Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00261)

Dear Jerry,

Thanks for your futher comments below.

Let me once again quote your original words:

> >>>"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."

Now let me quote your latest words about
the Deveney comments of yours:

"....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."

I simply do not understand what you are trying to
tell us by calling your initial statement "a
rhetorical statement written in context...In that
context, it is self explanatory and very tongue in
cheek...."

I have no idea exactly what you are trying to
tell me.

All I was trying to ask you with my first posting
was in a general context, in your opinion are there
"surprises" in Deveney's article that pro-Blavatsky
students (Theosophical apologists???] might have
a problem with and therefore might try to discount
by explaining them away?

And if there are such "surprises" I was wondering
what specific items of information you were thinking
of when you labelled them "surprises".

What is my opinion of Deveney's article? Well,
certainly Mr. Deveney has done a great deal of
research into Rawson's life and claims. I would
think Deveney may be writing a full length
biography of Rawson considering the depth of
Deveney's research.

Daniel













--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> 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]