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
