Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

Why I Disagree with Joe Campbell

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
  • #73274

    Robert – as usual, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. Of course, I’m not so much preaching, as agreeing with you – and providing a little insight for those who might read this thread and assume all criticism is automatically negative.

    There is no dearth of hagiography and hero worship attached to Joseph Campbell – indeed, that is one aspect that dissuades some academics from taking him seriously. Part of our task at JCF, as his literary heir, is to dispel that lilac fog, which made Joe extremely uncomfortable during his lifetime. (That’s one of the reasons he shied away from biography and was reluctant to discuss his own life; he did not want to be viewed as a guru, but preferred the material to speak for itself.)

    In general, the first works published after a maverick thinker and philosopher passes from the scene are primarily hagiography (e.g. the Larsen’s bio, A Fire in the Mind: though it contains a wealth of details about his life, the authors are hardly objective – not to diss Robin and Stephen, who did their best to take a balanced approach; nevertheless, works created by disciples tend to present their subjects in the best possible light, glossing over or explaining away any character defects and/or flaws in reasoning). Heck, even The Power of Myth tends to place Joe on a pedestal.

    The next phase after a popular author/thinker passes are works that draw back the curtain to challenge his/her approach and position in the pantheon of greats; often these critiques, too, are far from objective, focused more on deflating the subject’s reputation.

    And then, over time, more objective and comprehensive works appear that examine and take into account positive as well as negative evaluations. That seems the phase we are moving into now. Hence the value of Nandu’s honest assessment of his areas of disagreement with Campbell’s approach; Nandu doesn’t throw Campbell out, but qualifies his embrace of Joe’s mythological perspective through the lens of his own experience and understanding. It does my heart good to know he (and, I hope, others) feel safe enough to share their honest criticisms here in COHO.

    (Not to suggest we do away with hagiography and hero worship; though I, too, strive to be objective, there’s no doubt I’ve drunk the Kool-aid myself.)

    As to the name Joseph, there is much to unpack there (not the least of which is the mythological figure of Joseph the Dreamer in scripture), though that should probably take place in a different thread than one discussing areas of disagreement with Campbell’s ideas.



      Stephen; I think you articulated this aspect of what I would call mimicking or parroting Joseph’s thoughts and ideas really well. And I would be surprised if most people who hold his insights up as something to emulate didn’t at some time or another find themselves suspect in some way to falling under this spell. Speaking for myself this definitely would be true since I consider him in many ways a kind of mentor even though I never met him. But saying that I think this only natural since any culture pushes us as human beings in some kind of direction; whether we are aware of it or not; (especially concerning things like peer pressure).

      But more and more I keep finding myself questioning: “is what I’m saying and thinking a reflection of what I truly think and feel; or are these things echo’s from Joseph’s influence?”; and if I’m honest I would have to say in many ways they absolutely are! But as I’m coming to realize more and more I think it was Joseph’s intent to use the things he shared as more of a roadmap to developing my own point of view; my own voice; my own way of experiencing and looking at the world through the context of my own life experiences.

      Eastern and Western cultures are very different; but the world is rapidly changing in many ways – while at the same time people are trying to hold on to many of the timeless values born out of the perceptions that produced them. We can say: “there is nothing new under the sun”; but within this new: “freefall into the future”; mankind is experiencing the cross-pollination of cultures in ways I think are going to affect the ways we experience the world and our lives within it in ways we can’t yet know. The computer and the internet; the human genome; going to the moon and then on to inter-steller space; the coming of climate change and global warming; and now this global virus pandemic are all examples to consider.

      Disagreeing with Joseph is a difficult question for me since I have been so influenced by his ideas; (especially concerning with the unlocking of Carl Jung’s ideas as applied to my own life which is now forever changed); but I don’t want to digress. Below is a quote of mine from the mentoring thread which might better describe my feelings about this; some of which was borrowed from a conversation Joseph had with Michael Toms in: “An Open Life” on page 123.


      If I do have a guru of that sort, it would be Zimmer–the one who really gave me the courage to interpret myths out of what I knew of their common symbols. There’s always a risk there, but it’s the risk of your own personal adventure instead of gluing yourself to what someone else has found.”



