Landmark and authenticity
Posted by:
nettie
()
Date: April 07, 2006 03:31PM
One very annoying thing about Landmark is that they take beautiful things and twist them to ugliness. As an example they have a buzzword called authenticity. That is to be real and honest. To be open
with other people and "share" yourself.
It goes like this during the Forum; They manipulate you into believing that one of the major problems in the world is that people are INauthentic - but they don't know it. So during the course you are led to believe
that to get out of this dilemma you have to be authentic about your INauthenticity.
Sure - that makes a lot of people have an insight. They may see that they are holding back and don't really tell what is going on in their life.
It turns ugly right after that. They manipulate you into revealing your inner life in a matter of hours. Other people catch on.
It is part of the mind control bit to create a sense of belonging to the group. An air of us against them is created (them: the outsiders - non landmarkers). You just don't realize it at the time that your being entangled into the forum leaders carefully laid out net.
When you get more and more involved in landmark, ie when you take the ILP (introduction to the forum leader program)
you will find that authenticity is allowed only the landmark way.
Once I came into the office (during particitapation in the ILP) and said that I was tired. Which was authentic. But I got a reply from one of the coaches that being tired is a racket.
A lot of people burn out while going to deep into "landmark world" because they start to distrust their feelings of tiredness.
Of course Landmark is very INauthentic about who they are and what methods they use. But in "landmark world" nothing makes sense. You may twist reality to fit your needs so the whole concept of authenticity is made into a form to suit them - not you.
Some people may find this being a ludicrous post.
But it is authentic!
with other people and "share" yourself.
It goes like this during the Forum; They manipulate you into believing that one of the major problems in the world is that people are INauthentic - but they don't know it. So during the course you are led to believe
that to get out of this dilemma you have to be authentic about your INauthenticity.
Sure - that makes a lot of people have an insight. They may see that they are holding back and don't really tell what is going on in their life.
It turns ugly right after that. They manipulate you into revealing your inner life in a matter of hours. Other people catch on.
It is part of the mind control bit to create a sense of belonging to the group. An air of us against them is created (them: the outsiders - non landmarkers). You just don't realize it at the time that your being entangled into the forum leaders carefully laid out net.
When you get more and more involved in landmark, ie when you take the ILP (introduction to the forum leader program)
you will find that authenticity is allowed only the landmark way.
Once I came into the office (during particitapation in the ILP) and said that I was tired. Which was authentic. But I got a reply from one of the coaches that being tired is a racket.
A lot of people burn out while going to deep into "landmark world" because they start to distrust their feelings of tiredness.
Of course Landmark is very INauthentic about who they are and what methods they use. But in "landmark world" nothing makes sense. You may twist reality to fit your needs so the whole concept of authenticity is made into a form to suit them - not you.
Some people may find this being a ludicrous post.
But it is authentic!
Landmark and authenticity
Posted by:
midonov123
()
Date: April 07, 2006 09:21PM
This is a little something I had post last year about the concept of authenticity among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Harvard report (A Harvard Business School Case Study: Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift), it is claimed that:
“Philosophers whom Erhard and Landmark acknowledge as having contributed to their work, include Aristotle, Albert Camus, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Socrates, Charles Taylor, and Ludwig Wittgenstein”.
This is very misguiding. Clearly, none of these philosophers have “contributed” to Landmark’s work. At most, Erhard took from these philosophers some ideas and have developed it’s so called “technology” by distorting the philosophy if not by being in total contradiction with some of the core ideas. For example, let me quote our modern philosopher Charles Taylor from his book “The ethic of authenticity” aka “The Malaise of Modernity”. In his book, Charles Taylor says about the concept of “authenticity” (chapII, p 15):
“… the culture of self-fulfillment has led many people to loose sight of concerns that transcend them … . This can even result in a sort of absurdity, as new modes of conformity arise among people who are striving to be themselves, and beyond this, new forms of dependence, as people insecure in their identities turn to all sorts of self-appointed experts and guides, shrouded with a prestige of science or some exotic spirituality”.
This excerpt tells me clearly that if Landmark took anything from Taylor’s philosophy, it is described as an “absurdity” by Taylor himself!
About “authenticity”, Charles Taylor also writes in Chap VI, p. 59 of that same book:
“… deviancy in the culture of authenticity is to be traced to the fact that this is being lived in an industrial-technological-bureaucratic society… instrumental reason is evident in a host of ways in various facets of the human-potential movement, whose dominant purpose is intended to be self-fulfillment. Very often we are offered techniques, based on supposed scientific findings, to achieve psychic integration or peace of mind. The dream of the quick fix is present here too, as elsewhere, in spite of the fact that from the very beginning, and still today, the goal of self-fulfillment has been understood as antithetical to that of mere instrumental control. A quick-fix technique for letting go is the ultimate contradiction.”
Again, this excerpt tells me that the “quick-fix” techniques proposed by Landmark’s and other self-fulfilling technologies are described by Taylor as being an “ultimate contradiction”.
