chocolate or vanilla
Gert Nielsen
choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No reason
is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the person
should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some insights
they have found valuable out of this exercise?
Regards,
Gert
Pamela Fitzpatrick
slowly being taught how to give up the past experiences that shape you and
can teach you how to make good, sound decisions.
-pam
<of course the above is based on my own experience...and is also part of the
entire weekend not just this one exercise>
Gert Nielsen <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:C%uo5.9093$b5.8...@pouncer.easynews.com...
larrry...@my-deja.com
That's how I think of the distinction, and it gives me a lot of freedom.
It allows me to relate to "what is" instead of "what isn't."
In article <C%uo5.9093$b5.8...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
"Gert Nielsen" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on
stage and
> choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
>
> The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No
reason
> is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the
person
> should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
>
> I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
> distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
>
> Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some
insights
> they have found valuable out of this exercise?
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gert Nielsen
<larrry...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nu0l4$djj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This is it. Choose.
>
> That's how I think of the distinction, and it gives me a lot of freedom.
>
> It allows me to relate to "what is" instead of "what isn't."
>
>
Can you explain this a little more?
Do you mean that you're free to choose with no reasons? Do you believe this
is possible? (I don't)
Isn't the ability to reason an important thing that separates man from
machine?
Regards,
Gert
larrry...@my-deja.com
Gert, go to a Sunday evening thing one weekend when they do the forum
in your area.
In article <M7wo5.9118$b5.8...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
Alan
Its possible that its completely the opposite... Machines reason.. they
have particular code that tells them to respond in a cetain way under
certain conditions -mechanical or computer or whatever. I think
Landmark are trying to say that its ok to pick something for the hell
of it. I.e. you choose because you choose. I agree with you that
there is always a reason, even if that reason is 'for no reason'.
Can't see any value in it whatsoever, but then that's Landmark.
It would appear the fuck up fairies were in town the day weenie decided
upon that distinction.
Cheers
Alan
Gordon Grieder
"Gert Nielsen" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on stage
and
> choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
>
> The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No
reason
> is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the
person
> should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
>
> I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
> distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
>
> Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some
insights
> they have found valuable out of this exercise?
"I chose it because I chose it" is not a sensical answer.
It's much like a small child constantly asking "why?"
- -
"Imagine chocolate and vanilla ice cream then pick one."
"I choose vanilla."
"Why did you choose vanilla?"
"I like vanilla."
"Why?"
"I dunno. I like it more than chocolate."
"Why?"
"I have an allergy to chocolate."
"Why?"
"Genetics. At a young age I discovered I had the allergy as did my
grandfather."
"Why?"
"Well.. I ate some chocolate and my throat almost shut. I nearly died."
"Why?"
"I chose it because I chose it."
(smiling) "You have become one with the Force, young Luke."
- -
The purpose was to leave you dazzled with the dubious teachings of
Landmark. "I think I get it, and I'm a smart fellow. Therefore to
really understand it one must be very smart. Just like that smiling
drone holding the microphone. If I apply myself harder I can be like
him..."
What a load of crap.
"I reject Landmark because I reject Landmark" hee hee
--
Raising children to believe in a god is child abuse.
Linda
Gert Nielsen wrote:
>
> Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on stage and
> choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
>
> The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No reason
> is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the person
> should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
>
> I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
> distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
>
> Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some insights
> they have found valuable out of this exercise?
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/diner/episode4.htm
Alan
I'm LMFAO - thanks
Alan
In article <8nueu6$vmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Gordon Grieder <gr...@grub.net> wrote:
> In article <C%uo5.9093$b5.8...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
> "Gert Nielsen" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> > Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on
stage
> and
> > choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
> >
> > The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No
> reason
> > is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the
> person
> > should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
> >
> > I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
> > distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
> >
> > Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some
> insights
> > they have found valuable out of this exercise?
>
LEC 2020
>I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
>distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
>
>
>Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some insights
>they have found valuable out of this exercise?
It was simple. Just because you can.
Or more slowly:
Just be cause. You can.
Estie
"Gert Nielsen" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on stage
and
> choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
>
> The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No
reason
> is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the
person
You've got your finger right on it, although I don't know if you know
what you just said. You (me, all of us) were being trained to do what
was expected of us. It's a should thang. Good Lecies (or esties) don't
make reasoned decisions, they make ~choices~. Nothing else passes. No
other possibilities are allowed.
> I thought about it this morning, and couldn't find any value in the
> distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
There's a lot of value in it, if what you want to accomplish is to get
people to give up making informed, thought-out decisions, if what you
want to do is to get people not to think. It's a thought-stopper.
> Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some
insights
> they have found valuable out of this exercise?
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
chil...@my-deja.com
Linda <linc...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> Gert Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > Remember the exercise where one participant volunteers to get on
stage and
> > choose between imaginary icecream with chocolate or vanilla?
> >
> > The person then gives all kind of reasons for making the choice. No
reason
> > is good enough, though. In the end it dawns on everybody that the
person
> > should just say: 'I chose it, because I chose it'.
> >
> > distinction: 'I chose it, because I chose it'
> >
insights
> > they have found valuable out of this exercise?
>
>
Linda, Thanks for sending me on a return trip to Guy's Diner. It always
makes me smile and think! Chili
chil...@my-deja.com
me at the same time! Chili
How's this: Chocolate or vanilla?
You buying?
Uh, no...A single dip is $350. $525 for a double, and the super duper
triple scooper is a bargain at $575!
jsk...@my-deja.com
>
>
> Who can tell me what the purpose was, or even better, give me some
insights
> they have found valuable out of this exercise?
Here is what I got out of the exercise:
Central idea of the whole thing is the phrase which took me some time
to understand: "if you choose what you have, you have what you choose"
I tried applying this to my situation: I was very unsatisfied with my
job. So, I thought that if I take it that I have this job as a matter
of choice, then from there, maybe I can create something which will
lead to fulfillment..
so I have taken a series of actions, all stemming from the idea of
choosing to do them, .. and things have improved.
Jagdeep Khera
Gert Nielsen
<jsk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o4ivv$3t3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Here is what I got out of the exercise:
> Central idea of the whole thing is the phrase which took me some time
> to understand: "if you choose what you have, you have what you choose"
>
> I tried applying this to my situation: I was very unsatisfied with my
> job. So, I thought that if I take it that I have this job as a matter
> of choice, then from there, maybe I can create something which will
> lead to fulfillment..
> so I have taken a series of actions, all stemming from the idea of
> choosing to do them, .. and things have improved.
>
> Jagdeep Khera
Im not too sure we speak of the same thing.
- I get asked: 'Chocolate or vanilla'.
I might reply: 'Vanilla, - I like that best'.
Then I get some vanilla-ice, and I can sit back enjoying my vanilla and my
choice, -glad that I got a wish fulfilled.
-
Now, instead I am meant to reply: 'Vanilla - Because I choose vanilla'
Then I get some vanilla (served with puzzled look), and I can sit back, eat
my vanilla and realize that I (as a being) chose something, but without a
clue if I should be happy or not.
The ' I ' has been transformed into something I myself no longer understand.
I accept that ' I ' make choices for no apparent reason. No need to think,
no need to explain myself. Because my ' I ' is sacred and I better believe
in it.
-
And this is where I miss the value in a statement like ' I chose it, because
I chose it'.
* * *
<larrry...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nu6uu$lid$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'm talking about acceptance, not reasoning.
>
> Gert, go to a Sunday evening thing one weekend when they do the forum
> in your area.
You think it will be explained there, Larry ?
* * *
LEC 2020 <lec...@aol.complex.org> wrote in message
news:20000822192740...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
>
> It was simple. Just because you can.
>
> Or more slowly:
>
> Just be cause. You can.
>
Will you say that ' I chose it, because I chose it' is the same as 'I chose
it, because I am cause'?
The latter actually makes sense to me.
Regards,
Gert
KMottus
they made their choices. The reasons behind the choice may or
may not have anything to do with having made that choice. There
is for many people alot of guilt, resentment, and burden associated
with the choices they make. Letting go of some of the meanings
we attach to the choices we make can give people freedom to choose
from a different place. Also can give people a sense of peace with
themselves.
K.
*********************************************************
Failure is not an option, it comes packaged with
the software
kmo...@aol.com
Olaf Olay
In article <20000825102319...@nso-fm.aol.com>,
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
>For some people they are quite attached to the reasons for why
>they made their choices. The reasons behind the choice may or
>may not have anything to do with having made that choice. There
>is for many people alot of guilt, resentment, and burden associated
>with the choices they make. Letting go of some of the meanings
>we attach to the choices we make can give people freedom to choose
>from a different place. Also can give people a sense of peace with
>themselves.
Yes.
Also the end result was to have people choose freely and AFTER consideration.
AFTER consideration meant after considering all the reasons. Many people find
themselves paralyzed within the process of reasoning or considering.
I really should take that job because it will give me a larger salary. But I
like the job I have. But I need the extra money to be able to buy a new car.
But I really don't need a new car. And I really do like the people I work for.
But then again there's Charlie who is a real pain in the butt. But there will
probably be someone like him in the new job. But the new job has a nicer
title. But does a title really mean something. Do I really need a new title?
What if I change jobs and hate the new job? What if I don't take the new job
and I lose the job I have, THEN where would I be? I'll have to relocate if I
take the new job. That will cost me some money. But I'll have more money with
the new job. So maybe I should quit and go there. But I really like the job I
have now. Etc. Etc.
Many people get stuck in this process (particularly in relationships) and don't
make choices at all or they make the decisions they make based on the fact that
there are more reasons to do something than to not do something. Then, once
they have made the choice or decision, they discover that there were actually
more or better reasons to have made a different choice and they suffer because
of it.
Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it. We still have our
reasons but the reasons don't or at least don't have to make the choice for us.
The individual makes the choice. Most people are looking for the right
reasons to make their choices for them.
It's a difficult and fine line and for many people the chocolate and vanilla
exercise allowed them to be able to move more quickly through the process of
CONSIDERATION -- NOT to circumvent consideration -- that wasn't the point.
Making choices freely and after consideration can be very powerful. It can
give you a greater velocity through life.
Olaf Olay
larrry...@my-deja.com
choose." There is no "or." And there's no "between."
You put that in there. (I put that in there. We all put that in
there.)
I think *that's* the point of the exercise.
Gert Nielsen
<larrry...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o6m44$hqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I just realized something. The exercise is "vanilla chocolate
> choose." There is no "or." And there's no "between."
>
> You put that in there. (I put that in there. We all put that in
> there.)
>
> I think *that's* the point of the exercise.
>
>
Interesting twist. But I'm not sure I get what you're saying.
I can make it mean all kind of different things, but the ambiguity wears the
conversation down. Wordplays is funny only so long, and with open-ended
proverbs like your statement above, I think we never get into any dialogue.
Its more like a coaching situation. I'm reminded of something like a pupil
asking his master for specific answers, and all he ever get is cryptic
answers with a multitude of meanings. Very Karate-kid.
Oh, and why did you tell me to go to a Sunday evening thing?
Regards
Gert
La...@larryperson.com
(a) chocolate (b) vanilla. It's two flavors and an imperative.
Chocolate. Vanilla. Choose. It might as well have been Cat.
Computer. Choose.
Go on sunday night. That's when they do this distinction.
In article <WMDp5.1827$D9.1...@news.easynews.com>,
Estie
olaf...@aol.com (Olaf Olay) wrote:
>
> In article <20000825102319...@nso-fm.aol.com>,
> kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
>
> >For some people they are quite attached to the reasons for why
> >they made their choices.
Which people are those?
> >The reasons behind the choice may or
> >may not have anything to do with having made that choice.
Not consciously, anyway. There are occassionally situations where
someone really has no preference for one choice or the other, they're
equal, it doesn't make a difference. Other than that, I've never known
anyone to make a choice ~for no reason~. People almost always make one
choice or another for some reason. LECies just aren't honest about it.
> >There
> >is for many people alot of guilt, resentment, and burden associated
> >with the choices they make. Letting go of some of the meanings
> >we attach to the choices we make can give people freedom to choose
> >from a different place. Also can give people a sense of peace with
> >themselves.
Sounds exactly like re-examining/re-evaluating a choice. Nothing
Landmarkian about it.
> Also the end result was to have people choose freely and AFTER
consideration.
> AFTER consideration meant after considering all the reasons. Many
people find
> themselves paralyzed within the process of reasoning or considering.
Again, just who are these "many people" who find themselves paralyzed
within the process of reasoning or considering? I've never noticed
them. I have noticed that when a decision/choice isn't easy, the
process may take longer, it may even become overwhelming. How does the
Landmarkian ~distinction~ make any kind of a positive contribution to
that process?
> I really should take that job because it will give me a larger salary.
But I
> like the job I have. But I need the extra money to be able to buy a
new car.
> But I really don't need a new car. And I really do like the people I
work for.
> But then again there's Charlie who is a real pain in the butt. But
there will
> probably be someone like him in the new job. But the new job has a
nicer
> title. But does a title really mean something. Do I really need a
new title?
> What if I change jobs and hate the new job? What if I don't take the
new job
> and I lose the job I have, THEN where would I be? I'll have to
relocate if I
> take the new job. That will cost me some money. But I'll have more
money with
> the new job. So maybe I should quit and go there. But I really like
the job I
> have now. Etc. Etc.
Yep. Sitting down and making a list of pros and cons can help one to
clarify the decision-making process.
> Many people get stuck in this process (particularly in relationships)
and don't
> make choices at all or they make the decisions they make based on the
fact that
> there are more reasons to do something than to not do something.
Again, this "many people get stuck in this process" bit.
Sometimes choices are easy and clear-cut. There are twenty reasons why
choosing this would be good, and no reasons why choosing it would be
bad. Fine. Easy. Simple.
Unfortunately, life isn't always that easy. Sometimes choices/decisions
are difficult. I think that making a decision based solely on the
*number* of reasons would be pretty stupid. It's much more effective to
make them based on the overall weight of the various factors, on a
careful consideration of all the factors and consequences.
Then, once
> they have made the choice or decision, they discover that there were
actually
> more or better reasons to have made a different choice and they suffer
because
> of it.
The only reason they would suffer would be if they had not adequately
evaluated the situation. Living involves making mistakes and learning
from them.
> Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it.
BS
> We still
have our
> reasons but the reasons don't or at least don't have to make the
choice for us.
> The individual makes the choice.
As far as I know, that's the way it's always been and always will be,
and there's nothing Landmarkian about it. I've never seen "reasons make
a choice for us."
Most people are looking for the
right
> reasons to make their choices for them.
Most people are trying to make the best decisions they can, the ones
that will work best for them in achieving what's important to them.
> It's a difficult and fine line and for many people the chocolate and
vanilla
> exercise allowed them to be able to move more quickly through the
process of
> CONSIDERATION -- NOT to circumvent consideration -- that wasn't the
point.
> Making choices freely and after consideration can be very powerful.
It can
> give you a greater velocity through life.
Could you actually explain this?
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Serena Nordstrup
<snip>
> Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it.
I am confused, Olaf. Please explain which comes first: the choosing or
the choosing or the choosing ?
Simpatice
Serena
LEC 2020
>>
>From: "Gert Nielsen" g...@mail.tele.dk
>Date: 8/25/2000 9:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BGup5.14082$2V3.1...@pouncer.easynews.com>
>snipped, for brevity<
>> It was simple. Just because you can.
>>
>> Or more slowly:
>>
>> Just be cause. You can.
>>
>
>Will you say that ' I chose it, because I chose it' is the same as 'I chose
>it, because I am cause'?
>
>The latter actually makes sense to me.
>
No, but if it works for you then use it.
They are spherical bastards.....bastards no matter which way you look at them.
Moshe Rabinowitz
"Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8oa302$63r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000825105417...@nso-fi.aol.com>,
> olaf...@aol.com (Olaf Olay) wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it.
>
> I am confused, Olaf. Please explain which comes first: the choosing
or
> the choosing or the choosing ?
>
> Simpatice
> Serena
Very perceptive, Serena. Time is the significant element in the
discussion.
The usual way <choosing> is understood is as a selection made from
what is available, after which the chooser has the particular item
chosen, and before which the chooser didn't have the specific item,
but did have the group of items (which included the item chosen) from
which to choose.
From this point of view, choosing is a non-coerced selection by a
conscious entity, from a group of existing items, each of which is a
possible choice. That is, <choosing> only takes place if there are
alternatives, and if the <chooser> has the freedom to select from
among them. If there is an election in which there is only one
candidate, the voter is said to have no choice.
As I see it, much of the confusion which exists about <choosing>
comes from the fact that Landmark, est and Werner have had several
different conversations about the word, and (especially new) graduates
sometimes mix up the two main discussions.
Chocolate or vanilla, choose! This is a discussion of whether you
are freely selecting in your life from the available possibilities, or
whether previously made decisions, either made by you, or made by
another and assumed by you, are making the choice for you.
Life is a ripoff when you expect ot get what you want. Life works
when you choose what you got. Actually what you got is what you
chose. To move on, choose it. (from Werner's aphorism book.) In
this discussion, the chooser already has the item (or circumstance),
and yet is admonished to after the fact <choose it>. The point of
this discussion is that when people resist having what they have --
their job, their relationship, or any circumstance in their life -- as
evidenced by their complaints about it and rejection of it -- they are
actually choosing another way the circumstance could be that they
prefer over the way it is. The problem with this involves the fact
that <another way the circumstance could be> doesn't exist. Only <the
way it is> exists. Now, <another way the circumstance could be> may
be possible for the viewer to create in the future -- but right now it
is just an idea. And until the viewer chooses it being the way it is,
he disempowers himself from having it be different. For example,
someone who is in Chicago but wants to be in New York is still in
Chicago if all they do is think about how much better it would be to
be in New York. Things begin to change only when they accept that
they're in Chicago and head east.
Olaf Olay
In article <Q73q5.3459$zr1....@news02.optonline.net>, <mo...@optonline.net>
wrote:
That was an excellent, easy to understand, and very responsive answer. I thank
you for composing and posting it. Your insights into the subtleties of the
distinctions are impressive.
Olaf Olay
Alan
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8oa302$63r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > olaf...@aol.com (Olaf Olay) wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it.
> >
> > I am confused, Olaf. Please explain which comes first: the choosing
> or
> > the choosing or the choosing ?
> >
> > Simpatice
> > Serena
>
> discussion.
>
> what is available,
Not true. Very often I, and I hear, I don't like those choices.
after which the chooser has the particular item
> chosen, and before which the chooser didn't have the specific item,
> but did have the group of items (which included the item chosen) from
> which to choose.
>
Begs the question who gave the chooser the choices?
> From this point of view, choosing is a non-coerced selection by a
> conscious entity, from a group of existing items, each of which is a
> possible choice.
So far so good and how did the 'group of existing items' become in the
fist place?
That is, <choosing> only takes place if there are
> alternatives, and if the <chooser> has the freedom to select from
> among them. If there is an election in which there is only one
> candidate, the voter is said to have no choice.
>
> As I see it, much of the confusion which exists about <choosing>
> comes from the fact that Landmark, est and Werner have had several
> different conversations about the word, and (especially new) graduates
> sometimes mix up the two main discussions.
>
New graduates mix everything up, including why they chose to graduate
in the first place
> Chocolate or vanilla, choose! This is a discussion of whether you
> are freely selecting in your life from the available possibilities, or
> whether previously made decisions, either made by you, or made by
> another and assumed by you, are making the choice for you.
>
the questioner that requestes an answer to a choice is inadvertantly
selecting the possibilities... I.e chocolate or vanilla.... I choose
space ships and strawberies!!
> Life is a ripoff when you expect ot get what you want. Life works
> when you choose what you got. Actually what you got is what you
> chose.
Yep, I agree.. Life is what you choose, or decide, or go for or elect..
To move on, choose it. (from Werner's aphorism book.) In
> this discussion, the chooser already has the item (or circumstance),
> and yet is admonished to after the fact <choose it>. The point of
> this discussion is that when people resist having what they have --
> their job, their relationship, or any circumstance in their life -- as
> evidenced by their complaints about it and rejection of it -- they are
> actually choosing another way the circumstance could be that they
> prefer over the way it is.
Sound like choice, inherently is a complaint, and that the only way to
reconcile the choice/decision thing is to invest heavily in a Weenie
course (capitalised, not out of respect but so that the pun can be
understood)
The problem with this involves the fact
> that <another way the circumstance could be> doesn't exist. Only <the
> way it is> exists. Now, <another way the circumstance could be> may
> be possible for the viewer to create in the future -- but right now it
> is just an idea. And until the viewer chooses it being the way it is,
> he disempowers himself from having it be different. For example,
> someone who is in Chicago but wants to be in New York is still in
> Chicago if all they do is think about how much better it would be to
> be in New York. Things begin to change only when they accept that
> they're in Chicago and head east.
>
>
How much for that insight?
I don't like London and all the while I live here I am a possibility
for something else. While I recognise that, it remains a decision, and
until I put the first penny in the old savings pot to do something
about it, it becomes a choice.
I think all the ex landmarkers should get together and offer the
possibility to all those people that are an inadvertant request for
exit couselling. We could charge per paradigm shift exposed, or,
better still, we could charge by the number of times the LM vocab is
used; ~i get it~, ~around it~, ~make space around it~, ~the game is~
etc etc etc.
Love always
Alan
Estie
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
Hi Moshe,
Thanks for your explanation of ~choosing what you have~, but that wasn't
the question that was raised (by a fairly recent Forum grad).
The question is what value there is in "I choose (chocolate or vanilla)
because I choose." That involves choosing between two things, neither
of which the person already has.
So far all we've gotten is a lot of Zenish-sounding gobbledygook and a
discussion of the giant mutant Reason which controls people, keeps them
stuck, and makes choices for them.
Can you offer a coherent explanation of how "choosing because you
choose" is valuable in life? Sure sounds like what every parent says
when they want to end The Whys: BECAUSE I SAID SO! <end of
discussion>.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Serena Nordstrup
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> news:8oa302$63r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > olaf...@aol.com (Olaf Olay) wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Ultimately we choose what we choose because we choose it.
