Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00005)

Friends,

May I offer a few ideas? 

I guess this investigation and dialogue (BELOW) is interesting, if all of the parties involved are sincerely committed to the good of mankind and consider Theosophy (as it is in the world)  as an instrument to do good.

If not, such a subject might be used by elementals and other "subtle" forces to sow further dissent in minds and  hearts. 

A correct viewpoint and method to understand Theosohical History cannot be purely logical.  Only the heart gives the true  light.  That is, perhaps,  one of the main limitations in Daniel's attempts to discuss the lives of great Theosophists.  K. Paul Johnson and John Algeo have the same problem. 


Best  regards,   Carlos. 


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:23:58 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World To Bruce & an example from what Dallas wrote

> Bruce,
> 
> Thanks for all of your comments.
> 
> I will comment on just one of yours and add
> an example.
> 
> You write:
> 
> "Perhaps you are deluded in your supposition."
> 
> Certainly I try to keep in mind that I MAY be
> deluded or mistaken in MY supposition.
> 
> But I would think that any of us may find ourselves
> in that condition at least some of the time. Maybe even
> you!
> 
> But if you believe that I am deluded in my supposition
> and you feel that it is important enough to try to
> clarify, then you should try to throw light on the
> SPECIFIC matter under consideration. Maybe I might
> learn something, you might also learn something, others
> too!!
> 
> Take a concrete example:
> 
> Dallas wrote:
> 
> "Mr. Neresheimer had introduced Mrs. Tingley to 
> W. Q. J. about a year before his death."
> 
> Now I suppose Dallas was trying to be helpful and
> was trying to convey some needed information.
> 
> But as far as I can tell, what he writes is NOT
> historically accurate.
> 
> Now I really don't care who wrote the quoted material.
> Take Dallas' name off. Is the statement accurate whether
> Paul Johnson wrote it or the Mahachohan or Leadbeater or Dallas
> or you or me?
> 
> Now maybe I am the one muddled on the point or I am deluded in my 
> supposition. But I don't think so and I have the documentation that 
> I think shows that what Dallas writes is in error.
> 
> Neresheimer himself writes that it was actually
> Mr. Judge who was instrumental in introducing
> (Neresheimer) to Mr. and Mrs. Tingley.
> From Neresheimer's account, Mr. Judge and Mrs. Tingley
> had known each other for some time BEFORE Mr. Neresheimer
> even knew of Mrs. Tingley's existence!
> 
> Again in the above statement Dallas [or whoever!!!] makes the 
> statement that Mr. Judge and Mrs. Tingley only knew each other for
> about a year before Judge died.
> 
> Again NOT accurate according to Neresheimer's account.
> They had known each other for more than 2 years. Probably
> at least for 2 years and 4 or 5 months ... IF NOT LONGER....
> 
> My source is at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesneres.htm
> 
> Now maybe you think this is all trivial. Could be....
> But shouldn't we get our basic historical facts correct if at all
> possible? Maybe you don't care... I don't know.
> 
> Now maybe Dallas has some other source for what he stated. Maybe 
> another statement by Neresheimer. I don't know. If he does, I hope 
> he brings it forward.
> 
> Maybe this is an example for you of my "criticizing." That I never 
> state my opinion. Well I think I did state my opinion and I 
> presented my evidence.
> 
> This is how I try to proceed in most of the discussions I have in 
> this forum. One point at a time on specific topics. At least 
> that's how I perceive it! I could be wrong tho.... :)
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > A few comments:
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > > 
> > > I guess you are writing to me! :)
> > > 
> > > You say:
> > > 
> > > "I love the way you 'claim' never to know what any historical 
> > > personage is thinking or doing!!"
> > > 
> > > Did I claim this? Maybe your are joking or making an 
> overstatement
> > > on purpose. :)
> > >
> > You can check out the context, perhaps it might become clear.
> > 
> > > I would prefer that they actually TELL me...what they are 
> thinking...
> > 
> > Wouldn't that be nice. Regrettably when you ask some people to
> > clarify themselves they go off comparing apples with oranges and