Therefore, Landmark’s claim that Charles Taylor has contributed to the development of their technology is a lie. It is clear from Charles Taylor’s book that he doesn’t endorse any of Landmark’s technology. On the contrary, Charles Taylor describes this approach to authenticity a “deviant form of authenticity” or “authenticity not properly understood”. From the above excerpt, it also describes Landmark's technology as an "absurdity" and an "ultimate contradiction" for self-fullfilment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Harvard report (A Harvard Business School Case Study: Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift), it is claimed that:
“Philosophers whom Erhard and Landmark acknowledge as having contributed to their work, include Aristotle, Albert Camus, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Socrates, Charles Taylor, and Ludwig Wittgenstein”.
This is very misguiding. Clearly, none of these philosophers have “contributed” to Landmark’s work. At most, Erhard took from these philosophers some ideas and have developed it’s so called “technology” by distorting the philosophy if not by being in total contradiction with some of the core ideas. For example, let me quote our modern philosopher Charles Taylor from his book “The ethic of authenticity” aka “The Malaise of Modernity”. In his book, Charles Taylor says about the concept of “authenticity” (chapII, p 15):
“… the culture of self-fulfillment has led many people to loose sight of concerns that transcend them … . This can even result in a sort of absurdity, as new modes of conformity arise among people who are striving to be themselves, and beyond this, new forms of dependence, as people insecure in their identities turn to all sorts of self-appointed experts and guides, shrouded with a prestige of science or some exotic spirituality”.
This excerpt tells me clearly that if Landmark took anything from Taylor’s philosophy, it is described as an “absurdity” by Taylor himself!
About “authenticity”, Charles Taylor also writes in Chap VI, p. 59 of that same book:
“… deviancy in the culture of authenticity is to be traced to the fact that this is being lived in an industrial-technological-bureaucratic society… instrumental reason is evident in a host of ways in various facets of the human-potential movement, whose dominant purpose is intended to be self-fulfillment. Very often we are offered techniques, based on supposed scientific findings, to achieve psychic integration or peace of mind. The dream of the quick fix is present here too, as elsewhere, in spite of the fact that from the very beginning, and still today, the goal of self-fulfillment has been understood as antithetical to that of mere instrumental control. A quick-fix technique for letting go is the ultimate contradiction.”
Again, this excerpt tells me that the “quick-fix” techniques proposed by Landmark’s and other self-fulfilling technologies are described by Taylor as being an “ultimate contradiction”.
Therefore, Landmark’s claim that Charles Taylor has contributed to the development of their technology is a lie. It is clear from Charles Taylor’s book that he doesn’t endorse any of Landmark’s technology. On the contrary, Charles Taylor describes this approach to authenticity a “deviant form of authenticity” or “authenticity not properly understood”. From the above excerpt, it also describes Landmark's technology as an "absurdity" and an "ultimate contradiction" for self-fullfilment.
Landmark and authenticity
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: April 07, 2006 10:37PM
“Philosophers whom Erhard and Landmark acknowledge as having contributed to their work, include Aristotle, Albert Camus, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre, Socrates, Charles Taylor, and Ludwig Wittgenstein”.
Landmarkers are big fat phonies. Like five-dollar whores all dressed up in designer knock-offs, they think they can decorated their "product" with the names of "celebrity" philosophers but gee, no mention of Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz, or L. Ron Hubbard - the main "sources" of Werner Erhard's idiotic "programming."
How is it that so many people are fooled by something as glaringly bogus as this just because they slap on words like "authenticity" and "integrity" and which concepts turn out to be their exact opposites inside the workings of the Landmark culture. So Orwellian.
What it all boils down to, and I've written this too many times to count, is a master/slave ideology/religion/philosophy. It's a system which is designed to benefit the few at the top of the pyramid who strive to establish a stable, hard-working, energetic, honest, dependable, unquestioning, faithful, and controllable base of servants/worker-bees/proletariat. Oh it's about "empowerment" all right - the empowerment of the leaders, owners, chiefs, kings, tyrants, dictators, CEOs, popes, captains, or others of the power elite, none of whom has to ever adhere to the dictates of "authenticity" or "integrity." Just a Leona Helmsley said of taxes, those are for the "little people."
Ellen
Landmarkers are big fat phonies. Like five-dollar whores all dressed up in designer knock-offs, they think they can decorated their "product" with the names of "celebrity" philosophers but gee, no mention of Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz, or L. Ron Hubbard - the main "sources" of Werner Erhard's idiotic "programming."
How is it that so many people are fooled by something as glaringly bogus as this just because they slap on words like "authenticity" and "integrity" and which concepts turn out to be their exact opposites inside the workings of the Landmark culture. So Orwellian.
What it all boils down to, and I've written this too many times to count, is a master/slave ideology/religion/philosophy. It's a system which is designed to benefit the few at the top of the pyramid who strive to establish a stable, hard-working, energetic, honest, dependable, unquestioning, faithful, and controllable base of servants/worker-bees/proletariat. Oh it's about "empowerment" all right - the empowerment of the leaders, owners, chiefs, kings, tyrants, dictators, CEOs, popes, captains, or others of the power elite, none of whom has to ever adhere to the dictates of "authenticity" or "integrity." Just a Leona Helmsley said of taxes, those are for the "little people."
Ellen
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.