Re: Public versus Private???
May 27, 2006 08:15 PM
by danielhcaldwell
Bruce,
Thanks for your reply at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33702
I find your comments of interest but with so many of them I disagree
or find that they reflect but one side of a very complex issue.
For example, you write:
====================================================
The public record provides a clear and unambiguous record of events.
Private correspondence is much less clear. If one were to make a
case strictly from private correspondence, then one could use it to
argue almost anything.
====================================================
IF you are making general comments not in reference to any
one historical event or issue, then I would say that:
often the public record is certainly NOT "a clear and unambiguous
record of events."
Oftentimes the public record is anything but clear and doesn't even
come close to presenting an unambiguous record of events.
Just become we may have a public record doesn't mean that we can
trust it any more than private correspondence for a true and correct
picture of what happened.
And when you write:
============================================
If one were to make a case strictly from private correspondence,
then one could use it to argue almost anything.
============================================
Well I guess you could USE it to THAT effect. But I would say that
oftentimes one can ALSO use the public record to argue almost
anything.
Just because something is public doesn't automatically give it
a "status" that private correspondence doesn't have.
You also comment:
---------------------------------------------------
Private opinions gleaned from correspondence and hearsay is one
thing, opinions put into the public record are another.
--------------------------------------------------
But who is to say that the public record is not also cluttered
with "private opinions" simply expressed as public or that the
public record may not also include "hearsay".
I still fail to see why you are insisting on this apparently nice
and neat division between "public" and "private."
Do your comments about "private correspondence" apply equally
to THE MAHATMA LETTERS and THE LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY TO A.P.
SINNETT?
Some of the first books I read on Theosophy were THESE private
letters. Yet they had a tremendous influence on me.
I dare say that the "public record" on modern Theosophy and
Blavatsky was quite incomplete and less than clear BEFORE the
publication of these PRIVATE letters.
So do your comments on private documents apply equally to these
letters??
I could comment on other remarks of yours but I will simply close by
saying that interested students of Theosophy/Blavatsky hopefully
will make FULL USE of both public and private documents in the hope
that they may more fully understand various events/issues/teachings,
etc. To discount any relevant information just because it is or
once was "private" seems less than desirable.
And it goes almost without saying that a "judicious" use of both
public and private documents should be what we all aim for.
Daniel
http://hpb.cc
When that case is placed into the timeline of the
public record, its inadequacies will become readily apparent.
Judiciously, private correspondence would be used to make commentary
on
the public record.
Private opinions gleaned from correspondence and hearsay is one
thing,
opinions put into the public record are another. Often
misunderstandings arise between people and are worked out in private.
The pulbic record reflects none of this. In extreme instances, both
parties realize the moral (if not legal) implications of publically
attacking another. However, most disagreements are not extreme and
after a few cross words the source of the misunderstanding is
identified
and the parties carry on with the public record being none the wiser.
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd"
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> The public record provides a clear and unambiguous record of
events.
> Private correspondence is much less clear. If one were to make a
case
> strictly from private correspondence, then one could use it to
argue
> almost anything. When that case is placed into the timeline of the
> public record, its inadequacies will become readily apparent.
> Judiciously, private correspondence would be used to make
commentary on
> the public record.
>
> Private opinions gleaned from correspondence and hearsay is one
thing,
> opinions put into the public record are another. Often
> misunderstandings arise between people and are worked out in
private.
> The pulbic record reflects none of this. In extreme instances,
both
> parties realize the moral (if not legal) implications of publically
> attacking another. However, most disagreements are not extreme and
> after a few cross words the source of the misunderstanding is
identified
> and the parties carry on with the public record being none the
wiser.
>
> Your example of Judge, Hartmann, and HPB deals entirely in
generalities.
> To the extent that there was a misunderstanding between HPB and
Judge,
> its source was identified and resolved never being reflected in the
> public record - to them it was not important. It seems to me that
if
> there were any malice in what HPB had done, these three would have
> ceased to be allies. The letter writers understood the context of
their
> letters and did not feel it was necessary to explain that context
to one
> another. There was no ambiguity to them. As we read one side of
this
> correspondence, very little is clear to us, there are many missing
> pieces. We can make the generalities mean as much or as little as
we
> want. Judge, Hartmann, and HPB were aware of the context and they
> remained faithful to one another right to the end as far as the
public
> record is concerned.
