The Six Day
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
appreciate the way Steve and Estie have filled in the gaps of my memory
about the Breakthrough Process. Their posts have reminded me of
details I had forgotten long ago. Thanks, guys.
Can anyone help me piece together a chronology of the six day? Even
though I was on staff at the six-day office, I handled registration,
and wasn't so involved with what happened on site.
What key events happened on which days? Can anyone add to, or correct,
the following? When was sex night? When was haircut night?
Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill.
Sunday:
Monday: Ropes Course. Breakthrough Process. (or were these things on
Tuesday?)
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
ND Main
about which days some of these things
happened. Maybe someone else can
elaborate/correct.
Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
and a few folks were overweight and had a
"special" diet.
Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill. Agreements.
Sunday: Morning exercises and run. Resistance.
Going Full Out. Completion.
(Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
Breakthrough Process.
Tuesday: Morning exercises and run.
Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
Wednesday: Morning exercises and run.
Body process. Introduction to Acts.
Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
Haircutting.
Friday: Morning exercises and run. Attachments.
Samarai Game. Circle Dance.
Steve
-----
One only needs two tools in life:
WD-40 to make things go, and
duct tape to make them stop.
-- G. Weilacher
-----
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> It's been 15 years. I could be wrong
> about which days some of these things
> happened. Maybe someone else can
> elaborate/correct.
>
> Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> and a few folks were overweight and had a
> "special" diet.
It was "labeled" as the Pritikin diet...further investigation by me has
shown that the *quantity* of the food did not at any point meet the needs
of the people for the stresses we were under. If I recall, under the
Pritikin it is not 3 meals a day either. It is 5...2 snacks. I think I need
to locate the book.
> Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill. Agreements.
This sounds about right...don't forget about the canned speech that we had
to give...winding around in a line close together...no air...waiting to
speak our bit...
> Sunday: Morning exercises and run. Resistance.
> Going Full Out. Completion.
> (Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
> were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
I believe that this is the night that the Samurai Game was done though...
> Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
> Breakthrough Process.
What is the Anger exactly?
> Tuesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
Something missing here....
> Wednesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Body process. Introduction to Acts.
Okay...*introduction* to Acts...what followed?
> Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
> U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
> Haircutting.
Actually...if I recall...the videos were most of the day...each person was
criticized for their first video and highly praised for their
"transformation".
> Friday: Morning exercises and run. Attachments.
> Samarai Game. Circle Dance.
I recall Friday morning being the exercises, the run, breakfast and then
waiting to go home. It was late morning when I left.
Oh wait, that was the "sign up for the Mastery of Empowerment" part in the
day too...and if you didn't what is "your attachment to not doing so?"...
-pam
watch...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> It's been 15 years. I could be wrong
> about which days some of these things
> happened. Maybe someone else can
> elaborate/correct.
>
> Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> and a few folks were overweight and had a
> "special" diet.
>
I believe that's the Pritkin diet. It's based on the myth that
high-carb/low-fat diets work. Like all myths, it contains a partial
truth (reducing calories by replacing fat with carbs) will result in
loss of weight, but the body can go into deprivation/starvation mode,
and the weight loss is not maximized. There is no mechanism in the human
body that can change fat into stored body-fat as in adipose tissue. That
is the work of insulin and excess carbohydrate consumption.
I wonder what the "special" diet for fat people is. If it's an even
further restricted calorie diet, I feel sorry for them, as by the end of
the week and exersizing, there will probably be little change. Although,
I wonder if someone was wise down at LEC, putting people on a
high-protein/low-carb diet will have most obese and fat people losing
weight quite noticeably within a few days. I've managed to keep about
100 pounds off me for over a year doing just that.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
For those that do not understand the significance of that...you become
dehydrated.
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Pamela Fitzpatrick
http://www.positivehealth.com/Favorites/udo.htm
++++++++
Pritikin and Ornish's diets work for people who overate themselves fat and
sick on a typical affluent Western and North American diet rich in protein,
white flour, white sugar, and super-rich (over 40%) in hard and altered
fats. Pritikin-type diets are mostly whole-grain and vegetable diets plus a
little fruit, with meats used mainly as condiments. They reverse many of
the degenerative changes in cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes,
rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, and senility.
<<note the next sentence...weren't we *all* healthy when we participated in
the Six Day?>>>
Once a person becomes healthy, Pritikin-type diets may be dangerously
low in fats. Fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K require fat (or oil) for
absorption, which is impaired when total fat intake is 5% or less.
Pritikin's diet comes too close to that lower limit (food at the Pritikin
Longevity Center contains only 7% fats), especially for older people whose
digestion and absorption are suboptimal. Diets containing less than 5% fats
are correlated with cancer in places like the Philippines, most likely due
to impaired absorption of vitamins A and E, which protect against
cancer-causing free radicals.
W3s have been shown to inhibit tumor incidence and growth. Pritikin
and Ornish's diets are low in w3s, to which they pay no attention at all.
The fats in their diet programs contain essential fatty acids (EFAs), but
there may not be enough of them because of the low total fat content.
For people who spend time outdoors in sunny, warm climates like
California, sunshine may compensate to some extent for a low supply of
EFAs, but in winter, in northern latitudes, and in smoggy and indoor
environments, more EFAs are required. A diet that contains 15 to 20% of
calories as fat (one-third to one-half of that as EFAs) and a balanced
w6:w3 ratio is more likely to ensure health over the long term.(2) For hot
southern tropical climates and summers, the Pritkin diet's grain content
may be too high. A lighter fare of fresh fruit and vegetables needs to be
emphasized. People who spend their time in air-conditioned rooms under
artificial lights may need more EFAs than Pritikin's diet supplies, even in
the tropics.
An engineer, Pritikin developed his diet to meet his own needs. He was
obese and had clogged arteries in his 40s, and he reversed both conditions.
His arteries were clean when he was autopsied in his 60s. But Pritikin died
of suicide after battling leukemia.
Pritikin's diet is a step in the right direction for this generation's
over-fat, over processed way of eating. However, in the long run, it may
kill those who are not overfed.
alan
what a bunch of sorry sad dysfuntional wanna be's. Is anybody in Landmark
under 40?
--
... I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
Love Always
Alan
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> It's been 15 years. I could be wrong
> about which days some of these things
> happened. Maybe someone else can
> elaborate/correct.
>
> Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> and a few folks were overweight and had a
> "special" diet.
>
> Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill. Agreements.
>
> Sunday: Morning exercises and run. Resistance.
> Going Full Out. Completion.
> (Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
> were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
>
> Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
> Breakthrough Process.
>
> Tuesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
>
> Wednesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Body process. Introduction to Acts.
>
> Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
> U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
> Haircutting.
>
> Friday: Morning exercises and run. Attachments.
> Samarai Game. Circle Dance.
>
>
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
(Which is not surprising, given how the six day affected me, as I
described in a post in the "Hair Factor" thread the other day.)
Some comments inline below.
In article <19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill. Agreements.
Agreements. Yup. ("Anyone who lied on their forms ..." "People
*have* died at the six day.")
Also an opportunity to leave, I imagine. Although it's hard to leave
if you're in the middle of nowhere, which is where the sites were for
the most part.
My responsibility as a registrar pretty much ended around that point in
the week. We were on site for the fire drill and we did participate.
Generally we left after having dinner with the site staff on Saturday
night.
> Sunday: Morning exercises and run. Resistance.
> Going Full Out. Completion.
> (Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
> were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
Resistance? Completion? do you remember any details?
>
> Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
> Breakthrough Process.
Anger? What happened between the Ropes Course and Breakthrough
Process? Was it just some talk about what we "got" from the ropes
course? Or was there something specific? Do you remember anything?
>
> Tuesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
Standup/Sitdown! How could I forget that! :-)
>
> Wednesday: Morning exercises and run.
> Body process. Introduction to Acts.
Ah yes. The Body Process.
(It's funny. I was in *GREAT* shape then -- and I mean, GREAT -- but I
was embarrassed and I hated my body during that process.)
>
> Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
> U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
> Haircutting.
>
> Friday: Morning exercises and run. Attachments.
> Samarai Game. Circle Dance.
Samurai Game and Circle Dance. Forgot about those, too. Do you
remember any details?
As I recall Samurai Game, it was a buildup and lead-in to an enrollment
game. I remember thinking that at the time, in fact, even though I was
totally into and immersed in WE&A. I do recall feeling pretty ripped
off, like "this is all about bringing guests." Can you say anything to
trigger my memories of what that was really about?
Why have I suppressed all my memories of the six day?
watch...@my-dejanews.com
"alan" <alan.ca...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> god
>
> what a bunch of sorry sad dysfuntional wanna be's. Is anybody in
Landmark
> under 40?
>
Hey Alan,
I did all my Lifespring stuff between the ages of 19 and 21.
ND Main
>It was "labeled" as the Pritikin diet...further investigation by me has
>shown that the *quantity* of the food did not at any point meet the needs
>of the people for the stresses we were under. If I recall, under the
>Pritikin it is not 3 meals a day either. It is 5...2 snacks. I think I need
>to locate the book.
Interesting.
As in other situations I've been in where food availability was
limited, I remember looking forward to meals more than usual.
It was the first time in my life that I ever remember eating
porridge or hot cereal. Haven't eaten it much since, either.
>> Saturday: Arrival. Videos. Fire drill. Agreements.
>
>This sounds about right...don't forget about the canned speech that we had
>to give...winding around in a line close together...no air...waiting to
>speak our bit...
By "canned speech," do you mean what we each said in front
of the video camera? My recollection is that it was "name, who
you live with, what you do for a living" and maybe one or two
other items. I remember I "didn't do it right" because I left out
one of the items.
We only did videos at the start of the 6Day. We didn't do
videos again. On Get Off Your Act night, they showed each
person's video as each person stood up to declare her/his
act. They freeze-framed the video on some very unbecoming
image within the video. They took still photos at the start and
at the end of the 6Day and gave us copies.
>> Sunday: Morning exercises and run. Resistance.
>> Going Full Out. Completion.
>> (Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
>> were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
>
>I believe that this is the night that the Samurai Game was done though...
I'm certain that in my 6Day we did the Samarai Game very near the
end. If it wasn't on Friday, then maybe it was on Thursday.
What I remember about it specifically is that the trainer emphasized
that the game was an opportunity to see what we are attached to
and talked about that the course was coming to an end and
we'd all be going home in a few hours. It's very possible that
they moved it around in the 6Day schedule between when you
and I did the course.
>> Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
>> Breakthrough Process.
>
>What is the Anger exactly?
Anger was the stuff leading up to the Breakthrough process.
I suppose you could say it was all part of Breakthrough, but in
my mind, there was some separation between the education
about "Most of us are afraid to get angry" so let's all practice
shouting at our kids about brushing our dog's teeth... and then
sometime after that the actual beating on the horses happened.
>> Tuesday: Morning exercises and run.
>> Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
>
>Something missing here....
Yeah, a lot is missing. What else did we do for all those
hours in the room? Standup/Sitdown was over an hour,
and Sex Night took several hours, but that leaves some
8 or 10 or whatever more hours...
Oh, here's one... What do you regret?
and Who do you resent? That took up
quite a bit of time and I believe it was on
Tuesday.
Something else is wrong here. Maybe Sex Night
was on Monday, after the Ropes course.
>> Wednesday: Morning exercises and run.
>> Body process. Introduction to Acts.
>
>Okay...*introduction* to Acts...what followed?
My memory of the Acts thing is that there was considerable
"education" about it, and then there was the homework of
defining one's own act, in preparation for "getting off your
act."
Getting off your Act and Haircutting must have been
Wednesday night, with Samarai and Circle Dance
on Thursday, because as you point out we left on
Friday morning.
Wasn't there one day that we didn't run?
>> Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
>> U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
>> Haircutting.
>
>Actually...if I recall...the videos were most of the day...each person was
>criticized for their first video and highly praised for their
>"transformation".
>
>> Friday: Morning exercises and run. Attachments.
>> Samarai Game. Circle Dance.
>
>I recall Friday morning being the exercises, the run, breakfast and then
>waiting to go home. It was late morning when I left.
>
>Oh wait, that was the "sign up for the Mastery of Empowerment" part in the
>day too...and if you didn't what is "your attachment to not doing so?"...
Mastery of Empowerment? I don't remember that one.
Was that a course?
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
> Standup/Sitdown, Sex night.
Wasn't standup/sitdown *before* the ropes course, to condition us to
follow instructions (and not have horrible accidents) *during* the
ropes course?
I don't remember.
Standup/sitdown is a great exercise about "being present." If you
screwed up, the course leader would ask "what were you listening to?"
It really made me aware of what I really listen to a lot of the time.
ND Main
>As a side note...no water was provided *before* the exercises and run.
>
>For those that do not understand the significance of that...you become
>dehydrated.
I didn't notice that.
I do remember being required to drink
several glasses of water all at once at the end
of the classroom work one day, not sure
which day that was.
However, when I assisted Ropes and
Breakthrough, I was chosen to be a
"sprinter" at the morning run.
