> I would be
> interested myself in seeing Hayek's own way of putting these
> thoughts if they are indeed substantially different from the
> edited version we now have. 


The term 'these thoughts' suggests a static intellectual framework. If Hayek is right about the mind not being able to predict its own advance, then we have no way of knowing how Hayek's thinking would have developed if he had been able to complete this book himself. How useful is a comparison of a completed work with a work in progress? Bartley may have "tidied up Hayek's Germanic prose" or he if he may have "illegitimately introduced his own epistemological pre-dispositions" or he could have simply done as much as anyone could have to stay true to what Hayek would have done himself. This forensic work will satisfy some curiosity, but it will not really prove anything.   

D


> Dr Steven Kates
> School of Economics, Finance
>     and Marketing
> RMIT University
> Level 12 / 239 Bourke Street
> Melbourne Vic 3000
> 
> Phone: (03) 9925 5878
> Mobile: 042 7297 529
> 
> 
> >>> Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
> 02/09/2010 3:40 am >>>
> In response to off-line requests for clarification: A
> lawyer (Steve Dimmick) is forensically examining the
> numerous drafts of the Fatal Conceit to see whether the
> editor, William Warren Bartley III, was doing a sterling job
> of tidying up Hayek's Germanic prose etc or illegimately
> introducing his own epistemological pre-dispositions and
> passing them off as the final resting point of Hayek's
> intellectual journey.      
> 
> The concerns have been summarised by Lanny Ebenstein:
> 
> http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_03/ebenstein-deceit.html
> 
> 
> Robert Leeson
>