Rocky

Parsing some semantics, I suppose. Indeed, only God knows, if anyone, at this point. However, the point I was making has to do with Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. After all, our species is fundamentally social. But most certainly wouldn't argue that he put himself in the box. And whether he ever climbs out is quite definitely up to him. However, I also seem to recall NT scriptures about not placing stumbling blocks in front of our brothers or sisters.

I clearly recall Dale Carnegie teaching we do better at winning friends and influencing people when we give them a reputation to live up to.

You certainly can have an opinion, which is just as valid as anyone else's. Nevertheless, should your opinion put him in a box he might never decide to climb out of?

How is it that you try to avoid the message I gave you by deflection employing fallacy? Whether you intended your name calling as a compliment or not is neither apparent in your words (in the original statement) nor is it relevant to what I posed to you.

Mike, I appreciate how you've begun to learn to own your role in the communication processes at work in online forums, but you still seem to have plenty of room for improvement because you still haven't forsaken name calling.

Here's an excerpt from Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth: "Science would put an end to human misery and save the world. Nothing must impede this development. All the myths of the world should be subjected to stringent criticism and if they contradicted proven facts they must be cast aside. Reason alone gave access to this truth. The first scientist to fully absorb this empirical ethos was probably Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who synthesized the findings of his predecessors by a rigorous use of evolving scientific disciplines of experiment and deduction. He believed he was bringing his fellow human beings unprecedented and certain information about the world, that the cosmic system he had discovered coincided completely with the facts, and that it proved the existence of God, the great 'Mechanick' who brought the intricate machine of the universe into being. "But this total immersion in logos [reason] made it impossible for Newton to appreciate the more intuitive forms of perception..."

I'm not sure you can factually perceive any reason Mike "will never get it." Yes, Mike is dealing in myth. But it appears to me Mike expands wierwille's mythology by extrapolating verses he's now focused on with his (Mike's) imaginative interpretation of something he has no way of knowing except by way of his own imagination.

It is MYTH, not fact. Mike is exercising his imagination. I don't criticize him doing so. But it's important for readers to put it in a reasonable perspective.

Myth ≠ falsehood I think you probably realize it.

We disagree. Or, I disagree with you on this. Frankly, I look at pretty much the entire bible as myth and not as literal, factual, rational "truth." So, taking some of the recorded mythology in the bible and expressing your (private) interpretation thereof is IMO, constructing additional myth.

I appreciate how you phrased it.

Ah HA! I don't frequent that forum... or even go there infrequently. I looked and didn't see any threads about books anyway. I recently started making note cards like Ryan Holiday does. I use 5 by 8 index cards. I will use them for reference when writing books or essays (like my blog). I get many of my books from public libraries and don't highlight or underline in them. With kindle books I put in my own kindle library, I highlight copiously. If you'd like to discuss any books in particular and want to start threads in that Movies, Music, Books, and Art FORUM (I mistakenly said thread the first time), that's a wonderful idea. However, if you do, please send me a PM and I'll check it out.

Then contrast this idea with Kierkegaard's " Both ideas are incredibly powerful. We, at GSC (most of us anyway, with exceptions for Mike and others like him) are dedicated to understanding the life experiences we lived under twi/wierwille/martindale etc rule. I also am dedicated to the necessary work of imagining my future and planting trees my grandchildren will be blessed to sit under the shade thereof and contemplate their futures.

To me, the symbolism is they are suggesting to people they should return to foggy mind times.

What you actually seem to be doing is constructing MYTH. There is no rational or biblical basis for either question as I see it. I commend your imagination but not your communications skills or biblical understanding or rational analysis skills, or even your self-awareness. The only basis for what you propose is what you conjure between your ears. If you (or any other reader on this thread were to) want to understand the history and role of MYTH over the course of humankind's dominion over the earth, I recommend A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong. Ms Armstrong is a former Catholic nun and writes exquisitely about human understanding of God (and gods) and spiritual ideas through the millennia. In a prologue to A Short History..., "Myths are universal and timeless stories that reflect and shape our lives--they explore our desires, our fears, our longings, and provide narratives that remind us what it means to be human." Myth predates and co-exists with Hebrew, Islam, and Christian understanding of life. My life experience and travels (abroad) exposed me to Catholic traditions which were adopted by various local communities and incorporated into church practice by Catholic practitioners.

Might you possibly have meant the thread in the About the Way forum on Shedding Waybrain: Antifragility?

Books forum?

I disagree with your conclusion as a blanket statement. For many, in practice, it seems to apply. Not to me, however. And it doesn't have to apply to anyone else who doesn't want it to.

That's kinda what I was trying to assert. Discussions, even when including one or more arguments, should not necessarily be about winning. Rather, about expanding our understanding and imagination about the possibilities. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Raf.

It seems you answered a different question than I did. Sure, for each individual it takes that person to think for his or her self. Even so, cults are a social phenomenon. The question I answered was about the sociological aspects that caused the unraveling of twi as related to gsc. I don't believe either answer is incorrect.

It took, IMO, two things. 1) The Al**ns having an air tight claim and that they were willing to air it publicly (Waydale) and in court. and 2) Memoir written by someone like Kris Skedgel. There were others who sued, but those specific events blew the doors clean off the secrecy. People gossiped about twi sexual norms long before those two events, but it became very real with documentation. However, there has been plenty of worldwide publicity on cults and sexual problems with authoritarian organizations other than twi over the last couple of decades.

There's no new thing under the sun, at least in terms of group conduct and norms. If the pancake house (sorry, prayer hop) is authoritarian and has no safe guards, there will be sexual abuse somewhere in the mix. Of course, IHOP will dismissively refuse to validate any related concerns. It took decades before Wierwille's debauchery became widely known.

What YOU did NOT do is qualify your incomplete attempt to effectively communicate your point until after someone called you on it.

No, but I read the book by Jeff Sharlet with that title... which is why I didn't watch the movie.