That meant it was my job to sprint off the
start line, setting as fast a pace as possible
in order to encourage, by example, the participants in the course to do the
same.
When I was in the course, even though
the instructions were to go 100% the whole
run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
so did other participants I talked to. The
idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
happened in the later part of the run, just
to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
ND Main
>> Thursday: Morning exercises and run. Restitution.
>> U.S. Getting off Acts. showing videos from Day 1.
>> Haircutting.
>
>Actually...if I recall...the videos were most of the day...each person was
>criticized for their first video and highly praised for their
>"transformation".
When I took the 6Day, the videos and
Getting Off Your Act started pretty late in the
evening and ran into the early morning.
I remember this because the haircutters and
washers arrived pretty late in the day, and
they were present for most of the Getting Off
Your Act. Some of my friends at the time
volunteered as hairwashers in order to see
me get off my act. And I volunteered when
they did the course, so I could see them.
It happened on Wednesday, not Thursday.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
watch...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7ic27k$9cc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> > It's been 15 years. I could be wrong
> > about which days some of these things
> > happened. Maybe someone else can
> > elaborate/correct.
> >
> > Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> > and a few folks were overweight and had a
> > "special" diet.
> >
>
> I believe that's the Pritkin diet. It's based on the myth that
> high-carb/low-fat diets work. Like all myths, it contains a partial
> truth (reducing calories by replacing fat with carbs) will result in
> loss of weight, but the body can go into deprivation/starvation mode,
> and the weight loss is not maximized. There is no mechanism in the human
> body that can change fat into stored body-fat as in adipose tissue. That
> is the work of insulin and excess carbohydrate consumption.
>
> I wonder what the "special" diet for fat people is. If it's an even
> further restricted calorie diet, I feel sorry for them, as by the end of
> the week and exersizing, there will probably be little change. Although,
> I wonder if someone was wise down at LEC, putting people on a
> high-protein/low-carb diet will have most obese and fat people losing
> weight quite noticeably within a few days. I've managed to keep about
> 100 pounds off me for over a year doing just that.
From what I recall...the food was the same but there was measured amounts
and less of it. There was also much cheering for those pounds lost during
the Six Day. Of course they would lose weight...
What is odd...is that this diet when followed is supposed to cause you to
lose weight...why these people were sectioned off from all us is odd. They
should have been able to eat the same food as us, in the same quantities
and have the same effect.
That is a lot of what I mean that it was called the Pritikin Diet <my
recollection is, it is *based* upon the Pritikin Diet> but it wasn't
actually *the* Pritikin Diet.
-pam
ND Main
>I believe that's the Pritkin diet. It's based on the myth that
>high-carb/low-fat diets work. Like all myths, it contains a partial
>truth (reducing calories by replacing fat with carbs) will result in
>loss of weight, but the body can go into deprivation/starvation mode,
>and the weight loss is not maximized. There is no mechanism in the human
>body that can change fat into stored body-fat as in adipose tissue. That
>is the work of insulin and excess carbohydrate consumption.
>
>I wonder what the "special" diet for fat people is. If it's an even
>further restricted calorie diet, I feel sorry for them, as by the end of
>the week and exersizing, there will probably be little change. Although,
>I wonder if someone was wise down at LEC, putting people on a
>high-protein/low-carb diet will have most obese and fat people losing
>weight quite noticeably within a few days. I've managed to keep about
>100 pounds off me for over a year doing just that.
I remember that the overweight people were weighed each day
and praised for losing pounds. I remember they were not allowed
seconds like the rest of us. Maybe that was the only "special"
thing about their diet. I remember thinking that it seemed silly to
expect much change in 6 days.
watch...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> I remember that the overweight people were weighed each day
> and praised for losing pounds. I remember they were not allowed
> seconds like the rest of us. Maybe that was the only "special"
> thing about their diet.
I guess to be "specially" starved will always result in some weight
loss.
>I remember thinking that it seemed silly to
> expect much change in 6 days.
A good number of obese and fat people should notice a significant drop
the first week or so on a LOW-CARB diet. The weight loss may vary from
person to person, but the loss on low carb diet should be consistent
until reaching a certain percentage of body fat. All you course leaders
out there, who want to really show these people how to loose weight, and
relatively quickly, should look into low to zero carb diets.
Your fat enrollies will be amazed at how much they can eat (as muh fat
and protein as you can eat) and still lose weight. Apparently, the
leaders at LEC and the Forum are as ~unaware~ about proper diet and
nutrition as the general public is.
ND Main
>Landmark
>> under 40?
>>
>
>Hey Alan,
>
>I did all my Lifespring stuff between the ages of 19 and 21.
I was 30 and 31. The folks in the courses
I took were quite a range of ages, from
late teens into their 70s. A lot of 20s and
30s and 40s, probably more 20s and 30s
than 40s or 50s.
ND Main
>Agreements. Yup. ("Anyone who lied on their forms ..." "People
>*have* died at the six day.")
Where and when were you the registrar?
Could you have been the person who gave
me grief about arriving one minute late to
my 6Day?
"You understand that being one minute late
up on the ropes course could mean you or
someone else would be dead right now!"
.. or something like that.
>Resistance? Completion? do you remember any details?
I remember there was a lot about "What you resist persists."
It was part of the discussion about "going full out" in the
course. The morning run was practice for that, and it
was extended into all the course content, but there was
a particular focus on it in the course material on Sunday.
Same with completion. It was an expansion of the same
topic from the Training, but with emphasis on how much
damage is done to ourselves and others by incompleteness.
.>> Monday: Ropes Course. Anger.
>> Breakthrough Process.
>
>Anger? What happened between the Ropes Course and Breakthrough
>Process? Was it just some talk about what we "got" from the ropes
>course? Or was there something specific? Do you remember anything?
There was a lot of sharing after the Ropes course.
We must have done some other things between that
and the start of Anger/Breakthrough... I don't recall.
>Ah yes. The Body Process.
>
>(It's funny. I was in *GREAT* shape then -- and I mean, GREAT -- but I
>was embarrassed and I hated my body during that process.)
I was in better shape then than I am now. But what stood out
to me was that the people who seemed to have the most issues
about their bodies were the best looking people in the room:
in particular, one woman was a fasion model who had been in
magazines, etc. She had the longest list of considerations.
Another guy was a male dancer and also had a bunch of stuff.
Moreso than those of us who didn't use our appearance in our work.
Makes sense to me in retrospect, but was a surprise at the time
that people could look so good and feel so bad.
>Samurai Game and Circle Dance. Forgot about those, too. Do you
>remember any details?
The participants were divided into two teams. The teams went
to opposite ends of the room. There were no chairs in the room
except the throne. One of the trainers was seated on a "throne"
at the middle of one of the long walls. He was the "god."
(Was there more than one god?)
There was some lengthy discourse about Samarai-ism and
how it related to integrity and life and blah blah. I recall that
I felt very left out because I knew absolutely nothing about
Samarai culture, so much of what was said went over my head.
The teams were told to choose a leader, but no specifics
about how to do that. On my team, several of what I will call the
"alpha males" (the physically largest, most outspoken men in the
group) declared their desire to be the leader. We did an impromptu
vote of sorts and one of the guys "won" (or the others backed
down).
The God would declare a battle. The leaders would select and
send a specified number of team members to the middle of the room
to participate in the battle. The battle was carried out by playing
Rock/Paper/Scissors between pairs of participants, one from
each team.
If you lost in the battle, you had to lay down with eyes closed.
If you looked into the eyes of the god, or broke some other
rule, you would be declared dead. Sometimes the God would
tell the leader to "sacrifice" a certain number of team members.
After the battle, assistants would guide the "dead" out into the lobby
where you were to remain laying down with eyes closed. It was at
this point that whatever you were attached to would show up.
Those who were attached to drinking would crave a drink. Those
who were attached to sex would crave sex. Those who were
attached to certain clothes or to television would want those things.
I wanted to go home and smoke a joint.
>
>As I recall Samurai Game, it was a buildup and lead-in to an enrollment
>game. I remember thinking that at the time, in fact, even though I was
>totally into and immersed in WE&A. I do recall feeling pretty ripped
>off, like "this is all about bringing guests." Can you say anything to
>trigger my memories of what that was really about?
>
>Why have I suppressed all my memories of the six day?
Maybe you are still honoring your agreement to keep some of
the course content "secret." As Estie pointed out, the Breakthrough
Process was a big secret. So was Sex Night. There was considerable
coaching about not sharing details of those with outsiders.
I don't recall the Samarai Game having anything to do with
enrollment, but since Pam says it happened at a different time
in her 6Day, maybe it was used differently over the years.
Here's my updated course outline, based on more reflection
and input from posts here. Feel free to rearrange and expand
it:
Saturday:
Arrival.
No air standing in line close together.
Videos.
Canned Speech.
Fire drill.
Agreements.
Opportunity to leave.
Sunday:
Morning exercises and run.
Resistance.
Going Full Out.
Completion.
Samarai Game?
(Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
Monday:
Ropes Course.
Anger.
Breakthrough Process.
Tuesday:
Morning exercises and run.
Resentments and Regrets.
Standup/Sitdown, Sex Night.
Wednesday:
Morning exercises and run.
Body process.
Getting Off Our Acts.
Showing videos from Day 1.
Haircutting.
Thursday:
Morning exercises and run.
Restitution.
U.S.
Attachments.
Samarai Game?
Dancing.
Friday:
Morning exercises and run.
Enrollment in Mastery of Empowerment.
Going home.
ND Main
>follow instructions (and not have horrible accidents) *during* the
>ropes course?
>
>I don't remember.
>
>Standup/sitdown is a great exercise about "being present." If you
>screwed up, the course leader would ask "what were you listening to?"
>It really made me aware of what I really listen to a lot of the time.
I was thinking that it wasn't so early in the
course, but you could be right. If so, then it
had to be Sunday, since we started the ropes
course early in the day on Monday.
I'd done it in a seminar series prior to the
6Day, so it seemed old hat by then. However,
we did it for much longer in the 6Day than
we had in the seminar. Well over an hour,
I'm sure. So long that the trainers traded off
during the process.
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> >Agreements. Yup. ("Anyone who lied on their forms ..." "People
> >*have* died at the six day.")
>
> Where and when were you the registrar?
In the NY six day office in 1989 and 1990.
> Could you have been the person who gave
> me grief about arriving one minute late to
> my 6Day?
No. You did the six day earlier than I was involved. But I probably
would have. The six day was black and white and operated with a high
level of integrity. I think there's something to be said for bringing
those qualities to our everyday lives.
> >Why have I suppressed all my memories of the six day?
>
> Maybe you are still honoring your agreement to keep some of
> the course content "secret." As Estie pointed out, the Breakthrough
> Process was a big secret. So was Sex Night. There was considerable
> coaching about not sharing details of those with outsiders.
No, I don't think that's it. I mean, I do think there's a big taboo
about talking about some of what transpired during the six day, but I
think that may have had something to do with preserving the shock value
for future courses.
I think the reason I'm suppressing all of this is that it's connected
to a lot of pain and abuse and pathology that are not pleasant for me
to think about. Go reread what I wrote the other day about how the six
day impacted my life. It's in the "hair factor" thread.
> Here's my updated course outline, based on more reflection
> and input from posts here. Feel free to rearrange and expand
> it:
snip, and thanks
> Sunday:
> Samarai Game?
I'm pretty sure this was Thursday night when I did the course. Samurai
Game into enrollment game.
ND Main
>No. You did the six day earlier than I was involved. But I probably
>would have. The six day was black and white and operated with a high
>level of integrity. I think there's something to be said for bringing
>those qualities to our everyday lives.
I wasn't complaining. I deserved to have it pointed out that
I was one minute late. I started out with plenty of time,
but on the freeway I discovered I was driving along next
to an old friend I hadn't seen in years. We pulled over to chat,
and I misjudged the time it would take to complete the trip.
>> >Why have I suppressed all my memories of the six day?
>No, I don't think that's it. I mean, I do think there's a big taboo
>about talking about some of what transpired during the six day, but I
>think that may have had something to do with preserving the shock value
>for future courses.
>
>I think the reason I'm suppressing all of this is that it's connected
>to a lot of pain and abuse and pathology that are not pleasant for me
>to think about. Go reread what I wrote the other day about how the six
>day impacted my life. It's in the "hair factor" thread.
I hear ya. After the 6Day, I joined a small group (four of us)
in my geographical area. We met weekly (or maybe every other
week) to "keep the 6 Day alive and support each other."
I broke off from that group after a few months when the difference
between support and make wrong got really muddy.
>I'm pretty sure this was Thursday night when I did the course. Samurai
>Game into enrollment game.
Yep, Thursday.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19990524120617...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> > Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> > and a few folks were overweight and had a
> > "special" diet.
>
> It was "labeled" as the Pritikin diet...
I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet that
was significantly different from what most people are used to), how much
to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when to
get up.
They told us how much water to drink.