      To me this is a central feature that should be held up as something to strive for; the ability to not only follow your own unique individual path; but to use your own point of view as a guide. Something that speaks to you out of your own center in your own voice; something that gives you a sense you are following your own: “North Star” as your guide. We all need models and the mentor I think helps the individual to find and develop their own idea of possibility of their own: “reason for being”.; or put another way: their own: “personal myth”. I think this is Joseph’s main theme around which many of the other aspects or dimensions constellate. (The hero is a major archetype that resonates in everyone; and Joseph stated this another way from the ancients: “It is in you, go and find it”.)


      I don’t know if the above adequately addresses or applies to the overall themes in this thread of disagreeing with Joseph or not; (perhaps a mixture of light and dark with shades of grey mixed in). But at this stage of my life I don’t think I could easily separate where one ends and the other begins. I currently just started reading a new book Stephen recommended on another thread: Dennis Patrick Slaattery’s: “Riting Myth Mythic Writing”; which may help provide some clues concerning my personal myth and my own voice as separate from Joe’s influence. Anyway; I thought this might add something concerning Stephen’s above post since we all have Joseph’s influence in common; but we might view his ideas in completely ways through very different cultural lenses. Hopefully this humble addition will contribute something to Nandu’s topic.


      James writes

      But more and more I keep finding myself questioning: ‘is what I’m saying and thinking a reflection of what I truly think and feel; or are these things echo’s from Joseph’s influence?'”

      When I first read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, and even more so when I viewed the six episodes of Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers, my mind was blown. I would find myself enthusiastically nodding in agreement – not because Joseph Campbell announced new truths I had never heard before, proclaiming “This is the way; walk ye therefore in it!” (like the the biblical dogma pounded into me as a child).

      My wonder and joy and agreement wasn’t because what Campbell said was received with the force of revelation; rather, I was enraptured  because here was someone clearly and concisely saying what I had long held to be true, understandings I had arrived at on my own and held inside. Joe’s gift is that he was able to articulate what I knew to be true but had so far been unable to put into words – which seems a sentiment shared by many many many Campbellophiles.

      Of course I went through a phase of unqualified acceptance; truth be told, I still have a tendency to believe most criticism of Campbell comes from those not fully familiar with his work, and so my default setting when it comes to criticism is to try to understand what the specific criticism is and what prompted it, then plumb Campbell’s work to see if the way his work is being portrayed is what he actually believed, or a projection from his critic (e.g., those who, like Brendan Gill, believe “follow your bliss” is a prescription for lazy hedonism, rather than advice to engage in the difficult of work of discovering who one really is and what one truly seeks).

      Over time, I have found areas where Campbell and I are not in complete agreement – such as his original conception of what the mythological role of women should be today (at the same time, I do understand where he is coming from, and acknowledge that his perception evolved and matured over the course of his life).

      But most areas of disagreement are in areas outside the field of myth. I disagree with his stance as WWII erupted that this war was no business of ours – but then, today we have the advantage of knowing facts not in evidence to him at the time (such as the horrors of the Holocaust); similarly, I disagree with his support of Richard Nixon’s actions in Cambodia (which, especially the secret bombings, I view as an impeachable offense) and his opposition to protests of the Vietnam War, his animus toward the New York Times, his dislike of Democrats in general, and what I feel is an unfortunate misreading of the emergence of the counterculture in the Sixties and early Seventies.

      But all those are personal peccadilloes and political stances; what is refreshing is how much of that he managed to keep separate from his work in the field of myth.


      Robert, James and Stephen,

      I am terribly busy this week teaching a web course. So I don’t have time to write the really long response I’d like to, but just so that you won’t think I have disappeared, here are a few quick points.

      1. If I understand correctly, Campbell considers both the Jungian concept of universal symbols and the historical dispersion of mythology across the globe as equally important – and I agree. However, in India, I consider a third process has been at work – bottom-up integration. We had a very diverse pagan mythology scattered across the subcontinent. Most of it is rife with beautiful and frightening symbolism, especially of the mother Goddess and the snake. What the Vedic religion has done is to integrate and subsume all this under their pantheon – make a universal myth, at the same time keeping the regional diversity. So it would be hard-put to find a central theme in our mythical landscape.

      The beautiful philosophy of the Upanishads, IMO, is a much later development. Visionary seers delved among all these patently absurd but impossibly beautiful metaphors, to find how it can all be tied together at the level of the human psyche. Tat Twam Asi – Thou Art That – was the result. And I do consider that a valid concept, even though I lean more towards the Buddha’s philosophy nowadays.