> >
> > I am confused, Olaf. Please explain which comes first:
> > the choosing or the choosing or the choosing ?
> >
> > Simpatice
> > Serena
>
> Time is the significant element in the discussion.
<snip>
I am still confused. I will rephrase the unanswered question in
simplified and tagged form:
Premise: We choose(1) x because we choose(2) it.
Question: What comes first in time: "choose(1)" or "choose(2)" ?
Alan
The questioner put that there. We responded as a someone elses request to
chose BETWEEN vanilla OR chocolate. As I am a request and that request is
listened to and heard, the hearing and listening becomes absent when changed..
the hearing does not remain authentic. I put to you that your realisation
'chocolate, vanilla, choose' entirely reflects your listening
In article <8o6m44$hqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, larrry...@my-deja.com says...
>
>I just realized something. The exercise is "vanilla chocolate
>choose." There is no "or." And there's no "between."
>
>You put that in there. (I put that in there. We all put that in
>there.)
>
>I think *that's* the point of the exercise.
>
>
>
Moshe Rabinowitz
"Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ococ8$6a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hi Estie.
There is no value in "I choose because I choose."
There's no value in it because it doesn't mean anything. That's why
people who dump the concept on their friends get the reaction they
get.
On the other hand, the conversation < chocolate or vanilla, choose >
that took place in the Forum and est training and that ended with < I
chose .. because I chose > may have been valuable to participants.
And you may be right on target equating the answer < I chose ..
because I chose > with a parent saying <BECAUSE I SAID SO>. It sure
sounds the same to me.
On the other hand, as I recall, both est and the Forum repeatedly told
participants that they were not going to take anything home with them
in the form of rules to live by -- that that wasn't what was valuable
or even available in the courses. Rather, that by participating in a
conversation, they would discover things about themselves that would
transform the quality of their lives. At the point in the
conversation < chocolate or vanilla, choose > when the answer < I
chose .. because I chose > appeared, the valuable part of the
conversation may have already occurred. This < why > part, during
which some of the participants in the conversation discovered
something about themselves in the arena of <choosing> -- for example
why they chose the career or relationship they have -- was the value
available in the conversation <chocolate or vanilla >. The discovery
for many participants that THEY CHOSE what they have in their lives --
they, and not the circumstances, were the choosers -- allowed them to
see that they were free to choose again. That even with the same
circumstances, they could make a different choice. A very empowering
realization for someone who had been resigned to something in their
lives because of whatever their reason.
And who's to say that the conversation a child has about < why > isn't
potentially the same conversation?
Moshe
Estie
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip tangential material>
Once again, Moshe, you've explained something different than the
question raised.
The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes one's
choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's about
choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about that?
Putting aside the matter of minors or persons who have guardians, where
choices are made by one individual on behalf of another, I don't think
it's a big secret to independent adults that they make their own
choices.
That is, until they get into the realm of undue influence. Then they
think they're making their own choices when in fact they're being
manipulated into something that is not freely chosen.
f.k...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes one's
>choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's about
>choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about that?
Sorry to but in, but when I experienced this process or "stage act" in
the est training, I didn't get or don't recall that it was about
choosing for "no reason". I remember the moment that I understood the
point of the exercise, watching with the 350 others in the audience as
the woman on stage kept generating reasons why she chose chocolate.
I understood that I didn't need to create a justification for every
decision that I made. I no longer needed to know why I chose
something almost before I choose it.
The trainer then launched into an inquiry about how the woman on stage
"decided" on chocolate. I remember my trainer Neil's, definition of
"decide"............"decide means to kill off all the other
alternatives."
from http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi
Main Entry: de.cide
Pronunciation: di-'sId, dE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French decider, from Latin
decidere, literally, to cut off, from de- + caedere to cut
Date: 14th century
Inflected Form(s): de.cid.ed; de.cid.ing
transitive senses
1 a : to arrive at a solution that ends uncertainty or dispute about b
: to select as a course of action -- used with an infinitive
2 : to bring to a definitive end
3 : to induce to come to a choice
intransitive senses : to make a choice or judgment
- de.cid.abil.i.ty /di-"sI-d&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- de.cid.able /di-'sI-d&-b&l/ adjective
- de.cid.er noun
synonyms DECIDE, DETERMINE, SETTLE, RULE, RESOLVE mean to come or
cause to come to a conclusion. DECIDE implies previous consideration
of a matter causing doubt, wavering, debate, or controversy .
DETERMINE implies fixing the identity, character, scope, or direction
of something . SETTLE implies a decision reached by someone with power
to end all dispute or uncertainty . RULE implies a determination by
judicial or administrative authority . RESOLVE implies an expressed or
clear decision or determination to do or refrain from doing something
In the LEC Forum, I knew the outcome of the exercise and watched as a
woman went through the same process on stage. She took a long time to
finally get it, but she did. She happened to be sitting beside me
before she volunteered to go up on stage and I recall her being
agitated as if she were upset that she wasn't getting the point of the
Forum.
After completing the process, she opened up and was very relaxed for
the balance of the weekend as if she no longer needed to justify why
she signed up for the Forum (my interpretation).
>
>Putting aside the matter of minors or persons who have guardians, where
>choices are made by one individual on behalf of another, I don't think
>it's a big secret to independent adults that they make their own
>choices.
>
>That is, until they get into the realm of undue influence. Then they
>think they're making their own choices when in fact they're being
>manipulated into something that is not freely chosen.
In life, you don't have to do anything. No one can exert undue
influence upon you unless you let it happen. IMO, most (note: I said
most not all.) people can recognize manipulation as it is happening.
Those that can't, sign up for the next seminar "for no reason".
Fred Kidd
fk...@bellsouth.net
"It is certainly not the least charm
of a theory that it is refutable."
Nietzsche
Estie
f.k...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 05:17:01 GMT, Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes one's
> >choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's about
> >choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about that?
>
> Sorry to but in, but when I experienced this process or "stage act" in
> the est training, I didn't get or don't recall that it was about
> choosing for "no reason". I remember the moment that I understood the
> point of the exercise, watching with the 350 others in the audience as
> the woman on stage kept generating reasons why she chose chocolate.
I don't remember that "the point of the exercise" was ever stated. But
in the realm of "actions speak louder than words," the point of the
actions was to invalidate every reason, until the person got to the only
other possibility that was left, to choose for no reason, to choose
simply to choose.
> I understood that I didn't need to create a justification for every
> decision that I made. I no longer needed to know why I chose
> something almost before I choose it.
Fred, Fred, you're interpreting. It's not at all about justifying.
If I choose not to stick my hand near a rattlesnake, am I justifying my
choice by saying that rattlesnake bites are poisonous, or am I acting
out of a knowledge of consequences?
> The trainer then launched into an inquiry about how the woman on stage
> "decided" on chocolate. I remember my trainer Neil's, definition of
> "decide"............"decide means to kill off all the other
> alternatives."
Which was exactly what the trainer did - kill off all the other
alternatives.
> In the LEC Forum, I knew the outcome of the exercise and watched as a
> woman went through the same process on stage. She took a long time to
> finally get it, but she did. She happened to be sitting beside me
> before she volunteered to go up on stage and I recall her being
> agitated as if she were upset that she wasn't getting the point of the
> Forum.
>
> After completing the process, she opened up and was very relaxed for
> the balance of the weekend as if she no longer needed to justify why
> she signed up for the Forum (my interpretation).
Certainly was.
> >Putting aside the matter of minors or persons who have guardians,
where
> >choices are made by one individual on behalf of another, I don't
think
> >it's a big secret to independent adults that they make their own
> >choices.
> >
> >That is, until they get into the realm of undue influence. Then they
> >think they're making their own choices when in fact they're being
> >manipulated into something that is not freely chosen.
>
> In life, you don't have to do anything. No one can exert undue
> influence upon you unless you let it happen. IMO, most (note: I said
> most not all.) people can recognize manipulation as it is happening.
BS, Fred. You haven't recognized the manipulation that happened to you
twenty years ago.
- Estie
Serena Nordstrup
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> There's no value in it because it doesn't mean anything.
Words fail me at the enormity of this philosophical insight.
The corollaries are fascinating.
The meanings of rainbows...
The value of fora...
Simpatice
Serena
G.T. Tyson IV
Alan wrote:
> Larry Larry Larry
>
> The questioner put that there. We responded as a someone elses request to
> chose BETWEEN vanilla OR chocolate. As I am a request and that request is
> listened to and heard, the hearing and listening becomes absent when changed..
> the hearing does not remain authentic. I put to you that your realisation
> 'chocolate, vanilla, choose' entirely reflects your listening
>
> (some deleted)
This is EXACTLY what turns many people off from whatever benefits Landmark/The
Forum/est may have to offer. You people can take one slightly obscure point and
make it totally obscure by discussing it to death when neither side has a clear
idea of what the hell they're talking about (aside from the chocolate/vanilla
business). You need to talk about something other than "I'm saying this because
I'm saying this" and "I'm replying because I choose to reply but I disagree with
the way you think I heard it" if you want people to GET IT. Sheesh.
GTTysonIV
Tar...@skantech.com
f.k...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>In article <d00uqso05fibvrngi...@4ax.com>,
> f.k...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 05:17:01 GMT, Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes one's
>> >choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's about
>> >choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about that?
>>
>> Sorry to but in, but when I experienced this process or "stage act" in
>> the est training, I didn't get or don't recall that it was about
>> choosing for "no reason". I remember the moment that I understood the
>> point of the exercise, watching with the 350 others in the audience as
>> the woman on stage kept generating reasons why she chose chocolate.
>
>I don't remember that "the point of the exercise" was ever stated. But
>in the realm of "actions speak louder than words," the point of the
>actions was to invalidate every reason, until the person got to the only
>other possibility that was left, to choose for no reason, to choose
>simply to choose.
>
>> I understood that I didn't need to create a justification for every
>> decision that I made. I no longer needed to know why I chose
>> something almost before I choose it.
>
>Fred, Fred, you're interpreting. It's not at all about justifying.
I wasn't speaking about "it", whatever your "it" is. I was speaking
about the realization that I had.
>
>If I choose not to stick my hand near a rattlesnake, am I justifying my
>choice by saying that rattlesnake bites are poisonous, or am I acting
>out of a knowledge of consequences?
How would I know why ? I don't know. I'd have to be able to read
your mind and my psychic powers faded shortly after I made my last
$50.00 contribution to "The Hunger Project". Go figure.
>
>> The trainer then launched into an inquiry about how the woman on stage
>> "decided" on chocolate. I remember my trainer Neil's, definition of
>> "decide"............"decide means to kill off all the other
>> alternatives."
>
>Which was exactly what the trainer did - kill off all the other
>alternatives.
>
I think that was the point.
>> In the LEC Forum, I knew the outcome of the exercise and watched as a
>> woman went through the same process on stage. She took a long time to
>> finally get it, but she did. She happened to be sitting beside me
>> before she volunteered to go up on stage and I recall her being
>> agitated as if she were upset that she wasn't getting the point of the
>> Forum.
>>
>> After completing the process, she opened up and was very relaxed for
>> the balance of the weekend as if she no longer needed to justify why
>> she signed up for the Forum (my interpretation).
>
>Certainly was.
>
>> >Putting aside the matter of minors or persons who have guardians,
>where
>> >choices are made by one individual on behalf of another, I don't
>think
>> >it's a big secret to independent adults that they make their own
>> >choices.
>> >
>> >That is, until they get into the realm of undue influence. Then they
>> >think they're making their own choices when in fact they're being
>> >manipulated into something that is not freely chosen.
>>
>> In life, you don't have to do anything. No one can exert undue
>> influence upon you unless you let it happen. IMO, most (note: I said
>> most not all.) people can recognize manipulation as it is happening.
>
>BS, Fred. You haven't recognized the manipulation that happened to you
>twenty years ago.
Is that so ?
Exactly how were you manipulated ?
Estie
"G.T. Tyson IV" <Tar...@skantech.com> wrote:
> This is EXACTLY what turns many people off from whatever benefits
Landmark/The
> Forum/est may have to offer. You people can take one slightly obscure
point and
> make it totally obscure by discussing it to death when neither side
has a clear
> idea of what the hell they're talking about (aside from the
chocolate/vanilla
> business). You need to talk about something other than "I'm saying
this because
> I'm saying this" and "I'm replying because I choose to reply but I
disagree with
> the way you think I heard it" if you want people to GET IT. Sheesh.
>
> GTTysonIV
> Tar...@skantech.com
That's the point, booby pie. There are people who say this exercise was
"valuable", and yet there isn't any clarity of what it was about. We've
had at least four different interpretations.
Velly intelesting.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Alan
Nice post. When we string a few words together, they often culminate
in a sentence. These sentences try (sometimes successfully) to impart
a point about something. This is what we call the first part of a
discussion, a statement if you like. Very often these single
statements are responded to, and low and behold, a discussion ensues.
I'm intrigued how you think people should ~get it~. I know the choice
could have been between dog shit and cabbages, but the discussion was
about how either was selected.
By the way, I'm not writing this as a landmarker - personally its a
load of old bollocks.
Love always
Alan
PS Don't forget to breathe and the side plate goes on the left ;)
In article <39B033B6...@skantech.com>,
"G.T. Tyson IV" <Tar...@skantech.com> wrote:
>
>
Moshe Rabinowitz
> In article <r7dr5.10$aQ5...@news02.optonline.net>,
> "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> <snip tangential material>
>
> Once again, Moshe, you've explained something different than the
> question raised.
>
> The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes one's
> choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's
about choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about
that?
>
Who said it's about choosing without any reasons? I don't remember
them saying that in the training or forum.
I remember them saying (over and over) -- Don't take anything you get
here home to make rules for your life.
Take home the discoveries about how YOU BE in life. Take home what
you've realized about your <already always listening> and see, in
your life, how it limits you.
In the case of this particular exercise, participants got to observe
their own ALREADY EXISTING decision-making processes. They weren't
told how they should make decisions, or how not to -- they saw how
THEY already made decisions.
>I don't think it's a big secret to independent adults that they make
their own choices.
> That is, until they get into the realm of undue influence. Then
> they think they're making their own choices when in fact they're
being
> manipulated into something that is not freely chosen.
Did you ever have the experience of not liking a kind of food -- and
then later in your life liking it? See if you can remember why you
didn't like the food? I'll bet you had some reason, some association
with the food item that repulsed you. (I didn't like okra because it
reminded me of the pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers).
And when you finally learned to like that food, did the person who had
you try it <manipulate> you?
Do you NOW like it only because you were manipulated?
* * *
How many people that you know <chose> the political party or religion
or even profession they are affiliated with by becoming aware of the
various possible choices, educating themselves about the differences
between them, and choosing? And how many <chose> because it was the
political party, religion or profession that their parents had? Or
the diametrically opposed political party, religion or profession that
their parents had?
Estie, can't you see a possible value in looking into your own life
and discovering how you've made choices?
Moshe
Estie
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> said:
"Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8okpo0$cn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>Who said it's about choosing without any reasons? I don't remember
>them saying that in the training or forum.
<rolls eyes> We've already covered this. I don't remember the leader
saying that either. But when he/she shoots down every reason until a
choice is made that involves no reason, what message do you get?
>I remember them saying (over and over) -- Don't take anything you get
>here home to make rules for your life.
Here we go on another tangent. I'm going to follow this one.
They *say* that. I don't think they mean it, and it's certainly not the
result they produce. Could have something to do with closing off all
other options, dontcha think?
>Take home the discoveries about how YOU BE in life. Take home what
>you've realized about your <already always listening> and see, in
>your life, how it limits you.
Does that include the new and improved ~already always listening~ that
Forumers learn?
>Did you ever have the experience of not liking a kind of food -- and
>then later in your life liking it? See if you can remember why you
>didn't like the food? I'll bet you had some reason, some association
>with the food item that repulsed you. (I didn't like okra because it
>reminded me of the pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers).
Eat your okra. The pod people already got you. :)
>And when you finally learned to like that food, did the person who had
>you try it <manipulate> you?
>Do you NOW like it only because you were manipulated?
That's a stupid question.
* * *
>How many people that you know <chose> the political party or religion
>or even profession they are affiliated with by becoming aware of the
>various possible choices, educating themselves about the differences
>between them, and choosing? And how many <chose> because it was the
>political party, religion or profession that their parents had? Or
>the diametrically opposed political party, religion or profession that
>their parents had?
I think we'd both agree that most if not all people are limited (by
various factors) from experiencing the full range of what's available in
life. I think it's inherent with being human. And I think we'd both
agree that there's value in going beyond those limits, in having more
available to us.
I think it's fairly safe to say that anyone who would do the Forum is
relatively open to new experiences. Now, here's the rub. Generally
speaking, people don't come out of the Forum being more open, than they
were before, to all of what's available in life. They come out of the
Forum being even more stuck and limited in the Landmark way of being
than they ever were in their old way of being. They've exchanged one
set of limits for another, and it wasn't a choice freely made.
AND, the methods that are used in the Forum are harmful to many people.
>Estie, can't you see a possible value in looking into your own life
>and discovering how you've made choices?
Yep. And you want to know the worst way I ever chose and the worst
choice I ever made? "Trust your friend. What have you got to lose?"
*That* was an *EXPENSIVE* mistake!
Being open doesn't mean you have to buy swamp land in Florida.
Moshe Rabinowitz
>
> >On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> said:
>
> "Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8okpo0$cn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <r7dr5.10$aQ5...@news02.optonline.net>,
> >> "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip tangential material>
> >>
> >> Once again, Moshe, you've explained something different than the
> >> question raised.
> >>
> >> The "chocolate vanilla choose" exercise isn't about who makes
one's
> >> choices (other than it asserts that reasons make choices). It's
> about
> >> choosing without any reasons. Find anything valuable about that?
> >>
>
> >Who said it's about choosing without any reasons? I don't
remember
> >them saying that in the training or forum.
>
> <rolls eyes> We've already covered this. I don't remember the
leader
> saying that either. But when he/she shoots down every reason until
a
> choice is made that involves no reason, what message do you get?
>
That depends on whether you're listening to how the conversation in
the room ends, or how the conversation in your head ends.
Out in the room, the conversation ends with:
Choice is selecting freely, and after consideration.
NOT with no reason -- the reasons are there, in the considering,
which is an integral part of the choosing! Note the word - and.
Without considering, selecting freely is something a randomizing
computer program could do -- but it wouldn't be choosing! A person
with a dart board could do it -- but it wouldn't be choosing.
Considering. as I understand it, involves analyzing and weighing
reasons.
A human being, after analyzing and weighing reasons, is in a position
to truly choose.
Without analyzing and weighing reasons, a human being could be letting
ONE reason decide, like What's easiest? or What would my father
do? or What won't make waves? -- but none of those would be that
human being choosing.
Now, do you still think you were told to choose without reasons?
Moshe
jim_...@my-deja.com
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8p20j2$joq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
>
That is consistent with my memory, though I don't remember whether the
"and" was there or not. I'm not sure it's relevant.
As I recall, one of the purposes in this concept was to avoid the
problem of defending the "reasons" for our decisions, especially when
the consequences of the decision aren't what was intended, thereby not
being "stuck" in the defense of a poor decision.
Serena Nordstrup
This threadlet is becoming increasingly fascinating.
In article <3zUs5.2$P_1....@news02.optonline.net>,
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ono04$rf9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <r7dr5.10$aQ5...@news02.optonline.net>,
> > "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > There's no value in it because it doesn't mean anything.
> >
> > Words fail me at the enormity of this philosophical insight.
> > The corollaries are fascinating.
> >
> > The meanings of rainbows...
> >
> > The value of fora...
> >
> > Simpatice
> > Serena
> >
> I think you might be stretching a little here, Serena.
A corollary _is_ a stretching. A free bonus. But a logical and
apparent one, I trust.
> IT refers to a sentence -- words.
Are you now suggesting that words have _no_ meaning ? no
semantic content ?
Are words nothing but decorative scum on the surface of
raw emotionality?
Please defend, delimit or deny your contention.
Estie
"Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8p20j2$joq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >Who said it's about choosing without any reasons? I don't
> remember
> > >them saying that in the training or forum.
> >
> > <rolls eyes> We've already covered this. I don't remember the
> leader
> > saying that either. But when he/she shoots down every reason until
> a
> > choice is made that involves no reason, what message do you get?
> >
>
> That depends on whether you're listening to how the conversation in
> the room ends, or how the conversation in your head ends.
If you want to have a conversation with me, cut the "oh aren't I clever"
self-righteous junior forum leader CRAP, you little piss ant!
- Estie
Moshe Rabinowitz
would truly prefer to dialogue with you on the subject at hand, rather
than exchange disparaging comments about each other.
Moshe
Estie
Moshe, I'm inclined not to trust the sincerity of your apology. You
don't communicate that "dialoguing" with anyone is your uppermost
interest. (You haven't demonstrated it.) You communicate that "getting
the upper hand" over others is most important to you, and that you'll do
it *at any cost* to the other people involved. (Reminds me a lot of
graduate seminar leaders.)
I've had some time to think about "why" your comment so infuriated me.
And, trust me, my comment came no where close to clearly communicating
my anger, or the low regard you merited by your action. There are other
posters who've had similar experiences to mine, and perhaps they'll join
into this discussion. I'm going to attempt to explain this for the
benefit of those readers who haven't "experienced" est or Landmark,
since this isn't something I've ever encountered outside those
organizations.
Moshe's action was a small example of something I encountered in a far,
far greater extreme while I was involved with est, and it certainly
hasn't dissappeared in Landmark. To begin with, in the programs,
reality was dealt with in a manner that I can only describe as "fast and
loose." The programs intentionally aimed at disrupting, breaking the
participant's hold on objective reality. And they succeeded. Over and
over again. Without apology. It was framed as a good thing.
Other than Landmark's pet Dr. Fowler, most psychologists describe this
as creating a psychotic break with reality, and it is NOT, by any
stretch of the imagination or ethical behavior, a good thing. It is an
action that produces suffering and pain. It is an action that
disempowers people, sometimes to the point of not being able to function
in life. And it leaves lasting psychological scars.
Moshe reminded me of how often, when I attempted to talk to staff
members who *could* have solved problems, about systemic things that
"didn't work" at est (let's be frank, they were abusive), this "parlor
trick" (also used in the programs) was pulled out. I was accused of
"making up" or ~creating~ what in fact existed in objective reality, and
what in fact was not the result of my actions, but of those who wished
to avoid accountability for their actions. And it was done in a way
that, if it didn't make me doubt my own grasp on reality, it was at
least *impossible* for communication to take place. "That depends on
whether you're listening to the conversation in the room, or the
conversation in your head." It is NOT POSSIBLE to have a conversation,
for communication to take place, with someone who not only denies that
objective reality exists, but accuses someone else of making it up.
"It's all in your head!"
I couldn't help but notice that this was the *first* comment Moshe made.
Not only did it not work for me, it was intended not to work for me.
It was intended to pull the reality rug out from under me, and thus give
Moshe the upper hand. (And I wonder why my physical "trip and fall"
mechanism goes off in the middle of the night!)
Well, to Moshe and all the others who bully people with this tactic,
*YOU WIN!* You won fifteen years ago, and I, and the thousands (or
hundreds of thousands) of others who were treated that way, LOST. We
lost bigtime! This is exactly why I finally came to the realization
that the *only* option that would work for me, without costing me my
sanity, was to leave est and to have *nothing to do* with people like
that in my life.
Now, if I could indulge the conversation that's really in my head right
now, I'd like to see justice done. I'd like to see all the people like
Moshe experience the pain they've inflicted on others. I'd like to see
them tortured in the most excrutiating way imaginable. Since our
society doesn't indulge that sort of punishment in kind, I'll be more
civilized about it. I'd be appeased if all the people who have
inflicted that kind of pain were sued for every penny they had and spent
the rest of their lives behind bars.
Does that communicate it?
Gert
to blame for everything'-post, I'll suggest you follow up on your own post:
>'This is exactly why I finally came to the realization
>that the *only* option that would work for me, without costing me my
>sanity, was to leave est and to have *nothing to do* with people like
>that in my life.'
Now, it's pretty obvious that you will have something to do with
est/landmark people in this group. Why don't you quit it? (and please take a
moment to consider the answer)
And here is something fun for you to play with:
My interpretation of what goes on with your presence here is that you engage
in the conversations to have any graduate tell you something that serves to
remind you of your earlier days with Est. At that point you feel you have a
right to get very abusive and pull out the classic 'don't you dare junior-FL
me' followed by a share of your troubled life, and why everyone else is to
blame except Saint Estie.
The ugly part is, that many graduates make excuses, even when you, Estie,
get abusive, and then you're free to continue.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Gert
Estie
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Estie. After reading your long 'I feel sorry for myself, and someone
else is
> to blame for everything'-post, I'll suggest you follow up on your own
post:
Why thank you so much, Gert, for your compassionate *listening*. <end
sarcasm>
You know, I've had a very hard time restraining myself from using the
Forums own tools on those of you who use them on others. I mean, I've
had years and years to learn that they don't work for people, not even
for you. Oh, what the hell. See anything of an ~interpretation~ above,
Gert? Did I ever say anything about feeling sorry for myself? Did I
ever say it was all about me, and not also about many, many other
people? Did I say it was anything about blame?
Look again, and you might find something to learn in my experience.
> >'This is exactly why I finally came to the realization
> >that the *only* option that would work for me, without costing me my
> >sanity, was to leave est and to have *nothing to do* with people like
> >that in my life.'
>
> Now, it's pretty obvious that you will have something to do with
> est/landmark people in this group. Why don't you quit it? (and please
take a
> moment to consider the answer)
I didn't say I wanted nothing to do with est/Landmark people. In
context, I was saying that I wanted nothing to do with people who play
the kind of destructive mind games I was describing. I've been on this
group for several years now, and Moshe is the *first* person to use that
particular technique.
> And here is something fun for you to play with:
> My interpretation of what goes on with your presence here is that you
engage
> in the conversations to have any graduate tell you something that
serves to
> remind you of your earlier days with Est. At that point you feel you
have a
> right to get very abusive and pull out the classic 'don't you dare
junior-FL
> me' followed by a share of your troubled life, and why everyone else
is to
> blame except Saint Estie.
> The ugly part is, that many graduates make excuses, even when you,
Estie,
> get abusive, and then you're free to continue.
I think you forgot to ~be responsible for creating me.~ :)
> There are no facts, only interpretations.
That certainly makes all the evil in the world possible.
Can't help but wondering, Gert, if someone came up and slapped the hell
out of you, would you perhaps do or say something in the least bordering
on "abusive" in response? Just because you don't have the insight to
know how abusive Moshe was is no justification for attacking someone for
standing up for their own rights. I tell you what, why don't you go
back and enroll in some more Landmark courses and assisting. Spend
about ten years there being committed to making it work for yourself and
others. See how often destructive mind games are used to "make Landmark
right" and make other wrong. See how pervasive it is. Then come back
and tell us if your interpretation has changed.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Serena Nordstrup
Hi Gert
>
> There are no facts, only interpretations.
>
"No"-statements and "Only"-assertions are almost as much fun
as "All"-claims.
Do you ever detect entities somewhere between facts and
interpretations?
Are you aware of any phenomena that are more "factoid"
than others?
Simpatice
Serena
jim_...@my-deja.com
Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <SyJt5.267$fI2....@news02.optonline.net>,
> "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8p75p8$dqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <HBht5.35$Sm1....@news02.optonline.net>,
> > > "Moshe Rabinowitz" <mo...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Estie" <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8p20j2$joq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
When I read your post, it struck me very strongly.
I am still trying to determine (after sometime time of contemplation)
why that is and to put that into words...
It occurs to me that what you wrote summarizes very well (on an
emotional level) the kinds of long term negative impacts that LEC can
have on some people's lives. Your words allowed me to understand in
more specific (though less than precise) terms what you and others have
been saying for awhile. I thank you for that.
I didn't experience LEC the same way that you (and others with extreme
negative outcomes) did, however your post did provide me with a window
into those experiences (the experiences themselves and possible causal
factors).
Please accept my wish for your recovery.
Regards,
Jim
Estie
Serena Nordstrup <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8phki0$ppj$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
> "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> Hi Gert
>
> >
> > There are no facts, only interpretations.
> >
>
> "No"-statements and "Only"-assertions are almost as much fun
> as "All"-claims.
>
> Do you ever detect entities somewhere between facts and
> interpretations?
>
> Are you aware of any phenomena that are more "factoid"
> than others?
>
> Simpatice
> Serena
Hi Serena,
You owe me for leaving that plum unpicked. I thought you'd have fun
with it. :)
Gert does tend to see things in black and white terms. I don't suppose
the Forum had anything to do with that.
I can't help but wonder how well the approach "there are no facts, only
interpretations" works in his profession as a journalist.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Estie
jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Estie,
>
> When I read your post, it struck me very strongly.
>
> I am still trying to determine (after sometime time of contemplation)
> why that is and to put that into words...
>
> It occurs to me that what you wrote summarizes very well (on an
> emotional level) the kinds of long term negative impacts that LEC can
> have on some people's lives. Your words allowed me to understand in
> more specific (though less than precise) terms what you and others
have
> been saying for awhile. I thank you for that.
It surprised me, too. :) I had mentally lumped some things together.
It wasn't until I was in the middle of writing that post that I was able
to put my finger on the mental reality shifts as *the* thing (although I
had other concerns) that drove me out of est.
> I didn't experience LEC the same way that you (and others with extreme
> negative outcomes) did, however your post did provide me with a window
> into those experiences (the experiences themselves and possible causal
> factors).
>
> Please accept my wish for your recovery.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
Not only do I accept your wish, I am warmed and touched by both your
genuine concern for me and the compassion of you.
If I could take the liberty, I'd like to extend your caring to enfold
all those who have been hurt by est and Landmark. I add my caring to
your own, and I think I know Pamela well enough to also include hers.
God bless us, every one.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Linda
Can we extend that caring to the people "still in", who by your own
knowlege and experience are currently in pain and suffering and perhaps
deserve quite a bit of compassion and understanding themselves.
> I add my caring to
> your own, and I think I know Pamela well enough to also include hers.
>
> God bless us, every one.
Including the pro_Leccies? Can we have concern and respect for them and
see them as people with feelings and hurts too?
Linda
Estie
Linda <linc...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Can we extend that caring to the people "still in", who by your own
> knowlege and experience are currently in pain and suffering and
perhaps
> deserve quite a bit of compassion and understanding themselves.
I always have. It was probably the means of my undoing while I was
"still in".
> Including the pro_Leccies? Can we have concern and respect for them
and
> see them as people with feelings and hurts too?
>
> Linda
There are probably some who won't like this either, but I've always made
a mental distinction between "the person" and "what est/Landmark has
done to them."
It doesn't mean I won't laugh if I see someone waddling down the street
dressed like a duck. (And I do remember how itchy those feathers
were!) :)
- Estie
chil...@my-deja.com
For me, being married to a person like my husband is like living in
California: it's an earthquake zone but my home nonetheless. The lgat
(large group awareness training) was like a seismic trigger. I can't
blame Lgats for my husband's volatile personality. But, undoubtedly, the
lgat was responsible for an intense quake in my family's vicinity.
Subsequent to Lgat involvement, there were 7 suicide attempts, one
extramarital affair (the first such in 20 years and, of course, with a
fellow Lgat-er), financial deficits due to tuition payments, neglect
of children and a disabled parent, lies lies lies, coercion, emotional
blackmail ("If you don't go to the lgat, you don't love me"), 4 months
of severe depression, several violent scenes the likes of which the
family had never seen, and now, finally, an attempt at recovery with the
help of therapy, family, and friends, non-Lgat-ers all.
As for me, some days I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. It
is very difficult to be effective in my life as a mother, teacher, and
friend when all this bullshit intrudes. It makes me want to run as far
away from lgat programs as I can get.
Just venting, getting through another day...Chili
Jen
{{{{{{{{{Chili and your family}}}}}}}}}}
kia kaha (stand strong)
aroha nui (big love)
Jen.
mo...@my-deja.com
critical thinking is "A W O L" (Absent While Owned by Landmark) It
seems all of us are suffering, LEC present recruits/grads (even if they
are still pro-LEC, family, relatives, friends, etc. The only one not
suffering (smiling instead) is a guy in the Cuaymon (sp?) Islands...
I have found that we (LEC-ers & non-Lec-ers) cannot converse without an
interpreter, but for the LEC-er, the real personality is in there
somewhere...still seeing/hearing what is going on, but unable to get to
the surface. (Is this a subject anyone feels like discussing?) Pro LEC-
ers, does this subject immediately make you anxious or defensive
without knowing why? (Don't ya love the power of that last word?)
It seems in many posts, that we get to na-na-na-na rather than
discussion, usually initiated from the same side of the pro/con-LEC-
equation. This will get us nowhere. They are MANY humane beings that
are suffering out there, some without knowing how it happened...