They told us when to go to the bathroom.
They told us how to fix our hair.
They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
They told us how to act and how to think.
And on the seventh day God rested.
- Estie
--
"If god had meant man to think, he wouldn't have invented gurus." -STL
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> >Wasn't standup/sitdown *before* the ropes course, to condition us to
> >follow instructions (and not have horrible accidents) *during* the
> >ropes course?
That's what they *said.*
> >Standup/sitdown is a great exercise about "being present." If you
> >screwed up, the course leader would ask "what were you listening to?"
> >It really made me aware of what I really listen to a lot of the time.
Standup/sitdown is a great exercise in standing up when the Leader says
to stand up and sitting down when the Leader says to sit down.
Roll over.
Play dead.
Give me your paw.
Speak.
Don't forget the daily room inspections. One small wrinkle in the
bottom sheet of your bed and you didn't pass. One water drop in the
shower and you didn't pass.
ND Main
>I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet that
>was significantly different from what most people are used to), how much
>to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
>
>They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when to
>get up.
>
>They told us how much water to drink.
>
>They told us when to go to the bathroom.
>
>They told us how to fix our hair.
>
>They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
>
>They told us how to act and how to think.
>
>And on the seventh day God rested.
I think I'm starting to see the light. *They* made up all these
rules and told us what to do every moment of the 6 days...
just so *they* could feel like gods and so we would become used to being kicked
around and controlled. There was no value in self-analysis
ND Main
Estie wrote:
>I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet that
>was significantly different from what most people are used to), how much
>to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
>
>They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when to
>get up.
>
>They told us how much water to drink.
>
>They told us when to go to the bathroom.
>
>They told us how to fix our hair.
>
>They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
>
>They told us how to act and how to think.
>
>And on the seventh day God rested.
I'm starting to see the light now.
I'm beginning to understand.
*They* made up all these rules and told us
what to do every minute of the six days, just
so *they* could feel like gods and so we would
become used to being kicked around and controlled.
The trainers didn't really want to make my life better,
they just wanted to make me into a sheep for their
profit machine. They put in all those long hours
because they made such huge salaries at my expense.
The changes I made for the better in my health and
habits after the six day were just coincidence. The
increased vitality I felt was an illusion. That I went
back out to the site and assisted a few times proves
I was under *their* spell.
It was a false high that rubbed off a few weeks later
and left me searching for the next high.... as you can
tell by all the other courses I took since then and
how little the 6Day means to me now.
Steve
ND Main
>In article <19990524145547...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
>> >Wasn't standup/sitdown *before* the ropes course, to condition us to
>> >follow instructions (and not have horrible accidents) *during* the
>> >ropes course?
I didn't write that, Larry did.
>That's what they *said.*
>
>> >Standup/sitdown is a great exercise about "being present." If you
>> >screwed up, the course leader would ask "what were you listening to?"
>> >It really made me aware of what I really listen to a lot of the time.
I didn't write that, either. Larry did.
>Standup/sitdown is a great exercise in standing up when the Leader says
>to stand up and sitting down when the Leader says to sit down.
>
>Roll over.
>
>Play dead.
>
>Give me your paw.
>
>Speak.
Shucks. Must have been my special 6 Day again. We
didn't get to do Roll Over, Play Dead, Give Me Your Paw,
or Speak. We only got to do Stand Up and Sit Down.
Over and over and over...
>Don't forget the daily room inspections. One small wrinkle in the
>bottom sheet of your bed and you didn't pass. One water drop in the
>shower and you didn't pass.
We learned how to get even those stray hairs off the sink.
Oh yeah, and there was the day when the trainer told us that
we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
had kept the agreements. hehe
Raina Beurle
ND Main wrote in message <19990525030137...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
But of course that was just to get you to recommit and be more committed.
It would have been interesting if everybody went "Of course.. you're
right, we're hopeless at keeping our agreements and so we better go home."
We had a swag of people travel from Australia to do the six day courses in
the days before discounted airfares and direct flights - I could really see
them pulling out after having invested that kind of time and money and then
having to explain why you were back from your program early. They really
would have looked like they'd been ripped off then.
love miss raina
ND Main
>We had a swag of people travel from Australia to do the six day courses in
>the days before discounted airfares and direct flights - I could really see
>them pulling out after having invested that kind of time and money and then
>having to explain why you were back from your program early. They really
>would have looked like they'd been ripped off then.
One of the days I assisted ropes and breakthrough, there was a "swag" of people
from Australia who had paid to do the seven
day. At the time, I thought they looked like
they'd been ripped off. ::grin::
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Estie wrote:
> >Don't forget the daily room inspections. One small wrinkle in the
> >bottom sheet of your bed and you didn't pass. One water drop in the
> >shower and you didn't pass.
>
> We learned how to get even those stray hairs off the sink.
Not to mention the stray hairs on the *toilet*.
Wow! I forgot all about the room inspections and the cleaning.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
Then explain to me why everything was about the "badness" of the Self?
Not the goodness. Not what you could do with that Goodness?
At every aspect of the course you were looking at your failings, your
drama, your badness...
That is why I guess "they" could get away with saying "they" weren't
psychotherapy...because *NO* psychotherapist worth their degree would
*EVER* concentrate on the Badness of a person and then build them up into
the "goodness" image that "they" wanted.
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990525020755...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> Estie wrote:
>
> >I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet that
> >was significantly different from what most people are used to), how much
> >to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
> >
> >They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when to
> >get up.
> >
> >They told us how much water to drink.
> >
> >They told us when to go to the bathroom.
> >
> >They told us how to fix our hair.
> >
> >They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
> >
> >They told us how to act and how to think.
> >
> >And on the seventh day God rested.
>
> I think I'm starting to see the light. *They* made up all these
> rules and told us what to do every moment of the 6 days...
> just so *they* could feel like gods and so we would become used to being
kicked
>
> around and controlled. There was no value in self-analysis
>
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990525022941...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> Oops... somehow I hit the send button prematurely.
>
> Estie wrote:
>
> >I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet that
> >was significantly different from what most people are used to), how much
> >to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
> >
> >They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when to
> >get up.
> >
> >They told us how much water to drink.
> >
> >They told us when to go to the bathroom.
> >
> >They told us how to fix our hair.
> >
> >They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
> >
> >They told us how to act and how to think.
> >
> >And on the seventh day God rested.
I'm going to suggest this to you Steve...and maybe in the process of your
reflecting upon this you may want to stop posting and read for *value* in
what we are posting in this thread.
What my suggestion is Steve, stop attacking those that are posting on this
thread. You are coming across to me that you are holding onto some
~possibility~ that is what you created and you are thus appearing to be
threatened by the ~stories~ that are coming up here. I haven't even posted
mine yet. I can imagine your glee in how you will belittle and shatter all
that I post to fit into *your* ~possibility~. You really need to step back,
take a deep breath and ~listen~. You may find out some things that make you
very uncomfortable. Things that may begin to create doubt about what really
did happen. And you may finally realize that what you went through and what
others went through...well, it wasn't the same. I can only hope that you
would gain *respect* for what others went through. Doesn't seem to be
something that comes with the LEC/WE&A/est package deal though.
> I'm starting to see the light now.
> I'm beginning to understand.
>
> *They* made up all these rules and told us
> what to do every minute of the six days, just
> so *they* could feel like gods and so we would
> become used to being kicked around and controlled.
> The trainers didn't really want to make my life better,
> they just wanted to make me into a sheep for their
> profit machine. They put in all those long hours
> because they made such huge salaries at my expense.
That was uncalled for Steve. Does nothing to create a space for listening.
Lets those that have not posted yet know that you will become defensive to
*anything* that does not match up to your ~experience~.
> The changes I made for the better in my health and
> habits after the six day were just coincidence. The
> increased vitality I felt was an illusion. That I went
> back out to the site and assisted a few times proves
> I was under *their* spell.
I'm happy for you that your diet changes were for the better. The food at
the Six Day was not for my body type at all. In fact that diet was *based*
upon what the *real* diet was...maybe I would have faired better under the
real diet. The increased vitality...now that is an interesting
one...adrenaline is a wonderful thing ain't it?
> It was a false high that rubbed off a few weeks later
> and left me searching for the next high.... as you can
> tell by all the other courses I took since then and
> how little the 6Day means to me now.
If the Six Day means so little to you...then why are you even on this
thread? Other then what I believe you to be here for...I would just like to
hear it from you I guess.
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
with their noise. Appears that Steve has far more ~value~ attached to these
disruptions...
I would like to know Steve what you are expecting from your posting to this
thread.
Right now I see diversion, cutsy replies and shut downs to the
conversations that are going on. I also see someone that really doesn't
want this conversation to occur without diminishing what is being said.
What are *you* afraid of Steve?
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990525032406...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> miss raina wrote:
> >We had a swag of people travel from Australia to do the six day courses
in
> >the days before discounted airfares and direct flights - I could really
see
> >them pulling out after having invested that kind of time and money and
then
> >having to explain why you were back from your program early. They
really
> >would have looked like they'd been ripped off then.
>
> One of the days I assisted ropes and breakthrough, there was a "swag" of
people
> from Australia who had paid to do the seven
> day. At the time, I thought they looked like
> they'd been ripped off. ::grin::
>
> Steve
>
ND Main
>
>Wow! I forgot all about the room inspections and the cleaning.
If you or any of your roommates was ever late
for a session, I bet you haven't forgotten that.
hehe
ND Main
>I would like to know Steve what you are expecting from your posting to this
>thread.
I'm expecting to rekindle some memories of the 6 Day in
others who took the course, so I can subsequently enjoy
reading about their experiences of the 6Day.
That's really about all I expect.
>Right now I see diversion, cutsy replies and shut downs to the
>conversations that are going on. I also see someone that really doesn't
>want this conversation to occur without diminishing what is being said.
>What are *you* afraid of Steve?
Diversion from what?
Cutesy replies, okay, I'm guilty.
Shutdowns? Not my intention. If anything, I'd like to grow
or continue the conversation.
I'm afraid of global disasters. I'm afraid of being in high
places without much to hang on to. I'm afraid of becomiing
tongue tied when speaking in front of a large group of
people. I'm afraid of losing my job and having it be a
struggle to find another one. I'm afraid of becoming sick
or disabled.
What do think I'm afraid of?
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990525112555...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> Pam wrote:
>
> >I would like to know Steve what you are expecting from your posting to
this
> >thread.
>
> I'm expecting to rekindle some memories of the 6 Day in
> others who took the course, so I can subsequently enjoy
> reading about their experiences of the 6Day.
How can you *enjoy* what is posted here? Could you explain that to me?
Learning I could understand. But *enjoy*?
What my reference to "afraid" was about...is that you seem to be indirectly
belittling the "negative" experiences that are coming up and being posted.
I am suggesting to you some things and you have glossed right over it
all..I am specifically asking what you are afraid of in direct relation to
what is being posted that you may not find "enjoyable". Why is is when more
comes up that can be significant you seem to be finding a need to
"belittle" it with "humor". Silence can be appropriate in this thread.
Listening can be very appropriate too. Hopefully you may learn something
about yourself.
-pam
jim_...@my-dejanews.com
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Right now I see diversion, cutsy replies and shut downs to the
> conversations that are going on. I also see someone that really
doesn't
> want this conversation to occur without diminishing what is being
said.
> What are *you* afraid of Steve?
Uh...(raises hand in meek way). I don't wish to disrupt this
conversation, I agree with Jen there is a lot here that is very "heavy"
and I would like to remain sensitive to the emotions that are being
expressed. I did not go through any of this six day stuff so I have no
experiential insight to add.
I do have an observation, though. Maybe it can be viewed as somewhat
objective <maybe not :)>.
It occurs to me that all the people on this thread have had the
experience that they had. Some were very painful, others were mildly
painful, and still others did not experience pain at all. While others
say that they ~got~ all this great stuff. All these experiences
appear, to me, to be real for the people who experienced them. In my
view to deny one is to deny the other.
When a "pro" has a good experience they are told by a "con" that they
are somehow in denial to the manipulation/control, abuse etc. etc. When
a "con" has something to share a "pro" starts ranting about the victim
thing, rackets yada yada yada. We go round and round and round.
The interesting thing in what happens in these instances is this (for
me): It occurs to me that a well developed defense mechanism is in
place for both sides, which shuts down the conversation.
They had their experience - Period. When that experience is diminished
by the oppossing view ("throwing mud") at that experience, the person
with the ~share~ may feel somehow threatened (Happens on both sides of
the arguement, BTW), like their experience is invalidated. This
defensiveness is apparently a very strong human drive, that maybe said
to be critical to survival but at the same time creates what I perceive
to be very strong tensions which has a tendency to shut down the
conversation.
The following are examples to make my point clear. I apologise in
advance to those individuals mentioned. They are not intended as a
"slam" or to single individuals out (I have observed this with all
posters here, myself included; they just happen to be the most recent
examples I can come up) but rather as a way to make clear the general
statement above.