      2. Most of Indian myth, due its unbroken historical lineage, has elements of the creative and the political elements intertwined. For examples, Asuras (demons) can be considered the unfulfilled parts of the psyche in a Jungian reading: at the same time, they can be considered the demonised enemies of the myth-makers’ Vedic religion. (The Book of Demons by Nanditha Krishna is a good primer on Indian demons, BTW.) I find this dichotomy fascinating, and have come to believe that most myths have multiple origins, and they have become too intertwined to separated out. However, this makes them ripe for political use – something which, in unscrupulous hands, is deadly.

      I think one of the tasks of Indian intellectuals today is to look at our myths dispassionately, and separate out the strands of the experience of the numinous from the purely sociological elements. This will teach the people how to integrate myth into their lives while keeping it apart from the political arena – a separation of the Church and the State at the Jungian level. I am planning a blog post on this.



        Yes apotheosis is always an issue. That is why I always maintain a sense of humor on these matter. Especially when someone else’s words seem appropriate and seem to give me a voice where I once was mute, give me sight where once I was blind but now I see. Of course Brian is code for and symbolic of a dyslexic brain !!! Vowel impositioning reversal mirroring can lead to comic relief in the tragic drama of life. It only hurts when I laugh. I only laugh when I’m suffering.






        This is indeed an interesting topic to delve into.
        As I read Nandu’s post, I was curious to know if the conclusion was arrived at , after years of trying to reconcile with Joe Campbells rather indulgent take on Hinduism , or a first hand impression.
        Nandu introduced me to J.C through the Hero of a Thousand faces. And ever since Im a great admirer of Josephs incisive and articulate genius. And how effortlessly and unassumingly did he add dimensions and socioreligious context , to obscure rituals that remain shrouded in what Nandu had termed Orthopraxy. Despite not being as politically articulate nor half as erudite as Nandu, our perceptions were shaped by the same sociopolitical dynamics that prevailed in Kerala.
        As a scion of a secular Hindu family of a deeply religious parents, I had the fortune to be exposed to the deep – often cryptic culture of practicing Hinduism as well as a good dose of liberalism that prevailed in my hometown which was relatively the most cosmopolitan in Kerala.
        Like all youngsters I had voiced more questions than could be answered. I went through phases of contesting the premise of my religion -then ignoring it – and to finally reexamining it.
        And I cannot thank J.C enough for providing clues to finding perspective, and the ability to perceive the larger canvas on which – not only my religion – but all categories of Human thought that reflect his/her inner environment – are so exquisitely crafted.
        I can understand Nandus angst at the movement to establish a Vedism based monoculture and I share his sentiment that its a revolting and a dangerous idea.
        But then I look to Hinduism -as jameson put it the juxtaposing of the conflicting parts of the Whole.
        For every Manu or a brahmin zealot a detractor is born in India to oppose him.
        Infact there are studies that indicate that Manusmrithi is a product of the anxiety of the priestly class which was facing existential threat from reformist forces.
        That is what Krishna means when he declares that he will take form on earth to correct the inequilibrium.
        Regarding Caste- it is a European term for the social structure that existed in India made up of different social and community groups called Jati .
        But according to a famous Historian Romila Thapar the Jati system existed even before religion incorporated and reorganised it into a horizontally stratified social structure.
        So the term Caste which referred to Ex Jew converts to Christianity who were identified so that the privileges accorded to Gentiles did not extend to them is inadequate to describe the Indian social architecture.
        Even if the Religion faded away – the empty shell that it had inhabited, will be replaced by political ambitions that will give impetus to new found social mobility to a shackled humanity.
        A realist can easily understand that the Jati form the backbone of the Indian society and it may get restructured and eroded but never give way.
        Those who would never fit in where either néecha (outcasts) or Nishedhis (those who rejected the system). Mahavira the aghoras the ShaivaTantriks patanjalis Sri Buddha the Charvakas the Samkhya where all Nishedhis.
        The moral of the story is what Lee Yuan Kew the father of Singapore puts so succintly-
        To oppose is the Indian way – it is in their blood.
        I love the way Hinduism embraces conflict as a necessary element in its narrative. It is reflected in our Swastika.
        So to paint the entire Hindu civilization in one colour as a repressive system that trapped millions hapless souls may be true only up to a point.
        That is another Monolith that we need to take down.




