Ad hominem??? "....lack of in-depth perception of Esoteric Phiosophy..." ????
May 19, 2006 09:05 AM
Concerning what you have written about me at:
you are entitled to whatever opinion you may have!
But I would suggest that you really don't have any
good idea one way or the other about my "perception
of Esoteric Phiosophy..."
All in all, I think your latest posting is but an
AD HOMINEM distraction. Why can't we simply discuss
a subject be it historical or metaphysical without straying
off into analyzing the motives, etc. of the poster?? I thought
Eldon Tucker wanted us to stay away from such ad hominem remarks.
In most of our recent discussions, we have been discussing
historical issues. Therefore I have dealt with the
historical evidence, etc. If you choose to ignore the
written historical evidence concerning specific historical
issues, that is your choice.
If I was discussing the actual teachings of Esoteric
Philosophy, then my approach might be different.
One more point:
I may have absolutely no perception whatsoever of the Esoteric
Philosophy. Zero perception. But my supposed zero perception
has nothing to do with the issue addressed in the following
Carlos, from your latest posting under discussion here it would
appear that you have strayed even farther from
discussing the following topic:
"CW Vol. 14 heavily dependent on Besant's 3rd Volume"
Does this mean that you now accept what I wrote in
this posting concerning Vol. 14 being heavily dependent
on Besant's 3rd volume???
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application