Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00098)

Who is the one using AD HOMINEM arguments?  As far as I am concerned,
this is simply a plea for sympathy by accusing me of questioning your
integrity.  I have nothing to say concerning your integrity.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Below in Bruce's commentary there is statement
> after statement which is more reflective of what is in Bruce's
> own mind than giving a true assessment of anything else.
>
> For example, Bruce writes:
>
> ==================================================
> Daniel has stated that he has never felt compelled to seek out other
> theosophists as collegues.
> ==================================================
>
> Now did I actually say that?  I don't think I ever wrote exactly what
> Bruce is stating.  I guess I need to look back thru my postings.

I'm sorry Daniel, perhaps it was another Daniel Caldwell that wrote:
>OBTW I have never gone out of my way to make friends or enemies of
>Theosophists because I have noticed that there are unfortunately too
>many cat fights among Theosophists to start with and I rather just
>remain somewhat on the sidelines as far as interacting on a personal
>level with Theosophists in general.see:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32373

Perhaps I was wrong in using the more impersonal term "colleague" and
should have stuck with the more brotherly term "friend".  Is that your
objection?
>
> But then notice Bruce goes a step farther and writes:
>
> ==================================================
> This implies that the intuition of brotherhood does not
> appeal strongly to him.
> ==================================================
>
> All I can say is flapdoodle. Bruce is talking about something he
> knows nothing about.

It is one implication, and a fair one given the information that we
have.  I am not saying that it is true.

>
> First of all IF Bruce will look at the prefactory remarks to my book
> THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY he will see that I mention
> many people who have helped me in my Blavatsky projects.  I would
> consider many of those individuals as my colleagues in one way or
> another.
>
You may consider them colleagues, and perhaps many would consider you as
a colleague, or perhaps they might feel they were used by you.  All
possibilities.

> Furthermore, Bruce hasn't the foggiest idea about the "intuition of
> Brotherhood" at least as it relates to me.

It has been argued elsewhere from principle that actions like Daniel's,
repeating unproven slanders, cannot be considered brotherly.  Daniel
ignores such arguments and instead appeals for sympathy in emotional
posts such as this.
>
> As far as my "intuition" of Brotherhood, at least I do not go around
> questioning people's motivations and questioning their sincerity or
> loyalty or whatever.
>
> Instead I try to focus on the subject matter at hand whether it is a
> historical one or a doctrinal one or some other Theosophically
> related topic  but I do not attribute bad motives to other
> Theosophists who are here in this Theos-Talk forum or elsewhere in
> the Theosophical world.

I don't see any reference to motives above.
>
> Then Bruce continues on!
>
> ==========================================================
> He must therefore be interested in HPB and her
> history for other reasons.
> ==========================================================
>
> FOR OTHER REASONS....hmmm
>
> Yea probably all the wrong reasons!  :)

I trust not.

>
> Then he goes on:
>
> ============================================================
> I think in the end, Carlos is simply trying to point out to Daniel
> that you cannot do justice to HPB if you do not make an attempt to
> understand Universal Brotherhood.
> ===========================================================
>
> I am not at all certain exactly what Bruce is attempting to say here.
> In fact I really don't know just what Bruce is trying to
> communicate!!!!

Perhaps this is the point.

>
> To end this posting, I will simply say people can believe whatever
> they want to about me, my motivations, my character.  They can write
> about my lack of understanding of Universal Brotherhood or about my
> intuition on this that or the other.  As far as I can see this is
> nothing more than argument by going AD HOMINEM.
>
> Oh heavens, let's not discuss the Theosophical subject matter but
> instead DISTRACT by using the ad hominem tactic.

Your statement is there, the implications are there, is that not what
you do?  Did you not just write:

>Could HPB have actually written in a letter
>of May 23, 1885 to V.S. Solovyoff the following:
>
>"[Franz Hartmann]...has turned our devoted [William Q.]
>Judge, when [Judge was] despatched [in 1884] by Olcott from Paris to
>Adyar, into our enemy." Quoted from V.S. Solovyoff's A MODERN
>PRIESTESS OF ISIS, p. 125.

Implications?  One is that Hartmann and Judge were at odds with one
another and a letter from Solovyoff is a legitimate source for
determining this? Where is your argument?  Where was your "thesis,
reasoning" in THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY for using the
testimony of liars?  Was there a critical essay that I missed?

The argument is not that you use Solovyoff and Coulomb as sources,
it is that you do it without "critical anyalysis".

Nobody has called you a dugpa or evil or anything of the sort.  I
really don't care what motivates you.

Daniel Caldwell is questioned on the principles of a certain group
of actions (repeating slander without proof) regardless of what
motivates those actions.

It seems that you are the only one interested in distractions as you
feel that you do not have to address this argument but would rather
run from it and start throwing mud.  Interesting . . . .

Bruce




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