Tarjei's confusion

Dottie's confusion

 

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:46 am
Subject: Dottie's confusion

Hi again Dottie, you wrote:

And are you aware you have stated that it is in fact true that you are not a Historian?

No, Dottie, I have not stated that. I am a historian. I'm not a professor. I have stated both of those things to you over and over again.

Or are you a Historian with a little h maybe?

All historians use the little h, Dottie.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Dottie's confusion

Peter:

No, Dottie, I have not stated that. I am a historian. I'm not a professor. I have stated both of those things to you over and over again.

Oy what a wicked web you do weave Peter. Have you no shame man? Whew, Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 12:52 am
Subject: Dottie's confusion

Peter:

No, Dottie, I have not stated that. I am a historian. I'm not a professor. I have stated both of those things to you over and over again.

Dottie,

it's very simple: he calls himself a "historian", but obviously has no credentials. He probably doesn't even have a high school diploma, because if he did, he would have challenged me on this point by now.

He is a bookseller. Or at least he works in a bookstore. And when there are no customers, he reads dust jackets of books standing in his bookstore. No need to read the content - it can be extrapolated from the dust jacket! Well, I'm probably exaggerating a bit - once in a while he might peruse a chapter or two.

And he probably reads the New York Times book review. If you read that every Sunday, it saves you laboriously ploughing through hundreds of books!

Dottie, you could also call yourself a historian! And so could I! Heck, we're all historians! Be both took history courses in high school and passed! More than dropouts manage.

And you can add and subtract, Dottie! So you're also a mathematician, Dottie! Isn't it wonderful to be so many things without academic credentials? Who needs academic credentials? We're self-made women and men! Long live anarchy! And the anarchy of ideas! The only thing that matters is words. Particularly authorised words. Because there are, of course, limits to anarchy. Printed words can always be recombined to mean anything you like, as long as you've got the guts to stick to your personal agenda no matter what!

Of course it's not at all your personal agenda, no, it is the one and only possible meaning of the words. And all authorised translators are behind you! Authorised people never make mistakes. Anarchy must have its limits somewhere, where would we get to if we admitted that authorities make mistakes! And if future translators produce different translations, they will be part of a naughty Stalinist scheme to rewrite history. There are many historical interpretations. But they're all wrong except the one proclaimed by the bookseller-historian without credentials.

Detlef Hardorp

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Dottie's confusion

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Oy what a wicked web you do weave Peter. Have you no shame man? Whew, Dottie

I know you don't like it when I tell you that I don't understand what you're getting at, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you trying to say that you thought historians and professors were the same thing, and that you, like Tarjei, want me to take responsibility for your confusion on this point? Curious,

Peter

Peter:

No, Dottie, I have not stated that. I am a historian. I'm not a professor. I have stated both of those things to you over and over again.

Oy what a wicked web you do weave Peter. Have you no shame man? Whew, Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Dottie's confusion

Detlef, still working on that whole reading comprehension thing (hmmm... a connection to Waldorf??), writes:

it's very simple: he calls himself a "historian", but obviously has no credentials.

I suppose that depends on what sort of credentials you're looking for. It is certainly true that I don't have a PhD and that I'm not an academic (though both of those things are, alas, in the process of changing).

He probably doesn't even have a high school diploma, because if he did, he would have challenged me on this point by now.

That's exactly why I haven't challenged you on this point, you goofball, because your claim is obviously silly. I have no idea how you managed to conclude that I dropped out of high school.

He is a bookseller. Or at least he works in a bookstore.

Yes indeed.

Dottie, you could also call yourself a historian! And so could I!

Yes, of course you could. Daniel just called himself a historian. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, though it does tend to make you look foolish when you demonstrate a remarkably naive grasp of the basic practices and standards of historiography. The point is simply that people who produce historical scholarship, who publish their own historical research, which is taken seriously by other historians, can accurately be described as historians. That is why I call myself a historian.

Isn't it wonderful to be so many things without academic credentials?

It certainly is wonderful in my view. This is a big part of why I decided to stay outside of the academy for ten years, to counter the notion that good scholarship and academic credentials must and should go together. I completely reject both Detlef's and Daniel's attitude toward experts; though the two of them seem to think their reverence for credentials and experts represents a kind of respect for knowledge, in fact this attitude lines up perfectly with the anti-intellectualism of folks like Mike.

it is the one and only possible meaning of the words.

Detlef seems to have mixed himself up with me here. There are several possible meanings of words like root race and Hauptrasse, which is precisely why every competent reader rejects Detlef's myopic insistence that some of these meanings are "errors".

There are many historical interpretations.

Yes, indeed there are. According to one of those interpretations, it isn't racist to say that some races are higher than others and to say that black people do not belong in Europe and so forth. According to another interpretation, it is racist to say these things, except when Rudolf Steiner says these things, in which case it isn't racist anymore. Both of these interpretations are indeed wrong. Not because I said so, but because everybody who reads Steiner and who comprehends what racism is reaches this conclusion, with the sole exception of those who believe that every last one of Steiner's doctrines cannot possibly be racist in the first place, no matter their content or their historical context. Nobody needs credentials to figure that out.

Yours for reading comprehension,

Peter

Continued in another thread

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: Dottie's confusion

Peter:

Are you trying to say that you thought historians and professors were the same thing, and that you, like Tarjei, want me to take responsibility for your confusion on this point? Curious,

Oy Peter. Please please please. I am telliing you man you need to look UP. Can you not see your game has been had? Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Dottie's confusion

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Can you not see your game has been had?

Not only can I not see that, I don't even know what game you think is being played, much less what the rules are supposed to be. You seem to think that I have somehow broken those rules, but you're strangely unwilling to say anything concrete on the matter. My best guess is that your complaint has something to do with distinctions that strike you as too subtle and therefore illegitimate, like the distinction between academics and historians or the distinction between racist and non-racist doctrines; such distinctions are evidently a big part of why my writing always seems to confuse you. But I won't really know one way or the other until you tell me. If you would like to clarify your stance on this or anything else, I'm listening. Thanks,

Peter

Peter:

Are you trying to say that you thought historians and professors were the same thing, and that you, like Tarjei, want me to take responsibility for your confusion on this point? Curious,

Oy Peter. Please please please. I am telliing you man you need to look UP. Can you not see your game has been had? Dottie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

April/May 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind
       
>