Mike

How big would rattle you?

Oh, I have seen many forbid the possibility that God could or would do that. Aren't you doing that? Isn't my breaking this forbidden idea what's got everyone riled up against me? I think this may be similar to the situation where HAD Jesus claimed to BE God, it wouldn't have bothered the Pharisees much, and wouldn't have threatened their authority. Why should they waste energy on shutting up a crazy man claiming the impossible. But we see from the accuracy of the Word that Jesus did NOT claim to be God, but the Son of God. THAT was not so impossible, AND it severely threatened their authority. What Jesus was claiming had some POSSIBLE merit to it and they could not allow that to be even pondered, so the pulled out all the stops to stop him. So, I come along and say something that CLEARLY is possible for a powerful and loving God, that he would clarify all our mixed up, flawed Bible versions and give us a FRESH start with God-breathed words to build into our lives, no in depth research needed. It clearly IS possible for God to do this, and that's why you all must find any way to shut me up or make me look silly to lurking readers. You can't really attack my logic or my data, so you attack me. You fear "authority" as whistle blowers will be blown.

Thanks for the compliment, but I had to ask experts to be sure. I am good at it, but not expert. I'll go thru the beginning steps, again. But first let me emphasize something that I have said 50 times here including a bunch in recent years. This sentence in question is a huge claim by VPW if my grammar analysis is correct. HOWEVER, just because he claims that doesn't mean he is correct in claiming it. Are you surprised to hear me say that? If so, you have not been paying enough attention to the details of what I post. I have said it often here. More math talk: I cannot prove that VPW is correct in this page 83 sentence, any more than I can derive God's existence from logic. I have never tried to prove that written PFAL is God-breathed. What I have proved over and over is that all you folks missed a lot and forgot a lot. I can prove that Dr had many HUGE claims that slipped by you all unnoticed. I posted 22 such claims here 15 years ago. Did you miss them? I posted 3 such claims in the past few days. The other two are TNDC 37, 116 My logic is: If you missed these hidden statements, how many other things did you miss or forget? I am constantly finding other things that were missed. So my logic is, since you folks missed all these huge claims, you can't be trusted to criticize the class or books. You are not done absorbing them and far from mastering them. Your criticisms are totally bogus due to persistent and deliberate incompetence, IMO. ********************** PFAL p. 83 "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Of course you want that to say: "None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed." ...or other similar forgeries. */*/* The words "not all" mean "some" because if I eat NOT ALL of a pizza, then there is SOME left for you. So that legitimately transforms the original sentence to: "Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Ok, that's already a huge claim. You can look elsewhere in my posts here on how to handle the word "necessarily." That word makes the claim even bigger.

Bad grammar on your part. Ask a grammar expert. But, Waysider, I see you started a similar thread, and I will leave you folks alone there. It is not my intention to derail. I think most of my posts that go off topic are due to responding to challenges posed to me. In that thread, “Another PFAL Class Full of Dead Men's Bones,” you posted something there that is pertinent here also. My comments are in red. Another iteration of the PFAL class. No matter how many times TWI staff tries to collaborate efforts on foundational constructs and principles, they continue to fail. They are blinded by self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride that obstructs them from a spiritual relationship with the Lord. I agree this prevailed from the mid 80s until now, but with diminishing intensity on the “self-importance and a haughty spirit of pride.” 1. Power for Abundant Living (1967). Wierwille plagiarized wholesale from B.G. Leonard (stolen class) Totally bogus. VPW was given the go ahead God to use anything that He had given to B. G. Leonard. 2. PFAL '77. Wierwille attempted to update this class in 1977 (failed) WRONG !!! . That mission to replace the ’68 film class with PFAL’77 was ABORTED when VPW was told by God that he was wrong in doing that project. The replacement idea was scrubbed at that time, before the new class started. I was in the BRC lunchroom when he announced this to at least a hundred people, just 4 days before the start of PFAL’77. In the SNT tape 1 day before PFAL’77 started, some of the same comments were made again. 3. Way of Abundance and Power Class (1996). Martindale's attempt. A class filled with sport analogies and jockstrap ego. (crash & burn) I TOTALLY AGREE 4. WAP Class Update (2004 ?). Three Amigos teach sections. Still has the lingering effects and questions of Craig Martindale's presidency and cover-up. I TOTALLY AGREE 5. Power for Abundant Living Today (2022). Shiny and new. Makes it looks like twi is actually doing something rather than just serving refried teachings over and over again. I TOTALLY AGREE ..... but I also think many of them are reachable now in private. A few have contacted me from seeing my posts here. Some have admitted to me that they now have their own bootleg copies of PFAL, and only tolerate leadership for the materials, and pray for their enlightenment and healing.

I don't think this is the place to go into such detail. How many could follow it? I think you are just trying to drag my arse here. How many people can follow Godel Numbering? I couldn't for years. I forget how we even got onto Godel. He is only remotely connected to what we talk about here.

That is an interesting take ! I think it was a marketing ploy for Gurdjieff. The secrecy made his product more appealing that if everything were open. The intrigue generated sales. He charged stiff prices for his class, and for the same reasons PFAL demanded payments. This is one of the first things that I noticed.

That was referring to the earlier: "So, this implies that some parts are and some parts aren't." YES, that is what what is written in compact form: some is God-breathed and some isn't. It is from other Easter Eggs, ah, er, I mean.... other hidden or obscure passages that I learn more about the portion that is God-breathed. Meanwhile, we can be pretty sure his love letters to Dotsie weren't, his grocery lists weren't, his Corps memos probably not, etc It is in TNDC page 37, hidden in at the end of an elementary chapter, that we read "... you will find that every word I have written to you is true." Ever seen that little EGGSQUISITE passage? You probably did when you first got into the Word. Most of us saw it early like that, but a few years later, when we got arrogant and thought we had mastered that chapter, it completely eluded us. Hardly anyone knows it is there now. It helps me narrow down which writings are God-breathed. Another WELL hidden item is VPW's last/lost teaching, that 99% of non-Corps grads never knew about. In that last MOST IMPORTANT teaching he TWICE tells us to master the written materials that come with the class. A huge colorful Easter Egg to me! I still have some work to do on further defining these boundaries. There are other Eggs I have for to share here, but that's enough for now. I am on the lookout for more as I study. I am under the impression that in newer PFAL books page 83 is unchanged. I'll have to check.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense IF it were the case that God was not involved and truly interested in blessing the world with fresh God-breathed writings in English. Do really wan to forbid God from working with sinful men to bless other sinful men with His pure Word? There were several times in the OT when God's Word was lost or destroyed. God always moved to restore it, sometimes immediately (Jer. 36) and sometimes after a span of time. I don't know why God waited so long to have the scriptures AUTHORITATIVELY restored, but who am I to question God's timing? Remember, translations and versions are void of authority. Change one word and you no longer have the Word, so even many early copies of the originals, which were notoriously inaccurate, are void of authority.

Not to accuse you of jealousy, but I do have that knee-jerk reaction to degree people who think their "official" path to intense knowledge is the only path. I have often encountered undisguised and overt jealousy at my lack of formal credentials. Jealousy because I sometimes got to sit and brainstorm with academic prizewinners including Nobel and MacArthur. If I worded anything inaccurately about Godel above, THAT should be the target of your criticism, not my credentials. I will ignore now your opening as trivial and disingenuous itself. God was very instrumental in opening doors for me to sit with great leaders in academia. This has happened over and over, and the only reason I can figure out why is that I have a job to do in applying my good fortune to bless others. As for Godel, I had first heard about his stuff in High School, and thought it may be a key to solving mysteries of consciousness and free will. I was not looking for a job in mathematics, just help in working Neuroscience, where I am also a Rogue Scholar. I don't want to be a neuroscientist either; just need info to bless grads and then others. As for Godel I searched out the best authors on his 2 famous theorems, which were few in 1966 when I started. Then Hofstadter wrote his Pulitzer Prize winning "Godel Escher and Bach." Soon more authors joined the exposition. The most authoritative treatment of Godel I knew of in the 1990s from Nobel Prize winning physicist two books on consciousness and the mind, starting with The Emperor's New Clothes. I had been waiting for the top level to pick up where Schrodinger's tiny booklet "What is Life?" had left off in the 1930s, and Penrose went full bore on it. But I was still far from anything that could directly help me with the mystery of free will. Then Hofstadter wrote another Godel book at the 30th anniversary of "Godel Escher and Bach" because he felt no one really got what he was aiming at. This book is "I AM a Strange Loop." Although his Godel exposition here is superb, and I got some questions answered about Godel numbering, Hofstadter mostly taught me that Godel was NOT going to help me with free will. I loved what I learned about Godel, and can rub shoulders with any person with a degree in it for mutual learning. If you haven't yet read "I AM a Strange Loop' then I highly recommend it. It has all sorts of surprises in it, and Hofstadter gets surprisingly personal about his private life and emotions than I was expecting. His main focus there is consciousness, and Godel is but one tool in the inquiry.

Yes we can't forget Cantor. However, I can't think of any possible applications for his infinities.

You are so right about a lot there. I have studied these things, non-Euclidean Geometry and Godel's theorem on-and-off for 50 years. I love how you put it. Untouchable axioms are a must to any logic at it's beginnings. Axioms are similar to "our only rule for faith and practice." and are untouchable. In math axioms are the "only set of rules for cranking out math." Selecting one's axioms is critical for everything in life. For those unfamiliar, axioms also called postulates and assumptions. */*/*/*/*/*/* Bolshevik is partially right, though, I think. The tight RESULTS of Godel's theorems apply only to "formal systems" in mathematics, and should be ONLY cautiously applied to other areas, bearing in mind that the PROOF of Godel only works for the formal systems. Saying the Godel applies to anything outside a formal system is a little like saying Einstein proved that everything is relative. The ideas may apply outside a formal system, but not the proofs. Formal systems were devised in the early 20th Century by mathematicians to try and make a machine that proves math theorems. The machine only pays attention to the FORMS of the symbols that are used. The word "formal" does not imply the mathematicians wear tuxedos while they crank the proving machine. Ham, would you say I got those details right? I dropped Godel about 8 years ago after Hofstadter's second book on it. I'm already getting a little rusty on it.

One of the oddities of Gurdjieff is he did not teach receive, retain, release. Instead it was just receive and retain. He taught that witnessing the principles he was teaching should be NOT be done except in rare situations with a strongly motivated student-to-be. He taught that keeping it all under the vest causes it to grow, and if you speak it out you lose some of it. So if Dow was a student, the norm was to keep quiet about it. Being in a church would be another reason to keep quiet about it.

If she did not work at the TOP of the publications department, and she did not work there when VPW was still president, pre1982, then of course she didn't see what I am describing. It was editors who described their interactions with VPW to me, and it was all pre 1982 And for you and all the Easter Bunny atheists out there, I now feel compelled to bring more Easter Eggs to the table.

I am very familiar with the workings of the publication department. I happened to live next door to J.Fred Wilson, a PFAL book editor, and one of my best friends since the 70s. Another very good friend is David Craley. a Way Mag editor. Also, I lived across the street from Milford Bowen, a former editor of Dr's. I talked to these people a lot back in the 70s about the books, and again on the phone in the early 2000s. They all told me that in spite of the many people working on editing and smoothing out his teachings into written form, VPW was a constant supervisor and watched everything very closely, especially as it got near the galley stages. According to the Univ of Life teachings by VPW on 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians Verses 1:1 in each, this same edition process can be seen operating in the first century. The verses open with "Paul, Silas, and Timothy...." and it looks at first like all three were authors of those Epistles. But Dr teaches that first the revelation came to Paul, and then he discussed it with the other two, and then all three put it into written form. Maybe your former wife would be delighted to hear that she had taken part in the process like Silas and Timothy.

No. I asked several language experts about PFAL p 83. I also discussed it for hours on the phone with J. Fred Wilson and a few e-mails with Karen Martin. In case you don't know J. Fred Wilson and Karen Martin were VPW's editors for the PFAL book. Those two agreed with my grammar analysis, maybe less for Karen. But J.Fred balked at believing it, so outlandish it is. But as we talked he slowly felt better about it. Karen's consultation was not as complete, because Don Wierwille had just died and we were interrupted, and never resumed the conversation. Karen used a term I had never heard before: inspiration of explication. It sounded interesting. I also asked Way Mag editor David Craley about it. He agreed with my grammar, but disagreed theologically.

I am consistent and I don't forge the words to make them say what I want them to say. You just can't fathom that God would be SO good to us that He would get His pure Word to us, and that He would be able to tolerate a sinful man to get it all written. We are the beneficiaries to this work, not VPW. God is good.

