A participant from the past discovers AFL
RE
It has been a decade since I last participated in the work. Only recently,
I have come across the existence of this NG where I have been lurking for
the past several weeks. I first did the Training in '79, and then I
returned to see how the work had evolved in its second incarnation as the
Forum beginning in 1986. From 1986 on into the early 1990's, I then
participated and assisted extensively around Werner on Canim and in the
Forum Leader Daya and in Openings programs in San Francisco and Sausalito.
In the early nineties, I came to see that it was time to take what I got out
into the world and so Werner and I departed the association with the work
around the same time. The Forum Leaders had moved to take the program and
the work forward into the world and Werner was departing in a swirl of
controversy and upheaval. Having worked around the man personally, I was
touched by the question someone posed in this NG a short while ago about
what the man was like... sometime, perhaps I would be willing to share my
personal experience of the man.
Recently, I have come across someone in my life for whom it occurred to me
the work might be transformational. This brought me to investigate what has
happened since I left. And, now in the day of the Internet, it is something
of a pleasant surprise to find an NG dedicated to the work. While I know
little about the new organization of Landmark, I am warmed to know that the
work has, apparently, survived the controversy of the man who distilled its
essence into something beneficial, albeit controversial, for so many.
As an old-timer, the recent threads and exchanges here in afl have been
interesting to follow. I guess I missed the P.D. episodes here... before my
time. Can someone fill me in (briefly and without gossiping too much :) on
who and what created such bandwidth here?
I am also interested to know if anyone knows if Roger Armstrong is still a
Forum Leader in the work?
Thanks for being,
Ralph
--
In a time of drastic change it is the learners that inherit the future. The
learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer
exists. Eric Hoffer
Jennifer Moore
welcome to a.f.l!
how nice of you to introduce yourself.
>it is something
>of a pleasant surprise to find an NG dedicated to the work.
hmmm, I think it's more of "a NG dedicated to ~talking about~ the work"
actually :-)
(~squiggles~ indicating expressions which have a particular jargon
meaning around LEC/WEA)
You may also be interested in the graduates' list - I think there's
still a working link to its homepage from my site, which is at...
http://www.material.demon.co.uk/Landmark/
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * www.single-bass.co.uk *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RE
Thanks for your warm welcome... it's nice to find the sentiment you express.
:) ...kinda makes it feel like "home" in a special way. And it is also
special that I finally managed to get my introduction to appear in the NG!
As to your comment about the NG being for ~talking about~ the work -- yes it
is that. And I also share the observation that any forum for conversation
about the work is a vehicle for keeping that conversation alive. And it is
in that way that I observed that the NG is dedicated to the work...
I was an extensive participant ten years to 14 years ago. And then I left
the programs. After some years, the sea of "tranquilized humanity" has
tended to dull the conversation for possibility a bit in my world. Yet, as
I have found this NG, it is impressive to see that the distinctions leap
clearly to the forefront of my mind... and so, in that small way, the NG is
the work in living presence for me as I participate here. I find that very
empowering. For that, I thank you all for your contributions here.
Thanks for the info on the graduates list.
Again, Thanks for the warm welcome.
Jennifer Moore
you write:
>Thanks for your warm welcome...
you're welcome :-)
putting
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
After some years, the sea of "tranquilized humanity"
has
> tended to dull the conversation for possibility a bit in my world.
Yet, as
> I have found this NG, it is impressive to see that the distinctions
leap
> clearly to the forefront of my mind...
Hi Ralph,
Would you mind explaining that sentence a bit more? For some reason, it
set off some alarm bells for me...and I don't want to be misinterpreting
what you meant.
--
Cheers,
Matthew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RE
and still has the presence of mind to call for clarification of their
uncertainty from the source, instead of adding stuff on their own and making
a potential mess out of the communication! Thanks for giving me the
opportunity to clean up my insufficient communication!
Now, after that leadin, I am not sure what part of my post set off the alarm
bells for you... whether or not it was my use of the term in quotes
"tranquilized humanity" or my observation of the distinctions of the work
coming back to me... :) Now it's my turn to declare uncertainly of your
possible issue here with what I wrote... however, taking a stab at it, I
offer the following:
Kurt Vonnegut said it better than I ever could in this quote from DEAD EYE
DICK:
To the as-yet-unborn, to all innocent wisps of undifferentiated nothingness:
WATCH OUT FOR LIFE!
I have caught life. I have come down with life. I was a wisp of
undifferentiated nothingness, and then a little peephole opened quite
suddenly. Light and sound poured in. Voices began to describe me and my
surroundings. Nothing they said could be appealed. They said I was a boy
named Rudolph Waltz, and that was that. They said the year was 1932, and
that was that. They said I was in Midland City, Ohio, and that was that.
They never shut up! Year after year they piled detail upon detail. They do
it still.
You know what they say now? They say that the year is 1982 and that I am
fifty years old.
Blah Blah Blah!
Does the metaphor help clarify what I wrote?
Ralph
--
Words are inadequate messengers of experience. Sometimes there is just no
way to convey an experience with words. For example, I can't combine any
words in any sequence to give you the experience "Orgasm" -- to give you the
experience "Orgasm," I must employ more direct methods.
Bobby Sparks
I love you being here because I find you refreshing.
You have inspired me.
I will revue the Forum withen the next two months because of you.
There will have to be some cleaning up to do first and I request that you
coach me with that in private (e-mail).
OK?
Bobby.
RE <rev...@danasoftsystems.com> wrote in message
news:s8j538...@corp.supernews.com...
RE
Your post provided a special start to my day this morning and I thank you
for sharing it with me and the rest of us here...
Refreshing and inspiring huh? Wow! That's really gratifying to hear -- it
brings a warm smile to my face to hear that's so for you. I suppose I could
deflect your acknowledgement with some self-deprecating commentary on my
being...
But then, that would just be me doing my ole'
"I couldn't possibly make a difference or impact in somebody else's life!
Not me... no way!"
I used to do that... A LOT!
That was then. This isn't.
:)
Have a wonderful day.
Ralph
Per your request,I have responded to your request by private email.
--
Words are inadequate messengers of experience. Sometimes there is just no
way to convey an experience with words. For example, I can't combine any
words in any sequence to give you the experience Orgasm -- to give you the
experience of Orgasm, I have to employ more direct methods.
putting
In article <s8j538...@corp.supernews.com>,
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
>
> Now, after that leadin, I am not sure what part of my post set off the
alarm
> bells for you... whether or not it was my use of the term in quotes
> "tranquilized humanity" or my observation of the distinctions of the
work
> coming back to me... :)
A bit of both, but more the "tranquilised humanity" bit.
Now it's my turn to declare uncertainly of
your
> possible issue here with what I wrote... however, taking a stab at it,
I
> offer the following:
>
> Kurt Vonnegut said it better than I ever could in this quote from DEAD
EYE
> DICK:
>
<snip>
>
> Does the metaphor help clarify what I wrote?
> Ralph
> --
Ummmm, sorry, no, I don't see the connection at all there...
The reason I didn't explain the "alarm bells" was that I preferred to
see an "untainted" explanation of your meaning, rather than a defence or
argument against my interpretation.
That being said, here is how I interpreted that paragraph of yours
(which, judging by the tone of more recent posts, might be off the
mark):
"Since I left Landmark 10 years ago, I've had to put up with millions of
unfortunate people with whom I can't properly communicate, since they
don't understand all the ~distinctions~ with which I have been
enrichened. It's good to be home."
I could put it more harshly, but that will do.
Feel free to respond, if you wish to continue in this indulgence of
mine.
RE
Thanks for the response...
On 24-Jan-2000, putting <put...@my-deja.com> wrote: among more
[your parapharase of my possible meaning...]
> "Since I left Landmark 10 years ago, I've had to put up with millions of
> unfortunate people with whom I can't properly communicate, since they
> don't understand all the ~distinctions~ with which I have been
> enrichened. It's good to be home."
>
Naw! Matthew, I have no problems with the millions... but, as I explained
in my other post, it's taken a long time to hunt them all down.... <grin>
All silliness aside... the interpretation you offered me never occurred for
me like that.
Hmmm, where to start in parsing this... Sure, I'll continue your
indulgence... since it came up for you, and you wrote your question, I take
it as part of my space to have you at least be "clear" about my assertions
and their meanings... I take it as my responsibility to give you all the
clarity I can on what I said...
I guess I'll start by way of a crude paraphrase:
Werner used to speak of the 'instant' he was driving to work on day on the
Golden Gate Bridge when it hit him that he was the "source" of all his
experience of everything around him... that this was the "genesis" of the
est Training. For all that est became, according to Werner, the seed
hatched in an instant.
The work for me caused a similar, almost instant, "AHA!" quality for me
when it occurred for me in a similar instant that I, as a human being,
didn't start out encumbered with all the boundaries and limitations to
expression I came to have as I grew up and experienced life. I use the
metaphor that the child is closer to the innate humanity that we are born as
(with)... consequently, that boundless spirit, energy and enthusiasm is
"tranquilized" much by the social acculturation process of just living in
the civilized world. What child knows of political correctness? What child
hasn't driven their parents and other grown-ups nuts at least a few times
with their "freshness, energy, and boundless enthusiasm" -- like they
aren't saving something of themselves for another day...
I assert that, somewhere, as we humans grow up, we lose that spark..that
willingness to play full-out --. or at the least, it becomes "tempered" at
least somewhat... by what is and what is not "acceptable" to the culture at
large... I say the "child" - or root "humanity" is "tranquilized" or made to
be less "outrageous" and more "conforming"...
...nothing "right" or "wrong" with this process BTW I intend no judgement
or assessment here... although I wonder what life in this world might be
like if we were a little more tolerant of the child in each of us...
So "tranquilized humanity" is my term to describe the characteristic of the
culture (species) that is the result of a natural process of maturing as a
human being... there is no judgement there beyond simply observing what
seems to be a natural order of things.
Now, on to the second part of my statement.
I had observed that discovering AFL and lurking and participation here was a
"cause" of the distinctions of the work coming back to me...
This is simply my noticing that when the subject of the work is on the
table, I have not forgotten what I "learned" about myself... In the years I
did a lot of courses, assisting and the like, I was deeply in the
"conversation" that the work was at the time... (that's a sloppy way to say
it, but I'm too lazy to fully present that one right here... -- I'm after
another perspective here..)
Now, years later, I do notice that my mind does not catch the dynamics of
the "distinctions" in action as adroitly as it did when I was in the arena,
so to speak as I go through my day-to-day life... so finding AFL and the
folks here engaged, even in ~talking about~ the work brings much of it
back... the culture at large, not being in the conversation at the same
level, simply does not fire those synapses in quite the same way...
Now, this brings me to the last point your post calls me to make here.. and
please. forgive the length of what follows, unfortunately, I'd only damage
the communication by incompletion were I to attempt to "sound-bite" this
into simple little bite-size chunks of "easy information."
First, I want to be careful to say that for me, there ain't nothin' special
'bout what I did. I'm not some
"better-than-the-rest-of-the-world-cuz-I-did-the-Forum/est/whatever-human-being-and-you-didn't-and-na-na-na..." automaton.... I say the Forum, est, or
the "WORK" isn't some high exhalted state of special "enlightenment" from
where I can sit looking down my nose at the poor ignorant masses who have
not yet seen the light... it's just a collection of ideas and concepts,
given life by individuals who may find some validity in those ideas and
concepts. It may even be a testament to its validity, if not it's
durability, that it survives even with all the permutations and
contaminations that each of us adds to it in our own interpretation of it
[sic] as it makes its way through the species...
In my library, history and experience of life, the work showed up as simply
a series of conversations I once participated in with some people who loved
and cared about me enough to stay with me and patiently keep inviting me to
open my eyes to the ways in which I made my own experience of life more of a
struggle than I needed to. For me, those people demonstrated compassion,
patience, firmness and, above all, a selfless love for my being. That was
my experience of the Forum, est, and the coursework and assisting and the
other blahblahblah I did over the years...
These days, I view myself as a sort of "steward" of the work. It only
exists "ongoingly" because a group of us grant it an existence by speaking
it.... each time. in a sense "redeclaring" it. For me to hold myself as
having "put up with" the masses because they "don't understand all the
~distinctions~ with which I've been enrichened" (sp - from org) would seem
to me to be an "unconscionable perversion" of the potential of the
thing...an "antithesis" if you will, of the very essence of it. I don't see
my "role" as holding myself "above" others by way of "knowing" or
"believing" somehting that others don't know or believe...
However, I do have a sense that I am one of many who serves a role in the
preservation of a possibility for the culture... not like some arrogant
acolyte... rather like someone with a responsibility for keeping something
of value safe from extinction...
Matthew, you paraphrase something rather right on... When I ever felt I
couldn't communicate with someone outside the work, It wasn't because they
lacked the understanding of any ~distinctions~ I might have. When I have
failed to communicate with non-graduates over the course of my life, it was
ALWAYS because I could not get my own "Self" to shut up long enough and stay
out of the space long enough to allow the other participant in the
conversation to participate so I could "get" who they were in the matter at
hand... I call that "Listening" and its a skill that takes lots and lots of
practice... at least for me :)
My point is that, for me, the whole point of the work is NOT to keep it to
myself as some way of elevating (or isolating) myself above/from others...
on the contrary, first of all, what I "HAVE" is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...
there's nothing to HAVE!!!!!!!!
The second part of my point, and the one more germane to your phrase about
the "millions of unfortunate people," is that, for me, the work is nothing
more than one simple context for living in a manner consistent with
"possibility" (whatever you want THAT word to mean in this context) ... and
certainly, as someone like Pam would be quickly to point out most validly,
it is certainly not the only context for life there is...
************
Now, I'm sure that in reading all this drivel I've written, one might see me
as somewhat one-dimensional... or worse! However, after all, since this NG
is called AFL, I'll be Forum/Landmark-centric here in AFL...but one of many
NGs I am sure I could be equally as engaged and participatory in. Here, I
get to be an "esthole" ... at least to a point...
See... just like each of you who gives me the gift of your time to read this
post, of course, I am many things. I am a human being. I am a Father, I am
a Husband, I am a Son, I am a Computer Software Designer, a volunter at my
kids school, an adult website designer, a childrens newsletter web site
developer and operator... I am all these and many more things. .
I'm also a Graduate of the Forum. The Forum isn't something I obsess over...
its distinctions just sorta quietly underlie my interaction with my life and
the people I connect with every day... like air to the bird, or water to
the fish... they don't get much focus and attention... kinda like
breathing... they just "function" in my life. They just provide me
something of a perspective I didn't have once. I'm happy to have that
perspective, as I find it has value for me and I find myself empowered out
of it... sharing it brings me joy... and when a light goes on for someone
out of something I've said or done, then I experience something rather heady
and exhilarating...
My life is contributed to by many other experiences and contexts as well...
the "Work" ain't all of me.... but this NG is about THIS stuff.
