In-Reply-To: <4bgr4l$48t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
Message-ID: 
References: <4a4nqj$2ho@usenet.rpi.edu> <4bgr4l$48t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 23 Dec 1995, Joe1176999 wrote:

> I did the Landmark Forum, followed by the Forum In Action Seminar,
> followed in turn by The Advanced Course. I am no longer involved in
> Landmark because of the following:
> 
> I made a lot of progress after doing the Forum this summer--the
> improvement in my relationship with my family is undeniable. I began the
> free Forum in Action Seminar shortly after the Forum. Each week (with the
> exception of one), a large part of the Seminar was spent on getting people
> to promise to bring a certain number of guests to the next Seminar. Our
> leader called it the "Frequent Sharing" program. This pressure bothered
> me, but I let it go, since I shared the Forum in ways I wanted to share,
> rather than getting caught up in the game of trying to get people to come
> with me to an introduction.

Sharing the Forum, isn't supposed to be "talking about a course".  It is 
supposed to be looking at relationships where you have been making people 
wrong, getting into communication with them and cleaning up "the racket".
If the side-effect is that they want to know "What are you on?", this is 
when you might want to invite them to an evening session.  If you have 
been snotty to someone for a few years and suddenly call them from out of 
the blue to apologize and tell them you love them, they might get curious.

If you try and tell everyone about this great course you were in, and how 
they really need it too, you aren't sharing the forum.  In fact, you are 
making a mess.

> I thought I finally understood why we had to invite people to come to our
> Seminars (don't ask me to explain it now), when in our last session our
> leader explained to us that we needed to remain "in the conversation" by
> signing up for another seminar; if we didn't remain in a seminar (or
> another Landmark program), we, like most human beings, would fall back
> into our old ways from before we took the Forum (seminars usually cost
> less than $100 each series). This bothered me. If we were supposed to be
> learning to deal with life better, then why were they saying we needed
> more courses to continue to deal with life better?

Most of the world argues for why something can't be done.  The media told 
us that war was inevitable, the "Cold War" was necessary, and that peace 
in the Middle-East could never be acheived.  Landmark is less than 2 
million people, engaging in conversations for what is possible that would 
not otherwise occur.  When you're outnumbered 2000 to 1, it might make 
sense to spend a few hours/week focusing on what might be possible, and 
taking appropriate actions toward accomplishing that.  You don't have to, 
it's just an option.

I've taken a few sabaticals from Landmark.  Life seems almost "boring" 
and people's complaints loose their entertainment value.  Getting back to 
a seminar or workshop after being away for a few months is like getting a 
breath of fresh air.

> The Advanced Course showed Landmark's true feathers, however. It is in
> this course that participants are trained more precisely in how to recruit
> more people to come check out what the Forum is all about.

You learned the technology for "Enrollment".  Enrollment is "creating 
possiblity in another person's world such that they can step into it 
committedly and act".  The possibilities into which you might want to 
enroll someone are up to you.  You might want to enroll them into a 
career change, or taking on a project with you.  Some AC Graduates even 
start their own businesses.  One guy liked hot air balloons.  Out of the 
advanced course he created a business called "Adrenaline Adventures" - he 
enrolls people into jumping out of a hot air balloon with a bungee chord 
around their ankles.  It became a national Franchise.

You might want to practice on something where you're a bit less attached 
to the results, like inviting them to a course.  If they come, great.  If 
they don't, at least you haven't quit your day job.

> My opinion is
> that there is little real content in the intensive four-day Advanced
> Course.

> Two days were spent reviewing the Forum, including exercises
> encouraging us to repeat over and over again the lessons or "distinctions"
> of the Forum till we could repeat them in plain language to those outside
> the organization.

In the Forum, you weren't allowed to take notes (people get lost in 
taking notes instead of listening).  In the Forum in Action, you could 
take all the notes you wanted, you saw 20 separate distinctions, and were 
able to coach fellow seminarians in those distinctions.

In the Advanced course, you are trained enough so that you can explain a 
Racket (something you are being, doing, or having persistantly, and a 
complaint)  It's Payoffs (get to be right, get to make others wrong, get 
to dominate others, get to avoid being dominated), and the Costs (Loss of 
Love, Vitality, and Happiness).  You don't get to tell someone to give up 
their racket, but you can give up one of yours.
 
> What really bothered me, however, was that the homework every night was to
> recruit at least two people to come to our Tues. night session-1 to be
> introduced to the Forum, and another to be introduced to the Advanced
> Course. To be fair here, I should say that there was an alternative
> exercise--to recruit two people for a project of one's choice--but the

I've done both.  When assisting in the Advanced Course, I usually take on 
both assignments.  I actually had an easier time enrolling someone into 
showing up on Tuesday Night - because I was less attached to the outcome.

> overwhelming majority did the Landmark recruiting because of group
> pressure. Each day people were asked to stand up and report if they had
> failed to complete the homework.

They also asked you to do an assignment where you would take an insight 
and write down some "specific measurable result" you would produce.  Many 
peope don't get that one the first night (or even the second).  Did you 
have trouble stating a result that is specific and measurable?  At least 
saying "I will call three people and invite them to the evening session" 
gives you a specific measurable result that you can accomplish (or not).

> I did my own project the first night, but
> I got the sense ( graduates would say I was running a "racket") that if I
> didn't find people to come with me on Tues.  I wasn't really getting as
> much out of the course as I could have.

Landmark course effectiveness is predicated on a combination of:
	1- insight 
	2- committed action consistant with that insight.

It would appear to me that you were not taking committed action 
consistent with insight.  You were "in action", but more oriented with an 
"in order to" get something.  In the course, you saw a clip from the 
Karate Kid - Daniel waxes cars, sands floors, paints fences and a roof, 
all the time waiting to learn karate.  It is only when Miagi shows him in 
a "sparring excercise" that Daniel realizes he has been learning Karate.

> They kept a running tally of how
> many people had promised to come! And I did pay $600 for the course, so
> didn't I want to do well?

That is actually feedback to the leader.  If the insights are not being 
effectively dilivered, there will be no committed action.  If the action 
does not yield effective results (confirmed guests) the participants may 
be missing distinctions of enrollment.  In some Advanced Courses, the 
instructor will "trigger" an entire classroom.  They are so busy 
"listening to the itty bitty committee argue" that they miss the insight 
the Course Leader was trying to deliver.  If there is a lack of 
participation - the missing distinction must be reviewed.  Often, the 
leader must review distinctions like Integrety and Commitment as many as 
3 times during a course.  The course leader listens for "what's missing, 
the presense of which would make a difference" and provides it.

> Somehow, on the fourth evening of the course, I snapped out of the whole
> psychological world that had been created for me over the preceeding
> months.

How unfortunate - for you :-).

> I think it was due in large part to a particular volunteer's
> extreme persistence at insisting it was SO necessary for me to put $50
> down to make sure I took the next course in Landmark's curriculum, the
> Self Expression and Leadership Program. This woman heard that I had made a
> comment about her being a good leader, and as a result she literally
> followed me around the center for about a half hour trying to explain why
> if I didn't put down the $50 I would end up not doing the course.

Another example of a volunteer assistant with grand intention and poor 
training.  In the Enrollment conversation, there is the conversation for 
being related - who are you, what are you committed to (clearly missing 
in your interaction with this assistant).  There is the conversation for 
possibility (what would you like to accomplish, that you wouldn't 
ordinarily accomplish).  the Conversation for Opportunity (what projects 
might you take on), and then comes the Conversation for Action - the 
invitation to take committed action.  Your eager assistant had not seen 
what you were committed to, had not seen you as your possibility, and had 
only discussed one project (your registration into the course).  By the 
time she was inviting you to register, the conversation had degenerated 
into a debate over whether you would pull out your credit card or not.
You should probably have a conversation with your center manager to make 
sure that assistant doesn't do that again.

No one in their right mind, especially no one who is capable of doing a 
Landmark Course actually "Wants to do a Course".  People register in the 
Forum because they want to have a better relationship with someone in 
their life.  People do the Advanced Course because they want a life that 
is about more than just "Fixing the Past".  People do the SELP to be 
coached in projects that fulfill a future they consider worthy.  Each 
person brings his/her own values to that possiblity.  Common 
possibilities include Love, Abundance, Prosperity, Opportunity, 
Well-being.  In the advanced course - it is about a possibility you would 
like to contribute to the world.