        My argument is even more basic than that. Of late, I have come to the conclusion that Hinduism itself is a fictitious construct. What we have is a hotch-potch of beliefs: pagan, monotheistic, atheistic and whatnot.

        I find each of these beliefs fascinating. However, Campbell’s assertion of an overarching philosophy for the whole is erroneous. It is based on the Enlightenment Era fiction of the “Vedic Civilisation”.

        While we should study the Upanishads, Campbell makes the mistake of marking it as the heart of Indian philosophy. I would say it is only a part of an impossibly varied whole.

        So what you call as “opposition” to the standard is opposition only if one accepts the other as standard. I do not.

        India had a pluralistic society at odds with itself. The so-called “tolerance” was never there. Each group was intolerant of others.

        And the poisonous caste-system is what still defines our society. And this is not directly related to the four Varnas, as correctly said by Thapar. But untouchability and caste hierarchy is undoubtedly the product the Vedic appropriation of the subcontinent’s culture.

        We need to dismantle, deconstruct, destruct and rebuild.


        Hello Nandu,

        I’d like to focus, if you don’t mind, on your second area of disagreement with Joseph Campbell (no rush getting back to me on this – I suspect this is the beginning of a long, leisurely conversation. Once you do reply, I might try splitting our exchange off from the original thread, so it doesn’t get lost amid the thickets of the earlier discussion of European  projections onto the history of Hinduism).

        You describe that difference as follows:

        2. Mysticism: It seems to me that both Joe and Jung were mystics to a certain extent. Over the years, I have become more and more of a hardcore rationalist. I am an atheist for all practical purposes now; and I don’t believe that there is any “mystery” out there not accessible to science.

        However, I am a writer – and I do believe that both myth and art proceed from the same source. So on this level, I can still connect with Joe, and deal with all his theories as concepts which are useful for me to connect with my inner muse. You can call me a “spiritual atheist”.

        I don’t seem to recall Jung having a problem with being described as a mystic – and I have no trouble embracing that label myself. Campbell, however, has a different perspective:

        I’m not a mystic, in that I don’t practice any austerities, and I’ve never had a mystical experience. So I’m not a mystic. I’m a scholar, and that’s all.

        I remember when Alan Watts one time asked me, “Joe, what yoga do you practice?” I said, “I underline sentences.” And that’s all I’m doing. My discipline is taking heavy notes and correlating everything I read with everything else I’ve read. I have nine drawers full of notes, and I have four more packed down in the cellar that I can’t get another piece of paper in. For 40 years I’ve taken notes on these materials that seemed to me to be opening the picture to my mind⁠.” (Interview with Jeffrey Mishlove)

        Maybe it would help if you shared your understanding of what a mystic is, which seems different than Joseph Campbell’s understanding (that’s not to determine which is correct, but to ensure our vocabulary doesn’t trip us up and have us thinking we disagree where our perspectives actually overlap, and vice versa).

        Campbell’s definition would appear to be that a mystic is someone who has had a mystical experience – an actual experience of the transcendent which can not be put into words, as opposed to using words as metaphors for the transcendent (which is done by mystics and non-mystics alike).

        I would agree with that definition, as far as it goes, which is in sync with my own subjective experience. You mention that you are now an atheist and believe there are no mysteries out there which are not accessible to science; that may be, but I’m not clear as to why either of those beliefs would preclude and/or negate a mystical perspective. One doesn’t need to believe in deity to be a mystic (multiple schools of Buddhist thought attest to that), nor disbelieve in science (theoretical physicists and Nobel winners Erwin Schrödinger and Wolfgang Paul are just two scientists of many who come to mind); heck, the wave-particle paradox is a scientifically confirmed example of what lies beyond and remains inaccessible to human experience and conception.

        Campbell’s understanding of mysticism appeals to me. I have experienced what cannot be put into what words, experiences that I can’t “describe” to anyone who has not had such themselves, but can only “talk around.” There is no way I can rationally explain or convey these subjective experiences, which some might describe as existing only in my head – crazy talk, if you will.

