Influenced third wife of Frank Lloyd Wright to hold a school at Taliesin east home of Wright. Each apprentice would live with the teacher and work 4 hours a day for free to learn Wrights style while he did very little but criticize. Students were there 3 months.Male and female.There were arranged marriages. See Ken Burns Frank Lloyd wright film.
The idea was to live with the master learn hi genius and become better architects. Sound like a program called the Way Corps? some 40 years later?
Paolo Soleri, a "disciple" of Frank Lloyd Wright, in 1970 started a project called Arcosanti just off of Interstate 17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff. I've never toured Taliesin West, but years ago I did stop in at Arcosanti. I caught a very distinct cult vibe while there.
Yes his student one Alden Dow came back to Midland,Mi( his daddy was the founder of Dow Chemical) and built his home which is bizarre by any means.In the 40's Dow won a world wide award for his house. Back to Frank Wright a flamboyant dresser one whom thought so highly of himself that us mere mortals trembled.Frank had to have the best of everything no matter the cost. Again sound familiar?
Comedian Bill Murry and my college roommate are students in the Gurdjieff cult schools. Since the 1930s many VERY famous people from many disciplines have attended Gurdjieff schools. It has a strong, quiet following.
Their textbooks read like the craziest things imaginable, and then they lapse into pockets astoundingly deep psychology.
Their basic theme is that man is unconscious and asleep, and needs to learn how to wake up to cosmic consciousness. The hippie movement revived the Gurdjieff movement somewhat.
Their basic theme is that man is unconscious and asleep, and needs to learn how to wake up to cosmic consciousness.
Well then, I don't think I'm a good candidate for recruitment. The cosmos already has me wide awake and I need to suppress my consciousness so I can get some sleep.
When I first got into the ministry I wondered if anyone in the ministry had been into the Gurdjieff schools that are out there. But all thru those years 1971-88 not a single soul ever brought up Gurdjieff in any circles I was a part of.
My college roommate and I got into it around 1969-70. He is still into it.
When the ministry meltdown occurred in the late 80s I thought surely they will find out about Gurdjieff, but not a peep.
When Waydale and GreaseSpot started I thought SURELY they will discover Gurdjieff now! But no one did.
People here think they understand VPW. What a joke!
I heard VPW once say to someone "Don't ever try to figure me out, because you NEVER will." I haven't figured him all out totally yet, but I have some clues with Gurdjieff that NO ONE has, except maybe Craig. ...and he blew it with his knowledge of Gurdjieff. I kept quiet about it.
After many years at GreaseSpot, I have a few times connected with some of you in private e-mails. In them I have dropped hints about Gurdjieff, but no one got them. At least once I spilled the beans with one of you in GREAT detail. I think he blew it off, or skim read it, and it didn't click, or he didn't ever bother to read it.
You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
I had a tiny conference about Gurdjieff with VPW at the 1972 Rock of Ages.
By coincidence or fate he parked his little camper right next the crazy hippie van I arrived in. In that weekend I must have had an total of one hour of Q&A with him. Gurdjieff was just one item in my long list of questions. When Mrs. Wierwille saw my list she started running blocking plays so I couldn't reach Dr as he emerged to go to breakfast or dinner. He thought that was funny, and seemed to like my questions. I was only 3 months out of my first PFAL class at the time.
If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff.
At that 1972 Rock I brought the most famous book about Gurdjieff with me, titled "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky, one of Gurdjieff's students in the early 1900s. I showed VPW this book, and with no hesitation he quipped "Oh! I read THAT book!" Then he smiled and gently said "That's a pretty good counterfeit, isn't it?" I nodded in agreement, and had no more need to continue on that topic.
From his personality descriptions, I think it is very possible that BG Leonard also was keenly aware of Gurdjieff, and the accurate insights he expressed. Let me tell you, though, reading Gurdjieff or Ouspensky is like a graduate level course in separating truth from error.
Craig's Athletes of the Spirit is in that Ouspensky book, along with all of Craig's hype about how acting it out drives the Word in deeper. It sounded to me like Craig was hip to Gurdjieff with all that prep talk. Also, exercises in alertness that Craig talked about are all from Gurdjieff. All of Dr's attitudes toward us paying for the class are in there. Gurdjieff charged very high prices for his class.
Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over their own emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks. People were hurt.
Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight.
I heard that BG Leonard once physically threw VPW out and down the stairs for coming to a class late. Is that true? If true, it sounds a lot like a typical Gurdjieffian Shock.
Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI.
I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong.
I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too.
God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey.
The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book.
Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.
snip...You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
I had a tiny conference about Gurdjieff with VPW at the 1972 Rock of Ages...
If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff....
...Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over their own emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks. People were hurt.
Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight.
I heard that BG Leonard once physically threw VPW out and down the stairs for coming to a class late. Is that true? If true, it sounds a lot like a typical Gurdjieffian Shock.
Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI.
I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong.
I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too.
God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey.
The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book.
Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.
Mike:
You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
T-Bone:
That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir?
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff…
…Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks…
Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight…
…Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI.
I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong.
T-Bone:
That’s not too farfetched if there were some correlations with Gurdjieff. But no surprise there – I tend to think harmful and controlling cult leaders think alike. If one wants to really understand the methods of VPW, one should consider the criterion from links like the following:
Mike:
I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too.
T-Bone:
That sounds nice and humble – but the more I hear you say things like that the more I wonder about your ethical standards. I think they may differ greatly from mine. Yeah, I’m not perfect – after all I’m a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies – but I think there’s a world of difference between me being a stupid, irritating clueless facilitating flunky for TWI and the lifestyle of VPW. I mean, I never stole from others, never cheated on my wife, never raped and molested women like VPW did…Maybe that’s okay in your book – but I find it offensive and demeaning that you lump everyone in the same class as VPW.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey…Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.
T-Bone:
It seems to me that you are trying to do a VPW makeover – and placing some of the blame on Gurdjieff… In my opinion, if one really wants to understand the methods of VPW besides looking at it from a psychological aspect (like in the links I gave above) it should behoove every Bible studying Christian to deeply reflect on passages like Matthew 7 learning to discern true and false prophets, true and false disciples, the wise and foolish builders, and Matthew 23 the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the false teachers of II Peter 2
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book.
T-Bone:
Interesting that you should say that. On another thread that you started The "Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has started - from page 5 and on - starting here I made a number of posts (over 20 posts ) that analyzed PFAL in great detail – showing the error in logic and doctrine and that much of PFAL is not even worthy of our trust - I did not see much rebuttal from you...the only thing you disputed was where you thought VPW's stance was on the theory of the inspiration of Scripture - see here and in that post you deflected to some posts that are lost in archives or something ... …and what’s funny is that on page 11 on that thread you said what sounds like the same refocusing tactic you’re using here - on the 2nd wave thread you said “All this focus on past sins is preventing your spiritual growth. If you are wondering why you are not a spiritual superman like Jesus, THIS is the reason: sin focus.” see here .... sorry but I choose not to be fooled by obfuscating nonsense…this reminds me of the times VPW would try to guilt us way corps into ignoring his offensive behavior by twisting Scripture like “the love of God thinketh no evil” ...you may think that tactic is some bad mojo - but it really makes me wonder about your ethical standards.
Edited by T-Bone revision re-vamped and bewildered
"Gurdjieff wrote that he supported himself during his travels with odd jobs and trading schemes (one of which he described as dyeing hedgerow birds yellow and selling them as canaries)."...Source: Wikipedia
You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
Mike, it seems you forgot to include the premise. Who is going to have to re-vamp their assessment of Wierwille? Why would they need to do so?
Going to have to thus re-vamp IF WHAT? For what purpose. Do you assume we care about the history of his personal ministry or overall mission or purpose in life for some reason?
I'm confident that many of us here have made it clear we have no such intention. He lost all credibility in my mind about 35 years ago.
Hi T-Bone,
I thought if I broke it up into tiny pieces, I could actually respond to your lengthy post for once.
There have been a few changes in my life, thankfully positive, and I now have more time to post here. Exactly when is unpredictable, but I get lots of little segments here and there that are free.
I had written:
snip...You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
You responded to that and its context following this way: T-Bone:
That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir?
Yes, you are right, it is too broad. I guess I was hoping the text after that would clarify it or narrow it down. Bad writing on my part.
I'm out of practice and get GREAT practice writing here, so please give me a chance to warm up. My eyes had degenerated greatly in the past 10 years, and reading long texts got to be very difficult, and my writing skills degenerated a little with it.
But I got 4 successful surgeries and last December got 2 new eyes almost. Now I'm re-learning the muscles coordinating both eyes.
*/*/*/*
I did no statistical studies, BUT I did run the data thru a neural network pattern recognition system, otherwise known as my brain, and saw over 50 years of observation that VPW was surprisingly unique in a lot of ways. Some of them were negative; I know that. It saddens me, but it is over.
What is not over is what went right in TWI, and what was produced when VPW was in fellowship. That happened a lot; IMHO it happened a LOT more than the negatives.
But I have to admit, the negatives are flabbergasting, and all the more so in juxtaposition to the good I received in my life then and still.
T-Bone, you used the plagiarism as an example of one those negatives, and I want to avoid that distraction right now, so let's put the sexual negatives in it's place. I only have one tiny point to make, though.
I know for sure that zero bad sex stuff is in the PFAL writings. John Scheonheit assured me of that twice 20 years ago in 2 separate hour long phone conversations. If the Lord tarries, no one 200 years from now will get the idea of becoming a David with impunity from the orange book.
