Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00081)

Theosophistry in Fohat

Rarely have two posts synchronized as pointedly for me as Koshek's
enlightening explanation of sophistry and Daniel's informative report
on its manifestation in the pages of Fohat. Koshek wrote (pardon me
for changing the paragraphing for clarity of attribution):

Not all sophistry is based on emotions. There is also sophistry that
is based on beliefs, convictions, axioms, and expectations. If you
want something to be true, you can certainly prove to yourself that it
is true. Sophistry has a bias. It has a cause. It has always gone hand
in hand with politics. Analysis is indifferent to the results. It's
only motive is to persue the truth whever it may fall. It is the
method that the Budhha talks about when he tells us to be detached and
dispassionate and Krishna when he tells us to not desire the fruits of
one's action. It's the persuit of Truth for Truth's sake.

And Daniel reported:
The Fall, 2004 issue of FOHAT contains an editorial and 3 letters from
readers criticizing John Algeo for including in Volume I of the
LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY the "spy letter" (Letter No. 7) and nineteen
"Solovyov letters" (especially letters No. 12, 17, 53, 69 and 76).
These letters are considered by the editor and 3 readers to be frauds
or at least partial fabrications. 

[Various letter writers commented] ""I think that these letters should
be taken out of the collection...."In my opinion Letter 7 must have
been fabricated and should never have been published"…"ignore those
letters, consider them inauthentic, and therefore not include them in
HER collected letters?" 

Daniel strongly disagrees with these letter writers as well as the
editorial writer who opines that:

"One could conclude...that the powers of Wheaton and Adyar are trying
to introduce a perverted understanding of Blavatsky into the
world....There are very good political reasons for including those
letters…Adyar and Wheaton have to believe, and they have to ensure
that their members believe in the sainthood of at least Besant. This
sainthood cannot be guaranteed if Blavatsky, Judge and their
interpretations of the Masters are not made suspect. The easiest way
to accomplish this is to attack the reputations of these two founders
of the society and attribute to them base, political motives"

To which Daniel writes:

All I can say is "Flapdoodle"!

I can say is "Sophistry!". These letters, and especially the
editorial comments, are as perfect an illustration of sophistry as one
could ever find. They are also IMO an example of projection. Because
the evidence does not fit with the "beliefs, convictions, axioms, and
expectations" of Fohat's readers and editors, it must be suppressed or
discredited. It is too late to suppress the evidence now that it has
been published, hence discrediting it is the only option available. 
Notice that not one iota of genuine evidence or reasoning is brought
to bear in the effort to discredit these letters. Mere speculation
about base motives of the editorial committee suffices. This is
Theosophistry at its nastiest, utterly blind to its own political
nature while pointing the finger at others with accusations of
political motive. I salute the editorial committee for making a
choice which was evidently NOT in their political interest within the
Theosophical movement. The "must have been fabricated" construction
in one letter is extremely telling. "Must" by what standard? Sounds
like the standard of sophistry-- "if you want something to be true,
you can certainly prove to yourself that it is true."

Paul Johnson