I had not seen this paper posted before.

[www.academia.edu]

I think the author nicely addresses the quasi- or not even, religious aspects of est/Landmark.

Bakkagirl

I am in the process of reading this. What I can say, right off the bat, is that some people did interpret Landmark as spiritual. My recruiter was among them. She said that when she mentioned this perception to the center manager, the woman had held her finger to her lips, in other words, to keep that quiet.

My own experience was that they presented what looked to me like "New Age" concepts in a secular format.

It has always been my impression, from my experience, and from comments made by others, that the reasons that Landmark does not present itself as spiritual are twofold:

1) That way, it is not in conflict with anyone's religion, (here I am talking about internal conflict that someone might feel), and
2) It takes away the "excuse" that people, (such as employees), could make about not going because it is in conflict with their religion. This would make it easier for employers to mandate.

From the article, (link):

"Similar perplexing “wernerisms” still arise within the Landmark Forum:“You can have any result for yourself or your life that you invent as a possibility and enroll others in your having gotten."

I remember that one well. It always bothered me. Why should I have to enroll others in my possibility? Instead of self-determination, it seems to encourage the need for approval.

kdag,

I caught that one, too.

Granted, to accomplish many goals we have to find ways to enlist the help and energy of others, but I don't think this is what Werner was describing.

Given the behavioral history, his, it seems more like he is describing his own unboundaried, and narcissistic ego's need to entangle others in himself. I think if you look at some of his 'alleged' statements about being the 'source' or a god-like channel of truth for his followers, you can see the absence of ego boundaries.

This also points to some of your observations in the NVC series related to privacy, and individual boundaries. Kind of the same dynamic, me thinks.

So the author of this article says that there is no dogma, but it felt to me as if there was, because your "possibilities " had to be approved by other Landmark people, and the "possibilities" they approved of had a tendency to fall within certain Landmark parameters. These were not necessarily things that inspired me.

kdag wrote:

So the author of this article says that there is no dogma, but it felt to me as if there was, because your "possibilities " had to be approved by other Landmark people, and the "possibilities" they approved of had a tendency to fall within certain Landmark parameters. These were not necessarily things that inspired me.

which speaks directly to a conversation I have having right now with a coach and regarding the difference between directive and non-directive coaching.

Non-directive coaching means that the coach's role is merely to facilitate the coachee's achievement of his/her goals.

There seems to be another agenda with Landmark-related coaches.

Does this make sense?

Absolutely, it makes sense. When I was at Landmark, it definitely felt like directed coaching. I always felt as if the people there, especially my recruiter, would try to steer me toward the goals that they wanted to see me accomplish, and not toward goals that I wanted to accomplish.

OK, interesting.

What I have experienced in working with coaches who I now believe to have been involved with Landmark, or Landmark-style training is that our discussions rarely seemed to relate to the practice of coaching, or, rather, and to be more specific, how coaching related to specific client needs, or could be applied in a specific cultural setting, or organization.

It would be too simple to call this a 'one size fits all' mentality. It wasn't that, I think.

It was more like they were only focused on furtherance/propagation of "coaching", and with very little explication of what that even meant. WIERD!!!

If Erhard thinks he is God, wait until he has prostate problems.

He won't be able to fix that himself. He will have to go to a urologist.

Who is the greatest God of all?

God?

God's urologist?


What happens when Erhard needs his teeth fixed?

Who then is the All High?

Werner Erhard?

Or the one giving the Novocaine?

The ultimate question?

Who outranks whom?

Werner Erhard?

Or whoever repairs Werner Erhard's toilet - and replaces the toilet paper?

God's plumber.

Now if Werner Erhard can keep his prostate as it was at age 18, ditto for his teeth, barber his own hair, design and make his own clothing, install his own plumbing and replaces the TP with no need of outside help --

That is a bloke I'll follow anywhere.

corboy,

I am surprised at your impudence!

Our HERO could not possibly have prostate problems. Does God even have a prostate? I highly doubt it. And, ditto for the teeth, plumbing, toilet paper and any other corporeal concerns.

Our God went clear, post-corporeal on that ride cross the Golden Gate Bridge.

bakkagirl