- I guess Diana's feeling angry:
"Ted's posts are mindless bloviating. Unreadable equal parts mix of rageful paranoid obsession with sometimes you, but mostly Peter S., followed always by strenuous attempts within the next half-hour to post something erudite-sounding"
There's nothing to respond to, but 'rageful paranoid'? I must be bad! It must be scary to be her; she's sounding as unbalanced as Pete K, though without the murderous instincts. They deserve each other.
Tarjei's funny post a bit later on on her sentient soul's communing with the animals - Doctor Doolittle style - is sweet. I *loved* Doctor Doolittle when I was a kid, he crossed the ocean inside the transparent shell of a giant snail!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
> "But there is nothing in William Cronon's article to make any association between the characteristics of professional history research and PS' rants."
> No, that's why I thought the passage worth highlighting, as well as for Staudi's apparent unawareness of its implicit criticism of himself.
> " So instead, he spends his time with the Waldorf Critics, who are as far from any kind of objective research one can imagine. I say let him stay there."
> It is a puzzle what he can find of value there, other than sycophancy. Certainly not scholarship, or open minded interest in esotericism or Steiner topics, or critical research - does he really think that anyone there gives a rat's ar*se about history, or will say anything in response to his posting, beyond a mutually self congratulatory laugh at the 'hatred of scholarship of the esotericists'? The fact that he has stayed there, amongst people like that, I suppose says something about the low quality of the 'social network' that he is happy with.
> Ted Wrinch
> --- In email@example.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ted.wrinch"
> > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
> > > Staudi has presumably posted this as something that is supposedly
> > salutary to people 'adverse to historical criticism', which is his
> > posting title (people like us, he thinks); but actually, though he
> > appears unaware of it, it indicts his own form of historical scholarship
> > most directly.
> > I noticed that. I read through William Cronon's article twice, very
> > carefully, in search of anything relevant to the train of thought
> > expressed by PS in his introduction to the link. I came up blank. There
> > is nothing there even remotely relevant to any of PS' rants.PS suggests
> > some kind of association to the alleged animosity towards the subject of
> > history among anthroposophists/esotericists when he writes:
> > "A year ago I mentioned a highly publicized incident illustrating the
> > ways in which historians often anger people attached to particular
> > worldviews and averse to historical examination. The historian at the
> > center of that incident was William Cronon"
> > So there has been some kind of incident where William Cronon made
> > somebody angry, and that angry somebody was attached to some particular
> > worldview and was also averse to historical examination. He doesn't say
> > whether or not that someone belonged to his favored target (esotericists
> > and anthroposophists), you know, an Adorable Darling or something, but
> > that appears to be his intended association or implication.
> > It looks more like PS links up this piece in an effort to show himself
> > off as a professional historian, because there is a great deal in the
> > text about how these professionals are challenged to make themselves
> > understood to non-professionals (lay people) as well as their own peers
> > and colleagues. PS tries to bring home once again the idea that he is a
> > professional and the other cherubs are not, and of course no
> > anthroposophists will ever be an academic of any sort, because they all
> > hate scholarship.
> > But there is nothing in William Cronon's article to make any association
> > between the characteristics of professional history research and PS'
> > rants. Cronon mentions the passion for history, for its truth and
> > accuracy, a passion that characterizes and defines professional
> > historians. PS has no such passion. He hasn't even written anything that
> > Cronon -- a coined name based on Chronos? ;) -- calls good history. From
> > the looks of it, he tried to write a piece of good history back in 2000,
> > entitled "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism". It may have been "good history"
> > for some, i.e. a good hoax at a first read, but he was very proud of the
> > attention it got, especially from various anthroposophists who
> > successfully tore it to pieces and debunked it. (The same was done right
> > here at the AT in spring 2004; it's in the archives.) Ever since then,
> > PS has been trying to get his revenge, which is why he goes on and on
> > about how stupid esotericists are, how much they hate history and so on.
> > And as usual, he posts links to articles and even titles of lots of
> > books where the content often bears no relevance to his own
> > anti-esoteric vendetta. You have to remember, though, that when PS says
> > "professional historians" he doesn't mean people like Cronon or anybody
> > else, but himself. And when he says "scholarship" he means Staudi-rants,
> > nothing else.
> > But I would defend his right to be as nutty as he pleases. Unlike PK, he
> > is not the type to run around with a knife dreaming about slashing
> > throats or gutting people like fishes. He has no passion for history,
> > which is a requirement; he is bored with history, which is why he wastes
> > his time trying to antagonize anthroposophists and then he gets an
> > occasional Adorable Darling he can call typical anthroposophist. He
> > keeps complaining over and over that serious anthroposophists are not
> > interested in his disputations, which means there's something wrong with
> > them.
> > Cronon writes:
> > "Professional historians keep track of each other's work, compete with
> > each other in complex status hierarchies, belong to social networks that
> > require great effort to join, and engage in critical dialogues that
> > often grow ever more technical and self-referential the more vigorous
> > (and sometimes pedantic) they become."
> > They belong to social networks that require great efforts to join. They
> > are probably very interesting, informative, and rewarding, especially
> > for those with a true passion for history (which PS is lacking). So
> > instead, he spends his time with the Waldorf Critics, who are as far
> > from any kind of objective research one can imagine. I say let him stay
> > there.
> > Tarjei