Re: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] NYTimes.com Article: The Public Editor: The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact
- Hi Myaso, you wrote:"I apply to the psychotherapy process here. If you know Carl Rogers
client-centric therapy process, when therapist is completely NOT
giving any analysis, and just letting the patient be in his process
and he percept his patient as the holistic, able to self-heal system,
you will understand what I mean."That's downright stupid, in my view. Transference takes place in any therapy process."It is other than analytic approach in the science."Agreed. Psychotherapy is a different realm from the natural sciences. So is history."I would call it synthetic in therms not reverse engineer some processes using some arguable methods, but see the process as its wholeness and try to describe it without any evaluative point of view."If you try that in history, historians will have trouble taking you seriously."And I suppose you account your readers as naive"No, quite the contrary. I think many readers are quite capable of handling analysis and evaluation in historical writing."You do not let your readers think."That's goofy. The way to get readers to think is to tell them what you think."They are reading not history, but your perception of the history"Every single account of history, without exception, is a particular perception of history."Sorry for my English being not native."No worries. If you think I have misunderstood anything due to language barriers, please say so.