my observation is, da way, puts those who should be self-actualizing at the bottom of the pyramid..
you know. Living on "needs basis".. and such..
I can attest to that. I can't tell you how many face melting I got because I was autonomous.
One time he sat there and gave me the mother of all facemeltings in front of the whole twig. Odd how you remeber the facemeltings more than what caused them.
I let him rant and rave and have his petty little insurrection. Finally, he ran out of rage. I looked at him calmly and said: "Finished?"
This enraged him even more. "Hello," he bellowed, "is anybody in there?"
They seemed to want people to be as dependent on them as they could make them.
Because I was autonomous I was unpredictable. Usual methods didn't work on me because I never was one to bow to peer pressure.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but their was no kick in getting him to act with anger. What he thought and why he thought it I didn't care about one way or the other and that is what I was attempting to transmit.
I knew who I was and, in my book, that's all that mattered.
One is to lookoutward. You let the world around you define you. That's why some people always need friends around: to reflect back who they are.
The other way is to look inwardly and define yourself that way. Most people can't do that. It requires looking over the edge and asking what am I capable of? How do I define ethics and virtue? What do they mean to me?
I'm of the latter. Inwardly directed.
In my life I've left my home town several times: I've just pick up and moved to Cleveland, Ohio, Saginaw, MI, and Kissimmee FL.
When I move to the town, I usually don't know a soul.
Several times in Kissimmee, people were shocked that I could just pick up and go to a town where I'm a total stranger.
Not so shocking to me. I know I don't change and no matter where I go I'm still me.
what I'm looking at is.. they take "leaders" and place them in situations that they must act as brute beasts..
Oh, okay, I'm apologize for the misunderstanding.
Why do they do that? The ministry being evil, wanted to bring out the most primitive element in its leaders, which doesn't understand good or evil, that brute beast aspect of us.
I really think.. they don't consider *us* with any more regard than a science experiment..
In many aspects that's true. Much of socialist doctrine says that the society should be led by enlightened despots, people who have somehow escaped Maslow's ghost and are fit to run the society.
What they fail to mention to the masses is the enlightened wonders see the masses as no more then cattle to be herded. Too stupid to understand the greatness of the gift that's being laid before them.
Translate that into ministry terms and you have the same situation.
A lot of people have disagreed with Mazlow's theory, calling it biased and flawed.
Whether it is or isn't, though, is not all that important (IMO) within the context of this discussion. I think we can still use the concepts involved in the individual tiers as a broad means of definition. The fact is, The Way built quite a following, early on, by offering a product that closely resembles the love/belonging tier. Through abuse of the safety and esteem tiers, they stripped people of their self actualization and coerced them into a state that resembled the physiological state. This put people in a state of fear and dependency. We have seen the results. It's not a healthy process no matter whose theory is being modeled.
I look at the bottom of the pyramid. Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.
did not da way try to exert control over *almost* every one of these categories?
food, absolutely.
water? perhaps..
sex? absolutely. to the extent one had to give a schedule of when one was performing the duty with one's spouse..
sleep? yea. Deprivation, for the initiated..
homeostasis? I call this living in some form of normality, or equilibrium.. no, you could not reasonably expect this. Unless one could really "perform"..
excretion. Yes. Exhibited by the insane "sign out" rules when staff went potty..
and the little triangular wads of toilet paper.. don't want to "waste", do we..
I'm curious. Who among the "employed" of da "way" are in the second level of this kind of hierarchy?
TWI was enamored with authoritarian leadership (w/Bible verse 'proof') to the point they could not distinguish between bullying and 'leadership.' There were no checks and balances, no concern about the abuse of power, no concern about mental health or the safety of their followers. Hierarchy of needs would just irritate them as being a devilish influence--people should just obey and get blessed.
imho, comparing Maslow's hierarchy with other developmental hierarchies (James W Fowler, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Erik Erikson, Clare Graves, Jean Gebser, Don Beck, etc...) helps understand the different values and strategies in play.
The various models are looking at different hierarchies, which also helps to see how we are developing in multiple ways at once (moral, cognitive, ego, social, etc...), so that people with high cognitive or social intellegence may also come from a low moral base.
and yeah, twi, like a lot of secular leadership in our society today, puts the least developed (morally and otherwise) in charge of the more developed (aka more "mature" or more "wise"), and even rewards lack of development.
Such as how egocentric people will do things other more developed folks will not do to get into positions of power over others.
and yeah, twi, like a lot of secular leadership in our society today, puts the least developed (morally and otherwise) in charge of the more developed (aka more "mature" or more "wise"), and even rewards lack of development.
Such as how egocentric people will do things other more developed folks will not do to get into positions of power over others.
That's true. I used to marvel at some of the people that would be put in leadership. Many, and I mean many, had a distaste for such things as ethics and even having an education. There were a few times people were mocked for possessing such attributes. The narrow-mindedness of some was astounding.
That's true. I used to marvel at some of the people that would be put in leadership. Many, and I mean many, had a distaste for such things as ethics and even having an education. There were a few times people were mocked for possessing such attributes. The narrow-mindedness of some was astounding.
When you understand the ministry wasn't about "Gawd" but about evil, the motives become clear.
It seems to me a lot of the ministry was nothing more than evil in a "Gawd" wrapper.
Recommended Posts
waysider
I agree 100%.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I can attest to that. I can't tell you how many face melting I got because I was autonomous.
One time he sat there and gave me the mother of all facemeltings in front of the whole twig. Odd how you remeber the facemeltings more than what caused them.
I let him rant and rave and have his petty little insurrection. Finally, he ran out of rage. I looked at him calmly and said: "Finished?"
This enraged him even more. "Hello," he bellowed, "is anybody in there?"
They seemed to want people to be as dependent on them as they could make them.