This mind reform is very similar to a severe flu, it affects people
individually in different degrees, but the overall result is the
same...possible severe complications AND many are unsure where
they "caught" it.
Estie & Chilibean, thank you for saying what it is. This type of
information needs to get out to lots o' folks...we just need to figure
out how to do it. It always makes me wonder, what's goin' on..
(apologies to CSNY) when people react "ballistically" (with physical
reactions, screaming, attorneys threatening to sue your magazine, etc)
when a differing point of view is simply raised, instead of a
discussion, chat or ...... "c o n v e r s a t i o n " where you here
each one's opinions and respect them for that.
More later...
In article <8po01f$hm5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
chil...@my-deja.com wrote:
jim_...@my-deja.com
>
> For me, being married to a person like my husband is like living in
> California: it's an earthquake zone but my home nonetheless. The lgat
> (large group awareness training) was like a seismic trigger. I can't
> blame Lgats for my husband's volatile personality. But, undoubtedly,
the
> lgat was responsible for an intense quake in my family's vicinity.
Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC world",
that may "strike home".
Just a thought.
I for one would be most interested in his participation.
Gert
Estie wrote:
>
>Why thank you so much, Gert, for your compassionate *listening*. <end
>sarcasm>
>
sarcasm is wasted.
>You know, I've had a very hard time restraining myself from using the
>Forums own tools on those of you who use them on others. I mean, I've
>had years and years to learn that they don't work for people, not even
>for you. Oh, what the hell. See anything of an ~interpretation~ above,
>Gert? Did I ever say anything about feeling sorry for myself? Did I
>ever say it was all about me, and not also about many, many other
>people? Did I say it was anything about blame?
>
>Look again, and you might find something to learn in my experience.
Probably. I can always find something to learn when I 'look again'. I create
it. But surely there are places I want to look more closely for learning
than in your recent post.
>
>I didn't say I wanted nothing to do with est/Landmark people. In
>context, I was saying that I wanted nothing to do with people who play
>the kind of destructive mind games I was describing. I've been on this
>group for several years now, and Moshe is the *first* person to use that
>particular technique.
You have responded very often to people, that they shouldn't even dare think
about coaching/juniorFL'ing you.
If you say you wont have anything to do with people who 'play games' with
you. Why are you in conversation with them?
>
>I think you forgot to ~be responsible for creating me.~ :)
I don't think I have ever said that I created you. If I did, it was a
mistake.
>
>> There are no facts, only interpretations.
>
>That certainly makes all the evil in the world possible.
Yes. But I don't think I have the same 'evils' as you.
And are you saying that your way of thinking banishes evil?
>
>Can't help but wondering, Gert, if someone came up and slapped the hell
>out of you, would you perhaps do or say something in the least bordering
>on "abusive" in response? Just because you don't have the insight to
>know how abusive Moshe was is no justification for attacking someone for
>standing up for their own rights.
See how you trap yourself here? You grant yourself the right to 'stand up
for your rights', while others are either abusive or lack insights when they
speak their mind.
> I tell you what, why don't you go
>back and enroll in some more Landmark courses and assisting. Spend
>about ten years there being committed to making it work for yourself and
>others. See how often destructive mind games are used to "make Landmark
>right" and make other wrong. See how pervasive it is. Then come back
>and tell us if your interpretation has changed.
>
>- Estie
No thanks. Working for LEC is not the thing I want to do with my life. If I
did, however, I would certainly change a lot of things in the organization.
Regards,
Gert
Gert
Estie wrote:
>
>Hi Serena,
>
>You owe me for leaving that plum unpicked. I thought you'd have fun
>with it. :)
>
>Gert does tend to see things in black and white terms. I don't suppose
>the Forum had anything to do with that.
>
>I can't help but wonder how well the approach "there are no facts, only
>interpretations" works in his profession as a journalist.
>
>- Estie
>--
>Living is an art, not a science.
Estie, another fine example of rude behaviour in my book. Discussing present
people in third person is not something I would do.
My approach with 'no facts, only interpretations' serves me very well in
journalism. It helps me stay away from the self-righteous path many people
(journalists, non-journalists) walk.
Gert
Gert
Serena Nordstrup wrote:
>
>Hi Gert
>
>>
>> There are no facts, only interpretations.
>>
>
>"No"-statements and "Only"-assertions are almost as much fun
>as "All"-claims.
>
>Do you ever detect entities somewhere between facts and
>interpretations?
>
>Are you aware of any phenomena that are more "factoid"
>than others?
>
>Simpatice
>Serena
>
Yes, I am aware, that some phenoma are more 'factoid' than others.
My statement was not about obvious physical appearances, although they can
be discussed into uncertainty as well. I see no use for this though, and
will suffice it to say, that the facts and interpretations I speak about
here are of the type: 'what is going on', - actions, intentions etc.
Serena, are you making a case for a statement like: 'There are some facts,
and there are some interpretations'? Can you give me a way to distinguish
between them?
Regards,
Gert
Gert
'There are no facts, only interpretations.'
I hope you all someday will be able to change your current interpretations
at will.
Regards,
Gert
mo...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelelsen <8po5m8$p47$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
chil...@my-deja.com
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Most of these recent posts definitely deserve the label:
> 'There are no facts, only interpretations.'
>
> I hope you all someday will be able to change your current
interpretations
> at will.
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
You know, Gert: There are facts. Things happen. People act.
Children suffer. Checks bounce. Thrown lamps break. Splinters cut.
I understand that there is more than one way to interpret events. But
if the hand painted coffee mug (painted by my child) is broken during
an argument by being knocked off the table by an angry person, I am
going to feel loss, anger, disappointment, fear, annoyance. I am not
going to make up some story about the mug being a symbol of old
paradigms being swept away by the enlightenment of a new way of
thinking. I choose not to interpret this as my projection of my past on
my present so that my attitude created the future reality of the broken
mug. And I choose to tell people who attempt to escape personal
responsibility by spewing such bullshit to stop patronizing me and to
get the hell out of my kitchen. Regards. Chili
Estie
In article <8pp2kr$1ck$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
--
When in Rome, have a toga party.
Estie
Hi Chili,
I was just about to ask you how things were going at home. I had no
idea it was that serious. Words are insufficient to express how shocked
I was by your post and how much my heart goes out to you, your husband,
your family, and friends. Hang in there. Silly me, I just started to
say "if" you ever need encouragement .... Of course you need
encouragement. Anyone in your situation would.
I hope your husband is seeing a therapist who understands LGATs.
I also hope it is some small comfort to you to know that some of us
understand his pain and how difficult the recovery process is. You are
not alone.
What just came into my mind was the response to the Oklahoma City
bombing. That horrible tragedy brought out the best in so many people:
people who wouldn't give up as long as there was one more life to be
saved, even though they themselves were worn out and traumatized.
Somehow I know that you and your family have that kind of courage.
Consider it your "jobs" at this time to be good to yourselves, to take
care of yourselves and each other, to heal. Everything else will wait.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Jen
> I hope you all someday will be able to change your current
interpretations
> at will.
Why would you hope for that?
Jen.
Estie
mo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have a viviid understanding to Chilibean's situation.My wife's
> critical thinking is "A W O L" (Absent While Owned by Landmark) It
> seems all of us are suffering, LEC present recruits/grads (even if
they
> are still pro-LEC, family, relatives, friends, etc. The only one not
> suffering (smiling instead) is a guy in the Cuaymon (sp?) Islands...
>
> I have found that we (LEC-ers & non-Lec-ers) cannot converse without
an
> interpreter, but for the LEC-er, the real personality is in there
> somewhere...still seeing/hearing what is going on, but unable to get
to
> the surface. (Is this a subject anyone feels like discussing?) Pro
LEC-
> ers, does this subject immediately make you anxious or defensive
> without knowing why? (Don't ya love the power of that last word?)
Going back to my own experience, I think by the time I had finished the
training, I had pretty much lost touch with my real personality. It
didn't make much of an effort to get to the surface. And every time it
made even a small attempt, it was slapped in the face by someone using
the ~technology~.
It wasn't until I finally got away from that environment that I began to
rediscover myself, bit by bit.
Realizing what I did when I wrote the "creating value" post was very
powerful for me in releasing the hold the ~technology~ had/has on me. I
went through a lot immediately following that, beginning with a severe
case of diarrhea the next day (no shit!). I don't know if this has been
other people's experience, but I find that everything I went through
going in I have to go through again getting out. I can remember times
in est when I was very vulnerable, and I would get very cold. The day
after the "creating value" post, even though the weather was hot, I
finally had to crawl under the electric blanket and turn it on to
"high."
> It seems in many posts, that we get to na-na-na-na rather than
> discussion, usually initiated from the same side of the pro/con-LEC-
> equation. This will get us nowhere. They are MANY humane beings that
> are suffering out there, some without knowing how it happened...
That's something I really don't understand. Thankfully there are
exceptions. But it's beyond me that there are people who, knowing that
people suffer, turn a deaf ear, make it ok, even walk by and spit on the
suffering ones.
It is not ok that people suffer as the result of est/Landmark. It is
not ok! IT IS NOT OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Can't make it any bigger.)
> This mind reform is very similar to a severe flu, it affects people
> individually in different degrees, but the overall result is the
> same...possible severe complications AND many are unsure where
> they "caught" it.
>
> Estie & Chilibean, thank you for saying what it is. This type of
> information needs to get out to lots o' folks...we just need to figure
> out how to do it. It always makes me wonder, what's goin' on..
> (apologies to CSNY) when people react "ballistically" (with physical
> reactions, screaming, attorneys threatening to sue your magazine, etc)
> when a differing point of view is simply raised, instead of a
> discussion, chat or ...... "c o n v e r s a t i o n " where you here
> each one's opinions and respect them for that.
Same sort of thing happens in the Forum. That's why it really frosts me
that they call it a "conversation."
> More later...
My support to you and yours.
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Gert
Jen skrev i meddelelsen <8ppmu8$kn6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8pp2kr$1ck$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
> "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>
>> I hope you all someday will be able to change your current
>interpretations
>> at will.
>
>Why would you hope for that?
>
>Jen.
>
I find displays of optimism and whenever someone solves a difficult
situation inspiring.
Why do you question my hope?
Gert
Gert
Estie skrev i meddelelsen <8ppl4q$ik1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>There's no one out here, Gert. *YOU* create it *ALL*.
>
Estie, what is this crap supposed to mean?
Are you somehow trying to fit me into a discussion that takes place in your
own head? Something you never got cleared up? Then take that discussion
where it belongs.
You know, I have nothing to do with EST or LEC. If you want to debate a
concept brought up in the trainings, then fine. If you want me to take on
the defense of the organisation, while you act as a prosecutor, then no
thank you. I have much better things to do.
And besides it would only be a surrogate for the real confrontation you
dream about.
Gert
Gert
chil...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelelsen <8ppb38$7eg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>You know, Gert: There are facts. Things happen. People act.
>Children suffer. Checks bounce. Thrown lamps break. Splinters cut.