        That might explain some of the confusion re the congruence you see between mysticism and a belief in God. Some mystics do describe experiencing “God” – but that’s essentially a shorthand term to describe a mystical experience that is beyond words; however, it is difficult for the bulk of people, who have never had such an experience and likely never will, to avoid injecting personifications and projections of the “God” their culture/society/church/family subscribes to onto that term.

        In one of my junior high literature classes nearly two decades ago, I had an inspiration I thought might help to illustrate for students this inadequacy of language to describe an experience of what is beyond human experience.

        Fortunately for me, Stephanie Gutierrez was in this class; Stephanie was gifted with the voice of an angel – just two weeks before, during an official flag-raising ceremony honoring the victims of the recent 9/11 attacks, she sang the national anthem in front of the whole school – which was all the more poignant because Steph had been blind since birth.

        So, having cleared this with Stephanie ahead of time, I asked the class to raise their hands if they believed the color red actually exists. Naturally all students raised their hands. Then I challenged Steph’s classmates to describe the color red to her in such a way that she would “get” it – and watched with fiendish delight as they struggled to describe the indescribable.

        One student said that red is hot, like red-hot coals – but I pointed out that red can be cool, like an apple or strawberry you take out of the fridge to eat. Some said red means “stop,” like a red light or stop sign – but Steph pointed out that what means “stop” for her at a main intersection is a specific sound that’ s made when the light changes from green to red, so would that noise be the same as red?

        Some spoke of red as anger, others claimed it meant danger, and some said love or sex (red roses, red valentines, passion), and so on

        . . . but, ultimately, the best they could do was hand Stephanie a collection of metaphors.

        I pointed out that Stephanie has no point of reference for any of these metaphors. She knows that sighted people claim to experience something they call the color red: they believe in  and will respond to that something, but that to her is no proof there really is such a thing. What is real, and what she must deal with, is that people believe and act as if there were a color red, so she certainly takes that into account – but when it comes to the objective existence of the color red, she is, at best, an agnostic.

        Similarly those who have never experienced a mystical state, whether Campbell, you, or billions of others – it does not necessarily follow there is no such thing, any more than Stephanie’s experience is proof the color red does not exist.

        But pardon my digression. Back to your differences with Campbell: the fact that you and Joe might define your terms differently does not necessarily mean you that are at odds in what you believe (as you pointed out, you think of Joe as a mystic “to a certain extent”); the difference seems to that, though he never had such an experience himself, he might have been more open to mystical experiences reported by others.

        So I’m curious: what do you mean by mysticism? Can you narrow down where, exactly, you and Joseph Campbell actually disagree?



        Mind blowing example Stephen, always thought I understood the problem of qualia but yeah now it makes much more sense, thanks for sharing this.


        Thanks Drewie (aka Andreas) for the kind words. I’m curious if you have any thoughts on Nandu defining Campbell as a mystic, or mysticism in general?


        Hmm, I dont think Campbell or Jung were mystics. When I first start reading Campbell, he gave me that impression too because such is the nature of what they study. Myth and the unconscious is something elusive that still holds many secrets if you ask me. You can “science” them to oblivion but they will still remain elusive. We would all like to hang our hat and say… this is how the world works but unfortunately there is no such thing. And that goes for everyone whether you are religious or scientifically oriented.

        Anyways, now about mysticism in general. I have mixed thoughts about it. Life seems to me like a mystical experience to begin with despite how we define and label ourselves. That being said it is kinda hard for me to accept the more traditional sense of mysticism, like someone who goes out and just meditates. On the other hand mysticism might just be what we are lacking in a rationalistic modern world that is without meaning and purpose because how else are you gonna approach and make sense of a chaotic and infinite universe. Certainly not with a rational mind, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

        In a world were all the mythological structures have collapsed , Campbell and Jung seem to be exactly what the world needs. They really give you the tools to create your own mythology and live your life fully. I think that is all what they were trying to do. Its weird because they analyze myths and deconstruct them but they don’t exclude the mysterious aspect of life.

        Anyways.. I’ll come back tomorrow for more, bit tired now.

        And happy new year all!!


