Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00453)

Friends,

The document below is an enlightening text brought here by K. Paul Johnson in February 2006. 

It reveals the vision P. Johnson developed about some of the TPH policies and tactics. 

Paul Johnson is not a theosophist and does not believe in HPB's Theosophy or in the Masters.  Which is perfectly OK, of course. 

His books try to show HPB as a spy and the Masters as political conspirers.  Yet why the TPH was not open and honest with him? 

I have no evidences that Paul Johnson is a liar, and facts show he had to face a couple of false people. 

The editorial ethics of Adyar people in the USA, to whom Daniel is associated, has been also strongly questioned by dr. Gregory Tillett. 

Gregory has called Algeo's Editorial Committee for the "HPB Letters" (to which Daniel Caldwell belongs), a "puppet committee". 

See Johnson below, on Editorial Ethics and the on-going alliance between Caldwell and Algeo/TPH. 


Regards,   Carlos. 



oooooooooooo

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:10:56 -0000 

From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com> 
Subject: My dealings with Theosophical publishers (repost from 1997) 

Hey, 

One important element in the controversy between Carlos and Bruce on 
one hand, and Daniel on the other, is the ethics of TPH as a 
publisher and John Algeo as the person who has long had power over 
Theosophical publishing.  

Also the implications of Daniel's alliance 
with John and TPH as a published author and editorial consultant. 

In digging through the archives for this I found something from 
slightly earlier by John Crocker to which I'll post a link at the 
end.  Here's my post then entitled "Editorial Vicissitudes": 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the process my own 
books went through with Theosophical publishers and my attitude 
about that process. So herewith an explanation, with apologies 
to those who are tired of the subject (as I am). It appears 
necessary to put some suspicions to rest. 

In Search of the Masters was considered for a year by 
Theosophical University Press in 1988-89, and then for a year 
simultaneously by TPH and PLP in 1989-90. All rejected it 
ultimately, without real comment on the specifics of the 
research. Although I never communicated with John Algeo 
directly, his advice was cited in the rejection decision. In 
l990 I discussed with James Santucci and associates the 
possibility of publishing it as a Theosophical History 
Foundation paper. There, the time limits imposed by tax law (I 
couldn't deduct my 1990 travel expenses unless I had authorial 
income in 1990) pushed me to go ahead with self-publication 
rather than go through the lengthy editing process that would 
have been necessary with THF. 

In Search of the Masters was surprisingly well received in the 
Theosophical world, and didn't receive many attacks. John 
Algeo never indicated any discomfort with the book or desire to 
squelch it. When I decided to revise and condense it in the 
form of a series of biographical chapters, I offered it to TPH 
and the answer was that they would consider it if I was willing 
to remove or downplay the identifications of M., K.H., etc. and 
focus mostly on the historical people themselves. This was in 
1992; I sent the ms. in to Brenda Rosen who replied in essence, 
"No, you completely rewrite it *first* and then we'll consider 
it." I agreed to do so but the research led in other 
directions and ultimately I informed her that I would not be 
able to revise in the way she had requested. Not long after, 
SUNY Press came through with a contract. 

When The Masters Revealed came out in 1994, I had no hard 
feelings toward TPH, TUP, PLP or THF although it had been 
disappointing that things fell through and that in no case did 
I get any substantive feedback on the research (in a cumulative 
3.5 years of consideratioon!) I went to Wheaton the week it 
was published, was very cordial with John and everyone there, 
and felt that the book would be no less politely received than 
its far inferior predecessor. After all the SUNY imprimatur 
should bring some increased respect, no? 

Then the positive reviews started flowing, in and outside of the 
movement, and by February 1995 things had reached a peak of 
welcoming reception, with the simultaneous appearance of a rave 
in the New York Times Book Review and a favorable review by Joy 
Mills in The Quest. I was so pleased by the latter that I sent 
an email to John Algeo thanking him for letting it appear. 
Here's where the story begins to turn sour. 

