I read the same article a while ago, and I think it is one of the better ones about Landmark here. Besides the quotes you citied Dynamix, I had found these to be particularly interesting:
Quote
My perception was a mind set and lifestyle that does not take relationships seriously and does not make commitments to others because it limits the individual. You just get from the relationship what you can and then move on, easy come, easy go. As noted above, there is much talk of commitment in Landmark, to excellence, to honoring yourself and others, to integrity. In the end, the system only supports a commitment to self, doing whatever makes you happy, and a commitment to Landmark as the source of your power, the gift of which you should share with others.
and
Quote
Participants feel a relief from emotional distress when closely affiliated with the group and greater distress when away from the group. Once the system is learned and accepted, the social component of being a part of a group of people who act likewise enhances a feeling of well-being and subconsciously reinforces the system for the participant. Outside the group, challenging the underlying philosophy of Landmark or simply disagreeing with a position of a Landmark faithful induces great distress. Back at the center or with a Landmark friend, the distress is relieved, the challenger just did not "get it" and does not "honor" you as an individual. Again, this serves to strengthen affiliation and the likelihood of maintaining the expected behavior, termination of what does not "work," the source of the distress. Of course, no underlying problem has ever been solved in this process. It is perpetual participation and avoidance of issues.
I think there are plenty of examples on this board of people who have been "terminated" by Lekkies for not "working" in the Lekkie's life. There are also plenty of examples, of which I am one, where while not directly terminated, the relationship died a slower death, as the non-Lekkie sees that the dynamics of the relationship have changed to the point where there isn't a relationship anymore, and the relationship ends on a less dramatic note.
Relationships really have little choice but to suffer under LGAT influence. When one is committed only to self, there isn't room for anyone else. Have we not noticed the narcissitic, self-indulgent, egocentric, self-centered behavior?? Of course. Those we know and love fall in love with the reflection they see in their tainted reflecting pool. Never satisfied with how they are, they continue seeking to "grow" by taking the next course, and the next. There is no energy, time, or even interest left to notice the life of another, pay attention to it, and invest in it (beyond seeing them as entrollment material -- something for [i:3eb908694f]themselves[/i:3eb908694f]). Seems to me a successful relationship happens when I [i:3eb908694f]accept [/i:3eb908694f]myself and can turn my attention and pour energy into the life of another. Acceptance is the cessation of the obsession, and I can now turn my energy into commitments to others. I have something to give.
The second quote tells the obvious why. Whether the relationship ends by direct conscious choice or not, the agent returns to the center to relieve the dissonance that real life brings. My Lekkie friend has, at times, longed to spend more time at "home" (the center) than spend it with me, even though I don't bring up Landmark anymore, unless she does. It's natural for us to seek out the like-minded, but LGATs, through their intolerance of the unlike-minded, push this to the extreme. Keep them busy with themselves, and the center, and they will always come back because "no underlying problem has ever been solved."
What a business model.
LGATS promote disconnection, either directly or indirectly because it profits them. Is it a cult? I'm not sure I really care anymore whether they fit the technical definition -- the effects are cult-like, certainly, and that is what matters to me. The fact that relationships suffer so regularly certainly speaks to that point.
Good questions Dynamix.
-lightwolf