Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00022)

Dear Paul,

You said:

`these topics become a spiritual litmus test to distinguish
friend from enemy. HPB, like CWL, is a sacred cow to Theosophists
*because of the way they were attacked during their lifetimes*.
Theosophists think that they are called on to "defend" their heroes
and this all too often means to attack anyone who questions them.
(IMO Erica's deflection of questions about CWL to questions about the
spiritual qualities of the questioners is typical.)'

This is a hasty generalization a deductive fallacy. 


You do not provide a good argument in your call for discussing the 
founders, in your analogy of sexual abuse in the family. Nobody is 
discussing about hiding information, denying it or keeping it 
veiled. 

My call was direct and simple a call to the ideals that the T.S. 
represent in the world. 

Or when you, Dr. Tillet (or whoever else you mentioned in your 
previous e-mail) joined the T.S. it was with the aim to study and 
discuss the personal life of T.S. fellows? 

The T.S. hold three very clear objects and in none is stated to 
investigate the personal lives of theosophists or to confirm if 
Blavatsky was wearing a pink or red underwear.

Erica




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" 
<kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich 
<eletzerich@y...>
> wrote:
> > 
> > And your hasty generalization it's typical of an inductive 
> > fallacy. 
> > 
> > Erica
> > 
> Dear Erica,
> 
> This just demonstrated that the induction was not fallacious:
> 
> "I would not say dear Perry shame on you for the Theosophical
> Society, I would say shame on you for every fellow that is a member
> of the T.S. and is more concerned in promoting intrigues and 
endless
> discussions about which are the original teachings or not, or about
> Leadbeater's case."
> 
> the induction in question being:
> 
> > (IMO Erica's deflection of questions about CWL to questions about
> the spiritual qualities of the questioners is typical.) 
> > 
> Since neither Perry, Dr. Tillett, Steve (AFAIK) nor I are members 
of
> the Adyar TS, the shaming would seem to be limited to our esteemed
> colleague Daniel. (Unless any other TS member has spoken up here
> against CWL.) My point is that it's quite unfair to condemn a 
mixed
> group of non-Theosophists and several kinds of Theosophists for not
> behaving as you think a group of Adyar TS members ought to. If we
> accepted Adyar norms of "spiritual" behavior (e.g. evade unpleasant
> historical truths at every opportunity) perhaps we'd be members. 
> Being told that their interest in historical truth is a sign of
> spiritual inferiority has driven quite a few members away from the 
TS
> and silenced others who remain in the fold. (Some of whom are
> probably members of this list unwilling to put up with the personal
> condemnation INEVITABLY directed at them should they weigh in on 
such
> discussions.)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul