Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00132)

When I place underneath my posting "news@brian-muehlbach.com"that 
means the information is on my web site. So far no single historian has 
chalenged the information on my web site.

Also Daniel Caldwell does not answer with valid historical 
counterarguments adressing any of the issues, instead he does 
everything to distract from the issues at hand. 

See for example this posting that followed a brilliant observation by 
Steve: 

From: danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> Steve,
> 
> It is quite interesting to see how you have dealt with my comments. 
> To adequately answer all of your negative & unfounded statements 
> would take more time than I have at present. 


Here we see one of Daniel's typical ploys. He contends that Steve's
statements are negative and unfounded, but doesn't have time to 
adequately answer them now. The unaware reader buys into his 
conclusion (Steve's statements are negative and unfounded) and 
assumes that if Daniel had time he would really give Steve what for.

> I was planning to have at least four more parts to my commentary. 
> And I think you might have been surprised with at least one of my 
> comments. 

Another interesting tactic of Daniel's. He teases the readership with what
he was planning to write and often alludes to an upcoming surprise. The
unaware reader might think that Daniel is clearly on top of the situation
here and in due course is going to give Steve what for.

> It seems fairly apparent to me that you do not want to THINK 
THROUGH
> the various issues but instead prefer to jump to a conclusion which 
> may or may not be merited by the evidence. And apparently you 
cannot 
> tolerate anyone else who might question your conclusion and who 
wants 
> to explore the subject in more depth than you might want to.

And now we are to the CAPTILIZED WORDS. Daniel uses CAPTILIZED 
WORDS to draw the readers attention to what he perceives as the 
central issue and in so doing completely ignores the fact that Steve has 
presented a well THOUGHT THROUGH analysis of the Ootan Liatto 
incident. Steve has never said he could not tolerate "anyone else" to my 
knowledge. In fact I believe Steve made it clear that he did not think that 
Daniel ducked and feigned and ignored facts on purpose. We are all 
prone to it. Rather than a critical self-examination which might have 
done Daniel good, Daniel immediately goes on the offensive and in so 
doing PROVES STEVE RIGHT. 

> Also you apparently do not want to COMPARE various similar events, 
> etc. in order to be in a possibly better position to judge what the 
> experience under consideration might really be all about.

Daniel has stated that he has had personal experiences of events similar 
to the Ootan Liatto event. I have asked him to convert these experiences 
to text and make them available so that we may COMPARE various 
similar events.
Steve has not said that he does not want to compare various similar
events. Steve has simply stated his thoughts on this (the Ootan Liatto
event). 

> Unfortunately, you youself have jumped to other conclusions which 
> seem questionable. This is seen in your comments on 
> Wachtmeister, the pencil incident and even in the Hartmann account.

Again Daniel uses language designed to lull the unaware reader into that
warm and fuzzy sense that all is right in the world of theosophy because
Daniel is on the job. If Steve has jumped to questionable conclusions, let
Daniel be specific in pointing out to Steve exactly where the jump in logic
occurred instead of a broad charge of conclusion jumping over several
events that may or may not be related.

> I am not expecting anyone to accept what I have written. But I do 
> hope that a few interested readers - who see the necesity of thinking 
> through these various issues - will do just that.

Will do just what? "accept what I have written", or "think... through
these various issues." It seems that Daniel will accept that someone has
thought through these various issues sufficiently if and only if Daniel's
conclusions are reached. This is comforting to the unaware reader, who
might conclude that no one has thought more about the Ootan Liatto 
event than has Daniel.


> My comments were not made to evade or ignore the evidence. My 
points 
> were not made to bring up irrelevant material. My comments simply 
> illustrate some of the thinking and questions I deal with and ask 
> myself as I try to sort through and grapple with the issues and 
> evidence in this incident. 

This is so beautiful. Here Daniel asserts that he did not intend to evade
or ignore evidence or introduce irrelevant material, but instead illustrate
some of his thought processes as he sorts through and grapples with the
issues and evidence of the Ootan Liatto incident. This is exactly what
Steve said Daniel was doing at the beginning of Steve's post below.

Bill


Thank you, Daniel, for publishing a short seminar on
how to argue disingenuously. You have performed a
real service for list members. Bear in mind I am
assuming this is entirely unconscious on your part and
not ecidence of any sort of conscious dishonesty. 
Nonetheless, everyone needs to know how to read
critically and evaluate arguments and evidence
critically. My comments below for the benefit of
readers who would like to easily spot this sort of
thing in the future.

> Daniel: "Brigitte, I am going to go over Olcott's
> February 1876 account and make a number of comments. 
> I hope that you in turn will make some replies."

Notice this doesn't say anything because there is
nothing to reply to. I already replied to this
account, and Brigitte indicated that she agreed, as
did numerous other people. That fact is completely
ignored here. See how this works, list members?

> Daniel: "Brigitte, are you willing to accept that two
> REAL ADEPTS actually came to Olcott's apartment? This
> is Paul Johnson's scholarly opinion in his first SUNY
> book."

List members, notice that this completely evades the
issue at hand, which is how the miraculous phenomena
were produced. It also sets uo a double bind, since
if Brigitte were to deny that these two men were
there, she would have to say that the cigard were
"materialized" out of thin air and levitated in space.

