Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00571)

Bruce,

Thanks for all of your comments.

I will comment on just one of yours and add
an example.

You write:

"Perhaps you are deluded in your supposition."

Certainly I try to keep in mind that I MAY be
deluded or mistaken in MY supposition.

But I would think that any of us may find ourselves
in that condition at least some of the time.  Maybe even
you!

But if you believe that I am deluded in my supposition
and you feel that it is important enough to try to
clarify, then you should try to throw light on the
SPECIFIC matter under consideration.  Maybe I might
learn something, you might also learn something, others
too!!

Take a concrete example:

Dallas wrote:

"Mr. Neresheimer had introduced Mrs. Tingley to 
W. Q. J. about a year before his death."

Now I suppose Dallas was trying to be helpful and
was trying to convey some needed information.

But as far as I can tell, what he writes is NOT
historically accurate.

Now I really don't care who wrote the quoted material.
Take Dallas' name off.  Is the statement accurate whether
Paul Johnson wrote it or the Mahachohan or Leadbeater or Dallas
or you or me?

Now maybe I am the one muddled on the point or I am deluded in my 
supposition.  But I don't think so and I have the documentation that 
I think shows that what Dallas writes is in error.

Neresheimer himself writes that it was actually
Mr. Judge who was instrumental in introducing
(Neresheimer) to Mr. and Mrs. Tingley.
>From Neresheimer's account, Mr. Judge and Mrs. Tingley
had known each other for some time BEFORE Mr. Neresheimer
even knew of Mrs. Tingley's existence!

Again in the above statement Dallas [or whoever!!!] makes the 
statement that Mr. Judge and Mrs. Tingley only knew each other for
about a year before Judge died.

Again NOT accurate according to Neresheimer's account.
They had known each other for more than 2 years. Probably
at least for 2 years and 4 or 5 months ...  IF NOT LONGER....

My source is at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesneres.htm

Now maybe you think this is all trivial.  Could be....
But shouldn't we get our basic historical facts correct if at all
possible?  Maybe you don't care... I don't know.

Now maybe Dallas has some other source for what he stated.  Maybe 
another statement by Neresheimer.  I don't know.  If he does, I hope 
he brings it forward.

Maybe this is an example for you of my "criticizing."  That I never 
state my opinion.  Well I think I did state my opinion and I 
presented my evidence.

This is how I try to proceed in most of the discussions I have in 
this forum.  One point at a time on specific topics.  At least 
that's how I perceive it!  I could be wrong tho.... :)

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce,
> > 
> > I guess you are writing to me!  :)
> > 
> > You say:
> > 
> > "I love the way you 'claim' never to know what any historical 
> > personage is thinking or doing!!"
> > 
> > Did I claim this?  Maybe your are joking or making an 
overstatement
> > on purpose. :)
> >
> You can check out the context, perhaps it might become clear.
> 
> > I would prefer that they actually TELL me...what they are 
thinking...
> 
> Wouldn't that be nice.  Regrettably when you ask some people to
> clarify themselves they go off comparing apples with oranges and
> thereaby signal an unwillingness to communicate and a willingness 
to
> hinder clarification and waste time, or so it would seem.
> 
> > if they are dead...I will read what they wrote and try to 
ascertain 
> > what they were thinking....
> > 
> Have you ever tried reading their words divorced from context so 
that
> you need only focus on the dead letter?  This is a marvelous way of
> tying others up in fruitless debate.
> 
> > But if they don't tell me or if I can't read something they 
> > wrote...I guess I can try to....speculate...or whatever about 
what 
> > they are thinking but that doesn't mean that I really KNOW.
> > 
> You may not KNOW but if you are distracted with apples posing for
> oranges you can guess that communication for the purpose of
> clarification is not the goal.
> 
> > Well I think sometimes I explain my points.  Yes sometimes I 
don't 
> > or I don't do it fully. 
> 
> Can you present us with examples where clarification actually 
resulted
> from something you wrote or said?
> 
> > You also write:
> > 
> > "In your code of ethics it seems to be a moral imperative to 
stand 
> > nowhere and criticize all."
> > 
> > Well at least you wrote "it seems...."  :)
> > 
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "to stand nowhere".
> > 
> Maybe the man sitting on the fence is standing nowhere and the 
bonus
> is that he can criticize those standing on either side of the 
fence.
> 
> > An example or two might help me to know what you are trying to 
> > communicate.
> > 
> Apples and Oranges are examples that work for some people.
> 
> > Yes I do try to point out from time to time historical 
> > inaccuracies.  And I try to usually document them so you can 
decide 
> > for yourself whether my point is well taken or not.
> > 
> Perhaps you are deluded in your supposition. 
> > Daniel
> > 
> Daniel, if you really wanted to communicate, it shouldn't be that 
hard.
> 
> Bruce 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
> > <robert.b.macdonald@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dallas,
> > > 
> > > I love the way you "claim" never to know what any historical 
> > personage
> > > is thinking or doing!!  Yet you certainly construct your 
quotes 
> > like
> > > you are trying to make a point!  Perhaps if you explained your 
> > points
> > > people would not be left having to guess what you are thinking 
or
> > > doing!!!  Your only explanations seem to be in the criticism 
of 
> > other
> > > people's opinions.  In your code of ethics it seems to be a 
moral
> > > imperative to stand nowhere and criticize all.
> > > 
> > > Jesus X 2!
> > > 
> > > Bruce
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > > <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bruce,
> > > > 
> > > > I love the way you know exactly what I was or wasn't 
thinking or 
> > > > doing!!
> > > > 
> > > > Take this gem of yours:
> > > > 
> > > > =========================================================
> > > > Daniel has baited Dallas into commenting on an historical 
matter 
> > by
> > > > again first trying to deceive readers through lack of 
context. 
> > Rather
> > > > than demonstrate to readers why Dallas is wrong in his 
analysis, 
> > > > Daniel might demonstrate some courage and present his own 
> > > > convictions to the readers. It is rather cowardly sitting in 
the 
> > > > weeds constantly floating decoys and then blasting anyone 
who 
> > cares 
> > > > to investigate. Clever but
> > > > cowardly.
> > > > =========================================================
> > > > 
> > > > When I wrote my posting titled "Robert Crosbie Claimed" I 
wasn't
> > > > even thinking about Dallas!!  I had been discussing the use 
of 
> > > > the word "claim" with Carlos.  So I simply decided to present
> > > > to Carlos a series of statements showing what Crosby claimed.
> > > > 
> > > > So now you say I was baiting Dallas?
> > > > 
> > > > But of course you know better than myself what I was or 
wasn't 
> > > > thinking or doing.
> > > > 
> > > > Bruce, is this in your code of Theosophical ethics to accuse 
> > people 
> > > > of what you don't have the foggiest idea about?
> > > > 
> > > > Jesus!  
> > > > 
> > > > Daniel
> > > >
> > >
> >
>