Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49966Re: WC Criticism, Thinking and Studying

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Apr 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Tarjei observed recently, in connection with his lovathon, how Diana mistook an expression of love for hate. She has demonstrated in the excchange below a similar confusion of the meaning of respect with aversion and hostility. This indicates a deterioration of emotional health. The undue and uncritical respect she accords to Der Staudi's output shows an atrophied power of independent thought. Like Pete K, I think she's beginning to suffer from a serious degree of derangement.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ""Peter's efforts are significant and respectful of anthroposophy. He accords the
      > movement far more respect than you do"
      >
      > I didn't comment further on this opinion of Diana's in my initial response but I think it provides remarkable evidence of how far Diana has come under WC group think. It's the kind of thing Staudi says, for his own polemical reasons, but is not something that anyone outside the WC cult takes seriously. The group is so obviously *disrespectful* of Steiner's ideas that it provides stark evidence of distorted thinking, out of touch with reality, to think that one can claim otherwise. It's just more evidence of what belonging to a hate group for a decade or so can do to one's sanity.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Diana provides her usual dose of insults in her post responding to us - accusing me/us of 'shrieking foolishly' and having ' psychotic outbursts', etc. Alicia, on Diana's prompting, has taken a peek here and labelled the experience 'sick and vile', oblivious to the tone of her own list.
      > >
      > > Diana has taken up cudgels on her hero's behalf:
      > >
      > > "Obviously, Peter S. does not think anthroposphy is academically insignificant"
      > >
      > > I've already answered this; it's basically not true: e.g. he's said that he thinks that Steiner's philosophy is 'run of the mill' but that he has a 'much higher estimation' of it than anthroposophy (message 29598). PS pursues his study of anthroposophy for reasons other than its 'academic significance'; I've suggested to this list on other occasions what some of those reasons might be.
      > >
      > > "Some day, get around to contemplating why your reaction to him is so intense and
      > > personal"
      > >
      > > This has been answered many, many times: he has for over a decade tried to dishonestly and aggressively undermine something I value - my reaction is a normal reaction. My self understanding of the cause of my reaction is quite clear; you don't understand this reaction because you can no longer see beyond the years of antipathy directed in the same manner and to the same target as PS - yours is an abnormal reaction.
      > >
      > > "It's not his fault if some of the
      > > doctrines or history is problematic and he would like to spur anthroposophists to serious consideration of some of the
      > > problems.""
      > >
      > > The 'doctrines or history' are what's been at issue. They are not, mostly, 'problematic'; instead the history he has been retailing has, mostly, been a falsification, which been amply demonstrated by detailed analysis on this list.
      > >
      > > "Peter's efforts are significant and respectful of anthroposophy. He accords the
      > > movement far more respect than you do, acting the way you do in public, you are
      > > an embarassment, you discredit anthroposophy while he takes it seriously in
      > > every detail."
      > >
      > > This is the opposite of PS's efforts, which are uniformly disdainful and oppositional. Only an uncritical member of WC could even venture such an inaccurate, biased characterisation of PS's decade long mission to undermine anthroposophy; only such a member could think that a piece of dishonest contumely like his 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' (http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism-2/) is 'respectful' to the movement.
      > >
      > > "What "undue respect"? People read and appreciate the effort, not everyone agrees
      > > with everything, but most are appreciative of learning new perspectives and
      > > certainly for the information he has dug up out of anthroposophical archives..That's not actually "undue
      > > respect," guys, that's just thinking and studying.."
      > >
      > > No one on your list reads, checks or cross references anything he provides - what book reference, paper, citation have you ever looked at? What he's 'dug up out of anthroposophical archives' is on one topic only - anthros and Nazis. This topic isn't relevant or even interesting to the English speaking anthro world. It's only 'read and appreciate[d]' on the English speaking WC list out of a sense of the unacknowledged antipathy that drives that list.
      > >
      > > "Why not come up with a little "due respect" yourself
      > > and try to engage some of the issues he raises?"
      > >
      > > Have done. Many, many of the 'issues he's raised' - from the his characterisation of Steiner's writing on the East as 'orientalism' to his characterisation of three-folding as 'organacist' - have been addressed here by me. Your response has been to call this 'strained erudition' and ignore it. This is not surprising; we all know from your demonstrated behaviour over the years, involving insults and put downs over analysis and thought, that your request that we "try to engage some of the issues he raises" is not serious.
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      >
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic