Quote
ClausDIa

The forum leader is telling over and over the same few principles. This is how easy it is, you just have to apply that to achieve anything you want in your life.
AND the most important rule: Your transformation will happen only if you tell other people about it ( ... which means invite them for guest events).
Next step: Your guest did not show up, so something about your "being" is wrong ....

I remember that one of the first conversations is about giving up your critcism, because by just critizising sth. you haven't achieved anything ...

Scary that people who believe all this are rather intelligent and educated people ...

Mind-opening

Yes. I heard something similar on an "infomerical" for some religion the other night: the narrator exhorted his listeners that "God needs YOU to work for him" and "God wants YOU to spread HIS word." It seems that some people will do anything if they think they are working for "God" or "transformation of the planet" or something, up to and including perform suicide missions and kill innocent people. The funny thing is that a corporation/business - Landmark - can do almost the same thing, that is, get people to make huge personal sacrifices for the profit of the owners. Just goes to show how effective the methods are and/or how easy it is to seduce enough people to keep these jerks in business.


Ellen

Here's the post to which I was referring. Note the typical Landmark response.


Ellen



[forums.delphiforums.com]

From: xformed 6/5/2002 11:17 pm
To: Jelly Beanz (AFLCOMMUNITY) (3 of 82)

1101.3 in reply to 1101.1 On Monday (session 7 of the creativity seminar), a woman told about her uncle sexually molesting her when she was young. The seminar leader reframed it into what happened and story. There is no rape or molestation in the what happened domain, there is only bodies rubbing together. In some cultures this is perfectly fine.
Now I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the philosophy of radical constructivism. But in this case the woman's thoughts, feelings, self-esteem issues, etc are merely discounted as a"story". And I think that in the way this seminar is being presented that a "story" is implied as an error in cognitive thinking.

I don't think this woman is getting anything resolved. This isn't the place/method for it. I expressed my reservations about the interaction with the seminar leader after the evening was over and said that the woman's feelings about the rape were not being addressed. The seminar leader said this was ontology not psychology. I said that this dealt with human behavior which sure as heck by definition was psychology. I then asked her to explain the difference and was told that this wasn't supposed to deal with the woman's feelings.

I then suggested that the woman probably needed therapy. I was told that this was better than therapy and how people who had been 10-20 years in therapy had been fixed by this. I said that they probably had bad therapists. Then I was told I was using a winning formula.
I mentioned that in the form we filled out for the Forum, it said that it would not address issues that were best handled by professionals. I said that childhood sexual abuse is probably out of bounds.

I am disappointed that the use of the term "story" has a negative implication that people's thoughts, feelings, etc are invalid and a cognitive error. I also do not like the woman being told that in some cultures "bodies rubbing together" (i.e. rape) is OK which definitely implies the woman has a cognitive thinking error by being upset by the incident.

Quote
elena
But in this case the woman's thoughts, feelings, self-esteem issues, etc are merely discounted as a"story". And I think that in the way this seminar is being presented that a "story" is implied as an error in cognitive thinking.

I am disappointed that the use of the term "story" has a negative implication that people's thoughts, feelings, etc are invalid and a cognitive error.

This is interesting. The teachers in the spiritual path I was on (Advaita) frequently used the word "story" in the same context. In fact, I'm starting to see that many of the terms used there are the same terms used in Landmark. I wonder which came first?

Quote
ClausDIa
AND the most important rule: Your transformation will happen only if you tell other people about it ( ... which means invite them for guest events).
Next step: Your guest did not show up, so something about your "being" is wrong ....

Reading here is so good for me, as I struggle my way out of the lgat-trance.

This comment brings up yet another memory for me. The lgat recruiter spent a lot of time, at a cafe, with one of my recruitees. In the end, between her sales pitch and mine, my recruitee declined to enroll. She informed me that my friend had not enrolled because *I* had not done a good enough job with him. I was still new in the lgat, and while I knew that assigning all responsiblity for failure to me was illogical, I "chose" to overlook it. I chose to tell myself LIES which the lgat taught me to "choose" to do. I also took mental note, as I did many other times, that their rules apply to others, not to them. They are above the rules, infallible.

Quote

This comment brings up yet another memory for me. The lgat recruiter spent a lot of time, at a cafe, with one of my recruitees. In the end, between her sales pitch and mine, my recruitee declined to enroll. She informed me that my friend had not enrolled because *I* had not done a good enough job with him

This is so very common among leadership in landmark, introduction leaders will blame the person who invited the guest saying they were not "being" a possibility. Landmark forum leaders will blame the peole assisting and introduction leaders if their targets are not met.

But its always done in such a way that the people just accept it. Whats more people have become acclimatised to this type of coaching. Coaching which in my opinion is abusive over the top and completely inappropriate.

When ever I think of a Landmark forum leader yelling I immediately think of one from texas, I am not sure If I can put his name on here so I wont but he would constantly yell loudly at people. Getting people to assist around his forums was incredibly hard because of how he treated people.

Yet people would sit there and just take his abuse!

Quote

a woman told about her uncle sexually molesting her when she was young. The seminar leader reframed it into what happened and story. There is no rape or molestation in the what happened domain, there is only bodies rubbing together. In some cultures this is perfectly fine.
Now I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the philosophy of radical constructivism. But in this case the woman's thoughts, feelings, self-esteem issues, etc are merely discounted as a"story". And I think that in the way this seminar is being presented that a "story" is implied as an error in cognitive thinking.

I have seen this happen time and again, seminar leaders, landmark forum leaders say that what ever happened was a story. This to me is saying to the rapist in the forum (and yes there will be at least someone in the course who has raped or molested someone) its ok, all you did was rub bodies with someone else! this is disgusting. It says its ok, you did nothing wrong when they have done something very wrong.

I remember sitting at the back of a forum when a man got up and admitted he had molested a girl, the forum leader pretty much acted as if it wasn't important. I still get angry when I think of this.

Quote
sonnie_dee
It says its ok, you did nothing wrong when they have done something very wrong.

There is no right and wrong. You learn to scramble and twist your brain so that up is down and black is white. No reference points, no value system. All mind games. You learn to lie, deny and rationalize with frightening skill. This is dangerous stuff.

Quote
sonnie_dee

Quote

a woman told about her uncle sexually molesting her when she was young. The seminar leader reframed it into what happened and story. There is no rape or molestation in the what happened domain, there is only bodies rubbing together. In some cultures this is perfectly fine.
Now I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the philosophy of radical constructivism. But in this case the woman's thoughts, feelings, self-esteem issues, etc are merely discounted as a"story". And I think that in the way this seminar is being presented that a "story" is implied as an error in cognitive thinking.

I have seen this happen time and again, seminar leaders, landmark forum leaders say that what ever happened was a story. This to me is saying to the rapist in the forum (and yes there will be at least someone in the course who has raped or molested someone) its ok, all you did was rub bodies with someone else! this is disgusting. It says its ok, you did nothing wrong when they have done something very wrong.

I remember sitting at the back of a forum when a man got up and admitted he had molested a girl, the forum leader pretty much acted as if it wasn't important. I still get angry when I think of this.

I've seen that Lekkies think of themselves as being superior beings as compared to us "normal" people who choose to function in reality and use our brains. But I'm reading into this as LEC people (leaders especially) as seeing themselves and members of the group as being [i:fbf0bc967b]above[/i:fbf0bc967b] the law? If rape isn't wrong, and is just a "story," then it certainly can't be an illegal act, can it? That's disturbing to the core!

In the advanced course, you have to write down your "story", everything ..., what happened, how you felt ... then you have to read your story over and over to another person. Many people start laughing about their story. But someone might write down a "story" of abuse and has no reason to laugh. There is no backup or no therapist in the room ... this situation is close to inhuman.

I told them how I felt after TMLP (nightmares etc. ), and that in addition to the damage the boot-camp athmosphere did to me for me it was a complete waste of money and time without results. Feedback:
1. you just have to find a more encouraging interpretation
2. whom could you forgive

bottomline: it has nothing to do with us (Landmark), we do not have any responsibility at all, we are transforming this planet ... never tell us you have no results for your money, results are always YOUR responsibility