We are, most all of us, passionate about at least a few things in life. My
counterparts will exist in many other NGs, each according to their focus,
passion and calling... My Scientologists friends will write of their
Scientology-centric experiences and views in those NewsGroups... my Mental
Health professional friends will write in their NewsGroups, and, in
deference to my wonderful friend Pam, whom, from her sometimes courageous
posts, I assume is somehow connected to the mental health industry, they
will be likely to be every bit as vital in their lives as anyone else...
For many, the work is a lightening rod for controversy... perhaps because no
two people go into it or come out of it with precisely the same results...
the experiences of the Forum are as many as the count of the participants
who have done it... and I think often, we forget that...
The result is that each of us develops our own interpretations of the
"jargon" and the experiences we had... while forgetting that another might
have had something similar occur for them, but not quite identical... then,
when we make assumptions that you and I mean the same thing, mischief
results...
Mark Twain once said that "History never repeats itself... it merely
rhymes."
RE
Thanks for the response...
didn't start out being born encumbered with all the boundaries and
limitations to expression I came to have as I grew up and experienced life.
I use the metaphor that the child is closer to the innate humanity that we
are born as (with)... consequently, that boundless spirit, energy and
enthusiasm is "tranquilized" much by the social acculturation process of
just living in the civilized world. What child knows of political
correctness? What child hasn't driven their parents and other grown-ups
nuts at least a few times with their "freshness, energy, and boundless
enthusiasm" -- like they aren't saving something of themselves for another
day...
I assert that, somewhere, as we humans grow up, we lose that spark..that
willingness to play full-out --. or at the least, it becomes "tempered" at
least somewhat... by what is and what is not "acceptable" to the culture at
large... that culture talks to us constantly -- the "Dead Eye Dick"
reference alludes to this -- I say the "child" - or root "humanity" is
"tranquilized" or made to be less "outrageous" and more "conforming"...
hence one interpretation of the
...nothing "right" or "wrong" with this process BTW I intend no judgement
or assessment here... although I sometimes wonder what life in this world
might be like if we were a little more tolerant of the child in each of
us...
So "tranquilized humanity" is my term to describe the characteristic of the
culture (species) that is the result of a natural process of maturing as a
human being... there is no judgement there beyond simply observing what
seems to be a natural order of things.
Now, to clarify the second part of my statement:
I had observed that discovering AFL and lurking and participation here was a
"cause" of the distinctions of the work coming back to me...
This is simply my noticing that when the subject of the work is on the
table, I have not forgotten what I "learned" about myself and this "human
condition" in which I operate... In the years I did a lot of courses,
assisting and the like, I was deeply in the "conversation" that the work was
at the time... (that's a sloppy way to say it, but I'm too lazy to fully
present that one right here... -- I'm after another perspective here..and I
don't want to distract the flow too much here)
Now, years later, as I go through my life, I do notice that my mind does not
catch the dynamics of the "distinctions" in action as adroitly as it did
when I was in the arena, so to speak... so finding AFL and the folks here
engaged, even in ~talking about~ the work brings some of it back... the
culture at large, not being in the conversation at the same level, simply
does not fire those synapses in quite the same way...
That is the essence of what I meant by what I wrote here a few days ago...
Now, your response and possible interpretation of what I wrote opens a
"concern" for me. And I'll address it here, simply because what I have
offered by way of explanation for my statements does not directly refute the
point of view that your possible interpretation might represent. Please
forgive the length of what may follow here. I've not tried to "language"
this thing that's present for me at the moment before, so it may be a bit
cumbersome. Nevertheless, I think I'd only damage the communication by
incompletion were I to attempt to "sound-bite" this into simple little
bite-size chunks of "easy information."
First, I want to be careful to say that for me, there ain't nothin' special
'bout what I did vis-a-vis all the stuff I did around WEA.. I'm not some
"better-than-the-rest-of-the-world-cuz-I-did-the-Forum/est/whatever-human-being-and-you-didn't-and-na-na-na..." automaton.... I say the Forum, est, or
the "WORK" isn't some high exhalted state of special "enlightenment" from
where I can sit looking down my nose at the poor ignorant masses who have
not yet seen the light... it's just a collection of ideas and concepts,
given life by individuals who may find some validity in those ideas and
concepts. It may even be a testament to its validity, if not it's
durability, that it survives even with all the permutations and
contaminations that each of us adds to it in our own interpretation of it
[sic] as it makes its way through the species...
Its just something I did once. And I carry what I got from it with me.
In my library, history and experience of life, the work showed up as simply
a series of conversations I once participated in with some people who loved
and cared about me enough to stay with me and patiently keep inviting me to
open my eyes to the ways in which I made my own experience of life more of a
struggle than I needed to. For me, those people demonstrated compassion,
patience, firmness and, above all, a selfless love for my being. That was
my experience of the Forum, est, and the coursework and assisting and the
other blahblahblah I did over the years...
These days, I view myself as a sort of "steward" of the work. It only
exists "ongoingly" because a group of us grant it an existence by speaking
it.... each time. in a sense "redeclaring" it. For me to hold myself as
having "put up with" the masses because they "don't understand all the
~distinctions~ with which I've been enrichened" (sp - from org) would seem
to me to be an "unconscionable perversion" of the potential of the
thing...an "antithesis" if you will, of the very essence of it. I don't see
my "role" as holding myself "above" others by way of "knowing" or
"believing" something that others don't know or believe... and of course,
Matthew, I do not imply that you said I did...
However, I do have a sense that I am one of many who serves a role in the
preservation of a possibility for the culture... represented by the "work"
-- I have this role, not like some arrogant acolyte... rather like someone
with a responsibility for keeping something of value safe from extinction
and continuing to offer its value, influence and contribution wherever the
opportunity presents...
Matthew, you paraphrase something rather right on... When I ever felt I
couldn't communicate with someone outside the work, It wasn't because they
lacked the understanding of any ~distinctions~ I might have. When I have
failed to communicate with non-graduates over the course of my life, it has
always ALWAYS been because I could not get my own "Self" to shut up long
enough and stay out of the space long enough to allow the other
participant(s) in the conversation to participate so I could "get" who they
were in the matter at hand... I call that "Listening" and its a skill that
takes lots and lots of practice... at least for me :)
For me, the whole point of the work is NOT to keep it to myself as some
secret of mine for elevating (or isolating) myself above/from others... on
the contrary, first of all, what I "HAVE" is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... there's
nothing to HAVE here!
More germane to your phrase about the "millions of unfortunate people," is
that, for me, the work is nothing more than one simple context for living
in a manner consistent with "possibility" (whatever you want THAT word to
mean in this context) ... and certainly, as someone like Pam would quickly
point out most validly, it is certainly not the only context for life there
is... valid or otherwise.
************
Now, I'm sure that in reading all this drivel I've written, one might see me
as somewhat one-dimensional... or worse! However, after all, since this NG
is called AFL, I'll be Forum/Landmark-centric here in AFL...but one of many
NGs I am sure I could be equally as engaged and participatory in. Here, I
get to be an "esthole" ... at least to a point...
See... just like each of you who gives me the gift of your time to read this
post, of course, I am many things. I am a human being. I am a Father, I am
a Husband, I am a Son, I am a Computer Software Designer, a volunter at my
kids school, an adult website designer, a childrens newsletter web site
developer and operator... I am all these and many more things. .
I'm also a Graduate of est and the Forum both. The work isn't something I
obsess over... its distinctions just sorta quietly underpin my interactions
with my life and the people I connect with every day... like air to the
bird, or water to the fish... they don't get much focus and attention...
kinda like breathing... they just "function" in my life. They just provide
me something of a perspective I didn't have once. I'm happy to have that
perspective, as I find it has value for me and I find myself empowered out
of it... sharing it brings me joy... and when a light goes on for someone
out of something I've said or done, then I experience something rather heady
and exhilarating...
My life is contributed to by many other experiences and contexts as well...
the "work" ain't all of me.... but this NG is about THIS stuff. So, here, I
~talk about~ that.
We are, most all of us, passionate about at least a few things in life. My
counterparts will exist in many other NGs, each according to their focus,
passion and calling... My Scientologists friends will write of their
Scientology-centric experiences and views in those NewsGroups... my Mental
Health professional friends will write in their NewsGroups, and, in
deference to my wonderful friend Pam, who, from her sometimes courageous
posts, I assume is somehow connected to the mental health industry, they
will be likely to be every bit as vital in their lives as anyone else...
For many, the work is a lightening rod for controversy... perhaps because no
two people go into it or come out of it with precisely the same results...
the experiences of the Forum are as many as the count of the participants
who have done it... and I think often, we forget that...
The result is that each of us develops our own interpretations of the
"jargon" and the experiences we had there... while forgetting that another
might have had something similar occur for them, but not quite identical...
and then, when we make assumptions that you and I mean the same thing with
the same words, and we don't, then mischief results...
As Mark Twain once said that "History never repeats itself... it merely
rhymes." It's a mistake to say mine history is the same as your history.
Proper communication with the world around is, ultimately, a function of our
willingness to meet that world where we can both be "comfortable" and get
the work of communicating done. Too often I think, those of us in the work
and from the work seem to think that the comfort zone should lie closer to
our own space than to the other side...
...somehow I think the reputation of WEA, est, Forum, Landmark, the "work"
and all the other expressions of our genre has suffered as a result of that
Ralph.
-----
If I want to meet and know you, I must meet you where YOU ARE... Not where I
think you should be.
myself.
Serena Nordstrup
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
<snip>
> We are, most all of us, passionate about at least a few things in life
I disagree. Strenuously. Universalizing ~passion~ seems just another
piece of rosenbergian would-be myth-making - the upshot is
disorientation and the consequent furthering of recruitment.
Simpatice
Serena
freestyle70's
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> I am also interested to know if anyone knows if Roger Armstrong is still a
> Forum Leader in the work?
Yep, he was 1/2 year ago
--
Use the force
been...@casma.net
Carol2180
>the work might be transformational.
Meaning he/she wasn't quite up to your level of transformation? Hmmmmm. Just
"do the work" and you'll be okay in my eyes.
Carol Giambalvo
Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
Y2K Bug
>In article <s8qh8e...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>> We are, most all of us, passionate about at least a few things in life
>
>I disagree. Strenuously. Universalizing ~passion~ seems just another
>piece of rosenbergian would-be myth-making - the upshot is
>disorientation and the consequent furthering of recruitment.
Are you saying that you don't believe that all human beings are passionate
about something Serena? I have never met anyone who wasn't passionate about
something or other. I don't think I would want to either.
Kelley Keeley
RE
In response to my recent post
On 31-Jan-2000, caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> >Recently, I have come across someone in my life for whom it occurred to
> >me
> >the work might be transformational.
You responded:
> Meaning he/she wasn't quite up to your level of transformation? Hmmmmm.
> Just
> "do the work" and you'll be okay in my eyes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is fascinating to watch someone "invent" meanings from a few words strung
together in a newsgroup message!
Is that what makes you think of the work as "valuable?" That it will bring
people "up to your level of transformation?"
Oh Carol, Carol, Carol, Carol! THAT thought and concept NEVER NEVER even
occurred for me. And, I'll tell you that if it ever did, then I would say
of myself that I would be one unbelievably arrogant and blind asshole. For
me to assert that notion -- that someone is not "up to a level of
transformation) -- I would dishonor absolutely EVERYTHING there is in the
context of my friendship with another, my relationship to the work, not to
mention my own being...
Carol, I invite you to consider that not everyone who does or has done the
work looks upon themselves as having somehow become "transformed" like a way
of being "better" than those not having done the programs...
In truth, I read your note and felt a sadness... I wonder if there is
another possible interpretation you might try?
Tell me, did you ever do something for yourself that was valuable for you?
And did you ever want to share that experience with someone else out of your
love and respect for that other person?
Warm regards,
Ralph
--
"Let me give a little hint on how to listen. The point is not to listen to
a series of propositions, but rather to follow the movement of the showing."
Martin Heidegger -- On Time and
Being
RE
You never answered my request for clarification of your response to my
comments about human passion....
:)
Ralph
--
The definition of insaniity is doing the same thing over and over again,
expecting different results.
Rita Mae Brown
RE
I just checked out your website -- albeit briefly. And now I may begin to
understand the perspective from which you rendered your "informed"
commentary on my statement in the earlier post.
Having done a number of the programs which Werner Erhard "developed," I can
understand how groups such as yours can hold the points of view that they do
hold...and it is conceivable that for many, the constitution of your "Cult
Recovery" has great merit...as even the term "cult" is a perjorative term
when applied to an organization in this culture's eyes...
Your opinions and reportage notwithstanding, all I can tell you is that, for
me, much good came out of that work...
As a human being, there are many things in my existence which live for me
like "air to the bird" or "water to the fish"
est, and then the Forum, gave me some insights into these processes about
which previously, I had never given much thought. It is my clear conviction
that my life is much more "fun" and lively for having been exposed to these
insights. In no way can I say that is a bad thing. By almost any standards
today, I'd be considered a valuable, engaging and participating member of
society. If I was brainwashed (my term), so be it... then I must remove my
perjorative interpretation of the term "brainwashing" --it just seems life
is better for me in being a bit more informed about some of the "mechanisms"
from which my actions in life spring.
About Werner Erhard, the man: (From your site) Having worked personally
side-by-side with Werner on numerous extended occasions, it truly amazes me
to hear all the things I hear out in the world about the man. I find that
so much of it does conflict with my own personal experiences of the man in
so many ways... AND, at the same time, I can see how Werner became
something of a "pariah" for our society in so many ways... unfortunately in
some circles, the "work" he "sourced" has been "reinvented" by the critics
who chose to interpret it in another way.
My remarks and responses from my previous post stand. And I invite you to
stand behind your response to those remarks.
For the record, the exchange is reproduced here:
On 31-Jan-2000, caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> >Recently, I have come across someone in my life for whom it occurred to
> >me
> >the work might be transformational.
>
> Meaning he/she wasn't quite up to your level of transformation? Hmmmmm.
> Just
> "do the work" and you'll be okay in my eyes.
> Carol Giambalvo
> Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
Carol, you clearly have an "informed" position from which your comment may
have originated and I am challenging you on it...
Carol, either your response was merely a light and flip comment with no
serious intent behind it... in which case I would call it an unfortunate
gaffe... coming from a person of responsibility in a "Cult Recovery"
program...
...or your response to my words came from some processing of your
information and data about cults, and was asserted as a "truth" and implies
something about mine or anyone elses thought process in a conversation such
as this...
It is this second possible interpretation which I think needs further
exploration. Because, if in your capacity as a member of a so-called "Cult
Recovery Organization", you would presume to assert that your statement is
what I actually thought as a fact, then we DO have something to explore
here!
I also bookmarked your site and wish to revisit it when I have more time to
give it the attention it deserves from me... I find this subject very
engaging and look forward to reading from your site.
I look forward to a lively "conversation" about this with you here in this
NG -- for all to see and read.
With regards,
Ralph
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices.
William
James
Estie
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> Hello again Carol,
>
> I just checked out your website -- albeit briefly. And now I may
begin to
> understand the perspective from which you rendered your "informed"
> commentary on my statement in the earlier post.
<pulling up the barcolounger>
<peering through Ralph's preconceptions>
<waiting eagerly>
> I also bookmarked your site and wish to revisit it when I have more
time to
> give it the attention it deserves from me...
Be sure to read her piece on the Hunger Project.
- Estie
RE
Is your Barcalounger comfy? Are you still waiting eagerly?
I did make time to read from Carol's site tonight and, yes, I did read the
Hunger Project piece...
To that expose, I can add nothing that is neither opinion or gossip. I can
neither refute nor endorse the article as I had no direct involvement or
participation in the Hunger Project. While I did meet and speak with Joan
Holmes a few times, we never discussed any matters beyond the handling of
the logistics of her presentations to our groups.
Having said that, I'll also admit to a certain desire to "offer my comments"
in response to her article... however, since that "desire" is not a
"compulsion" and. since I think it would accomplish little beyond
contributing to the "noise" here, I will decline to opinionate on you and
the others in this group with those comments. What I WILL offer is that I
have a tendency to quickly scan articles and writings I come across in my
daily life... Carol's Hunger Project piece commanded my attention to read
every word...
Regards,
Ralph
Estie
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> Hi Estie,
>
> Is your Barcalounger comfy? Are you still waiting eagerly?
Purring nicely now that I've turned on the vibra-massager (trade mark).
Yes. Carol only posts sporadically, so I don't know if she'll read and
answer your post. I'd like to not intrude into that discussion too much
until we see if she responds.
I was involved in the Hunger Project (not as heavily as Carol was) and I
had several friends who were heavily involved. Our experiences were
very similar. I'd say that the "enrollment game" at est was also very
similar.
(I first did the est training in the late seventies, in the same era you
did. I think Carol was also involved in the same time frame. And Sam
and Fred, just to fill you in. I led Guest Seminars.)
If Carol doesn't show up, we can continue on without her. :)
BTW, who created the possibility of that d*@# groundhog seeing his
shadow?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
- Essssssss tttttttttt
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ee
Serena Nordstrup
wytwo...@aol.come.getit (Y2K Bug) wrote:
> In article <86m7ms$p24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Serena wrote:
>
> >In article <s8qh8e...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> We are, most all of us, passionate about at least a few things in
life
> >
> >I disagree. Strenuously. Universalizing ~passion~ seems just another
> >piece of rosenbergian would-be myth-making - the upshot is
> >disorientation and the consequent furthering of recruitment.
>
> Are you saying that you don't believe that all human beings are
passionate
> about something Serena?
Correct, Kelley. I note the use of the word "all".
Passion comes and goes. (Hence soap operatics.)
We experience, most all of us, toothache at some stage ... [therefore
profound reasoned conclusions ensue].
> I have never met anyone who wasn't passionate about
> something or other. I don't think I would want to either.
A whiff of discrimination here? An inquiry into the condition of being
a human being that appears to have reached a conclusion?
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> Hi Serena,
>
> You never answered my request for clarification of your response to my
> comments about human passion....
Hi Ralph
I've seen no post from you on this, and cannot find anything in the
archives. Care to re-send your query?
RE
The reply I never saw was to my comment that most all of us human beings are
passionate about something or another... I can't find the original message,
but I think it's embodied in the other one you sent tonight as a response...
My earlier post from a week or so ago, to which I say you never replied to
is here below:
I hope this helps:
>Hi Serena,
>So you strenuously disagee with my assertion that most of us are passionate
>about at least a few things in life?
>I think humanity allows passion... gives an opportunity for passion, if you
>will... and probably most of us experience it in some way... that's not a
>Landmark concept for me....
>How is it so for you that this cannot be... tell me more of what you mean?
>For I do not get what gives disagreement with my observation here?
>Help!
>Ralph
Ralph
Y2K Bug
In article <87bks6$2ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Serena wrote:
>In article <20000201141837...@nso-fi.aol.com>,
> wytwo...@aol.come.getit (Y2K Bug) wrote:
>> Are you saying that you don't believe that all human beings are
>passionate
>> about something Serena?
>
>Correct, Kelley. I note the use of the word "all".
Yes "all" human beings.
>Passion comes and goes. (Hence soap operatics.)
Then would you say that all human beings have passion that comes and goes? Do
you think I'm saying that all people are passionate about something all the
time? That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that all people experience
passion about something or other at least sometimes in their lives. Do you
disagree with that?
>We experience, most all of us, toothache at some stage ... [therefore
>profound reasoned conclusions ensue].
I don't understand your point.
>> I have never met anyone who wasn't passionate about
>> something or other. I don't think I would want to either.
>
>A whiff of discrimination here? An inquiry into the condition of being
>a human being that appears to have reached a conclusion?
I'm not inquiring into anything except whether or not you really feel that it
isn't true that all people experience passion about something. I think I have
a right to say that I wouldn't want to meet anyone who was never passionate.
If that is discrimination then I have a right to discriminate too and a right
to reach my own conclusions.
Kelley Keeley
RE
I started this post with the assertion that humans are passionate at least
about a few things...
Kelley, you conveyed my points better than I could...
Thanks.
Ralph
Robert Watcher
Big deal. Humans are passionate.
I'm sure Stalin was passionate about industrializing the USSR in one
generation, at the expense of peasant farmworkers and millions dead. I'm
sure Every president since Truman have been passionate about
anti-communism, at the expense of the third world who are subjugated to
the Western agenda of imperialism with millions dead.
--
Take care,
Robert
http://homestead.deja.com/user.watcher507/deadtapes.html
Estie
>Hi Estie,
>After I read and responded to the posts last night It began to occur to
>me
>why you made the comments you did about pulling up the barcalounger and
>waiting eagerly.... you saw me write a post that figuratively "grabs a
>tiger
>by the tail" huh? And you are waiting for the fireworks to start
>eh?????
I wouldn't call Carol a tiger -
>Your line about peering into my preconceptions gave me a chuckle...
>When I
>originally wrote what I wrote to respond to her, I had not yet visited
>her
>website...
I wrote that after your first visit to her website. Just wondered what
popped into your head when you saw "Cult...Recovery" and thought, "oh,
that explains it." Anything to do with what you've heard about <turn
reverb on> DEPROGRAMMERS? <turn reverb off> I don't think you knew at
that time that Carol used to be "one of us." Did that surprise you?
- Estie
RE
On 5-Feb-2000, Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ralph said,
>
> >Hi Estie,
>
> >After I read and responded to the posts last night It began to occur to
> >me
> >why you made the comments you did about pulling up the barcalounger and
> >waiting eagerly.... you saw me write a post that figuratively "grabs a
> >tiger
> >by the tail" huh? And you are waiting for the fireworks to start
> >eh?????
>
> I wouldn't call Carol a tiger -
A mere figure of speech Estie...
>
> >Your line about peering into my preconceptions gave me a chuckle...
> >When I
> >originally wrote what I wrote to respond to her, I had not yet visited
> >her
> >website...
>
> I wrote that after your first visit to her website. Just wondered what
> popped into your head when you saw "Cult...Recovery" and thought, "oh,
> that explains it." Anything to do with what you've heard about <turn
> reverb on> DEPROGRAMMERS? <turn reverb off> I don't think you knew at
> that time that Carol used to be "one of us." Did that surprise you?
>
> - Estie
>
When I first responded to her post I had not seen her website yet, and it
was that first post that prompted your response to me <peering through
Ralph's preconceptions...> by the time I read that from you I had then
looked at her site.
You asked if it surprised me that she (Carol) was once "one of us." A
couple of fine points in reply...
Given that this NG is called alt.FAN.Landmark, I "assume" everyone posting
on this NG, save for the ignorant spammer and occasional cross-poster, has
at least some passing interest and a point-of-view or two about the work and
at least knows of the beast. I've seen proponents and detractors alike
share their very insightful perspectives here... as well as the occasional
troll... as well as all the other riff-raff extant in the Usenet jungle...
...in short, most of the folks who participate here know something about
est, forum, landmark, etc etc. and, in a way, that makes them "one of us"
whether they are graduates or not...
So when Carol suggested that I might have "meant" something other than what
I did when I wrote what I wrote, it actually never occurred for me that she
was or was not pro or con, or "one of us" or anything else... just that her
post stood by itself and communicated to me what I got from it... as to her
orientation to the "work" I had no notion or care... later I found her
website... I just smiled.
To be a bit sloppy with the rhetoric here to save bandwidth: Did it
surprise me to learn that a "Deprogrammer" might call graduates of LEC, WE&A
et al cultists? No. (Don't know that she'd say it in quite that wasy) And
that LEC WE&A and so might be cultist organizations? No. (Although I don't
think that is an accurate paraphrase of her point of view either...) Did it
surprise me to learn that Carol used to be very active in the Hunger
Project? No. (Because when I learned it, it was from reading her article
-- what she did and what she thought about it occurred for me at the same
time by reading her story.) Did it surprise me to learn that she found her
experience with the Hunger Project and her other associations with the
"work" to be a sufficient catalyst to take herself where she now is as a
"deprogrammer?" At first, yes, to an extent.
However, then I read her Hunger Project reportage (word for word). And I
think I understood... at least a bit. :)
I can certainly see how her Hunger Project experiences could be a source for
her present focus and direction as evidenced by the work she has done on her
website... it sounds like she experienced what I often call the "ugly
underbelly" of the work. And if I experienced what she did, the way she
did, I too might start a similar effort.
Oh how I could write a very long post on the context in which I hold the
"work" Werner, LEC the Forum and all... I won't do that to you here...
But I will offer the following: (IMNSHO!) to speak to this business of
"preconceptions"
For me, there is a large body of thought and experience which informs my
sense of what happened to Carol and others in a rather profound way. When I
read her Hunger Project article, I got that "sick" feeling in my heart about
what happened to her in her experience... You see, I was around Werner
enough personally to get a sense of what his "vision" was about being at
"source" for everything in our experience. And I am convinced that, even
today, there MAY still only be a small handful of people on the planet who
can truly grasp what he was really onto.. but it was that vision that gave
the possibility for the Hunger Project and many other programs like it... in
it's sheer essence, the "vision" was quite empowering.
Now, what the "process" called the Hunger Project became did not occur to me
to come even remotely close to what I think would be a product consistent
with Werner's original "vision" from which the project spawned. Somehow,
somewhere, between the original genesis of that "vision" and the "process"
it spawned, something bad happened. Something was lost in the translation
from vision to action... the project turned into something quite different
from what I think was it's original inspiration... Apparently, Carol can
really testify to what it became as an "action." Oh, it started out
wonderfully. But in time, something bad happened. And the project
transformed into something quite apart from what was possible... It's vision
was the end of hunger on the planet. That was the head of the organism.
The organism fed on enrollment in the intention to end hunger. enrollment
was the body of the organism. I say that the end -- the head -- the vision
-- to end Hunger -- was soon overtaken by the means --the body -- the
enrollment process... the process to end hunger came to be more important
than the end of hunger itself... the vision went out of it and what was left
was simply an enrollment body decapitated from it's visionary head. How did
it happen? Another conversation... the point is that the means to the end
(enrollment) forgot the end of hunger as the purpose for itself like an
action... the process devolved into the eat-your-young rat race of
enrollment for enrollment's sake alone. The death knell for possibility.
Carol started out looking to the head of the organism... then the head was
gone and what remained was this "grotesque" exercise of humanity at its
less-than-best... no wonder she was disillusioned, and hurt, and all those
other things. For the process betrayed her pure and simple.
Now, there are those who will claim many nefarious objectives and
underhanded intentions for the Hunger Project and it's principals and I will
not even begin to speculate on the validity of any of that stuff... I know
nothing. And none of that matters in this discussion anyway. Whether
Werner wanted to get rich from it or collect political power or anything
else is, to me, totally irrelevant and meaningless...
What ate the head of the organism?
I remember struggling with something once and having Werner "blast" me with
the admonition to not try TO USE the distinctions... rather to let myself BE
USED BY the distinctions... and it took this "Smart Rat" forever to get what
the hell was saying to me... now, years later, it seems stupidly obvious...
When I see the "enrollment manipulations, and the hammering of humanity with
automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone which seems to
happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies surrounding
the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and forceful
behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of humans trying
to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE THEM... no
wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
For it is abundantly clear to me that I can NEVER USE the work "on someone"
to accomplish anything to change that person or move them from a particular
place on some issue (AND NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE!!!!) I call that "Force"
and when I try to "force" someone to move to my preference, I usually get my
ass handed to me. For me, ONLY when my intention for another is borne out
of a love and admiration for that other human being, then I will most often
find a path to resolution that serves them -- and it's not about "force" at
all...
I think many graduates and staff alike lose sight of this from time to
time... and Oh God, it is so easy to lose sight of it too... and when we do
forget, that "ugly underbelly" I alluded to above rushes in to fill the
vacuum. Remember the term "est-hole?" When "enrollment" becomes the "end"
instead of the means to the end, all hell breaks loose and the image of what
the "work" is suffers a severe blow... it makes people act and appear
"insane."
That "sick" thing in my heart when I read about Carol's experience was my
sadness that humans can take the purest of visions and so easily transform
them into something ugly and abuse them badly... more often out of ignorance
than out of intention... it seems a human mechanism. And the Hunger
Project stands as a testament to its existence...
I say that "human" mechanism ate the head of the Hunger Project organism.
Even if it's results were measurable, most of the potential there never came
to bear on world hunger in any meaningful way.
And Carol found herself at the effect of that transformation and abuse and
it destroyed whatever positive effect was possible...what a tragic waste!
Not just for her, but all the others who invested their lives in the
possibility of the end of world hunger.
But, Estie, you know the one I feel the most compassion for? Joan Holmes...
consider from Carol's story, the quality of Joan's life when all the
accounts are settled in her life... the one closest to the vision and the
human destruction of same? Carol summoned herself to start something out of
the ashes of her experience there -- and to many today, she might be called
a hero!
So, OK Ralph, what's the point to all this long-winded tripe? NOTHING!
Except that to suggest that for me to throw a "label" on Carol just because
she said something I might not agree with in my post or because she has a
deprogrammer's website would be pretty useless. After all, while I may
consider myself a "Steward" of the work, that gives me no ground whatsoever
to pigeon-hole another person or their point of view. In fact, it DEMANDS
of me that I give ALL Carol's being space in my universe... and when I do,
I'd probably learn a hell of a lot from her. For I'll bet Carol and I could
find a huge amount in common to share both pro and con about this whole
subject.
But Estie, I'd never have that opportunity if I preconceived who she was by
a simple line of text in a newsgroup -- would I?
I'll go out on a limb here kiddo. I read your posts and have the sense that
you are at least sometimes a critic of LEC, WE&A and the whole nine yards.
I'll also bet there was a time when you truly saw something wonderful out of
your experience of the work... and whatever it was for you then and
whatever it means to you today, I promise you that I can't preconceive you
either! I don't have a brush that broad!
Do I?
