How to Solve Problems and Prevent Trouble

[HowToBe]

How to Solve Problems and Prevent Trouble, by Richard W. Wetherill

A family member sent me a link to this book, which can be freely read in PDF form by following this URL: _http://www.alphapub.com/downloads/HOW%20TO%20SOLVE%20PROBLEMS%20AND%20PREVENT%20TROUBLE.pdf

I was immediately intrigued when I began reading the book, as he repeatedly introduces concepts that remind me of Gurdjieff's teachings. I am currently in Chapter 2 (of 7) of the book, on page 37 (of 121). I'm not entirely sure what to make of it so far, but it seems like it may provide useful information. I was going to post more, but I'm not sure I can provide an accurate picture of what Wetherill is saying until I've read the whole book.

If you want to learn more about where this information is coming from, you can go to the Alpha Publishing House website: _http://www.alphapub.com/index.html
There are 7 books of Wetherill's there, free for download (he has passed away). I'm suspicious based on the titles of some of those books, but I don't

The following are different sources I've checked out looking for information about Richard Whetherill:
_http://www.alphapub.com/about.html
_http://skeptigator.com/?p=267&cpage=1
_http://logiceatsbabies.blogspot.com/2010/01/falsifiability.html
_http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217140528AAtaHTM
_http://conservababble.blogspot.com/2008/06/religion-of-liberalism-pt-1-absolute.html

The book appears to be saying reasonable things, but I thought I'd post this here so someone can slap me with some knowledge in case I'm being hypnotized.

Once I've finished reading the book I will post some quotes and try to summarize the ideas in the book.

 

[HowToBe]

Hmm... I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of this guy. Something just seems "off" as I read his material, although I haven't managed to entirely figure out what. It may be a combination of things that I'm not fully recognizing and having trouble bringing together. Anyway, despite what I said in my last post, I've decided to post some quotes to give the key points (as I see them) of what Mr. Wetherill says in the book (from what I've read so far).

According to Wetherill, "problems and trouble" (a phrase which he repeats tiringly throughout the text) are caused by illogical thinking, which leads to illogical action. To clarify, he says this:

Readers will be helped by two clarifying definitions.
Define illogical thinking as the kind of thinking that leads
to illogical action. Define illogical action as the kind of action
that leads to problems and trouble. Under those two defini-
tions, illogical thinking is the kind of thinking that leads to
problems and trouble.

He appears to be using "problems and trouble" loosely here, but he clarifies himself further down the page:

Another definition will also help.
Illogical action may properly be defined as action that gets
some result that is different from the result the person who
took the action intended. Often a result that is undesirable.

It seems like this may imply a "how to get what you want" slant to this book, but I don't know and feel very unsure about the whole thing.

In any case, he continues (the capital letters are just book formatting):

THERE IS a specific reason why illogical action leads to
problems and trouble and gets undesired results. The
reason is that illogical action always tries to contradict na-
ture in some impossible way.
That is what makes the action illogical.

More about contradicting nature:

Consider the following examples:
A person who tries to make himself believe that he can
get along on half as much sleep as he needs is trying to con-
tradict nature. He may succeed fairly well for a time, but pres-
ently his health will suffer.
A person who believes that seven cocktails make him a
better automobile driver is trying to contradict nature. He
may wind up in a jail or possibly in a hospital or morgue.
A person who decides he is going to get his way regard-
less of the feelings of other persons active in a joint endeavor
is also trying to contradict nature. He may get his way in
certain respects, but in the process, he will do violence to
voluntary cooperation.
Ask yourself what might happen if you tried to explain
to any of those three persons just what sort of problems and
trouble he is inviting. You realize at once that any such effort
would be wearing and also probably futile.
That typical reaction brings out an important point.
People suffer from problems and trouble of their own
making that they are incapable of blaming on themselves,
and the task of enabling them to realize just how they cause
their problems and trouble is difficult to perform.
That is the task attempted by this book.

Since I need to sleep, I'm going to leave it at this for now. I'm getting frustrated because I just don't know what to think about all this. It seemed very promising to me at first, but now I feel like I might be wasting my time. Probably reading The Wave is more important, maybe this book is distracting me.

 

[Buddy]

Since you asked...

I'd say if the author had to rely on a satisfied customer before he got paid, then he's just causing himself problems and trouble. So, now that you're already in chapter 2, what do you think about his ability to practice what he preaches?

If you're looking for writing that will change you for the better - like on a hermetic journey to self-knowledge and self-improvement, I'd read the Wave instead. At least first. The Wave also forms the background for most of the discussions here, so it will undoubtedly help your understanding in other ways as well.

My 2 cents. :)

 

[HowToBe]

So, now that you're already in chapter 2, what do you think about his ability to practice what he preaches?

I'm really not sure. A commenter on the skeptigator page I linked to, calling themself "Anonymous Ex Member", had the following to say about Mr. Wetherill:

Richard W. Wetherill was most certainly the leader of a now almost defunct cult called “Humanetics”, primarily located in Royersford, Pennsylvania. At it’s heyday in the 70’s it had about 150 members (with some small factions in other parts of the country). His cult principles were based on fuzzy principles of creating a utopian sort of society — right action, non-conflict, no competition, love everyone equally (meaning no special relationships — dating, marriage, sex), no drugs, alcohol. Like any other organized cult, Mr Wetherill positioned himself as a prophet, was not to be questioned, had an inner circle of power people (including E. Marie Bothe) and brainwashed and persecuted his followers. They worked for peanuts, gave him a lot of money, made him very wealthy through an auto parts business (WAI) and were told that individually they were “nothings” and “nobodies” on a regular basis. Overweight people were merciliously persecuted and publicly humiliated and people who fell ill were abandoned as that was a sign that they were sinners. There were only a handful of ethnic minorities and non-Christians in the cult. I know all of this because I was a member for many years. Jen is correct that he abandoned relationships with all of his family members, and for that, they should consider themselves lucky. If you want more information, post and email address and I will get in touch.

Another commenter (RichH) claims to have been a newspaper reporter who researched their group for two years, but never got around to writing a story on them. He claims the "Anonymous Ex Member's" information is accurate. At the same time, I realize that being considered or called a cult by some people does not necessarily mean a group IS a cult.

Another commenter called "Al" gives a different perspective:

About 7 years ago I visited this group after having some correspondence with Marie Bothe. I spent a couple days there. They are a very sincere group and have accomplished a lot. Because their approach to things is so different, I think they will always have to deal with the label of ‘cult’, but I do not think it is accurate from what I saw.

I am also sure that since whole families were involved in the organization, it must have been very difficult for kids and family members to be involved without feeling dominated by the personalities involved. That, however, is true about many, many families, organizations and groups that do not have to defend themselves as not being a cult.

I have and have read through most all of Wetherill’s books. They are very interesting and full of useful insights. If not for the seeming claim of ‘absoluteness’ etc, I don’t think anyone would find them controversial and would treat them like any other effort to analyze and explain: helpful in some ways and lacking in others.

Even the issue of Absolute Right is generally misunderstood by people I would suspect. I doubt Wetherill ever claimed some kind of absolute knowledge and I am positive that Ms. Bothe never did in my conversations with her. They are, however, absolutely convinced that there is an absolute truth (set of binding laws for people on planet earth) and that we are better trying to discover and conform to rather than acting as if “I’ll do it my way” is an approach to place one’s faith in.

Some will say that the existence or question of an absolute, overall truth (in the sense of one binding reality, not a set of doctrines) is irrelevant since it can’t be known (similar to the fact that life on earth has a starting point, but since we can’t know what it was for sure, why fight over what it was), and that is a point worth considering. But so is the idea that since there is an absolute truth (natural laws that enforce themselves in our lives), it shouldn’t be openly defied, either. Or at least not without expecting consequence.

Anyhow, I have kind of kept tabs from a distance on the group over the last few years and think this is the most that I have seen them get any public interest. I’m glad to see it.

I have been thinking perhaps I should return to this after reading The Wave. At the same time, this fascinates me too much for me to stay away. In any case, I will continue reading The Wave, because I don't want to neglect that.

 

[Buddy]

Well, I'm just evaluating the guy based on your quotes.

What I'm seeing is what I call "looping". He makes his case by simply defining words in terms of other words he's found, instead of in terms of observable phenomena found in external reality.

He appears to misunderstand "intention" as well (unless it's me that misunderstands it :)). In my experience (which might be different from anyone else's), when I don't understand all the whys that relate to my supposed knowledge/behavior, my real intention will be hidden from my conscious awareness. However, I feel like the real intention, whatever it is, is always expressed:

For example, a person acting with the real intention to make a friend, will make a friend - even if he stumbles, stutters and feels awkward about the whole process (assuming the other person is willing to be friends).

A person who superficially believes he wants to make a friend, but has an unconscious intention to sabotage all his social exchanges, will not be able to make a friend, no matter what he says or does (unless the other person feels sorry for him or something), because he will say and do things that constantly rattle, p*ss off or otherwise make people uncomfortable (subconsciously sabotage his own efforts). I know lots of folks like this.

Another example? Reading The Wave. A person who intends to read The Wave will read The Wave, come hell or high water. A person, sitting in front of the computer, wondering when they will have time to read The Wave, is a person who wants to read The Wave but intends not to. This statement will likely either infuriate some people or be goosepimply exciting because it's simple enough to be testable. I believe that's one reason why we, as a species, have to use 'denial'. It's to ensure things are more complicated than they have to be so that we can prevent seeing our obvious self-lies.

Mdm. Salzmann was correct. We are two. Until we learn to 'pull ourselves together'. :D

 

[HowToBe]

Another example? Reading The Wave. A person who intends to read The Wave will read The Wave, come hell or high water. A person, sitting in front of the computer, wondering when they will have time to read The Wave, is a person who wants to read The Wave but intends not to.

Haha, I guess you've got me there, more or less. I keep getting "distracted" reading other things, which then happen to take all day... even after "deciding" I was going to read The Wave before doing other things. Thanks for the reminder.