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

49973Re: Worldviews

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Apr 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Alicia seems unhappy that I mentioned her 'current health issues' in that posting and thinks that I've invented the topic to 'pathologise' her and to suggest she's 'not quite well in the head'. She continues analysing this small, unimportant, sub-part of one sentence of my positing for four paragraphs on her blog. Amazing. I got the idea from her - from one of the many years of complaints, retailed over WC and her own Wordpress blog, of the various ways she has said Waldorf has damaged her life. Amongst these - probably hundreds now - of complaints, I remember from a few years ago her mentioning that her health had suffered in some way; I don't know what way - she didn't say - and that is all I remember and was all I was responding too in that sentence. The main part of the sentence was, in any event, primarily an observation of how damaging she has said Steiner thought, in the form of Waldorf, has been to her life.

      Alicia continues to call us 'crap-spouting morons' and says we are 'cluttering cyberspace', and so completes her blog entry, entirely missing the point of my posting. Missing the point, and being instead caught up in your own opinions and viewpoints, is typical of what passes for 'critical thinking' on WC, and, it seems, in some parts of the 'Ethereal Kiosk'. But don't worry, Alicia: though you're not as 'moronic' as WC, I've never personally found anything you post in the 'kiosk' of any interest and don't plan on 'cluttering cyberspace' in it for you.

      Later, in the comments, she suggest that we should:

      "perhaps do some thinking about which punishments might be coming their way in terms of diseases."

      Wow, again. They just don't realise how nasty they are.

      She continues:

      "One has to assume that the clientele at the anthroposophy tomorrow list (incl Sune who has posted there in the past) is a 100% psychologically sound, or we might have to infer `current health issues'. Oops."

      Hm - she makes the association between my expression 'current health issues' and her own of being 'not quite well in the head' or '100% psychologically sound', and then blames us for it! Wow. These people have no idea of what 'critical thinking' is, or even how to read a few sentences without projecting their own prejudices onto them.

      She says more:

      "I've taken more than sleeping pills; I used to be quite messed up. To get these meds, whatever they are, you go to a psychiatrist. That's how things happen, it's self evident. There's nothing particularly odd about it. Perhaps one sore point, for waldorf defenders, is that waldorf education doesn't prevent a kid from being messed up — quite the contrary. Sometimes it messes the kid up even more."

      Well, though I haven't said it, this seems to be implying:

      1) She's has had serious mental health issues, bad enough to be prescribed something 'more than sleeping pills' - does she mean lithium, for bi-polar disorder? Who knows, but it don't sound good.

      2) She links this experience to her Waldorf schooling - 'waldorf education doesn't prevent a kid from being messed up — quite the contrary'.

      So, after rebutting my health suggestion, she appears now to be confirming it, Oh, well - I don't really care either way and it wasn't in anyway important to the point of my posting. As she says, her health is entirely up to her (except that if she posts public messages on the subject I do think it's reasonable to assume that people may read them).



      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      > Alicia had a strong allergic reaction to her peek over here and the experience appears to be still reverberating in her being:
      > "I'm so fed up with crap-spouting assholes, of which there are plenty
      > in the world, that I'm getting cranky. Sorry... I shall resume to
      > ignore them entirely."
      > But one wonders what could have caused such a vehement reaction. Fear! She's set up her Wordpress weblog, 'the ethereal kiosk', to allow her to write about her interest in Rudolf Steiner and to encourage others to discuss and chat and laugh about the same. And this has worked very well and she gets a wide range of people that drop by, albeit more in the category of sceptics and (mild) critics - a completely different constituency from WC! The posts cover a wide range of topics, from biodynamcis, to Waldorf, to Goethean science, but the one thing that they have in common is that they, mostly, take none of it seriously. She has a surprising fascination for a subject that, by her account, was a big part of the cause of a deeply unhappy childhood and, it seems, possibly a cause of current health issues. Why would someone in this context have such a fascination? The subject's obviously interesting to her, but why? It's not real to her, but nevertheless draws here to it and keeps her there - for the four years I've been aware of her presence on WC, and I assume for much longer before that. It's a puzzle isn't it? I think that at some deep, semi-conscious level of being she actually finds value and truth in it. At the level of her everyday, conscious self she denies this and says its 'unscientific' and 'irrational', but yet she persists….I think that it's this conflict between the depths and the surface that is what prompted the strength of the outburst above; its a reaction to the fact that people here don't just play with Steiner concepts but take them seriously, as part of a worldview.
      > T.
      > Ted Wrinch
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic