The Logic of the Debate
To begin with, everyone who has participated in this discussion thus far should be congratulated for speaking up. This is not a "wishy-washy" let's agree to disagree exercise. This is an exercise in seeking the Truth with the understanding that the vigorous point and counterpoint arguments are not to be taken personally, but rather that the arguments are made impersonally under the umbrella of Universal Brotherhood. You can make very strong arguments to your brother where a stranger is liable to take offence. To the extent that the participants have been able to achieve this, they have been practicing Theosophy. The attitude, "you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want" is not Theosophy, it is laziness of thought or fear of bruising egos(without which there is no growth) and most probably both.
Let's look at the logic of "A Plea for Brotherhood". What this article did was to answer a certain question that Daniel Caldwell had asked the Editor of Fohat. The editorial then looked at certain positions taken by Daniel and assumed that Daniel was implying certain other positions so that all those positions could be addressed. This was done so the editor did not have to assume an uncharitable position on Daniel's part and also to further illustrate the editorial's position, a need for "strong editorial arguments clearly stating the Theosophical position" with respect to the fraudulent letters. By assuming the charitable position, the implication was that Daniel was working with the editor to provide a series of straw men for the editor to knock down.
The question that Daniel put to the editor was whether he was implying that John Algeo had base motives. Daniel deftly moved this discussion from a discussion of principles in the defence of Blavatsky, to an attack on John Algeo thereby calling into question the editor's integrity. The editor argued as follows: Human motivation is obscure and difficult to define so without being in the mind of another you cannot know their motivations; if this is the case and the editor was not in the mind of John Algeo then it follows that he could not know what was motivating John Algeo. The editor never claimed that the former President of TS in America, John Algeo, was acting from base motives but that he was unavoidably subject to forces coming from the Adyar-Wheaton institution. These forces were then outlined by the editor.
If the editor never accused John Algeo of base motives, then why would Daniel bring this up? Over and above changing the focus of the debate, there is an implied argument (and implied innuendo) in Daniel's reasoning that runs something like the following: The President of TS in America and the institution of TS in America are one and the same; if this is the case and TS in America is accused of base motives then the President (in this case former President) is accused of base motives. The major premise of this logical syllogism is clearly false and anyone who used it to attack another person could be justifiably taken to task for it. It might be true that in a new organization where the founder is the president of the organization and there are no skeletons in the closet, the principles of president and institution may be virtually identical. In this particular case with a century of history behind TS in America, that would be absurd. Because the syllogism may sometimes be true, Daniel asked if the editor believed it to be the case in this instance and to apologize if he did. The editor chose to ignore the subtle innuendo that had been directed at him and, consequently, did not deal with the argument at all.
Next Daniel pointed out that if John Algeo had base motives, then it follows that John Cooper and Boris de Zirkoff, both of whom planned to publish these letters, must also have had base motives. Clearly, there are a lot of problems with this reasoning. The editor of Fohat did not go into the problem of dealing with hearsay evidence. Edmonton Theosophical Society (ETS) has tried in vain to get a copy of John Cooper's thesis. The editor has no way of verifying Daniel's statements. Similarly, appealing to Dara Eklund for verification of Boris' intentions is also hearsay. If Daniel wants to supply ETS with a copy of John Cooper's thesis and a verified copy of some written testament by Boris that he intended to publish the letters without comment, then the intent could be conceded. However, even if the intent was granted for the sake of argument, the resulting argument assumes a rather disturbing belief about the editor's ethics.
As background to the exploration of these upcoming straw men, "The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky, Volume 1 -- The Controversy Begins" must be looked at. In this article the author did two things: 1. presented the categorical positions by three other authors that the offensive letters should not have been included, and 2. pointed out the reasons (the closeted skeletons of Adyar and Wheaton) why they were included with little or no comment. The author did not give his own position as to whether he felt the letters should be included, only why they were included. However, in the paragraph where the position of the three letter writers was given, the author did add some qualifications. In the paragraph that begins "Fohat received three letters . . .", everything starting with "whose lies were thoroughly exposed" and following were the author's own words and not a paraphrasing of the letters. It was therefore not unreasonable for readers to assume that Fohat agreed with the categorical position that the letters should not have been included. This belief might be further strengthened by the paragraph beginning "Adyar and Wheaton". The paragraph stated that Adyar and Wheaton want to undermine Blavatsky and Judge, and will consequently allow more of these type of letters to be printed in future volumes. The paragraph ended with the sentence "If you are members of these organizations, do not let your leadership get away with this." The "this"at the end of the sentence refers to using the letters to undermine Blavatsky and Judge. However, the last three sentences were as follows:
Adyar and Wheaton obviously want these letters included in these collections and you can be sure that they will not be the last of their type. There will be other letters of the same ilk in future volumes. If you are members of these organizations, do not let your leadership get away with this.