>
> Context is important, and the public record gives us context.
Taking
> snippets of letters out of context is dangerous and unfair. I do
not
> understand what is confusing about this.
>
> This brings us to Olcott. His doubts ceased to be private and
found
> their way into the public record. This was a challenge that had
to be
> met no matter how sincere those doubts were at that point in
time. He
> was not only attacking HPB's integrity, but also the Spirit of
> Theosophy. It does not matter why he did it, only that he did
it. The
> only thing that would absolve such an attack would be if he were
to have
> proof of what he claimed. He never offered proof, only an
opinion. His
> opinion that the Prayag Letter was not an accurate reflection of
> theosophy was not a problem. He could have argued that. When he
tried
> to save the infalible authority of the Masters by blaming HPB for
the
> content of the letter, he erred. Hartmann's "Talking Image of
Urur"
> gives a pretty good idea of how there came to be a fantastical
cult of
> the Masters that neither HPB, Hartmann, nor Judge shared in.
Olcott on
> the other hand was not immune from the fantasies of this cult
according
> to HPB and the others. Olcott could have simply stuck to arguing
the
> failings of this letter. He did not. He usurped the authority of
the
> Masters by attacking Their Agent, HPB. If he is capable of
judging HPB,
> then obviously the moral authority transfers to him and the
Masters must
> be on his, and his allies, side. This was a grave error. The
Masters
> cared about Humanity. Olcott should not have believed that they
were
> interested in taking sides in the petty squabbles of individuals.
> Olcott and HPB were both owed gratitude from the Masters for their
> tireless work. The Masters could not, however, stand behind
Olcott for
> publically denouncing HPB. The attack was based on no proof, was
> therefore by its very nature unfair, and was consequently an
attack on
> the Brotherhood of Humanity, the very Spirit of Theosophy.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > You write in part:
> >
> > ===================================================
> > Privately, he [Olcott] could state whatever he likes.
> > Certainly, Judge appears to have been aware of Olcott's
> > opinions concerning HPB and was willing to work with
> > him despite these opinions. It is only after Olcott
> > made them public that they became a problem for the
> > integrity of the Theosophical Society.
> > ==================================================
> >
> > Then later you write:
> >
> > ==================================================
> > I really don't care a tinker's damn what anyone then
> > or now thinks about HPB's integrity in private.
> > I am only interested in the Public Record as the
> > Theosophical Society is a public institution and
> > what members say publically concerning that institution
> > is important for us all....
> > =================================================
> >
> > Bruce, I must admit that I am really puzzled by what
> > you write above. I guess your argument goes right
> > over my head. Maybe I'm tired tonite and my brain is just
> > not working....
> >
> > To my way of thinking, I am glad Olcott gave his opinion ---
> > whether in public or in private. If it was his REAL, honest
opinion,
> > then why shouldn't he give it publicly? Why hide it?
> >
> > I really could care less about this distinction between
> > public and private opinions.
> >
> > Since Judge brought up the Prayag letter in public, what
> > was Olcott suppose to do if he felt strongly about the letter?
> > Refrain from giving his real honest assessment of the letter in
> > public? Hide his opinion????
> >
> > Are you suggesting (I hope not!) that Judge might have had one
opinion
> > for public consumption but actually thought something else in
> > private???
> >
> > I also fail to understand what Olcott's opinion of HPB
> > has to do with the "integrity of the Theosophical Society"
> > or how Olcott's opinion is really relevant to the Society as
> > an "institution".
> >
> > As a student of Theosophy and Blavatsky as well of the history
of the
> > Theosophical Movement, I want to know what the key actors REALLY
> > believed whether they only expressed it in a "private letter" or
> > whether they wrote their opinion in a public article or book.
> >
> > I really fail to understand why you make this distinction between
> > private and public.
> >
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application