Quote
Acid Reindeer
or he can dismiss any other evidence as merely anecdotal. though I do know of a couple of lawsuits but I don't know that they total ten or more. the older ones he can dismiss as pertaining to est and not to Landmark, I want to make this case air-tight.
Well, there are a couple of outstanding issues that have to be addressed walking into this inquiry. First of all is the assumed dichotomy of psycholgy and philosophy... which it isn't... my belief, based on my firsthand experience, is that [b:0847c0d0c3] one can be philosophically damaged. [/b:0847c0d0c3] .. a novel idea, but one of some potency as well... a philosophically damaged individual may not present classic psychologic signs of injury, or, more probably those signs will present in a diffused, hard to categorize, elusive way, while the recently internalized beliefs from a newly acquired philosophical system may be having a long term effect on the general well being of that individual...
The paradox here is the more you have absorbed certain Erhardian distinctions as cardinal truths, the most insidious of these is that you create your own reality and you are fully reponsible for your own reality and any refusal to "get" that basic truth is a subversive act of defiance, which they are there to "call you on" ... or bust your racket in Erhardian dialect...[b:0847c0d0c3] the less capable you will be of seeing any of your intellectual or emotional problems originating from anywhere outside yourself... [/b:0847c0d0c3] and the less likely you are to replace in house coaching with outside, non Landmark psychological evaluation... not that I have the greatest respect for the average psychologist, which I definitely do not... but I have a great respect for the minority of excellent psychologists who do know quite well what they are dealing with and just how complicated the process of returning to mental health can be... whether one is leaving an all embracing , highly dysfunctional family system that uses love in a selective, manipulative fashion, or a powerful corporation besotted with its own worldly power, a church one has belonged to all of one's life, an ethnic subculture riven with perverse beliefs, a political party that brooks no dissent, or a wacky LGAT preaching flatulant theories and recreating a distant Buddha figure who has long ascended into the higher realms...
In many of these cases there will be a complex disorientation of affect, cognition, belief, self image, social mileiu, life expectation, networks of family and friends, sense of obligation, self censorship, avoidance or shunning behavior, ritualistic activity, absorbtion is certain vocabularies, patterns of consumption, time management, etc... that is too complex to shoehorn into a typical simplistic DSM-IV category, and probably too mutable as well... further confounded by the fact that many of these "institutional maladies" are closely related to sources of power in our society... one treads lightly when one critiques the effect of large corporate power on the minds of its employees, or strange church-state alliances that have taken root in the evangelical churches, so I think there is a tacit quietude on this subject from the APA and it's bretheren because a frontal discussion will also be perceived as a breaching the wall between personal issues and larger social issues of power, privilege, large scale social control which the mainstream media is loathe, to put it mildly, to openly discuss, and mainsteam psychology is downright freaked about, because it would be asking for psycholgy to risk having itself defined as being radicalized... when in fact it may just be curious and probing...