Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00151)

Friends, 


Gregory Tillett writes:  

"I was not arguing that organizations - esoteric or otherwise - must or
should open their archives, any more than individuals must or should make
their private documents available to others."

So, it is all clear.  There is no reason for misundertandings. This is a respectful and balanced position. Great. 

Daniel seemed to have quoted Tillett saying that the ULT was probably not legitimate because it did not have a public library and so on. 

( By the way, the ULT-L.A.  may have a public library and archives. I don't live in the USA and have never asked L.A. ULT about that) . 

But once Tillett recognizes the right that the ULT has to open or not to open its archives or library, without being for this sole decision automatically  labeled as an ilegitimate organization or group ---  then everything is OK and on fair terms. 

I am fully satisfied with this clarification from Tillett. 

In addition to that, I  would suggest Dr. Tillett someday writes a letter or email to the Theosophy Company and asks if he can have access to the Library and Archives of the ULT in Los Angeles. 

If he receives an answer, OK.  If he doesn't receive an answer, the very absence of answer would serve as an answer.  

In the meantime, if I come to know any better about this topic,  I will let you all know about that. 

As I said, I have respect for Gregory Tillett's work as a historian, and I know of the positive historical  importance of his researches.


Regards,  Carlos. 



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Tue, 5 Dec 2006 06:50:36 +1100 (EST)

Assunto:Theos-World Access to archives

> Carlos seems to have misunderstood my questions.
> 
> I was not arguing that organizations - esoteric or otherwise - must or
> should open their archives, any more than individuals must or should make
> their private documents available to others.
> 
> I asked to whom a request for access to ULT and/or DES archives could be
> addressed. This does not seem to be a difficult question! I have little
> doubt that Mrs Burnier would refuse me access to the (Adyar) TS, ES and ER
> archives: but at least I know to whom I can direct a request for access.
> 
> Either (i) the ULT has no achives, and nothing has been retained over the
> years since it was founded or (ii) it has archives, they are located
> somewhere, are the property of someone or some organization and are under
> the control of someone.
> 
> The ULT in London had archives - I saw them! I had some access to some
> parts of them after permission had been given - by someone. Who that was I
> had and have no idea.
> 
> It is legally inconceivable that property (including archives) is not
> owned by some person or organization. Or is the claim that it is "owned"
> by all the associates collectively? But given that they do not appear to
> be members of either an incorporated or unincorporated association, what
> is their legal status in relation to ULT property?
> 
> These questions do not require pearls to be cast before swine! Unless, of
> course, if the identity of the person(s) in control is secret.
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett
> 
> 
> 


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