Because I was autonomous I was unpredictable. Usual methods didn't work on me because I never was one to bow to peer pressure.
Which, in all fairness, probably drove him crazy.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
why do they get a "kick" out this..
putting people in the position where they act in brutish, primitive ways..
it really doesn't quite work sometimes..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but their was no kick in getting him to act with anger. What he thought and why he thought it I didn't care about one way or the other and that is what I was attempting to transmit.
I knew who I was and, in my book, that's all that mattered.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I really need more details to say I at least partly understand your situation..
what I'm looking at is.. they take "leaders" and place them in situations that they must act as brute beasts..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
There are two ways people define themselves:
One is to lookoutward. You let the world around you define you. That's why some people always need friends around: to reflect back who they are.
The other way is to look inwardly and define yourself that way. Most people can't do that. It requires looking over the edge and asking what am I capable of? How do I define ethics and virtue? What do they mean to me?
I'm of the latter. Inwardly directed.
In my life I've left my home town several times: I've just pick up and moved to Cleveland, Ohio, Saginaw, MI, and Kissimmee FL.
When I move to the town, I usually don't know a soul.
Several times in Kissimmee, people were shocked that I could just pick up and go to a town where I'm a total stranger.
Not so shocking to me. I know I don't change and no matter where I go I'm still me.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think they followed "corporate" america. along with their sociologists without a degree hacks..
the "momentus" experience. Throw "leaders" into a "lifeboat" situation, where they have to vote one of the participants out of existence..
so where are your needs "met".
the finest colleague one can have stands before you, and "existence"..
Cool.. in the end, you are always *me*..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Oh, okay, I'm apologize for the misunderstanding.
Why do they do that? The ministry being evil, wanted to bring out the most primitive element in its leaders, which doesn't understand good or evil, that brute beast aspect of us.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I really think.. they don't consider *us* with any more regard than a science experiment..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In this scenerio, nobody's needs are met: not the victimizer, not the victim.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
my *mission* in this life was to masquerade as another ignorant, susceptible plebe..
what they haven't figured in this..
maybe *they* are the real *experiment*..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In many aspects that's true. Much of socialist doctrine says that the society should be led by enlightened despots, people who have somehow escaped Maslow's ghost and are fit to run the society.
What they fail to mention to the masses is the enlightened wonders see the masses as no more then cattle to be herded. Too stupid to understand the greatness of the gift that's being laid before them.
Translate that into ministry terms and you have the same situation.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
ha!
so we are in kindergarten..
we have a small minded, insignificant cult to hone our skills..
what's next..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
To paraphrase what David letterman said about Hollywood: "Da Vey? High school with money."
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A lot of people have disagreed with Mazlow's theory, calling it biased and flawed.
Whether it is or isn't, though, is not all that important (IMO) within the context of this discussion. I think we can still use the concepts involved in the individual tiers as a broad means of definition. The fact is, The Way built quite a following, early on, by offering a product that closely resembles the love/belonging tier. Through abuse of the safety and esteem tiers, they stripped people of their self actualization and coerced them into a state that resembled the physiological state. This put people in a state of fear and dependency. We have seen the results. It's not a healthy process no matter whose theory is being modeled.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I agree, Waysider.
No matter where I went:
WOW
Twig
Limb Meetings
The ministry seemed to be at war with one thing (I imagine the thing that most threatened leadership): The ego.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I look at the bottom of the pyramid. Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.
did not da way try to exert control over *almost* every one of these categories?
food, absolutely.
water? perhaps..
sex? absolutely. to the extent one had to give a schedule of when one was performing the duty with one's spouse..
sleep? yea. Deprivation, for the initiated..
homeostasis? I call this living in some form of normality, or equilibrium.. no, you could not reasonably expect this. Unless one could really "perform"..
excretion. Yes. Exhibited by the insane "sign out" rules when staff went potty..
and the little triangular wads of toilet paper.. don't want to "waste", do we..
I'm curious. Who among the "employed" of da "way" are in the second level of this kind of hierarchy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"we don't owe you.. anything.."
isn't this the avowed position of "da way"?
maybe.. your organization isn't worth a s*it..
remember. *you* might be the science experiment here..
It would be unethical, for me to present anything different here..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe they don't owe you anything because they're bankrupt.
(aside from their $53 million nest egg.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
bankrupt, in more ways than one..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
TWI was enamored with authoritarian leadership (w/Bible verse 'proof') to the point they could not distinguish between bullying and 'leadership.' There were no checks and balances, no concern about the abuse of power, no concern about mental health or the safety of their followers. Hierarchy of needs would just irritate them as being a devilish influence--people should just obey and get blessed.
And we all know how well that worked!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
imho, comparing Maslow's hierarchy with other developmental hierarchies (James W Fowler, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Erik Erikson, Clare Graves, Jean Gebser, Don Beck, etc...) helps understand the different values and strategies in play.
The various models are looking at different hierarchies, which also helps to see how we are developing in multiple ways at once (moral, cognitive, ego, social, etc...), so that people with high cognitive or social intellegence may also come from a low moral base.
and yeah, twi, like a lot of secular leadership in our society today, puts the least developed (morally and otherwise) in charge of the more developed (aka more "mature" or more "wise"), and even rewards lack of development.
Such as how egocentric people will do things other more developed folks will not do to get into positions of power over others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
That's true. I used to marvel at some of the people that would be put in leadership. Many, and I mean many, had a distaste for such things as ethics and even having an education. There were a few times people were mocked for possessing such attributes. The narrow-mindedness of some was astounding.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
When you understand the ministry wasn't about "Gawd" but about evil, the motives become clear.
It seems to me a lot of the ministry was nothing more than evil in a "Gawd" wrapper.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.