So I promote PFAL, in spite of the negatives others experienced.
I also know that if I were in the direct fire of any of the sex scandals of the 1970s, then I probably have been scarred for life and bitterly opposed to VPW.
I was in the slow lane sexually all my life, an innocent Catholic boy who went to confession every Saturday. I really feel for those who got hit by that sex bus.
I'm older now and looking back I see I was protected by God constantly in the ministry, from monsters in the Way Corps. There were some good ones, and I am thankful for them. But even some good ones could snap and become imitators of VPW at his worst. Somehow, I was always a move away from living under the rule of the crazy corps crap. It came close, though, and close friends were hurt in various ways.
Yes, T-Bone I am preaching to the choir on VPW having some negatives, but here with Gurdjieff I am pointing out that the VARIETY of those negatives is FAR from what you all have heard or seen.
I'm sure you know the VPW did some good.
Some of you did it along with him, at varying distances. Some close up.
What I am preaching to this choir is that in addition to the far out surprising variety of negatives, God blessed him, to pass on to us in writing, a MUCH GREATER degree of SURPRISING positives.
Every time God had His Word written it was originated by a sinner.
Sometimes they were SURPRISINGLY odd writers. What made them holy is that they believed the revelation and passed on. An extreme example of this is Balaam. Of course it works better if they are disciplined and loving. Because VPW was in fellowship ENOUGH, I have enjoyed a SURPRISINGLY great benefit to focusing only on written PFAL to guide us into all sorts of other blessings.
BTW, anyone who reads "In Search of the Miraculous" will be VERY surprised at how much of our TWI experience is in there. It is a most wild hookie pook book, that has lots of good truths mixed in with the bad lies, and hilarious BS. But those of us who learned how to separate truth from error (Green Card) can handle it.
*/*/*/*
That's all I have time for, but I want to say that you, T-Bone, have a great format to your lengthy letter. It is clear to read, and my new eyes say thank you.
I can trudge down the list with my little break-times.
Maybe if you identify an item of most importance I could do that next. I'd like to get to the other posters also.
Hi T-Bone,
I thought if I broke it up into tiny pieces, I could actually respond to your lengthy post for once.
There have been a few changes in my life, thankfully positive, and I now have more time to post here. Exactly when is unpredictable, but I get lots of little segments here and there that are free.
I had written:
snip...You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
You responded to that and its context following this way: T-Bone:
That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir?
Yes, you are right, it is too broad. I guess I was hoping the text after that would clarify it or narrow it down. Bad writing on my part.
I'm out of practice and get GREAT practice writing here, so please give me a chance to warm up. My eyes had degenerated greatly in the past 10 years, and reading long texts got to be very difficult, and my writing skills degenerated a little with it.
But I got 4 successful surgeries and last December got 2 new eyes almost. Now I'm re-learning the muscles coordinating both eyes.
*/*/*/*
I did no statistical studies, BUT I did run the data thru a neural network pattern recognition system, otherwise known as my brain, and saw over 50 years of observation that VPW was surprisingly unique in a lot of ways. Some of them were negative; I know that. It saddens me, but it is over.
What is not over is what went right in TWI, and what was produced when VPW was in fellowship. That happened a lot; IMHO it happened a LOT more than the negatives.
But I have to admit, the negatives are flabbergasting, and all the more so in juxtaposition to the good I received in my life then and still.
T-Bone, you used the plagiarism as an example of one those negatives, and I want to avoid that distraction right now, so let's put the sexual negatives in it's place. I only have one tiny point to make, though.
I know for sure that zero bad sex stuff is in the PFAL writings. John Scheonheit assured me of that twice 20 years ago in 2 separate hour long phone conversations. If the Lord tarries, no one 200 years from now will get the idea of becoming a David with impunity from the orange book.
So I promote PFAL, in spite of the negatives others experienced.
I also know that if I were in the direct fire of any of the sex scandals of the 1970s, then I probably have been scarred for life and bitterly opposed to VPW.
I was in the slow lane sexually all my life, an innocent Catholic boy who went to confession every Saturday. I really feel for those who got hit by that sex bus.
I'm older now and looking back I see I was protected by God constantly in the ministry, from monsters in the Way Corps. There were some good ones, and I am thankful for them. But even some good ones could snap and become imitators of VPW at his worst. Somehow, I was always a move away from living under the rule of the crazy corps crap. It came close, though, and close friends were hurt in various ways.
Yes, T-Bone I am preaching to the choir on VPW having some negatives, but here with Gurdjieff I am pointing out that the VARIETY of those negatives is FAR from what you all have heard or seen.
I'm sure you know the VPW did some good.
Some of you did it along with him, at varying distances. Some close up.
What I am preaching to this choir is that in addition to the far out surprising variety of negatives, God blessed him, to pass on to us in writing, a MUCH GREATER degree of SURPRISING positives.
Every time God had His Word written it was originated by a sinner.
Sometimes they were SURPRISINGLY odd writers. What made them holy is that they believed the revelation and passed on. An extreme example of this is Balaam. Of course it works better if they are disciplined and loving. Because VPW was in fellowship ENOUGH, I have enjoyed a SURPRISINGLY great benefit to focusing only on written PFAL to guide us into all sorts of other blessings.
BTW, anyone who reads "In Search of the Miraculous" will be VERY surprised at how much of our TWI experience is in there. It is a most wild hookie pook book, that has lots of good truths mixed in with the bad lies, and hilarious BS. But those of us who learned how to separate truth from error (Green Card) can handle it.
*/*/*/*
That's all I have time for, but I want to say that you, T-Bone, have a great format to your lengthy letter. It is clear to read, and my new eyes say thank you.
I can trudge down the list with my little break-times.
Maybe if you identify an item of most importance I could do that next. I'd like to get to the other posters also.
Hi Mike, I sincerely wish you the best and a speedy recovery from eye surgeries.
It’s unnecessary for you to trudge through the points of my long-and-drawn-out-posts – I do apologize for the length of my posts – I’m still learning how to make my point…and it’s also tough when I want to cover a lot of ground – but I appreciate all you’ve said here. Maybe one of my problems is I tend to talk AT you instead of dialoging WITH you.
I may be having a miraculous and hilarious moment of clarity as to the recurring issues I have with trying to get my point across to you - . So, instead of rehashing what’s gone before maybe we can try a simpler approach going forward…In my opinion – I think these points might help make for more productive discussions – and I’m just as guilty as anyone else in violating or disregarding these points:
1. Grease Spot is a bunch of discussion forums. just bear that in mind when you promote something or run an idea up the flagpole. other folks may not feel the same way you do about a particular point or your “promotional”. I have no problem with you or anyone else promoting PFAL. But remember a particular point may have sold you on PFAL, but it might mean little or nothing to others. Speaking just for myself, at its best discussions / debates are a chance to unpack our beliefs/opinions and those of others through questions and challenges. If others acknowledge you’ve made a valid point, bask in the glow of success. If on the other hand others shoot a bunch of holes in your argument – accept that and move on to explore other items.
2. Let’s shoot for a real dialog instead of talking past each other. It’s not a discussion when two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing. Someone may bring up a valid point about an error in logic or doctrine in PFAL. It makes no sense to try and counter that by saying “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger.”
3. Let’s find common ground - opinions or interests shared by all involved in the discussion. That may be a tall order – but instead of going all over the map – let’s try to limit it to only one or two things. If there’s a thread that asked what good things you got out of PFAL, I would mention several things: PFAL demystified the Bible for me, turned me on to Bullinger’s works (especially where he focused on the more technical stuff of the biblical languages, textual criticism, and literary correspondence – I’m not really a fan of his dispensationalism, and dubious theories like the supposed 4 crucified with Jesus Christ) , and PFAL also got me interested in the philosophy of religion. Now it’s been some 48 years since I first took PFAL and there’s been an evolution in my belief system – but those things still hold my interest even though they’ve developed into more complex studies. I will usually give credit where credit is due – but nothing is perfect – so when a poster’s argument is based on PFAL being the gold standard, I feel compelled to challenge that too besides whatever point they’re trying to make.
4. Avoid hidden agendas. Even if one doesn’t have a hidden agenda – it can seem like there is one if a person keeps bringing the discussion back to the same thing. (like my example in # 2 , someone points out an actual error in PFAL and someone else counters with “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger”). One-track-mindedness is often a telltale sign of a hidden agenda. When someone cycles through different tactics with the same end in mind, it tends to give me the feeling they’re trying to sell me something or sway my thinking. If something a person says doesn’t ring true – I tend to feel they’re being disingenuous and are trying to manipulate me. Shields go up and I’m preparing to launch countermeasures.
The topic of "apparent errors" in PFAL was a hot topic for me here, and I posted a lot on that topic back then. In those posts I often repeated that the proper METHOD for researching apparent errors in PFAL would be to use the SAME KEYS we learned in PFAL to handle apparent errors in the Bible.
The biggest key in Biblical research like this is to ASSUME that the originals were perfect, and then the corruptions set in later.
I know this sounds like circular logic, and in some ways it is. But the logic of proving the Bible right is NOT the goal here. The acceptance of the originals of the Bible is NOT something that we derive logically. That would be the Ford describing Henry.
The acceptance of the Bible comes from God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We hear it, we believe it, God responds.
I know I heard the Word of God when I took PFAL, so I accept it. DONE DEAL. No need for the weakly human logic to try and prove it, because God's love proves it better.
So I accepted PFAL, and to do the work in "rightly dividing" it I apply the logical keys we were given. Many of he same keys are given by other teachers for many types of studies, like "read what is actually written" and "context, context, context" and "used before." These keys work in all texts.
