Re: Individuality and Genus (was: Steiner's role ...)
Oct 01, 2001 20:01 PDT
| ||The virtual "lecture" by RS in Oslo that you describe as an intro to|
your article about anthroposophy and ecofascism is presented as the
centrally explanatory (or descriptive) core of your article.
No, it isn't. Writers call this an "opening device". I don't refer to it in
the body of the article and it plays no role in my argument. I used it
merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology. The core
of the article concerns the cozy relationship between anthroposophists and
the "green wing" of the Nazi party.
| ||Sune has documented how this description of yours is total|
No, he hasn't. The only thing he actually disagrees with is my
*interpretation* of the lecture, not its existence.
| ||In spite of this, you have done nothing to produce a|
genuine and authentic source of reference to establish the existence
of the virtual lecture,
You think Steiner never gave this lecture?
| ||nor have you explained how the virtual|
"public" (?) lecture, separated from the published cycle, can be so
contradictory to the cycle RS held for members etc. etc.
I can't explain that because it isn't true. The published version of the
lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the
| ||With this background, your reference to your own work as "historical|
scholarship" is a pompous hoax and an embarrassment to the profession.
I don't see how it could be an embarrassment to professional historians,
since I'm not one. But let's get to the point: How could you tell the
difference between historical scholarship and its counterfeits, Tarjei? You
vehemently reject the tools of historical inquiry as embodiments of
Ahrimanic materialism, and you insist that only occultists can legitimately
study occult movements. You can't make even basic sense of historical texts
(e.g. Goodrick-Clarke) and you hold a wide range of irrational views on
historical events (e.g. that Hitler was a sorcerer who used 'black magic' to
take power etc). You frequently impute to others opinions they do not hold,
and when pressed to clarify your own opinions you are uncharacteristically
struck dumb. All of these things make you a very interesting interlocutor,
but they do not suggest a refined appreciation for the virtues of historical
scholarship. In light of this, I don't see what criteria you might employ to
distinguish a hoax from an argument. Could you share with us your own
conception of scholarly integrity?
Yours for historical scholarship,
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp