They have obviously changed when it is done... When I did the forum it was on the saturday. It would be interesting to find out why they have done that.

Lightwolf, I am not making decision and choice far apart at all. In fact it is only one word that seperates them. And for the record I prefer the land of decision. Yes, I have participated in LEC. Yes, I did find a few useful tools to use in life. Yes, I think that a lot of the stuff that they recommend; LFIA, SELP, IFLP, etc. are not for me, but others may enjoy. I was simply trying to show a different point of view.

The same way we, as english speaking people, can take the word bad and make it mean good. The way we relate the word sweet to something that is cool or otherwise interesting/awesome.

You may not find those definitions linked to those words either, but they are simply accepted. I do not want people to blindly accept anything....but perhaps considering something different would be o.k.


I did not come here to start a fight. I saw the title of the post and was intriqued. If anyone is interested in how the exercise completes, I would be happy to post it.

I'm pretty sure that exercise was done on Tuesday night - and they made sure we didn't call that night "graduation" night.

Hope,

You are correct. The Tuesday evening is simply called completion, because you are done. However, that exercise is done on Sunday nights.

Quote
foodguypdx
Decision: to take action based on the information that you have and experiences that go with it.

Choose: to take action inspite of the information that you have and experiences that go with it.

.

I would summarize it like this (but this is purely in the Landmarkian mindset):

decide: Rational thinking

choose: Irrational thinking

Since when being irrational is considered a virtue? In my mind, I choose after I have decided what the best option is. And I don't want to be playing word games. Irrational thinking is simply not for me. I'm rational about everything except the irrational. That means I am irrational about being irrational. Does that make any sense? Of course not, it's irrational but I choose to be. Or did I decide to be? Or maybe I just decided to choose to be irrational. Yes. My rational mind tells me that this is it.

Do you think I am ready to start my own seminars?

A common feature of every LGAT, Cult, human potential MindTrip, whatever similar organism that I have encountered or heard of or read about is that they have a gambit of [i:d2b29caff5] semanticizing [/i:d2b29caff5] all discussion, most particularly discussion that concerns the Dominant Organism...

Pay close attention to the nature of this [i:d2b29caff5] gambit [/i:d2b29caff5] and do not take your eye off the ball for a second...

To [i:d2b29caff5] semanticize [/i:d2b29caff5] means to throw ordinary language itself into question... to suggest by implication that the LGAT (or whatever) has access to a special understanding, either about the true nature of the self, the true nature of reality, or the true purposes of existence that cannot be expressed using commonly held concepts/definitions or a commonly used vocabulary.

The [i:d2b29caff5] Semantic Gambit [/i:d2b29caff5] is fundamentally [i:d2b29caff5] rhetorical [/i:d2b29caff5] as it is a [i:d2b29caff5] framing device [/i:d2b29caff5] that frames Outsiders or new inductees as fundamentally ignorant, incapable of "getting it" withoput adhering to a rigidly defined process (which can only be "truly understood" when the occult inner meanings of the semantically shifted in-house vocabulary is "truly understood")...

The Semantic Gambit serves to put the unfamiliar novice in a defensive position of being framed as operating from a position of ignorance or non-comprehension... and more insidiously, incapable of comprehension until an arduous process of indoctrination has taken place ... in plain English, it is a way to make you feel insecure and stupid and frame their junk as so far above your tiny mind you should thank them for letting you in on the secret.

Got It ??? Got It ?? You Follow Me ??? You still need to Be Right ???

Quote
Dynamix
After about 20 do overs of this, he finally he said exasperatedly "because I just do!" "Ah!" she said. "You chose chocolate because you chose it! Very good!"

I use this retarded logic myself.

When asked why I don't like Landmark I say "I don't like Landmark because I don't like Landmark." That should end the conversation but, no, I'm running a racket or I'm hostile or whatever their cult's pseudo-intellectual jargon-weapon of the day happens to be.

Stick to your guns, it'll wipe the idiotic Stepford Smile off any Landmarker.

I ran across this article on the "distinction" of choice v. decision. The language smacks of LGAT speak. The New Consciousness seems to involve the dumbing-down of ideas, inventing distinctions to serve its purposes.

[www.care-givers.com]

I am struck (but now certainly not surprised) at how often the "critical mind" is viewed as bad in these circles. The local Scientology office had something in the window today about blocking the critical mind. All the same stuff.

-lightwolf

Quote
lightwolf
I ran across this article on the "distinction" of choice v. decision. The language smacks of LGAT speak. The New Consciousness seems to involve the dumbing-down of ideas, inventing distinctions to serve its purposes.

I think the bottom line is this: a good decision is a good choice, a bad decision is a bad choice. In the same vein, a good choice is a good decision, a bad choice is a dumb decision. Chances are that choice without decision will lead more often to dumb decisions.

More seriously, making a distinction between the heart vs reason is reminescent of the mind-body duality the New Ager so eagerly denounce. The true distinction is to have both heart and reason working in a unified way. Therefore, a free choice and a sound decision should lead to the same answer. It is absurd to say that choice is love-based and decision is fear-based. This is simply not true.

They have this detestable practice of [b:0e17329b94] guruing [/b:0e17329b94] language.... useless or vacuous distinctions are made for the sake of casting a patina of profundity on commonplace thinking. Another example of [b:0e17329b94] semanticizing [/b:0e17329b94] ... which it making a [i:0e17329b94] fetish [/i:0e17329b94] out of language. The Scientologists, the ESTmarkians, and the rest of them are word fetishists... they wrap themselves up in nitpicking ( but always breathtakingly important if you only [i:0e17329b94] understood [/i:0e17329b94] ... if only you could understand.... the... message.... ) language twiddling...

Dainty, esoteric, occultic, profoundish, truthy confettis of distinctions, how the [i:0e17329b94] this [/i:0e17329b94] is so essentially distinct from the [i:0e17329b94] that [/i:0e17329b94] ...

Time and time again, regardless of the board I'm reading, the discusion I'm having... it comes down to the same thing... they go in, hear a lot of remarkable sounding exposition, yet, on returning home, can't really say what it was all about, can't exactly remeber the point, except that it was so high energy, and deep, and we met all these great people, and everything, and the things they told us about... well, it's so.... you know...so... the distinctions are... so... so.... empowering and everything... like a beautiful sunset... only deeper and more purple....

It's almost like screwed up language is [i:0e17329b94] deliberately there to induce confusion [/i:0e17329b94], not to enlighten or educate... oh they wouldn't do that... that would be mean of them... and they're such nice people...