Love,
Ralph
je...@my-deja.com
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
Hi Ralph,
<large snip of interesting stuff>
> When I see the "enrollment manipulations, and the hammering of
humanity with
> automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone which
seems to
> happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies
surrounding
> the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and
forceful
> behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of humans
trying
> to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE
THEM... no
> wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
So what I'm reading is that it is not the "ideology", the ideas, the
"vision", the theory (there's a word I'm groping for here but can't
quite grasp) that fails, but the individuals, the people who try to
carry it out that somehow fail...? Yes?
From my reading on "cults" and their characteristics - this is
_exactly_ one of the signs of a cult - or cult-like group. People fail,
- doctrine (_thats_ the word;) is never wrong.
Sounds dodgy to me Raplph:)
<more snipping of more interesting stuff>
Jen.
RE
On 6-Feb-2000, je...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <s9qm99...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> <large snip of interesting stuff>
>
> > When I see the "enrollment manipulations, and the hammering of
> humanity with
> > automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone which
> seems to
> > happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies
> surrounding
> > the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and
> forceful
> > behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of humans
> trying
> > to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE
> THEM... no
> > wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
>
> So what I'm reading is that it is not the "ideology", the ideas, the
> "vision", the theory (there's a word I'm groping for here but can't
> quite grasp) that fails, but the individuals, the people who try to
> carry it out that somehow fail...? Yes?
>
> From my reading on "cults" and their characteristics - this is
> _exactly_ one of the signs of a cult - or cult-like group. People fail,
> - doctrine (_thats_ the word;) is never wrong.
>
> Sounds dodgy to me Raplph:)
>
> <more snipping of more interesting stuff>
>
> Jen.
>
And Hello to you Jen :)
Before I respond to your post reproduced above, would you say a little more
about what you mean by the word
"dodgy" as in whether you think I am avoiding, resisting, denying, refuting
"something"... and if that seems so for you, what you think that
"something" might be specifically?
I'm sure the members of this NG would appreciate my ability to shorten my
response to your post by responding to your specific observation(s).
Without knowing a bit better what your meaning actually is, I would likely
be quite long-written to handle all the possible interpretations I might
make of your meaning....
I'm not really committed to being a "windbag" -- Heh heh! Even if some
might apply that label to me from time to time (TIC)
Thanks for your help.
Ralph
Estie
<snip>
Hi Ralph,
I think I'm in love!
That was a lovely post. Thank you.
I'm not sure I understood it all, but I've bookmarked it for re-reading.
I think what you said boils down to: Werner had a great vision, and
then it got screwed up in the attempt to carry it out. (It was those
two-minute shares.)
Assuming that point of view, what bothers me is that Werner wasn't just
selling the vision, he was selling the *realization* of it. We were
supposed to have gotten the knowledge of how to carry it out in the est
programs. If Werner didn't know how to carry it out, or couldn't or
didn't communicate the knowledge of how to carry it out, why the sam
hill did we do the training?
I'm sure you remember Werner saying in the Assistants' Video that "If
you need something and you can't get it, let me know. I can get it."
After I had tried everything else, I did that. I let him know that I
needed something to address some of the systemic problems in the est
organization, which I deeply loved, that were resulting in people being
hurt. I told him what was happening. I suggested some solutions. But
above all, I asked him to do something, do anything.
He had promised!
He didn't keep that promise. The written answer I got was some bullshit
about he trusted me to find the solution. I had already done everything
I could do. Assistants can only do so much. And the problems haven't
been addressed to this day! Over twenty years later, people are still
being hurt in the same ways! There's never even been an acknowledgment
that the problems exist by the organization.
I don't have an ending for this.
- Estie
Serena Nordstrup
In article <20000204012513...@nso-cg.aol.com>,
wytwo...@aol.come.getit (Y2K Bug) wrote:
>
> In article <87bks6$2ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Serena wrote:
>
> >In article <20000201141837...@nso-fi.aol.com>,
> > wytwo...@aol.come.getit (Y2K Bug) wrote:
<snip>
> >Passion comes and goes. (Hence soap operatics.)
>
> Then would you say that all human beings have passion that comes and
goes?
I do attempt to avoid "all" statements. I find them seldom helpful.
> Do
> you think I'm saying that all people are passionate about something
all the
> time? That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that all people
experience
> passion about something or other at least sometimes in their lives.
Do you
> disagree with that?
>
Fine, that I can agree to.
> >We experience, most all of us, toothache at some stage ... [therefore
> >profound reasoned conclusions ensue].
>
> I don't understand your point.
A true rosenbergianist might here suggest ever so subtly that
understanding is the booby prize. Myself though I'm a mighty fan of
such bountiful booby prizes.
It's a parallel, in structure and sense, rant and rhetoric. (Parallels
are piquant at generating ironies.) I might have said that humans often
have fingernails, or appendices. It's true, but not of weighty moment.
>
> >> I have never met anyone who wasn't passionate about
> >> something or other. I don't think I would want to either.
I'd like to meet Sir Isaac Newton. A dedicated public servant whose
hobby was theological speculation (too heretical by half) and who
meddled with math in his spare time. Can't say if he was passionate.
> >
> >A whiff of discrimination here? An inquiry into the condition of
being
> >a human being that appears to have reached a conclusion?
>
> I'm not inquiring into anything except whether or not you really feel
that it
> isn't true that all people experience passion about something. I
think I have
> a right to say that I wouldn't want to meet anyone who was never
passionate.
> If that is discrimination then I have a right to discriminate too and
a right
> to reach my own conclusions.
No question.
Self-proclaimed passionate people I find dreary and humourless myself.
Simpatice
Serena
je...@my-deja.com
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
>
> On 6-Feb-2000, je...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <s9qm99...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > <large snip of interesting stuff>
> >
> > humanity with
> > > automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone
which
> > seems to
> > > happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies
> > surrounding
> > > the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and
> > forceful
> > > behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of
humans
> > trying
> > > to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE
> > THEM... no
> > > wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
> >
Ralph,
The "dodgy" refernece was probably more of a throw away comment really
- probably worth ignoring:).
The guts of what I was posting was that one of the characteristics of a
"cult" is that "doctrine never fails - only people do" - ie that if
'bad', 'inadequate', 'unsucsesful' things happen it is because _people_
didn't do it right - _not_ because there was anything inherently "off"
about the doctrine. Its a neat way of focusing the attention away from
any analysis or criticism of the doctrine itself and onto the failings
and shortcomings of individuals or people as a group.
I thought I heard that kind of argument in your post. ie it wasn't the
_idea_ (vision, doctrine - whatever) of the Hunger Project that needs
looking at - it is the people involved.
Jen.
P.S. Of _course_ "ending world hunger" is an admirable goal to profess
- and one that is likely to get people ~enrolled~ ;) One wouldn't be a
such a competent or succesful con-arist if one tried to use the idea of
say, "ending the use of platform shoes" to get people ~enrolled~ in
ones scam:-)
J.
RE
On 6-Feb-2000, Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <s9qm99...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> I think I'm in love!
>
> That was a lovely post. Thank you.
>
What a wonderful acknowledgement -- I thank YOU. And that reminds me of my
all-time favorite quote from "Up To Your Ass in Aphorisms" the book of
quotes given to the est graduates.
I know that you know
that I love you.
What I want you to know
is that I know
that you love me...
...sounds kinda presumptuous and arrogant on first reading huh? After a few
hundred readings, trust me, It's not!
> I'm not sure I understood it all, but I've bookmarked it for re-reading.
I invite you to consider that maybe there isn't really anything to
"understand" in what I wrote... it's just a transcript of a thought stream
sourced from your participation with me here in AFL...
>
> I think what you said boils down to: Werner had a great vision, and
> then it got screwed up in the attempt to carry it out. (It was those
> two-minute shares.)
>
Heh Heh! Oh Geez, here we go! I gotta feelin' this response is gonna be
involved... :?{
I called on my "orgasm" signature line again for this post, because I think
it best captures the essence of the "screw-up" you allude to here. Bear
with me while I attempt to "tease out" this thing...
Oh goodness... now I have this sense of "deja-vu all over again" (Thanks
Yogi!) It seems I've been here before -- too many times!. I'm in this
unenviable position of trying to convey something experiential in nature and
all I have is this woefully inadequate "thing" called "language" Just a
large but mostly useless collection of words and abstract meanings... but
this "experience" I wish to share leaves me "speechless" when I realize that
I don't know how to organize the right words in the right order to deliver
to you in the right way such that you get what I experienced, the WAY I got
it.... to paraphrase my own signature quote: I NEED a more DIRECT
METHOD!!!!!!!!!!
:) Bear with me...
I had a powerful experience once. I used to race cars. I was never great
at it until one day when I had an experience that was truly
"transformational" for me... for the longest time, I could never get my
cars to run fast and right, corner right, handle right... each race was a
struggle with equipment that was not really state of the art (to state it
charitably) -- the equipment shortfalls always intervened in my experience
of the race -- until one day when all that stuff that never worked right
finally did! The car was tuned perfectly, the engine was really strong,
the suspension was right on... and you know what happened?
THE CAR DISAPPEARED!!!! Like no kidding... Suddenly, there I was, I was
just going around the track --- FAST! And the experience was that THERE WAS
NO CAR UNDER ME! IT WAS JUST ME going around the course like a body in
space... at first it was like I was dreaming...very surreal! (I never
touched drugs!) Anyway, at first it would only happen for a few seconds
at a time...then the car would reassert itself back into my consciousness...
but as the race went on and the car just kept working perfectly, and it just
sorta disappeared from my consciousness from time to time that I was
actually IN a car... no car... just me going around the course... braking
here at just that perfectly proper spot, turning and hitting the apex of the
turn just perfectly... and accelerating just so... and there was NO CAR!!!!
I had no recollection of DOING anything like steering, braking, turning,
none of that stuff... all I recall was this sense that I needed to be in a
certain place on the track and then that certain place would go right under
me... I'd hit it perfectly... as the race wore on, I started to play in this
arena of NO CAR and just "BE" racing -- and I kinda discovered that I could
MAKE THE CAR DISAPPEAR and just be left going around the track as a "body"
or a "presence"... I flashed on the story I'd heard of Werner's source
vision thing...
Until that day, I had always been a backmarker (poor finisher) -- I always
told myself it was because the leaders in the series outspent me 10 and 20
to one... that they had money to buy the fastest equipment and hire the best
mechanics... and everybody knew that you needed money to win races...there
cars were faster.... blah blah blah....they had more track time... yada yada
yada...
That day, I finished third of 44 cars... and it wasn't until I crossed the
finish line and saw the standings that I realized that without a car, I had
simply started a march to the front of the pack... Whatever I had
experienced out on that course, had given me the ability to run with the
leaders... For me, I "GOT" source that day! Had the race been 5 or 6 laps
longer, I might have won...
That happened about a year and a half after I first did the est training --
(Werner was, at the time, involved in the Breakthrough Racing project... his
foray into auto racing... although I had not really paid much attention to
his progress) Anyway, I'd heard of this "epiphany" Werner had about this
"source" thing and, as I pondered my racing experience that day, I thought I
suddenly realized what Werner had seen... or at least something similar...
I was excited as hell and I was so ecstatic at my "discovery" I wanted to
share it with everyone.... my crew, my competition -- we all knew each
other... blabbering like some escapee from the looney bin -- (est-hole :>
) this was truly an incredible thing...
... my ecstacy didn't last very long... everybody saw that I went a hell of
a lot faster than I ever did before and while they all congratulated me, it
was clear by the empty expressions on their faces as I tried to relate my
experience of "NO CAR" that somehow, it just wasn't communicating very
effectively... they weren't "getting it"... Words just didn't get the job
done... pretty soon, the repeated comments from all the victims of my
exuberance brought me back to earth and I shut up...
Still, the experience wasn't completely lost on me... it would continue to
nurture me as it still does today...
Now I can't pretend to GET Werner's experience on the Golden Gate Bridge the
same way he did... and I DON'T say mine was like his... for all I can do
from what was reported about it is to try and construct a possible
explanation of what I THINK he "GOT" in that instant where he realized HE
was the vessel for his "experience." And let me tell you something I'll bet
you've already figured out: I AIN'T GOT IT YET!!!!!!!! I sorta compare it
to my own experience in the race car though... there are some element that
compare well in the domain of language when explaining the experiences.
Now, to address the problem of the "screwup" in translating his vision to
action, consider the following scenario:
If you are Werner, and you have had this truly "revelationary" insight --
which, by the way, existed only in the domain of HIS experience, how the
hell do you "give it away" to someone else? How the hell do you communicate
"Orgasm" or the taste "Vanilla?" like an experience? The INSTANT you open
your mouth, it's no longer experiential... it's immediately reduced to a
mere verbal representation of something that happened to somebody else. If
you are listening to him ~talk about~ what happened, you are gonna get
something (maybe) but what you get ain't likely to be what HE got.. Judging
from the blank stares of forebearnace I got from my racing cadre when I
tried to relate that there was NO CAR, I think I might imagine the challenge
that faced Werner in relating his experience...
To paraphrase my quote, at best, those he shared the description with got a
representation of "Orgasm" or "Vanilla" or "Source" to base their "Vision"
on... and they told somebody else... devolution number 2... remember the
children's game of "Telephone" where the first kid whispers a nonsensical
phrase to the second kid who tries to repeat it to the third... until the
last kid says out loud, something totally unlike what the original phrase
was?
Yeah, I can see glimpses of that "phenomenon" of being "source" from time to
time... but what I've never been able to master is shutting off that
goddamned little stream-of-consciousness "voice" in my head that keeps
interfering with the "moment" when I "get" source. It comes and goes... but
I've never tried to USE IT to make anything out of it. And, even 19 years
later, I STILL can't begin to explain it in any useful way...
Shucks, Werner translated his experience it into a paradigm to change the
world for Gods Sake! Somehow, it makes sense that this would be
problemattic at best!!!! Werner experienced this "thing" source -- and the
Hunger Project was to "source" the end of hunger... easy for Werner to
"vision" -- he needed to disseminate both the enabling principle "vision"
and a process to keep it alive... essentially by playing "telephone" through
a whole bunch of people...
From my own experience in the car, I DO get the paradigm of sourcing for
myself, the end of hunger... but I'll be dammed if I could tell you how to
begin to implement the result from the mere "vision" when I can't even get
the "vision" clear in your mind...
And that segues into your next point:
> Assuming that point of view, what bothers me is that Werner wasn't just
> selling the vision, he was selling the *realization* of it. We were
> supposed to have gotten the knowledge of how to carry it out in the est
> programs. If Werner didn't know how to carry it out, or couldn't or
> didn't communicate the knowledge of how to carry it out, why the sam
> hill did we do the training?
>
That's a rich source for many responses... but my first response to your
thought there is this:
Where was it ever said that we were supposed to have gotten the knowledge of
anything -- let alone how to carry "it" out -- from the training?
Why, we probably got it from the graduates that had already climbed the
mountain? Or some staff member, or somebody who thought they knew something
and made a promise as an enticement to get us to sign up? But I don't
remember that this was a promise of the program itself. Was it?
