Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

57389Marion Meade "explains" HPB's cup and saucer incident???

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    Jan 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      BELOW is what I wrote on Theos-Talk years ago using an example from Marion Meade's book on HPB to show how Ms. Meade "uses" (misuses) the 4 step method I recently wrote to Govert about here at Theos-Talk.
      >
      > Brigitte Muehlegger now tells us to look for an
      > explanation about the teacup and saucer incident in
      > Marion Meade's MADAME BLAVATSKY, p.223-224.
      >
      > Brigitte, do you actually agree with Meade's
      > "explanation"?
      >
      > Is Meade's explanation just one of many "possible"
      > explanations or is Meade's explanation the most
      > "probable" explanation in light of all the known
      > evidence? In other words, are we at step 2 or at step
      > 4 with Meade's "explanation"?
      >
      > Anyway, as Brigitte ponders the above, I give Meade's
      > explanation:
      >
      > "At the time and even later Alfred could find no
      > loopholes in what came to be known as 'the cup and
      > saucer incident.' He based his conviction mainly on
      > the fact that Madame Blavatsky could not have known in
      > advance that there would be seven guests in the party,
      > as the judge had arrived only at the last minute.
      > OBVIOUSLY she did know, and so did Patience Sinnett
      > because Olcott overheard her telling the butler: 'It
      > was very stupid of you not to put in another cup and
      > saucer when you knew that the other gentleman would
      > have to have tea.' It seems reasonable TO ASSUME that
      > H.P.B. had instructed Babula to bury the cup and
      > saucer, then led the picnickers to the spot herself.
      > In fact, this notion had already occurred to the judge
      > and police chief who later in the afternoon examined
      > the site. Their final conclusion was that it was
      > theoretically POSSIBLE for someone to have tunneled in
      > from below and thrust the cup and saucer up into the
      > place where they were discovered. Apparently Babula
      > later confided to Emma Coulomb that this was exactly
      > what he had done. In the experts' opinion, the
      > phenomenon could not be accepted as scientifically
      > perfect and, somewhat indelicately, they
      > challenged her to repeat it under test conditions.
      > Helena, who had worked hard to stage the tableau,
      > could not keep herself from exploding. Henry vividly
      > remembered that 'she seemed to take leave of her
      > senses and poured out upon the two unfortunate
      > skeptics the thunder of her wrath. And so our pleasant
      > party ended in an angry tempest.' " Caps added
      >
      > Well, Steve, what do you think of Meade's
      > "explanation"?
      >
      > Now a few more questions to ponder:
      >
      > Is Meade actually explaining the incident [at step 4]
      > or is Meade simply speculating [at step 2]? See 4 Step
      > Process at:
      > http://blavatskyarchives.com/history3.htm
      >
      > Is Meade simply using the "unpacking" method I've
      > described before?
      > [See
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4421
      > ]
      > As Ray Hyman wrote: "it is ALWAYS possible to
      > 'imagine' SOME scenario in which cheating no matter
      > how implausible, COULD HAVE occurred." Caps added.
      > This is a step 2 technique.
      >
      > Is Meade simply using the "possibility/plausibility"
      > method of argument? See
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4423
      > for an example.
      >
      > Has Meade followed the Barzun and Graffe dictum?
      >
      > "The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. .
      > . .No matter how possible or plausible the author's
      > conjecture it cannot be accepted as truth if he has
      > only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it.
      > Truth rests not on possibility or plausibility but on
      > probability. Probability means the balance of chances
      > that, GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE, the event it
      > records happened in a certain way; or, in other cases,
      > that a supposed event did not in fact take place."
      > Caps added.
      >
      > Daniel H. Caldwell
      > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
      > http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
      > "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
      > at their right value; and unless a judge compares
      > notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
      > correct decision."
      > H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
      >
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
      > http://mail.yahoo.com/
      >
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic