Charlene Afremow: What Happened?
Lawrence Berrick
Afremow: What Happened?
There has been a lot made up about what happened with Charlene
Afremow. She filed a lawsuit against Werner Erhard and Associates and
lost the lawsuit. She always thought well of Werner Erhard.
She also has always thought well of Landmark Education Corporation,and
in fact has come back to work at Landmark Education Corporation
recently.
There was an announcement distributed in May and I got a copy to let you
know what is really happening with Charlene. This speaks to the power
of what is available in Landmark Education Corporation and its programs.
Although est and Werner Erhard and Associates are definitely not
Landmark Education Corporation, Charlene is one of the few people who
has now worked at all 3 companies.
Although your comments were about est and Werner Erhard and
Associates, I have read your postings and know you have an axe to grind
with Landmark Education Corporation. Therefore, I wanted to set the
record straight.
This announcement was written by Nancy Zapolski, who is a Forum Leader
accountable for developing all leaders in Landmark Education
Corporation.
***********************************************************************
A number of you know Charlene Afremow, a number of you may have heard
of her and many of you do not know her.
For those of you that don't know her, Charlene was an est Trainer and
then a Forum Leader from September, 1975 until April 1988. In April,
1988 her employment was terminated and later that year she filed a
lawsuit against Werner Erhard and Associates charging wrongful
termination.
In the case, the court ruled in favor of Werner Erhard and
Associates on the major points. Like many lawsuits, the case was
strongly pursued by both the plaintiff and the defendants and left
the people on both sides out of relationship with each other.
As time went by, although there was no direct communication with
Charlene, someone would hear from time to time of people who had
registered in the Landmark Forum or applied for Staff here at
Landmark Education Corporation because of her recommendation.
In October, 1997, while creating the future LEC
2020,particularly...
People and enterprises alive with freedom,
Operating with power,
Creating and fulfilling new worlds of opportunity
and out of my own relationship with Charlene as a Landmark Forum
Leader, I called Charlene to be in communication and spoke to her for
the first time in 9 years.
I called inside of the possibility to have the past be complete.
Over the past year and a half Charlene and I have remained in
communication and as our communication developed, a possibility for
the future began to arise. From our first phone call, Charlene has
always said that the issue she had and what the lawsuit was about
was never about Werner or the work. She has unabashedly expressed her
love and respect for the Landmark Forum Leaders, the Landmark staff and
the work.
Out of Charlene's and my conversations, in January
1999,Charlene, Steve Zaffron, Harry Rosenberg, Phyllis Allen and I all
met face to face for the first time since 1988. Charlene has also
met recently with Art Schreiber, again for the first time since 1988.
In these meetings everyone got into communication, resolved
questions, completed the past and furthered the conversation for
possiblity for the future.
Charlene completed the Landmark Forum this past weekend in
Washington D.C. In her words, "it was like coming home."
This past Monday, Charlene, Harry and I met and created a tentative
plan for Charlene being trained to lead and eventually leading the
Landmark Forum for Teens.
For the next few months Charlene will be being trained to lead the
Landmark Forum for Teens.
We are all committed that this plan works and we will evaluate it
together at the end of the year.
Charlene is being great.
The following is from Charlene:
"I would like to start this communication with an acknowledgement of
Nancy Zapolski who called me approximately two years ago. She was
generous beyond anything I ever thought possible. Several months later
I had dinner with Tom and Nancy Zapolski in NYC. We talked and
exchanged pictures of our past years. We agreed to continue our
conversation which eventually included Phyllis, Harry and Steve. The
moment we all met the healing process began. What was present was deep
pain and loss of our separation and profound joy at the same time.
Without a lot of explanation, it was obvious
that what was next was to create a new beginning. We are
in the process of organizing a path that will allow this
to happen.
I don't know how it was for each of you, however I am available for full
and open communication. I am open to
hear anything and everything. This event was devastating
to me, however it became a life defining experience that,
by my choice, will be used to empower others and the
commitment of this work.
My commitment to transformation is alive and present."
This Friday, May 14th Charlene will begin training to lead the
Landmark Forum for Teens in San Francisco with Phyllis Allen and Alan
Edelman.
***********************************************************************
Lawrence
--
"It is much easier to be critical than to be
correct."
- Benjamin Disraeli
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bob465
> Afremow: What Happened?
>
> There has been a lot made up about what happened with Charlene
> Afremow. She filed a lawsuit against Werner Erhard and Associates and
> lost the lawsuit. She always thought well of Werner Erhard.
you are misinformed. she certainly didn't get what she wanted but she was
awarded approx $30,000 in compensation for LEC (art) interferring w/ her
starting up her own relationships course.
as an aside - she was werner's trainer in his initial mind dynamics
experience.
Bob465
> awarded approx $30,000 in compensation for LEC (art) interferring w/ her
> starting up her own relationships course.
padon me. that was WE&A - not LEC. BobG.
..also - since the courts did rule against art - it is interesting just how
much of the material is lifted and even LEC's expression of of the
discipline called transformation. example:
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
axe to grind?? ...i got one w/ the pma. (proprietary materials agreement)
Larry Person
wrote:
Lawrence, the sniping at Linda is unnecessary and inconsistent with
the virtues of communication and completion that you extoll in your
message.
Did you have Landmark's permission to post that thing from Nancy? Did
you do it on your own or did someone ask you to do it?
That out of the way ...
I am inspired by Nancy's actions. I am inspired by Charlene's
actions. I am inspired by all the getting off it that seems to be
going on. Communication, completeness, and healing are all things I
see as possible -- and which I have produced in my own life -- as a
result of my participation.
It's AMAZING that ex-litigants have managed to get back in
communication. Bravo.
I'm thinking, in a way, this opens up a possibility for *me* to create
a fresh relationship with Landmark, distinct from my past relationship
with WE&A and Landmark. I mean, that's always been possible, but
there's something ~enrolling~ in the recent unfoldings of Charlene's
saga.
Thanks for posting that.
Bob465
> you do it on your own or did someone ask you to do it?
i find this interesting. i've not been in an we&a/lec course/seminar in
years save one exception. i am however very very much active in "the
conversation." (david smith's grad cyber-town square) what i find
interesting is that the whole foundation of "the work" is integrity. that is
having a powerful relationship w/ one's word such that coherence is
generated. ....and yet - the "pma" states that all "ideas & concepts" are
lec's. that is so far away from fact that it's startling.
i say that lec2020 will never happen w/out that being cleaned up. all this
permission stuff (within the framework of "the conversation") is built on a
lie essentially. lec's variation on the conversation is built on what is
brazenly "taken" w/out permission and also i say that the universe will
organize itself accordingly.
Lawrence Berrick
La...@LarryPerson.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:08:23 GMT, Lawrence Berrick <lber...@csi.com>
> wrote:
>
> Lawrence, the sniping at Linda is unnecessary and inconsistent with
> the virtues of communication and completion that you extoll in your
> message.
>
> you do it on your own or did someone ask you to do it?
>
>
> I am inspired by Nancy's actions. I am inspired by Charlene's
> actions. I am inspired by all the getting off it that seems to be
> going on. Communication, completeness, and healing are all things I
> see as possible -- and which I have produced in my own life -- as a
> result of my participation.
>
> It's AMAZING that ex-litigants have managed to get back in
> communication. Bravo.
>
> I'm thinking, in a way, this opens up a possibility for *me* to create
> a fresh relationship with Landmark, distinct from my past relationship
> with WE&A and Landmark. I mean, that's always been possible, but
> there's something ~enrolling~ in the recent unfoldings of Charlene's
> saga.
>
> Thanks for posting that.
>
Here is the short answer to your response and your questions.
Your right, I could have left out the "digs" at Linda. And yes I did
have "permission" to put this out on the NG. In fact, every person
mentioned in the communication had a part in creating it. There is a new
"distinction" (for lack of a better word) that is being spoken in the
Landmark Forum. It is Transformation: The Genesis of a new realm of
possibility. This new relationship was created out of that distinction.
It has already had an effect on the world. When you say that this
gives you a new possibility for your relationship with LEC then I know
that my spending a half hour or so in typing this up was worth the
effort.
Sincerely,
Lawrence
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Lawrence Berrick
"Bob465" <guev...@gte.net> wrote:
> > Did you have Landmark's permission to post that thing from Nancy?
Did
> > you do it on your own or did someone ask you to do it?
>
in
> years save one exception. i am however very very much active in "the
> conversation." (david smith's grad cyber-town square) what i find
> interesting is that the whole foundation of "the work" is integrity.
that is
> having a powerful relationship w/ one's word such that coherence is
> generated. ....and yet - the "pma" states that all "ideas & concepts"
are
> lec's. that is so far away from fact that it's startling.
>
> i say that lec2020 will never happen w/out that being cleaned up. all
this
> permission stuff (within the framework of "the conversation") is built
on a
> lie essentially. lec's variation on the conversation is built on what
is
> brazenly "taken" w/out permission and also i say that the universe
will
> organize itself accordingly.
>
Bob,
I'm not completely clear on what you see as having to be cleared up. Is
it the fact that the Technology that is used in creatig the Forum and
other programs, and the materials (the Course manuals etc.) are the
property of Landmark Education? Who else do you see as having
ownership?
But one other thing Bob, did you "get" what this posting was all about?
It is not about who got what amount of money. It is not about who owns
something. It is all about the power of communication.
Lawrence
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Bob465
> It is not about who got what amount of money. It is not about who owns
> something. It is all about the power of communication.
yes and the courts said that charlene was free to create her own
relationships course cuz we&a didn't own the languaging as such. just like
scientology couldn't stop werner from using what he "borrowed" from them.
Bob465
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
do you "really" know who owns what?? ..like really?? ..or are you making
broad assumptions just cuz lec has you sign a PMA. i've had lengthy
discussions w/ art schrieber about this very topic. i'm really interested in
the facts is all.
Larry Person
Lawrence Berrick wrote in message <7qkl04$irk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Your right, I could have left out the "digs" at Linda. And yes I did
>have "permission" to put this out on the NG. In fact, every person
>mentioned in the communication had a part in creating it. There is a new
>"distinction" (for lack of a better word) that is being spoken in the
>Landmark Forum. It is Transformation: The Genesis of a new realm of
>possibility. This new relationship was created out of that distinction.
> It has already had an effect on the world. When you say that this
>gives you a new possibility for your relationship with LEC then I know
>that my spending a half hour or so in typing this up was worth the
>effort.
Hmmm. Another reason to review the forum.
Actually, I think that post *was* pretty transformative (or whatever you
want to call it). I'm still finding ways that it moves and inspires me.
I notice that I have some trouble understanding you, Lawrence. It's never
clear to me who is speaking through your words. Is it you? Is it the FGA?
Is it Landmark? When you get "permission" to post something, is it for
strategic reasons? Is permission ever declined?
It's also curious to me that this is the second time in about a week that
something has come to light here on the newsgroup (the first being Jim's
verbatim posting of the enrollment thing -- also with permission).
Coincidence? Or is Landmark taking a more open posture with regard to
communicating on the newsgroup (albeit through proxies)? Are we witnessing
a controlled release of information, or were you and Jim moved to respond as
you did? Or is something happening in the work, in all this new technology
we're hearing about, that is making people more substantive (for lack of a
better word) in their communication?
I wonder how these new distinctions are *already* affecting my life, as
reflected in the space provided by the people I'm around who are likely
getting trained in them. :-)
Larry Person
the world" as Lawrence said in another post, does Landmark still own it?
What are the boundaries of the ownership? Does landmark own the effect
produced, in perpetuity? What would be the implications if it did? Or if
it even tried to assert that it did? Would it ever try to cash in the
chits? Has it already done so? <shudder>
Bob465 wrote in message ...
Jennifer Moore
thanks for posting that thing from Nancy & Charlene. My favourite bit
was Charlene saying "I am available for full and open communication. I
am open to hear anything and everything." what a ~place to stand~!
awesome! I think I'm gonna dwell in that for a while. (not that it's a
new idea to me - but I just got really ~present~ to the ~possibility~ of
it from her saying of it)
(hi Alan I am just thinking of you, having just said the words
"~present~ to the ~possibility~", thinking what a load of wank you
probably think that sentence is <giggling>)
As an addition to that - thinking of the ~listening~ that Pam & Jen &
others bring to this group and their entirely valid concern about
situations in which people get abused - I want to clarify that when I
hear that declaration of Charlene's, I don't interpret it as meaning
that when you hear something you have to believe it and live from it. I
don't mean that kind of "open". which could turn into something I think
could be ~distinguished as~ abusive. I mean for example if you are open
to hearing that someone thinks you are a bitch or you ruined their life,
it doesn't mean you have to _believe_ that you're a bitch or you ruined
their life. but it's about having room to hear that _they_ have that
thought. so that you can hear their experience and have compassion for
it and not have to resist it and argue about it.
or that is my version of it anyway.
In fact I think it's a prerequisite to standing in that place of "you
can say anything to me" that you have to have a very powerful
relationship to reality. that what comes out of their mouth is what
comes out of their mouth and true for _them_ in that moment and that is
how it is valid. and not have it invalidate you.
A few times I have been able to stand there with people who were really
upset with me and it is such a relief to them to be able to say it
(whatever "it" is). and sometimes it turns out that what they're upset
about is actually based on a misunderstanding anyway. so it's really
handy to get it all "on the table" and see what's there.
Lawrence subsequently you write in answer to Larry:
>yes I did
>have "permission" to put this out on the NG. In fact, every person
>mentioned in the communication had a part in creating it.
could you clarify that - what is the "it" that you mean by your last
word? did you mean that Nancy and Charlene et al had a part in
"creating" the posting of that statement to a.f.l? or was that second
sentence a non sequitur to the first? or what?
love to all
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Berrick
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> hi Lawrence
>
> thanks for posting that thing from Nancy & Charlene. My favourite bit
I
First. I took a look at your Homepage. What comes to mind is a very
overly used word here in the US. AWSOME!
To answer your question regarding the "IT" and the creation of the
posting. The "IT" I refered to in my reply to Larry is Nancy
Zapolski's Message to the Staff of LEC. It was this message that I was
requested to post. (I'm sure that that staement brings forth many
questions which I will be happy to respond to.) Each of the persons
mentioned in the message had input into what was written in the
message. The statements from Nancy Zapolski and Charlene Afremow were
entered verbaitem.
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Lawrence Berrick
"Bob465" <guev...@gte.net> wrote:
> btw did you read:
> http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
>
> do you "really" know who owns what?? ..like really?? ..or are you
making
> broad assumptions just cuz lec has you sign a PMA. i've had lengthy
> discussions w/ art schrieber about this very topic. i'm really
interested in
> the facts is all.
>
>
The article on Fernado Flores was very interesting, thanks for posting
it. Now I am begining to see where you are going in the conversation.
What I'd like to offer you is the possibility that no one really owns
the ideas that go to make up the "technology" (est. The Landmark
Forum, etc.) What LEC "Owns" is, and this is my interpretaion, what
they own is the structure in which they placed the words. In much the
same way as the author(s) of a college textbook on geology does.
And ... "IDMA and IDMATIDMA!" *
Charlene Afremow did what she did over the past 10 years. But she
never lost sight of what the "work" is all about. So Bob, I ask you to
look at giving up the conversation about ownership, at least in this
context.
* It Dosn't Mean Anything and ..... Well you know.
Lawrence
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Lawrence Berrick
"Larry Person" <La...@LarryPerson.com> wrote:
> Interesting question. When this stuff does go out and "have an
effect on
> the world" as Lawrence said in another post, does Landmark still own
it?
> What are the boundaries of the ownership? Does landmark own the
effect
> produced, in perpetuity? What would be the implications if it did?
Or if
> it even tried to assert that it did? Would it ever try to cash in the
> chits? Has it already done so? <shudder>
>
> Bob465 wrote in message ...
> > http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
> >
> >do you "really" know who owns what?? ..like really?? ..or are you
making
> >broad assumptions just cuz lec has you sign a PMA. i've had lengthy
> >discussions w/ art schrieber about this very topic. i'm really
interested
> in
> >the facts is all.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
That's a great question. Do I "own" my words and Nancy and Charlene
there's? Or do I "own" the message. I think that what Bob is speaking
of re: the PMA is where does LEC's "control" over the course end. I
know that when questions about the PMA have come up the answer has
always been that this is to let you (the participant) know that you
can't take what you learn in a LEC course, package it and then SELL it
as your own. The key here is SELL, make a profit. But nothing forbids,
nor do I think ever could, using the IDEAS, sharing them, using the
concepts, just not for personal gain.
I could be wrong about this, And as I write this I am intreauged enough
to go ask someone who would know the answer. So I will and I'll let
you know the result.
Lawrence
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Orroro/Fitz
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<cx3G2BAv...@material.demon.co.uk>...
<snip>
> As an addition to that - thinking of the ~listening~ that Pam & Jen &
> others bring to this group and their entirely valid concern about
> situations in which people get abused - I want to clarify that when I
> hear that declaration of Charlene's, I don't interpret it as meaning
> that when you hear something you have to believe it and live from it. I
> don't mean that kind of "open". which could turn into something I think
> could be ~distinguished as~ abusive. I mean for example if you are open
> to hearing that someone thinks you are a bitch or you ruined their life,
> it doesn't mean you have to _believe_ that you're a bitch or you ruined
> their life. but it's about having room to hear that _they_ have that
> thought. so that you can hear their experience and have compassion for
> it and not have to resist it and argue about it.
Just wanted to let you know I heard you here <g>.
I do have one question though, and this is on the heels of a "discussion" I
had with a fellow co-worker yesterday...sometimes discretion is a route to
go? Like if I went the route of telling it like it really is for me to this
co-worker, lets just say it would have gotten really ugly. The person
*speaking* needs to be just as responsible for what they say as the
listener needs to be to what is heard <i.e. interpretation>. Somewhere in
the training at LEC <and the previous incarnations> there was some type of
*permission* given in too many people's minds to be asses in the way they
communicate <as an example, esthole didn't appear in the language for no
reason> at people <notice, I didn't say *with* people>.
There has to be a responsibility for what is said. Is it the "right" thing
to say at that time. Are the reasons for that style of communication
forwarding to the conversation? For me, it seems that this element is
missing from the culture of LEC <and the previous incarnations> ... for me
personally...if someone that I loved and cherished spoke harshly towards
me, with all the pretty jargon right there on the tip of the tongue, had
taken a "few" courses well, they would be an "expert" IMO...so the words
would have more weight then would be justified.
Throw in a healthy dose of Master Manipulator techniques...and you end up
with incredibly lopsided conversation <if it can *even* be called
conversation>.
Guess what it comes down to ... why are the concerns that I express always
glossed over? Ignored even? Is it that irrelevant what I bring up? If so,
then maybe it is time for me to stop reading this newsgroup. <I have a life
outside of this newsgroup by the way...I just thought after enough time had
passed that my questions would be thoughtfully considered and that there
could even be a conversation about what I bring up...>
> or that is my version of it anyway.
>
> In fact I think it's a prerequisite to standing in that place of "you
> can say anything to me" that you have to have a very powerful
> relationship to reality. that what comes out of their mouth is what
> comes out of their mouth and true for _them_ in that moment and that is
> how it is valid. and not have it invalidate you.
It is also not being responsible enough to think about what you say
*before* you say it. Doesn't mean that at some point you can bring up a
concern and have it dealt with. But calling me a bitch does nothing to
further a conversation. <not that you are calling me that...but history in
the programs dictate the comparison though>
What was viewed as a Bitch by the *trainer* was in reality a very strong
person. One that is good at what they do and is assertive enough to make
sure things *happen*. It has taken me literally 15 years to get that part
of me back. And ironically, my life is moving in high gear now. That is
what I mean about a person in authority <trainer, loved one, parent...>
being responsible for what comes out of their mouth.
If I used the "freeform" communication that LEC appears to approve of...my
children's Self and Being would be shot. I have to be ultimately
responsible for what comes out of my mouth. I expect others to live by that
same rule. Hence the "discussion" with a co-worker yesterday. She will be
responsible for what comes out of her mouth around me *or* she will suffer
the consequences. Oh, and to add to that, it was a *request* of politeness.
Please, Thank You and Excuse Me is what is to occur ... no more demanding
of me. Period. I made a request/demand for consideration towards my Being.
And ironically, I was not heard. She was not in a space for listening <but
I'm always polite...> so her listening was altered to include, the
involvement of management in the future if her conversation did not change.
It all boils down to customer service...or should that just be Service?
And nice to see you back Jennifer *g*
-pam
Larry Person
wrote:
>It was this message that I was
>requested to post.
Oh really.
Requested by whom? Out of the blue or did you start the
"conversation"? Does the person who made the request follow the
goings on here?
Linda
>
> Interesting question. When this stuff does go out and "have an effect on
> the world" as Lawrence said in another post, does Landmark still own it?
Aha, but...
What if this stuff goes out and does harm? If there is a ripple
effect,
think about how widespread the damage could go if it was a bad effect
on the world.
> What are the boundaries of the ownership? Does landmark own the effect
> produced, in perpetuity? What would be the implications if it did? Or if
> it even tried to assert that it did? Would it ever try to cash in the
> chits? Has it already done so? <shudder>
I don't know about the cashing in the chits, but how about the karma?
:-)
In the Catholic catchism it is taught that, The judgement of all
people is deferred, their final merits and sins are not weighed until
the end of the world, when time stops because the effects of your
deeds are still rippling down, either good or ill...
<shudder>
Also this goes along with the idea of what can be considered good or
bad, perhaps some compassionate response to suffering allows a madman
to live and then he does evil. Or some evil thing spawns such an
effort to stop it, that people's entire culture is changed to thwart
it.
Is it the intent that should be judged or the result?
Linda
Bob465
> So Bob, I ask you to
> look at giving up the conversation about ownership, at least in this
> context.
well why not. i this context.
lawrence - what i saw in your post was you parroting what you know very
little about. specifically the part of her "losing" the lawsuit. i've got a
website that has quite abit of "the work." ..not only LEC's version of it
but "the work." i've been threatened by LEC legal. i've talked to art about
it. and much more.
there is alot of ignorance around "intellectual property" regarding LEC's
course work parading about as "what's so." you yourself say "...there's been
a lot made up..." when you know very little of what you speak "first hand."
...paradoxical i say.
my wife signed up for a relationships seminar recently and she was verbally
asked to agree to that: "what you hear here in the the seminar stays here.
LEC owns it. it's ours." (paraphrase) in werner's day it was definitely a
"no resale agreement." today LEC is set on "owning" enlightenment.
corralling it in for "corporate" use it seems.
i have a request of my own lawrence. when you present something you know
"second hand" as "what's so" <-- think twice. like running over to someone
and asking them about propriety and the PMA. get a copy yourself. read it
carefully. it clearly states that LEC owns "all concepts and ideas." that is
categorically false and they've used it on me as a big stick. if they
"really" owned "all concepts and ideas" - they wouldn't need you to sign
anything. they could just take you to court if you infringed on their
rights. btw - do my a favor talk to art himself - if you have any question
concerning LEC's legal stance. ....be well.
Lawrence Berrick
Here is what happened. I started the conversation to post this
message. I was in the DC Center and overheard a conversation about
Charlene Afremow, and that she was back working with Landmark. I
recalled the postings that Linda Chase had made, you remember, the ones
where she quoted from the Steve Pressman book? Well, I got into the
discussion and was shown a copy of the message Nancy Zapolski had sent
out. Needless to say I was very inspired by this message, as has
everyone who has read it. Given what had been "said" on A.F.L. about
Charlene I wanted to get this communication out to the NewsGroup. I
sent a message to someone I know at LEC asking if I might post this
communication on A.F.L. Their reply was yes, and the only request, was
that I post it "whole and complete" neither adding or subtracting. And,
by the way, my friend at LEC is not Internet savy, and probably thinks
lurking is something done by strange men in Central Park! I am sorry if
I gave the impression that I was asked to
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Lawrence Berrick
La...@LarryPerson.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:16:49 GMT, Lawrence Berrick <lber...@csi.com>
> wrote:
> >It was this message that I was
> >requested to post.
>
> Oh really.
>
> Requested by whom? Out of the blue or did you start the
> "conversation"? Does the person who made the request follow the
> goings on here?
>
Larry,
Here is what happened. I started the conversation to post this
message. I was in the DC Center and overheard a conversation about
Charlene Afremow, and that she was back working with Landmark. I
recalled the postings that Linda Chase had made, you remember, the ones
where she quoted from the Steve Pressman book? Well, I got into the
discussion and was shown a copy of the message Nancy Zapolski had sent
out. Needless to say I was very inspired by this message, as has
everyone who has read it. Given what had been "said" on A.F.L. about
Charlene I wanted to get this communication out to the NewsGroup. I
sent a message to someone I know at LEC asking if I might post this
communication on A.F.L. My friend asked that I contact Art Schribers
office to get permission to re-print Nancy's message. I recevied a
favorable reply from one of Art's staff, and the only request, was that
I post it "whole and complete" neither adding or subtracting. And, by
the way, my friend at LEC is not Internet savy, and probably thinks
lurking is something done by strange men in Central Park! I am sorry if
I gave the impression that I was asked to
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Larry Person
> i've got a
>website that has quite abit of "the work." ..not only LEC's version of it
>but "the work."
URL?
Bob465
my understanding was that she'd gone back to life-spring after the break w/
werner. perhaps dr hanely selling off life spring (or some portion of it -
i'm not clear on the details) left charlene high and dry in terms of
"putting it out there" -- so back to lec she came. just a thought...
also it was more that just 3 companies. there were like 5 or 6 legal
entities. it's all laid out in the jane self book.
je...@my-deja.com
"Orroro/Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Pam,
What you are talking about here is making sense to me. I have an image
in my head (I tend to think in sort of picture/analogies)about my
expriences of trying to have "conversations" with a newly minted LECer.
It was like each of us was standing on our own tiny island in the
middle of a fast flowing river. We could see each other, but we
couldn't touch each other or even hear each other very well. So when we
had a 'conversation' it was like each of us taking turns to throw a
pebble into the water between us. I'd throw a pebble (start the
conversation),the pebble would hit the water - splot - and maybe
there'd be a few ripples or slight disturbance in the water. And then
it would be the others persons turn - splot - .
And sometimes the disturbances in the water would kind of run into each
other and create some interesting sort of patterns, but those patterns
never actually touched or affected either of us in any way - We were
each 'safe', high and dry and isolated on our own little islands.
If we liked the patterns our splots made then we could look at them and
enjoy them and if we didn't like them then we could simply ignore them
- it didn't really matter one way or the other. And really the only
'rule' about these splot conversations was that you had to take turns.
You coulnd't both splot together.
So a 'conversation' went like this - you splot, I splot, you splot etc
and you each decided whether you liked the resulting patterns or not.
There was no 'connection', no intimacy, no real relationship or growth.
You don't need any of those to create a good splot - you just need an
endless supply of pebbles:-)
And that is where my "broadcasting" image comes from too. You don't
even need another person standing on the other island. In fact you
don't even need another island. LECers (it seemed to me) are quite
happy to splot all on their own and watch the pretty patterns - call
that 'reality' and claim they are ~standing in possibility~.
The result for me was (just to stay inside the analogy for a moment)
was to start heaving those pebbles as hard and far as I could into the
water so that there was a really good shplank that sent water spraying
all over the place, with hopefully some of it actually 'touching' the
other person on their little island, and getting a real and genuine
response from them. An attempt to make a connection, to have them see
'me' instead of just the patterns in the water and maybe make an
agreement to throw the pebbles in a co-operative way so that we could
actually build a little causeway between the two islands. And then we
could 'visit' each other!! Woowoo - THATS what conversation is about
for me.
Well I think I've taken this litlle bit of fancyfullness as far as it
will go - gave me a new perspective on the "every man is an island"
cliche though:-)
Don't know if this is the kind of thing you are talking about or not
Pam - but it was what your message reminded me of and it was fun
writing the story :-)
Best regards
Jen.
Jennifer Moore
>shplank
what a great word!!!
Jennifer Moore
you write:
>First. I took a look at your Homepage. What comes to mind is a very
>overly used word here in the US. AWSOME!
<takes a bow>
why thank you :-)
<grins>
Jennifer Moore
you write:
>Just wanted to let you know I heard you here <g>.
<grins back>
>I do have one question though, and this is on the heels of a "discussion" I
>had with a fellow co-worker yesterday...sometimes discretion is a route to
>go? Like if I went the route of telling it like it really is for me to this
>co-worker, lets just say it would have gotten really ugly. The person
>*speaking* needs to be just as responsible for what they say as the
>listener needs to be to what is heard <i.e. interpretation>.
yep
it's an interesting one... I think what you're pointing to is one of
those things where every time you (generic you) get into that situation,
you have to enquire into it _for that situation_.
... depending on your ~commitment~ with that person, the ~background of
relatedness~, the other person's what you might call "robustness", how
they're likely to hear what you're saying, how skilled they're going to
be at not taking your opinion personally, whether they are likely to get
value from what you say, the consequences if you "get it wrong" and they
get really pissed off with you... :-)
there are probably two people in my life where I have the kind of
relatedness, and the kind of commitment to being related, where they get
to hear the entire contents of my mind if I have something going on
about them. (and at other times too - like, any censorship that goes on
is because I feel shy, not because I'm worried about upsetting them)
which is okay for them and BRILLIANT for me, and I consider them two
very very valuable people in my life.
there's another at least two or three people where I have an intention
to get pretty much everything cleared up, but I don't necessarily have
permission to "say anything". so I don't necessarily give them the
whole contents of my mind on the subject. and I would probably
(differently depending on the person) have some kind of preliminary
conversation with them to make sure (inasmuch as that's ever possible)
that they weren't gonna get left with something yucky as a result.
and then there are also times when I go BLAH BLAH at them and it doesn't
work at all :-/
and then the vast majority of people, I guess I just accept that I don't
have that level of intimacy with them, and it's not a priority for me to
put in the work that would allow for that. and if I was in your
situation then your work colleague would probably come into that
category for me.
and there's also the thing about ~taking responsibility for~ how it's
~occurring~ for you... the classic "assertiveness training" stuff... the
"I feel angry" not "you make me angry"... I think part of what allows
for the 2 people who hear everything to hear everything is I am fairly
good at not dumping the irresponsible stuff on them... but I still do
sometimes, and then take it back afterwards, and they are generous
enough to let me get away with that in the interests of having it all
said & acknowledged.