> > thereaby signal an unwillingness to communicate and a willingness 
> to
> > hinder clarification and waste time, or so it would seem.
> > 
> > > if they are dead...I will read what they wrote and try to 
> ascertain 
> > > what they were thinking....
> > > 
> > Have you ever tried reading their words divorced from context so 
> that
> > you need only focus on the dead letter? This is a marvelous way of
> > tying others up in fruitless debate.
> > 
> > > But if they don't tell me or if I can't read something they 
> > > wrote...I guess I can try to....speculate...or whatever about 
> what 
> > > they are thinking but that doesn't mean that I really KNOW.
> > > 
> > You may not KNOW but if you are distracted with apples posing for
> > oranges you can guess that communication for the purpose of
> > clarification is not the goal.
> > 
> > > Well I think sometimes I explain my points. Yes sometimes I 
> don't 
> > > or I don't do it fully. 
> > 
> > Can you present us with examples where clarification actually 
> resulted
> > from something you wrote or said?
> > 
> > > You also write:
> > > 
> > > "In your code of ethics it seems to be a moral imperative to 
> stand 
> > > nowhere and criticize all."
> > > 
> > > Well at least you wrote "it seems...." :)
> > > 
> > > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "to stand nowhere".
> > > 
> > Maybe the man sitting on the fence is standing nowhere and the 
> bonus
> > is that he can criticize those standing on either side of the 
> fence.
> > 
> > > An example or two might help me to know what you are trying to 
> > > communicate.
> > > 
> > Apples and Oranges are examples that work for some people.
> > 
> > > Yes I do try to point out from time to time historical 
> > > inaccuracies. And I try to usually document them so you can 
> decide 
> > > for yourself whether my point is well taken or not.
> > > 
> > Perhaps you are deluded in your supposition. 
> > > Daniel
> > > 
> > Daniel, if you really wanted to communicate, it shouldn't be that 
> hard.
> > 
> > Bruce 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dallas,
> > > > 
> > > > I love the way you "claim" never to know what any historical 
> > > personage
> > > > is thinking or doing!! Yet you certainly construct your 
> quotes 
> > > like
> > > > you are trying to make a point! Perhaps if you explained your 
> > > points
> > > > people would not be left having to guess what you are thinking 
> or
> > > > doing!!! Your only explanations seem to be in the criticism 
> of 
> > > other
> > > > people's opinions. In your code of ethics it seems to be a 
> moral
> > > > imperative to stand nowhere and criticize all.
> > > > 
> > > > Jesus X 2!
> > > > 
> > > > Bruce
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I love the way you know exactly what I was or wasn't 
> thinking or 
> > > > > doing!!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Take this gem of yours:
> > > > > 
> > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > Daniel has baited Dallas into commenting on an historical 
> matter 
> > > by
> > > > > again first trying to deceive readers through lack of 
> context. 
> > > Rather
> > > > > than demonstrate to readers why Dallas is wrong in his 
> analysis, 
> > > > > Daniel might demonstrate some courage and present his own 
> > > > > convictions to the readers. It is rather cowardly sitting in 
> the 
> > > > > weeds constantly floating decoys and then blasting anyone 
> who 
> > > cares 
> > > > > to investigate. Clever but
> > > > > cowardly.
> > > > > =========================================================
> > > > > 
> > > > > When I wrote my posting titled "Robert Crosbie Claimed" I 
> wasn't
> > > > > even thinking about Dallas!! I had been discussing the use 
> of 
> > > > > the word "claim" with Carlos. So I simply decided to present
> > > > > to Carlos a series of statements showing what Crosby claimed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So now you say I was baiting Dallas?
> > > > > 
> > > > > But of course you know better than myself what I was or 
> wasn't 
> > > > > thinking or doing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bruce, is this in your code of Theosophical ethics to accuse 
> > > people 
> > > > > of what you don't have the foggiest idea about?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jesus! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Daniel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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