Again, the referent was unclear allowing for confusion. This being the case, the honourable thing to do is to allow Daniel to ask for clarification on this matter. In "A Plea" the editor's entire argument was about adding a balanced editorial narrative to controversial letters so as to make it more difficult for the ignorant or for enemies to further use these letters to undermine Blavatsky. This dovetails nicely with the interpretation given by the editor of Fohat. If the editor simply wanted to censor the letters, then there would be no need for a discussion on editorial content. The above is a clarification of what was really intended and from here on in it is hoped that there is no need for further debate on this point.
With this in mind, it was rather insulting to have these two points (that John Algeo had base motives and that Cooper and de Zirkoff were planning to print the letters) connected making it seem like the editor incorrectly assumed the following argument: Printing suspect letters belies base motives; if this is the case and de Zirkoff and Cooper intended to print the letters, then de Z. and Cooper had base motives. Clearly, printing suspect letters demonstrates nothing in and of itself (you could print a suspect letter in an article in order to discredit it, does that belie base motives?), and this was so clear that anyone holding a position to the contrary could be accused of being irrational. What was at issue was how to print suspect letters so as to be fair to the injured party. The editor chose to believe that Daniel would not be so uncharitable as to hold that the editor of Fohat believed the insulting syllogism in the first sentence of this paragraph but rather a related but different syllogism: John Algeo's treatment of the suspect letters was wrong; if that is the case and de Z and Cooper intended to print the letters then de Z and Cooper were wrong. This was the charitable interpretation of Daniel's position, alluded to in the introduction by the editor, that was used to "illustrate the editorial's position".
Dealing strictly with the second argument (that "John Algeo's treatment of the suspect letters was wrong"), we find what is called a false analogy. In the case of Cooper, even if the treatment of the letters was the same (if he printed the letters without commentary), Cooper was not a theosophist. In the case of de Zirkoff, evidence is that he would have included editorial commentary thereby making the treatment different. Thus both analogies were false, in one case Algeo was a theosophist and Cooper was not (so we are not applying the same standard to Cooper), and in the second case de Z would have added editorial comment making his treatment different. To summarize, Daniel was asking the editor if he believed that censorship was right and printing the letters belies base motives. Clearly this is ludicrous and the editor couldn't believe that Daniel was asking this. The editor therefore charitably assumed that Daniel was pointing to the false analogies with the ulterior motive being that once the editor demolished these straw men, a groundswell of support would rise up making it easier to approach John Algeo about making changes, which is what Fohat was seeking.
This carries us to a simple statement of fact, Daniel has not allowed himself to be publicly drawn into the debate that the editor of The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky dropped the ball when he published the Solovyoff letters without comment. He has stuck to the point that censorship is wrong. One reason might be that he wants to approach John Algeo privately in order to avoid embarrassing John publicly. If H.P. Blavatsky were alive, it is almost certain that these letters would unfairly embarrass her; as it is, they tarnish her memory.
Putting together "Further Arguments" has been a long process and material continues to come in. Consequently it is difficult to get this posted and still be fair to everyone. I want to take the point of tarnishing Blavatsky's memory and expand on that a bit. Jake Jaqua had the following to say:
Regardless this is very small potatoes and a flea on the rat of the Solovyoff and Coulomb/missionary criminal forgeries, which considering the books-worth of material published disproving the stuff, is just downright Pathetic, really Pathetic for Theosophists (or is it only "scholars") to give more print promoting the genuine evil of these attempts to discredit Blavatsky and her work. If someone commits a crime against you (i.e. the phoney letters) - and it has been proven generally "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be so - why is anything at all owed to the criminals. Why build up a huge ediface of proof, and then tear it all down and say - "Well.... you may be right anyway....!" Doesn't this reflect some sort of soul-defect and lack of integrity? Its like "scholars" are completely unable to come down fully on one side of a question, even if the evidence supports it. Additionally, one can disprove whatever claim one wishes - one only has to wait a few years until someone will bring it up again.