Two examples: Steve appears to be defending his experience as a result
of what he may perceive to be attacks on that experience (for example
Estie questioning whether he actually did the same work).
Pam appears to be defending her experience as a result of disagreement
with Steve in terms of his experience. I recall a ~share~ that Steve
had (in this thread) in which he said he ~got~ all this great stuff.
Pam's response was (what I perceived to be) a cynical/satiric response
of "clap, clap, clap - thanks for sharing".
How about recognizing that there is no "global" experience in doing
LEC? People experience what they experience and it doesn't appear to
always be the same.
Regards,
Jim
ND Main
>Then explain to me why everything was about the "badness" of the Self?
My experience was not that *everything* was about the
"badness" of the Self.
I heard the word "magnificence" a lot in the courses I took.
The Self was presented as the source of creation. If there was
a "badness," though that word was rarely if ever used, it was
in discussions about the Mind, as distinct from the Self.
The Mind, which does little more than record and play back
experiences based on their survival value, was the "bad guy."
At least that's how I remember it being presented.
Much of the course content and many of the exercises were
about identifying the various ways that the playing back of
the Mind's records limits the magnificent Self from expressing
itself fully or from creating new things.
>Not the goodness. Not what you could do with that Goodness?
>
>At every aspect of the course you were looking at your failings, your
>drama, your badness...
I suppoe it depends on why you were there. If you took the
courses with the expectation that they would provide an
opportunity for growth and value, then perhaps you would
welcome the insights about the ways that we might limit
ourselves.
When I took the courses, I saw lots of people talk about
success and aliveness and good things. But then, that's what
I was there looking for. If I'd been there under duress or
to please my mommy and daddy, perhaps my experience would
have been different. Maybe all I would have been able to
see then would have been my nose being rubbed in my own
shit over and over.
>That is why I guess "they" could get away with saying "they" weren't
>psychotherapy...because *NO* psychotherapist worth their degree would
>*EVER* concentrate on the Badness of a person and then build them up into
>the "goodness" image that "they" wanted.
Good point.
Since I've been reading this newsgroup, I've "met" people like
you and Estie who suffered psychologically or experienced
some disability as a result of taking the courses or as a result
of working for the companies that sponsored the courses.
I see, from reading about other people's experiences, that
there are thousands of people who had bad experiences.
And there are thousands more who were not damaged or
disabled by the courses, who found either great or small
value in them. My guess is that the folks who found value
far outnumber the ones who were damaged, despite Estie's
assertion that we were all damaged and we just don't
recognize that we were damaged.
If even one person was hurt, that's bad. I'm glad you are here
doing whatever you do to try to change things, so that
nobody else gets hurt.
Steve
ND Main
>I'm going to suggest this to you Steve...and maybe in the process of your
>reflecting upon this you may want to stop posting and read for *value* in
>what we are posting in this thread.
>
>What my suggestion is Steve, stop attacking those that are posting on this
>thread. You are coming across to me that you are holding onto some
>~possibility~ that is what you created and you are thus appearing to be
>threatened by the ~stories~ that are coming up here. I haven't even posted
>mine yet. I can imagine your glee in how you will belittle and shatter all
>that I post to fit into *your* ~possibility~. You really need to step back,
>take a deep breath and ~listen~. You may find out some things that make you
>very uncomfortable. Things that may begin to create doubt about what really
>did happen. And you may finally realize that what you went through and what
>others went through...well, it wasn't the same. I can only hope that you
>would gain *respect* for what others went through. Doesn't seem to be
>something that comes with the LEC/WE&A/est package deal though.
This thread is about the 6 Day course, Pam.
I'm not attacking anyone. If you feel attacked by what I'm posting
here, why are you taking it personally?
There are many different stories and experiences of the 6 Day,
including Estie's and yours and Larry's and mine. We saw the
course differently. The courses may indeed have been a little
different, since we all took it at different times and places.
My experience is no less valid than yours. Yours is no less
valid than mine. Is there some purpose to this newsgroup other
than to share our experiences and points of view, and debate
the issues we disagree about, and investigate our varying points
of view together?
>> I'm starting to see the light now.
>> I'm beginning to understand.
>>
>> *They* made up all these rules and told us
>> what to do every minute of the six days, just
>> so *they* could feel like gods and so we would
>> become used to being kicked around and controlled.
>> The trainers didn't really want to make my life better,
>> they just wanted to make me into a sheep for their
>> profit machine. They put in all those long hours
>> because they made such huge salaries at my expense.
>
>That was uncalled for Steve. Does nothing to create a space for listening.
>Lets those that have not posted yet know that you will become defensive to
>*anything* that does not match up to your ~experience~.
Are you going to let my "defensiveness" (your term)
stop you from posting? Do you think it stops anyone else?
>> The changes I made for the better in my health and
>> habits after the six day were just coincidence. The
>> increased vitality I felt was an illusion. That I went
>> back out to the site and assisted a few times proves
>> I was under *their* spell.
>
>I'm happy for you that your diet changes were for the better. The food at
>the Six Day was not for my body type at all. In fact that diet was *based*
>upon what the *real* diet was...maybe I would have faired better under the
>real diet. The increased vitality...now that is an interesting
>one...adrenaline is a wonderful thing ain't it?
I didn't say I changed my diet. In fact, I implied that I didn't
by commenting that the only place I ever ate porridge was
at the Six Day. Adrenaline is great, and temporary.
Increased vitality, as demonstrated by endurance and
sleep patterns and enthusiasm, is not all due to temporary
spurts of adrenaline.
>> It was a false high that rubbed off a few weeks later
>> and left me searching for the next high.... as you can
>> tell by all the other courses I took since then and
>> how little the 6Day means to me now.
>
>If the Six Day means so little to you...then why are you even on this
>thread? Other then what I believe you to be here for...I would just like to
>hear it from you I guess.
If it wasn't clear, I was being facetious throughout my post,
including the last paragraph. I took no other est courses after
the Six Day, and as I spoke to in another post, I found tremendous
value in the Six Day.
Why am I here? I addressed that somewhat above. I enjoy
remembering the Six Day and reading what others say about it.
I think Larry does, too, even if he feels some pain about it.
I can't go take the Six Day again, since it no longer exists,
so perhaps the closest I can get to it is to remember it and to
chat about it with others who have done it. In doing so, I get
even more value from the course itself. And, perhaps I'll see
some of what happened to me in a new light... like the one I
hope you'll shine on it for me.
watch...@my-dejanews.com
jim_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Uh...(raises hand in meek way). I don't wish to disrupt this
> conversation, I agree with Jen there is a lot here that is very
"heavy"
> and I would like to remain sensitive to the emotions that are being
> expressed. I did not go through any of this six day stuff so I have no
> experiential insight to add.
>
> I do have an observation, though. Maybe it can be viewed as somewhat
> objective <maybe not :)>.
Nicely put Jim.
> It occurs to me that all the people on this thread have had the
> experience that they had. Some were very painful, others were mildly
> painful, and still others did not experience pain at all. While others
> say that they ~got~ all this great stuff. All these experiences
> appear, to me, to be real for the people who experienced them. In my
> view to deny one is to deny the other.
>
> When a "pro" has a good experience they are told by a "con" that they
> are somehow in denial to the manipulation/control, abuse etc. etc.
>When
> a "con" has something to share a "pro" starts ranting about the victim
> thing, rackets yada yada yada. We go round and round and round.
Speaking as an independent "con" here, I don't deny that positive and
negative experiences happen as a result of doing these things. A few
will be "born-agains", others will see this as "the work of the devil",
and, as I see it, the vast majority in the middle who take the classes,
and move on, with an equally vast range of ~experiences~ in between. As
for the pro-side, I don't deny that some exposure to pyschotherapeutic
processes will be some positive effects for those who are alienated or
have other social problems, and the same is true for the negative
effects. This is not an endorsement of the trainings by any means, but
my outlook on the futility of the pro/con experience debates.
> The interesting thing in what happens in these instances is this (for
> me): It occurs to me that a well developed defense mechanism is in
> place for both sides, which shuts down the conversation.
The problem is that by keeping the debate centered around constant
exchanges between these subjective experiences, it never addresses the
underlying problem, which is the behavior of the corporation itself. It
may help to solve personal or individual problems in regards to the
trainings though, to vent this stuff.
> How about recognizing that there is no "global" experience in doing
> LEC? People experience what they experience and it doesn't appear to
> always be the same.
While there may be no "global" experience in doing LEC, there is
definately a consistant behavior to the way in which LEC operates, and
the means it uses to profit as a corporation. The overwhelmingly
positive experiences generated by a few participants, to me, doesn't
justify those kinds of behaviors and/or motives.
ND Main
The Way of Transformation
The man who, being really on the Way, falls upon hard
times in the world will not, as a consequence, turn to
that friend who offers him refuge and comfort and
encourages his old self to survive. Rather, he will
seek out someone who will faithfully and inexorably
help him to risk himself, so that he may endure the
suffering and pass courageously through it, thus
making of it a "raft that leads to the far shore."
Only to the extent that man exposes himself over and
over again to annihilation, can that which is
indestructible arise within him. In this lies the
dinity of daring. Thus, the aim of practice is not to
develop an attitude which allows a man to acquire a
state of harmony and peace wherein nothing can ever
trouble him. On the contrary, practice should teach
him to let himself be assaulted, perturbed, moved,
insulted, broken and battered--that is to say, it
should enable him to dare to let go his futile
hankering after harmony, surcease from pain, and a
comfortable life in order that he may discover, in
doing battle with the forces that oppose him, that
which awaits him beyond the world of opposites. The
first necessity is that we should have the courage to
face life, and to encounter all that is most perilous
in the world. When this is possible, meditation itself
becomes the means by which we accept and welcome the
demons which arise from the unconscious--a process
very different from the practice of concentration on
some object as a protection against such forces. Only
if we venture repeatedly through zones of annihilation
can our contact with Divine Being, which is beyond
annihilation, become firm and stable. The more a man
learns whole-heartedly to confront the world that
threatens him with isolation, the more are the depths
of the Ground of Being revealed and the possibilities
of new life and Becoming opened.
From the book The Way of Transformation
by Karoed Graf von Diirckheim
ND Main
>How can you *enjoy* what is posted here? Could you explain that to me?
Hmm... could this belie a basic difference between how you and
I approach life that also contributes to why I found value in the
Six Day and you didn't?
I enjoy being challenged. I enjoy putting myself up against
those things that I think I can't do and then doing them.
I enjoy remembering times when I accomplished things
in spite of my fears about the thing. I enjoy learning about
myself and others and the way things are in the world.
I enjoy reading most of the posts in this newsgroup (except
maybe a few of Patrick's). I enjoy remembering times when
I felt pain and lived through those times. I enjoy remembering
times when I felt immensely connected to other people--
and one of those times was in the Six Day. I enjoy seeing
examples of how people live very different lives -- even
to the point where we seem to come from different planets
altogether.
In certain contexts, like this one, I even enjoy having folks
rub my nose in my shit, because on those occasions
when it gets past all my tremendous defensiveness, I get to
learn and grow and mature and my life seems to be the
better for it. When that happens, it often makes clear to me
the ways that my shit stops me from being as effective as
I could be in my work and in my relationships.
I also enjoy sitting on the beach in the sun sipping a beer.
But not for too long.
>Learning I could understand. But *enjoy*?
>
>What my reference to "afraid" was about...is that you seem to be indirectly
>belittling the "negative" experiences that are coming up and being posted.
>I am suggesting to you some things and you have glossed right over it
>all..I am specifically asking what you are afraid of in direct relation to
>what is being posted that you may not find "enjoyable". Why is is when more
>comes up that can be significant you seem to be finding a need to
>"belittle" it with "humor". Silence can be appropriate in this thread.
>Listening can be very appropriate too. Hopefully you may learn something
>about yourself.
I'm glad that you see what I'm doing as "indirectly belittling the negative
experiences"...as opposed to "directly" and as opposed to "belittling the
people" who are posting. I would call what I'm doing, "sharing another
point of view." If you see it as "indirectly belittling," then I assert that
says
more about your reaction than about my intention.
Why are you trying to shut me up? What are you afraid of?
ND Main
>I understand exactly .. the people that came back that I have spoken to were
>'struck' by that course. What's that saying "If you couldn't laugh, you'd
>cry" - I think that this is apt here for those that I know.
>
>I suppose Steve that the point I was making is one of seeing and being seen
>to receive value so that you are not perceived as a fool by yourself or
>others. The relationship arising from investment of time and money is a
>useful leverage with people (and one that is not unrecognised by LEC).
>
>People from Australia not only travelled all that way to do a program. In
>addition to incurring the expense of the program they incurred additional
>expense for the trip both in terms of time and money. People tend to value
>things they have paid a lot for ... in this case they paid at least
>emotionally, physically, financially and temporally .... I 'm not talking
>about cerebral lobes (although no doubt there was a cost there also) I mean
>that they paid with their time.
Yep, I understand.
I never did the seven day, though I met a lot of people who did.
They got much less sleep than the participants in the 6 Day.
They did an amazing amount of work under extreme conditions.
And they paid $150 for the priviledge (in addition to the air fare
and other expenses, if they came from Australia).
I admired them for their contribution and for finding value
in it, but I had no desire to do what they did.
"If you couldn't laugh, you'd cry" seems very appropriate
for what they seemed to put themselves through.
larrry...@my-dejanews.com
Vaguely, if at all.
In the decade since I've done the six day, I've come to appreciate
refuge and comfort and survival of my old self, and people who can
provide those things.
ND Main
>Vaguely, if at all.
It was a handout at the end of the 6Day,
nicely printed on good quality paper. One
might say suitable for framing. I thought of
it as the 6Day equivalent of the little book of aphorisms
that they gave us at the end of the Training.
>In the decade since I've done the six day, I've come to appreciate
>refuge and comfort and survival of my old self, and people who can
>provide those things.
I hear that.
Life doesn't have to be so hard, eh?
dhchase
>
> Pam wrote:
>
> >As a side note...no water was provided *before* the exercises and run.
> >
> >For those that do not understand the significance of that...you become
> >dehydrated.
>
> I didn't notice that.
>
> I do remember being required to drink
> several glasses of water all at once at the end
> of the classroom work one day, not sure
> which day that was.
>
> However, when I assisted Ropes and
> Breakthrough, I was chosen to be a
> "sprinter" at the morning run.
> That meant it was my job to sprint off the
> start line, setting as fast a pace as possible
> in order to encourage, by example, the participants in the course to do the
> same.
The psychology of group behaviour is very intersting to me.
You can do this with food with interesting results... Especially
speeding up, I've seen people practically choke and gasp for air to keep
up with a fast pace setter...
Slowing down is a bit more difficult, to get people to match your slower
eating pace requires a longer time of role modelling, but people will
speed up very quickly, Something about survival, I think...
We *really* are such herd animals.
> When I was in the course, even though
> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
> so did other participants I talked to.
Does this demonstrate an example of some kind of out of integrity
condition? :-)
> The idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
> happened in the later part of the run, just
> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
What happens if you try to sprint for the whole time?
Linda
dhchase
>
> In article <19990525030137...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
>
> > Estie wrote:
> > >Don't forget the daily room inspections. One small wrinkle in the
> > >bottom sheet of your bed and you didn't pass. One water drop in the
> > >shower and you didn't pass.
> >
> > We learned how to get even those stray hairs off the sink.
>
> Not to mention the stray hairs on the *toilet*.
>
Sounding more and more like the Jaimca Bay Resort. :-P
Raina Beurle
ND Main wrote in message <19990525032406...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>miss raina wrote:
>>We had a swag of people travel from Australia to do the six day courses in
>>the days before discounted airfares and direct flights - I could really
see
>>them pulling out after having invested that kind of time and money and
then
>>having to explain why you were back from your program early. They really
>>would have looked like they'd been ripped off then.
>
>One of the days I assisted ropes and breakthrough, there was a "swag" of
people
>from Australia who had paid to do the seven
>day. At the time, I thought they looked like
>they'd been ripped off. ::grin::
I understand exactly .. the people that came back that I have spoken to were
'struck' by that course. What's that saying "If you couldn't laugh, you'd
cry" - I think that this is apt here for those that I know.
I suppose Steve that the point I was making is one of seeing and being seen
to receive value so that you are not perceived as a fool by yourself or
others. The relationship arising from investment of time and money is a
useful leverage with people (and one that is not unrecognised by LEC).
People from Australia not only travelled all that way to do a program. In
addition to incurring the expense of the program they incurred additional
expense for the trip both in terms of time and money. People tend to value
things they have paid a lot for ... in this case they paid at least
emotionally, physically, financially and temporally .... I 'm not talking
about cerebral lobes (although no doubt there was a cost there also) I mean
that they paid with their time.
love miss raina
patrick
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01bea5c6$ec0af000$a678490c@default>,
> "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
> > > Meals were Priticin(sp?) diet,
> > > and a few folks were overweight and had a
> > > "special" diet.
> >
> > It was "labeled" as the Pritikin diet...
>
> I think the object was to tell us when to eat, what to eat (a diet
that
> was significantly different from what most people are used to), how
much
> to eat, and how to season (no salt) our food.
>
> They also told us when to go to bed, how much sleep to get, and when
to
> get up.
>
> They told us how much water to drink.
>
> They told us when to go to the bathroom.
>
> They told us how to fix our hair.
>
> They told us what to do every waking minute of the day.
>
> They told us how to act and how to think.
>
> And on the seventh day God rested.
>
>
> --
> "If god had meant man to think, he wouldn't have invented gurus." -STL
>
>
silly silly people, i would assume of course that if the cult
people were to tell u that to believe that THEY ARE A CULT is a
racket would make u feel better and all. and that way u wouldnt
have to think about it
--
In "No Responsibility" there is no love for one
another. In "Mind Control" there is no
responsibility
patrick
Steve have u ever tried to change things for the betterment of
others in the programs, please why or or why not
thanks pat
> One only needs two tools in life:
> WD-40 to make things go, and
> duct tape to make them stop.
> -- G. Weilacher
> -----
>
>
--
patrick
THEY tell u what u dont know u dont know, I tell u ever wonder
what THEY dont want u to know.............................
There is a test for everything !
why all the secrecy
hi rife, havent spoken for a while, hope everything is going good for u
patrick
If they tell u that u are only human and couldnt possiblly get
it right and they say that they have no right, when u say u
liked your programs then are u right
ever wonder what u dont remember
patrick
are u coming back
ND Main
> Steve have u ever tried to change things for the betterment of
>others in the programs, please why or or why not
I did plenty of things that I thought contributed to others when I was involved
in the programs. However, at that
time, I was unaware of anyone being harmed by the
courses, so I didn't see anything to do along the lines
of what you're asking about, i.e. trying to influence the
way the courses were presented or their content.
During the past 14 years, I did not keep in touch with what was happening in
the programs, and I did not associate with people who were active in them.
Until I started reading
this newsgroup a few weeks ago.
Steve
-----
ND Main
>> When I was in the course, even though
>> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
>> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
>> so did other participants I talked to.
Linda asks:
>
>Does this demonstrate an example of some kind of out of integrity
>condition? :-)
I don't think it demonstrates any lack of
integrity. The course participants were not
told to sprint. They were told to run as fast
as possible for the whole run.
There's a difference between sprinting a short
distance and running over a mile. In my opinion,
anyone who is facing a 50 yard dash will start off
differently than someone facing a run of over a mile.
In both cases, it can be described as "going 100%"
or "running as fast as you can" and still it's a
different kind of burst of energy.
>
>> The idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
>> happened in the later part of the run, just
>> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
>
>What happens if you try to sprint for the whole time?
It would be more accurate if instead of saying
" leave the start line at absolutely 100%"
if I had said, "leave the start line as if it was
only a 100 yard dash." -- which is closer to the
words that were actually used.
In my opinion, it's not possible for most of
us to sprint for a mile. We can sprint for a few
hundred yards, and then we'll run more slowly
after that than we would have if we'd started out
a little more paced.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> I think I'm starting to see the light. *They* made up all these
> rules and told us what to do every moment of the 6 days...
> just so *they* could feel like gods and so we would become used to
being kicked
> around and controlled. There was no value in self-analysis
There is indeed value in self-analysis, although you probably got more
Leader-analysis in the 6-Day. Self-analysis is usually done in a far
less regimented environment. Self-analysis doesn't involve the Leader
telling you what your ~act~ is and handling you until you get off it in
front of the group.
When Werner Erhard designed the programs, he always put in enough
"value" for you to think that was what it was about.
I doubt if you'll ever see the light. Insight doesn't seem to be your
strong suit.
- Estie
--
"If god had meant man to think, he wouldn't have invented gurus." -STL
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> The Self was presented as the source of creation.
I hope you realize that's a *theory.*
> Since I've been reading this newsgroup, I've "met" people like
> you and Estie who suffered psychologically or experienced
> some disability as a result of taking the courses or as a result
> of working for the companies that sponsored the courses.
> I see, from reading about other people's experiences, that
> there are thousands of people who had bad experiences.
>
> And there are thousands more who were not damaged or
> disabled by the courses, who found either great or small
> value in them. My guess is that the folks who found value
> far outnumber the ones who were damaged, despite Estie's
> assertion that we were all damaged and we just don't
> recognize that we were damaged.
Wrongo! The vast majority of people who have done the courses, over
time, at the very least now think they weren't worth much.
I'm sure you noticed those two posters on LivingPossibility who think
panic attacks are a healthy part of the enlightenment process?
Pamela Fitzpatrick
proper running shoes...not hydrated properly at all cause they just got out
of bed...
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990525235040...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
> I wrote:
> >> When I was in the course, even though
> >> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
> >> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
> >> so did other participants I talked to.
<snip>
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Oops... somehow I hit the send button prematurely.
Oops...I answered your premature post.
> I'm starting to see the light now.
> I'm beginning to understand.
>
> *They* made up all these rules and told us
> what to do every minute of the six days, just
> so *they* could feel like gods and so we would
> become used to being kicked around and controlled.
> The trainers didn't really want to make my life better,
> they just wanted to make me into a sheep for their
> profit machine. They put in all those long hours
> because they made such huge salaries at my expense.
Everyone likes a smart ass!
I think the trainers were as taken in as the rest of us. I think they
thought they were contributing to the lives of others. They were also
being "big shots." Many of them never would have been as important
outside est as they were inside.
Now, Werner, on the other hand . . .
> The changes I made for the better in my health and
> habits after the six day were just coincidence. The
> increased vitality I felt was an illusion.
You're correct about that. The high was a dissociative state, and
adrenelin really revs you up!
It's amazing the value people put on being high.
ND Main
>Lets all not forget the hills. And that most of the people did not have
>proper running shoes...not hydrated properly at all cause they just got out
>of bed...
And the slippery mud....
It poured rain the day of my ropes course:
Halloween, 1983. Walking out on the
zip line plank in the pouring rain was especially intimidating.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
This thread used to be about the 6-Day course. Now it's about Steve.
The public conversation was altered.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> I remember that the overweight people were weighed each day
> and praised for losing pounds. I remember they were not allowed
> seconds like the rest of us. Maybe that was the only "special"
> thing about their diet. I remember thinking that it seemed silly to
> expect much change in 6 days.
There wasn't much change expected. Only the illusion of change.
And they were also hungry the entire time. A condition that helps to
diminish critical judgment.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> However, when I assisted Ropes and
> Breakthrough, I was chosen to be a
> "sprinter" at the morning run.
>
> That meant it was my job to sprint off the
> start line, setting as fast a pace as possible
> in order to encourage, by example, the participants in the course to
do the
> same.
> When I was in the course, even though
> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
> so did other participants I talked to. The
> idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
> happened in the later part of the run, just
> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
Any chance you see that as manipulative?
Did you ever think to question *WHY* it was desired that the runners who
had to run a mile should start out at a 100-yard dash pace? What
happened to the ones who did? (I wasn't one of them.)
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Oh yeah, and there was the day when the trainer told us that
> we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
> 6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
> or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
> give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
> had kept the agreements. hehe
That was certainly about the "Magnificence of Self." No one made wrong
there.
dhchase
>
> I wrote:
> >> When I was in the course, even though
> >> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
> >> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
> >> so did other participants I talked to.
>
> >
> >Does this demonstrate an example of some kind of out of integrity
> >condition? :-)
>
> I don't think it demonstrates any lack of
> integrity. The course participants were not
> told to sprint. They were told to run as fast
> as possible for the whole run.
And the definition of sprinting is what? :-)
> There's a difference between sprinting a short
> distance and running over a mile. In my opinion,
> anyone who is facing a 50 yard dash will start off
> differently than someone facing a run of over a mile.
> In both cases, it can be described as "going 100%"
> or "running as fast as you can" and still it's a
> different kind of burst of energy.
I agree with that. And therapy is different from the Forum too.
> >> The idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
> >> happened in the later part of the run, just
> >> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
> >
> >What happens if you try to sprint for the whole time?
>
> It would be more accurate if instead of saying
> " leave the start line at absolutely 100%"
> if I had said, "leave the start line as if it was
> only a 100 yard dash." -- which is closer to the
> words that were actually used.
>
> In my opinion, it's not possible for most of
> us to sprint for a mile. We can sprint for a few
> hundred yards, and then we'll run more slowly
> after that than we would have if we'd started out
> a little more paced.
Yes I agree with your comments, and that's the same whether you are
sprinting or if you are exceptionally enthusiastic about something...
ND Main
>And the definition of sprinting is what? :-)
This issue of "What is running 100%?" in the context
of the Six Day run was the subject of no small amount
of discussion among my roommates in the course.
What we agreed on is that there's a
difference between the mindset, the preparation,
the adrenaline level, etc. that affects how one starts out
running depending on how far one plans to run,
despite one's intention to run 100% in either case.
Perhaps it's partly conscious and partly unconscious.
Here's an analogy: If your 2 year old baby wanders out into
the road and a car is coming... there's a difference between
how you run out into the road to save her, compared to
how you run if you're simply responding to a request
that you run around the block as fast as you can, eh?
ND Main
>> When I was in the course, even though
>> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
>> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
>> idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
>> happened in the later part of the run, just
>> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
Estie responded:
>Any chance you see that as manipulative?
Absolutely, it was manipulative.
In the Six Day course, I was lied to, manipulated,
deceived, conned, encouraged to look at the world
and my life from highly unusual perspectives. I was
ridiculed, challenged, deprived of sleep, allowed
limited food and water, pushed "beyond my limits"
both physically and emotionally. Etc.
As with every other participant, by the time I took
the Six Day, I'd already taken the Training. If I'd
had any ignorance about these things happening
in the Training before I took it, I fully expected them
to happen in the Six Day.
>
>Did you ever think to question *WHY* it was desired that the runners who
>had to run a mile should start out at a 100-yard dash pace? What
>happened to the ones who did? (I wasn't one of them.)
"Why" was obvious.
As far as I know, they all survived the run.
ND Main
>> we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
>> 6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
>> or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
>> give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
>> had kept the agreements. hehe
>
>That was certainly about the "Magnificence of Self." No one made wrong
>there.
Estie, it was great theater. And it was blatantly obvious bullshit.
Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that.
The trainer did an amazing job. He really appeared to believe
what he was saying.
Why did you take the Six Day, Estie?
Did you really expect to not be manipulated, lied to,
conned, to have your consciousness altered for a few
days, and have a bunch of your beliefs challenged?
ND Main
>Wrongo! The vast majority of people who have done the courses, over
>time, at the very least now think they weren't worth much.
Where can I find statistics to back up that claim?
I said "my guess is," while you state the above
as fact. So, it must be true, regardless of
whether I think it's true or not.
>I'm sure you noticed those two posters on LivingPossibility who think
>panic attacks are a healthy part of the enlightenment process?
What is "LivingPossibility"?
ND Main
>I doubt if you'll ever see the light. Insight doesn't seem to be your
>strong suit.
Well, sometimes I'm like a bull in a china store, but
I notice that you very frequently switch from discussing
the subject to making ad hominem remarks.
alan
conned, to have your consciousness altered for a few
days, and have a bunch of your beliefs challenged?
Steve
I think all anti thought reform people would agree with you Steve. I'm not
sure you'd get the same agreement about it lasting only a few days though.
I can think of at least three people in this NG whose 'few days' have lasted
10 years or more.
Take my signature for example.. its a joke but it pertains to alot of stuff
discused here. For example, if my last my last mind backup on tape has been
overwritten (by for example, Landmark, what do I have to restore from? How
do I get the virus out without a complete re-installation? Very long
process wouldn't you think? Get the point about this brainwashing stuff?
I can see you have been well and truly indoctrinated...... ;-)
--
... I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
Love Always
Alan
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990526105607...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >> Oh yeah, and there was the day when the trainer told us that
> >> we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
> >> 6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
> >> or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
> >> give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
> >> had kept the agreements. hehe
> >
> >That was certainly about the "Magnificence of Self." No one made wrong
> >there.
>
> Estie, it was great theater. And it was blatantly obvious bullshit.
> Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that.
> The trainer did an amazing job. He really appeared to believe
> what he was saying.
>
> Why did you take the Six Day, Estie?
> Did you really expect to not be manipulated, lied to,
> conned, to have your consciousness altered for a few
> days, and have a bunch of your beliefs challenged?
>
ND Main
>Steve
>
>I think all anti thought reform people would agree with you Steve. I'm not
>sure you'd get the same agreement about it lasting only a few days though.
>I can think of at least three people in this NG whose 'few days' have lasted
>10 years or more.
Alan,
The Six Day lasted six days. The effects of it can last a lifetime.
I don't dispute that. I don't dispute that Estie and Pam and others
had a very negative experience of it and that they suffered
all kinds of ill-effects. And I'm sorry that happened to them.
And I'd like to see Landmark figure out a way to weed out
folks like Estie and Pam from taking their courses, so that
nobody else has such a negative experience.
I only dispute that *everyone* who took the 6 Day suffers so,
and I offer myself as someone who had a very different, very
positive experience of the 6 Day.
Why Estie and Pam took the 6 Day only they can say.
The "con" and the manipulation and confrontation and other
"bad" things about the Six Day were blatantly
obvious in the Training. Everyone who took the 6 Day had to
take the Training first.
If you went to your first horror movie and ended up disturbed,
would you choose to go to a marathon of horror movies a year
later?
patrick
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Patrick asks:
> > Steve have u ever tried to change things for the betterment of
> >others in the programs, please why or or why not
>
> I did plenty of things that I thought contributed to others when I was
involved
> in the programs. However, at that
> time, I was unaware of anyone being harmed by the
> courses, so I didn't see anything to do along the lines
> of what you're asking about, i.e. trying to influence the
> way the courses were presented or their content.
>
> During the past 14 years, I did not keep in touch with what was
happening in
> the programs, and I did not associate with people who were active in
them.
> Until I started reading
> this newsgroup a few weeks ago.
>
> Steve
thank u
>
> -----
> One only needs two tools in life:
> WD-40 to make things go, and
> duct tape to make them stop.
> -- G. Weilacher
> -----
>
>
--
In "No Responsibility" there is no love for one
another. In "Mind Control" there is no
responsibility
alan
I didn't spell my words clearly enough. I never mentioned ~ill effects~, or
~negative experience~, or ~suffering~, or ~disturbed~. I was pointing out,
through reading some people's experiences here, that the 'few days' have
lasted alot longer for some people. I also never mentioned any specific
person. I would also consider 'weeding out' the people that are suitable
for the course, not the ones who are not, you'd have far LESS work to do.
You know, pop down to the local library and get the eloctoral register of
everyone over 40, or sit on a bus and enroll everyone that complains about
the price of bacon these days. You get the picture..... enroll your
average everyday sorry sad git that doesn't know any better
--
... I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
Love Always
Alan
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990526131013...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990526104656...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
No, the "why" isn't obvious. Please educate me to why this would be the
desired way to do a one mile run...that has half of the course going up a
steep hill.
As far as to "surviving" the run. No. I was belittled *publically* about my
inability to run. I was not informed beforehand that the run would be for a
mile, let alone it would be mostly uphill. I was told about a run...since I
ran track I was of the thought that this would be "okay" and I could deal
with this *despite* the fact that I had severe shinsplits in high school.
Now, keep in mind that my "husband" had *privelaged* information. He *knew*
that I would be *required* to not only run uphill but at full tilt the
entire time.
Big deal, right? Well, to the Trainers it ended up being a big deal when I
had to *publically* request to walk the course. I received the integrity
speech. I received the "keeping my commitment" speech. That I falsely
filled out the medical information. And that I was not "playing by the
rules". I committed to the run and I was breaking my commitment. I was
hauled off into an office for what appeared to be a long time to me (no
watch). To be further interrogated. I *knew* that if I continued to *run*
that course I would do irreversible damage to myself. There was *zero*
listening for that.
What I don't get at all is that I was *fine* before I went into this Six
Day. I was lied to and deceived. Thus I could not keep my word nor my
integrity. The secrecy about all that goes on made it impossible for me to
make an informed decision and as a result I was always *wrong*.
So, that was one *tiny* part of the Six Day for me. Where I wasn't allowed
to take care of myself. All they heard was excuses...and my breaking my
word/commitment/integrity.
What I ended up realizing is that I could not "win" *ever* with them or
with my husband because the rules were *never* clearly defined. And shifted
at whim.
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990526105607...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
> >> Oh yeah, and there was the day when the trainer told us that
> >> we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
> >> 6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
> >> or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
> >> give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
> >> had kept the agreements. hehe
> >
> >That was certainly about the "Magnificence of Self." No one made wrong
> >there.
>
> Estie, it was great theater. And it was blatantly obvious bullshit.
> Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that.
> The trainer did an amazing job. He really appeared to believe
> what he was saying.
Well, the Six Day I took there was *severe* competition to be "right" and
all others be wrong. There was zero discussion about the "out of integrity"
speech being Bullshit...the same odd speech at my six day too...
Guess you were just so lucky to have such people in your Six Day.
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
I don't really understand how many times I have to repeat this...but I will
do so one more time to see if it finally sinks in for you.
I was in a highly manipulative relationship. I was convinced that my life
was wrong and I "needed" to take these programs to fix that wrong. I was
not allowed to objectively look at the programs...which I would have never
taken because they were never something that I "needed"...I was fine until
this person positioned themselves in my life.
The reason why I post should be obvious to you...I post because those that
have been in highly manipulative relationships surrounding the "work" will
come to find out that they are not alone.
And there are far more of those relationships out there then I think you
would like to believe.
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990526131013...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
ND Main
[about the run in the 6 Day]
>No, the "why" isn't obvious. Please educate me to why this would be the
>desired way to do a one mile run...that has half of the course going up a
>steep hill.
The run, like the ropes course, was a practice, a rehearsal,
a symbol or metaphor, about what it is possible to do as a human
being.
In the ropes course, everyone felt a lot of fear as they
stepped out onto the plank at the zip line. Despite the fear,
they took the plunge and most felt a tremendous exhilaration
on the way down.
When I was told to run "full out" for a mile and the course
aimed uphill (and eventually down again to the starting point),
my reaction, my thinking, was, "That's impossible. If I go as
fast as I can from the start, I'll die along the way, or I'll collapse,
or I'll have a heart attack, or I'll have to crawl the second half.
I can't do it. Etc."
However, I did it and I survived. Not only that, I did it faster
each subsequent time.
Later in the course, and even more so later in my life, the
"lesson" of the ropes course gave me a time to look back
on when I felt extreme fear and yet I went ahead and did
what I had agreed to do, and the result was exhilarating
and highly rewarding. To this day, when I have something
to do and I feel fear about it, I sometimes specifically recall
the zip line and it gives me inspiration to go ahead and
feel the fear and do what I have to do. BTW, when I say
"have to do" as I did here, I think of it as "possessing" or
"holding," like what there is in front of me to do,
not like "hafta" or like being forced.
The run was similar. Later in the course, and even more
so later in my life, the "lesson" of the run gave me an
event to look back on when I felt like what I was about to
do was impossible, and not only did it turn out to be possible, but it, too,
was highly
rewarding.
-----
ND Main
some key combination that sent my post prematurely.
I was talking about how the run (and the ropes course)
were lessons, practice, rehearsals that we could apply
metaphorically to other events in our lives. That was the
primary and most obvious reason for doing the run and doing it at "100%" speed
the whole way.
In addition, the run was good exercise and some folks
in my 6 Day who had never run before continued to run on
their own for some time after the 6 Day.
That was true for me. Prior to the 6 Day, I didn't "believe" in
exercising or doing something physical for the pure joy of
being physical. I worked as a carpet layer then, and felt like
if I needed more exercise I would get a second job loading
trucks or digging ditches so I could get paid for the work.
I scorned and ridiculed people who lifted weights or ran
for exercise.
Pam, I think it's terrible that you were not "allowed"
to deal with the run in a way that protected your health.
Throughout the 6 Day when I took it, we were reminded
many times that we were responsible for our well-being
and that if we had any health issues or concerns, we should
bring them to the attention of the course leaders or
supervisors or whoever was appropriate.
I didn't have any, so I never had reason to test the system
that way. Neither did anyone else that I know about.
Steve
Ronin Num1
respond to which was the one that was
creating a timeline with respect to what
happened in the 6 Day.
In my 6 Day we had or more precisely gave
each other massages by candlelight. I didn't
see this mentioned by anyone else. Did this
happen in anyone else's course?
RONIN
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Estie wrote:
> >Wrongo! The vast majority of people who have done the courses, over
> >time, at the very least now think they weren't worth much.
>
> Where can I find statistics to back up that claim?
> I said "my guess is," while you state the above
> as fact. So, it must be true, regardless of
> whether I think it's true or not.
I've told you before, that until such time as Landmark is willing to
cooperate in a long-term objective study, there will be no publicly
available statistics. It was, nonetheless, not a guess. It was based
on listening to a very large number of grads over the past 20+ years.
You'll never discover the truth unless you're willing to *listen.* What
you think about the truth has no relevance. But then, as I remember,
you don't think there is any truth.
The truth persists. (Forget that stuff about what you resist.) (That
wasn't for you, Steve.)
> >I'm sure you noticed those two posters on LivingPossibility who think
> >panic attacks are a healthy part of the enlightenment process?
>
> What is "LivingPossibility"?
It's a website with a bunch of gurgling Landmark grads (who sound
remarkably like you). Susannah posted some of their remarks here
recently.
- Estie
--
"If god had meant man to think, he wouldn't have invented gurus." -STL
estie_...@my-deja.com
your
> >strong suit.
>
> Well, sometimes I'm like a bull in a china store, but
> I notice that you very frequently switch from discussing
> the subject to making ad hominem remarks.
Actually, I never do that. I do often respond *in kind.*
Poor Steve. He was discussing the six day so objectively. Never an
unkind personal remark. Never a smart-ass retort. All of a sudden, out
of nowhere, with no provocation, I made an ad hominem remark.
In case you haven't yet gotten the message, I will not stand by while
you mislead people with false information. Enough people have been
deceived.
ND Main
>I accidentally deleted the post I wanted to
>respond to which was the one that was
>creating a timeline with respect to what
>happened in the 6 Day.
Is this what you're looking for?
Saturday:
Arrival.
No air standing in line close together.
Videos.
Canned Speech.
Fire drill.
Agreements.
Opportunity to leave.
Sunday:
Morning exercises and run.
Resistance.
Going Full Out.
Completion.
Samarai Game?
(Ropes and Breakthrough assistants
were rehearsing for the Ropes course.)
Monday:
Ropes Course.
Anger.
Breakthrough Process.
Tuesday:
Morning exercises and run.
Resentments and Regrets.
Standup/Sitdown, Sex Night.
Wednesday:
Morning exercises and run.
Body process.
Getting Off Our Acts.
Showing videos from Day 1.
Haircutting.
Thursday:
Morning exercises and run.
Restitution.
U.S.
Attachments.
Samarai Game?
Dancing.
Friday:
Morning exercises and run.
Enrollment in Mastery of Empowerment.
Going home.
>In my 6 Day we had or more precisely gave
>each other massages by candlelight. I didn't
>see this mentioned by anyone else. Did this
>happen in anyone else's course?
I went around my Six Day giving massages
during meal times and at breaks, etc. A few
other folks did, too. But there was no course
approved or sponsored massaging and no
candlelight when I took the Six Day.
ND Main
>Steve,
>
>I don't really understand how many times I have to repeat this...but I will
>do so one more time to see if it finally sinks in for you.
>
>I was in a highly manipulative relationship. I was convinced that my life
>was wrong and I "needed" to take these programs to fix that wrong. I was
>not allowed to objectively look at the programs...which I would have never
>taken because they were never something that I "needed"...I was fine until
>this person positioned themselves in my life.
I apologize, Pam, that it is taking so long for it to sink in.
Your experience is something so foreign to me that I feel like
I must come from a different planet. Please understand that
it is not my intention to deny or dispute what you say happened
to you. It's just so difficult for me to relate to the idea of
not having choice and control over my life, or those I know
or love not having choice and control over their lives, that
I don't easily empathize nor remember to consider all the
consequences.
I read about abuse and I see things in the news about people
being manipulated or controlled, from minor incidents all the
way to Heaven's Gate. But it's difficult to find anything in my
life that I can compare those incidents to or that I can look at
to try to understand what feelings or behaviors would be
involved in a long term or extreme situation like that.
In my romantic relationships, choice and freedom and respect
and protection from oppression have been a given. Maybe
the lack of control or oppression in my life helped reduce
the impact of the control and manipulation in the Training
and Six Day for me. It was so obvious and so contrived that
I could see it as theater, rather than taking it seriously. And
since it only took place when I agreed to expose myself to it,
it was like a game, a temporary situation to play in and extract
value from, and then go back home to real life, where none
of us were intentionally coercing or manipulative, where life
wasn't so hard and refuge and comfort were the norm.
ND Main
>Well, the Six Day I took there was *severe* competition to be "right" and
>all others be wrong. There was zero discussion about the "out of integrity"
>speech being Bullshit...the same odd speech at my six day too...
>
>Guess you were just so lucky to have such people in your Six Day.
Apparently so.
Lest there be any confusion... a few people challenged
the trainer about the integrity speech at the time. The trainer
stood his ground and said stuff like, "No, really. You really
are the worst group I've ever had in this course..."
Those few people spoke the thoughts and considerations that
the rest of us had, and then we all went on to play the game of
the out-integrity speech in the Six Day, where the trainer
presented heavy serious stuff and we were the worst bad black
sheep he'd ever met. hehe
When I said, "...And it was blatantly obvious bullshit.
Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that."
I was referring more to private conversations I had with other
course participants after the session, at breaks or meals later,
or on the way from one event to the next. I also had similar
conversations later with friends who took the course at
different times than I did. They all heard the speech. They all
knew it was baloney from the get go.
The speech was long and persuasive, so sure there were some
moments when we asked ourselves, "Could it be true? Could
we really be the worst group in the history of the course?" But
in our hearts we all knew the answer: "Naw, this is just part of
the course. It happens on Wednesday morning in every Six Day."
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> When I was in the course, even though
> >> the instructions were to go 100% the whole
> >> run, I know I paced myself a little bit, and
> >> so did other participants I talked to. The
> >> idea as a "sprinter" was to not care what
> >> happened in the later part of the run, just
> >> to leave the start line at absolutely 100%.
>
> Estie responded:
> >Any chance you see that as manipulative?
>
> Absolutely, it was manipulative.
That may be a small breakthrough. :)
(Not directed to Steve) This is the first I've heard that there was a
shill at the 6-Day. If there was one, there may have been more.
One thing that never made sense to me. The first time we were back in
the classroom after the ropes course, several people started frenzied
enthusiastic applause and cheering. The rest of the group joined in,
but not nearly as enthusiastically. The only thing I could think of
that would have generated that kind of cheering was that someone I
couldn't see had come into the room. I looked around. Then I thought
the only person who would have generated that kind of cheering was
Werner. I kept looking around. The frenzy continued. Finally I
decided it must be Werner and joined in at that level. Most if not all
of the group joined in at that level about that time. This continued
for quite a while. When the cheering finally died down, the Leader
explained to us that we were cheering for our accomplishment on the
ropes course. It was news to me!
> >Did you ever think to question *WHY* it was desired that the runners
who
> >had to run a mile should start out at a 100-yard dash pace? What
> >happened to the ones who did? (I wasn't one of them.)
>
> "Why" was obvious.
> As far as I know, they all survived the run.
It's not at all obvious. It doesn't make sense. Any experienced runner
would know that the best results would not be achieved by starting off
too fast. Since Landon Carter was a marathoner and led the 6-day for
many years, it's not believable that there was any ignorance of this.
The rest of this post is not directed to Steve.
I've given this a lot of thought today. (I never had any thoughts about
the run being impossible or not surviving it.) The only explanation I
can find is that it was a set-up for poor performance. The run was at a
high altitude, where results would be slower than most people were used
to. Much of the course was uphill. We weren't allowed watches, had
been sleep deprived, and relied on assistants to wake us, only a few
minutes before exercises and the run. Not only had we not had water, we
hadn't eaten since dinner the night before.
There were some experienced runners in the group who started off near
the front. Any pace they would have set would have been the fastest
possible optimum pace. It would have been too fast for less-experienced
runners. Yet rather than allow that to happen, the course brought in a
shill to speed up the starting pace (one who didn't need to finish the
course.) I wasn't stupid enough to try to match that pace, but I did go
faster than I should have. The alternative would have been to have been
left in the rear. At too fast a pace, it wasn't long before I tired.
One of the rules was that if you couldn't run, you had to stop (you
couldn't walk.) That not only took time, but it meant that everyone who
passed you and all the assistants yelled at you to go on. With too
little rest, I ran again, only to tire again and stop again. Etc.
My times for the course (a little over a mile) on all the days except
the last day were over 14 minutes. I could have walked the course
faster than that! On the last day I cut a full two-minutes off the
time. I have to wonder if there was no pace-setter on the last day to
get us off to a bound-to-breakdown start.
Oh, and you also had to run if you had blisters on your feet severe
enough to have required medical attention.
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> The run, like the ropes course, was a practice, a rehearsal,
> a symbol or metaphor, about what it is possible to do as a human
> being.
Mary Poppins strikes again! :)
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> Pam, I think it's terrible that you were not "allowed"
> to deal with the run in a way that protected your health.
> Throughout the 6 Day when I took it, we were reminded
> many times that we were responsible for our well-being
> and that if we had any health issues or concerns, we should
> bring them to the attention of the course leaders or
> supervisors or whoever was appropriate.
That was just to make it clear that the course presenters were *not*
responsible. In many years at est, I never once witnessed an example of
anyone being allowed to do what they needed to do to take care of their
own well-being without an extremely difficult, and usually unsuccessful,
battle.
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> >> Oh yeah, and there was the day when the trainer told us that
> >> we were the most out-integrity group that had ever done the
> >> 6 Day course. That he didn't see how we could even finish,
> >> or why we should bother. That we should probably just all
> >> give up and go home. That not a single person in the room
> >> had kept the agreements. hehe
> >
> >That was certainly about the "Magnificence of Self." No one made
wrong
> >there.
>
> Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that.
You certainly were in a unique 6-Day. No one in mine said that. No one
I ever talked to until the past few days ever said that.
> The trainer did an amazing job. He really appeared to believe
> what he was saying.
>
> Why did you take the Six Day, Estie?
Assuming you're being sincere, as you said you always are, evidently not
for the same reasons you did.
> Did you really expect to not be manipulated, lied to,
> conned,
Yes.
to have your consciousness altered for a few
> days, and have a bunch of your beliefs challenged?
I expected my consciousness to be altered, but not by unethical,
deceptive, harmful means.
ND Main
>
>It's a website with a bunch of gurgling Landmark grads (who sound
>remarkably like you). Susannah posted some of their remarks here
>recently.
Thanks, Estie!
I guess they cleaned out the messages there recently.
I didn't know about that site, so it was my first visit just
now. I don't see the two posters who think panic
attacks are healthy. I do see the new one in Rants
and Raves where the guy had a psychotic breakdown.
Must be dangerous stuff, this Landmark Forum thing.
estie_...@my-deja.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> The Six Day lasted six days. The effects of it can last a lifetime.
> I don't dispute that. I don't dispute that Estie and Pam and others
> had a very negative experience of it and that they suffered
> all kinds of ill-effects. And I'm sorry that happened to them.
> And I'd like to see Landmark figure out a way to weed out
> folks like Estie and Pam from taking their courses, so that
> nobody else has such a negative experience.
I agree.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum because
someone they know wants to share something wonderful with them.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum because
someone they know wants to "fix" them.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum and who
expects it to be "as represented."
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum who wants
to grow as a person.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum with
average or above intelligence.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum with no
previous history of psychological disturbance.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum who could
possibly be harmed by psychological abuse.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum who values
integrity.
I'd like to see Landmark weed out everyone who does the Forum who cares
about their fellow humans.
> Why Estie and Pam took the 6 Day only they can say.
> The "con" and the manipulation and confrontation and other
> "bad" things about the Six Day were blatantly
> obvious in the Training.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on all the blatantly obvious manipulation
in both the est training and the 6-Day. I don't recall you're saying
*anything* specific about anything you found to be manipulative or
"bad", with the one exception of being a running shill. Were you aware
at the time that you were a shill? If so, how did you square that with
your integrity? This seems to be inconsistent with your previous posts.
> If you went to your first horror movie and ended up disturbed,
> would you choose to go to a marathon of horror movies a year
> later?
That's a good question. Why would anyone who'd been seriously
disoriented by the Breakthrough Process continue to do any courses,
unless at the time they thought they were just "processing through
things" and didn't recognize the true nature of what was happening.
ND Main
>In case you haven't yet gotten the message, I will not stand by while
>you mislead people with false information. Enough people have been
>deceived.
I didn't see it as a "message," but I do welcome and encourage you to post
corrections to anything you see that you
believe is false. That's one of the purposes of a newsgroup, in my opinion.
ND Main
>> The run, like the ropes course, was a practice, a rehearsal,
>> a symbol or metaphor, about what it is possible to do as a human
>> being.
>
>Mary Poppins strikes again! :)
And Darth Vader steps in to announce
that Mary is here, eh?
ND Main
>> Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that.
>
>You certainly were in a unique 6-Day. No one in mine said that. No one
>I ever talked to until the past few days ever said that.
Amazing. Several of us discussed it as we left the session and
agreed it was a canned speech delivered at every 6 Day
course. My three roommates and I discussed it early the next
day at breakfast day and the folks who overhead at the table
also had the same consensus. We had the same conversation
with various other folks in the course. Of course, we didn't ask
every single particpant. Maybe someone believed it.
>> The trainer did an amazing job. He really appeared to believe
>> what he was saying.
>>
>> Why did you take the Six Day, Estie?
>
>Assuming you're being sincere, as you said you always are, evidently not
>for the same reasons you did.
Yeah, I'm sincere in trying to understand why you took the course.
The Training was an amazing, interesting, incredibly well put together
con game. That was *so* obvious by the last day of the Training.
My words at the time to my graduate friends who had enrolled me
and who drove me home were, "Yes, I got a *lot* of value out of it,
and it's the *ultimate* con game."