The Forum was an inquiry into what it is to be human... no answers... it
never promised any answers.... just an opportunity to inquire... to ask
questions at the "Heart of the Matter" for being human...
Estie, do you remember the quote from Ranier Maria Rilke?
Be patient toward all that is unsolved
in your heart...
Try to love the questions themselves....
Do not now seek the answers,
which cannot be given
Because you would not be able to live them
And the point is,
To live everything.
Live the questions Now.
Perhaps you will then
gradually,
without noticing it,
Live along some distant day.
into the answers.
The est training never promised any answers or anything like that as I
remember... it just simply offered a new insight into how we were living our
lives... I enrolled out of watching a guy who lived his life with a
marvelous ease and facility for making his world work great... he said he
got that gift of ease from the training... I said, "Sheesh, it obviously
works for him... sign me up!" The Forum, as I said above, was billed as an
"inquiry" I took the Forum because I wanted to inquire into who I was...
> I'm sure you remember Werner saying in the Assistants' Video that "If
> you need something and you can't get it, let me know. I can get it."
>
> After I had tried everything else, I did that. I let him know that I
> needed something to address some of the systemic problems in the est
> organization, which I deeply loved, that were resulting in people being
> hurt. I told him what was happening. I suggested some solutions. But
> above all, I asked him to do something, do anything.
>
> He had promised!
>
> He didn't keep that promise. The written answer I got was some bullshit
> about he trusted me to find the solution. I had already done everything
> I could do. Assistants can only do so much. And the problems haven't
> been addressed to this day! Over twenty years later, people are still
> being hurt in the same ways! There's never even been an acknowledgment
> that the problems exist by the organization.
>
OH GOD! You brought back a flood of memories with that share...
I had a similar experience... before I had the opportunity to work
personally with Werner, I, too, wrote a letter to him asking for his help
with a matter in my Center which seemed a problem. Like you, I received the
same letter wherein he trusted me to handle the matter. And, he ended my
letter by asking me to please communicate with him my solution to the matter
about which I had written him.
I remember when I read it, my first reaction to it was that I felt
unfulfilled and a bit like he was sluffing me off. Then that gave way
rather quickly to being really annoyed. I felt like it was a waste of time
to have written... like you, I had this preconception that I couldn't make a
difference because I was just a lowly assistant...
Then, later that evening, in a more peaceful period, I started to reflect on
the whole situation and I realized something... when I wrote him, I felt
like I needed something... and I thought HE should be the one to provide
what I needed... and when I didn't get what I wanted, I felt slighted...
hmmmmm -- THAT WAS MY LIFE it was like it always was...hmmmmm (at this
point in my training, I had trained myself to really examine my reactions to
things...)
Enter the "source" context... I realized that there might be another
interpretation to this response he'd sent...I could "source" another
interpretation. After all, he had received and RESPONDED to my letter... I
started to wonder what the hell I'd tell him I had come up with for a
solution... after all, he'd asked me to communicate MY solution to him when
I solved OUR problem... Gradually I began to see his letter as a high
expression of confidence in me... after all, he said he TRUSTED THAT I would
resolve a solution... Christ! Werner was empowering me to handle the
matter... he didn't say he'd fix it... he said he trusted ME to fix it and
he wanted to hear of my solution when I DID fix it...
This mere "Assistant" suddenly became a real thorn in my Center Manager's
side...(ROFLMAO!!! it was a funny situation) Anyway he protested with icy
stares at me whenever he'd see me in the Center for about a week... then one
day he went silent and just let me do my thing... (I'd later learn why) In
the end, Werner's response to my "cry for help" was to empower me to handle
my own issue in the center and I just did it...
Assisting took on a whole new meaning for me after that... Assistants (AND
I) Could and DID MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!! And I started to see myself as a real
partner in the Production of the Forums with the FS and Forum Leaders.
I saw Werner at Forum Leader Days a month or so later and created the
opportunity to introduce myself... and before I could tell him who I was
beyond the nametag, he said he knew who I was and told me he had heard of my
response to the problem I had written him about... It just blew me away
that, first, he even remembered who I was, my letter and my concerns, and
second, that he had actually made an inquiry of the center manager directly
regarding the matter out of my communication with him. Maybe that's why my
Center Manager quit glaring at me when he did... It was cool being
POWERFUL!!!!!!!!!
In the end, the way I see it, Werner kept his promise to get what I would
see as missing... more accurately he would make the result show up... he
just made it happen through my effort and empowerment... the result was the
same... he made what was missing show up... WE made it happen.
> I don't have an ending for this.
>
Of course you do sweetie!!!! That's the ending! And it's perfect. Really!
> - Estie
Now for my ending...
Estie, Please, please, don't take the share of my experience with Werner's
response to my request for help as a make-wrong... like I did it right and
you didn't... we just responded to his communication differently -- you and
I. -- for whatever reasons we did what we did... In a real sense, the Forum
of that time wasn't about doing it right or wrong... it was mostly a
laboratory where you and I could go to do our life and be held accountable
for that doing in such a way that we could see the results of what we did
and HOW we did it... for in that safe space we could exercise our ways of
dealing in life and see the result fed back to us in a way that gave us
insight into our own strengths and our own limitations. From that, we might
develop some ability to choose our responses in life... to be a choice! At
least, that's how it was for me. My greatest joys in assisting came from my
breakthroughs in participating with the participants as they became
graduates... I had to come out of my introverted shell to love those
people... to participate-- and be of service to their lives... I couldn't
even begin to fathom that I might be capable of contributing to people at
that level until Werner called me to action with his trust in me... it
transformed assisting for me.
You know, I just want to pass on a comment about Werner's correspondence
while we are sort of on the subject. It's kinda been sticking ion my craw a
bit -- but its not directed at you --- I've seen a few posts here in AFL
about his cards and correspondence... (from who is irrelevant -- I don't
even remember now) Anyway, there's all the speculation about whether HE
wrote them himself or whether he had some assistants write them... and some
posters have gone so far as to belittle that correspondences from him... (in
fact, many were written on his behalf by Gonneke -- his personal assistant)
To all the critics of Werner's cards and correspondence I offer this small
counterpoint:
In January, 1990, I was the Production Supervisor for Openings in San
Francisco and Forum Leader Days with Werner... it was a huge event with
about a 1000 participants and we did it at the Hyatt because the San
Francisco Headquarters wasn't large enough to hold the event...
The first day of the program, I got a call from Texas informing me that my
mother was in the hospital in grave condition. I felt torn. We had all
worked so hard to get ready for this event and I was managing a team of 20
assistants... I felt I couldn't leave --- no pressure from anyone -- I just
felt I owned the Production process for that event. Well Roger Armstrong
told me I needed to be with my Mom... so I turned over the conn to my second
in charge and left for Texas...
My mother died two days later. I communicated that to my team when I
checked in during the event to see how my team was doing...
After the funeral, when I got home four days later, there was a card from
Werner in my mailbox:
Dear Ralph,
Please accept my deepest condolences on the loss of your Mother... my
thoughts are with you now as always...
Love,
Werner.
For all of you people who would dismiss those communications as trite or, as
one wrote here in AFL, "GACK" I can only say one thing...
You and I have widely differing points of view. I don't give a damn who
wrote the card... I don't care how it came to me so timely... I don't have
any idea how he even knew that my mother was sick...let alone that she
died... obviously he knew a team member wasn't there and probably asked
where I was... who cares?
I just know that it meant a lot to me to receive that from him... and
whatever his method, I GOT his communication. For those who would say he
didn't care about each of us individuals in the work -- Sorry folks, that
just doesn't square with my experience of the man...
Let me say this: I did not and do not worship Werner, I did not and do not
idolize the guy... but I sure as hell respect him and thank him for his
contributions to my life... I miss him, and quite frankly, I think the work
does too... especially now... I'd like, just once, to hear one of his
detractors stand up and demonstrate to me that they can detract from him
with first-hand experience! Maybe someone can actually do that... but most
cannot... they can only pick up the baton of innuendo and third-hand gossip.
Flames anyone? GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! Just have the balls to stay for the
whole conversation...
I'm sorry Estie, this letter was originally intended to answer your post --
and now I have added some things that make this post a little less personal
and perhaps a bit less friendly -- I apologize and hope you understand that
this part is not personal and this part is NOT about you... I've just found
myself becoming aware of the need for some counterpoint to what seems a sea
of negativity... its just my sensitivity coming out a bit I guess...
:)
Love,
Ralph
--
Words are inadequate messengers of experience. Sometimes there is just no
way to convey an experience with words. For example, I can't combine any
words in any sequence to give you the experience "Orgasm" -- to give you the
experience "Orgasm," I must employ more direct methods.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
RE <rev...@danasoftsystems.com> wrote in message
news:s9tpfm...@corp.supernews.com...
<snipping to the meat and potatos>
> Flames anyone? GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! Just have the balls to stay for the
> whole conversation...
Interesting that you would use the term "flame" as opposed to disagreement.
One is emotionally charged, the other would actually indicate a
*conversation* that would be challenging.
Flames are just one liners <or long winded explanations that don't explain a
darn thing>, but a disagreement is something that should cause one to think,
encourage an understanding, to carefully craft a conversation even.
> I'm sorry Estie, this letter was originally intended to answer your
post --
> and now I have added some things that make this post a little less
personal
> and perhaps a bit less friendly -- I apologize and hope you understand
that
> this part is not personal and this part is NOT about you... I've just
found
> myself becoming aware of the need for some counterpoint to what seems a
sea
> of negativity... its just my sensitivity coming out a bit I guess...
>
> :)
And I jump in here because you have seen a "sea of negativity" where I have
seen people with concerns and issues about Landmark Education as a
corporation, it's people and the way the programs are run. The same goes for
all the previous incarnations of "The Work".
Why don't you actually *look* at the concerns, address those since you seem
rather intimate with Werner <or were>...tell *us* what can be done, what the
changes should be!
I'm personally tired of getting into conversations with people that post
"shares" but nothing of real substance that can be discussed. So, you got
something great and wonderful. Is there nothing you can contribute towards
what those in the "sea of negativity" wish to have happen?
I guess I challenge you to take your misconceptions of those in this "sea of
negativity" and set them aside. Look at us as people. As those with real
issues and concerns. Take it personally, imagine yourself in our
position...then take that experience and see if there is something,
ANYTHING, in that vast knowledge of yours and "The Work" related to "The
Source" that can make changes that would create the stop of all this abusive
behavior.
I challenged another individual in this matter before...actually quite a few
people...and the response is always the same. I hope that you can be
different. Since you were able to set aside your misconceptions about life
once before and accept what "The Work" was about, maybe you can use that
same experience to come to a place to actually converse with the "sea of
negativity".
I will be waiting patiently in my boat.
-pam
Adrien Blaise
No comparison meant (<insert Linda's usual disclaimer here>), but this
discussion did bring to mind how the French Communist Party (PCF, then one
of the most "moscophile" Communist Parties in Europe) would almost always
title their (then) big gatherings e.g., "Peace Festival" ("Fête de la Paix")
or something along that vein.
FWIW (i.e. not too much in this case I'll admit <g>, just something that
came to mind by reading Jen's PS)
-- AB
<...>
Linda
RE wrote:
>
> On 6-Feb-2000, Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <s9qm99...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hi Ralph,
> >
> > I think I'm in love!
> >
> > That was a lovely post. Thank you.
Well, it was finely crafted, that's for sure.
Kudos to you, Ralph, you had me going there for a second. I think I
even heard music.
> What a wonderful acknowledgement -- I thank YOU.
Well you got esties button's pushed, she's been waiting 2+ years on this
ng for someone to appreciate her and call her sweetie.
You should be able to get away with anything on this NG now.
> The car was tuned perfectly, the engine was really strong,
> the suspension was right on... and you know what happened?
Lemme guess, uh... the car disappeared?
> THE CAR DISAPPEARED!!!! Like no kidding... Suddenly, there I was, I was
> just going around the track --- FAST! And the experience was that THERE WAS
> NO CAR UNDER ME! IT WAS JUST ME going around the course like a body in
> space... at first it was like I was dreaming...very surreal!
<small smile> Being in the zone,
It's cool, it's addicting, it's a heady experience, it happens to
athletes and other people who do things really often and well, it's not
all that unique of a phenomenon.
You know, really good salesmen get that feeling. If you are really good
with your spiel and presentation, and there's buying signals being put
out, the actual people can disappear and you get this feeling you're
selling to the universe as you make another close.
> I'd like, just once, to hear one of his
> detractors stand up and demonstrate to me that they can detract from him
> with first-hand experience! Maybe someone can actually do that... but most
> cannot... they can only pick up the baton of innuendo and third-hand gossip.
>
> Flames anyone? GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! Just have the balls to stay for the
> whole conversation...
<Yawn>
You know Ralph, we *used to* never talk much about Werner on this ng.
The idea of holding his contributions and personality and whatever he
did as the source of the controversies surrounding LEC: It's a red
herring arguement that detracts from the day to day concerns of the
operationg of LEC Education Corp in the world,
I opine, that in 1995 there were more people involved in the Forum or
concerned about loved ones that haven't even heard of Mr. Erhard, than
there are those that remembered or thought of him one way or the other.
The connection was downplayed or not mentioned much at all. Now it is
starting to show up s'more. Didn't Jennifer say he was back at the mike
on stage in London recently?
(Did he look fit, tan and rested, :-) )
Guess it's time...
Do continue: You and estie talk about Werner to your hearts content.
It's very instructional to the newbies. Hug his little 'love letters' to
your heart, trade annecdotes and war stories about the good ole days.
(Why don't you start up an email correspondence, esties a real sweetie
in email once you get to know her better, you'll really be all smiles.)
Then... when he comes back, you can blame all the problems on his
absence, there's the ticket.
You know what interests me today? LEC in Brazil and the hints of the
creation 500 new Forum Leaders. Did I read that right? LEC is giving
trainings in a utility company? For FREE?
Whoah!
Wasn't Flores doing trainings in an utility company in where? last
year. was it Austria?
What's up with utility companies? Sounds kinda a stategic placement.
Utilities, media, what about transportation? That's the third point of
the triangle.
Nearly 4 years ago there was some boasting on the net about New Zealand
being the first country to achieve widespread 'transformation' I find
that extremely interesting. wondered what's happened there since then.
Linda
je...@my-deja.com
Linda <linc...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> Nearly 4 years ago there was some boasting on the net about New
Zealand
> being the first country to achieve widespread 'transformation' I find
> that extremely interesting. wondered what's happened there since then.
Errr, uuummmmm, <looking round - little squinty eyes> scratching head,
<puzzled eaxpression> umm...transformation you say uh???
Er..well...um not that I've particularly noticed...um we've got the
Americas cup - oh and we're all wearing red socks:-) and um...there was
a change of govt last year (there was an election you
understand:^)...and um...some people are still getting bullied out of
their jobs...oh and we're making "The Lord of the Rings" - in
trilogy!...and the health system's in crisis...does any of that
count...?
Jen - from NZ;)
P.S. But I _am_ just off to visit my friend and her new baby - now
THAT'S pretty transformational eh:-)))
Larry Person
Linda <linc...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:389EFC55...@swbell.net...
