On Being The Source
I am full of questions and never satisfied until I feel I have completed my experiences.
Is Jack Rosenberg the Source of his own pain? Is Werner Erhard the persona he created which allowed him to cross the line, go over to the other side, and identify with the aggressor? Did he do that because he thought It was better to be powerful, than powerless? Is It about Jack's own fear from childhood in relation to his survival as a Jew? Is It the means he chose in order to deny his own victimization?
God knows.
I wonder if Jack Rosenberg knows?
As Werner states in the old est training, ''It's about domination.''
Some ''choice.''
I wonder why so few realize there is a third choice that resolves that two sided dilemma? It is, of course, the choice to choose NEITHER of those and to relate as people of equal worth, not stimulus/response machines, to all others who want the same. When we do that, It seems to me, It is no longer a choice between two losing sides. It becomes a choice that makes It possible for everyone to be on One winning side. I personally believe that is what all people really want; the survival of our individual identities, without being invalidated by others AND (not ''or'') without the need, or even the desire, to invalidate others to Get It.
It seems to me that if One wishes to stop a chain reaction of destructive power, One needs to recognize the mechanism right at the Source as the Cause.
Of course, I haven't personally been successfully trained as a stimulus/response machine, reacting spontaneously without critical thought, so I don't Get It the way others do.
IveGotIt

Perhaps, IMO, because he was a salesperson (read: really "money-lusting") his mantra was that...to dominate the "prey" so they would part with their sweat-earned cash easily... ever really get into the head of a GREAT straight - comm salesperson? If yes, you understand...(yes it IS narcisstic ..."all about ME")

here is one of landmarks games.

they ask u to choose between choclate and vanilla.
they tell not to think but to just choose.

what is required of people is to not think. thinking
is not highly thought of in cults.

i learned this from people on newsgroups. when i took the
forum they didnt do this one for some reason.

mind control techniques are very effective. if u dont believe
me read about all the cults over at culteducation.com.

Quote
IveGotIt
On Being The Source
I am full of questions and never satisfied until I feel I have completed my experiences.
Is Jack Rosenberg the Source of his own pain? Is Werner Erhard the persona he created which allowed him to cross the line, go over to the other side, and identify with the aggressor? Did he do that because he thought It was better to be powerful, than powerless? Is It about Jack's own fear from childhood in relation to his survival as a Jew? Is It the means he chose in order to deny his own victimization?
God knows.
I wonder if Jack Rosenberg knows?
As Werner states in the old est training, ''It's about domination.''
Some ''choice.''
I wonder why so few realize there is a third choice that resolves that two sided dilemma? It is, of course, the choice to choose NEITHER of those and to relate as people of equal worth, not stimulus/response machines, to all others who want the same. When we do that, It seems to me, It is no longer a choice between two losing sides. It becomes a choice that makes It possible for everyone to be on One winning side. I personally believe that is what all people really want; the survival of our individual identities, without being invalidated by others AND (not ''or'') without the need, or even the desire, to invalidate others to Get It.
It seems to me that if One wishes to stop a chain reaction of destructive power, One needs to recognize the mechanism right at the Source as the Cause.
Of course, I haven't personally been successfully trained as a stimulus/response machine, reacting spontaneously without critical thought, so I don't Get It the way others do.
IveGotIt

--There is some debate about whether con-men (sociopaths) are born that way or made that way or some other permutation of the nature/nuture dynamic. No way to find out for sure, but there are some interesting brain-imaging studies that suggest there may be more "nature" than "nuture," but they are all after-the-fact, so questionable... I will refer you to Robert Hare's very interesting book, "Without Conscience."

In any event, the "dynamic" of the est/Landmark "programs" is a reflection of Werner Erhard's own view of the world - that being a game, (con-game) in which the "winners" are the con-artists. If you buy into his vision, the only way out of "loser-hood" is to learn to be a con, like himself. Evidently, the idea of being a "loser" (~victim~) is so threatening to some people, (most especially if they were victimized or abused as children), they will do anything to avoid it. Even join a cult that undermines their ability to determine what is real and what is important. Insanity is preferable to "loser" status in this airless, bizzaro-world. They are like "flat-earthers" and, and as you point out, they are unable to see another dimension - one of fairness, equitable exchange, decency, and mutual respect.


Ellen

Ellen :

Excellent points about nature vs. nurture.

Just received this link. It's about a gene related to ethical indescretions.

Looks bogus to me. Anyone else know of this web site?

[swiftreport.blogs.com]

That is very interesting reading Toni, Although I could easily see people using the 'genetics' as an excuse for behaviour. Mind you what is so different now. People have excuses for everything anyway and those that don't, believe that they haven't done anything wrong.

If say for example "landmark" was officially found to be causing harm, would Werner (and his brother Harry CEO Landmark) suddenly claim that they couldn't help what they did because their genes made them do it. Or come to think of it what about the 40 or so Landmark Forum leaders, or other leaders... would they all suddenly claim a gene had caused them to turn in to sociopaths set on causing harm covering it carefully with "good" to make it acceptable to all the people who got suckered into their courses.

hmmm interesting to think about.