So when I approach the apparent errors in written PFAL it is from the angle that I accept it, I will ASSUME the originals are true, and then work from there. Getting help from a team is even better, putting many heads together.
So Raf started his famous "Actual Errors in PFAL" and recruited a team to work with him. I joined them.
But as the thread progressed, my pointing out over and over that they started on the WRONG track was ignored.
The title of the thread gives it away. The team had the OPPOSITE fundamental approach. I think I stayed on the thread for a while and pointed out that the same circular logic is used that I was accused of. This research team was setting out to prove what they already believed.
After hanging in for a while with opposition to the methods being used, I left the thread.
Many times after that I have been hounded to stop ignoring their definitive results. I would often say "biased results. no thanks."
At one point, after being confronted several times by WordWolf with LONG lists (even longer than your posts, T-Bone!) of "actual errors" they came up with, I challenged him to make another long list, and that was all my method protests within the "AE" thread, and all my protests repeating that SINCE the methods used in the AE thread were unsound, I will ignore them. No such list was ever produced.
That is my stand on apparent errors in PFAL.
It is easy for me to ignore those AE results because I know the team that was assembled there was grossly incompetent to handle ANYTHING in PFAL. I knew this was the case because my most often repeated theme here was to point out that claims of what was in the teachings (or not in them) were easily countered by me simply posting QUOTES from tape transcripts or page numbers.
The team incompetence stemmed from them forgetting things that were in the teachings, or memory morphing key points, or never having heard them in the first place. I still find this here. The material under criticism is not handled with the same care that the apparent or actual sins of the messenger are handled.
Sometimes, like with the Bible, an apparent error cannot be handled well. The proper way to handle that is to WAIT. We were taught this.
Anyway, T-Bone, I hope that gives you some closure on the apparent errors issue.
Only my humility prevents me from boasting of my perfection.
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.
This is NOT a thread about PFAL. This is a thread about Gurdjieff - and his possible impact on VPW. Gurdjieff never took PFAL. So that's not relevant.
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.
Recommended Posts
Rocky
Paolo Soleri, a "disciple" of Frank Lloyd Wright, in 1970 started a project called Arcosanti just off of Interstate 17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff. I've never toured Taliesin West, but years ago I did stop in at Arcosanti. I caught a very distinct cult vibe while there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Yes his student one Alden Dow came back to Midland,Mi( his daddy was the founder of Dow Chemical) and built his home which is bizarre by any means.In the 40's Dow won a world wide award for his house. Back to Frank Wright a flamboyant dresser one whom thought so highly of himself that us mere mortals trembled.Frank had to have the best of everything no matter the cost. Again sound familiar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Comedian Bill Murry and my college roommate are students in the Gurdjieff cult schools. Since the 1930s many VERY famous people from many disciplines have attended Gurdjieff schools. It has a strong, quiet following.
Their textbooks read like the craziest things imaginable, and then they lapse into pockets astoundingly deep psychology.
Their basic theme is that man is unconscious and asleep, and needs to learn how to wake up to cosmic consciousness. The hippie movement revived the Gurdjieff movement somewhat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
zzzzZZZZ
zzz…yup - count me in
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well then, I don't think I'm a good candidate for recruitment. The cosmos already has me wide awake and I need to suppress my consciousness so I can get some sleep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When I first got into the ministry I wondered if anyone in the ministry had been into the Gurdjieff schools that are out there. But all thru those years 1971-88 not a single soul ever brought up Gurdjieff in any circles I was a part of.
My college roommate and I got into it around 1969-70. He is still into it.
When the ministry meltdown occurred in the late 80s I thought surely they will find out about Gurdjieff, but not a peep.
When Waydale and GreaseSpot started I thought SURELY they will discover Gurdjieff now! But no one did.
People here think they understand VPW. What a joke!
I heard VPW once say to someone "Don't ever try to figure me out, because you NEVER will." I haven't figured him all out totally yet, but I have some clues with Gurdjieff that NO ONE has, except maybe Craig. ...and he blew it with his knowledge of Gurdjieff. I kept quiet about it.
After many years at GreaseSpot, I have a few times connected with some of you in private e-mails. In them I have dropped hints about Gurdjieff, but no one got them. At least once I spilled the beans with one of you in GREAT detail. I think he blew it off, or skim read it, and it didn't click, or he didn't ever bother to read it.
You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
I had a tiny conference about Gurdjieff with VPW at the 1972 Rock of Ages.
By coincidence or fate he parked his little camper right next the crazy hippie van I arrived in. In that weekend I must have had an total of one hour of Q&A with him. Gurdjieff was just one item in my long list of questions. When Mrs. Wierwille saw my list she started running blocking plays so I couldn't reach Dr as he emerged to go to breakfast or dinner. He thought that was funny, and seemed to like my questions. I was only 3 months out of my first PFAL class at the time.