I dunno, it's still very much an area of enquiry for me. I know from
those relationships where I have it that that kind of what-you-might-
call "transparency" is a wonderful environment to live in. It's so
liberating not to have to censor yourself and it's much less work than
having to think all the time: if I say X will they make it mean Z? if
I say X will they be upset? and yet the reality is that with most
people if you don't put in the work to imagine how a communication will
"land", you will make yourself even more work later :-)
>Somewhere in
>the training at LEC <and the previous incarnations> there was some type of
>*permission* given in too many people's minds to be asses in the way they
>communicate <as an example, esthole didn't appear in the language for no
>reason> at people <notice, I didn't say *with* people>.
yeah.
>There has to be a responsibility for what is said. Is it the "right" thing
>to say at that time. Are the reasons for that style of communication
>forwarding to the conversation? For me, it seems that this element is
>missing from the culture of LEC <and the previous incarnations> ... for me
>personally...if someone that I loved and cherished spoke harshly towards
>me, with all the pretty jargon right there on the tip of the tongue, had
>taken a "few" courses well, they would be an "expert" IMO...so the words
>would have more weight then would be justified.
>
>Throw in a healthy dose of Master Manipulator techniques...and you end up
>with incredibly lopsided conversation <if it can *even* be called
>conversation>.
yeah.
>Guess what it comes down to ... why are the concerns that I express always
>glossed over? Ignored even? Is it that irrelevant what I bring up?
"always" - are you including me in that Pam? and what about Jen, she
seems to have a great listening for what you provide? are we all
missing something all of the time or was this a slight over-
generalisation? :-)
>And nice to see you back Jennifer *g*
awwww
thanks
<blows kiss>
love
Lawrence Berrick
Nothing to apologise for. All I was asking you to do was to look at
what had been created from communication. As for the PMA conversation I
think there IS something to look at. And I would ask that you do so
from the the following question. What is it that bothers me about
having to sign this... When I went to work for my current employer I
had to sign an agreement that if I left (or should that be WHEN?) that
i'd not go to work for the compitition. Isn't that a similar agreement?
And all the company is doing is protecting their interests. At least
that is my feeling on this. What do you say?
Regards,
Lawrence
--
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that
they contain the whole truth, or the only truth."
-Charles A. Dana
Lawrence Berrick
Orroro/Fitz
Exactly what I was discussing...
But to make sure you understand...this is not specific to "newly minted
LECers" though...the long term folk are just to "blame" in this
~conversation~.
-pam
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
je...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7qn73v$epa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Estie
Lawrence Berrick <lber...@csi.com> wrote:
> Last June 27th Linda Chase posted a reply to the question Charlene
> Afremow: What Happened?
It's always fascinating to watch Landmark revise history!
Let me ask you something, Lawrence. I'm really not being antagonistic,
although I don't know if that will come across in this medium. When you
hear something at LEC, do you automatically believe it to be true?
(There was a time I did.) Do you question it? Do you think about it?
Do you research it? (There was a time I didn't.)
This *appears* to be a statement about the power of communication.
However, given a second look, it also appears to be a PR fluff piece,
containing no substance.
> There has been a lot made up about what happened with Charlene
> Afremow. She filed a lawsuit against Werner Erhard and Associates and
> lost the lawsuit. She always thought well of Werner Erhard.
There are some newspaper articles based on the records of the case that
would dispute those statements.
> She also has always thought well of Landmark Education Corporation,and
> in fact has come back to work at Landmark Education Corporation
> recently.
>
> There was an announcement distributed in May and I got a copy to let
you
> know what is really happening with Charlene. This speaks to the power
> of what is available in Landmark Education Corporation and its
programs.
>
> Although est and Werner Erhard and Associates are definitely not
> Landmark Education Corporation, Charlene is one of the few people who
> has now worked at all 3 companies.
>
> Although your comments were about est and Werner Erhard and
> Associates, I have read your postings and know you have an axe to
grind
> with Landmark Education Corporation. Therefore, I wanted to set the
> record straight.
>
> This announcement was written by Nancy Zapolski, who is a Forum Leader
> accountable for developing all leaders in Landmark Education
> Corporation.
>
>
***********************************************************************
> A number of you know Charlene Afremow, a number of you may have
heard
> of her and many of you do not know her.
>
> For those of you that don't know her, Charlene was an est Trainer and
> then a Forum Leader from September, 1975 until April 1988. In
April,
> 1988 her employment was terminated and later that year she filed a
> lawsuit against Werner Erhard and Associates charging wrongful
> termination.
>
> In the case, the court ruled in favor of Werner Erhard and
> Associates on the major points. Like many lawsuits, the case was
> strongly pursued by both the plaintiff and the defendants and left
> the people on both sides out of relationship with each other.
I know from one news article that the court refused to allow any
information to be presented on WE&A being a cult. I suppose that would
be a ruling in favor of WE&A.
> As time went by, although there was no direct communication with
> Charlene, someone would hear from time to time of people who had
> registered in the Landmark Forum or applied for Staff here at
> Landmark Education Corporation because of her recommendation.
>
> In October, 1997, while creating the future LEC
> 2020,particularly...
