Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00259)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Alan Williams <alwilli@i...> wrote:
> Hi bri_mue,
> Wednesday, 16 January, 2002, you wrote:
> > So far the only thing you have given in your mail is incorrect
> > polemic nonsense.
> 
> When in Rome...
> 
> Best regards,
> Alan
> 
> mailto:alwilli@i...

from the American Heritage Dictionary:
contempt n. 1. Disparaging or haughty disdain, as for something base 
and unworthy; scorn.

This, as a characteristic mode of communication, cannot possibly be 
theosophical; it's fundamentally incompatible with the attitude of 
spiritual kinship that is the sine qua non of theosophy. But it sure 
as hell IS Theosophical, that is characteristic of the Theosophical 
organizations and their members.

Dallas's contempt for me is so lofty that he can only refer to me in 
the third person, and very rarely by name; it's as if he would soil 
himself by showing any human respect whatsoever. Needless to say, 
the reactions to my books from the likes of Pratt, Caldwell, Algeo, 
Weeks, Eklund, McDonald, and Wheeler reek of extreme contempt. 
Presumably they would say that I *ought* to take it personally; that 
my books are so contemptible and I'm so contemptible for writing them 
that the *only* *reasonable and proper* reaction is contempt. It's 
not that *they* or the *movement* to which they adhere have a problem 
with contemptuous attitudes. 

But of course I don't take it personally and the evidence is 
overwhelming against such an interpretation. Steve gets it, Brigitte 
gets it, Bart gets it, Brendan get it, Bill gets it... anyone who 
doesn't buy the Blavatskian fundamentalist worldview hook, line and 
sinker gets it. (Everybody must get stoned.)

Now, Alan, I'm addressing you directly. You have communicated that 
you see flaws in Steve's reasoning, and he has replied. Brigitte has 
replied angrily, *but asking for a reasoned argument from you*. Both 
in communication with Steve and with Brigitte, the strongest 
impression you conveyed is one of overwhelming contempt. Contempt so 
strong that it overpowers any point you might be trying to make 
*other* than expressing negative emotion. I've gotten that from you 
too. And this is so characteristic of HPB-defenders (soi-disant) 
that I cannot but believe that it is somehow intricately connected to 
your perceptions of HPB. So I'll ask you--and while I'm at it anyone 
else for whom the shoe fits-- e.g. Dallas, Daniel, Nicholas, Dara, 
Jerome, John... some questions:

1. How does the contempt you feel for people who doubt and question 
HPB relate to what you feel towards HPB herself?
2. How does it relate to a culture of contempt that has grown up over 
a century, in which Theosophists have felt entitled and encouraged to 
be extremely contemptuous towards anyone who doubts or criticizes 
HPB, even their fellow Theosophists?
3. What would the Theosophical movement be if this culture of 
contempt didn't exist?

Don't bother with finger-pointing at the targets of your contempt, 
saying that *they* are contemptuous of HPB and therefore are being 
paid back in kind. That argument falls on two counts: none of the 
targets of Theosophical contempt *regard themselves as contemptuous 
of HPB, and in fact would vociferously deny it*, and *even if they 
were* y'all are the ones who claim to be Theosophists and therefore 
whose behavior can be taken as representative of the movement's 
attitudes.

My own theory: HPB, and the Mahatmas speaking through her, are rather 
consistently contemptuous in their remarks about people who disagree 
with their views. Lots of high-minded generalities about tolerance 
and amity towards those of differing views, but when push came to 
shove, they *shoved* HARD. And so, her followers follow suit, and 
think they are being spiritual by being contemptuous. Cayce, on the 
other hand, never had a bad word to say about anyone, and while his 
followers are a contentious lot among themselves I have *never once* 
seen the kind of contempt over historical or ideological matters that 
I have seen Theosophists indulge in hundreds of times.

Paul