Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00348)

http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-5-1.pdf

The article in question starts on page 9. It would seem to me that 
if ULT authors adopt pseudonyms on the basis of "impersonality," 
they should refrain from making lengthy personal attacks on named 
individuals. What is most bizarre about this discussion is that the 
enemy being attacked exists only in the fevered imagination of ULT 
fundamentalists. It would surprise me if any of these individuals 
had ever read any of my books; nothing in this discussion shows the 
slightest familiarity with them or me. The article may well rise to 
the standard of "actual malice," that is, reckless disregard for the 
truth. And hence, actionable libel. For example:

1. The bulk of the article is a reprint of a personal email from 
Bruce MacDonald to Daniel Caldwell, in which BM goes on and on about 
something I did not write (I suppose it came from another BM, from 
Austria) and concludes that it proves that "Paul Johnson needs to 
work on his logic." I suggest that anyone who makes the argument 
made in this email REALLY needs to work on logic. "Person A wrote 
so-and-so, and therefore Person B should be blamed for having 
written it and judged by it, even though he didn't"-- that's the 
MOST illogical thing in this whole piece.

2. "Lady in Center Booth" makes the bizarre accusation that I am 
a "historian of a certain class" who "build for themselves a career" 
by pandering to the prejudices of their readers. It is widely known 
that I am not a historian but a public library director who wrote 
exclusively for Theosophical publications throughout the 1980s, and 
submitted manuscripts exclusively to Theosophical publishers for 
*five years* before giving up and self-publishing, then finding a 
home in a university press. What is *not* known is that SUNY offers 
no editing beyond copy editing; so the final product bears virtually 
no stigmata of non-Theosophical interference! As the list of 
individuals named in the acknowledgments shows, my first two SUNY 
books were written by a longtime Theosophist, with the assistance of 
many other Theosophists, with a Theosophical audience in mind. Much 
of it was presented in lectures to TS lodges during my research. As 
far as "promoting my career" is concerned, I left my position as a 
library director to be able to travel to India and Europe pursuing 
research on HPB, and then 7 months later took a 25% pay cut when I 
accepted a assistant director job that would leave me more free time 
for literary pursuits. Net income loss over the years due to those 
choices is about $100,000 (but I returned to being a director in 
2001 so cannot claim any net loss of professional status.) 

3. Most bizarre of all is the opening, in which (without the 
slightest reference to the contents of my books) "coffee-maker" 
accuses me of fraud. The nature of the fraud, judging from the 
comments, appears to be "an attempt to resurrect old-fashioned 
reductionism"-- and while that intention does not seem inherently 
fraudulent it is very far from the truth. Not only do my books 
repeatedly disavow any such intention, they have generated strong 
criticism from a reductionist skeptic who portrays them as occultist 
apologia. NO author who was the reductionist skeptic imagined by 
the ULT would then go on to write a highly sympathetic study of the 
Edgar Cayce readings. (Which is also something no historian 
pandering to skeptical audiences would do.)

The opening question "Does anyone take K. Paul Johnson's material 
seriously?" Yes, far beyond anything I could have imagined or hoped 
for. In 2004 my books were cited in new publications by 8 other 
authors, up from 7 in 2003. (There may be more but these are the 
ones I have learned of from amazon.) None of the sources in which my 
work is discussed show any interest in K. Paul Johnson *as a 
person.* Not once among the 50-odd books in which my research is 
cited, have any personal remarks or judgments of the author 
appeared. The only source of such personal antagonism in print has 
been fundamentalist Theosophists, mainly in the ULT but also among 
their Canadian ex-Adyar allies. None of whom, alas, appears to have 
actually read the books or taken the time to learn any facts about 
the author. What I really would like to understand is where and how 
these people are coming up with their imaginary enemy.

Paul