> Daniel: "Olcott was at the Eddy farmhouse BEFORE HE
> MET MADAME BLAVATSY and observed paranormal phenomena.
> Were there drugs/fumes in the air at the Eddy
> farmhouse when Olcott was first there a month or two
> before Blavatsky ever arrived there?"

Here, list members, notice again that the real issue
is being evaded. The real issue is not did or did not
happen at the Eddy farmhouse but what caused
specifically the Oootan Liatto phenomenon.

> Daniel: "Brigitte, are you and Steve suggesting that
> there was some kind of drug in the cigars?"

This question has already been answered at least three
times, and now here we have it again. Does anyone
hear a broken record playing? List members, the point
of this is to make it appear the question has not yet
been answered. That then makes the supporting
ecidence seem to go away. See how this technique
works? 

> Daniel: "Olcott was a smoker of cigars even before he
> met Madame Blavatsky."

So is Daniel suggesting that his cigars were of
Turkish origin and specially blended? And while we
are at it, can Daniel spell out the specific date on
which Olcott began smoking cigars and tell us exactly
how many cigars he smoked on a specific date, and how
this affected his family budget? List members will
notice that those kinds of questions have been posed
as distractions in the past.

> Daniel "I see no good reason to believe that there was
> some kind of drug in the cigars. 

Notice that numerous good reasons have already been
given several times. Notice that not a single one of
these reasons has been acknowledged or dealt with. 
The idea is to try to make them go away by ignoring
them.

> Daniel: "I could write a long article on various
> paranormal phenomena being accompanied by "scents" and
> "perfumes".

Notice again that "various paranormal phenomena being
accompanied by 'scents' and 'perfumes'" are not the
issue. What happened with specifically Ootan Liatto
is the issue. This statement is being used as a
distraction.

> Daniel: "I myself have experienced "scents" and
> "perfumes" in relationship to a person who had
> "paranormal" experiences happening to him."

So Daniel visits spirit mediums and some of them use
too much after shave. What does that have to do with
the issue at hand, which is Olcott's 1876 experience? 
This technique attenpts to confuse the reader by
introducing irrelevant items into evidence.

> Daniel: "Hundreds of other examples could be given."

Please don't. Only one example need be given, and
that is the story of what happened with Ootan Liatto.

> Daniel: "In regards to "the production of flowers",
> you and Steve may conclude that these flowers HAD TO
> BE "hallucinations" produced by drugs, but if one does
> a COMPARATIVE study of other phenomena produced by
> Blavatsky and expands one's study to also include the
> phenomena of Spirtualism as well as the experiences of
> ordinary people who have had paranormal experiences, I
> find many parallel accounts of similar manifestations
> that had nothing to do with drugs and that also appear
> to be "objective" in the sense that several people saw
> the same phenomenon."

That gamely ignores the fact that there were numerous
items of ecidence of a botanical component in the
Ootan Liatto story, and in other Olcott stories, and
in the writings of Blavatsky. Notice that none of
this is acknowledged or dealt with.

> Daniel: "D.D. Home (whom you already have put on the
> witness stand) was apparently able to produce> > "manifestations" 
comparable to "the production of
> > flowers".

DD Home was a small time crook and an enemy of
Theosophy. He admitted himself in his LIGHTS AND
SHADOWS OF SPIRITUALISM that most spiritualistic
phenomena (i.e., the sort of thing he specialized in)
were fakes and described how they were done. Even if
he could materialize flowers out of thin air, that
would have no bearing on Olcott's 1876 experience
because HOME WAS NOT THERE.

The techniques illustrated here consist of (1) quoting
irrelevant facts, (2) selectively ignoring evidence,
(3) trying to make evidence go away by asking certain
kinds of questions which are framed to make it appear
the evidence does not exist, (4) using various sorts
of distractions and diversions, and (5) bringing in
witnesses who cannot give evidence to the issue at
hand. There are numerous other techniques which are
used by others, but this short seminar is an excellent
example. This kind of thing is used all the time in
the news media, in political rhetoric, and in
theological argument. To learn how to deal with this,
the reader will do well to ignore the content of what
is being said and focus on the diversionary techniques
being used. Even though the content changes from
context to context, the basic techniques remain the
same. Learn to spot the techniques and you can learn
to easily tell when you are being had. This sort of
thing should be taught in school, but politicians, who
use this sort of thing every day, have come down
firmly against people being formally educated in
critical thinking. If disciplined thinking became
widespread, they would either have to declare an end
to democracy, or we would throw the rascals out. 
Since they control the schools, they also control the
curriculum. So you have to teach yourself.

Disciplined reasoning is not instinctive and only
becomes possible with training. Fictitious constructs
such as "IQ" or "intelliigence" which have no
scientific basis have nothing to do with it. It is
all training. For that reason people who are
scrupulously honest and very intelligent (if there is
such a thing) and untrained in disciplined analysis
will resort to such techniques unconsciously. It is
therefore desirable to be able to spot these methods
when you use them to kid yourself. Historical and
philosophical problems can only be resolved with
disciplined reasoning.

I stand by my original analysis of the Ootan Liatto
pgenomenon. Apparently, since nobody seems willing to
show why I am wrong, others do as well.

Steve (End quote)