John had sent me warm, encouraging, supportive email just a few 
weeks before, saying to pay no mind to the hostile attacks I 
was getting on theos-l from outraged Theosophists. And this 
time, when I wrote thanking him for the Quest piece, he replied 
in a friendly way, saying that he was glad I liked it but that 
he had more reservations about the book than Joy did-- and that 
he'd like to discuss it with me. My reply was that 
reservations were of course warranted; that the book proved 
HPB's association with Masters in one sense (that of 
recognized experts in various spiritual traditions, from whom 
she learned) but not in the other sense of spiritually advanced 
beings with paranormal abilities, since that was beyond the 
reach of historical research. 

Next word from John was a very short note by email, snippy in 
fact, saying that he was writing two negative reviews, that I 
wouldn't like them, that I was "playing games with words" 
(guess that's what Linguistics profs are gonna look for) and 
saying between the lines, "And I want no more communication 
with you" by his abruptness and finality of tone. This was in 
the late winter of 1995. A few months later his review of TMR 
came out in the AT, and was considerably harsher than I 
expected. Particularly troubling was that he had taken my 
remark about different meanings of "Masters", made in good faith 
thinking he wanted an open discussion, and twisted it into the main 
theme of his attacks (a much longer one came out later.) That 
is, trickery and deception in the use of the word Master, among many 
other things, some imaginary and some real, to which he 
objected. By this time Daniel and likeminded people were 
pouring out the rage and indignation hot and heavy, online and 
in letters to the editor. So there seemed to be a climate of 
hostility that had taken years to turn nasty but was suddenly 
busting out all over. 

So the bottom line is I have nothing against John, or Grace 
Knoche, or Emmett Small, or Jim Santucci, for having rejected 
the book. While I would have loved some substantive feedback 
in all that time, not getting any didn't affect my loyalty to 
the movement. What *did* was that John posed as friendly and 
supportive *while his negative reviews were in the works* in 
order to win my trust. He invited a friendly conversation and 
then ended it abruptly when he thought he had something he 
could twist into a weapon to attack the book. This was not 
honorable behavior, and permanently affected my view of him. 
As a matter of fact, I resigned fairly soon but was asked by 
John to remain as a member since this was simply a 
"personality" matter. So I agreed, and remained so until the 
by-laws controvery and a host of unpleasant revelations about 
Wheaton and Adyar made the future of the TS look pretty 
hopeless. At the end of 1996 I allowed my membership to 
expire, far more due to things unrelated to my books-- the long 
history of dogmatic authoritarianism in the Society-- than to 
any personal factors. 

The bottom line in comparing dealing with ARE and the TS is 
this: TS leaders were always standoffish even while the book 
was allegedly being considered by them. I never even met Radha 
while I was at Adyar and the look she gave me in the library 
made it clear there was no point in doing so. With John, I 
never had a single telephone conversation with him, or spoke 
for more than a few minutes at some busy meeting. (Grace, on 
the other hand, even while vigorously disagreeing with much of 
what I had to say, was always accessible and friendly.) 
Substantive feedback on improvement or revision was unavailable from 
Theosophical authorities for the entire seven years from 
beginning of In Search of the Masters to the publication of 
Initiates. Maybe I was too shy about seeking contact, but most 
of this was due to the way the authorities positioned 
themslves. With ARE, on the other hand, I was received with 
proverbial open arms from anyone who could help, got massive 
amounts of feedback and helpful suggestions (none of a 
squelching variety) and ended up with a book which is much 
improved. ARE has a long track record of cooperation with 
authors many of whom are not members. Whereas the TS has a 
long track record of attacking or ignoring anything which 
doesn't fit the party line. 

I know why Brant and several other people say so confidently 
"The problem isn't us, the problem is you, and any other group 
will treat you the same way, because it's *normal*." 
Similarly, someone in China might say "Oh, there aren't really 
more human rights in America, it's all just propaganda." Until 
you have been in the position of an author dealing with the 
power structures in different groups, you don't have an up 
close view of the levels of intellectual freedom they allow or 
encourage. TS is better than many, say the Baha'is or 
Eckists. But considering the three objects and the explicit 
commitment to brotherly exploration of alternative 
perspectives, it falls well short of its proclaimed values. 

Cheers, 
KPJ 

JRC's helpful commentary here: 
http://theos-l.com/archives/199612/tl00602.html


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