If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff.
At that 1972 Rock I brought the most famous book about Gurdjieff with me, titled "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky, one of Gurdjieff's students in the early 1900s. I showed VPW this book, and with no hesitation he quipped "Oh! I read THAT book!" Then he smiled and gently said "That's a pretty good counterfeit, isn't it?" I nodded in agreement, and had no more need to continue on that topic.
From his personality descriptions, I think it is very possible that BG Leonard also was keenly aware of Gurdjieff, and the accurate insights he expressed. Let me tell you, though, reading Gurdjieff or Ouspensky is like a graduate level course in separating truth from error.
Craig's Athletes of the Spirit is in that Ouspensky book, along with all of Craig's hype about how acting it out drives the Word in deeper. It sounded to me like Craig was hip to Gurdjieff with all that prep talk. Also, exercises in alertness that Craig talked about are all from Gurdjieff. All of Dr's attitudes toward us paying for the class are in there. Gurdjieff charged very high prices for his class.
Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over their own emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks. People were hurt.
Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight.
I heard that BG Leonard once physically threw VPW out and down the stairs for coming to a class late. Is that true? If true, it sounds a lot like a typical Gurdjieffian Shock.
Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI.
I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong.
I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too.
God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey.
The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book.
Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike:
You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
T-Bone:
That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir?
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff…
…Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks…
Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight…
…Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI.
I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong.
T-Bone:
That’s not too farfetched if there were some correlations with Gurdjieff. But no surprise there – I tend to think harmful and controlling cult leaders think alike. If one wants to really understand the methods of VPW, one should consider the criterion from links like the following:
10 things to know about the psychology of cults
Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too.
T-Bone:
That sounds nice and humble – but the more I hear you say things like that the more I wonder about your ethical standards. I think they may differ greatly from mine. Yeah, I’m not perfect – after all I’m a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies – but I think there’s a world of difference between me being a stupid, irritating clueless facilitating flunky for TWI and the lifestyle of VPW. I mean, I never stole from others, never cheated on my wife, never raped and molested women like VPW did…Maybe that’s okay in your book – but I find it offensive and demeaning that you lump everyone in the same class as VPW.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey…Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.
T-Bone:
It seems to me that you are trying to do a VPW makeover – and placing some of the blame on Gurdjieff… In my opinion, if one really wants to understand the methods of VPW besides looking at it from a psychological aspect (like in the links I gave above) it should behoove every Bible studying Christian to deeply reflect on passages like Matthew 7 learning to discern true and false prophets, true and false disciples, the wise and foolish builders, and Matthew 23 the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the false teachers of II Peter 2
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike:
The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book.
Edited by T-BoneT-Bone:
Interesting that you should say that. On another thread that you started The "Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has started - from page 5 and on - starting here I made a number of posts (over 20 posts ) that analyzed PFAL in great detail – showing the error in logic and doctrine and that much of PFAL is not even worthy of our trust - I did not see much rebuttal from you...the only thing you disputed was where you thought VPW's stance was on the theory of the inspiration of Scripture - see here and in that post you deflected to some posts that are lost in archives or something ... …and what’s funny is that on page 11 on that thread you said what sounds like the same refocusing tactic you’re using here - on the 2nd wave thread you said “All this focus on past sins is preventing your spiritual growth. If you are wondering why you are not a spiritual superman like Jesus, THIS is the reason: sin focus.” see here .... sorry but I choose not to be fooled by obfuscating nonsense…this reminds me of the times VPW would try to guilt us way corps into ignoring his offensive behavior by twisting Scripture like “the love of God thinketh no evil” ...you may think that tactic is some bad mojo - but it really makes me wonder about your ethical standards.
revision re-vamped and bewildered
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Gurdjieff wrote that he supported himself during his travels with odd jobs and trading schemes (one of which he described as dyeing hedgerow birds yellow and selling them as canaries)."...Source: Wikipedia
Yep, I definitely see the similarity to VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, it seems you forgot to include the premise. Who is going to have to re-vamp their assessment of Wierwille? Why would they need to do so?
Going to have to thus re-vamp IF WHAT? For what purpose. Do you assume we care about the history of his personal ministry or overall mission or purpose in life for some reason?
I'm confident that many of us here have made it clear we have no such intention. He lost all credibility in my mind about 35 years ago.
Now, if you were to say something to the effect of "if anyone wants to understand where Wierwille got certain of his ideas, such as ... or ... then you may want to read up on this guy George, then I'd be more inclined to check into it/him.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi T-Bone,
I thought if I broke it up into tiny pieces, I could actually respond to your lengthy post for once.
There have been a few changes in my life, thankfully positive, and I now have more time to post here. Exactly when is unpredictable, but I get lots of little segments here and there that are free.
I had written:
snip...You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg!
You responded to that and its context following this way:
T-Bone:
That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir?