>I understand that there is more than one way to interpret events. But
>if the hand painted coffee mug (painted by my child) is broken during
>an argument by being knocked off the table by an angry person, I am
>going to feel loss, anger, disappointment, fear, annoyance. I am not
>going to make up some story about the mug being a symbol of old
>paradigms being swept away by the enlightenment of a new way of
>thinking. I choose not to interpret this as my projection of my past on
>my present so that my attitude created the future reality of the broken
>mug. And I choose to tell people who attempt to escape personal
>responsibility by spewing such bullshit to stop patronizing me and to
>get the hell out of my kitchen. Regards. Chili
>
>
Chili
Excellent way to handle it.
Too many words can certainly be used to escape responsibility. Throwing him
out of your kitchen looks to me as an act of responsibility on your part.
Where is the problem?
Regards
Gert
Jen
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> Jen skrev i meddelelsen <8ppmu8$kn6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8pp2kr$1ck$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
> > "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I hope you all someday will be able to change your current
> >interpretations
> >> at will.
> >
> >Why would you hope for that?
> >
> >Jen.
> >
>
> Why do you question my hope?
I didn't question your hope. I made an enquiry of you and your
meaning/intent - because I didn't understand.
> I find displays of optimism and whenever someone solves a difficult
> situation inspiring.
Now I understand better. For you, changing interpretations is
optimistic and a solution to difficult problems.
Sometimes - when the problem lies within your interpretaion. In Chilis
case I don't think so. A precious object was needlessly broken. There
is no problem with her interpretation of that. The problem lies outside
her "interpretations". And the problem has not been "solved".
mo...@my-deja.com
Paralysis of analysis!
In article <8oq834$mds$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39B033B6...@skantech.com>,
> "G.T. Tyson IV" <Tar...@skantech.com> wrote:
>
> > This is EXACTLY what turns many people off from whatever
benefits
> Landmark/The
> > Forum/est may have to offer. You people can take one slightly
obscure
> point and
> > make it totally obscure by discussing it to death when neither side
> has a clear
> > idea of what the hell they're talking about (aside from the
> chocolate/vanilla
> > business). You need to talk about something other than "I'm saying
> this because
> > I'm saying this" and "I'm replying because I choose to reply but I
> disagree with
> > the way you think I heard it" if you want people to GET IT.
Sheesh.
> >
> > GTTysonIV
> > Tar...@skantech.com
>
> That's the point, booby pie. There are people who say this exercise
was
> "valuable", and yet there isn't any clarity of what it was about.
We've
> had at least four different interpretations.
>
> Velly intelesting.
>
> - Estie
> --
> Living is an art, not a science.
>
mo...@my-deja.com
Estie,
I think it's called PA (paralysis of analysis!) Lots of folks paid lots
a money wanting to become individual free-thinkers only to become a
cookie-cutter cut-out of conFORUMity production! One "get-it gadget"
fits all. Forget about free thinking, just flip the response tape on. I
wonder who controls the remote?
Moodi
chil...@my-deja.com
> {{{{{{{{{Chili and your family}}}}}}}}}}
>
> kia kaha (stand strong)
> aroha nui (big love)
> Jen.
>
Thanks, Jen. I have gotten some great support from this group. I want
other people to know that they can get through this stuff! Chili
chil...@my-deja.com
to know that these things really do happen, in present time. It seems
to help knowing we are not alone. Chili
chil...@my-deja.com
>
> Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
> discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC world",
> that may "strike home".
>
> Just a thought.
>
> I for one would be most interested in his participation.
Hi, Jim. I am reluctant to ask him to be involved in this right now
because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet his
appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not, he
is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful stuff, I
guess. Chili
chil...@my-deja.com
> Hi Chili,
>
> I was just about to ask you how things were going at home. I had no
> idea it was that serious. Words are insufficient to express how
shocked
> I was by your post and how much my heart goes out to you, your
husband,
> your family, and friends. Hang in there. Silly me, I just started to
> say "if" you ever need encouragement .... Of course you need
> encouragement. Anyone in your situation would.
>
> I hope your husband is seeing a therapist who understands LGATs.
>
> I also hope it is some small comfort to you to know that some of us
> understand his pain and how difficult the recovery process is. You
are
> not alone.
>
> What just came into my mind was the response to the Oklahoma City
> bombing. That horrible tragedy brought out the best in so many
people:
> people who wouldn't give up as long as there was one more life to be
> saved, even though they themselves were worn out and traumatized.
> Somehow I know that you and your family have that kind of courage.
>
> Consider it your "jobs" at this time to be good to yourselves, to take
> care of yourselves and each other, to heal. Everything else will
wait.
>
> - Estie
>
Thanks, Estie. We are okay today. I still feel very angry. I don't know
where to put all of it! There is even a part of me that hopes he'll
return to the lgat so that I don't have to deal with the work of the
recovery process. At times, it would be easier, I think! Then I could go
on with my life with my kids and not look at the last year. But, for
some perverse reason, I have agreed to give this recovery a chance. I
guess it is a sense of fair play. Anyway, thanks again for the words of
encouragement. Everyone has been helpful- even the people who piss me
off!
Pamela Fitzpatrick
sincerely understand what you are going through...unfortunately I'm the
antagonist in this household but at the same time I'm "lucky" to have a
patient family willing to get me through all of this...the "recovery" part
anyway.
Your post really hit home Chili...painfully so.
-pam
Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8ppmks$k62$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Gert
mo...@my-deja.com wrote<8pqith$jgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>Estie,
>
>I think it's called PA (paralysis of analysis!) Lots of folks paid lots
>a money wanting to become individual free-thinkers only to become a
>cookie-cutter cut-out of conFORUMity production! One "get-it gadget"
>fits all. Forget about free thinking, just flip the response tape on. I
>wonder who controls the remote?
>
>Moodi
>
mo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Estie,
>I think it's called PA (paralysis of analysis!) Lots of folks paid lots
>a money wanting to become individual free-thinkers only to become a
>cookie-cutter cut-out of conFORUMity production! One "get-it gadget"
>fits all. Forget about free thinking, just flip the response tape on. I
>wonder who controls the remote?
>
>Moodi
>
And where is the free thinking in your post, Moodi?
You sound an awful lot like someone looking to obtain a few nice pats on the
cheek from the people here you know will agree with you. You will probably
get them, congratulations. Remember to pat back, when someone puts forward
another 'fun' description of people, with another worldview than your own.
You can probably end up having one hell of a conversation and a lot of
mutual understanding. You could call it 'ISEO': Identify Self by Excluding
Others. This technique is used by Landmark too. Great - huh?
Regards,
Gert
(I control the remote)
Gert
control him and you're sure to keep him away from LGAT's.
It was your husband, eh? Not your 4-years old?
Regards,
Gert
chil...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelelsen <8pqkfi$lkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I
>>
>> Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
>> discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC world",
>> that may "strike home".
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> I for one would be most interested in his participation.
>
>Hi, Jim. I am reluctant to ask him to be involved in this right now
>because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet his
>appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not, he
>is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful stuff, I
>guess. Chili
>
>
chil...@my-deja.com
I figure we only have so much time in each day. The things I want to
share with my husband do not include this newsgroup particularly! I once
suggested he read a similar site and it was very upsetting for him. I
used that as well as other things to decide that inviting him here is
not something I want to do at this time! If he wants to join the
newsgroup, he can do it as anyone else can - look it up, sign up, start
reading and writing.
As for control, I have never in my life encountered so much Control as I
did in my interactions with lgats. Control, control, control - only they
called it by other names.
And, no. It was not my 4 year old, although I could see the leaders
salivating at the prospect of enrolling my two minor children into the
kids' programs. Over My Dead Body!
Chili
In article <8pqn3b$gpq$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Why not put him in a straitjacket while you're at it? Will be easier
to
> control him and you're sure to keep him away from LGAT's.
> It was your husband, eh? Not your 4-years old?
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
> chil...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelelsen
<8pqkfi$lkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >I
> >>
> >> Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
> >> discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC
world",
> >> that may "strike home".
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> I for one would be most interested in his participation.
> >
> >Hi, Jim. I am reluctant to ask him to be involved in this right now
> >because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet
his
> >appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not,
he
> >is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful
stuff, I
> >guess. Chili
> >
> >
jim_...@my-deja.com
chil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I
> >
> > Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
> > discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC world",
> > that may "strike home".
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > I for one would be most interested in his participation.
>
> because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet
his
> appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not,
he
> is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful
stuff, I
> guess. Chili
Consider this: This is not a "rah-rah go-o-o- LEC" site. It has "both
sides" represented.
I submit to you (and totally my own opinion) that any poorly
considered/reasoned defense of LEC and the "work", by him or anyone
else, will be soundly rebutted.
I was thinking this might be helpful to him, if his ideas are "from
left field", though the emotional shock may be pronounced.
mo...@my-deja.com
Thank you for your viewpoint. I appreciate your opinion. You displayed
how conversation/chats/discussions really work, two sides exchanging
info. However I am disappointed that you prejudged me with little
information. Your judgement is no where near my intent.
By the way, I feel sad that you seem to need to be in control (as in
your post) and need a remote. Be sure to check your batteries... :o) !!
M.
In article <8pqm7a$fch$2...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
Pamela Fitzpatrick
Your ~response~ is uncalled for, rude even.
If they are in recovery...and he is wanting to work with his family to heal
the damage, imo this is the *last* place he should be.
It is not a matter of control, it is a matter of respecting a families
recovery process.
Why are you not able to respect that?
Would it be for the same reason that some suggested that I "shut up" about
my ex-husband and his LGAT involvement because he wasn't here to defend
himself?
ummmm?
-pam
Gert <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in article <8pqn3b$gpq$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>...
> Why not put him in a straitjacket while you're at it? Will be easier to
> control him and you're sure to keep him away from LGAT's.
> It was your husband, eh? Not your 4-years old?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
>
>
>
> chil...@my-deja.com skrev i meddelelsen <8pqkfi$lkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >I
> >>
> >> Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in the
> >> discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC world",
> >> that may "strike home".
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> I for one would be most interested in his participation.
> >
> >Hi, Jim. I am reluctant to ask him to be involved in this right now
> >because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet his
> >appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not, he
> >is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful stuff, I
> >guess. Chili
> >
> >
mo...@my-deja.com
I want to thank here also for your advise over the past few months. You
have my support in seeing you through this. Just knowing that there are
others out there in similar situations helped me look at the situation
that I am in from a different angle. It began to give me some strength
and to understand that her behavior. It is not easy, but I have to
constantly remind myself that it is not. Yes, by giving information
like this, you WILL help others.
Me
<8pqk6o$l97$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
chil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Part if the reason I posted such personal info is because I want
people
> to know that these things really do happen, in present time. It seems
> to help knowing we are not alone. Chili
patkel...@my-deja.com
wants to learn how to be a good debater:
Now if anybody says that the Bush camp stole
Gore's videos, nobody will ever believe them
-and that's why the truth is always stranger than fiction.In article
<8pp1lf$skk$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> Estie wrote:
> >
> >Hi Serena,
> >
> >You owe me for leaving that plum unpicked. I thought you'd have fun
> >with it. :)
> >
> >Gert does tend to see things in black and white terms. I don't
suppose
> >the Forum had anything to do with that.
