This, the entire first paragraph of this essay, is a "heads up" for the
rest of
this conversation.
A thing is what it is. Another thing, no matter how similar, is never
the same (indeed, it can never be the same) as what that thing is. It,
in and of itself, is whatever it is, whatever that may be. No two
things are ever the same. Comparing doesn't do much good, except maybe
to show off our mental prowess. That's what we're thrown to do. We
compare that with which we're familiar to that with which we're
unfamiliar as a means to explaining their differences even if doing so
doesn't account for them. And that, by way of illustration, is what I'm
about to do in
this conversation.
As I do, I invite you not to disagree with me or to agree with me, but
rather to
observe
how we're thrown to compare when no comparison is required, indeed when
things are actually beyond compare, or even when comparing serves no
useful purpose.
There's
nothing wrong
with comparing. In science and scientific research, comparing plays a
major role. But comparing without recognizing (or owning up to) our
propensity to compare (our pull to compare) carries with
it a certain naïveté which only gets in the way of whatever
astuteness comparing offers.
It is said that earlier iterations of
Werner's work,
the est
training
for example, were harsher, more confronting, more "in your face"
compared with the later versions like
the Landmark Forum
which, in comparison, are kinder, gentler - at least that's what
people say when comparing them with each other. People say
the approach deployed by the
the est
training
was like
a two by four
across the head, while that deployed by
the Landmark Forum
is, in comparison, like a gentle summer breeze. My question is: what
happened to account for these different approaches? The answer may not
be what you expect it to be.
At first upon comparison, it may seem as if people who presented
the est
training
were harsher, more "in your face" people than the people who present
the Landmark Forum.
That would account for the difference in the harshness of their
delivery, yes? But perhaps it isn't that at all. Perhaps the quality of
the people presenting the material in both formats, is the same. If so,
what accounts for the perceived difference between the gentleness of
the presentations?
I assert it's the quality of
the
listening
(of
the participants)
in both presentations that accounts for the difference in the
gentleness of both presentations, and not the quality of the speaking
(of its presenters) that accounts for the difference. More than that, I
assert the perceived harshness ie the absence of gentleness in the
earlier presentations was not only necessary but
intentional.
It was applied as and when necessary in the same way as you and I go to
our wardrobes to select clothing which is appropriate to an occasion.
The fact that both deliveries, whether perceived as harsh or gentle,
work so well is a demonstration of our ability to
masterour own Self-expression
ie our ability to select and
master
a format that reaches
the listening
into which we speak.
As for how it's the quality of
the listening
of
its participants
that determines the quality of the presentation of
Werner's work
(that is to say its harshness or its gentleness) and not the quality of
the speaking of its presenters, that's a matter of
the participants'
resistance
to or eagerness for transformation. What does that actually mean? Why
would the way
I listen
as
a participant,
determine and cause the way the presenters of
Werner's work
to be any different?
Earlier presentations of
Werner's work
occurred in a zeitgeist in which receiving transformation
(particularly, in which receiving transformation over three days)
simply wasn't possible.
Participantsresisted,
pushing back.
Werner
pushed back harder ie harsher. Later presentations of
Werner's work
occurred in a zeitgeist in which receiving transformation
(particularly, in which receiving transformation over three days) had
been proven over and over and over
again and again and
again.
Participants
didn't
resist.
Whatever
Werner
was offering, they wanted it. With less
resistance,
things moved a lot faster and gentler.