Yes, you are right, it is too broad. I guess I was hoping the text after that would clarify it or narrow it down. Bad writing on my part.
I'm out of practice and get GREAT practice writing here, so please give me a chance to warm up. My eyes had degenerated greatly in the past 10 years, and reading long texts got to be very difficult, and my writing skills degenerated a little with it.
But I got 4 successful surgeries and last December got 2 new eyes almost. Now I'm re-learning the muscles coordinating both eyes.
*/*/*/*
I did no statistical studies, BUT I did run the data thru a neural network pattern recognition system, otherwise known as my brain, and saw over 50 years of observation that VPW was surprisingly unique in a lot of ways. Some of them were negative; I know that. It saddens me, but it is over.
What is not over is what went right in TWI, and what was produced when VPW was in fellowship. That happened a lot; IMHO it happened a LOT more than the negatives.
But I have to admit, the negatives are flabbergasting, and all the more so in juxtaposition to the good I received in my life then and still.
T-Bone, you used the plagiarism as an example of one those negatives, and I want to avoid that distraction right now, so let's put the sexual negatives in it's place. I only have one tiny point to make, though.
I know for sure that zero bad sex stuff is in the PFAL writings. John Scheonheit assured me of that twice 20 years ago in 2 separate hour long phone conversations. If the Lord tarries, no one 200 years from now will get the idea of becoming a David with impunity from the orange book.
So I promote PFAL, in spite of the negatives others experienced.
I also know that if I were in the direct fire of any of the sex scandals of the 1970s, then I probably have been scarred for life and bitterly opposed to VPW.
I was in the slow lane sexually all my life, an innocent Catholic boy who went to confession every Saturday. I really feel for those who got hit by that sex bus.
I'm older now and looking back I see I was protected by God constantly in the ministry, from monsters in the Way Corps. There were some good ones, and I am thankful for them. But even some good ones could snap and become imitators of VPW at his worst. Somehow, I was always a move away from living under the rule of the crazy corps crap. It came close, though, and close friends were hurt in various ways.
Yes, T-Bone I am preaching to the choir on VPW having some negatives, but here with Gurdjieff I am pointing out that the VARIETY of those negatives is FAR from what you all have heard or seen.
I'm sure you know the VPW did some good.
Some of you did it along with him, at varying distances. Some close up.
What I am preaching to this choir is that in addition to the far out surprising variety of negatives, God blessed him, to pass on to us in writing, a MUCH GREATER degree of SURPRISING positives.
Every time God had His Word written it was originated by a sinner.
Sometimes they were SURPRISINGLY odd writers. What made them holy is that they believed the revelation and passed on. An extreme example of this is Balaam. Of course it works better if they are disciplined and loving. Because VPW was in fellowship ENOUGH, I have enjoyed a SURPRISINGLY great benefit to focusing only on written PFAL to guide us into all sorts of other blessings.
BTW, anyone who reads "In Search of the Miraculous" will be VERY surprised at how much of our TWI experience is in there. It is a most wild hookie pook book, that has lots of good truths mixed in with the bad lies, and hilarious BS. But those of us who learned how to separate truth from error (Green Card) can handle it.
*/*/*/*
That's all I have time for, but I want to say that you, T-Bone, have a great format to your lengthy letter. It is clear to read, and my new eyes say thank you.
I can trudge down the list with my little break-times.
Maybe if you identify an item of most importance I could do that next. I'd like to get to the other posters also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Mike, I sincerely wish you the best and a speedy recovery from eye surgeries.
It’s unnecessary for you to trudge through the points of my long-and-drawn-out-posts – I do apologize for the length of my posts – I’m still learning how to make my point…and it’s also tough when I want to cover a lot of ground – but I appreciate all you’ve said here. Maybe one of my problems is I tend to talk AT you instead of dialoging WITH you.
I may be having a miraculous and hilarious moment of clarity
1. Grease Spot is a bunch of discussion forums. just bear that in mind when you promote something or run an idea up the flagpole. other folks may not feel the same way you do about a particular point or your “promotional”. I have no problem with you or anyone else promoting PFAL. But remember a particular point may have sold you on PFAL, but it might mean little or nothing to others. Speaking just for myself, at its best discussions / debates are a chance to unpack our beliefs/opinions and those of others through questions and challenges. If others acknowledge you’ve made a valid point, bask in the glow of success. If on the other hand others shoot a bunch of holes in your argument – accept that and move on to explore other items.
2. Let’s shoot for a real dialog instead of talking past each other. It’s not a discussion when two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing. Someone may bring up a valid point about an error in logic or doctrine in PFAL. It makes no sense to try and counter that by saying “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger.”