If you didn't have a future that called to you, powerfully.  You didn't 
get the full benefit of the course.  The SELP is a much smaller class, 
often as small as 30 people, led by a well trained volunteer.  The 
leader, and your coach (each coach works with 3 to 5 people) look to see 
what areas you might have missed, what distinctions might need practice...
If you had stood as the possiblity of bringing Prosperity to the world, 
and the assistant could have shared or allowed you to share some projects 
you might want to take on in bringing prosperity to the world - she 
couldn't have STOPPED you from registering.  Of course, when the big 
"Commitment" shows up, so does everything that stands in the way of 
fulfilling that commitment.  It happened when you registered in the 
Forum, when you registered in the Advanced Course, and when you were 
asked to register in the SELP.  That night, the cynicism and resignation 
won.  If you're happy now, great.  If you found some other appropriate 
action to take (persuing some other program, taking on a project at work, 
or taking on a project in your community) you are engaged in the 
committed action the SELP was designed to support.

> She was
> very nice about it, but extremely persistent. Her message was reinforced
> by my Seminar leader, who came to the session to help sign people up. She
> kept saying stuff about her being "committed" to my paying the money, and
> kept asking for a particular date by which I would sign up, etc. I kept
> saying I would pay in full when I knew I wanted to take the course. But
> that answer wasn't specific enough for her.

For some people, being asked to make a commitment causes resistance.  "I 
don't want to commit to a particular date", "I can't afford it right now" 
(I've never met a guest or participant who had 3 days, $290, and just 
couldn't think of anything better to do for a week-end than take the 
Forum/AC...).  Of course, the same "Stuff" (considerations) comes up for 
me when I'm about to accept a job, about to hire someone, about to take 
on a project at work, or have just asked a woman for a date.  It came up 
BIG TIME just before my wedding.  These days, I don't let it stop me from 
doing something I really consider worth doing.  Ever met anyone who is 
"Engaged to Be Married" but haven't set a date after 2 years?

> This is what scares me most about Landmark. These people are incredibly
> well-intentioned, but they have been programmed to believe so strongly
> that everyone needs these courses because we don't know how to live our
> lives well on our own.

Leaders are trained very carefully.  No one needs a Landmark Course.  If 
someone thinks they "Need" a course (like tharapy), they will often be 
taken out of the course.  If they "Need" the course to save a job or 
marriage, they are taken out of the course.

If someone sees a possiblity worth committing to, and the leader sees 
that this possibility or Breakthrough is realistic (as opposed to a 
pipe-dream like "winning the lottery"), an LEC leader is trained to coach 
you in taking the first appropriate actions toward fulfilling that 
possiblity.

> And, of course, if you think you don't need the
> courses, then there must be something in your life holding you back in
> general.

If you don't think you need the courses, you aren't present to a 
possiblity.  I frequently encounter guests who come to the introduction 
and after asking questions and looking very interested say "this is 
great, and I'm not interested".  They have to say it several times, but 
their "no" will be honored.  They see the distinctions, and are already 
using those distinctions in their lives.  For them, there isn't 
"Breakthrough" or "Possibility" because - given what they've seen, it is 
something they would do anyway.  Many of those people come back for 
subsequent introductions and register to play with such a fun bunch of 
people.

> Landmark has an answer for every criticism of Landmark, but if
> you read these newsgroup postings consistently, you'll start to see the
> incredible similarity in how people are taught by Landmark to oppose those
> who question or oppose.

There isn't much possibility in "opposing" something.  I read for the 
"what's missing".  I can see that something very important was missing in 
your interaction with your Seminar Leader and the Volunteer.  You may 
find that you will actually get an apology from your center manager.

> It is a very effective and powerful organization
> in furthering certain goals.

Yes.  In furthering your goals.  There are some goals that are not 
furthered - A woman who wanted to enroll her boyfriend into leaving his 
wife was cut short abruptly.  There are certain goals that lack 
Integrity, that are inconsistant with some basic values.  These are not 
empowered by Landmark.  More accurately, goals which are selfish or 
retaliatory are examined as "persistant complaints".

We also learn to deal with "Upsets", the bitter feelings that come from 
undelivered communications or unfulfilled expectations.


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard



From jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news Fri Mar 11 02:46:33 1994