Jake has penetrated to the heart of the matter. There has been a crime against Blavatsky. There is enough evidence to decide on the case and there has been for some time. In fact, many Theosophists had thought the case had been decided. Why then are Theosophists reopening the case? The Coulombs and Solovyoff do not deserve anything further from the Theosophical Society, they have been found guilty and should be ignored. Their work has caused the Society great suffering; what motivates some to want to protect this work? In those cases where the letters are not entirely spurious, is there anything of value left after the spurious inserts have been taken out? We should be at the point where if scholars wants to reintroduce any of these letters as genuine, they should be forced to make an air-tight case for their position.
A great defect in our society today is the assumption that it is okay to build up celebrities into pseudo-gods and then to tear them down as the worst of devils. All that matters is that the destroyer adhere to some version of the truth. Is this "soul-defect" not at play in this case? We are so concerned with allowing everyone a voice that we are too "wishy-washy" to take a stand. What is the difference between damaging a person's reputation (for no good purpose) while they are alive and tarnishing their good name after they are dead? There are plenty of people willing to come to John Algeo's defence and Paul Johnson's defence (and rightly so if it is thought that they are being treated unfairly), but why are those who come to Blavatsky's defence given such a rough time? What is at issue here is whether it is right to take a stand. Why are society at large and theosophists in particular unwilling to take a stand?
One's actions speak to one's integrity. If someone is hurting another and we tell him that his actions are wrong, this is done to both stop the action and hopefully have the individual address his integrity by looking to see what principle was wrong or misapplied. The only good reason that I can see for questioning a person's integrity is if for no good reason they are harming someone else, dead or alive. Who was Blavatsky hurting that we should allow letters that tarnish her image to be published - at the very least without strong commentary? This question applies to both scholars and theosophists. (Just because scholars have historically done something, it does not mean it is right, even if it may be scientific.) If the answer is that her writings damage the soul of society, then prove it!
More specifically, the adage "Judge not lest you be judged" is at work here coupled with the principle of censorship. Censorship is wrong because it prevents growth. If people are not allowed to express themselves honestly, then they are not going to make mistakes. If they don't make mistakes, they will never be judged to be in the wrong, and there will be no impetus for growth. When are you in the wrong? You are in the wrong when you are causing harm to the integrity of another for no good reason. This does not refer to the personal pain you feel at being censored for wrongdoing. This personal pain is just part of the mechanism that brings about the impetus for growth. An agressive or ignorant attack on the integrity of another is at issue here. A person's integrity transcends death because it is an aspect of the integrity of the whole. When you hurt the integrity of a person dead or alive, you hurt the integrity of the whole. Every one of us has a stake in this and that is why we come to the aid of those unjustly accused. If people are going to judge Blavatsky then they are going to have to expect to be judged in return. Make no mistake, there was a judgment made on every letter that went into The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky. Is this a Blavatsky letter or not? If the letter went in without comment then that is a judgment. If the judgment was sound then nothing will be said. If the judgment was unsound, then the judgment and by extension those making it will be criticized. In this case the principle of censorship was being misapplied allowing for an attack on Blavatsky's integrity. The reason why is that we have institutions steeped in secrecy clouding people's judgments, both theosophical institutions and world institutions. Whether we realize it or not, these institutional secrets affect us all.
Moral principles should dovetail together to encourage the spiritual growth of humanity. If principles are used as an excuse to attack our integrity, then they are being misapplied. The way these letters were presented makes them at the very least a type of innuendo. In as much as they are putting word's into Blavatsky's mouth, they are much worse than innuendo.
When you are defending the integrity of another person, very often you have to stand up to the attacker. This type of defensive posture should not be mistaken as an attack of agression or an attack from ignorance. You are opening a discussion into principles to determine whether boundaries have been overstepped. If boundaries have been overstepped and there is no discussion, then the attacker will continue to make the same mistake, hurting others and affecting the integrity of the whole. If the participants can come to an understanding, then the integrity of the whole is strengthened. If Daniel had given Fohat the benefit of the doubt, then he would have engaged the magazine in the arena of principles and not the arena of personal attacks. Does Fohat judge others? Fohat defends those unable to defend themselves.
R.Bruce MacDonald
RETURN TO COMMENTS ON LETTERS OF HPB, VOL. I