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

Re: History

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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!

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "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.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "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
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.