|
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040308164231.73177.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:30:01 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"Did you not write, back in December 2003, "My articles
on anthroposophy are indeed polemical" ?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, I wrote that in May 2001, as it happens. Aside from getting
the date wrong by a couple years, what does this have to do
with "only" writing polemic? I've explained to you
several times now that I write both history and polemic. It
thus makes very little sense for you to say that I claim I
"only" write polemic. Do you have some other meaning
of the word "only" in mind?
Daniel:
Thanks for clarifying the date of the quote. I wasn't sure,
which is why I asked.
The word "only" below in quotes I intended to mean
"merely" and not "exclusively" (as in,
"Why are you upset, I was ONLY joking." or in this
case, "Why are you upset [about my lack of accuracy],
I was merely writing polemic?"). I realize that this
is not clear, and apologize for any confusion.
We have established that you write history and polemic, simultaneously.
Now I maintain that any work that is simultaneously historical
and polemical can be validly called simply "polemic",
but can not validly be called simply "history".
That is, historical polemic is a sub-genre of polemic, but
not of legitimate history (it may be a sub-genre related to
history, but it is more like the bastard cousin of history).
I understand that you can refer me to two dozen books that
will purportedly demonstrate the opposite, but I choose to
stand by this definition (and not from ignorance, but from
years of considering the issue from numerous perspectives).
If you choose to reject it, you can of course call your work
"polemical history" and I won't object. But if you
call your work "history" I will have to point out
that it is more accurately polemical history, or simply polemic.
Daniel Hindes
Daniel wrote:
"Since you subsequently claim that you are "only"
writing polemic"
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't what I claim.
Daniel Hindes:
That is excatly your response when serious problems are found
in your articles. Did you not write, back in December 2003,
"My articles on anthroposophy are indeed polemical"
?
Daniel Hindes
Peter Staudenmaier did not respond to this post.
|
