Bruce's projections???? and Ink Blot testing
May 03, 2006 10:09 AM
Below in Bruce's commentary there is statement
after statement which is more reflective of what is in Bruce's
own mind than giving a true assessment of anything else.
For example, Bruce writes:
Daniel has stated that he has never felt compelled to seek out other
theosophists as collegues.
Now did I actually say that? I don't think I ever wrote exactly what
Bruce is stating. I guess I need to look back thru my postings.
But then notice Bruce goes a step farther and writes:
This implies that the intuition of brotherhood does not
appeal strongly to him.
All I can say is flapdoodle. Bruce is talking about something he
knows nothing about.
First of all IF Bruce will look at the prefactory remarks to my book
THE ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY he will see that I mention
many people who have helped me in my Blavatsky projects. I would
consider many of those individuals as my colleagues in one way or
Furthermore, Bruce hasn't the foggiest idea about the "intuition of
Brotherhood" at least as it relates to me.
As far as my "intuition" of Brotherhood, at least I do not go around
questioning people's motivations and questioning their sincerity or
loyalty or whatever.
Instead I try to focus on the subject matter at hand whether it is a
historical one or a doctrinal one or some other Theosophically
related topic but I do not attribute bad motives to other
Theosophists who are here in this Theos-Talk forum or elsewhere in
the Theosophical world.
Then Bruce continues on!
He must therefore be interested in HPB and her
history for other reasons.
FOR OTHER REASONS....hmmm
Yea probably all the wrong reasons! :)
Then he goes on:
I think in the end, Carlos is simply trying to point out to Daniel
that you cannot do justice to HPB if you do not make an attempt to
understand Universal Brotherhood.
I am not at all certain exactly what Bruce is attempting to say here.
In fact I really don't know just what Bruce is trying to
To end this posting, I will simply say people can believe whatever
they want to about me, my motivations, my character. They can write
about my lack of understanding of Universal Brotherhood or about my
intuition on this that or the other. As far as I can see this is
nothing more than argument by going AD HOMINEM.
Oh heavens, let's not discuss the Theosophical subject matter but
instead DISTRACT by using the ad hominem tactic.
When I write on a theosophical subject whether historical or
doctrinal, I try to cite evidence, text, etc. and I try to present a
thesis, reasoning, etc.
I would assume most intelligent readers can take the evidence, look
at the reasoning, etc. and determine if there is some merit to what
is presented regardless of whether I am personally a Dhyan Chohan,
dugpa, or whatever.
I remember when Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED was first
published. I had several students of Theosophy tell me that he
wrote the book to make money or to make a name for himself. In the
Theos-Talk archives there are even such postings.
I even had one "theosophist" [?] tell me that Johnson was working
for the Jesuits. Well, of course! :)
But even IF all of that was true (they wish!), what does all THAT AD
HOMINEM "stuff' tell us about the accuracy or truthfulness or
reasonableness of Johnson's thesis or statements in his book?
Of course the implications were that he had bad motivations and that
this somehow must discredit Johnson's thesis.
Unfortunately, from almost the very first Johnson was not shy about
ALSO using the ad hominem tactic on people including me!
I remember when I sent him a critique of his first book which
I did by the way at his request, he wrote back questioning my
sincerity! He knew nothing about me, but apparently had to question
Then later when I wrote and published my HOUSE OF CARDS critique,
apparently he had to end his reply with a bunch of psychobabble
about I was a heretic slayer and I was working for the theosophical
organizations to combat his "heresy" and other ad hominem nonsense.
At the time I thought to myself that this ad hominem speculation of
his really reflected more about him, his thinking process, etc. than
anything about me.
Yes, like a ink blot test!!
But even IF I was that terrible heretic slayer does that "fact"
somehow invalidate my specific criticisms of his statements, etc. in
My criticisms of Paul Johnson's books are either valid or not
regardless of whether I am a heretic slayer or a dugpa or one "bad
And I would suggest that my other critiques, studies, analyses of
various theosophical historical incidents, etc. are either valid or
not regardless of whether I am "this that or the other" as Carlos or
Bruce apparently want to portray me.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "robert_b_macd"
> I don't believe Daniel warrants any defence in this case. Carlos
> simply mirroring Daniels' behavior. Daniel knows this and will not
> defend himself on principle because if he does he will be
> own guilt with respect to HPB and Judge. Because of this Daniel
> simply try to mock and chide Carlos into silence, hoping others
> come to his aid with more principled arguments.
> Daniel uses the work of the Coulombs and Solovyoff when editing or
> assisting in the editing of collections of material on HPB.
> Letters" we find HPB detailing a sexually promiscuous youth and the
> torturing of a cat to death. Daniel quite reasonably states that
> does not necessarily believe this "evidence" but, until it is
> false, neither does he think it should be hidden away and
> Carlos looks at the evidence that Paul Johnson has brought
> That evidence implies that Daniel may have created false personas
> order to more easily attack theosophical personalities and the
> Carlos says he does not necessarily believe that evidence, but
> things are cleared up one way or another, neither should it be
> Daniel has done much work of value putting together a comprehensive
> archive on theosophical material. This can help both enemies and
> friends of theosophy depending on how that archive is used.
> stated that he has never felt compelled to seek out other
> as collegues. This implies that the intuition of brotherhood does
> appeal strongly to him. He must therefore be interested in HPB
> history for other reasons. I think in the end, Carlos is simply
> to point out to Daniel that you cannot do justice to HPB if you do
> make an attempt to understand Universal Brotherhood. In any case,
> not certain Daniel wants you arguing too strongly that it is wrong
> continue repeating unproven allegations as it puts him in a
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application