I have no idea what Johnson's motivations
were in writing his books. I assume they were all good but I
don't really care. Does Johnson really know what my belief
system is or how rigid it is? Or is he just blowing smoke to
distract from the issues I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS?

.............

Daniel H. Caldwell