> >
> >I can't help but wonder how well the approach "there are no facts,
only
> >interpretations" works in his profession as a journalist.
> >
> >- Estie
> >--
> >Living is an art, not a science.
>
> Estie, another fine example of rude behaviour in my book. Discussing
present
> people in third person is not something I would do.
>
> My approach with 'no facts, only interpretations' serves me very well
in
> journalism. It helps me stay away from the self-righteous path many
people
> (journalists, non-journalists) walk.
>
> Gert
>
> strawberry
Al Gore stole Bush's debate videos because he
wants to learn how to be a good debater:
Now if anybody says that the Bush camp stole
Gore's videos, nobody will ever believe them
-and that's why the truth is always stranger than fiction.
Jen
jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8pqkfi$lkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> chil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Is your husband willing/able to (with your concurrence) join in
the
> > > discussion here? He may see some things, outside of the "LEC
world",
> > > that may "strike home".
> > >
> > > Just a thought.
> > >
> > > I for one would be most interested in his participation.
> >
> > Hi, Jim. I am reluctant to ask him to be involved in this right now
> > because he is just starting his "recovery" and I don't want to whet
> his
> > appetite for lgat talk while he is in this stage. Believe it or not,
> he
> > is still a fan and would like to see me go. It is very powerful
> stuff, I
> > guess. Chili
>
> sides" represented.
>
> I submit to you (and totally my own opinion) that any poorly
> considered/reasoned defense of LEC and the "work", by him or anyone
> else, will be soundly rebutted.
>
> I was thinking this might be helpful to him, if his ideas are "from
> left field", though the emotional shock may be pronounced.
Hi Jim - you may be right but I suspect the 'recovery' Chili talks
about is not "recovery from ideas that are from left field". We are
talking about psychological injury/damage here.
One would not encourage someone who has broken their leg skiing because
of bad technique to go to a ski training course to learn the right
technique - well not till their leg has healed properly anyway:-)
We are talking about "healing" here - not just "correction". I trust
Chilis judgement on this. Maybe this group can offer some help in the
healing - but I think that comes later on.
Jen.
jim_...@my-deja.com
Agreed, should that be the situation. This is outside my experience so
I will say no more.
jim_...@my-deja.com
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> There are no facts, only interpretations.
This is just too "juicy" to pass up. I embraced a similar platitude
for awhile, it being:
"There is no 'truth'".
To which a dear friend responded. "Is it true that there is no
truth?". I laughed my ass off thinking of that one and came to
understand the absurdity of such circular reasoning. It also gave me an
opening "to give up" my pompousness.
So, in the same vane (sp) I ask "Is it factual that there are no facts,
only interpretations or is it ONLY your interpretation that there are
no facts"?
Curiously,
Jim
Gert
chil...@my-deja.com wrote in
<8pqq98$td6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Gert, You are a hoot!
>I figure we only have so much time in each day. The things
I want to
>share with my husband do not include this newsgroup
particularly! I once
>suggested he read a similar site and it was very upsetting
for him. I
>used that as well as other things to decide that inviting
him here is
>not something I want to do at this time!
Thanks for providing lots of new explanations for your
decision. And I am sure you can come up with even more
reasons, if one of these get challenged. It actually starts
to hit home with the name of the thread once more.
>If he wants to join the
>newsgroup, he can do it as anyone else can - look it up,
sign up, start
>reading and writing.
That's right. People can do a lot on their own. Now you have
put the responsibility for whether your husband join here or
not on him, and ruled yourself powerless in this decision.
Oh, and your husband doesn't even know you have given him
that responsibility. So now it's up to Fate to decide?
>As for control, I have never in my life encountered so much
Control as I
>did in my interactions with lgats. Control, control,
control - only they
>called it by other names.
Remember the 'no facts, only interpretations'? I would like
to add, that many interpretations are shaped by this maxim;
' What you don't like in others is what you don't like in
yourself'. At least I find it very funny to explore this
path for myself.
>And, no. It was not my 4 year old, although I could see the
leaders
>salivating at the prospect of enrolling my two minor
children into the
>kids' programs. Over My Dead Body!
>Chili
>
Well, given the average death-age, chances are that your
children will have at least 30 years of free will to
exercise then.
(excuse me for being rude, but quite frankly I think the
hugs, warm thoughts etc. sent via usenet will only help
destroy your relationship)
Regards,
Gert
Gert
mo...@my-deja.com wrote <8pr3cp$98t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Gert,
>
>Thank you for your viewpoint. I appreciate your opinion.
You displayed
>how conversation/chats/discussions really work, two sides
exchanging
>info. However I am disappointed that you prejudged me with
little
>information. Your judgement is no where near my intent.
Ok, it made sense to me while I wrote it. But I will discard
it now you say its no where near. I'll wait for your own
words on your intent rather than pop a new guess.
>
>By the way, I feel sad that you seem to need to be in
control (as in
>your post) and need a remote.
Its ok, I have no trouble causing sadness in this situation.
> Be sure to check your batteries... :o) !!
>
>M.
Hehe, I don't operate on batteries. I'm a generator.
Gert
Estie
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
You, Gert, create your own reality. You create it all. There's no one
out there.
--
When in Rome, go to a toga party.
Estie
"Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> mo...@my-deja.com wrote<8pqith$jgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >
> >Estie,
> >
> >I think it's called PA (paralysis of analysis!) Lots of folks paid
lots
> >a money wanting to become individual free-thinkers only to become a
> >cookie-cutter cut-out of conFORUMity production! One "get-it gadget"
> >fits all. Forget about free thinking, just flip the response tape on.
I
> >wonder who controls the remote?
> >
> >Moodi
> And where is the free thinking in your post, Moodi?
>
> You sound an awful lot like someone looking to obtain a few nice pats
on the
> cheek from the people here you know will agree with you. You will
probably
> get them, congratulations. Remember to pat back, when someone puts
forward
> another 'fun' description of people, with another worldview than your
own.
>
> You can probably end up having one hell of a conversation and a lot of
> mutual understanding. You could call it 'ISEO': Identify Self by
Excluding
> Others. This technique is used by Landmark too. Great - huh?
>
> Regards,
> Gert
>
> (I control the remote)
Ok, moodi, in order to get the ~value~ of this newsgroup, You need to be
in front of your computer tomorrow morning at 9 am, focused *only* on
this ng. Expect to be in front of your computer for 15 hours a day for
the next three days. You will be given one meal break and a few short
bathroom breaks. You are free to eat and sleep after the sessions, and
there will be homework for you to do during that time. Speak only to
the program leader when you are called on to do so. Do not drink any
alcohol or take any medications except those your doctor has told you
you must take. Do not smoke.
Set your kill filters so that you see only those posts which are
approved.
Your life doesn't work. The world doesn't work. We will be redefining
not only your language and your reality, but also every reference and
belief you have.
We will destroy everything you know. We will show you the futility of
your existence.
Then we will fill you with an experience of the infinite.
We will bombard you with many testimonials of the wonders of our ways.
We will use hypnosis and neuroleptic programming to imbed our ways
firmly into your consciousness.
We will lead you through some horrible experiences, so that you will be
so relieved when they are over you will be euphoric.
We will subject you to so much stress that your body will be flooded
with endorphins and anadreline which will create a high. You will enjoy
the high so much that you won't care about anything else.
Fasten your seat belt!
- Estie
(The remote is controlled from Grand Cayman Island.)
Gert
Estie skrev i meddelelsen <8psa77$npn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8prsic$r2h$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
> "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>You, Gert, create your own reality. You create it all.
There's no one
>out there.
>
I notice you start repeating yourself from an earlier post,
Estie. And even skip whatever I have written in between.
How come? Doesn't make much of a conversation.
Gert
Jen
> quite frankly I think the
> hugs, warm thoughts etc. sent via usenet will only help
> destroy your relationship)
Wow! I didn't know my cyberhugs would be THAT powerful:-)))
Here...lets try an experiment.....
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{everyone here - including Gert}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
.....now......waiting to see the effects...........
;-)
love
Jen.
chil...@my-deja.com
But, since people sign up willingly (or do they?), there is not much we
can do. What you do with this type of post is provide information for
people who may not have heard your take on what goes on during those 3
- 4 days.
Thanks. Chili
In article <8psc2m$po3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Estie
> > "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> >
> >You, Gert, create your own reality. You create it all.
> There's no one
> >out there.
> >
>
> Estie. And even skip whatever I have written in between.
>
> How come? Doesn't make much of a conversation.
You create the conversation. You create the value of the conversation.
Estie
Jen <je...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8prsic$r2h$1...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
> "Gert" <g...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> > hugs, warm thoughts etc. sent via usenet will only help
> > destroy your relationship)
>
>
> Here...lets try an experiment.....
>
> {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{everyone here - including
Gert}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>
> .....now......waiting to see the effects...........
>
> ;-)
>
> love
> Jen.
giggle
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Estie
chil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Estie, This post was to the point: what these groups do is coercive.
> But, since people sign up willingly (or do they?), there is not much
we
> can do. What you do with this type of post is provide information for
> people who may not have heard your take on what goes on during those 3
> - 4 days.
> Thanks. Chili
There's much more to it than this, and it's difficult to make an analogy
to a usenet newsgroup, where it's impossible to have the kind of control
Forum Leaders have. For example, the newsgroup leader would have to be
able to kick Gert out in a show of "who's in control".
As far as people signing up willing is concerned, yes, but. They are
manipulated emotionally. They aren't told all the things they need to
know in order to make an informed decision. They often are in a
vulnerable state. (A high percentage have recently had a major life
stressor: loss or change of job, change of residence, loss of
relationship, etc.) Most people have no idea to beware of the methods
that are used.
If you put a frog into boiling water, it will jump out. If you put it
into lukewarm water and then slowly increase the temperature, it will
stay there until it's cooked.
> In article <8psc2m$po3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Estie <estie_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
I should have put a ";)" after this. What we actually will do is create
a severe dissociative state (removal from reality). Since almost no one
has ever experienced this before, what do you know if we tell you it's
an experience of ~nothing~ or nirvana.
> > We will bombard you with many testimonials of the wonders of our
ways.
> >
> > We will use hypnosis and neuroleptic programming to imbed our ways
> > firmly into your consciousness.
Darn, second time I've done this. It's neurolinguistic programming.
> > We will lead you through some horrible experiences, so that you will
> be
> > so relieved when they are over you will be euphoric.
> >
> > We will subject you to so much stress that your body will be flooded
> > with endorphins and anadreline which will create a high. You will
> enjoy
> > the high so much that you won't care about anything else.
> >
> > Fasten your seat belt!
> >
> > - Estie
> >
> > (The remote is controlled from Grand Cayman Island.)
- Estie
--
Living is an art, not a science.
Gert
the world with the view, that I am responsible for it all.
The things I have, the things I don't have.
This is rather different from the idea you continue to
harass, that I created it all. An idea I dont subscribe to.
Do you agree?
Gert
Estie skrev i meddelelsen <8puug5$n3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...