[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Jake and his comments

Jul 28, 2006 06:48 AM
by danielhcaldwell


You write:

I don't see how small changes such as
de Zirkoff does in changing sanskrit spelling,
can compare with big changes - as in Dan's
recent book, of leaving out whole sentences
or the like. Dan is lumping them in the same
category, (which he knows they are not)
JUST TO WIN THE ARGUMENT. This seems to be
a thing with DC, he wants to win the argument,
using logic, even though the spirit of the
truth of the matter is lost along the way."

One of the things I find lacking in what you write
above is that you are not specific.

You write about THE ARGUMENT..."the argument".

Exactly which argument?  And more importantly what posting or 
postings of mine are you referring to?

Are you referring to my posting at:

INVISIBLE EDITING: Judging 4 Works by Dallas' Definition

In this posting I briefly discuss the de Zirkoff edition of HPB's 

Or is there ANOTHER posting of mine that you are thinking of??

I would really like to know that.

Then Jake you write:

"Dan is lumping them in the same category, (which he knows they are 

Here you seem to make two assumptions.  First of all, you say I am 
lumping them into the same category and I do that lumping .... JUST 

Thanks.  Nice to know what I am actually doing!

But maybe I lump them into the same category because I REALLY do 
think they belong to the same category.....and not just because as 
you seem to claim I want to win the argument.

Or maybe there is another reason....

But I would suggest that all you write above is simply your 
interpretation of what you think I'm doing. But you appear to write 
as though this is as obvious as the fact that the sky is blue.... 

And as I mentioned in my previous email, your statement
"which he KNOWS they are not" assumes that you KNOW what I know.  
Please do not speak for me. You may deduce in your own mind that I 
might know they are not, but please do not say that I KNOW something 
which you have no direct way of knowing yourself (again unless you 
can read my mind or unless I have stated such is the fact somewhere 
in writing).

I find it quite disturbing when some Theosophists simply assume that 
they KNOW what others are thinking or they know what others' motives 

And I would suggest that ALL OF US need to be a little more careful 
about our human tendency of projecting OUR thoughts, OUR 
perceptions, OUR thinking onto other people....and then assuming 
these projections are THE reality.

I could go on but will stop at this point.

Jake, what I 'm suggesting here is that..fine....feel free to deal 
with my specific arguments concerning SILENT EDITING ...  
disagree..fine..but please don't make statements about what "I know" 
or about my motivations or intent and then palm them off as obvious 
statements of fact.

But I guess you will do whatever you decide or want to do!!...

Later I will address some further points on SILENT EDITING.



[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application