> Wasn't Flores doing trainings in an utility company in where? last
> year. was it Austria?
That was ABB, or some part of ABB, wasn't it? It's not a utility company,
per se, I don't think.
> Nearly 4 years ago there was some boasting on the net about New Zealand
> being the first country to achieve widespread 'transformation' I find
> that extremely interesting. wondered what's happened there since then.
Hmmm. I interviewed a guy from New Zealand (who we hired) week before last,
and I asked him about this, and he had never heard of Landmark, est, the
forum. fwiw. The transformation couldn't be *that* widespread. :-)
RE
On 7-Feb-2000, "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> RE <rev...@danasoftsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:s9tpfm...@corp.supernews.com...
> <snipping to the meat and potatos>
>
> > Flames anyone? GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! Just have the balls to stay for the
> > whole conversation...
>
> Interesting that you would use the term "flame" as opposed to
> disagreement.
> One is emotionally charged, the other would actually indicate a
> *conversation* that would be challenging.
>
<<SLAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>> Heh heh! Thanks Pam... I needed that.... (TIC)
In my usenet experience, the term "flame" has not been one to describe just
an emotional response... but your point is well-taken. I DID, after all,
indicate in that paragraph that I invited conversation.
> Flames are just one liners <or long winded explanations that don't explain
> a
> darn thing>, but a disagreement is something that should cause one to
> think,
> encourage an understanding, to carefully craft a conversation even.
>
You are absolutely right about that... and so from your perspective, my use
of the word "flame" was interpreted differently... I apologize for that
miscommunication... as always, I invite discussion among those of us
empowered to make a difference here...
> > I'm sorry Estie, this letter was originally intended to answer your
> post --
> > and now I have added some things that make this post a little less
> personal
> > and perhaps a bit less friendly -- I apologize and hope you understand
> that
> > this part is not personal and this part is NOT about you... I've just
> found
> > myself becoming aware of the need for some counterpoint to what seems a
> sea
> > of negativity... its just my sensitivity coming out a bit I guess...
> >
> > :)
>
> And I jump in here because you have seen a "sea of negativity" where I
> have
> seen people with concerns and issues about Landmark Education as a
> corporation, it's people and the way the programs are run. The same goes
> for
> all the previous incarnations of "The Work".
>
I also apologize for the "sea of negativity" term -- it WAS a bit extreme.
After I sent it, I wanted to recall the post to change that phrase....
unfortunately, this newsreader doesn't let me recall my words!!!!!!!
Pam, you are, of course absolutely right here too... naturally we are all
interested parties in the current state of the "work" under the stewardship
of the current regime... I never meant anything less. And there is not a
concern I've read here which isn't borne of some genuine intentionality and
purpose...by real people. While I may not always "get" the purpose behind
one's concern, it IS clear to me that none of these concerns are mere wisps
of a fool's wind...
Having said that, I DO wonder occasionally what the point is to some of the
subjects that get raised... :)
> Why don't you actually *look* at the concerns, address those since you
> seem
> rather intimate with Werner <or were>...tell *us* what can be done, what
> the
> changes should be!
>
To paraphrase Rilke, living the questions is appropriate... from there, the
answers can come...
First off, Pam I don't have the answers. I wish to hell I did... I am not
self-aggrandized enough -- or arrogant enough to think I can offer any
"ANSWERS" -- remember, I've been out of the loop for 10 years so I have no
idea what the hell has happened in the time that has passed since then...you
long-timers here probably have a much better sense of what is going on with
LEC et al -- I'm an "ignoramus" here!!!! :)
That, by the way, does not suggest I am not POWERFUL here... just that, at
the moment, there is no commitment to making something be other than it
is...
Maybe I should look at that huh? Maybe I oughta get educated on just what
the hell has happened to my "work" in the past decade! From all the stuff I
read -- that "sea of negativity" I might conclude that the state of DANGER
exists about the work... something is not as it "should" be to be consistent
with the "vision" that it once was....
Yes, you read that right... for me the work is MINE!!!!! I OWN IT!!!! And
so does each and every one of YOU here who has a stake in it's continued
existence... if you care at all then it's your baby too!!!!!
Now, having said that, I'll now posit something else. You and I and all the
other wonderful people participating here in AFL could make a difference in
the present inertia of LEC and the current "keepers" of the technology. If
WE both as a group and as individuals are truly committed to the possibility
of the "work" for the culture of human beings, then we can be powerful in
its direction... otherwise, we're just couch potatoes sitting on the
sidelines watchin' the game...
When Werner wrote me that he trusted me to find a solution to my Center
Problem... I say he empowered me to "own" my experience of the "problem"
like it was mine... the solution came to me quite quickly and seemed pretty
simple...AFTER I assumed OWNERSHIP.
> I'm personally tired of getting into conversations with people that post
> "shares" but nothing of real substance that can be discussed. So, you got
> something great and wonderful. Is there nothing you can contribute towards
> what those in the "sea of negativity" wish to have happen?
>
I hear that as a CALL TO ARMS!!!!
> I guess I challenge you to take your misconceptions of those in this "sea
> of
> negativity" and set them aside. Look at us as people. As those with real
> issues and concerns. Take it personally, imagine yourself in our
> position...then take that experience and see if there is something,
> ANYTHING, in that vast knowledge of yours and "The Work" related to "The
> Source" that can make changes that would create the stop of all this
> abusive
> behavior.
>
Thank you for the challenge --- I accept... and thank you for calling me to
get off the stands as a mere spectator and get in the game...
I'll start by asking you and everyone else here a simple question:
"What is your "At stake-ness with regard to the work? Does it's health and
well-being have any importance to you? And if so, would you be willing to
stand for its continued survival and viability?
> I challenged another individual in this matter before...actually quite a
> few
> people...and the response is always the same. I hope that you can be
> different. Since you were able to set aside your misconceptions about life
> once before and accept what "The Work" was about, maybe you can use that
> same experience to come to a place to actually converse with the "sea of
> negativity".
>
Let me offer myself and this little episode as an example and a warning of a
trap for those of us who care at all about what is happening.:
First, I need to clarify something here... For anyone who might have
responded as you did to my "sea of negativity" reference... let me just say
that that term came to me as I was groping for a word or phrase to describe
my feeling of frustration at that moment... Absolutely, everyone here is a
human being -- I apologize that I gave you cause to think I wasn't seeing
all the posts as coming from valid and vital human beings... Of course, all
yours and everybodies concerns that fueled my "interpretation" were and ARE
real...I suggest that you (and we) all are NOT merely a bunch of critics
just to hear ourselves speak or see our thoughts in print here in this NG.
As I said, there is not a "wisp of a fool's wind" to be found anywhere
around here... we are all engaged in the conversation...
Just understand that, for this relative newcomer to the NG, what showed up
for me was something that called forth the phrase I used... that perception
is no less real to me than "concern" is for you... if "sea of negativity" is
what occurred for me to describe what I saw... then that's how it occured
for me at that moment... and that is the warning klaxon that tells me there
is "DANGER" in the jargon of the technology...
I think my experience with this particular exchange ought to serve as an
example and as a warning to us all about how easy it is to fall into the
trap of resignation... it takes a certain vigilance to stay effective in the
face of the current state of affairs here... it takes a certain "commitment"
to stay out in front of it...
What "got" me at that moment when I "found" that phrase was this
overwhelming sense that it is so unfortunate that the depth of the concerns
for the "work" on the part of interested parties has come to be so deep...
that's called RESIGNATION and I was there this morning. Somehow I doubt I
am the ONLY one of us who has been there from time to time in the matter of
this work... You are right. Every one of you (us) is a concerned party...
or we wouldn't be here...
My promise to you is that I WILL NOT STAY IN THE TRAP very long!!!!
> I will be waiting patiently in my boat.
Pam, may I invite you to wait Impatiently... it is now clear for me that
you, too, care about the "work" And that gives me warm fuzzies... there's
possibility there after all!!!!! :)
>
> -pam
W.H. Murray once wrote:
...Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back,
always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation)
there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas
and splendid plan: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too.
All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have
occurred. A whole stream of events issues form the decision, raising in
one's favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material
assistance, which no man could have dreamt would come his way.
I have learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets:
Whatever you can do, or dream you can,
begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic
in it.
I close with a question for you Pam: (and others) What are you willing to
commit to in altering the present conditions?
Love to you too, just for all others here
Ralph
Estie
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
Hi Ralph,
I think this is going to be a downer after what you wrote. I'm
literally sickened by thinking about what I just posted on LEC and the
ADA. And your post is just too involved for me to deal with most of it
right now.
> What a wonderful acknowledgement -- I thank YOU.
After years of experience, the vast majority of people who are as
favorable about est/LEC as you seem to be so far whom I've encountered
have automatically assumed that people who are critical of it are bad
and wrong people (and they sometimes go to great extremes to prove how
bad they are). What I especially appreciated about your post, and you,
was that you didn't do that. (You slipped a bit in this last post, but
you seem to have regained your center.) :)
You asked in another post: "What is your 'at stake-ness' with regard to
the work? Does its health and well-being have any importance to you?"
Let me answer that. There was a time when I was almost entirely
committed to the work, with the exception that I didn't put it above the
health and well-being of those upon whom it impacted. It wasn't, and
still isn't, possible to support both the health and well-being of the
work (as it has and is being carried out) and the health and well-being
of those upon whom it impacts. I hope that you will hear that. I hope
that you will not write it off as you did my account of asking Werner
for help. I was *not* doing a "poor little powerless assistant" number.
I was being realistic. An assistant cannot change things that program
leaders do in programs. An assistant cannot change things that people
are trained and instructed to do. est, WE&A, and LEC are heirarchal.
Programs, policies and procedures come down from the top. In est and
WE&A, they came down from Werner. He created them, and he created an
organizational structure in which only he could change them. He hired
and trained the people who carried them out. He was responsible for
them, and he shifted that responsibility, but not the authority to carry
it out, in this case, to me. But back to what I was saying. Given that
it was/is not possible to be committed to both the welfare of the work
and the people whom it impacts, my commitment is to the people. No
abstraction in the world is worth hurting people. In fact, if it hurts
people, it may not be worth anything at all.
> > Assuming that point of view, what bothers me is that Werner wasn't
just
> > selling the vision, he was selling the *realization* of it. We were
> > supposed to have gotten the knowledge of how to carry it out in the
est
> > programs. If Werner didn't know how to carry it out, or couldn't or
> > didn't communicate the knowledge of how to carry it out, why the sam
> > hill did we do the training?
You didn't answer this question. You evaded it. But I don't feel like
revisiting it at this time.
> Estie, Please, please, don't take the share of my experience with
Werner's
> response to my request for help as a make-wrong...
I'm sorry, but I did take it as a make-wrong. Not in the sense you
suggested. It's so, so common, that when someone shares a bad
experience, the est/Landmark defender counters with "that wasn't my
experience." You completely discounted what I said.
BTW, I'm the person who said "gack" regarding the letters from Werner
that were sent out to everyone who had just done the 6-day. It had to
do with the fact that those letters that were intended to give us
special acknowledgment were *form letters*.
I'm glad that you were treated decently when you received an emergency
call about your mother. I posted previously about something that
happened when I got a similar call. It was a nightmare. The thing is,
Ralph, people had good experiences and people had bad experiences. I
think, probably, everyone had some of each. At least I did. What
bothers me is when, and it's entirely too common, there is an effort to
whitewash the est/LEC experience. Make it all good. Deny, invalidate,
forget about, ignore the bad experiences, the problems, the issues that
need to be addressed. That's what creates the polarity about Landmark.
Landmark itself does it, and so do entirely too many of the zealous
grads.
Where is the caring for those who have been hurt?
- Estie
Serena Nordstrup
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
Hi Ralph
(re-posting after Technology devoured my mouthing)
In article <s9iqm7...@corp.supernews.com>,
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> >Hi Serena,
>
> >So you strenuously disagee with my assertion that most of us are
passionate
> >about at least a few things in life?
>
> >I think humanity allows passion... gives an opportunity for passion,
if you
> >will... and probably most of us experience it in some way... that's
not a
> >Landmark concept for me....
Suspecting possible semantic dissonance...
I think human nature tolerates passion from time to time. If you like,
it's a lower animalian emotion, hardly a glory of golden humanity.
> >How is it so for you that this cannot be... tell me more of what you
mean?
Think opposites: does passion counterpoise cynicism? I know which side
of those scales I'd plump for.
Simpatice
Serena
RE
> > >
> > > Hi Ralph,
> > >
> > > <large snip of interesting stuff>
> > >
> > > > When I see the "enrollment manipulations, and the hammering of
> > > humanity with
> > > > automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone
> which
> > > seems to
> > > > happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies
> > > surrounding
> > > > the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and
> > > forceful
> > > > behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of
> humans
> > > trying
> > > > to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE
> > > THEM... no
> > > > wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
> > >
> > > So what I'm reading is that it is not the "ideology", the ideas, the
> > > "vision", the theory (there's a word I'm groping for here but can't
> > > quite grasp) that fails, but the individuals, the people who try to
> > > carry it out that somehow fail...? Yes?
> > >
> > > From my reading on "cults" and their characteristics - this is
> > > _exactly_ one of the signs of a cult - or cult-like group. People
> fail,
> > > - doctrine (_thats_ the word;) is never wrong.
> > >
> > > Sounds dodgy to me Raplph:)
> > >
> > > <more snipping of more interesting stuff>
> > >
> > > Jen.
> > >
Whereupon I asked:
> > And Hello to you Jen :)
> >
> > Before I respond to your post reproduced above, would you say a
> little more
> > about what you mean by the word
> > "dodgy" as in whether you think I am avoiding, resisting, denying,
> refuting
> > "something"... and if that seems so for you, what you think that
> > "something" might be specifically?
> >
> > I'm sure the members of this NG would appreciate my ability to
> shorten my
> > response to your post by responding to your specific observation(s).
> > Without knowing a bit better what your meaning actually is, I would
> likely
> > be quite long-written to handle all the possible interpretations I
> might
> > make of your meaning....
> >
> > I'm not really committed to being a "windbag" -- Heh heh! Even if
> some
> > might apply that label to me from time to time (TIC)
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> > Ralph
>
And Jen answered:
> Ralph,
>
> The "dodgy" refernece was probably more of a throw away comment really
> - probably worth ignoring:).
>
> The guts of what I was posting was that one of the characteristics of a
> "cult" is that "doctrine never fails - only people do" - ie that if
> 'bad', 'inadequate', 'unsucsesful' things happen it is because _people_
> didn't do it right - _not_ because there was anything inherently "off"
> about the doctrine. Its a neat way of focusing the attention away from
> any analysis or criticism of the doctrine itself and onto the failings
> and shortcomings of individuals or people as a group.
>
> I thought I heard that kind of argument in your post. ie it wasn't the
> _idea_ (vision, doctrine - whatever) of the Hunger Project that needs
> looking at - it is the people involved.
>
> Jen.
