|
Re: Monolog?
Gentlemen,
Some more. The original topic was writing about history, if I'm correct. I believe that this topic would be fully within the scope of this forum. The topic evolved into a discussion, not of method, meaning tools used by historians, but of style. Ruy uses the term "method" in that sense in the post above. Here we enter the field of social intelligence, as opposed to rational intelligence. Freedom of speech, and freedom to differ in opinions, is not a birthright; it exists because of an essential premisse that is hardly ever mentioned, but usually active. The premisse is that we shall not bash in each other's head whilst disagreeing. If I could not trust the other guy to subscribe to that premisse, I would keep other tools at the ready next to the mouth and the pen.
Next to bashing heads comes deliberate insult. In clumsiness we may insult the other, and we apologize when made aware of that. Deliberate insult is another matter. That should simply have no place here, or anywhere else. It is utterly unintelligent, in the social sense of the term. One can be razor sharp, upfront, strong worded, scientifically correct, and what have you, without crossing the line of deliberate insult.
Grozibou claims meaningful content in his posts with reference to high visitor counts. That claim cannot be substantiated, as we do know how many of the visitors seek scandal rather than statement. Scandal sells much better than statement to the general public. The owners & moderators of this forum are not book editors, they have nothing to sell. Still they allowed Grozibou's style up to the warning given above. This can only be understood as the result of a genuine desire to be a forum where opposing opinions can meet. That's grand, deserves appreciation, and should not be misused. Improving a style that does not subscribe to the essential premisse of discours, would be a step towards showing appreciation. That's an advise, not a prescription.
Now the challenge. Could you direct the intellectual energy on the subject of methodology of history writing? Fine with me if limited to writing of WW2 aviation history. I'm not talking about where to find historical data, but about how to process it. Surely there is more to tell than that one needs to have read a lot, and that language skills are important. Surely the discussion could be about methods of first class history writers rather than those who fail to see their data inconsistencies? Surely this could lead to something that has meaning to others? It may even be a first in the field of WW2 aviation history writing. If a clear view on methodology can be achieved, which is unlikely to be easy, then, perhaps, innovation may become possible as the next step. Then the scientist becomes "der wahre Anfänger", the real amateur.
If you take up this challenge, then this is a suggested first item that needs to be investigated: independency. It is generally agreed that science can only function and develop in freedom. If the science is mathematics, and in our free Western societies, that's not too problematic. With the science of history there are, or could be, problems. Many of the professional historians are employed by their governments. Their writings are about actions of the past, including those of their own government. That's a potentially unfree situation, as governments are particular about what they want to hear, and what not. What does this do to scientific activities of government employed historians, and to their freedom of speech? Can we substantiate that these professional historians are in fact unfree in their research? If so, which are the limits, and what cannot be said, or written about?
Regards,
Rob
|