3. Let’s find common ground - opinions or interests shared by all involved in the discussion. That may be a tall order – but instead of going all over the map – let’s try to limit it to only one or two things. If there’s a thread that asked what good things you got out of PFAL, I would mention several things: PFAL demystified the Bible for me, turned me on to Bullinger’s works (especially where he focused on the more technical stuff of the biblical languages, textual criticism, and literary correspondence – I’m not really a fan of his dispensationalism, and dubious theories like the supposed 4 crucified with Jesus Christ) , and PFAL also got me interested in the philosophy of religion. Now it’s been some 48 years since I first took PFAL and there’s been an evolution in my belief system – but those things still hold my interest even though they’ve developed into more complex studies. I will usually give credit where credit is due – but nothing is perfect – so when a poster’s argument is based on PFAL being the gold standard, I feel compelled to challenge that too besides whatever point they’re trying to make.
Edited by T-Bone4. Avoid hidden agendas. Even if one doesn’t have a hidden agenda – it can seem like there is one if a person keeps bringing the discussion back to the same thing. (like my example in # 2 , someone points out an actual error in PFAL and someone else counters with “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger”). One-track-mindedness is often a telltale sign of a hidden agenda. When someone cycles through different tactics with the same end in mind, it tends to give me the feeling they’re trying to sell me something or sway my thinking. If something a person says doesn’t ring true – I tend to feel they’re being disingenuous and are trying to manipulate me. Shields go up and I’m preparing to launch countermeasures.
typos and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks T-Bone for the opportunity to dialog.
The topic of "apparent errors" in PFAL was a hot topic for me here, and I posted a lot on that topic back then. In those posts I often repeated that the proper METHOD for researching apparent errors in PFAL would be to use the SAME KEYS we learned in PFAL to handle apparent errors in the Bible.
The biggest key in Biblical research like this is to ASSUME that the originals were perfect, and then the corruptions set in later.
I know this sounds like circular logic, and in some ways it is. But the logic of proving the Bible right is NOT the goal here. The acceptance of the originals of the Bible is NOT something that we derive logically. That would be the Ford describing Henry.
The acceptance of the Bible comes from God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We hear it, we believe it, God responds.
I know I heard the Word of God when I took PFAL, so I accept it. DONE DEAL. No need for the weakly human logic to try and prove it, because God's love proves it better.
So I accepted PFAL, and to do the work in "rightly dividing" it I apply the logical keys we were given. Many of he same keys are given by other teachers for many types of studies, like "read what is actually written" and "context, context, context" and "used before." These keys work in all texts.
So when I approach the apparent errors in written PFAL it is from the angle that I accept it, I will ASSUME the originals are true, and then work from there. Getting help from a team is even better, putting many heads together.
So Raf started his famous "Actual Errors in PFAL" and recruited a team to work with him. I joined them.
But as the thread progressed, my pointing out over and over that they started on the WRONG track was ignored.
The title of the thread gives it away. The team had the OPPOSITE fundamental approach. I think I stayed on the thread for a while and pointed out that the same circular logic is used that I was accused of. This research team was setting out to prove what they already believed.
After hanging in for a while with opposition to the methods being used, I left the thread.
Many times after that I have been hounded to stop ignoring their definitive results. I would often say "biased results. no thanks."
At one point, after being confronted several times by WordWolf with LONG lists (even longer than your posts, T-Bone!) of "actual errors" they came up with, I challenged him to make another long list, and that was all my method protests within the "AE" thread, and all my protests repeating that SINCE the methods used in the AE thread were unsound, I will ignore them. No such list was ever produced.
That is my stand on apparent errors in PFAL.
It is easy for me to ignore those AE results because I know the team that was assembled there was grossly incompetent to handle ANYTHING in PFAL. I knew this was the case because my most often repeated theme here was to point out that claims of what was in the teachings (or not in them) were easily countered by me simply posting QUOTES from tape transcripts or page numbers.
The team incompetence stemmed from them forgetting things that were in the teachings, or memory morphing key points, or never having heard them in the first place. I still find this here. The material under criticism is not handled with the same care that the apparent or actual sins of the messenger are handled.
Sometimes, like with the Bible, an apparent error cannot be handled well. The proper way to handle that is to WAIT. We were taught this.
Anyway, T-Bone, I hope that gives you some closure on the apparent errors issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think I’m good - thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
AND thank YOU for the dialog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Only my humility prevents me from boasting of my perfection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Here we go again.
This is NOT a thread about PFAL. This is a thread about Gurdjieff - and his possible impact on VPW. Gurdjieff never took PFAL. So that's not relevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.
Edited by MikeIn addition to being sure VPW read the whole thing, I strongly suspect Craig read it too. Athletes of the Spirit comes from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
examples?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I already cited several, but very briefly.
Read the book and you can't miss them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I have no desire to read the book. If there are "MANY", as you say, a listing of them should be a simple task.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
from these same letters you can spell "mist", "fog", "rodeo", and "r".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
obtuse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Bus" and "toe"?
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.