The reason there isn't a "but" to set in contrast VPW's fleshly words from the other religious leaders, is because the whole point of that page is to state that their fleshly words are NOT directly from God. So, that one sentence has TWO elements in it: one that flows with the context, and one that is contrary to the context. It is a minor exception in number, though. Most of VPW's words were mere flesh like the others. It is only the finished books and magazine articles that God worked directly with him on. He had to work it all in the senses realm, and then God could show him more. The word "necessarily" is there to mark this contrast. Wordwolf, you want to change what he wrote to exclude the necessary exception to this context, the 1042 Promise, where VPW's job is to obediently bring the God-breathed Word back into the world. You want it to say "What Wierwille writes will necessarily not be God-breathed." That flows perfect with the context with no exceptions, BUT that is a forgery. The reason VPW phrased it so compactly, and nestled in a camouflaging negative context is because WE WERE NOT READY FOR IT YET. He hid other Easter Eggs in there for meek grads to find. He hid them all well. I'm working on another hint right now. In the last magazine issue, VPW's very last, he repeats 5 sentences in the Our Times article and the main article. Why the repetition? It is established. It's a big deal to read these 5 sentences. I call them VPW's call that we all do a "Spiritual Makeover." He hid them well. No one (hardly) has ever seen that sentence on PFAL p. 83, and I have NEVER heard of anyone flashing on those 5 repeated sentences. There is more to the 5 sentences. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is going to be very interesting how they handle that sentence in PFAL-T I am bringing this up with my TWI contacts. Chances are they will be too spiritually asleep to notice it. I only knew of one person who knew page 83 was astoundingly significant, and that was 1982. I have never heard anyone mention it since.

not all = some So now we have "Some of what Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." But why the word "necessarily" ? Here is my expanded paraphrase of that passage on page 83.: “Men have lots of untrustworthy words, even great leaders in the Church. That applies to me also, even though I was commissioned by God to restore accuracy to the scriptures and teach it in 1942. Some of my words are not God-breathed, even though the work I was commissioned to do for God involves writing God-breathed words.”

You are not looking at the grammar of that sentence. It says that normally VPW's words were just as untrustworthy as others, EXCEPT when he was working with God on the God-breathed writings that we need so much. I can't think of ANY God-breathed writings PHYSICALLY existing today. Can you? You are like all the others who look ONLY at the context of PFAL page 83. You ignore WHAT IS WRITTEN. I am claiming that the grammar says that VPW's earthly words are flowing with the surrounding context, AND that the same sentence mentions a MAJOR exception, and that's the God-Breathed documents thet God produced with VPW. You are not handling the words "not all" and "necessarily" in your context analysis above. What you (and nearly everyone too) want that sentence to say is "What Wierwille writes will necessarily not be God-breathed. With that forgery, the context is smooth and contains no major exceptions, like Dr and God wanted in there.

I already cited several, but very briefly. Read the book and you can't miss them.

You probably missed or forgot my earlier posts in this thread. There are MANY things in Gurdjief that VPW took directly into PFAL, and Way Corps training especially. Anyone who has the patience to read that book I mentioned will be amazed. I was amazed in 1971,72 as I read the PFAL book and took the class I kept seeing one thing after another. That's why I brought that book to Rock'72 and was lucky enough to show it to VPW. My first point here is that grads, universally have never heard of him or ever guessed they were exposed to his ideas. Most of them are good ideas that VPW brought over, but that one thing called "Gurjieffian Shocks" could have been a disaster at times. In addition to being sure VPW read the whole thing, I strongly suspect Craig read it too. Athletes of the Spirit comes from it.

I'm curious how they will handle PFAL page 83 where it says: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." i THINK most grads have never flashed on that sentence, neither in the book, nor in the film class. They are nearly identical. When people read it fast, or listen to the audio, it slips by like greased lightning! Even when people do see of hear it, I am pretty sure that they mentally figure that they read it wrong. "He couldn't have said THAT!" they say. And so they forge it to say what they figure it MUST have been saying, which is: What Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." I am TOTALLY SURE that many do DELIBERATELY forge the sentence to say that, because they tell me so. It would be almost funny if they left that line in intact, because it probably means no one even saw it.... the norm. It would be tragic if then forged it to what they want it to say.

You forgot to include WHY I have a superior approach! It's the tons of evidence here and every where I discuss PFAL with grads, that they: (1) forgot much in the years that have past, (2) did not receive some of it due to not needing it then, or not being mature enough to understand it, (3) The AE researchers were assuming what they set out to prove. I had the same handicaps in 1998, and someone pointed them out to me. It is only because of that advice I can say that BY GOD'S GRACE I was able to employ the proper way to handle APPARENT errors in PFAL. I can't boast for what God did for me. Anyone here has these superior methods available to them, so that's another reason I can't brag.

AND thank YOU for the dialog.