        Nandu,  Stephen, James, Robert et al,

        Such a fascinating thread. Nandu, I just came across your initial dissent of Joe’s view of Hinduism, and works you have read and your own experiences with Hinduism. Thanks for sharing, and all the posts that followed brought fresh new blood to this topic. I too have experienced the dark side of Hinduism, BUT NOT the Hindu mythology and  its gods, but the Hindu religion, and the religious zealots who used religion for political purposes. I have not read  the books that you cited, so I shall wait for you to cite a few passages from there.   Well, we can say, Hinduism is a myth within a myth.

        From Arundhati Roy’s essays, I have gathered that the practitioners of Hindu religion are not what the rest of the world thinks of them. As a matter of fact, I attended one of her ‘Author-Talk” series done in conjunction with signing her book, (The Ministry of Utmost Happiness)  and she started the talk by these very words, “Westerners think of India as this great land of spirituality but it’s far from it…” Then she proceeded with providing the tragic treatment of the Dalits, and there was pin-drop silence in the auditorium.

        Thanks for the courage in sharing your thoughts.



        Hello James,

        You wrote, “Disagreeing with Joseph is a difficult question for me since I have been so influenced by his ideas; (especially concerning with the unlocking of Carl Jung’s ideas as applied to my own life which is now forever changed);”

        Quite well put James, disagreeing with even a particle from Joe seems impossible, especially in the area of myth. Times are changing, and as you quoted above, “We can’t have a new myth for a long time because things are changing too fast. So the individual has to find his own way”.

        New issues, new challenges, not just the pandemic, are all around us. I think one great issue is the ‘rise of the billionaire class’ – a result of the success in cyberspace, and how can this billionaire class begin to share some of their wealth with the disenfranchised of our society. So, take for example, the issue of homelessness (James, it’s the topic you touched upon in another post)   —- What happens to the homeless who die, with no one to claim the body?. Much work is needed in this area, and perhaps a new myth? A myth of a billionaire class that lives alongside the homeless, the very hungry, and the disenfranchised?

        In our times, we are so very advanced when it comes to finding ancient burial sites, and vast sums are spent on excavations, identification and cataloging the remains, but what happens to the homeless and the friendless who die on the streets, with not a soul to claim their remains?

        “It is not only the homeless or unidentified whose bodies go unclaimed, it can also include people who have no living relatives and no estate plan in place. There are also situations where the next of kin will refuse responsibility for the body” (Source: Culture & Politics in Canada- By TalkDeath)

        “In a city of three million people, nobody comes except for us who are paid to be here,” said Whissell, who became a priest nearly 30 years ago. “Society is like an apartment building. Everybody has got their little cubicle and they just go to work or do their thing and then just lock themselves away.” (Source: Global News Canada)

        (Referring to the homeless) Sometimes they do find friends or family members, she said, “but they are not willing or are not in a position to take responsibility for disposition.” Quebec’s ministry of health and social services says that “financial reasons seem to be a factor” in some cases.

        And sometimes a person just doesn’t seem to have any ties.  So what will be our new myth?






          Shaaheda; other than what I’ve already mentioned I really don’t feel qualified to speak “at length” on Indian Spirituality; and Nandu could probably speak to the issue of Homelessness in India much better than I can because it is on a whole other level than in the west. But both he and Stephen might be able to provide a better context in which this is integrated within Joseph’s themes and ideas.

          However; saying that whatever any new mythology that may evolve out of this situation we now find ourselves in he does talk a little bit about here in this particular clip from the Bill Moyer’s series: “The Power of Myth” and uses the God “Indra” as a metaphor for the personal myth people usually associate with his more familiar theme of: “Follow Your Bliss”.

          (This unfortunately is not a foundation authorized clip and may need to be removed at some point); but none the less it does in a way deal with this question of marrying Joseph’s approach of the functions a myth is suppose to serve and in some way points toward the future possibility of what a new mythical consciousness might address. But as both Stephen and Nandu mention Joseph was a man of his time and could not have foreseen a lot of the future developments that have taken place since he was alive.

          (In my humble opinion this would be an interesting take on marrying eastern and western approaches as Joseph illustates; and if nothing else you realize both sensibilities deal with long histories of varying relationships between God and Man and the development of consciousness as opposed to “subservience” to a deity.) The clip.


            Well now; perhaps the gods were listening and wanted to add their two cents worth to this discussion. The below clip was just added to the foundation YouTube channel just a few hours ago; Hmmmm!

          Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
          • The forum ‘The Conversation with a Thousand Faces’ is closed to new topics and replies.