>
> People and enterprises alive with freedom,
> Operating with power,
> Creating and fulfilling new worlds of opportunity
>
> and out of my own relationship with Charlene as a Landmark Forum
> Leader, I called Charlene to be in communication and spoke to her for
> the first time in 9 years.
>
> I called inside of the possibility to have the past be complete.
>
> Over the past year and a half Charlene and I have remained in
> communication and as our communication developed, a possibility for
> the future began to arise. From our first phone call, Charlene
has
> always said that the issue she had and what the lawsuit was about
> was never about Werner or the work.
That's very odd! What was the issue about?
> She has unabashedly expressed
her
> love and respect for the Landmark Forum Leaders, the Landmark staff
and
> the work.
>
> Out of Charlene's and my conversations, in January
> 1999,Charlene, Steve Zaffron, Harry Rosenberg, Phyllis Allen and I all
> met face to face for the first time since 1988. Charlene has also
> met recently with Art Schreiber, again for the first time since
1988.
>
> In these meetings everyone got into communication, resolved
> questions, completed the past and furthered the conversation for
> possiblity for the future.
>
> Charlene completed the Landmark Forum this past weekend in
> Washington D.C. In her words, "it was like coming home."
>
> This past Monday, Charlene, Harry and I met and created a tentative
> plan for Charlene being trained to lead and eventually leading the
> Landmark Forum for Teens.
>
> For the next few months Charlene will be being trained to lead the
> Landmark Forum for Teens.
>
> We are all committed that this plan works and we will evaluate it
> together at the end of the year.
>
> Charlene is being great.
>
> The following is from Charlene:
>
> "I would like to start this communication with an acknowledgement of
> Nancy Zapolski who called me approximately two years ago. She was
> generous beyond anything I ever thought possible. Several months
later
> I had dinner with Tom and Nancy Zapolski in NYC. We talked and
> exchanged pictures of our past years. We agreed to continue our
> conversation which eventually included Phyllis, Harry and Steve. The
> moment we all met the healing process began. What was present was
deep
> pain and loss of our separation and profound joy at the same time.
> Without a lot of explanation, it was obvious
> that what was next was to create a new beginning. We are
> in the process of organizing a path that will allow this
> to happen.
>
> I don't know how it was for each of you, however I am available for
full
> and open communication. I am open to
> hear anything and everything. This event was devastating
> to me, however it became a life defining experience that,
> by my choice, will be used to empower others and the
> commitment of this work.
>
> My commitment to transformation is alive and present."
>
> This Friday, May 14th Charlene will begin training to lead the
> Landmark Forum for Teens in San Francisco with Phyllis Allen and Alan
> Edelman.
>
>
***********************************************************************
> Lawrence
> --
> "It is much easier to be critical than to be
> correct."
> - Benjamin Disraeli
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I left and returned to est several times. I know, for me, the pain and
loss I experienced due to the separation was something I'd do almost
anything to end. I'd had a vision of what was possible, and it was
*extremely* difficult for me to accept the disillusionment that ~the
work~ didn't live up to what it promised. I managed to do what I call
"recontextualizing" the experience. There was always some way I could
take responsibility and put it all in a new light that would make it be
ok. (I wanted it to be ok.) But, in the long run, it never held up to
reality. I was fooling myself. The same problems in ~the work~ still
existed (and do to this day). As a matter of integrity, conscience, and
caring (about myself and others) I couldn't continue to ignore or put up
with them.
I genuinely feel sorry for Charlene. She's spent the majority of her
adult life involved in a leadership role in one LGAT or another. I
doubt if it's possible for her to break the hold they have on her.
Just curious, Kmottus, do you have any information as to what happened
on the Lifespring end of this? There must have been something that the
grass looked greener at LEC for her to have made this change (or maybe
there's a stronger bond.)
- Estie
--
If you aren't the lead dog, the view never changes.
Estie
La...@LarryPerson.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> I am inspired by Nancy's actions. I am inspired by Charlene's
> actions. I am inspired by all the getting off it that seems to be
> going on. Communication, completeness, and healing are all things I
> see as possible -- and which I have produced in my own life -- as a
> result of my participation.
>
> It's AMAZING that ex-litigants have managed to get back in
> communication. Bravo.
>
> I'm thinking, in a way, this opens up a possibility for *me* to create
> a fresh relationship with Landmark, distinct from my past relationship
> with WE&A and Landmark. I mean, that's always been possible, but
> there's something ~enrolling~ in the recent unfoldings of Charlene's
> saga.
It's hard to resist a grade A 'Killer Share.' They appeal entirely on
an emotional level. They tend to reduce or remove one's defenses
(soften them up). They tend to stop one's thinking. They tend to
narrow one's focus and perspective. I predict this one will get a lot
of play.
As a matter of relationship, I'm glad Charlene seems to have worked
things out with LEC. What about all the other strained and broken
relationships between LEC (and predecessors) and graduates? One success
story is better than none, but it's a long, long way from what needs to
be done. I'd like to think LEC's not just interested in repairing
broken relationships with high-profile people, but where are the
accounts of reconciliations occurring with the rest of us?
- Estie
bthoma...@gmail.com
Bentot
wrote:
>What does charlene look like? Does she have red hair ? I think I might know her but I'm not completely sure
Scroll down to second person.
Bentot