> P.S. Of _course_ "ending world hunger" is an admirable goal to profess
> - and one that is likely to get people ~enrolled~ ;) One wouldn't be a
> such a competent or succesful con-arist if one tried to use the idea of
> say, "ending the use of platform shoes" to get people ~enrolled~ in
> ones scam:-)
> J.
>
So now I reply... (whew) :)
Jen,
Thanks for the clarification of "dodgy"...
For me, this relationship between "doctrine" and its "followers" is an
interesting one... seems a symbiotic affair...
Your reference to the characteristic of a cult is that doctrine doesn't
fail -- only the people failed if the result was bad... Let's test this
assertion with the following extreme test example:
What if Hitler's soldiers and the German people did the "final solution"
right? What if the German people "executed" that doctrine perfectly? Does
that make the doctrine right or wrong or the German people right or wrong?
or both right or wrong? What about the soldiers? What about the
concentration camp officers? Where does one draw the line between doctrine
and follower? Does it matter which one is accountable? The result is what
it was... I say the doctrine and the followers were inseparable -- the end
result relied on both components...
What gave Hitler's "final solution doctrine" any power? The people who
followed it.
I don't think there is any doubt in the opinion of humanity about whether
that "doctrine" was defective or not...
[End Extreme test]
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not est/WE&A/LEC/work
is or is not a cult -- (I don't know that I could offer anything useful to
forward that assertion pro or con...) I'll stipulate, for purposes of this
discussion that the doctrine vs people relationship is a relevant issue to
our subject at hand...cult, cultlike or not.
Of course doctrine is never above scrutiny... even our "work" is subject to
the review of it's followers and critics alike.... Always. It's not the
same as it was in the days of est... it's evolved somewhat... that's a
result of continual review and scrutiny...
est had no compassion for the human being??? (I oughta be carefful with that
assertion), the Forum was about inquiry into the condition of being human...
now I understand that LEC has molded it into a program about
relationships... seems like there's some progress there somewhere....
Finally, to handle your specific commentary about the Hunger Project, I
don't think it's fair to say the people failed the doctrine and I don't
think the "doctrine" failed the people either... I think there was
something else at work.... something like people failed people maybe... I
don't know about that one... maybe the guiding premise was defective? Who
knows?
This has been a hard post to write... I've gone all over the map with it....
I guess, if the Hunger Project was a scam, then it was that... if it wasn't,
then it was something else... one thing is for sure... a lot of humanity
gave it a lot of effort and intention... something happened for sure.
Ralph
je...@my-deja.com
"Adrien Blaise" <adbl...@iname.com> wrote:
Hi Adrien,
> No comparison meant (<insert Linda's usual disclaimer here>), but this
> discussion did bring to mind how the French Communist Party (PCF,
then one
> of the most "moscophile" Communist Parties in Europe) would almost
always
> title their (then) big gatherings e.g., "Peace Festival" ("Fête de la
Paix")
> or something along that vein.
>
> FWIW (i.e. not too much in this case I'll admit <g>, just something
that
> came to mind by reading Jen's PS)
Yeah - thats the kinda thing....I can make a connection between the
two. Then things get complicated - how far "up" the heirarchy do you
have to go before the 'genuine' commitment changes into a "scam"?
Hmmmm...not sure that question even makes any sense - it was a bit of a
leap - like I say it gets confusin':-)
Jen.
> -- AB
>
> <...>
> >Jen.
> >P.S. Of _course_ "ending world hunger" is an admirable goal to
profess
> >- and one that is likely to get people ~enrolled~ ;) One wouldn't be
a
> >such a competent or succesful con-arist if one tried to use the idea
of
> >say, "ending the use of platform shoes" to get people ~enrolled~ in
> >ones scam:-)
> >J.
> >
> >
RE
So you strenuously disagee with my assertion that most of us are passionate
about at least a few things in life?
I think humanity allows passion... gives an opportunity for passion, if you
will... and probably most of us experience it in some way... that's not a
Landmark concept for me....
How is it so for you that this cannot be... tell me more of what you mean?
RE
> > <snip>
picking up from estie's reply to me here:
> > >
> > > Hi Ralph,
> > >
> > > I think I'm in love!
> > >
> > > That was a lovely post. Thank you.
>
> Well, it was finely crafted, that's for sure.
> Kudos to you, Ralph, you had me going there for a second. I think I
> even heard music.
Damn! I didn't mean to attach that mp3 file!!!! MEA CULPA!!!! This damned
NewsReader (TIC)
>
<<snip>>
>
> Well you got esties button's pushed, she's been waiting 2+ years on this
> ng for someone to appreciate her and call her sweetie.
>
> You should be able to get away with anything on this NG now.
>
Oh Dear!!!! Uh OH! I'd better make some outrageous posts to get us back to
reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<<snip>>
> Lemme guess, uh... the car disappeared?
>
<<snip about car disappearing>>
>
> <small smile> Being in the zone,
>
<<more snip>>
>
OK fine... Yes, it's being in the zone... I know that phenomenon and my
experience was much of that... and yeah we all get it from time to time...
some of us more than others...
Two points:
First, I shared that racing story not so much to imply I got Werner's
experience as much as to suggest that the responses to my efforts to share
that with others was difficult at best... I was more into the idea that
whatever Werner experienced probably didn't communicate too well limited by
expressions in language... so, at bet, his experience devolved to an
interpretation for others of his experience.
Second, Not to step over the significance of all this too much, here's the
inquiry that I started after that experience and my association with the
work...
What if I could experience my whole life "being in the zone?" What if,
instead of seeing mere fleeting glimpses of smooth mastery, I could bring
that quality of experience to my whole life? What would life be like? What
might be possible?
<<Snip>>
>
> Do continue: You and estie talk about Werner to your hearts content.
> It's very instructional to the newbies. Hug his little 'love letters' to
> your heart, trade annecdotes and war stories about the good ole days.
> (Why don't you start up an email correspondence, esties a real sweetie
> in email once you get to know her better, you'll really be all smiles.)
>
> Then... when he comes back, you can blame all the problems on his
> absence, there's the ticket.
>
WHAT???????? HUH??????? Surely, You Jest Linda!!!!!!!! What the hell
would blaming anyone accomplish? I am apparently missing something here eh?
> You know what interests me today? LEC in Brazil and the hints of the
> creation 500 new Forum Leaders. Did I read that right? LEC is giving
> trainings in a utility company? For FREE?
> Whoah!
>
OK
> Wasn't Flores doing trainings in an utility company in where? last
> year. was it Austria?
>
I couldn't tell you...
> What's up with utility companies? Sounds kinda a stategic placement.
> Utilities, media, what about transportation? That's the third point of
> the triangle.
I have no clue. And you've picqued my interest...
The third point of the triangle? OK... I'll display my ignorance. What is
all this about? What makes it interesting? Are we looking at some
nefarious plot to take over the world? What have I missed???? What are the
other two points of the triangle? Is this the "New World Order" all the
militias in this country are so fearful of???? (TIC) Educate this newbie
to the NG... (actually I have a sense -- reading all the recent posts)
>
> Nearly 4 years ago there was some boasting on the net about New Zealand
> being the first country to achieve widespread 'transformation' I find
> that extremely interesting. wondered what's happened there since then.
>
If you say so... again I'm ignorant here...
This stuff interests you? Why? How so?
Ralph
Robert Watcher
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> I also apologize for the "sea of negativity" term -- it WAS a bit
extreme.
> After I sent it, I wanted to recall the post to change that phrase....
> unfortunately, this newsreader doesn't let me recall my words!!!!!!!
>
> Pam, you are, of course absolutely right here too... naturally we are
all
> interested parties in the current state of the "work" under the
stewardship
> of the current regime... I never meant anything less. And there is
not a
> concern I've read here which isn't borne of some genuine
intentionality and
> purpose...by real people. While I may not always "get" the purpose
behind
> one's concern, it IS clear to me that none of these concerns are mere
wisps
> of a fool's wind...
>
>has happened to my "work" in the past decade! From all the
stuff I
> read -- that "sea of negativity" I might conclude that the state of
DANGER
> exists about the work... something is not as it "should" be to be
consistent
> with the "vision" that it once was....
>
> Yes, you read that right... for me the work is MINE!!!!! I OWN IT!!!!
And
> so does each and every one of YOU here who has a stake in it's
continued
> existence... if you care at all then it's your baby too!!!!!
>
> Now, having said that, I'll now posit something else. You and I and
all the
> other wonderful people participating here in AFL could make a
difference in
> the present inertia of LEC and the current "keepers" of the
technology. If
> WE both as a group and as individuals are truly committed to the
possibility
> of the "work" for the culture of human beings, then we can be
powerful in
> its direction... otherwise, we're just couch potatoes sitting on the
> sidelines watchin' the game...
I think the whole "conversation" about the "work" of LEC (LEC vs. "the
work") is irrelevent, and purposefully misleading. The arguement that
Ralph gives is classically apologetic. This method of "framing the
conversation" so as to appear there is a debate going works for
engineering and controlling opinion on the subject matter, in this case
LEC's corporate behaviour and creating an effective propaganda system
for LEC, much like we see day in and day out here on this newsgroup.
There are some here who would do anything, and perhaps even more
importantly, spend any amount of money for LEC and it's products. You
may refer to these people as the sort of traditional conservatives,
maybe even hard-liners, but essentially they view LEC and it's work as
an immensly important and intense experience to be shared by everybody
(or at least those mentally competant). This attitude is very similiar
to the born-again and hard-core Christians who belief eternal life and
salvation is found only in and through Jesus Christ.
There are some here who take on a more reformist approach, much like
liberal Christians. They contend you may not have to participate or live
under the dogma, but "the work" is something special, and as long as
faith in "the work" is strong, you'll find value by doing the programs.
Both spectrum of views agree on one thing, and that is the specialness
of "the work", like all Christians believe in the spirit of Jesus
Christ.
Once both sides have agreed to these assumptions, and have accepted this
propaganda system, you can have the debate. Debates between LEC vs. The
Work always breakdown in these ways. The conversation stops or gets
heated once dissidents (the anti-LEC heretics) enter, who don't debate
within the framed propaganda system of debate, usually the moments you
tell them that the notion of "the Work" is nothing more than an
irrational belief system.
From LEC's point, it's critical to make sure the debate stays within
this context as well (provided by people like Ralph), because everyone
agrees on the one assumption that taking LEC is a worthwhile and
valuable commodity.
To give a real world example, this framed debate/propaganda system
worked well during the early part of the Vietnam War, in the debates
between "hawks" and "doves". Eventually though, people end up becoming
too aware, and start to know too much about what's going on, and the
order and control breaksdown. This was known as Vietnam
Syndrome; it's a grave disease, people understand too much.
Here, it's something like LEC Syndrome, which is that in an open forum,
it's harder to control people's thoughts and debates, unlike in the
mainstream press, the dissidents come in and advocate no such assumption
that "the work" is useful or worthwhile, much less valuable. Although, I
think that having heavy anti-LEC dissent here help LEC in the long run.
They get to point out that if LEC were really interesting in silencing
opinion, it would go after everyone on the newsgroup. This allows LEC to
generate the impression that it's somehow tollerant and open to
criticism, but in reality, it's mission continues to silent mainstream
opposition that strays too far from the framed debate, which is that
everyone (or at least all those mentally competant) should take a
training. When dissident opinion appears in the mainstream, LEC takes
action to control and frame the debate and propaganda system.
Corporations are essentially fascist and totalitarian in nature and
function. LEC is a corporation, and as with all corporations and
business, their sole motive is to profit and expand it's market share,
regardless of the "work". To do this it will use whatever means
necessary to complete this, and if that means using legal threats
and intimidation, then so be it.
I think it goes without saying that one is only in complete
denial if they do not realize the psychotherapeutic techniques
and exercises employed by LEC, or that variations of
psychotherapy and neurolinguistic programming are used
along side the "philosophy", which basically constitutes "The Work".
The educational institution that is LEC is not much different in
structure as mainstream educational institutions, which are both
doctrinal institutions and systems. LEC, like the mainstream educational
institutions, are especially set up to reward conformity and obedience.
"School's easy", my friends used to tell me, "just give the teachers
what they want". If you have trouble conforming, you are labeled
a troublemaker ("you just don't get it!"), and weeded out along the
way. Whether it is dropping out of college, or dropping out of LP (as it
is called at Lifespring), it's the result of failing to internalize the
framework, beliefs and attitudes of the structures of power. It's one of
the ways they instill "appropriate" kinds of thoughts, behaviors, and
control so you advance and enroll all your friends, neighbors and
relatives.
Reducing the conversation to "Liking and disliking Landmark is
ultimately ones own experience or opinion ignores the reality of the
cause and effect that is created by the institutions themselves.
Essentially, this argument lays the groundwork for the acceptance of all
sorts of atrocities and problems. My guess is that this is a question
that Landmark indirectly deals with in dealing with skeptics during the
first day of trainings.
For example, someone who may be skeptical might get a similar line of
reasoning about the trainings. Those who are skeptic, please remember
that that is something You're just telling yourself, those words or
creating your experience. There are those whose words create for them an
anti-LEC outlook, and those whose words create a pro-LEC outlook, but
each one are valid and real. To someone of weak will and resolve, might
go "yeah, I get it, maybe I'm being too closed, and I need to open
Up to the possibility that Landmark is beneficial". But like I said, it
ignores the reality that for a small corporations, it's generated huge
controversy and detractors, perhaps being ethically challenged and with
it's "product" potentially dangerous for some, but for that moment, it's
just your "learned" opinion, your created experience, based on your own
words, not the way LEC operates.
--
Take care,
Robert
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Inn/7706/rob.html
alan
dodgy also refers to dubious - at least in the UK
RE <rev...@danasoftsystems.com> wrote in message
news:s9rvma5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> On 6-Feb-2000, je...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <s9qm99...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ralph,
> >
> > <large snip of interesting stuff>
> >
> > > When I see the "enrollment manipulations, and the hammering of
> > humanity with
> > > automaton ignorance in efforts to force a position on someone which
> > seems to
> > > happen a lot around the work -- when I see all the controversies
> > surrounding
> > > the "work" which stems from what is, in essence, manipulative and
> > forceful
> > > behavior and demeanor, it is, for me, merely domonstrative of humans
> > trying
> > > to USE the distinctions instead of letting the distinctions USE
> > THEM... no
> > > wonder s**t is so often the result!!!!
> >
> > So what I'm reading is that it is not the "ideology", the ideas, the
> > "vision", the theory (there's a word I'm groping for here but can't
> > quite grasp) that fails, but the individuals, the people who try to
> > carry it out that somehow fail...? Yes?
> >
> > From my reading on "cults" and their characteristics - this is
> > _exactly_ one of the signs of a cult - or cult-like group. People fail,
> > - doctrine (_thats_ the word;) is never wrong.
> >
> > Sounds dodgy to me Raplph:)
> >
> > <more snipping of more interesting stuff>
> >
> > Jen.
> >
Serena Nordstrup
rev...@danasoftsystems.com wrote:
<snip
> What the hell would blaming anyone accomplish [...?]
