Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00232)

 Dan,
As I said before, it was a rhetorical statement written in context to 
the subject of communicating Theosophy to a post modern generation. In 
that context, it is self explanatory and very tongue in cheek, as it 
reflects upon modernist verses post modernist attitudes. In context, the 
statement does not mean, nor was it intended to mean that Theosophical 
apologists have for some reason an obligation or compulsion to put forth 
an explanation--which, of course, is pure nonsense. There is an old 
saying--"Context is everything" but getting a feel for the tone helps 
too. 

Now, to my question, which I ask you again: What are you thoughts on 
Deveney's article?
--j

BTW, why are you writing identical messages to me on two different 
discussion boards? This is silly.
j



Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

>Jerry,
>
>Thanks for your reply below but I am still
>puzzled by your initial statement.
>
>Therefore I ask you again:
>
>Could you share with us your
>thoughts as to why you
>felt these "surprises" would
>have to be explained away
>by the Theosophical apologists?
>
>Daniel
>http://hpb.cc
>
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
>wrote:
> 
>
>>Dan,
>>
>>First of all, I did not have you in mind when I used the phrase 
>>"Theosophical apologists." 
>>
>>Second, the comment was in the context of a discussion I was having 
>> 
>>
>with 
> 
>
>>Dallas concerning modernist verses post modernist approaches to 
>>communicating theosophy, and therefore the comment was rhetorical. 
>>
>>Regarding the article in TH, I was indeed surprised by some of the 
>> 
>>
>data 
> 
>
>>Deveney found in his research, and I believe that anyone interested 
>> 
>>
>in 
> 
>
>>Theosophical history will also be surprised. Were you not 
>> 
>>
>surprised? 
> 
>
>> If you were already aware of everything that Deveney had 
>> 
>>
>discovered 
> 
>
>>concerning Rawson, then you are way ahead of me, and ahead of 
>> 
>>
>Deveney 
> 
>
>>too. In any case, I would be interested in reading your comments 
>>concerning the article. 
>>--j
>>
>>
>>
>>Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>>Sometime ago, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>>>
>>>"I think you will be very interested in the 
>>>October [2004] issue of Theosophical History, which 
>>>should be going into the mail in the next
>>>week or so. Pat Deveney has a fascinating 
>>>article on A.L. Rawson, whose testimony has 
>>>been used to prove some things about HPB, 
>>>while other statements of his have been 
>>>ignored when they were --let us
>>>say--inconvient to the party-line 
>>>version of history. With giving away
>>>the article, just let me say that Mr. 
>>>Deveney has dug us some real surprises 
>>>which am sure that certain Theosophical 
>>>apologists who pose as
>>>historians will have to explain away."
>>>
>>>I have now read the Deveney article and though
>>>
>>>the article may contain "some real surprises", I 
>>>
>>>am somewhat puzzled why these "surprises" will
>>>
>>>have to be explained away by "certain Theosophical
>>>
>>>apologists who pose as historians."
>>>
>>>It is unclear to me why these apologists would
>>>
>>>have to explain anything away as given in
>>>
>>>the Deveney article.
>>>
>>>I am also puzzled why Jerry apparently
>>>
>>>felt the need to label certain unnamed
>>>
>>>individuals as "Theosophical
>>>
>>>apologists who pose as historians."
>>>
>>>I think we can safely assume that
>>>
>>>Jerry does not consider himself
>>>
>>>as one of these Theosophical
>>>
>>>apologists.
>>>
>>>Maybe Jerry could share with
>>>
>>>us his thoughts as to why he
>>>
>>>felt these "surprises" would
>>>
>>>have to be explained away
>>>
>>>by the Theosophical apologists.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>>http://hpb.cc
>>> 
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]