By the time I took the Six Day, some 10 months later, I'd had time to
reflect on the Training even more. I went into the Six Day not
knowing anything about the specifics of the content, except for
the ropes course and the general expectation that it would be like
six more days of sitting in the room similar to the four days of the
Training. I went in expecting all those things I said before: to
be lied to, to be conned, to be insulted and confronted, to be
shown both the worst and the best of myself. For my own benefit.
Granted, I didn't expect to be harmed or damaged. I did expect
to be changed, to discover my beliefs and have them shattered,
to see a lot more of the same kinds of things I had seen in the
Training.
>> Did you really expect to not be manipulated, lied to,
>> conned,
>
>Yes.
So you didn't see those things in the Training when you
took it?
There's another thread in this group recently about how
we are all manipulated and brainwashed by the culture we
live in, the thread about the elevator experiments. When I
look around at my world and my life, I see that. I see that it
could be said we're all walking around hypnotized and
brainwashed and manipulated by our culture. The Training,
for me, was an opportunity to break through some of that
aculturation, to see through some of the brainwashing and
wake up a little from the hypnosis.
There are many ways to accomplish some glimpses of freedom,
some which take more time than others. The Training was a
way to cram a lot of those glimpses into a couple weekends,
and to accomplish that, the con, the manipulation, the deceptions,
the controls, all seemed necessary and purposeful to me.
So I expected and even welcomed them in the Six Day.
>to have your consciousness altered for a few
>> days, and have a bunch of your beliefs challenged?
>
>I expected my consciousness to be altered, but not by unethical,
>deceptive, harmful means.
In both courses, I was skeptical and I was selfish. I took the things
that I thought had value home with me and I left the rest of the
course and the company out there where they were. Perhaps
if I'd "bought" it or believed it more, perhaps if I'd put myself
on the line more on the company's behalf, maybe then I'd have
been hurt by it, too.
ND Main
>I'd like to hear your thoughts on all the blatantly obvious manipulation
>in both the est training and the 6-Day. I don't recall you're saying
>*anything* specific about anything you found to be manipulative or
>"bad", with the one exception of being a running shill. Were you aware
>at the time that you were a shill? If so, how did you square that with
>your integrity? This seems to be inconsistent with your previous posts.
I don't recall my saying that because something is manipulative,
that it's also necessarily bad.
It's your observation that I'm a shill, not mine. It has never
been my desire or intention to sell the Training or the Six
Day, and it's never been my evaluation of myself that I was
doing so. Even if what I'm doing here appears to you like
I'm trying to sell the Training or the Six Day, what difference
could it make since those courses don't even exist any more?
>Why would anyone who'd been seriously
>disoriented by the Breakthrough Process continue to do any courses,
>unless at the time they thought they were just "processing through
>things" and didn't recognize the true nature of what was happening.
That is, indeed, a really good question.
ND Main
>It's not at all obvious. It doesn't make sense. Any experienced runner
>would know that the best results would not be achieved by starting off
>too fast. Since Landon Carter was a marathoner and led the 6-day for
>many years, it's not believable that there was any ignorance of this.
I suppose if you measure "best results" by your time for the run or
by the quality of exercise, then it doesn't make sense. But as I pointed
out in another post, the purpose of the run was rehearsal for going all
out. If you didn't go all out, then the purpose of the run was lost.
This is as good an example as any of the kinds of lies and
manipulation in the courses. You thought you were going
on a run for some "run" reason, when that wasn't the reason
at all. This is one I could see through, even at the time. I'm
sure there were plenty of others that I didn't see through.
I love your story about the spontaneous applause after the
ropes course. I've been in that "am I the only one who doesn't
get it?" space enough times in my life to really empathize with
that. It's possible that there was a plant or that someone asked
someone to start clapping. It's also possible that it was spontaneous.
In my Six Day, at one of the evening meals, we all spontaneously
stood up, formed a circle with arms around each other, and sang.
Where did you do the Six Day, Estie?
The Santa Rosa site was only a few hundred feet above sea level,
and there was water available in our rooms.
When I was a sprinter, I did finish the run. What I discovered
is that it really didn't make much difference if I pretended
that I was going a short distance when I *knew* that I was going
on the whole run. However, my overall time as a sprinter was a
a few seconds more than when I was in the 6 Day as a participant.
Anyway, it was good practice for when I was assisting and they
asked me to take 6 gallons of water from the kitchen down by
the gate up the hill to the zip line as quickly as possible. hehe
dhc...@inlink.com
ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
> dhchase wrote:
> >And the definition of sprinting is what? :-)
> This issue of "What is running 100%?" in the context
> of the Six Day run was the subject of no small amount
> of discussion among my roommates in the course.
You guys were doing mental gymnastics afterwards, turning an absolute
standard into a relative one. Faced with a double bind... you all
reduced the cognitive dissonance that you felt by changing the meaning
of what running 100% is till you ceased to be in an out of integrity
situation.
Useful training in the future.
> What we agreed on is that there's a
> difference between the mindset, the preparation,
> the adrenaline level, etc. that affects how one starts out
> running depending on how far one plans to run,
> despite one's intention to run 100% in either case.
> Perhaps it's partly conscious and partly unconscious.
:-) Nevertheless, you all were not 'running a hundred percent' if you
held something back for later...
Why didn't you all just declare that you were running while you
maitained a leisurely stroll?
Really it's the same thing and easier on the knees.
> Here's an analogy: If your 2 year old baby wanders out into
> the road and a car is coming... there's a difference between
> how you run out into the road to save her,
This, of course would be an automatic response, hard wired into our
biology. There is no thinking at such times...
> compared to
> how you run if you're simply responding to a request
> that you run around the block as fast as you can, eh?
And if you get confused through the pairing of physical gymnastics and
mental gymnastics and later feel the panic and urgency of running to
save your baby, when all there is going on is some bogus made up urgency
about the dropping enrollment levels of a for profit company that you
have to help 'save' (that and the whole world of course),
and you go home and tell your wife/family that you are *so* giving 100%
in your marriage...
> One only needs two tools in life:
> WD-40 to make things go, and
> duct tape to make them stop.
> -- G. Weilacher
This is a cute sig line. :-)
--
Kindest Regards,
Linda
computeruser
ND Main wrote in message <19990524133030...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>Pam wrote:
>>Oh wait, that was the "sign up for the Mastery of Empowerment" part in the
>>day too...and if you didn't what is "your attachment to not doing so?"...
>
>Mastery of Empowerment? I don't remember that one.
>Was that a course?
I remember telling someone I had registered for MOE and when they asked me
what it stood for I said "Mastery of Enrollment"
We laughed really hard on that one. It didn't sound off from a course that
Werner would have put together.
computeruser
>Steve
Pamela Fitzpatrick
estie_...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7iing4$2qn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <19990526221431...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> ndm...@aol.com (ND Main) wrote:
>
> > Pam, I think it's terrible that you were not "allowed"
> > to deal with the run in a way that protected your health.
> > Throughout the 6 Day when I took it, we were reminded
> > many times that we were responsible for our well-being
> > and that if we had any health issues or concerns, we should
> > bring them to the attention of the course leaders or
> > supervisors or whoever was appropriate.
>
> That was just to make it clear that the course presenters were *not*
> responsible. In many years at est, I never once witnessed an example of
> anyone being allowed to do what they needed to do to take care of their
> own well-being without an extremely difficult, and usually unsuccessful,
> battle.
>
> - Estie
Estie,
It was a battle for me to obtain permission to walk the course. I was
"assigned" a "coach" to insure that I walked full out on the course. This
was so humiliating to me. Why? Because I did what I was instructed to do at
the beginning of the course...and I ended up being "less of a person"
because I was taking care of my needs.
What I ended up understanding rather clearly is that you had to ignore your
body. Tricking the mind to deal with the situation. See, it is your body
that gives you the warnings when you are getting out of line. There is a
reason why you hurt like you do, why you gasp for breath, why your ankles
hurt, why you are having black dots moving around in front of your
eyes...these are all *physical* warnings that you need to take care of
yourself.
To what benefit did the Company have to have you run a course unprepared?
The only answer that I have consistently come up with is the process of
Cognitive Dissonance.
Steve, for all the words that you use...the ones that you *learned* in the
course(s), I hope that you will begin to see where maybe one person was
healthy, was there *maybe* out of curiosity, took the course leaders to
their word, followed through and began the process of Breakdown. You never
had to "challenge" the rules? Well, I didn't "challenge" the rules Steve, I
made a simple request. One that was indicated clearly that I was to do. I
was badgered, humiliated publicly and made to feel less then a person that
should be there in the courses. All because I was seriously taking care of
myself. I was not allowed an ace bandage by the way. I was treated as if I
was a child that was incapable of making a sound decision for herself. Nice
way to Empower someone.
And yes Steve, your experience was different. I got that. But maybe if you
didn't just go along with all that was being said, if your brain wasn't
buying the horse manure but you knew if you didn't do the course that there
would have been repercussions, you would have also had a completely
different experience. See, I wasn't going along with the program that I was
this mess of a person (at a very base level)...and that is what got me in
trouble.
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
have been nice.
Now what about those people that didn't? Is there a space for ~listening~
from you that would generate the compassion instead of "this is my story"
plonk that you appear to do? See, you do a good ~share~ but you don't
appear to have any comprehension that not everyone feels like you do about
what happened. By the way...wasn't there some type of agreement about *not*
discussing what was going on with others in the Six Day?
-pam
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990527010217...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> Pam wrote:
>
> >Well, the Six Day I took there was *severe* competition to be "right"
and
> >all others be wrong. There was zero discussion about the "out of
integrity"
> >speech being Bullshit...the same odd speech at my six day too...
> >
> >Guess you were just so lucky to have such people in your Six Day.
>
> Apparently so.
>
> Lest there be any confusion... a few people challenged
> the trainer about the integrity speech at the time. The trainer
> stood his ground and said stuff like, "No, really. You really
> are the worst group I've ever had in this course..."
>
> Those few people spoke the thoughts and considerations that
> the rest of us had, and then we all went on to play the game of
> the out-integrity speech in the Six Day, where the trainer
> presented heavy serious stuff and we were the worst bad black
> sheep he'd ever met. hehe
>
> When I said, "...And it was blatantly obvious bullshit.
> Everyone I talked to about it in the course agreed with that."
> I was referring more to private conversations I had with other
> course participants after the session, at breaks or meals later,
> or on the way from one event to the next. I also had similar
> conversations later with friends who took the course at
> different times than I did. They all heard the speech. They all
> knew it was baloney from the get go.
>
> The speech was long and persuasive, so sure there were some
> moments when we asked ourselves, "Could it be true? Could
> we really be the worst group in the history of the course?" But
> in our hearts we all knew the answer: "Naw, this is just part of
> the course. It happens on Wednesday morning in every Six Day."
>
> Steve
>
> -----
> One only needs two tools in life:
> WD-40 to make things go, and
> duct tape to make them stop.
> -- G. Weilacher
> -----
>
>
Pamela Fitzpatrick
ND Main <ndm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990527051356...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> Estie wrote:
>
> >It's not at all obvious. It doesn't make sense. Any experienced runner
> >would know that the best results would not be achieved by starting off
> >too fast. Since Landon Carter was a marathoner and led the 6-day for
> >many years, it's not believable that there was any ignorance of this.
>
> I suppose if you measure "best results" by your time for the run or
> by the quality of exercise, then it doesn't make sense. But as I pointed
> out in another post, the purpose of the run was rehearsal for going all
> out. If you didn't go all out, then the purpose of the run was lost.
>
> This is as good an example as any of the kinds of lies and
> manipulation in the courses. You thought you were going
> on a run for some "run" reason, when that wasn't the reason
> at all. This is one I could see through, even at the time. I'm
> sure there were plenty of others that I didn't see through.
>
>
> I love your story about the spontaneous applause after the
> ropes course. I've been in that "am I the only one who doesn't
> get it?" space enough times in my life to really empathize with
> that. It's possible that there was a plant or that someone asked
> someone to start clapping. It's also possible that it was spontaneous.
> In my Six Day, at one of the evening meals, we all spontaneously
> stood up, formed a circle with arms around each other, and sang.
>
>
> Where did you do the Six Day, Estie?
> The Santa Rosa site was only a few hundred feet above sea level,
> and there was water available in our rooms.
Water *available* in the rooms.
SO WHAT! (yes, I'm a bit on the peeved side at the moment) you had to get
dressed *quickly* ... you had to hustle your ass to the run site. There was
*zero* time to stop and even contemplate a drink of water.
So, yes, water was *available* just like the beds were available. But you
would have had to break your commitment to the course (and in the process
any commitment you ever had with yourself for your wellbeing) to stop and
take care of yourself. Now, since it has been pointed out that there were
*experienced* people that had driven these programs...why on earth was it
*allowed* to deliberately dehydrate people? What purpose other then fitting
the Cognitive Dissonance model perfectly would the Organization wish to
achieve?
-pam