Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00264)

Daniel,

Why are you duplicating this dialogue on at least two discussion boards? 

--j

Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

>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]
>> 
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> 
>



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