O Ralph!
Speak to us of cause and effect!
Explicate to us the evils of thesis, of antithesis and synthesis!
Do it now, that we may truly and thoroughly expunge all blame from our
impoverished vocabulary!
Simpatice
Serena
Markus Hirt
> For me, this relationship between "doctrine" and its "followers" is an
> interesting one... seems a symbiotic affair...
>
> Your reference to the characteristic of a cult is that doctrine doesn't
> fail -- only the people failed if the result was bad... Let's test this
> assertion with the following extreme test example:
>
> What if Hitler's soldiers and the German people did the "final solution"
> right? What if the German people "executed" that doctrine perfectly?
Fact is: they did it right and perfect. Do you know how many jews
lived in Germany at the end of WW II?
> Does
> that make the doctrine right or wrong or the German people right or wrong?
Ex falso quod libet.
Even if a result is right, that doesn't make the cause right.
> or both right or wrong? What about the soldiers? What about the
> concentration camp officers? Where does one draw the line between doctrine
> and follower?
Would there have been a "final solution" without the doctrine?
OTOH, there wouldn't be a "final solution" without the people, but
evidently they were already there...
And there were people who didn't follow. You know about Stauffenberg?
After his attack on Hitler failed, 5000 people were killed. What
a prize for not following.
> Does it matter which one is accountable? The result is what
> it was... I say the doctrine and the followers were inseparable -- the end
> result relied on both components...
>
> What gave Hitler's "final solution doctrine" any power? The people who
> followed it.
So you are blaming the people who followed the orders? Do you know that
it
were jewish people themselves that had to do the dirt work in the
concentration camps? Selected with the choice of doing the work or being
killed at once? How would you choose?
> I don't think there is any doubt in the opinion of humanity about whether
> that "doctrine" was defective or not...
Neither there isn't any doubt that this doctrine worked...
> [End Extreme test]
Hopefully. And with the facts, what does the test say about LEC now?
Markus
Fedallah
Serena Nordstrup wrote:
Ralph:
> >
> > >Hi Serena,
> >
> > >So you strenuously disagee with my assertion that most of us are
> passionate
> > >about at least a few things in life?
> > >I think humanity allows passion... gives an opportunity for passion,
> if you
> > >will... and probably most of us experience it in some way... that's
> not a
> > >Landmark concept for me....
Serena:
> Suspecting possible semantic dissonance...
>
> I think human nature tolerates passion from time to time. If you like,
> it's a lower animalian emotion, hardly a glory of golden humanity.
Ralph:
> > >How is it so for you that this cannot be... tell me more of what you
> mean?
Serena:
> Think opposites: does passion counterpoise cynicism? I know which side
> of those scales I'd plump for.
>
> Simpatice
> Serena
Hello, everyone! I've been looking in on this newsgroup
occaisonally, but spend so little time on the net anymore
that I've been avoiding getting involved in any discussions
simply because in all likelyhood I won't be able to respond
regularly. But, this thread in particular grabbed my
attention...
Regarding two different takes on the value of cynicism vs.
enthusiasm and passion, I thought the following passages
from E.M. Cioran were quite apropos. (I don't think the
irony of his impassioned and over-wrought prose escaped the
author, BTW ;->) [** indicates italics in the original.]
I hope everyone is doing well, especially a few of you who I
haven't "talked" with in quite awhile.
Rick H.
From _A Brief history of Decay _ (section titled "Genealogy
of Fanatacism"):
"... There is no form of intolerance, of proselytism or
ideological intransigence which fails to reveal the bestial
substratum of enthusiasm. Once man loses his *faculty for
indifference* he becomes a potential murderer... The ages of
fervor abound in bloody exploits: a Saint Teresa could only
be the contemporary of the auto-de-fe', a Luther of the
repression of the Peasant's Revolt. In every mystic
outburst, the moans of victims parrallel the moans of
ecstacy...
...No wavering mind, infected with Hamletism, was ever
pernicious: the principle of evil lies in the will's
tension, in the incapacity for quietism, in the Promethean
magalomania of a race that bursts with ideals, that explodes
with its convictions, and that, in return for having
forsaken sloth and doubt--vices nobler than all its
virtues--has taken the path to perdition, into history, that
indecent alloy of banality and apocalypse.... Only the
skeptics escape, because they *propose* nothing, because
they--humanity's true benefactors--undermine fanatacism's
purposes, analyze its frenzy... In the fervent mind you
always find the camouflaged beast of prey... he wants you to
share his hysteria, his fullness, he wants to impose it on
you, and thereby to disfigure you.... The longing to be a
source of *events* affects each man like a mental disorder
or a desired malediction. Society--an inferno of Saviors!
What Diogenes was looking for with his lantern was an
*indifferent man*...
It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about
ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say
"we" with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him
invoke "others" and regard himself as their interpreter--for
me to consider him my enemy...." E.M. Cioran
--
I got a copy of Moby Dick bulging in my front pocket...
bring it on....
Adrien Blaise
This made me think of a line I read in a recent article, from French
philosopher André Comte-Sponville, quoting a women psychiatrist/therapist
friend of his, saying that "psychical health is to accepts one's own
banality."
* in French, "psychic" (as an adjective or substantivated adjective) doesn't
have the "fortune-teller" overtone it has in English. If the overtone still
comes across, replace "psychical" by "mental" in the quote (although
"psychique" was used in the original French text).
-- AB
Fedallah wrote in message <38A42210...@uswest.net>...
<...>
Jennifer Moore
just catching up a bit...
Estie writes:
>my account of asking Werner
>for help. I was *not* doing a "poor little powerless assistant" number.
> I was being realistic. An assistant cannot change things that program
>leaders do in programs. An assistant cannot change things that people
>are trained and instructed to do. est, WE&A, and LEC are heirarchal.
>Programs, policies and procedures come down from the top. In est and
>WE&A, they came down from Werner. He created them, and he created an
>organizational structure in which only he could change them. He hired
>and trained the people who carried them out.
I would rephrase this slightly.
There are things which an assistant can change _only_ by ~enrolling~ the
person accountable for that area.
As Estie says, that includes programs, policies and procedures that
"come down from the top".
It's not that an assistant can necessarily do _nothing_ to alter those
things. But it's not sufficient for the assistant to see what's
~missing~ and be in communication about that. If the accountable person
is ~unenrollable~ on that subject and/or the assistant is less than a
master of ~enrollment~ (including not getting resigned in the face of an
initial ~no-listening~)... nothing will change.
well that is my opinion anyway :-)
Regarding Estie's story... sounds to me like Werner didn't keep his
promise. 'Cause the promise he made (as reported here, of course I
wasn't there to hear it first hand and if that was misreported none of
this applies) was not "If you need anything, I'll trust you to sort it
out yourself". It was "If you need anything, let me know and I'll get
it for you". Sounds to me like you were betrayed Estie and if you got
resigned at that point I don't blame you.
If we could go back in time I'd egg you on to write back and call him to
account "Oy you! You said if I needed anything _you'd_ get it for me!",
but it seems a bit late now... Or maybe not... how about it Estie? how
about dropping him a line via head office and telling him he didn't keep
his promise and you're calling him to account. just a thought.
N.B. I'm not saying you "should" do that. it's up to you & not for me
to say. just curious about what would happen if you did.
love to all
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * www.single-bass.co.uk *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Larry Person
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dkkWDNAd...@material.demon.co.uk...
> hi people
>
> just catching up a bit...
>
> Estie writes:
> >my account of asking Werner
> >for help.
This is what werner said, according to estie's account: "If you need
something and you can't get it, let me know. I can get it."
My interpretation is that Werner meant "I can get it" not in the sense of "I
will provide it" but in the sense of "I can hear it and be a safe space for
you to express what you need."
But Jennifer, if you're suggesting that estie might try getting into
communication about the broken promise, and getting past the upset, that
sounds like a great idea.
Jennifer Moore
Larry you wrote:
>This is what werner said, according to estie's account: "If you need
>something and you can't get it, let me know. I can get it."
>
>My interpretation is that Werner meant "I can get it" not in the sense of "I
>will provide it" but in the sense of "I can hear it and be a safe space for
>you to express what you need."
hmmm, well that is not my interpretation of that sentence, and obviously
wasn't estie's... so I think if Werner meant what _you_ think he meant,
he was rather ineffective in his communication, which is not an
assessment I would normally associate with him...
>But Jennifer, if you're suggesting that estie might try getting into
>communication about the broken promise, and getting past the upset, that
>sounds like a great idea.
well it just seemed like he ought to get a chance to clear that up and
~take responsibility for~ Estie's unfulfilled expectation - if he wanted
to which I would have thought he might... but I'm not attached to Estie
doing one thing or another, I trust her to do what is "right for her"...
Estie
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> going back a bit (catching up)
>
> Larry you wrote:
> >something and you can't get it, let me know. I can get it."
> >
sense of "I
> >will provide it" but in the sense of "I can hear it and be a safe
space for
> >you to express what you need."
>
> hmmm, well that is not my interpretation of that sentence, and
obviously
> wasn't estie's... so I think if Werner meant what _you_ think he
meant,
> he was rather ineffective in his communication, which is not an
> assessment I would normally associate with him...
>
> >But Jennifer, if you're suggesting that estie might try getting into
> >communication about the broken promise, and getting past the upset,
that
> >sounds like a great idea.
>
> well it just seemed like he ought to get a chance to clear that up and
> ~take responsibility for~ Estie's unfulfilled expectation - if he
wanted
> to which I would have thought he might... but I'm not attached to
Estie
> doing one thing or another, I trust her to do what is "right for
her"...
Werner's *HAD* a chance to clear up anything he wanted to clear up *FOR
YEARS*.
I can't help but notice how you keep putting the responsibility back on
me.
*IF* Werner ever sincerely makes himself available to clear up things
for the millions of people he owes accountability to, I'll bring this
and a lot of other things up to him.
But I'm not holding my breath.
- Estie
Jennifer Moore
>I can't help but notice how you keep putting the responsibility back on
>me.
sorry if it came over like that Estie... not my intention.
What I originally said was:
====
If we could go back in time I'd egg you on to write back and call him to
account "Oy you! You said if I needed anything _you'd_ get it for me!",
but it seems a bit late now... Or maybe not... how about it Estie? how
about dropping him a line via head office and telling him he didn't keep
his promise and you're calling him to account. just a thought.
N.B. I'm not saying you "should" do that. it's up to you & not for me
to say. just curious about what would happen if you did.
====
so I hope that is a bit clearer that I wasn't thinking I had any right to
"put" anything on you
Estie
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> writes
> >I can't help but notice how you keep putting the responsibility back
on
> >me.
>
> sorry if it came over like that Estie... not my intention.
Then why has everything you've said been about what *I* should do. Not
a peep about what Werner should do.
Do you think Werner didn't know what promises he made and that he didn't
keep them? Hell, Ralph got exactly the same response. It was a
formatted situation. Some fool actually was gullible enough to believe
that Werner meant what he said, send them the "Werner trusts you to be
the solution" letter.
And I know what would happen if I wrote to Werner. I'd get handled.
I'd get coached. I'd get made responsible.
Been there. Done that. Over and over again.
Ain't going to go there again.
> What I originally said was:
> ====
> If we could go back in time I'd egg you on to write back and call him
to
> account "Oy you! You said if I needed anything _you'd_ get it for
me!",
> but it seems a bit late now... Or maybe not... how about it Estie?
how
> about dropping him a line via head office and telling him he didn't
keep
> his promise and you're calling him to account. just a thought.
>
> N.B. I'm not saying you "should" do that. it's up to you & not for me
> to say. just curious about what would happen if you did.
> ====
>
> so I hope that is a bit clearer that I wasn't thinking I had any right
to
> "put" anything on you
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science. Technology has very little to do with
it.
Jennifer Moore
>In article <d3kmHNAv...@material.demon.co.uk>,
> Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> writes
>> >I can't help but notice how you keep putting the responsibility back
>on
>> >me.
>>
>> sorry if it came over like that Estie... not my intention.
>
>Then why has everything you've said been about what *I* should do. Not
>a peep about what Werner should do.
Nothing I've said has been about what you "should" do. Come on Estie,
give me some credit, I am not so stupid as to think _that_ would be
appreciated.
Anyway, in the interests of preventing further similar
misunderstandings, I shall refrain in future from speculating on what
you "could" do either.
Estie
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> writes
> >In article <d3kmHNAv...@material.demon.co.uk>,
> > Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> writes
> >> >I can't help but notice how you keep putting the responsibility
back
> >on
> >> >me.
> >>
> >> sorry if it came over like that Estie... not my intention.
> >
> >Then why has everything you've said been about what *I* should do.
Not
> >a peep about what Werner should do.
>
> Nothing I've said has been about what you "should" do. Come on Estie,
> give me some credit, I am not so stupid as to think _that_ would be
> appreciated.
I give you credit for disguising your "shoulds" as "coulds". "Coulds"
don't have "egging ons" attached to them. Adaptation is so useful. :)
> Anyway, in the interests of preventing further similar
> misunderstandings, I shall refrain in future from speculating on what
> you "could" do either.
What I'd appreciate even more would be if, in the future, when you
encounter something you don't like the way that it is and you want to
"fix it up" so that it will be more palatable to you, please don't try
to embroil me in your effort. It's been extremely irritating and you've
been nattering about it off and on for months. Feels like a determined
mosquito.
The reality is that Werner made a promise on video that was widely shown
at every center at least once a month. When I (and Ralph) asked him to
fulfill the promise, he didn't.
It'd look better if you hung a pretty pink bow on it.
- Estie
Jennifer Moore
you write:
>"Coulds"
>don't have "egging ons" attached to them.
Well, in my world they can actually, but I can see it was shortsighted
of me to have imagined that expression would mean the same to you as it
does for me. In retrospect I think it's quite likely there was no way I
could have made _any_ suggestion about actions you could possibly take
without it showing up in your world like I meant it as a "should".
n'est-ce pas? And in retrospect I think it was pretty stupid of me if I
imagined that any such suggestion (however put) could be a contribution
to you.
I actually don't think my attention _was_ on whether it would be a
contribution to you personally, or not very much anyway, I think I was
mostly just being curious about what would happen, in particular what
Werner would say.
Anyway I am sorry that conversation didn't work for you.
>What I'd appreciate even more would be if, in the future, when you
>encounter something you don't like the way that it is and you want to
>"fix it up" so that it will be more palatable to you, please don't try
>to embroil me in your effort.
I promise never to make any suggestion to you, ever again, about any
action you might take, or to speculate on what might happen if you did
something. (providing I know it's you - obviously if you changed net
name I might not know.)
>It's been extremely irritating and you've
>been nattering about it off and on for months. Feels like a determined
>mosquito.
I posted once on the subject in February, and Larry replied; then a few
days ago, I belatedly replied to Larry's reply, and you responded, which
re-started the conversation. That's not what _I_ would call "nattering
about it off and on for months". Your mileage obviously varies.
Of course if you say so, I can't contradict that you have found me
extremely irritating like a determined mosquito :-)
love